Built Environment Journal: September-October 2019

September/October 2019

28 Future history Why heritage work must remain a local priority despite funding cuts

33 Methodically modern What’s new in RICS’ revised due diligence guidance note?

42 A game of two halves Tottenham Hotspur’s stadium breaks new ground

rics.org/journals

Built Environment

House work 20

How Parliament is being readied for renewal

KEMPEROLÂŽ Liquid Roofing & Waterproofing Long term protection for flat roofs, buildings and critical structures.

Warm roofs, inverted roofs, green roofs, podium decks, walkways, balconies, terraces, car parks... Refurbishment or new build.

Whatever your requirements, we have a certified and proven solution to meet your needs. Call us to discuss your requirements.

Kemperol Liquid Waterproofing

KEMPER SYSTEM LTD Tel: 01925 445532 enquiries@kempersystem.co.uk www.kempersystem.co.uk

FINALIST

RICS Half Page Journals June 2019.indd 1

25/04/2019 10:12:54

Pyramus & Thisbe Club Promoting Excellence in Party Wall Practice Since 1974

Our specialist subject is?

Party wall matters and your professional responsibilities Register as a member and benefit from our experience partywalls.org.uk

Register as a member to find out more about your professional responsibilities:

partywalls.org.uk

Built environment

Contents

The Built Environment Journal is the journal of the Building Control and Building Surveying Professional Groups and the Building Conservation Forum Editors: Barney Hatt (Building surveying and Building control) T: +44 (0)20 7695 1628 E: bhatt@rics.org Steph Fairbairn (Building conservation) T: +44 (0)20 7334 3726 E: sfairbairn@rics.org Advisory groups Building conservation: John Edwards (Edwards Hart Consultants), Alan Forster (Heriot-Watt University), Frank Keohane (Paul Arnold Architects), John Klahn (RICS), Meriel O’Dowd (The Churches Conservation Trust), Craig Ross (RICS), Gabriella Smith (Heritage House Consulting) Building control: Diane Marshall (NHBC), John Miles (Assent Building Control), Michael Morgan (jhai), Anthony Oloyede (LABC), Craig Ross (RICS), Richard Scott (LABC), Gordon Spence (Aberdeen City Council) Building surveying: Gary Blackman (Lambert Smith Hampton), Brad Hook (Hook and Sons), Andrew Little (Baily Garner), Mat Lown (Tuffin Ferraby Taylor), Patricia Newman (Patricia Newman Practice), Jay Ridings (Tuffin Ferraby Taylor), Craig Ross (RICS), Trevor Rushton (Watts Group), Chris Skinner (Savills), Kevin Thomas (Teesside University), Anthony Walker (GoReport), Terry Walker, Nolan Wilkens (Malcolm Hollis) All RICS journals are available on annual subscription. Enquiries should be directed to licensing manager Louise Weale E: lweale@rics.org Published by: The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Parliament Square, London SW1P 3AD T: + 44 (0)24 7678 8555 W: rics.org ISSN 2631-8423 (print) ISSN 2631-8431 (online) Editorial & production manager: Toni Gill Sub-editor: Matthew Griffiths Advertising: James Cannon T:+44 (0)20 7101 2777 E: jamesc@wearesunday.com Design & production: We Are Sunday Printer: Geoff Neal Group

5

16

Keeping the historic environment in use is the responsibility of all surveyors

A TV exposé should remind surveyors of the need to install cavity barriers correctly

6

18

8

Professional indemnity insurance claims are on the rise since the Grenfell Tower fire

More ambition is vital in cutting emissions

19

9

APC candidates stand the best chance at final interview if they are properly prepared

Prospects for the past

Briefing The climate challenge

The right tool for the job

Cover up

Prepare to pass

A quality tracker trial has met with approval 11

People-centred cities Adopting and adapting to technology will define the profession in coming years 12

More than just the minimum Reviewing fire risk assessments is critical 20 13

Cause for court?

Does combustible cladding represent a nuisance to neighbouring properties?

While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of all content in the journal, RICS will have no responsibility for any errors or omissions in the content. The views expressed in the journal are not necessarily those of RICS. RICS cannot accept any liability for any loss or damage suffered by any person as a result of the content and the opinions expressed in the journal, or by any person acting or refraining to act as a result of the material included in the journal. All rights in the journal, including full copyright or publishing right, content and design, are owned by RICS, except where otherwise described. Any dispute arising out of the journal is subject to the law and jurisdiction of England and Wales. Crown copyright material is reproduced under the Open Government Licence v.3.0 for public sector information: nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ open-government-licence/version/3/

Sound barriers

Parliamentary questions The design director and architecture lead of Parliament’s restoration share insights 24

Debt and taxes After selling or winding up their practices, what else do retiring surveyors need to do?

25

Better nature?

A biophilic office is being monitored to assess its effect on workers’ health 14

26

A new standard aims to clarify the process of choosing suitable fire detection systems

How can we ensure that domestic energy efficiency retrofits are effective?

Remaking the grades

New standards for retrofitting

rics.org/journals 3

Built environment

Contents

Building conservation

55

47

28

Two recent cases show how difficult taking legal action against approved inspectors is

How can you be sure that you select a suitable contractor?

57

52

62

LABC’s roadshow is providing valuable technical updates for professionals

A new home is set to showcase modular construction by aiming to meet the first prescribed standard for off-site production

Earth buildings need to be understood as a significant part of architectural heritage

Building surveying

53

Building control

32

Rationalisation of NHS estates could be crucial to service provision

41

Revised RICS due diligence guidance makes surveyors’ responsibilities explicit

Public past, private future?

How can councils continue conservation work when it is often seen as inessential?

Material information

Ground rules The sixth edition of the Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds takes into account the increasing threat of terrorist attack

Inspection immunity

Bite-sized training

Vital maintenance

33

Documenting due diligence The updated Technical due diligence of commercial property guidance note reflects concerns on safety and technology

A question of trust

Keeping off-site on target

Care for healthcare assets

54

The aspirant apprentice A trainee surveyor explains why she came to take the apprenticeship pathway 56

Listen without prejudice How can the threat of adjudication be resolved without disproportionate cost?

35

All around the world Becoming chartered can be the route to projects in a variety of global destinations

59

Inquiries in the public interest Despite 68 UK public inquiries since 1990, the safety issues they address still persist

36

Mistaken identity 42

A game of two halves Tottenham Hotspur’s new stadium meant distinct challenges for different disciplines, says the borough’s head of building control

Why does one mortgage lender no longer trust structural surveys by the profession?

38

Cold comfort An unventilated cold roof is not a wise idea

48

Assembly line assessment

46

The onus is on building control inspectors to find ways of auditing homes that are manufactured off site

Analysis of accidents can inform safe practice in future, as a recent case shows

4 Journal September/October 2019

Consequential contravention

60

Pathological conditions What do you need to do to achieve the core competency of Building pathology?

Built environment

Opinion

Traditional buildings

‘The greatest risk to any building is not having a use, so compromising on this can benefit both the building and the community’ Duncan Philips Listed Building Surveys

Construction has evolved into a highly regulated and documented industry, with rules, guidelines, standards and procedures for every eventuality. Advancements in the technology used for design and construction have been driven by the demands of clients and architects.

Chartered surveyors are deeply embedded in this process at every stage. Traditional building construction has a rather less structured background, and therefore expectations about the performance of these buildings should be different.

Such buildings pre-date the contemporary construction industry and were built with the limited skills, materials and knowledge available in a specific location at a given time. Consequently, there is a diverse range of buildings and architectural styles.

The reality is that most of these buildings were not designed at all; they simply followed the local trends of the time.

The appearance of traditional buildings can therefore be seen to have changed to reflect both changes in society and culture and the introduction of new materials.

The challenge for anyone involved in the inspection and maintenance of what is left of these buildings, and indeed for the people who own them, is what repairs are required, how they should be carried out, and what considerations are necessary when altering a building to enable a new use. It is often said that the greatest risk to any building is not having a use, but sometimes compromising on this will benefit both the building and the local community greatly.

These same questions and dilemmas will be asked in the future when people look back at the buildings constructed in the late 20th and early 21st centuries: the sustainability of the built environment and the contribution of construction to climate change both need to be considered.

Therefore, it is a misunderstanding to view building conservation as a specialist discipline, something that will cost homeowners lots of money for repairs. For any individual defect there will be many options, from doing nothing to repairing the property as accurately and authentically as possible with its heritage and long-term prospects in mind. The dilemma for many

homeowners is deciding on the right option – a difficult decision often driven by cost.

Identifying the defects isn’t always obvious, especially when buildings are in very poor states of repair, such as those with moisture-related problems. Usually it is only when floorboards are lifted, plaster is removed from walls and ceilings or a roof construction is exposed that the true extent of a defect is visible. This applies to all buildings, but can be particularly problematic for historic buildings.

Identifying the specific component that has been affected is the first step when considering a defect. The historic interest – and thus the significance – in the defective item should be assessed, and not just its condition. The consequences of a defect also need to be assessed: for example, hidden timber decay and beetle damage can pose great risks to a building.

Repairs should then be conducted thoroughly and with the long-term conservation of the building in mind. Avoid patch or short-term repairs; most older buildings will already have had repairs and alterations at some stage, and defects often arise as a direct consequence of these.

The introduction of modern materials to an older building can also have negative consequences. For example, waterproofing chemicals, cement mortars and render, gypsum plasters, plasterboard and foam insulation boards are unlikely to be suitable for use in traditionally built structures where semi-porous materials rely on moisture exchange. Only the best-quality products should be used, and should ideally be sourced from locations as close to the original as possible: it is often a false economy to use cheap, imported materials.

Bear in mind that none of the above advice is particularly technical or exclusive.

There shouldn’t be anything specialist about traditional buildings.

Duncan Philips FRICS is a director of Listed Building Surveys and chair of the RICS Building Conservation Steering Group duncan@listedbuildingsurveys.co.uk Further information: BS 7913: 2013 Guide to the conservation of historic buildings (bit.ly/BS7913) rics.org/journals 5

Built environment

Briefing RICS journals take sustainable step forward You may have noticed the new packaging for your journal, a change made as part of RICS’ commitment to sustainability.

Manufactured from potato starch, the packaging will biodegrade naturally and can be disposed of in your food waste bin or compost heap.

Delayed Grenfell Tower report due

Firms fined over adhesive death A property maintenance firm and a flooring manufacturer have been fined a combined £750,000 by the Health and Safety Executive over the death of a floor layer, who had been using an adhesive containing toxic solvents in work at a house in south London.

The main component of the adhesive was dichloromethane, which poses inhalation risks, and is a restricted substance under the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation & restriction of Chemicals regulation (REACH).

6 Journal September/October 2019

The phase 1 report from the Grenfell Tower public inquiry is now expected in October, while phase 2 hearings into the building’s refurbishment will start in January. The inquiry team has said that writing the phase 1 report was ‘far more complex and time-consuming’ than anticipated. bit.ly/GTinqrep1due

Changes pending to RICS registration procedure for firms Regulatory changes due to come into force next April mean at least 25 per cent of a firm’s principals must be RICS members for it to register with the organisation. Only firms registered for regulation will be able to use the RICS logo, and the chartered surveyor designation will be restricted to the trading names of such companies.

About 100 registered firms do not meet these new eligibility criteria, so the RICS regulatory operations team will work with them to help them comply or deregister. rics.org/firmregulation

Alliance sets out financial priorities

Vote in the Governing Council elections

The Heritage Alliance has released the manifesto Backing the Bedrock to highlight the following five fiscal and funding priorities for the historic environment: ••to champion England’s heritage sector on the world stage ••to ensure continued National Lottery funding for the sector, and adequate funding for Historic England ••to promote heritage assets’ role in creating vibrant places and more homes ••tax reform to promote repair and maintenance of heritage assets ••to attract investment, increase engagement and develop skills and capacity in the sector. bit.ly/HAManifesto2019

Elections are coming up for the RICS Governing Council’s 15 geographic market seats, and it’s crucial you have your say. You can vote between 17 October and 21 November. rics.org/elections

Warning given over fake sprinkler heads The Society of Fire Protection Engineers has warned that non-certified or counterfeit sprinkler heads appear to be a growing problem, especially in Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East.

Members are advised to be on the lookout for such products. bit.ly/SFPEfakes

MHCLG clarifies fire safety advice The Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) has updated Approved Document B with a new definition of the term ‘filler’ in relation to cladding. It clarifies that filler material includes the core of metal composite panels, sandwich panels and window spandrel panels, but not gaskets, sealants or similar, and adds that such material should be of limited combustibility.

MHCLG has also published an advice note on balconies in residential buildings following a fire at a property in Barking.

After consulting its expert panel, MHCLG decided ‘the removal and replacement of any combustible material used in balcony construction is the clearest way to prevent external fire spread … and this should occur as soon as practical.’ bit.ly/AppDocB2019 bit.ly/MHCLGbalcAN

Events RICS & SPAB Building Conservation Summer School 6–10 September, Royal Agricultural University, Gloucestershire rics.org/summerschool RICS Dilapidations Forum Conference 2019 19 September, etc.venues, County Hall, London rics.org/dilapsconf Subsidence Forum Training Day 17 October, Tewin Bury Farm, Welwyn subsidenceforum.org

Standards Recently published Party walls guidance note rics.org/standards Forthcoming Asbestos guidance note International Construction Measurement Standards, second edition Technical due diligence of commercial property fifth edition global guidance note rics.org/standards All RICS and international standards are subject to a consultation, open to RICS members. rics.org/iconsult rics.org/journals 7

Built environment

Opinion

Climate change

‘Because buildings account for 39% of global energy-related carbon emissions, the sector has a critical role to play’ Cristina Gamboa World Green Building Council

We need a new action plan to reduce carbon emissions drastically or we run the risk of catastrophic and irreversible climate change.

But how can the built environment sector step up its ambition?

The World Green Building Council (WGBC) believes the industry can play its part by working with government, investors, communities and consumers to achieve net zero-carbon buildings.

At Futurebuild 2019 in London in March, Prof. Myles Allen of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said: ‘Every year we are releasing 40bn tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere and counting on future generations to scrub it out with technology that’s not even been invented yet.’

This is the scale of the climate challenge we face. Yet, as far as buildings are concerned, we know how to prevent these emissions in the first place. Projects around the world – from mosques in Amman through affordable housing in Hawaii to high-density multi-use precincts in Sydney – are demonstrating that zero-emission buildings are possible across all markets and building types.

8 Journal September/October 2019

Enhancements in energy efficiency and reducing reliance on fossil fuels with the use of renewable energy are good not just for the environment but for our health, well-being and economies.

But are we moving fast enough? The message from 2018’s IPCC special report is clear: we need to act now to hold global temperature rise to 1.5°C – and 2020 is the turning point (ipcc.ch/sr15).

As buildings account for 39 per cent of global energy-related carbon emissions – and with emission reductions from the UK’s 29m homes stalling, according to the national Committee on Climate Change – this sector has a critical role to play.

Buildings account for around 34 per cent of UK greenhouse gas emissions, and can be broken down as follows: ••residential: around 64 per cent ••commercial: 27 per cent ••public sector: ten per cent (bit.ly/CCChomes19).

In 2018, the WGBC launched the Net Zero Carbon Buildings Commitment at the Global Climate Action Summit (bit.ly/WGBCnet0). Signed by a large

number of businesses, cities, states and regions, the commitment is part of the council’s Advancing Net Zero programme to build market capacity towards 100 per cent net zero-carbon buildings by 2050 and promote best practice in local contexts (bit.ly/WGBCadvnet0).

Among the signatories is the Berkeley Group, which builds ten per cent of London’s new homes and is currently developing zero-carbon transition plans for all future developments.

In May, the UKGBC set up a framework for the national construction and property industry to ensure new and existing buildings become net zero-carbon by 2050 (bit.ly/UKGBCnet0). This will help our sector work collectively towards decarbonisation and prepare buildings that are fit for the future.

The government has an important role to play, too. Its Clean Growth Challenge aims to halve the energy use of new buildings by 2030 – a welcome target, but one that needs to be accompanied by clear, data-driven regulatory signals. Addressing issues such as the performance gap through regulation that ensures green buildings fulfil their design promises is vital, so that energy is not wasted.

WGBC has proposed three recommendations for immediate action.

1. Create new ownership models for the built environment, led by the financial and investment sector, to mitigate climate risk.

2. Increase demand from building users by demonstrating the benefits of green buildings and using incentives such as lower energy bills to make them attractive.

3. Provide data to inform decisions and create regulatory road maps that foster policy certainty and encourage the right carbon-reduction outcomes.

We must respond to the zero-carbon challenge, and take action now.

Cristina Gamboa is chief executive officer at WGBC cgamboa@worldgbc.org Related competencies include: Sustainability

Built environment

Quality assurance

The quality challenge The Building in Quality initiative, a partnership between RICS, RIBA and the CIOB, has recently concluded. What did it achieve?

Steven Thompson

Poor practices lead to poor outcomes: inappropriate procurement can lead to unreasonable risk allocation, and it is often the member of the supply chain least equipped to take on such a burden that ends up doing so. This, understandably, results in a poor-quality outcome, as well as dissatisfied clients and building occupiers.

Considerable costs are also incurred due to the need for unnecessary repairs and renewals during the lifespan of the asset.

In March 2018, the presidents of the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), the Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB) and RICS signed a joint memorandum of understanding to tackle these problems and establish a system for tracking quality in construction projects.

The project, part of the three organisations’ Building in Quality initiative, was completed recently after

around 18 months’ work. The initiative defined quality as ‘good long-term build quality, incorporating good functionality and good impacts’. It sought to ‘manage the persistent headline issues highlighted by numerous reported construction and quality failures in housing developments, the Edinburgh schools inquiry and the Grenfell Tower fire’ by introducing a straightforward system for documenting and tracking risks to the quality of a project.

Using Dame Judith Hackitt’s idea of a golden thread of information that enables better management of buildings’ safety, and instead applying it to long-term quality, the system took the form of a quality tracker.

The five reasons for using it were cited as fragmented procurement; unpredictable quality outcomes; undifferentiated aspirations; hidden project risk; and compromised reputation.

Those who trialled the quality tracker were enthusiastically supportive of it, finding it a reasonably clear and flexible tool to use

The tracker was designed for use throughout the eight RIBA work stages, and on a monthly cycle, such as at site meetings, in conjunction with the RIBA Briefing Toolkit or a suitable alternative briefing process. The tracker criteria were filtered to indicate which was applicable to each project stage.

The tool was piloted by clients and their advisers between October 2018 and April of this year, and the feedback provided was then analysed by the working group, which has summarised its findings in the Building in Quality Initiative: Summary Report and Next Steps (bit.ly/BiQsummary).

On the whole, those who trialled the tracker were said to be ‘enthusiastically supportive’ of it, finding it reasonably clear and flexible. The tracker will therefore continue to be freely available for use (bit.ly/BIQualitytracker).

Comments did highlight, though, that there are too many different procurement routes, project sizes, client types, building typologies, construction methods and sectors for one size to fit all. The connection between the system and other processes involved in development was also noted as a weakness, while process ‘fatigue’ and ‘bureaucracy’ were cited by some as roadblocks to adoption.

The group therefore identified three focuses for development: integrating processes with digital technology; developing the evidence base for predictive metrics; and educating and wooing clients.

The Building in Quality initiative as a whole was well received, and the partnership between RIBA, the CIOB and RICS was widely praised. Concluding the initiative, the three bodies have challenged the industry ‘to unify all quality initiatives under one collaborative governing framework [and] coordinate research, evidence and ideas for a common, integrated practical approach to improve quality in construction’. Best get started.

Steven Thompson is associate director of the built environment at RICS sthompson@rics.org Related competencies include: Works progress and quality management rics.org/journals 9

Aluminium Fascia Soffit & Coping 50-year life expectancy Extremely cost effective Quick and easy to fit

• Installs just like PVC • No need for specialist trades or tools

• Fixes directly to roof truss ends • Available in 12 different PVDF colour options

• Stunning visual impact • Highly corrosion resistant • Infinitely recyclable

MARKET LEADING TECHNICAL SUPPORT

E. projects@marleyalutec.co.uk T. 01234 359438 www.marleyalutec.co.uk /marleyalutec

@marleyalutec

/company/marley-alutec

Unit 1 (G-H), Viking Industrial Park, Hudson Road, Elms Farm Industrial Estate, Bedford, MK41 0LZ

Built environment

Opinion

Future of surveying

‘The importance of adopting and adapting to technology to help us advise clients more effectively will define us in coming years’ Amanda Clack CBRE

It is a truism that change is the only constant in life: we live in a world that is in continual flux, and where the pace of transformation is accelerating. As surveyors, we need to adapt as the world around us changes. Increasing urbanisation means the profession must evolve to meet the demands of a more technologically enabled, people-centred environment.

Our cities today are facing major challenges driven by rapid population increase, climate change, automation and globalisation, as they themselves become the economic drivers of further change.

The way we plan and develop our cities now will define their future success, adapting building uses and constructing new ones while emphasising greater sustainability and digitisation.

RICS’ 2015 report Our Changing World: Let’s be Ready looked towards 2030 and the profession’s future (rics.org/futures); since then, political, economic, social and technological disruption has reached a level of unpredictability that affects our businesses as well as our clients.

Continuous disruption is the new normal.

The major trend driving investment is urbanisation, with people being attracted to cities at the rate of 3m a week, according to the UN. It also predicts that by 2050 we will be an almost exclusively urban species, with 80 to 90 per cent of people living in cities. This will lead to unprecedented demands for a built environment that, in the meantime, we have to adapt, or create.

To meet such demand, construction output has to increase.

Our role will be to bring cities and people together successfully, because if we cannot then urbanisation will fail. We need to be at the heart of creativity for cities that are also looking at conservation, adaptation and regeneration alongside new buildings.

Today, 3bn people worldwide have internet access while mobile phone use increased from 2.2bn in 2012 to 4.6bn in 2019, with 1.5bn such devices in China and 1.1bn in India. This gives people access to data like never before. That information is, and will become, increasingly significant.

Half of the world’s data was created last year alone – yet only 0.8 per cent of it was analysed. For surveyors, the importance

of adopting and adapting to technology to help us advise clients more effectively will define us in coming years.

Our role as surveyors is to create better environments for people, particularly in the workplace. Trends from CBRE’s EMEA Occupier Survey 2019 (bit.ly/CBREOcSurv19) include permanent disruption: in the next 20 years portfolio planning cycles will become shorter, with greater emphasis on flexible space and leases. Indeed, 56 per cent of occupiers across Europe would prefer serviced or furnished offices, meaning that buildings will require unprecedented adaptation.

By 2040, the age of ownership will be over. Unless occupiers absolutely need to own a building or asset, they won’t; instead, they will move towards sharing, leasing and using on demand. Buildings will become fluid to reflect the ever-changing businesses they accommodate, with smart buildings using artificial intelligence and robotics to design and create the space according to users’ needs.

So will the role of the surveyor be taken over by robots that can deal with vast amounts of data? Data will enable better business decisions: technology will take away key functions from our profession because it can perform them more quickly and effectively. Exoskeletons – effectively, wearable robots – will not only become commonplace in manufacturing environments but could be found on building sites too. But the fundamental motivation for surveying will still be to provide better knowledge and enable better decisions, which remain human functions.

The surveyor’s role will certainly have to change – adopting new technologies as well as providing trusted professional advice to create, value and run the people-centred built environments of tomorrow.

Amanda Clack FRICS is head of strategic advisory at CBRE, a former RICS president, and winner of the RICS Pride in the Profession Influencers award amanda.clack@cbre.com Further information: future.rics.org rics.org/journals 11

Built environment

Fire safety

More than just the minimum A recent RICS Regulation case highlights why managing agents must review fire risk assessments Gary Strong

We have previously drawn attention to the requirement in the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 for managing agents to commission a fire risk assessment (FRA) and to review and implement any of its recommendations (see Built Environment Journal April/May pp.30–31). This is not only to ensure that they comply with current legislation, but that the buildings they manage have been assessed for fire risk and, where practical, safety measures have been improved. The greatest risk to life still remains in tall and complex buildings, particularly those where people sleep.

A recent case is worth highlighting. RICS Regulation has just imposed sanctions – comprising a reprimand, a substantial fine and an order for costs – on a firm that had not properly reviewed an FRA and ensured the building was safe. As a result, someone had unfortunately died in a fire, and there was a court conviction.

It is imperative that commissioning an FRA is not just seen as another tick-box exercise. Once received, this assessment has to be reviewed in the light of knowledge of the building and the type of occupants – particularly if they are elderly or infirm – and its recommendations followed up.

RICS has previously highlighted the need to commission appropriately qualified fire risk assessors who belong to an accreditation scheme, such as that run by the Institution of Fire Engineers (ife.org.uk/fire-risk). In the light of the Hackitt review, reforms with regard to assessing competency are expected in the next year or two; but in the meantime managing agents must ensure the following.

••The qualifications and experience of the fire risk assessor are carefully scrutinised and are appropriate for the type of building.

Due diligence enquiries are expected.

••Once received, the FRA is reviewed as discussed above, and questions are asked if something does not appear correct.

••The FRA recommendations are put in place. This is not about minimum compliance: when it comes to fire safety, professionals need to try to improve existing buildings wherever possible, and you won’t be thanked for doing the minimum. Existing buildings are where the real problem lies, as fire safety protection can often be totally inadequate.

12 Journal September/October 2019

The greatest risk to life remains in tall and complex buildings, particularly where people sleep

••Existing active protection measures such as fire alarms, magnetic door holders, automatic smoke vents, emergency lighting, dry risers, fire alarm control panels and sprinklers, must be checked to make sure they have been regularly inspected and certified as in good working order.

••Specialist contractors should be appointed to carry out the recommendations in the FRA, as well as any recommendations by other specialist professionals.

••Agents must also follow up the commissioned works to check they have been properly installed and inspected.

••Agents should carry out an inspection annually, or possibly more frequently for high-risk buildings such as taller or more complex residential premises.

••A new FRA should be commissioned at least every five years regardless, because the building and its occupancy profile can change significantly in this period. For high-risk buildings, we recommend an annual FRA. RICS has been taking a lead on improvements in fire safety after Grenfell Tower: this is an issue where the reputation of the profession is at stake.

Gary Strong FRICS is RICS global building standards director gstrong@rics.org Related competencies include: Fire safety

Built environment

Comment

Legal

‘The allegation is that the nuisance lies in the prospectively dangerous nature of combustible cladding’ Guy Fetherstonhaugh Falcon Chambers

On 14 June 2017, a fire engulfed Grenfell Tower in Kensington, the rapid spread enabled by combustible cladding panels on the exterior of the building. Yet such cladding is still applied to many other tower blocks, causing a degree of apprehension not merely among their occupants but also those of neighbouring blocks.

The view has since been expressed that the presence of such cladding may give rise to a cause of action in nuisance by the owner of a neighbouring property, irrespective of whether any actual physical damage to the neighbouring land is caused.

In this article, I give my reasons why I think that view is misplaced.

The law of nuisance was recently reviewed by the Court of Appeal in the Japanese knotweed case Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Williams [2018] 3 WLR 1105. It was common ground there that, in order for a use of a property to be a nuisance to another, there did not have to be a physical emanation from that property, or any actual damage to the other.

It sufficed if there were an interference with the amenity of the neighbouring land.

Network Rail does not come close, in terms of its facts, to the case with which this article is concerned, where the allegation is that the nuisance lies in the prospectively dangerous nature of combustible cladding. In such a case, it is not possible to say that there has been any encroachment on a neighbouring property that carries with it the likelihood of future damage or a diminution in the utility and amenity of neighbouring properties’ owners.

But there is some recent legal learning on this topic, which sheds further light on it. In Birmingham Development Company Ltd v Tyler [2008] EWCA Civ 859, the claimant alleged that a wall on the defendant’s property was dangerous, and sought an injunction requiring the defendant to take steps to remedy the nuisance.

Among the authorities analysed by the Court of Appeal, with obvious ramifications for our case, was R v Lister (1856) 169 ER 979. In that case, the defendants warehoused excessive quantities of a dangerous explosive fluid, and in the event of a fire there would have been disastrous consequences for the neighbourhood. The

defendants were convicted of causing a public nuisance, because the substance was of such a nature and stored in such large quantities and local circumstances as to endanger life and property.

Against the background of Lister and other cases, the court in Birmingham Development accepted that an honest, perhaps reasonable, fear of danger is not enough; what is required for a nuisance is proof the property is actually dangerous.

So, a contrast must be drawn between a threat that might at any moment materialise, such as a leaning wall on the point of collapse, and a risk that, given a fateful combination of circumstances and the addition of other causative agents such as fire, a danger might then arise.

Accordingly, the owners of a building near to another with combustible cladding need to do far more than simply point to the presence of the panels; they would have to show that the building is actually dangerous to them.

Given the steps that have been taken since the Grenfell Tower tragedy to institute fire patrols and other protective measures, I would have thought that it would require an extreme combination of circumstances for any potential claimant to be able to point to such actual danger.

In all those circumstances, while I agree that actual physical damage to neighbouring land is not a necessary constituent of a claim in nuisance, I do not agree that the presence of combustible cladding may of itself give rise to a cause of action.

Guy Fetherstonhaugh is the joint head of Falcon Chambers fetherstonhaugh@falcon-chambers.com Related competencies include: Fire safety, Legal/regulatory compliance Further information: For a full version of this piece, see rics.org/firesafety. rics.org/journals 13

Built environment

Fire safety

Remaking the grades A new standard for domestic fire detection and alarms aims to make the determination of appropriate systems clearer and easier

Simon Sandland-Taylor

BSI has published a new standard, BS 5839-6: 2019 Fire detection and fire alarm systems for buildings. Code of practice for the design, installation, commissioning and maintenance of fire alarm systems in domestic premises (bit.ly/BS5839-6).

This came into effect on 30 April and supersedes BS 5839-6: 2013, which is now withdrawn. This is a full revision of the standard, and takes into account the publication of BS 5839-1: 2017 and other related standards.

The standard previously graded systems from A to F, with each letter outlining the level of protection appropriate for certain properties and associated risks, but it has been revised to make design specification easier and clearer in response to changes in the technology.

For instance, grade E detectors are no longer manufactured due to the advancement in grade F, which is now split into two subgrades; the same goes for grade D, which has two similar subgrades. Grade C has meanwhile been improved and is now a halfway house between the grade in a normal dwelling, D, and that you would find in a commercial installation, A, so there is no longer a need for grade B. The breakdown of the new system is as follows: ••grade A: separate detectors, sounders and central control and indicating equipment designed and installed in accordance with the relevant recommendations of BS 5839-1: 2017, with back-up power supply that conforms to BS EN 54 14 Journal September/October 2019

••grade C: separate detectors and sounders that are mains-powered, with back-up power supply and central control equipment ••grade D1: system of one or more mains-powered detectors, each with a tamper-proof, stand-by battery supply ••grade D2: system of one or more mains-powered detectors, each with a stand-by replaceable battery supply ••grade F1: system of one or more detectors powered by a tamper-proof battery or batteries ••grade F2: system of one or more detectors powered by a replaceable battery or batteries.

The standard of system category recommended for sheltered housing flats has also been increased from LD2 to LD1 (see Table 1), while the minimum grade and

category of fire detection and alarm system for protection of life in a range of typical premises has been completely reworked and expanded to avoid the confusion and difficulties reported by users when attempting to determine the appropriate grade and category in the previous standard.

The range of domestic premises is divided into the following categories: a) designed for a single family b) houses in multiple occupation consisting of several self-contained units, each designed to accommodate a single person or family c) sheltered housing, including both the dwelling units and the common areas d) self-catering premises, or premises with short-term paying guests e) supported housing.

Table 1. Categories for fire detection and alarm systems

LD3

Systems incorporating detectors in all circulation areas that form part of the escape routes from the premises

LD2

Systems incorporating detectors in all circulation areas that form part of the escape routes from the premises, and in all specified rooms or areas that present a high fire risk to occupants, including any kitchen and the principal habitable room

LD1

System installed throughout the premises incorporating detectors in all circulation areas that form part of the escape routes from the premises and in all rooms and areas, other than those with negligible sources of ignition such as toilets, bathrooms and shower rooms

Class (a) is in turn broken down into two separate and distinct subclasses as follows: ••single-family and shared houses with no floor greater than 200m2 in area ••single-family and shared houses with one or more floors greater than 200m2 in area.

Each class with the exception of (d) is further subdivided; the relevant grade and category for each is recommended according to whether premises are new or materially altered, or they already exist. The requirements for class (a) are reproduced in Table 2 for illustration.

The degree of compartmentation provided between purpose-built flats is normally sufficient to ensure that a fire is contained in the dwelling of origin for a prolonged period, so during this time other occupants can remain in their own flats in reasonable safety. Accordingly, this part of BS 5839 does not recommend systems that incorporate fire detectors in the communal areas or ancillary accommodation in purpose-built flats.

Such systems are generally considered undesirable and can present a risk to occupants; for example, residents may exit into a single stairway filled with smoke when staying put in their flat would be preferable. However, if the provision of a fire detection and fire alarm system in these areas can be justified – for example if there are concerns over the compartmentation or fire-stopping – the recommendations in BS 9991 and BS 5839-1 can be followed.

In response to the Grenfell Tower fire, several temporary alarm systems have been installed in blocks of flats where the cladding has failed to comply with the Building Regulations’ requirements on fire spread over external walls. These temporary fire alarm systems should only remain in place until the cladding has been replaced or removed, and are outside the scope of BS 5839-6: 2019.

Simon Sandland-Taylor FRICS is director and owner of Sandland-Taylor Consultancy and represented RICS in the preparation of BS 5839-6: 2019 info@sandlandtaylorconsultancy.co.uk Related competencies include: Fire safety

Table 2. BS 5839-6: 2019 requirements for single-family dwellings and shared houses Minimum grade and category of system for installation

Class of premises

New or materially altered premises

Existing premises

Grade

Grade

Category

Category

Single-family dwellings and shared houses with no floor greater than 200m 2 in area Owner-occupied bungalow, flat or other single-storey unit

D2

LD2

F2

LD3

Rented bungalow, flat or other single-storey unit

D1

LD2

D1

LD2

Owner-occupied maisonette with no floor higher than 4.5m from ground level or owner-occupied two-storey house

D2

LD2

F2

LD3

Rented maisonette with no floor higher than 4.5m from ground level or rented two-storey house

D1

LD2

D1

LD2

Rented maisonette with any floor higher than 4.5m from ground level and alternative means of escape

D1

LD2

D1

LD2

Any maisonette with any floor higher than 4.5m from ground level and no alternative means of escape

D1

LD1

D1

LD1

Owner-occupied three-storey house

D2

LD2

F2

LD2

Rented three-storey house

D1

LD2

D1

LD2

Owner-occupied house of four or more storeys

A

LD2

D2

LD2

Rented house of four or more storeys

A

LD1

D1

LD1

Single-family dwellings and shared houses with one or more floors greater th an 200m 2 in area Owner-occupied bungalow, flat or other single-storey unit

D2

LD2

D2

LD3

Rented bungalow, flat or other single-storey unit

D1

LD2

D1

LD2

Owner-occupied maisonette with no floor higher than 4.5m from ground level or owner-occupied two-storey house

A

LD2

D2

LD3

Rented maisonette with no floor above 4.5m from ground level or rented two-storey house

A

LD2

D1

LD2

Rented maisonette with any floor higher than 4.5m from ground level and alternative means of escape

A

LD2

D1

LD2

Any maisonette with any floor higher than 4.5m from ground level and no alternative means of escape

A

LD1

D1

LD1

Owner-occupied three-storey house

A

LD2

D2

LD2

Rented three-storey house

A

LD2

D1

LD2

Owner-occupied house of four or more storeys

A

LD2

A

LD2

Rented house of four or more storeys

A

LD1

A

LD1

SOURCE: BS 5839-6: 2019, TABLE 1

rics.org/journals 15

Built environment

Fire safety

Sound barriers A recent TV exposé should remind surveyors of the need for cavity barriers to be correctly installed

John Miles

In May, BBC1’s Watchdog exposed issues with missing cavity barriers in more than 650 new UK dwellings (bit.ly/Wdogfire).

This is not an entirely new issue, and work has been done over the years to maintain awareness of the importance of cavity barriers and their correct installation; but the construction industry is inconsistent in meeting Building Regulations requirements.

Cavity barriers are present on almost every building, being used to close concealed spaces and prevent penetration of smoke or flame. The cavities in wall and ceiling voids are a pathway for fire to spread, and are normally be fitted with barriers during construction.

Approved Document B gives clear guidance on what cavity barriers are, and when and where they should be installed; there are only one or two situations when they are not required.

Approved Document B2 and BS 9991 both state that, where barriers are necessary, they should have a minimum of 30 minutes’ integrity and offer 15 minutes’ insulation. Both documents also allow cavity barriers to provide only 30 minutes’ integrity for 16 Journal September/October 2019 2019

the perimeter of windows; clause 19.2 of BS 9991 and Approved Document B cite 0.5mm-thick steel and 38mm timber as suitable cavity barrier materials. If correctly followed, this guidance means that cavity barriers, compartmentation in roof voids and fire-rated ducts and dampers will comply with the regulations.

The crucial issues in barrier performance are the quality of work and product selection. However, a Building Research Establishment (BRE) review carried out between 2003 and 2013 found that applications to building control bodies to confirm that cavity barriers and compartmentation in roof voids are compliant often fail to provide sufficient detail to allow them to do so.

The completed compartmentation is frequently not being seen by building control bodies or audited by the contractor before construction itself is completed.

The performance of cavity barriers in external wall construction, even those incorporating combustible material such as a timber frame, has demonstrated that all commonly used types can inhibit

The crucial issues in barrier performance are the quality of work and product selection

the spread of fire for a reasonable period when specified correctly and installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.

This performance is, however, compromised if any gaps are present or if the barrier is not correctly fitted.

A review of 106 BRE investigations carried out by its fire safety group for 2003–13 identified 34 conflagrations where there had been issues relating to compartmentation and cavity barriers (bit.ly/BREcomp0313). Of these 34, BRE found that: ••11 were solely related to compartmentation in roof voids ••ten were solely related to issues with cavity barriers ••six of the fires combined the two issues above ••four were related to ductwork ••one was related to ductwork and compartmentation in roof voids ••one was related to ductwork and cavity barriers.

••BRE found that the main issues were as follows: ••there were seven cases where the junction of the compartment wall and roof was either not fire-stopped or the fire-stopping was found to be inadequate ••there were three where push-fit cavity barriers were either moved after construction or poorly fitted in the first place ••20 involved missing or poorly installed cavity barriers ••two cases involved ducts passing through compartment walls without being fire-stopped ••there were five cases where mineral wool in wire mesh was used as a cavity barrier in a roof space but proved inadequate due to holes in the material.

Only three cases were identified where compartmentation in the roof space was effective and had prevented further fire spread.

The largest single issue in all the fires remains that of construction quality. BRE’s study found that poor-quality work with inappropriate materials is the main reason for the inadequate protection of concealed spaces. Design, specification, installation and inspection of fire safety measures for such spaces are also inconsistent; however, guidance is available to ensure that the unseen spread of fire and smoke is inhibited, as required by the Building Regulations.

Work is also being done following the Hackitt review’s recommendations to ensure that materials are easily identifiable,

design changes are tracked and – through initiatives such as toolbox talks – installers are able to identify the correct routine.

The clear failings in the developments highlighted by the BBC and the BRE have shown, too, the important role that independent third-party accreditation schemes play in ensuring cavity barrier products are installed correctly. This was reinforced by the value placed on increased inspection and the clerk of works role in the Hackitt review.

Getting cavity barriers correct starts during detailed design to ensure the works comply at construction stage; on some large schemes this extends to the planning stage, to ensure the products specified in the planning application work as a system during construction. Manufacturers and organisations such as the Association for Specialist Fire Protection provide technical guidance to ensure the correct product is installed in the appropriate location. For those working on buildings more than 18m high, any cladding should follow the approved and tested system when installed. Currently, desktop assessments that allow for variations in the system are prohibited, while the scope of their use is being redefined.

Specified products should be clearly marked on plans, and if the final product selection is yet to be undertaken then surveyors should make any approvals conditional on the proposed products being assessed before ordering or installation.

Not all installation processes are the same, so designers and surveyors should familiarise themselves with whichever one is being installed. The contractor should also be recording the process and, through quality assurance, be able to prove that installations accord with the product specification. The surveyor should then be able to check that the correct product is installed in the correct location, or have sufficient evidence to do so when modern methods of construction are used and it isn’t possible to see cavity barriers being factory-installed.

Internal cavity barriers to roof or ceiling and to floor voids should be specified in the same way. Care should be taken by designers to ensure it is possible to repair any damaged barriers, and surveyors need to make sure that as a result of the works the building is not left in a state that is less compliant.

Indeed, a recent article by Assent Building Control director Martin Conlon emphasises this need to make certain that, when work is undertaken to existing premises, we don’t hand over buildings or floors where defects have not been addressed (see Built Environment Journal June/July, p.5).

So the construction industry still has work to do; but, following evidence provided to the Grenfell Tower inquiry and the issues raised by Watchdog, there is a greater understanding of what must be done to ensure the regulatory requirements are met.

John Miles is a technical and business development manager at Assent Building Control johnmiles@assentbc.co.uk Related competencies include: Building control inspections, Fire safety

rics.org/journals 17

Built environment

Insurance

Cover up The professional indemnity insurance market in construction has seen an increasing number of claims since the Grenfell Tower fire, making conditions tougher for project managers and property managers Stewart Ruffles

Construction market premiums have been steadily decreasing since 2001, except for practitioners with survey and valuation exposure, resulting in a sustained soft market.

Since the Grenfell Tower fire in June 2017, however, this class of business has come under intense scrutiny from almost all insurers in the sector. Analysis from Lloyd’s and composite insurers has confirmed that premiums are now too cheap given the level of claims activity and the coverage on offer – which has recently been broader than ever before.

This should come as no surprise, and the majority of insurers are taking corrective action. In some respects such action is quite extreme, with a number of insurers withdrawing from underwriting professional indemnity insurance (PII) entirely, or completely changing their criteria for doing so.

In turn, this has caused rates across the market to increase, with associated reductions in cover or increased excesses. Although these rating corrections started in the design and construction sector, we are now seeing them filter through into related classes, including surveyors.

The surveyors’ insurance market has had problems of its own in the past, with the number of survey and valuation claims exploding in 2008 after the financial crisis for instance. However, since the Hackitt review began, new areas of concern are arising where PII claims are concerned.

The two largest areas affected are project management and property management, the latter having always previously been deemed low-risk. Project managers are in fact more vulnerable than ever before because of the multiple exposures they face up and down the contractual chain, and the possibility that their insurers may not be able to subrogate against smaller subcontractors if they go into liquidation.

As a result, PII providers have had no alternative but to hike rates in this area. Bear in mind that project management is not to be confused with project coordination, which, although it has its own exposures, does not carry such a responsibility, and therefore does not necessitate so high an underwriting rate.

18 Journal September/October 2019

Property managers meanwhile have not historically been on the claims radar. However, with the glut of fire investigations that have been carried out since the Grenfell Tower fire, teams are discovering multiple concerns on sites that would normally have gone unnoticed by third parties.

Ripple effect The most significant areas of concern and claims activity have been social housing, schools and universities and, unsurprisingly, high-rise buildings. This has had a ripple effect among all property managers, with insurers again restricting cover, increasing rates or withdrawing entirely from servicing this class. Furthermore, the aluminium composite material cladding and fire safety exclusions that are now being applied to future policies make for an uncertain PII landscape.

While all this could be seen as a bad news story, it could also be looked at favourably. With the restrictions in wordings and policy conditions, firms should see this as a good opportunity to strengthen internal risk management procedures.

The RICS PII minimum terms and conditions are generous.

However, areas where claims were historically infrequent and less severe are now seeing these increase considerably in number and significance, so it would be prudent for firms to discuss procedures both internally and with their insurance brokers to ensure that any potential risks are mitigated. This approach would ultimately make firms less of a risk in the eyes of insurers, keeping premiums and coverages as competitive as the market allows.

It is always helpful for firms to discuss any potential changes to the market or cover with their brokers, who can assist and advise about conditions that are constantly evolving.

Stewart Ruffles is director of professional risks at Clear Insurance Management stewart.ruffles@thecleargroup.com Related competencies include: Ethics, Rules of Conduct and professionalism

Built environment

APC

Prepare to pass Preparation is key if APC candidates are to stand the best chance of passing their final interview

David Cohen

The RICS Assessment of Professional Competence (APC) final interview is the gateway to receiving chartered status. As a candidate, you will already have completed the requisite training and gained the relevant experience for your particular pathway and route, so it is understandable that this final interview can feel a daunting experience. As long as you prepare well, however, you stand every chance of passing your APC and becoming a chartered member of RICS. Know your submission Your submission, along with the APC pathway guidance, is the only information the assessment panel refers to ahead of the interview, so it’s important to refresh your memory. You may well have written parts of your submission some time prior to completing the assessment documents on the Assessment Resource Centre.

Review your submission before your final interview and consult the pathway guides so you can demonstrate the necessary competencies to the panel.

Practise verbal answers A good way to test your ability to respond to questions is to arrange for someone to test you verbally with relevant questions.

This should, preferably, be someone with the relevant technical knowledge or a chartered surveyor in your discipline, so you can discuss your responses. Record the question-and-answer session so you can hear how you respond to the questions and then see how you can be more efficient in your answers. You may not like listening to your recorded voice, but this can be a very helpful exercise to improve the delivery of your answers.

The ultimate test on your preparation would be to hold at least one full mock interview with a panel. Ideally, this panel should have knowledge of the final interview process and, if possible, include an assessor. The mock interview should be based on your submitted documents to ensure that it’s reflective of the information you have provided to RICS. Questions should be related to your submission

document and they should be open to encourage reasoned responses. Closed questions are less helpful for demonstrating your thinking, as you have a 50 per cent chance of guessing correctly.

If you feel the mock interview hasn’t gone well, don’t panic: learn from it and line up another one to address any issues from the first.

Pass or referral RICS does not have a quota for passes or referrals. The aim of the assessment panel – who are fully trained for the role and monitored continually by RICS – is to certify you as a safe pair of hands to provide the services of the profession in the public interest. This is an holistic approach to assessment.

The panel will check that the experience documented in your written submission is backed up by your oral answers during the interview and is in line with RICS pathway guidance. If your submission lacks sufficient project-specific evidence or your case study topic is inadequate, it is unlikely that you will meet the documented evidence requirements of the APC. These assessors are the gatekeepers to you qualifying as a chartered surveyor, and being able to establish your own regulated firm in the future. If you are not adequately prepared to demonstrate you are trustworthy and competent to the assessors, consider deferring your interview to a later date.

Relax Although this is easier said than done in an examination setting, a smile and a relaxed attitude can go a long way. Try to think of the interview as a conversation that’s all about you, but at the same time make sure that you listen as well as talk. Finally, always remember that the assessors are on your side: they want – and expect – you to pass.

David Cohen FRICS is an APC chair, assessor and auditor, and a founding director of APC Academy and Amicus Property Consultants david.cohen@apc-academy.co.uk rics.org/journals 19

Built environment

Projects

Parliamentary questions For the first in a series of articles on the Palace of Westminster’s restoration and renewal, Built Environment Journal spoke to the programme’s design director and architecture lead Andrew Piper and Julian Flannery

20 Journal September/October 2019

Q: Why was the programme initiated?

Andrew Piper: The programme was prompted by a need for a fundamental mechanical and electrical (M&E) refurbishment of the building – most of its infrastructure dates back to the 1950s, and some of it even to 1888. It was also recognised that by 2020, around half of the Palace of Westminster would be at a risk of catastrophic failure. So if you are going to replace all those systems and you need to get access to the areas behind the oak wall panels, then it also makes sense to do the conservation work at the same time.

Billions of pounds will be spent to make the palace fit for purpose for the next 150 years, both in terms of accessibility and to ensure it can work as a modern office building, so there has been, and continues to be, engagement with the members of both Houses of Parliament and other building users about what they want.

Q: Can you outline the programme’s different projects?

AP: There are three key projects. The first is the House of Commons decant in the mid-2020s into a temporary chamber in the former Department of Health building Richmond House, which is next to the Ministry of Defence on Whitehall.

This building came into the parliamentary estate recently on the basis that we needed a secure line around the House of Commons, and it will become the temporary chamber as well as being used for MPs’ offices and staff accommodation.

But the site will need substantial redevelopment – not least to accommodate the chamber, which is a significant structure to find space for in any existing building.

The second project is the House of Lords decant into the nearby Queen Elizabeth II (QEII) Centre, which is currently a conference facility. This will involve similar works to include the chamber, committee rooms, staff accommodation and administration so they are fit for purpose, plus all the work to make the building secure for the House of Lords.

Once the palace is empty we will be able to start the third project, which is mechanical and engineering works and all the essential conservation to make

the Palace of Westminster fit for the next 150 years in terms of ventilation, accommodation and accessibility.

Q: Who are the main stakeholders on the project?

AP: On the parliamentary estate the stakeholders are the many parties who run those buildings, including the in-house service teams responsible for maintenance and fire safety, for example.

We are now establishing long-term governance for the programme. Key decisions will made through a sponsor body that will come into being once legislation has been passed by both houses; the board of this sponsor body will act as the single client accountable to Parliament. The project members themselves will be going back to the two houses once the programme has been finalised in a couple of years’ time.

Q: How have planning authorities or building control been involved?

AP: The Northern Estate programme, including the House of Commons decant, involves the refurbishment of a group of buildings from the 18th to 21st centuries next to the Palace of Westminster. Most of these are listed and of considerable heritage value, and which are already used by around 175 MPs, their staff and the staff of the House of Commons. This programme is many years ahead of the other projects, and has been working with Westminster City Council and Historic England for a number of years to prepare a planning application for the entire programme, including Richmond House.

We have just started work on the House of Lords decant and had our first pre-application consultation with the council and Historic England. The brief for the palace has not been compiled yet, so we are not even at the stage of a discussion with these agencies, but the impact on the surrounding areas will I am sure lead to specific requirements from the council.

Q: Can you describe the project management and design team roles?

Julian Flannery: There are two teams, including a number of consultants such as the multidisciplinary design practice

BDP; it has been working for a number of years with subconsultants including structural engineers Alan Baxter Associates.

Then we have Jacobs, which is providing project managers and cost consultants.

The BDP team itself comprises around 100 people, and there are probably another 150 including all the in-house team, making around 250 in total.

Q: Are any of the buildings listed, and if so has a conservation plan been carried out for them?

JF: The Palace of Westminster is grade I listed and, because of the way listing works, this applies to everything in the palace, even the offices where the press are housed. Many parts of the palace are of incredible historical importance, including the Victorian interior designed

by Augustus Pugin – among the greatest Gothic revival architecture in the world – plus medieval designs in Westminster Hall and the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft.

The conservation plan for the palace originally put together in 2007 has recently been reissued and is hundreds of pages long, going into great detail. In a building of this size and complexity there are a huge number of issues. It has always been a working building, constantly evolving through the thousand years since the original palace was built, so it is important we get the balance right by conserving what is already there and managing any change.

Q: What was the existing as-built information like?

JF: The palace is one of the most documented buildings in the country.

This includes around 3,000 of the original drawings from the office of Sir Charles Barry, the chief architect of the palace, which are stored at the National Archive in Kew, while around 10,000 from the late Victorian period to the 1980s are available in the Historic England archive in Swindon.

These drawings are not well catalogued, so a major part of the project is to extract all the information and put that into a Revit model. This will involve many hours of review. We have a full-time archivist and historian at the palace who has a huge role to play in interpreting the drawings. rics.org/journals 21

Built environment

Projects

We also have all the electronic information from the 1980s onwards, and have undertaken one of the country’s largest point-cloud building surveys. We have been checking all this to create a highly detailed model of the palace, and are also doing a lot of new surveys – around 30 currently, of all types, looking at the condition of the building fabric in every aspect. Working around Parliament can take quite a long time, as a lot has to be done when the building is quiet; but it is important that we get as much done in the first few years as possible with the existing building to find out where it doesn’t work.

Q: What is the programme schedule?

AP: By the end of this year we hope to have a clearer idea of the schedule, and as part of that work we would then look at timescales.

We are planning to start works themselves in the mid-2020s. There are planning issues in moving the House of Lords, so the planning application brief for the QEII Centre is critical. There is then a two-year construction phase for that building to make sure it is operating correctly. The timeline for this, which involves working with planning procurement, takes the project up to the mid-2020s. This is the point at which we can decant the palace, and there is a similar process in the Northern Estate to allow Richmond House to be rebuilt to purpose.

The parliamentary resolution on the restoration agreed by both houses in early 2018 set out that the project would be managed by the sponsor board, and that the board has the authority to contract the essential M&E and conservation works.

But as the resolution only included one paragraph with specific design requirements it needs to be expanded substantially. At a later stage, we will have far more assurance on the project cost as well as a risk–benefit analysis, and then both houses will approve the programme. It is very difficult to pin down a strategy as we haven’t yet defined exactly what the project brief is, so it is hard to engage with the stakeholders and get legislation through. We always uncover things that we didn’t expect to find.

We can reduce risk substantially when working on the building by shutting 22 Journal September/October 2019

it down. In the meantime, we have to maintain an operational building alongside a construction site, and the risks associated with this are huge. The risk of fire will probably increase during the works, but the project will enable the implementation of a long-term strategy in this regard. All the risks associated with a heritage building are magnified with this building as well.

Contractually there are penalties for late completion, but we are not currently at the point of appointing contractors as we haven’t yet started procurement. We are presently at RIBA stage 1 for the House of Lords decant, while the Northern Estate programme is at RIBA stage 3.

Q: What is the programme budget?

AP: We haven’t yet set the budget – we will start to come up with an indicative budget by the end of this year. The final budget won’t be set until we go back to both Houses of Parliament in one or two years’ time.

Q: Are there any particular challenges presented by the buildings?

JF: A key challenge in the palace is accessibility. The present building was completed in the 1860s before the first elevator had been invented, so any lifts have been retrofitted into corridors, stairwells or ventilation shafts, and the only one in the entire palace that meets all the regulations is a very small glass lift in the gift shop.

All the others are too small and the controls are in the wrong place, so getting access around the building is a terrible problem; BDP has calculated that only 12 per cent of the floor area of the palace has compliant step-free access. Another challenge is building services, which again have been added to incrementally, particularly since the 1950s when the Commons chamber was rebuilt. Now we can strip the additional layers back to start again, and create a services infrastructure that can be replaced and upgraded in future.

AP: In the 1950s, a huge amount of asbestos was introduced into the building for lagging pipes, insulating ducts and provision of fire-stopping; the identification and removal of this will be a major part of the programme, as will coming up with a

long-term fire strategy for the palace that addresses the issues around concealed voids and shafts. An absolutely essential requirement will be that the programme finally provides adequate property protection from fire. It could be another 15 years before the palace reopens, and creating a space where people can work in the 2030s will be another challenge, so we have been talking to stakeholders this year about how we can make flexible a building that is not inherently flexible.

JF: The building’s original design is still fit for purpose, though, and there are not many other Victorian buildings that still function as well as they were intended to when they were first built – maybe railway stations, but most Victorian buildings such as hospitals failed many decades ago.

Q: What works are planned for the rest of this year?

JF: The key task is to finalise the initial project brief, so we have been doing a lot of consultation with people who manage and use the buildings, including MPs and peers.

Other stakeholders, particularly those who operate and manage the building, as well as business areas such as catering and security, have provided a huge amount of detail about how the building currently works.

It is a unique building. BDP has spent a lot of time learning how Parliament works both as a building and as an institution. It is very easy to make assumptions and not understand the complexity.

AP: We expect Parliament will pass the bill establishing the governance of the restoration and renewal programme by the end of this year, and the sponsor board will have finalised the brief while the decant design will be approaching completion.

Andrew Piper is design director and Julian Flannery is architecture lead of the Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal Programme pipera@parliament.uk flanneryj@parliament.uk Related competencies include: Conservation and restoration, Design and specification Further information: restorationandrenewal.parliament.uk

www.weatherfast.co.uk

T: 0843 658 0074 or email us at sales@weatherfast.co.uk

Follow Us

Built environment

Legal

Debt and taxes After selling or winding up their practices, what else must retiring surveyors to do?

Financial matters come into focus in the fourth and final article in our series

Alexandra Anderson and Jonathan Angell

In this series, we have looked at some of the issues that might arise and matters you might need to address when selling or winding up your practice and, in the previous article, at ongoing obligations after you retire such as insurance and record-keeping. But arranging and paying for insurances is not the only ongoing financial matter you may need to address after ceasing to practise; a number of tax and accounting issues may arise as well.

What, if anything, you need to do will depend on whether you carried on your practice as a sole trader or through a partnership or company, and whether you have wound up your practice or sold it. You will need to think as well about the impact that ceasing to practise will have on your liabilities and obligations in respect of income tax, payroll tax and VAT, to name just some of the more obvious considerations.

If you are selling your business or retiring from a partnership that others are continuing, you may be able to rely on the purchaser or the remaining partners to deal with some of these issues. But if you are winding up your practice you will be responsible for these yourself, and will have to consider whether you need to file final returns and de-register for VAT payment. Remember that if you are selling your business, you are likely to have to indemnify the purchaser against unpaid tax relating to the period during which you owned the business.

As with many of the issues that arise when ceasing to practise, it may be worth seeking expert advice to ensure that everything is done properly, as some aspects can prove complex. Your solicitors or accountants should be able to assist. You also need to consider what you need to do with invoices that are unpaid at the date you cease practising. Again, this may depend on whether you are selling your business, retiring from a partnership that others are continuing, or winding up your practice.

24 Journal September/October 2019

In the former case, the purchaser or remaining partners will probably pursue outstanding invoices, although there may be an adjustment to the purchase price or your final payment from the partnership if any of these are not paid. Usually, where you sell your business, the sale and purchase agreement will set out what adjustments will be made to the purchase price to reflect any bad debts. If, however, you are a sole trader and are winding up your practice, you will have to arrange the collection of any outstanding invoices yourself. Whichever situation applies, if significant amounts are outstanding when you cease practising you should ensure you appreciate what the financial consequences will be if any of these remain unpaid.

Finally, even when all else has been sorted out, you may be asked to help resolve any issues arising from the work you did before you ceased practising. You may be obliged to help not only by the terms of the sale and purchase agreement or your retirement from the partnership but also under any professional indemnity policy covering you for claims arising after ceasing practice.

The issues discussed in this series are some of the main ones to address when you decide to stop practising. It will take some time for you to make the necessary arrangements to cease practising, and you should start planning the process well in advance of your intended retirement date. If you do, matters should run smoothly and you will be able to enjoy a happy retirement, with little or no need to worry about your former career.

Alexandra Anderson is a partner and Jonathan Angell is a consultant at Reynolds Porter Chamberlain alexandra.anderson@rpc.co.uk jonathan.angell@rpc.co.uk Related competencies include: Business planning

Built environment

Sustainability

Better nature?

A pioneering project has been collecting evidence over the past year to show whether a biophilic office can improve health and well-being Flavie Lowres and Ed Suttie

It is perhaps not surprising that health and well-being is a hot topic in the built environment, with the World Health Organization predicting that stress-related illness will be the primary cause of sickness by 2020. In 2017/18 in the UK, 15.4m working days were lost due to work-related stress, depression or anxiety, representing 44 per cent of all cases of occupational ill health and 57 per cent of all sick days (bit.ly/HSEstress2018).

The Building Research Establishment (BRE) and its core partners – AkzoNobel, Ambius, Ahrend, Avison Young, Biotecture, CoeLux, Ecophon, Interface, Oliver Heath Design, Poly, and Waldmann Lighting – are one year into a research project to strengthen the evidence base for biophilic design and its positive effects on office occupants (see Built Environment Journal February/March, p.13, and Building Surveying Journal October/November 2018, p.8).

An office on the BRE Watford campus is the subject of this study, and the initial phase of the project has established a one-year data baseline for the existing office and its occupants, compared to a similar control office on our campus.

By collecting data over the long term, the project is able to account for seasonal

differences in the quality of the indoor environment, views from windows, and occupants’ psychological and physiological well-being. The indoor environment has been continuously monitored and the occupants meanwhile surveyed by questionnaires and cognitive tasks, with their heart rates, sleep patterns, activity and exposure to daylight being tracked by wearable technology.

There has also been physiological testing to support this work. The collection of saliva samples from office users, for instance, can give an insight into their stress levels, and data relating to the contribution of the teams to business outcomes is being gathered as well.

The control office is a vital part of the project as we move into monitoring the biophilic office subsequent to refurbishment, collecting data on its impact and other external influences – for example, business changes such as our new chief executive officer, or nationally significant events such as Brexit.

As the control office takes these external influences into consideration, we can then allow for them in our analysis of the experimental office and identify the impacts directly associated with biophilic design.

By collecting data over the long term, the project can account for seasonal differences in the environment

The one-year baseline shows that: ••indoor air quality and acoustic measures are within acceptable limits, and most impacts are generated by the activities of occupants themselves, such as use of deodorants or fragrances or acquisition of new furniture ••lighting is adequate in a few areas, but generally below the level of the recommendations in British Standards.

When the occupants were asked how they feel about the building, most of them generally rated its look as poor, and would not feel happy showing the space to clients or colleagues. This attitude is probably representative of many older offices across the UK. The next phase of the study is to refurbish the office, creating three zones that each adopt a different biophilic design strategy. The first will introduce elements of biophilic design that can be included at any stage of a refurbishment, such as plants on desks, relaxed sitting areas or orienting the desks to maximise access to daylight.

The second will introduce biophilic design that, if given full consideration early in the project, can easily be incorporated in a refurbishment, such as flooring design that mimics patterns found in nature.

The third zone includes higher levels of biophilic design intervention and innovation, such as living walls on which plants grow, soundscaping systems and biodynamic lighting that changes colour and intensity throughout the day in line with circadian rhythms.

The analysis of people and indoor environment will continue for at least a year after this refurbishment. Results will be compared to the baseline to evaluate the impact that biophilic design has had, and as one of its professional dissemination partners, RICS will help the project communicate its findings.

Flavie Lowres is associate director, BRE Strategic Advisory Services, and Ed Suttie is a director of research at BRE flavie.lowres@bregroup.com ed.suttie@bre.co.uk Related competencies include: Design and specification, Inclusive environments rics.org/journals 25

Built environment

Retrofits

New standards in retrofit Retrofitting of UK homes to improve energy efficiency is blighted by poorly planned and executed projects, so a new BSI standard is seeking to ensure significant improvement

Prof. John Edwards

Climate change and its devastating effects have led to a greater emphasis on energy efficiency in the built environment. Ensuring homes are energy efficient plays a significant part in this. Making existing homes more energy efficient is important, but there are many examples of poorly designed and implemented retrofit work that has had unintended consequences from encouraging mould and condensation to increased fire risk. Some retrofit work has actually made buildings less sustainable and, in some cases, less energy-efficient, generating more carbon than has been saved. A more informed and professional approach is therefore necessary.

On 18 June, the British Standards Institution (BSI) published PAS 2035: 2019 Retrofitting Dwellings for Improved Energy Efficiency – Specification and Guidance for homes of all types and ages.

This is a response to Each Home Counts, an independent review of consumer advice, protection, standards and enforcement for UK home energy efficiency and renewable energy measures published in December 2016, which contains 27 recommendations.

These include establishing a quality mark for domestic retrofit, supported by an industry code of conduct, a consumer charter, and a framework of technical standards for retrofit; the first of these has since been established in the form of the government-endorsed TrustMark quality scheme.

PAS 2035 requires a proper assessment of a building, and a considered proposal and specification of works

26 Journal September/October 2019

PAS 2035 is the overarching document in the retrofit standards framework, with which users of the TrustMark scheme will be required to comply when carrying out work on dwellings. All other standards referred to in PAS 2035 are part of the framework, and users of the TrustMark scheme must also comply with those as appropriate. It is expected that PAS 2035 will be applied to retrofit projects outside the quality assurance framework as well, where public finance is involved. PAS 2035 is a requirement under the Energy Company Obligation (ECO).

PAS 2035 sets out a requirement for the proper assessment of dwellings and design and implementation of retrofits, and relates to PAS 2030: 2019 Specification for the Installation of Energy Efficiency Measures (EEM), in existing dwellings and insulation in residential park homes published on 17 June this year, which is the specification for installers to follow when selecting materials, components and methods of installation.

One key aspect of PAS 2035 is that it requires a whole-house approach. Not everything in a home has to be addressed, but the planned retrofit must take account of the house in its entirety, reducing the risk of inadvertently installing measures that have a negative impact on others and on the building generally. The whole-house approach is principally risk-based; projects are categorised in one of three groups as determined by a risk matrix.

Retrofit roles PAS 2035 is unusual in that it splits the fulfilment of the specification’s requirements by particular roles (see Table 1).

Individuals in these positions must undertake training, possess qualifications and be members of professional institutions according to their role and the type of building being retrofitted.

The key role is the retrofit coordinator, often described as a project manager with expertise in retrofitting buildings, who is responsible for overseeing the activities of the retrofit adviser, retrofit assessor, retrofit designer, retrofit evaluator and retrofit installer. This is a broad role, with tasks ranging from working out the technical risks to advising on listed building consent. The

varied tasks mean the coordinator is well placed to undertake other roles as necessary. They are required to obtain a level 5 professional diploma in domestic retrofit coordination and risk management, training for which is available from the Retrofit Academy.

The retrofit assessor will either be a qualified retrofit coordinator or a qualified domestic energy assessor, and must also hold a Construction Industry Training Board level 3 award in the energy efficiency and retrofit of traditional buildings, assuming they are working on such a property. This is an established qualification in retrofit independently accredited by the Scottish Qualifications Authority, with training from the Environment Study Centre.

The role of the retrofit designer is more complex. In cases of the lowest risk, where a single retrofit measure is being installed, a manufacturer-approved designer can fulfil the role; for other low-risk projects, a retrofit coordinator or a qualified architectural technologist is required. For higher risks, professionally qualified designers who are members of a professional institution, such as RICS, are necessary. Where the highest risk category is concerned and the building is traditionally built, the designer will also need to be a member of a building conservation competency scheme such as the RICS Building Conservation Accreditation Scheme.

Table 1. The roles and responsibilities required to enact PAS 2035 Role

Responsibilities

Retrofit adviser

Qualified to provide retrofit advice to clients and householders at the outset and during a project

Retrofit assessor

Qualified to carry out a retrofit assessment of buildings, the constraints and related issues

Retrofit coordinator

Qualified as a specialist retrofit project manager, taking overall responsibility for: ••overseeing the assessment of dwellings ••the identification, specification and evaluation of energy-efficiency measures for installation at a given dwelling as a single project ••subsequent monitoring and evaluation

Retrofit designer

Qualified to prepare a retrofit design in accordance with PAS 2035

Retrofit evaluator

Qualified to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of a retrofit project and provide feedback to the client or the project team

Retrofit installer

A person or organisation undertaking the physical placement of energy-efficiency measures in an existing building, in accordance with PAS 2030

Pros and cons On the whole, PAS 2035 should help significantly improve the way UK homes are retrofitted by requiring a proper assessment of a building, and a considered proposal and specification of what works should be carried out. However, with more than 50 individuals in the PAS 2035 steering group, it is no surprise that some are not fully satisfied with the end product.

Some view PAS 2035 as a wasted opportunity, thinking that it could take a more holistic approach to the energy efficiency of homes. They believe it focuses solely on retrofitting measures and neglects to address the positive impact that appropriate maintenance, repair and improvement of existing, core building fabric can have, although the value of maintenance and repair is mentioned in the side notes.

It has some very specific technical requirements in relation to ventilation and the calculation of energy loss, for example, but many of these are optional, which may seem as though it offers professionals a way of avoiding compliance. In reality, these requirements mean that those involved in projects can make measured judgements. In the case of traditional buildings this is a huge advantage, as a risk-based approach is often the only feasible way forward.

There is also debate about whether PAS 2035’s acknowledgement that different building types, particularly traditional buildings, require different skill sets is a positive thing. This debate may show the UK construction industry does not understand the differences between buildings of different ages. The retrofit coordinator role and training provision have also received a mixed response.

The retrofitting of buildings needs to be improved, as is seen from examples such as the Grenfell Tower tragedy, and the failure of an external insulation contract in Preston that has resulted in 300 homes remaining uninhabited. PAS 2035 aims to set detailed requirements for building pathology, thermal modelling and calculations, ventilation, interactions between energy-efficiency measures, testing, commissioning, monitoring and evaluation, and obliges individuals holding particular roles to have specific qualifications and membership where relevant.

As with any standard or specification, time will tell how effective PAS 2035 is; however, a review has already been scheduled for 18 months’ time to ensure that it achieves its goal of improving the energy efficiency of UK homes with better retrofitting practices.

Prof. John Edwards FRICS is a director of Edwards Hart Consultants and the Environment Study Centre, professor of practice at the University of Wales Trinity St David, and a member of the BSI PAS 2030 and PAS 2035 steering groups and the BSI Retrofit Standards Task Group john@edwardshart.co.uk Related competencies include: Housing maintenance, repair and improvements, Sustainability Further information: The Retrofit Academy offers retrofit coordinator training (retrofitacademy.org). The Environment Study Centre (environmentstudycentre.org) provides advice and events on retrofit and qualifications in retrofitting traditional buildings. rics.org/journals 27

Building conservation

Heritage work

Public past, private future?

With increasingly straitened public-sector budgets, conservation is too often regarded as an expendable function. How can councils ensure that valuable heritage work is continued?

Steph Fairbairn

28 Journal September/October 2019

The number of conservation specialists at local authorities in England fell by 37 per cent between 2006 and 2017 according to The Ninth Report on Local Authority Staff Resources (bit.ly/HE9threpLAs), produced

by Historic England, the Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers and the Institute of Historic Building Conservation (IHBC). Civic Voice’s 2018 report What is the future for our conservation areas? elaborates on this figure, finding that 21 per cent of local authorities in England have no dedicated conservation officer (bit.ly/BigConserv2018). Every local authority, however, has at least one conservation area.

Understandably, concern is growing among conservation professionals and enthusiasts that our historic environment is suffering: more than 70 per cent of people surveyed as part of the Civic Voice report did not consider that conservation areas are afforded the necessary protection.

One obvious reason for this is the government’s austerity policy, introduced as a response to the 2007/08 financial crisis. Marc Timlin, director of heritage at Turley, explains: ‘It’s been years of very tight budgets. Because conservation officers are sometimes not seen as a necessary requirement in the same way that planning officers are, they’re not protected in the same way. So you often see a shrinking of conservation advice in local authorities as a means of making ends meet.’

The government’s guidance on conservation professionals is more frequently being interpreted in different ways as local authorities struggle to manage their diminishing budgets

The government’s guidance on conservation professionals (see box, below) is thus more frequently being interpreted in different ways as local authorities struggle to manage their diminishing budgets. While some authorities are cutting positions, others are offering less attractive packages, or choosing to hire conservation advice on a contract basis. Each of these approaches, of course, comes with its own risks.

Research by Prospects, a UK graduate careers website, found that the range of typical starting salaries for a conservation officer in England is £22,000–£27,000, and £26,000–£36,000 for those with experience (bit.ly/ProspectsCO). According

Government guidance Paragraph 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that: ‘As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary’; while paragraph 190 states: ‘Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal … taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise.’

Paragraph 10 of government guidance about enhancing and conserving the historic environment states that: ‘Advice may be sought from appropriately qualified staff and experienced in-house experts or professional consultants, complemented as appropriate by consultation with National Amenity Societies and other statutory consultees.’ bit.ly/GovNPPF bit.ly/govconserving

to Clive Sayer, RICS representative on the Chichester Conservation Area Advisory Committee, ‘If you’ve got a postgrad diploma, a master’s degree and a professional qualification, and you’re expected to work for only a little more than someone without such qualifications, it’s tough. Having a job that’s enjoyable is important, but so is earning enough money to have a house, look after your family and do whatever is important to you.’

IHBC director Seán O’Reilly comments: ‘If you think that the person giving you advice not only has to understand their own geographical area fully and be skilled in their primary discipline, but also has to be able to engage professionally with all the different disciplines that went into making the building they’re advising on, then you get a sense of the complexity.

‘You’re dealing with the building fabric itself, then adding in the diverse legislation that comes into play in these processes: anything from health and safety to environmental concerns. Any local authority conservation officer is only going to be able to do so much of that, and if they aren’t offered the right salary then the client is just not going to get the people with the skill sets applying for those roles.’

Commercial culture Those hiring conservation officers are also increasingly looking for an added element: namely, an understanding of rics.org/journals 29

Building conservation

Heritage work

Whether advice is unavailable, inadequate, inconsistent, or not properly considered, the short- and long-term risks to our historic environment are vast

commercialisation. One local planning authority focusing on such a skill set is Coventry City Council, which is gearing up for its year as UK City of Culture in 2021. The growth of the city has accelerated in response to its successful bid, and the council’s head of planning and regulation Tracy Miller says: ‘It has been quite a difficult balance for us to enable growth while also looking to protect the historic aspects. It has meant at times we’ve been at odds with Historic England.’

The council’s dealings with the agency over city centre redevelopment were picked up by the press last year, but both parties are now working towards resolution.

Miller says: ‘We’ve obviously got to try to balance the historic aspects with the commercialisation, and it is difficult.

From a planning point of view, you can see it from both sides. I think we’re now getting to grips with the relationship with Historic England and seeking a balance.

‘Over the next two years, developers are going to continue knocking on the door because we’re City of Culture, so some things have to change. I think for a city such as Coventry, where the costs of development are quite marginal, there needs to be more understanding from a conservation point of view that you can’t always do what conservation would want you to do.’

Following the departure in 2018 of Chris Patrick, Coventry’s conservation officer of 30 Journal September/October 2019

14 years, the council reworked the structure of its conservation staff. Instead of having a joint conservation and archaeologist role and a historic environment records officer, it is now choosing to employ one conservation officer and one archaeologist, which it believes will support conservation.

Miller remains concerned about recruitment, however. She says: ‘Our previous conservation officer took a very common-sense approach. While he was highly principled when it came to historical assets, he also understood the bigger picture, and where we were trying to grow the city. It would be great if we could get officers like that, but I’m not sure they are out there, particularly in terms of salary. Our local government salaries don’t generally compare with the private sector.’

Chichester District Council planning policy manager Mike Allgrove also recognises the attraction of the private sector: ‘A lot of people coming out of education, whether planning or conservation, seem to want to go into the private sector these days. I think that’s probably a function of pay and conditions, and the general status and respect that staff will receive.’

Concerns about the status and perception of conservation roles and functions are echoed by Chichester Conservation Area Advisory Committee chair Alan Green: ‘Conservation is seen as something that is nice to have but can be bought in.’

Allgrove says the council has had to buy in conservation advice recently: ‘We’ve had vacant posts on and off since 2017 … We have appointed a member of staff from an agency on a contract basis who is giving us three days a week of listed building casework advice. So we’re not covering the full range of work that we want to, but we are dealing with the highest priorities – listed building and enforcement casework.’

Seán O’Reilly, however, advises caution: ‘It’s a really important way to work, but the external advice of bought-in professionals is not necessarily the same as that of an internal professional. Effective negotiation can take place when a local authority officer is empowered to carry out work on behalf of the public under conservation legislation.

There’s no comparison; you run the risk of getting partial or incorrect answers and can also cause major problems for the community, who then feel disenfranchised about the whole process.’

Allgrove on the other hand feels that combining specialist advice with the work of other council staff can be effective: ‘Development management staff take the historic environment extremely seriously, certainly in Chichester. It may well be the most important consideration in their determination of applications, and they will rely on the advice – specialist advice in certain circumstances – to help them come to those judgements.’

There are clearly opportunities for collaboration, communication and, perhaps most importantly, mutual education. Chris Patrick, who is now principal conservation officer at Birmingham City Council, remarks: ‘While planners and surveyors could do with learning more about the historic environment, it is equally true that historic environment professionals could probably do with a greater understanding of the world of property and development.

There is definitely a need for reciprocal training opportunities.’

Ken Watson, also a member of the Chichester Conservation Area Advisory Committee and director of HNW Architects, says: ‘We need to educate local authorities that, as external advisers, we are on their side and they should listen to what we tell them.’

Insight ignored Indeed, much of the frustration of conservation professionals seems to lie in the fact when they are in a position to offer advice, they feel it is often not heeded.

Chichester’s committee is a lasting example of the bodies that were encouraged – but not mandated – by the Civic Amenities Act 1967, to offer advice to councils on conservation matters. Watson adds: ‘Having us as a resource, the council still often chooses to ignore any advice we give, or fails to ask for advice when it should.’

There are instances across the country of local guidance notes and rules being totally ignored in conservation areas, and it’s often difficult to know who’s responsible. Sayer comments: ‘You look at many important conservation areas around the country where poor decisions were made years ago, and question where the accountability for those decisions lies. Who will be accountable for the poor decisions being made now?’

In some cases it is the conservation professionals themselves who are contributing to this damaging practice, limited by their heavy workload or by their insufficient skills or experience. Whatever the reasons, the result is inconsistency from one conservation area to the next, and sometimes even in the same conservation area. This serves to compound frustrations and further devalue the importance of conservation work.

Scotland, although so far not affected by government cuts to the same extent as England has been, faces its own conservation challenges. Principal planner at East Lothian Council Paul Zochowski is also responsible for conservation work in the area, and believes that renewed concentration on this could limit the opportunity for inconsistent advice: ‘In Scotland, I think the government is trying to work out how to address the matter,’ he says. ‘For example, it is currently preparing a built heritage investment plan. I think focused teams within councils would probably be the best way to deal with heritage matters effectively.’

Whether advice is unavailable, inadequate, inconsistent, or not properly considered, the short- and long-term risks

to our historic environment are vast. There is, however, cause for some optimism.

While the private sector is draining some talent from the public, it does show that the necessary skills at least still exist.

O’Reilly says that ‘private-sector practitioners are producing good-quality, high-end conservation work, sometimes almost regardless of the infrastructure of the local authority. Around 60 per cent of conservation-accredited practitioners now work in the private sector.’ He adds: ‘The decline has also eased off, in the sense that we believe we will still have conservation officers in the future – which was a bit of a fear about ten years ago.’

Part of O’Reilly’s work with the IHBC is assessing what he calls ‘credible conservation’, that is, what a reasonable level of capacity is and how we achieve it. This is an approach that Chris Patrick supports: ‘There have been a lot of people saying there are problems with the system, whether it be conservation or archaeology.

I don’t think it is; I think the rules, guidance and policy that we’ve got at the moment do actually work quite well. From a national perspective, the problems come down to the staffing issues.’

Civic Voice also continues to be very active in raising awareness of conservation

concerns, providing valuable perspectives from those often most affected by the issues, namely local communities.

Initiatives such as the National Lottery Heritage Fund are also important in terms of encouraging interest.

So the situation doesn’t feel hopeless – it’s more a case of the right parts being in the wrong place. To position them correctly, perhaps we need to focus on how we harness skills to ensure they are both properly directed and adequately respected; how we change the image of conservation among decision-makers; and how we ensure that professionals are adequately rewarded for their qualifications and contributions.

Maybe the fundamental importance of conservation and the historic environment is where we start. O’Reilly says that, ‘for the younger generation, a clear, ethical framework is very high up the list of what they want in a job and for their lives’.

Conservation can offer just that. As Patrick says: ‘My job is intense and it isn’t always easy. But it is often immensely satisfying.

I feel that I’m making a positive difference and adding value where it’s needed.’

Steph Fairbairn is conservation editor for the Built Environment Journal sfairbairn@rics.org

RICS comment Having a suitably experienced and qualified conservation officer in place at a local authority is a vital way of protecting our built heritage. Conservation issues are rarely black and white, and having insufficient conservation experience available in a planning office can result in poor decision-making, extended application timescales and unnecessarily frustrating negotiations for clients and their conservation advisers.

Coupled with a decline in master’s-level courses in conservation, this makes for a risky situation that must be addressed quickly. If budgets are not made available to attract experienced in-house conservation officers, then other options – including external consultancy or listed building consent review models – must be explored, while bearing in mind impartiality and conflicts of interest.

RICS supports quality built heritage conservation through its accreditation scheme, and is working on a number of new conservation training courses including collaborations with its specialist conservation forum, with the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, and with Historic England.

Craig Ross is associate director of the built environment at RICS cross@rics.org

rics.org/journals 31

Building surveying

Safety standards

Vital maintenance The updated Technical due diligence of commercial property guidance note will make surveyors’ responsibilities explicit, to avoid the recurrence of a particular case Craig Ross

You may have seen recent news coverage about the death of Tahnie Martin, originally reported two and a half years ago when she was hit by a timber water tank cover blown from the roof of the Mander Shopping Centre in Wolverhampton by strong winds on 23 February 2017. The tank enclosure was subsequently found to be poorly maintained – meaning that, tragically, the 29-year-old’s death could have been avoided. The firm responsible for managing the property was fined £1.3m this July, after an inquest that looked at how the roof section could have been allowed to pose such a safety risk.

Shortly after Ms Martin’s death, the coroner reported to RICS on the facts of the case, confirming how expert evidence showed that roof elements including the tank enclosure had in fact not received any maintenance for 19 years. The exposed timber enclosure was left to decay while the metal fixings holding components in place corroded, and it became dangerously fragile.

The coroner addressed two specific areas of concern to RICS. ••Although the managing agent was responsible for inspecting the property every six months and several planned preventative maintenance (PPM) surveys had recently been carried out, none had identified the presence of the structures on the plant room roof. As a result, no maintenance had been planned for them.

••The plant room roof was found to be difficult to access, and was the main reason for the structures’ omission from the survey reports. However, none of the reports referred to this difficulty; neither did they indicate the need to inspect these areas or to comment on the possibility of risks.

32 Journal September/October 2019

This case highlighted that guidance specific to planned preventative maintenance would be a sensible step

The coroner remarked that the then current fourth edition of the RICS Building surveys and technical due diligence of commercial property guidance note did not have any specific requirement for a surveyor to refer to areas not accessed; neither did it mention that a surveyor should advise a client about the specific risks of not obtaining access to such areas or requirements for subsequent inspections.

To address these points and ensure that guidance goes as far as possible to direct surveyors in the way that such risks should be communicated, reducing the potential for another tragedy, RICS commissioned a team of experts to write a new edition, the forthcoming Technical due diligence of commercial property fifth edition global guidance note (see article, opposite).

The points specific to this case are being addressed by: ••introducing a new, immediate time frame for reporting, so that on identifying a health and safety risk during an inspection the surveyor is directed to notify an appropriate person of this as soon as practically possible ••adding to the section on inaccessible areas a requirement to state what significant areas were not inspected during a survey and

report on the level of reasonably foreseeable risk as a result ••reinforcing the importance of health and safety, life safety and fire safety throughout ••referring to the recent RICS Surveying safely second edition global guidance note.

Although there are obviously similar approaches to technical due diligence and PPM surveys, this case also highlighted that guidance specific to PPM would be a sensible step, and a working group has been assembled to prepare this. The scope has been agreed and drafting is now under way.

It is vital that the death of Tahnie Martin reminds us of the importance of our work in ensuring a safe and secure built environment, and our duty as RICS members to act in the public interest. There are important lessons to be learned here, and I urge you to support this initiative by thoroughly familiarising yourself with the new requirements and making fellow professionals aware of the revised guidance.

Craig Ross MRICS is RICS associate director of the built environment cross@rics.org Related competencies include: Health and safety, Inspection

Building surveying

Comment

Standards

‘The aim is to provide a document that better reflects the breadth and depth of the technical due diligence process’ David Mann

RICS is soon to publish the Technical due diligence of commercial property fifth edition global guidance note, replacing four previous editions that cover England and Wales as well as country-specific versions in New Zealand, Australia and throughout continental Europe (rics.org/standards).

The document will define technical due diligence as being ‘the process of systematic review, analysis, discovery and gathering of information about the physical characteristics of a property and/or land (the property).

‘The surveyor then undertakes an impartial and professional assessment of the property and provides a balanced and professional opinion of the technical condition of it[,] enabling a prospective purchaser, occupier or financier of property to make an informed assessment of the risks associated with this transaction.’

Some of the more prescriptive language on how to conduct a survey – or what to look for in a typical building element, for instance – is being removed, as it was felt this would be understood by surveyors through their experience.

The guidance note will also state that the technical due diligence process must be methodical, assessing each key building element and answering the following.

••What, if anything is wrong?

••What would the consequences be if the defect were not rectified?

••What remediation is recommended?

••Who is responsible for the cost of repair?

••What further investigations are recommended, and when?

In addition, the note has been updated to reflect modern practice, including the use of virtual data rooms, data collection software and drones.

Scope of service The previously published Oceania and European guidance notes covered some services that are not the norm for technical due diligence in the UK, including producing capital expenditure budgets or commenting on capital allowances.

To reflect these differences, a standard technical due diligence scope of service is being added to the appendix to make it easier to confirm instructions, with tick

boxes including specialist inspections and subconsultants to be appointed.

The document aims to set out what a building surveyor must consider during the briefing or confirmation of instructions phase. It will more clearly reflect that we often act as the lead consultant for the technical due diligence process, bringing together other specialist advisers such as mechanical, electrical and vertical transportation engineers, cladding consultants or environmental engineers.

The intention is to provide a more useful document than previous editions that better reflects the breadth and depth of the technical due diligence process, over and above what used to be a building survey.

Andrew Marsden at insurance broker Willis Towers Watson told the guidance note working group that ‘many of the most common claims against surveyors could have been avoided if the surveyor followed RICS guidance notes, confirmed their instructions and any limitations in full to their client at the time of instruction, and added further clarification within a report, such as inaccessible areas not surveyed, which are only determinable post-survey.’

References to fire safety and health and safety are being reinforced following two tragic events in the UK in 2017: the Grenfell Tower fire, and the death of a woman in Wolverhampton hit by debris from a roof during a storm (see article, opposite).

This includes introducing a category of defects that need ‘immediate’ action, where a surveyor must point out anything potentially foreseeable as of imminent danger, such as loose masonry, to an ‘appropriate person’, most likely the building manager, or the vendor or their agent. Guidance on using red, amber and green risk ratings is also included, to help a time-poor client focus on the issues, either during purchase or after this is completed.

David Mann is a partner at Tuffin Ferraby Taylor and co-author of RICS’ Technical due diligence of commercial property fifth edition global guidance note dmann@tftconsultants.com Related competencies include: Client care, Inspection rics.org/journals 33

BUILDING SURVEYOR CADOGAN ESTATES, LONDON Competitive salary

The client, a dynamic property developer, manager and investor and with a 300 year history in one of London’s finest neighbourhoods is seeking an experienced Building Surveyor to work as part of a close-knit team to provide project management and building surveying services to the Estate.

Along with the Director of Projects and the Building Surveying Team, you will focus on delivering the finest level of service to maintain the Estate’s reputation as being one of the world’s leading locations in which to live, work and visit.

The Estate portfolio includes flats, houses, shops, offices, public gardens, restaurants, hotels and cultural attractions.

The successful candidate is likely to be a member of The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (MRICS) with up to 5 years practical experience, and have a sound technical knowledge in terms of building surveying, project management and professional work.

This is a true family business with prestigious offices located in the heart of Chelsea.

Email stephen@ruetwo.com in the first instance along with a CV.

CHARTERED BUILDING SURVEYOR COMPETITIVE SALARY + COMMISSION, BASED IN FULHAM SW6

Harding Chartered Surveyors are based within vibrant office space in Fulham, South West London & are seeking a new addition to their surveying team.

To be successful in this role you will

You will be expected to be able to carry out Building Surveys, Homebuyers Reports, Schedules of Dilapidations, Valuations and some Party Wall work for all types of residential & commercial property throughout London.

Experience in carrying out building surveys

The role will include the opportunity to supplement the salary with commission based on fee income generated.

need the following: MRICS Building Surveyor

on residential & commercial properties.

Negotiation skills To be comfortable when liaising directly with clients A full and clean UK driving licence The ability to meet deadlines

SUBMIT YOUR APPLICATION WITH C.V. TO DAVID TOOGOOD DTOOGOOD@HARDINGSURVEYORS.CO.UK 020 7736 2383 07808161463

34 Journal September/October 2019

Building surveying

International

All around the world Becoming a chartered building surveyor can be the route to a variety of projects in many different destinations Ben Anderson

IMAGE © BEN ANDERSON

‘An RICS chartership is a job passport to the world,’ my lecturer told my class in 2008, on the first day of my building surveying degree at the University of the West of England in Bristol. Any future career seemed a long way off at the time, though, let alone being chartered. But this remark always stuck with me – the notion that if I became a chartered surveyor, I could enjoy travelling and working abroad during my career.

But since achieving chartered status in 2014, I have been given the opportunity to inspect and work on a range of buildings in Europe and across Oceania and Asia. Our team is often required to be on site for inspections, frequently entering parts of buildings that the public will never see. Through my experiences, I have found that the profession can offer extensive and varied opportunities, and be a fulfilling and exciting career choice for the practically minded person.

Glazed pavement light highlighting the scene of an historic martyrdom of Protestant women at a Sussex town hall

From 2012 to 2015, for instance, I was involved with large external repair and maintenance projects at Brighton Marina on the south coast of England. Who wouldn’t enjoy completing an inspection by the seaside? Well, in the summer at least.

In 2013, I was then involved with a feasibility study and full design and project management role on a significant historic town hall nearby in Sussex. The works included close liaison with the conservation officers and the installation of sympathetic glazed pavement lights above the building vaults, to highlight where ten Protestant martyrs were imprisoned before being burnt at the stake in the 16th century (see photo, below left). In 2014, I also prepared a maintenance plan for a police building, which had been the riot training facility for the London Olympics in 2012, deep beneath the ground in the Sussex countryside.

In 2015 I ventured further afield, and undertook a planned preventative maintenance report on a government building in the Northern Territory, Australia. This proved an exciting new experience as I could visit the area and surrounding national parks – something I would not have been able to do otherwise.

Subsequently, I provided strategic dilapidation advice and negotiation for the Queensland government in 2016, when several premises were consolidated into one large, purpose-built building, saving millions of dollars for the taxpayer.

In 2016, I was also approached by a potential purchaser to inspect and report on three hotels in Wellington and Queenstown, New Zealand. The job involved a thorough inspection of all the buildings and assessing the condition of the fabric. The evenings and weekend I spent white-water rafting and skiing weren’t part of the inspection, but I wouldn’t have had the opportunity for these without the job.

In 2017, I was engaged to inspect a five-star island resort in the Maldives by a potential purchaser. This involved a comprehensive inspection of all the buildings and services on the island – which meant five days staying in this luxurious locale. As several of the buildings were built into the seabed, the job itself included some diving to assess the condition of structural timber posts.

Back in the UK the same year, I also advised a major global nutrition and hygiene brand on its potential dilapidation options and liability when it was considering relocating its London headquarters elsewhere in Europe.

Since 2017, I have been involved with the specification and project management of the external repair works to three important historic buildings across the City and the West End of London.

The projects have involved liaison with specialist consultants and engaging with local government and historic environment officers.

It is very satisfying to work with heritage assets such as these and ensure that they are passed on, in good condition, for future generations to enjoy.

If the above experiences sound interesting and you would like some more information about the work I’ve been doing, then do feel free to get in touch.

Ben Anderson MRICS is an associate at Cushman & Wakefield ben.anderson@cushwake.com rics.org/journals 35

Mistaken identity Why has one mortgage lender decided that chartered surveyors are no longer to be trusted to carry out structural surveys?

Craig Ross

Nobody likes paying for the same service twice, do they? Let’s imagine that you are looking for a new home, and you have found a really nice place in a great location. The family is super-excited.

You approach a lender for a mortgage and complete the application, and all is looking positive. Before the lender can make you an offer, however, it must have the property valued – standard practice to protect itself.

While undertaking the valuation survey some small cracks are noticed in the house, and the valuer’s report recommends that a structural survey is undertaken. The lender now informs you that arranging and paying for this survey is down to you as the customer, and so you approach a chartered surveyor to carry out the task. Your surveyor then visits the property and provides a nice, professional-looking building survey report, which is handed to the lender. Job done, right?

Wrong. The lender writes back to you informing you that this is the wrong report and does not provide them with the information 36 Journal September/October 2019

it requires. You are then directed to have the same structural survey carried out by an engineer, and end up having to pay for the same thing twice over.

This would be highly frustrating – and, unfortunately, the scenario is one that many prospective homebuyers have actually faced of late. In fact, due to a multitude of customer complaints, the lender in question no longer accepts such reports from chartered building surveyors. The issue was reported to me by one such surveyor at the start of the year, and I set out to investigate.

Something has gone terribly wrong; but what?

Terminology confusion My first impression was that this problem is a result of confusion caused by the term ‘structural survey’. The more seasoned among us may remember when ‘condition surveys’ were typically called ‘structural surveys’, as I sometimes still find they are, especially when working overseas. You may also recall the fine 1980s journal

Building surveying

Surveys

We must constantly reflect on our skills and ask ourselves whether we are sufficiently competent to take on a particular task

Structural Survey, now the International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation, a publication which discussed condition surveys and building defects.

Interrogation of the client’s brief often reveals that what in fact is required is a condition survey, but they do sometimes mean that they want a report on a specific structural defect. These cases require a good understanding of both the problem – probably gleaned on a site visit – and exactly what is expected of the report, so you can gauge whether it is within your capabilities or whether further specialist advice is required from a structural engineer.

However, as I discovered after making further enquiries, some general practice surveyors who were not appropriately experienced have in this instance been asked to provide the structural survey or structural report, as identified in the valuation. They have then gone on to accept the instruction but provided a HomeBuyer Report or a building survey, either making no comment on the structural stability of the property at all or advising that they could not conclude whether the cracking was a problem based on one inspection – this despite the wording in the valuation specifically requiring a report on potential structural issues identified.

This has resulted in so many unhappy clients that it caused the particular lender to suddenly remove chartered building surveyors from those it considers qualified to carry out structural surveys, and instead instruct chartered engineers. Given that the lender has subsequently avoided the problem completely, it is unlikely to rescind its decision.

Not a comfortable read, is it? I am a chartered building surveyor myself, and frankly found this information embarrassing: this is a qualification I share and was proud to attain. On analysis of the problem and some reflection, we can reduce this issue to three fundamental factors: client care, competence and ethics.

At the most basic level of client care – which is the name of a mandatory competency for all chartered surveyors, starting from the APC process and continuing throughout our careers – RICS guidance clearly stipulates the need to ‘collect data, analyse and define the needs of clients’.

That has unfortunately not happened in any of these cases, with the surveyors making assumptions that have cost their clients time and money. This is unacceptable. We must always talk to

our clients to establish the reasons for their requests, avoid the temptation to assume we know what is required, and do our due diligence to make sure that our objectives correspond with the clients’ requirements.

Second is the issue of competence. Following the Grenfell Tower fire two years ago, RICS has been heavily involved in the industry response group, significantly in this case including the competence steering group. We have been working with fellow professionals to understand how any shortcomings in competence have manifested themselves, what levels of competence the various roles should have, and how we will now manage the competence of the construction and property professionals.

Competence is thus rightly at the forefront of our minds: what has happened here is a prime example of surveyors acting beyond their skill set and taking on a type of report that they are not competent to complete. After the Grenfell Tower fire, we must constantly reflect on our skills and ask ourselves whether we are competent to take on a particular task.

Last and most important is the issue of ethics, which is the bedrock of our professionalism. We must always act with proper regard for the technical standards expected of us, and only provide services for which we are competent and qualified. We must also act with integrity and be accountable for our actions. Paying due heed to our principles will promote trust in our profession, something that has been called into question in this case. Having strict ethical standards is one of the characteristics that defines us as professionals, and we cannot let this slip.

To summarise, there is work to be done to address this situation.

Since this issue came to light, I have received further queries from chartered building surveyors wondering why their structural defect reports are no longer being accepted by the lender in question and asking what RICS is doing about this. I reply that we must first appreciate that we cannot force the lender to change its mind, and need once again to gain its trust as a profession. We will continue in our endeavours to do so, but we are on the back foot.

The second step, communicating and drawing awareness to the issue to help contain it, is work in progress, although this is partly addressed by what you are reading. The third step is the forthcoming home survey standard: this professional statement will contain some mandatory requirements on understanding competence, on clients’ needs and on making sure the report satisfies them. These points have been deliberately isolated and clarified to allow RICS Regulation to take action against surveyors who do not pay sufficient heed to these fundamental factors.

As a final point, bearing in mind that moving into a new property can be one of the most stressful events in someone’s life, surveyors should act with due consideration of the public interest and ensure that we are part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

Craig Ross MRICS is RICS associate director of the built environment cross@rics.org Related competencies include: Client care, Ethics, Rules of Conduct and professionalism rics.org/journals 37

Building surveying

Condensation

Cold comfort An unventilated cold roof is asking for trouble – so what should you do if you come across one?

Trevor Rushton

38 Journal September/October 2019

Despite having a high-performing air- and vapour-control layer, the roof deck in this unventilated cold roof failed in two years

Today, warm and inverted construction is commonplace; the problems of condensation are understood and, rather like measles, they can be eliminated. Unfortunately, also like measles, cold roof construction still crops up from time to time, and when it does the results can be catastrophic.

A cold roof is one in which the insulation is placed between the roof joists or below the deck. Air and water vapour will enter the roof construction even if you try to prevent this, and as the air cools the amount of moisture that it can support is reduced, potentially leading to 100 per cent relative humidity – or saturation point – and the resultant condensation.

By ventilating the roof space, moisture can be removed before it condenses, or be allowed to dry before harm is caused. A good air- and vapour-control layer will reduce the passage of vapour into the roof; but its effectiveness will depend entirely on good-quality work and meticulous attention to detail.

IMAGE © TREVOR RUSHTON

The risk of condensation occurring in flat, unventilated roof constructions is nothing new. Early attempts at insulating flat roofs brought about significant problems in terms of decay and failure, particularly during the early 1970s as efforts were made to improve the thermal performance of buildings.

The advent of warm and inverted roof construction – in which, respectively, insulation is placed directly below the roof membrane or on top of it – improved performance significantly, although with the latter there was much early debate on the wisdom of concealing the membrane below hard finishes as this made repairs or diagnosis of leaks difficult.

Provided that a sound vapour barrier is included at deck level, the risk of interstitial condensation in a warm roof is much reduced. But the roof covering will absorb heat as a result of infrared radiation, and because the insulation prevents or reduces the dissipation of that heat back to the structure, the roofing membrane will have to work hard to accommodate the potential range of temperatures involved. Indeed, this was the downfall of many asphalt warm roofs until matters were improved using polymer-modified asphalt.

Although a ventilated cold roof can theoretically be designed to avoid condensation this is a high-risk strategy, and such a design ideally needs to be avoided. Equally, an unventilated cold roof is simply asking for trouble. BS 5250: 2002 Code of practice for control of condensation in buildings provides guidance and recommendations; although a later version of this code has been produced, this version is referred to in Approved Document B to the Building Regulations.

The code itself refers to BS EN ISO 13788, which sets out design calculations for the avoidance of condensation that are known as the Glaser method. Such calculations tend to be performed by software, whether used by the roofing component manufacturer, or by the designer through engineering design programs such as Bentley Hevacomp.

Earlier versions of BS 5250 suggested that, provided the condensation dried out from one year to the next and did not exceed 350g/m2, the roof would perform satisfactorily – a somewhat rash statement that was removed from the 2011 version. Nevertheless, the code was very clear that cold deck construction should be avoided. Where this was unavoidable, there should be a 50mm ventilation gap, with cross-ventilation provided continuously. The vapour control level should be at least 250MN·s/g, which is a hopelessly low threshold. However, effective cross-ventilation is unlikely to occur with spans greater than 5m, so unless alternative measures can be contrived such a roof is likely to be intrinsically unreliable.

Bear in mind that Glaser calculations are suitable for comparing different constructions but are not an accurate prediction tool.

They do not model moisture in the structure under service conditions, and are unsuitable for calculation or drying out of built-in moisture. Alternative programs are available; one, WUFI , created by the Fraunhofer Institute, enables modelling of moisture conditions in building envelopes. The software performs hygrothermal calculations on building component cross-sections considering, where appropriate, built-in moisture, solar radiation, long-wave radiation, capillary transport and summer condensation.

This program can help to consider component performance under actual climate conditions. However, the analysis is affected by many variables, and given that accurate, common and consistent data on specific building materials can be difficult to come by, one must exercise a degree of caution. It is rather like playing a violin: harmony if you hit the right notes, but cacophony if you don’t.

Although a ventilated cold roof can theoretically be designed to avoid condensation, it is a high-risk strategy

While the effects of condensation on non-organic materials may be marginal, its implications for timber and other hygroscopic materials can be profound. During construction one can assume that the moisture content of construction timber may be in the region of 15–18 per cent; it may be a bit higher if the building was exposed to rainfall during construction, but if constructed properly will probably settle down to an equilibrium within a few months.

The relationship between moisture content and relative humidity is important. Timber held in 80 per cent relative humidity or more for an extended period will, depending on species, reach a moisture content of 20 per cent or more. If this is allowed to continue for several months then the risk of timber decay becomes acute.

Furthermore, if the roof is unventilated the construction will take a correspondingly longer time to dry out and, in this case, the vapour resistance of the decking and the roof membrane become very relevant. Some materials such as PVC roofing are reasonably permeable, but some thermoplastic polyolefin materials and ethylene propylene diene monomer membranes have a much higher resistance – meaning that the risk of condensation becomes higher.

Seemingly simple substitution of materials during construction can therefore have unexpected consequences during the service life of a building.

One would have expected that, faced with the above difficulties, a reasonably competent designer would avoid this form of construction. Unfortunately that is not necessarily the case, and over the past two to three years several contemporary buildings have failed due to extensive timber decay within five years of construction, and there are probably many more unreported cases.

In one instance, the designer was encouraged to depart from his original warm roof construction and use a prefabricated approach involving very large unventilated cold roof cassettes. Although a condensation analysis suggested the construction would perform satisfactorily, the roof structure failed within a short time, and repair costs ran to millions. Another case involved a highly insulated eco-house, where again the entire roof deck and most of the structure failed within about 24 months.

Both examples may have been compounded by exposure to rainfall during construction. It is imperative that any such excess moisture is removed because it will tend to redistribute itself around the roof owing to evaporation and the subsequent movement of vapour from high- to low-pressure areas, usually condensing on the underside of the roof deck and the top portion of the joists or engineered beams. This, coupled with a highly impermeable deck and or roof membrane, will almost certainly result in failure.

The message is simple – avoid cold flat roof construction, and if you come across it treat it with the utmost suspicion unless you have good reason to think otherwise. If the roof is unventilated, proceed with even more caution.

Trevor Rushton is a technical director at Watts trevor.rushton@watts.co.uk Related competencies include: Building pathology rics.org/journals 39

Refurb & repair problems

Replacement rooflights to match any profile Warehouse, Heathrow

Fixsafe allowed safer rooflight vaultreplacement at this warehouse

GRP barrel rooflights – perfect for curved roofs Distribution Centre, Kent

Monarch rooflights: the ideal daylight solution for curved Lightweight GRP roofs

over-roofing

Water company depot, Yorkshire

solved!

All these diverse, demanding refurb challenges have one thing in common: the solution was a specifically designed GRP sheet or associated product supplied by Filon Products – the building envelope refurbishment problem solver.

Call us to discuss your project

01543 687300 www.filon.co.uk

Simpler, more cost-effective roof refurbishment

Safer rooflight replacement with no roof access

Industrial Unit, Wiltshire

Factory, Middlesex

Roof refurbishment and canopies Byker Wall Estate, Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Leaking Gutters?

Commercial gutter repairs and linings, with up to 25 year guarantee Approved contractors for:

We offer a nationwide service and it’s always a pleasure to supply a free quotation.

We also offer nationwide planned gutter emptying, commercial roof repairs and coatings, roof light replacement/ repairs, asbestos roof repairs/coatings.

For our brochure or further information please ring 0203 975 7979 Email: info@blueskyguttering.co.uk Website: blueskyguttermaintenance.co.uk

40 Journal September/October 2019

Filon Products Ltd, Unit 3 Ring Road, Zone 2, Burntwood Business Park, Burntwood, Staffs WS7 3JQ

Building control

Stadium safety

Ground rules The sixth edition of the Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds takes into account the increasing threat of terrorist attack Rick Riding

Sport is part of our national culture. Every week, many thousands of people in the UK attend football, rugby, horse racing and other sporting events. At the Sports Grounds Safety Authority (SGSA) therefore, our priority is to make sure people do so in as safe and secure surroundings as possible.

Last year, the SGSA published the sixth edition of the Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds, commonly referred to as the Green Guide (bit.ly/GreenGuide6). This is recognised globally as the definitive statement of best practice in sports ground safety and the development and refurbishment of stadia.

The safety of all people in a sports ground is imperative, and the principles in the guidance help to ensure this. But the challenges sports grounds face today are not the same as when the first Green Guide was published in 1973, or even the fifth edition in 2008. Incidents that have occurred over the past five years, including the terrorist attacks at the Stade de France in 2015 and those at Westminster Bridge, Manchester Arena and London Bridge in the UK in 2017 are a stark reminder of the vulnerability of crowded places and the importance of keeping people safe.

In today’s world, we need to consider the increasing threat posed by terrorist attack when developing plans, and this was uppermost in our minds when preparing

the latest Green Guide. So the new edition offers additional guidance on the zone external to the stadium through which spectators must pass when arriving at or leaving an event, referred to as zone ex.

It is unlikely that the venue owner has any legal responsibility for people within that area. A partnership approach is needed, working across disciplines such as safety, policing, stadium management, ambulances and others to ensure that someone takes a lead on safety in this zone.

Advances in crowd modelling, as identified in the Green Guide, can help plan for situations in zone ex. In the design of new stadia, it is important to understand people movement, but we don’t now have to wait for the venue to open to realise what does and doesn’t work. Using simulations and analysis we can get a good idea of the way people move around sports grounds under certain conditions, and the technology that enables this modelling is improving all the time In May, the UK signed the Council of Europe Convention on an Integrated Safety, Security and Service Approach at Football Matches and Other Sports Events (bit.ly/CETS218). The SGSA bases its advice on the three central tenets of the convention, as follows.

••Safety: the importance of overlay around a sports ground can sometimes affect

the safe arrival, circulation and egress of spectators. This includes additions to the stadium that are not permanent structures, such as queuing barriers and fan zones. It is important that these are considered when planning any security measures to ensure that safety isn’t compromised.

••Security: at times there will be a need to consider additional security overlays to manage risks at an event, such as enhanced screening and searching, vehicle barriers and so on. Consideration must also be given to the possible unintended consequences of these, for example increases in queueing and delayed entry into a stadium.

••Service: remembering this should be an enjoyable sporting event, the need to balance safety and security against spectator experience is critical. The most important asset a sports ground has in terms of safety is effective, vigilant and friendly staff.

We must never be complacent about safety. In order to maintain the excellent safety reputation of sport grounds in the UK, we must continue to look ahead, adapt and respond to the changing world.

Rick Riding is an inspector at the SGSA rick.riding@sgsamail.org.uk Related competencies include: Legal/regulatory competence rics.org/journals 41

Building control

Sports grounds

A game of two halves Tottenham Hotspur’s innovative new stadium presented distinctive challenges for both building control and health and safety. Built Environment Journal spoke to London Borough of Haringey head of building control Bob McIver about the project

IMAGE Š THFC

Bob McIver

42 Journal September/October 2019

Q: How was the new stadium project-managed to completion?

A: The club had its own project team, which did a significant amount of project management with the two main contractors Mace and Base. In general, Mace dealt with the main build and the fit-out of the general admission areas, while Base did the fit-out of the premium areas and the Tottenham Experience megastore and museum.

Q: What specialist forms of construction were used in the build?

A: The stadium was effectively built in two stages. Phase one involved constructing a traditional concrete frame, with concrete terracing up to level five and then steelwork above. This work was done while the old stadium was in place.

Once the old stadium was demolished, phase two involved the erection of the new 85-row south stand in steelwork.

The design of the latter is quite innovative, containing two bespoke structural steel designs that are clearly evident in the finished stadium.

The other major innovation is that there are two pitches – one for football and another for American football. This required significant technology to ensure a quick changeover between the two. The grass football pitch comprises 99 large trays that move out from underneath the south stand over the artificial turf, which can itself be used for American football as well as for concerts or other events the club wishes to host. The ground is also fully sprinklered throughout, which is a first for UK stadia.

Q: How do you see the stadium regenerating the area?

A: If you look at any other stadium that has been built recently in the UK you can see how it has helped regenerate its local area: Wembley saw a significant growth in residential building nearby, as did the Emirates in north London.

It is planned that, adjacent to the Tottenham stadium, there will be a 22-storey building with 16 floors of hotel space and six of apartments above that, work on which will start in the near future. There is also outline planning

permission for three blocks of residential accommodation at the south end of the stadium. All of this should be a catalyst for future development.

Before the new stadium was built the Spurs offices were housed in Lillywhite House, which was completed in 2013 and also includes a large Sainsbury’s supermarket and a technical college.

This has already brought some regeneration into the area, and in addition there has been residential development and a new junior school further up the High Road from the stadium.

White Hart Lane train station is currently being upgraded and should be finished by the autumn; this will support entry to and exit from the stadium. There are also masterplans for regenerating Tottenham High Road West that should give the area a much-needed boost.

Q: Has the need to provide natural daylight for the pitch affected design?

A: I don’t think it did, because it is not just light that matters – you also need air circulation to help the grass grow, and during the short periods when the American football pitch is being used the grass pitch is moved into a space with grow lights and fans to maintain its condition.

The regulations state that all the seats must be covered – otherwise the club would not get the necessary licence from the Sports Grounds Safety Authority (SGSA) – but at the same time the grass has to grow. Grow lights are an artificial illumination source designed to stimulate plant growth; these are housed underneath the front of the north stand, whereas in the old stadium they had to be kept moving around and off the pitch, with some stored outside and others in the car park.

Q: Were there any construction issues that arose during the design of the retractable pitch?

A: From a building control and Building Regulations perspective, this is effectively a piece of machinery rather than a building, comprising rails set into the ground. The pitch is static once in football mode, as it is for the majority of the time, whereas when it changes to American football mode it

gets lifted up slightly so it can roll under the south stand.

As a result it is not really covered by the Building Regulations, but it is covered under safety and sports grounds legislation, and the Haringey building control staff were also involved in assessing its compliance in this regard. The inspections we carried out for building control were similar to those required for safety at sports grounds, although the latter – as covered by the Green Guide (see p.41 of this issue) – tend to be more onerous than the former.

But this arrangement benefited the club because there was no confusion over who was responsible, with the same surveyor carrying out both inspections.

The club started discussions with Haringey Building Control about the new stadium some 12 years ago, which culminated in a planning permission for a 56,000-capacity all-seater stadium that was granted in 2010.

While Lillywhite House was being built in 2012–13 and the land required for the stadium was being acquired, the design was being reviewed by the new architects, Populous. This prompted an application for a new planning permission, which was granted in 2015.

Works on site started at the same time under the original 2010 permission because the footprint was essentially the same, so we have been inspecting the building works at the ground over the past four years.

In the first two years of this time, we would be inspecting the works during the day, but also ensuring that the existing stadium was safe for the matches being played at weekends or in the evenings, given our dual role in building control and health and safety.

The construction team was aware of when home matches were happening and when work would have to stop if a game was taking place. This also led to more inspections, as we had to confirm that the original stadium was safe for the matches to continue.

In summer 2018 our workload increased significantly when we moved from inspecting the physical side to safety, although there are still works to be done to complete fit-out areas and we are rics.org/journals 43

Traditionally disabled supporters have had to sit at ground level, but here they have access to all areas and can sit with their families rather than elsewhere

currently issuing safety certificates on a match-by-match basis.

Q: Have there been any conflicts between technical standards – that is, between the Building Regulations and Green Guide – that you had to address?

A: The stadium was originally designed under the fifth edition of the Green Guide but the sixth edition was published at the start of this year, so we were in a close dialogue with the SGSA to understand what changes it was making.

My role as chair of the club’s safety advisory group and the borough’s head of building control meant that, as and when conflicts arose, we could make sure they were resolved from both points of view. We learnt how to do this at the old stadium when the new stands were being constructed, and kept this in mind when working on the new stadium.

Q: How was technology used in relation to fire safety and means of escape?

A: The sprinklers allow a great deal of flexibility in the stadium as a whole. If the old stadium was considered to be analogue then the new one is digital: everything is run by IT, from going through the turnstiles to buying a coffee or a beer and a pie.

The comprehensive fire system not only has the traditional alarm board, including a graphical interface, it also has state-of-the-art CCTV where you can replay footage of an incident straightaway if an alarm is triggered, making it a lot easier to identify false alarms for example, or real alarms that require evacuation.

44 Journal September/October 2019

There is also a detailed building management system that monitors everything and can be adjusted from the control room. This room is the main hub on event days and is where events are run from.

Q: Were there any considerations in terms of inclusive design?

A: From the outset we consulted with disabled supporters on the design, and it then went to the charity Level Playing Field, which has been complimentary about the facilities. The club has also provided three changing rooms for supporters – two in the ground itself and one in the Tottenham Experience – which is a first in the UK. There are more lifts in the stadium than in any other football ground in England, and because general admission is via podiums external to the building there are also external lifts that ensure that these are accessible from street level. The bars in the entertainment areas are all set at a low height in line with current guidance, so anyone can access them, and there are also fully accessible areas in the premium areas, a sensory room, and areas for guide dogs.

Everything has been thought about, and from an inclusive design point of view I don’t think there is anything that could have been done better. Traditionally, disabled supporters have always had to sit at ground level; here, they have access to all areas and can sit with their families rather than having to sit elsewhere.

Q: Are there any special features to enable a match to continue without disruption in the event of a power cut?

A: There are back-up generators so games can continue if there is a power failure: if there is a blackout in the area the stadium would still be able to run on generator power. This was a major part of our testing procedure, and we simulated full power failure to make sure the back-up works seamlessly. As a spectator, you wouldn’t even notice.

Q: What role did building control play in the safety team?

A: Building control staff are an integral part of the safety team. Even when we have issued the final completion certificate for the stadium, we have an ongoing enforcement role. I am chair of the club’s safety advisory group, and it is my role to issue the regular safety certificates – without these the team can’t play at the ground with spectators in attendance.

Myself and a number of colleagues in the building control team have carried out inspections. We also have a considerable number of people carrying out inspections on a match-by-match basis to make sure the safety requirements are being met, as well as seeing how the stadium is working and whether the assumptions made during the design are relevant. So far they are, and it’s been working well.

It has helped that the fans are coming early, and at the end of the match some are staying to enjoy the bars and entertainment while others are making their way to the nearby stations. The capacity of the old stadium was 36,000 but the new one is 62,197; so there are queues at the stations after matches because there are more people, but they are getting back to business as usual within an hour of the final whistle. The club does put a lot of resources into managing the queues at the stations, and it is working.

Bob McIver is head of building control at the London Borough of Haringey and chair of the safety advisory group for Tottenham Hotspur Football Club bob.mcIver@haringey.gov.uk Related competencies include: Building control inspections, Inclusive environments, Legal/regulatory compliance

BUILDING CONTROL

S E RV I C ES P R OV I D E D BY

P R E M I E R G UA R A N T E E

Premier Guarantee provide a comprehensive Building Control package on a range of residential developments. Approved by the Construction Industry Council (CIC), our service has been structured to work cohesively with our Structural Warranties combining your Building Control and Risk Management inspections to save you both time and money on your project.

GET A QUOTE Our friendly team are ready to answer your queries or calls on 0800 107 8446 or visit our website www.premierguarantee.com and complete the online quote form.

MD Insurance Services Ltd is the Scheme Administrator for the Premier Guarantee range of structural warranties.

MD Insurance Services Ltd is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.

Building surveying

Comment

Legal

‘The principal contractor’s approach was ill considered and negligent, contravening sections of the Health and Safety at Work Act’ Jeffrey Tribich Malcolm Hollis

Although accidents are never welcome, analysing them can inform safe practice in future, and the circumstances of a recent site incident offer just such lessons.

The accident involved work to the pitched roof of an occupied office building.

The principal contractor obtained risk assessments and a method statement from its roofing subcontractor. The works started with stripping the existing roof covering.

A lorry was to attend site to take away the old slates, felt and battens, but it did not arrive at the agreed time. Therefore, the subcontractor changed its sequence of work and the old materials were kept on the roof while the stripping continued.

However, this resulted in a roofer inadvertently stepping on an unsupported tile batten. The batten gave way, the felt tore and the roofer fell. His feet crashed through the suspended ceiling below before his fall was arrested and he came to a jarring stop, each of his arms over adjacent rafters.

He was bruised, grazed and shaken, but not seriously hurt. No one was working immediately below where the ceiling tiles had landed, although there were office 46 Journal September/October 2019

workers to both sides. It was pure luck that he had not fallen on someone: the consequences could have been tragic.

After the accident, the principal contractor’s health and safety consultant prepared a report stating that the root cause was the late arrival of the skip, which led to the storage of stripped materials on the roof, and this in turn restricted space for manoeuvring. A little probing revealed a more concerning picture, however.

••Although the builder had carried out a risk assessment, he appeared not to have considered the possibility of falls and the risk to roofers and people working below.

This was surprising given that these are the main risks of working at height.

••The roof worker was not formally trained and had not received any information, instruction or training on the risks he might come across, either on this or any of his previous jobs.

••He was working alone and unsupervised.

••He had been carrying an armful of battens and could not see where he was stepping.

The principal contractor’s approach was ill considered and negligent; it contravened

sections 2 and 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (bit.ly/HSWA1974), which aims to ensure a safe system of work, maintain a safe working environment and provide information, instruction and training, as well as requiring that work be supervised by a qualified professional and that no other parties are exposed to risk either. The approach also contravened the Work at Height Regulations 2005.

So, what are the key lessons from this case for contractors?

••Before starting work, they should carry out a comprehensive risk assessment (bit.ly/HSEworkrisk).

••They should devise a safe working method that addresses the risks, avoiding danger to employees and other parties.

••They should use adequately experienced and trained supervisory staff to ensure compliance with the safe working method.

They should certainly not do as the contractor in this case did afterwards, doltishly devising a new system of work that did nothing to address the very risks that gave rise to the accident in the first place. Such situations can, conceivably, expose surveyors to prosecution. Choosing competent contractors – those with suitable skills, knowledge and experience – will help avoid this, but the choice is not always in a surveyor’s gift.

So other than contractor choice, what can a surveyor do to avoid similar situations?

First, ensure that the contractor prepares risk assessments and method statements.

Second, although checking and approving method statements is not generally a surveyor’s contractual or statutory duty – and is best avoided – a light-touch review may reveal irregularities that, if corrected, will provide both physical and legal protection for them and their client alike.

Jeffrey Tribich is lead health and safety consultant at Malcolm Hollis jeffrey.tribich@malcolmhollis.com Related competencies include: Health and safety Further information: The report Staying Alive: Preventing Serious Injuries and Fatalities While Working at Height is available from workingatheight.info.

Building surveying

Opinion

Health and safety

‘The case reveals an altogether darker side to the conduct of the company, which would not be apparent from casual enquiry’ Trevor Rushton Watts

Selecting a contractor for minor work is notoriously difficult: unless the firm is known to you or recommended by someone you trust, the risks are legion.

Seemingly bona fide companies can have a hidden side. Would you be content to recommend a company that had consistently failed to take adequate care of its workers and exposed them – and presumably customers – to risks that could have life-changing consequences?

For a professional the answer is of course ‘No’; but it is not always that simple.

Uncovering the truth can be difficult, and it’s not always particularly easy to locate Health and Safety Executive (HSE) prosecution records.

For instance, try searching for a repointing contractor in the north of England and you may come across a suitable candidate – K&M Pointing has been trading for 25 years, working for domestic and commercial clients and restoring buildings for the National Trust.

Perfect: the testimonials are glowing and the promises from the director are reassuring. Interesting that there is no

mention of trade body membership, but never mind; it looks as though the company knows what it’s doing.

Well, perhaps not such a glowing record.

In 2018, Manchester magistrates sentenced the director to a two-year suspended prison sentence, 180 hours’ community service and £2,000 in costs. The HSE had investigated after a call from a member of the public who was concerned about the way the firm was undertaking repointing work and exposing its workers to silica dust from grinding out mortar joints (bit.ly/HSEKMcase).

Photographs showed a precarious platform suspended between the ridge of a roof and a tower scaffold together with a ladder perched on top. During the trial it was established that this was not a one-off incident and the firm had persistently cut corners to reduce costs. Furthermore, it had previously been found responsible for fly-tipping building waste.

Not only were the workers at risk of injury, but a failure to provide insurance against injury or ill health sustained during the course of work would have left them significantly disadvantaged had something

happened. The case reveals an altogether darker side to the conduct of the company not apparent from casual enquiry.

One can sometimes feel a tinge of unease about consumer programme investigations into alleged cowboy builders. Contractors are certainly not all bad, and those that are bring nothing but discredit to the wider industry. However, being brutally honest with yourself, are there any times that you have condoned a risk or taken action that you knew was cutting it fine? You may be able to reply in the negative, and all well and good if you can – but repeated acts of omission cannot be condoned. One cannot afford to turn a blind eye.

Aside from potential lung damage, no injuries appear to have been suffered as a result of the Manchester case; but the outcome could have been so different.

The offending work platform was some 6m above ground level and was not fitted with guard railing of any kind.

Bear in mind that, according to HSE statistics, there were 38 fatal injuries to workers and six to members of the public in 2017–18, a figure close to the average of 39 fatalities annually over the past five years (hse.gov.uk/statistics). Of that number, 47 per cent of deaths were due to falls from height.

Each year, around 3,000 construction workers also suffer from breathing and lung problems – bricklayers and masons account for about 26 per cent of reported cases of silicosis, although this figure is thought to be conservative.

Take a moment to think of the impact of those deaths and those diseases on the families and friends of the victims; then reflect on the steps you can take to see that risks are minimised and those who perpetuate them are brought to account.

Trevor Rushton is a technical director at Watts trevor.rushton@watts.co.uk Related competencies include: Health and safety rics.org/journals 47

Building control

MMC

Assembly line assessment The onus is on building control inspectors to find ways of auditing housing that is manufactured off site

John Miles

In July 2013, the coalition government published the policy paper Construction 2025 (bit.ly/UKCons2025).

This set out a vision of the industry’s future according to three strategic priorities: smart construction and digital design; sustainable construction; and improved trade performance.

For this vision to be realised, I believe smarter and more effective methods of construction such as off-site manufacturing must be adopted across the industry. This view has been supported by a number of government and industry publications, including the 2018 House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee report Off-site manufacture for construction: Building for change; last year’s Proposal for a New Approach to Building consultation from 48 Journal September/October 2019

the Infrastructure and Projects Authority; and the 2016 KPMG report Smart construction: How offsite manufacturing can transform our industry.

This April, a specialist subgroup of the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government cross-industry working group on modern methods of construction (MMC) published a definition framework (bit.ly/MMCdefframe), a project that was led by the chair of the wider MMC working group Mark Farmer of Cast Consultancy, and supported by representatives of Buildoffsite, Homes England, NHBC and RICS. The intention is that this framework will regularise and refine the term MMC by defining the spectrum of innovative construction techniques being applied in the residential market, both now and in the future. RICS

IMAGE: THE MCAVOY GROUP

plans in due course to integrate this definition into supporting guidance for its new home survey standard, new-build valuation guidance and the second edition of the International Construction Measurement Standards (rics.org/mmcpolicy).

Together, the reports and the definition framework point out that off-site manufacturing can ensure homes of a higher quality than traditional hammer-and-nail methods, where mistakes are almost inevitable because windows, doors, plumbing and other components from a variety of suppliers are installed on site in a short time frame.

Modern methods are less disruptive and offer more control, as homes are built in a matter of days and assembled on site instead of being constructed over a period of months. Productivity is also improved because there are no delays due to bad weather, materials shortages or worker error; buildings can be manufactured in a factory, like aircraft or cars, and transported to their sites.

But while this represents a step forward in housebuilding, it also presents a challenge when it comes to regulatory compliance in some key areas.

Every building is assessed against the regulatory requirements and against the guidance used to demonstrate compliance at design stage and during construction, and this typically covers the following eight inspection stages: ••foundations ••drainage ••damp-proof course (DPC) or damp-proof membrane ••first floor ••roof ••first fix ••second fix ••final.

Off-site construction does not follow this traditional approach, and systems are needed to ensure the regulator is satisfied that the functional requirements have been met both in the factory and on site. These systems are critical, because the regulator on site may not have been able to inspect the structure or key components of a building that is substantially complete when it arrives on site.

Modular or off-site construction relies on a production line, and building control will normally undertake a factory audit to inspect the manufacturing process while it is under way. This allows the inspector to assess units at various stages during construction, checking their structure, fire resistance, cavity barriers and insulation.

It also enables them to review the factory quality-assurance process and the records kept to ensure each unit is checked at critical points during

manufacture, confirming that Building Regulation 7 on the standard of work is being met and that appropriate materials are being used.

Traditional methods of construction are a lot more forgiving in some respects, as they enable design and material changes throughout the construction process.

Off-site construction and manufacturing does not allow for this, and any changes required to ensure compliance cannot be easily implemented on site during the brief construction time. This makes the factory audit process all the more important.

Building control bodies can take all this information and issue a type or system approval for anything from a foundation to an entire off-site manufacturing process, similar to the kind that major national housebuilders would receive for standard house types that can be adopted on numerous sites without having to start afresh each time. This audit and approvals process should provide a framework where the building control body is able to sign off schemes without having inspected every unit being manufactured before its assembly on site.

The eight inspection stages identified above can typically be reduced to four, namely foundations, drainage, construction and completion. However, regulators need to be satisfied before sign-off that there is sufficient evidence from the manufacturing and subsequent site inspections to indicate that the regulatory requirements have been met. Fewer stages do not equate to less inspection time needed on site.

High-profile cases The reputation of modular and off-site construction has been dented by several high-profile cases where things have gone wrong. In 1983, ITV’s World in Action series aired a damning documentary on timber-frame housebuilding, highlighting failures in new homes due to a lack of timber treatment, poor membranes, ventilation and subsequent rot.

Then there was the CASPAR project – City-centre Apartments for Single People at Affordable Rents – completed in Leeds in 2000 and hailed as a glimpse into the future of modular construction. By 2005, however, it had been condemned and the occupants rehoused.

These two projects used different off-site construction techniques, but were both affected by poor sequencing, manufacturing and site supervision.

The timber-frame homes for instance were built to an unreasonable timescale and without a full understanding of the detailing around vapour control, DPCs and interstitial condensation in timber frames, all of which led to the issues encountered on site.

Meanwhile, the CASPAR project was constructed from modules stacked on top of each other to form rics.org/journals 49

Building control

MMC

the apartment building, but during construction the build sequence was disrupted and what appeared to be identical units were assembled incorrectly. Ultimately, this fault resulted in structural elements that were meant for the top floor ending up in the wrong place, with the building structure failing and being put at risk of collapse.

Such failures show that building inspectors need to understand the principles and sequencing of the modular units they are inspecting. Checks should be made on all critical connections, and inspections sequenced so that vapour barriers and joints in the construction can be examined, which is key to ensuring that there will be no water ingress or cold bridging once the units are completed. Further checks should be made on items such as service connections, drainage connections, and the positioning of any cavity arriers and fire-stopping installed after construction.

Efforts to develop construction into more of a manufacturing-based industry are supported by the Hackitt report, Building a Safer Future: Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety (bit.ly/HackittRev). One anticipated outcome of this report is that the changes it sets out will lead to greater use of more standardised and better quality-assured systems being constructed off site, and less elemental construction on site.

There has, however, been some concern expressed by insurers about the dangers of certain materials used in off-site construction being less resilient to fire, water and physical damage. However, the government is of the view that robust regulations and careful consideration at design stage should be able to mitigate any risks posed.

Competency evidence This process and the assessment of the design, risks and site inspections involving modular construction count as evidence towards the following competencies on the Building Control pathway of the APC. ••Building control inspections: achieving this competency involves carrying out site inspections to ensure building work meets relevant performance requirements, and having the ability to observe, assess and take action against contraventions on site. It also entails specialist knowledge of modular construction, understanding the risks associated with it, and sharing this knowledge with the design and construction teams during the manufacturing and building phases.

••Building pathology: this requires understanding of defects analysis and being able to explain building fabric failure. An ability to undertake preventative maintenance inspections is also needed to reduce the likelihood of defects occurring.

50 Journal September/October 2019

Modern methods of construction are less disruptive and offer more control, as homes are built in a matter of days and assembled on site instead of being constructed over a period of months

••Construction technology and environmental services: this entails an understanding of design and construction, and being aware of construction solutions to problems.

••Works progress and quality management: you should know about construction technology techniques and their relevance on site, good-quality work being vital in ensuring long-term functionality.

While carrying out inspections, the surveyor should be able to identify the types of modular construction being adopted, and provide suitable notes, measurements and photographs in site reports. The detail should be reviewed appropriately using relevant guidance such as Approved Document A (Structure), Approved Document B (Fire Safety) and other guidance including the NHBC technical standards, to determine whether the structure is stable.

From there, the surveyor would be able to take suitable action, for example advising on remedial measures or the need for further review by a structural engineer. Where a candidate is identifying and resolving such site defects, it should be possible to record their experience under at least Level 2, and potentially Level 3 where advice has been given for the competency of Building control inspections, as modular construction can be considered a speciality.

John Miles MRICS is a technical and business development manager at Assent Building Control johnmiles@assentbc.co.uk Related competencies include: Building control inspections, Construction technology and environmental services, Works progress and quality management

rics.org/journals 51

Building surveying

Modular construction

Keeping off-site systems on target A new home is set to showcase modular construction by aspiring to meet the first formally prescribed standard for off-site building production

Joseph Daniels

Although modular construction is on track to become a significant method of housebuilding, confidence in off-site production is not yet unanimous. This is because it has not been put through the same rigorous testing programmes to which traditional approaches have been subject.

All this is about to change, however, as a forthcoming modular construction standard will set a tough benchmark for developers.

Building Research Establishment (BRE)’s standard for modular systems, BPS 7014, will be introduced later this year, and Project Etopia is aiming to be the first to achieve certification under the scheme for a home it is building at BRE’s Watford Innovation Park.

The introduction of BPS 7014 represents the first time that performance and verification requirements for off-site systems have been formally prescribed. The standard will cover superstructures and components, as well as ensuring safety, resilience and whole-life performance. It is primarily designed for systems that are not wholly covered by existing standards, and should reassure everyone involved in the building process, from investors to homeowners, landlords and, of course, surveyors.

The certification’s details will be unveiled in full by BRE on its introduction; however, Etopia already has a vision for the way that its home will demonstrate the benefits of modular housing while also securing the accreditation and proving the long-term durability of such builds.

Based on the draft standard (bit.ly/BPS7014draft1), it is likely that testing will focus on the home’s ability to withstand hurricanes, fires and floods. Modular developers are using numerous different methods to build their homes, and it is important that they are all able to hold their own against the elements. Etopia uses a panelised system, with panels being delivered to the site and the home built in situ. The thermal efficiency of the panels is noticeably better than that of new-build brick properties, with a U-value of 0.13 compared to 0.16 for a typical, well-insulated conventional wall.

Tests show the panels can withstand winds of up to 744km/h, and this chimes with Etopia’s ambition to build these homes all over the world, including environments where hurricanes 52 Journal September/October 2019

Modular construction has not been put through the same rigorous testing programmes as traditional approaches are common. Etopia also aims to build houses without a high environmental impact. The BRE home will use technology such as solar cladding, triple glazing and a Daikin Altherma heating and cooling system to reduce electricity consumption, generating 70 per cent less carbon than bricks and mortar over a period of 60 years.

In September, we are constructing the exterior wall superstructure in just 20 hours on site – demonstrating one of the other many benefits of modular housing, as such structures cannot be completed so quickly by any other method.

It is crucial that modular housing receives a formal seal of approval from bodies such as BRE as this will dispel reservations associated with off-site construction, such as concerns over comfort, durability, noise levels and longevity (see also pp.48–50 of this issue). A proven standard that guarantees the quality of modular housing makes this an attractive building method and in turn an attractive purchase. If we can pair low build cost with speed of construction, off-site methods have a bright future, as traditional bricks and mortar simply cannot match their advantages.

Joseph Daniels is chief executive officer at Project Etopia josephdaniels@projectetopia.com Related competencies include: Construction technology and environmental services

Building surveying

Health

Taking care of healthcare assets Rationalisation of NHS estates could be crucial to both asset development and service provision

Jack Thompson-Smith

In recent years, there has been a marked growth in the attention paid to mental health and well-being (see for instance Built Environment Journal February/March, p.13, and p.33 of this issue).

Either as a result of this development in public awareness, or in response to a general rise in the prevalence of mental health diagnoses, demand for public care services in England and Wales has reportedly increased. The latest NHS Mental Health Bulletin, published in November 2018, highlights a 1.4 per cent increase in demand across all mental health services over the previous 12 months.

At the same time, cuts to public spending have reduced funding for the sector by £100m in real terms since 2012. Put simply, mental health service providers are under considerable financial and logistical pressure given the growing demand.

In response, the NHS produced its Five Year Forward View in 2014, which identified the main changes that would be required to meet the healthcare challenges faced by society, and prioritised objectives with the longer term in mind (bit.ly/NHSFyfv14).

One such proposal was the centralisation of services through consolidation of the NHS estate. Published in March 2017, Sir Stephen Naylor’s review NHS Property and Estates: Why the estate matters for patients estimates that such a move could result

in savings of between £500m and £1bn a year (bit.ly/NaylorRev). More significantly is the release of assets deemed surplus to requirement, also recommended in the Naylor report. Estimates suggest this would raise £2.7bn in one-off capital receipts alone, which could rise to £5.7bn if a more radical approach to estate rationalisation were adopted.

NHS sites have grown organically over time in response to changing care demands.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, rationalisation of the estate has not been a primary concern; however, such an approach could enable efficiency savings that may then be reinvested in both asset development and service provision.

Mental health service providers looking to implement a programme of rationalisation must adopt an effective long-term strategic plan to maximise value.

For example, one such service provider recently commissioned consultancy Baily Garner to appraise the fit-out of a new shell and core space, which it had acquired under the terms of an asset sale; the client brief proposed consolidation of several internal departments from other areas of the site.

Unfortunately, the proposed space was rendered unsuitable by the restrictive layout of the building’s structural frame.

Such a fundamental issue could have been mitigated if the space’s use as part of

the strategic plan for the estate had been considered at an earlier stage, allowing the service provider’s active engagement in the design process.

When considering the full-time, specialist nature of healthcare provision, it is imperative that the estate be maintained in both an operational and compliant condition. The Naylor report, for example, identifies the high operational cost of existing assets as one reason prompt action is needed by the NHS. However, much of the current estate is of an age, condition and form that significantly hinders the ability of service providers to keep pace with their obligations. To put this into perspective, the NHS’s current maintenance backlog is estimated at between £5bn and £10bn.

The challenge of estate maintenance is heightened by considerably increased levels of physical wear on the care environment.

Furthermore, the NHS regulatory standards, with which the estate must comply, are regularly updated due to the ever-changing nature of mental healthcare. This becomes a significant issue for mental health service providers, who must implement the necessary improvements while maintaining the same levels of service provision and controlling disruption.

A recent commission to rectify various compliance issues in a live mental healthcare ward, giving it a light-touch refurbishment, demonstrates the problem.

At a late stage in the pre-contract process, the client elected to undertake a full decant of service users from the ward as the invasive scope of the work meant they might be put at risk. This created substantial logistical challenges and ultimately delayed the project.

The NHS and its estate are expected to undergo significant change in the short term to provide better care environments.

Effective strategic planning is critical, and building surveyors are ideally placed to advise on this process.

Jack Thompson-Smith is a building surveyor at Baily Garner jack.thompson-smith@bailygarner.co.uk Related competencies include: Development/project briefs rics.org/journals 53

Building surveying

Careers

The aspirant apprentice In the first of a new series, a trainee surveyor explains how she came to take the apprenticeship pathway into the profession after deciding a traditional route through A levels and university was not for her Jordanne Wilson

After completing my GCSEs four years ago, I started studying for A levels in business studies, maths and English literature at a business and engineering sixth form I had wanted to attend since I was 13.

However, after just a few months I found myself completely lacking motivation to continue my studies and, worse, I was failing all subjects as well as disliking school quite a bit. This was an entirely alien concept to me, as a student who had always enjoyed school and never failed a subject.

It was the culmination and celebration of all my hard work, but I hated it – I felt as though I’d been set adrift and I wasn’t sure what to do next.

Giving it some reflection, I decided the reason I couldn’t engage was that I had no clear goal, no career or university course to steer towards. I’d also discovered I didn’t even like the idea of a business vocation that much any longer.

After some research, I decided that building surveying sounded like a career that would suit me. Varied, challenging, interesting and with the chance of influencing the environment around me, it was something I could see myself doing and perhaps even enjoying.

Around the same time, I also realised that no matter how much my tutors ushered me towards redbrick institutions and traditional degree subjects, university just did not appeal to me at all. But the engineering students at my school suffered no such ushering. They were all presented with exciting opportunities called higher 54 Journal September/October 2019

Every project I work on to completion gives me great satisfaction and allows me to learn useful lessons apprenticeships that allowed them to get qualifications – even degrees – as well as hands-on experience.

Better yet, these apprentices would also receive a salary and avoid incurring student loans. I wondered whether there was a similar pathway for aspiring surveyors, and naturally did what any millennial would do – I googled it. Among the first results was a Savills webpage offering just what I was looking for and I enquired further. After receiving a job description for a position in Birmingham aimed at 18–25-year-olds with level 2 qualifications such as GCSEs, I applied immediately – despite that fact I was 17 at the time – deciding that the worst thing they could say was ‘No’.

Fast-forward to now, and I have been an apprentice building surveyor at Savills for three years. I can say at this moment I am still thoroughly enjoying it, and safely predict I will feel the same for the foreseeable future.

Although it may sound trite, the profession really is everything I hoped it would be. No two days are the same, and every project I work on to completion

gives me great satisfaction and allows me to learn useful lessons.

In my first two years I completed a level 3 diploma with the University College of Estate Management (UCEM), during which I achieved my AssocRICS status. I have now finished the first year of my building surveying degree at Birmingham City University, having taken three modules – Introduction to the Built Environment, Law, and Integrated Digital Design – and I begin my second year soon. The full course will last five years and culminate with my APC. I’m also a subcommittee head for the RICS Matrics Birmingham group, and spend a lot of my time promoting apprenticeships and the surveying profession in schools.

My UCEM diploma was completed via distance learning, whereas my degree course involves more traditional face-to-face teaching. So though I have some experience managing both, I know there will be a new set of challenges ahead to face.

Jordanne Wilson is an apprentice building surveyor at Savills jordanne.wilson@savills.com

Building control

Comment

Legal

‘Both cases serve to reiterate the difficulties for claimants in succeeding against approved inspectors in tort’ Paul Bury Keating Chambers

Two recent High Court cases consider the role and potential liabilities of approved inspectors in claims brought by the owners of a defective building: Zagora Management Ltd v Zurich Building Control Services Ltd [2019] EWHC 140 (TCC) and Heron’s Court v NHBC Building Control Services Ltd [2018] EWHC 3309 (TCC). To the disappointment of property owners, and perhaps the relief of insurers, these cases demonstrate the difficulties claimants face in succeeding against inspectors.

The approved inspector regime was introduced by the Building Act 1984. Before this, it was only local authorities that could provide inspectors for the purposes of enforcement and certification of compliance with the Building Regulations; but the 1984 Act essentially permitted the privatisation of this service.

At the time the act was passed, Anns v Merton LBC [1978] A.C. 728 was good law.

Any inspector potentially owed a duty of care in respect of the economic loss caused by any defect in a building that they had not spotted in a negligent inspection and certification. However, in Murphy v

Brentwood DC [1991] 1 A.C. 398, the House of Lords overturned Anns, and decided that local authority building control inspectors did not owe any such duty.

Since then, there had been almost no reported cases involving civil claims against approved inspectors, the only exception being Tesco v Wards Construction [1995] 76 BLR 94, where the claim failed.

But the proliferation of issues relating to non-compliance with the Building Regulations, in particular fire-stopping problems, has led some parties to reconsider whether there may be a valid claim against an inspector for wrongly issuing a Building Regulation certificate.

However, the claims against the approved inspector in Zagora made by freeholders and leaseholders of two blocks of flats were dismissed. This was despite the court finding that the inspector had made misrepresentations in the Building Regulations final certificates that he knew to be false – particularly regarding fire safety. The court found on causation that the claimants had not relied on the certificate in making their purchases.

Furthermore, the property owner in Heron’s Court claimed under the Defective Premises Act 1972 section 1(1), which places obligations on those who take on work ‘for or in connection with the provision of a dwelling’. The court held that this provision did not apply to an approved inspector since, what they are ‘contributing to is the aim of ensuring that the building is lawful’.

Both cases serve to reiterate the difficulties for claimants in succeeding against approved inspectors in tort. Some have asked why private inspectors should be treated differently to other professionals involved in construction projects, given they must be insurance-backed and they issue certificates on which purchasers will, at least in some cases, rely. The courts’ current position seems to lie in the nature and historical development of the role.

First, the role of an approved inspector or local authority pursuant to the 1984 Act and Building Regulations is seen as relating to regulatory certification, primarily aimed at health, safety and welfare of persons, rather than involvement in the ‘provision’ or construction of a building.

Second, as Mr Justice Waksman pointed out in Heron’s Court, it may make little sense to allow a claim against a private approved inspector carrying out Building Regulation inspections when a claim against a local authority performing precisely the same function would be barred.

Both cases appear to shut the door on negligence claims for economic loss and claims under the 1972 Act against an approved inspector. Unless and until section 38 of the 1984 Act is brought into force, which would give parties a direct cause of action for breach of the Building Regulations, or approved inspectors are willing to give collateral warranties to purchasers, it appears that any parties wishing to take action against an approved inspector will only be left with the difficult route of making a claim in deceit or fraudulent misrepresentation.

Paul Bury is a barrister at Keating Chambers pbury@keatingchambers.com Related competencies include: Legal/regulatory compliance rics.org/journals 55

Building surveying

Comment

Legal

‘Structured negotiations with a clear end date often allow the parties to put their cards on the table and air their grievances’ Charles Blamire-Brown and David Greenwood Pinsent Masons

Q: My subcontractor is threatening to adjudicate for a relatively small sum.

How do I resolve matters without incurring disproportionate and potentially irrecoverable costs?

A: The promise of repeat business and good relationship management usually help parties to resolve disputes over small sums on an amicable basis. However, there are always exceptions to the rule, such as where a subcontractor is facing insolvency, realises there will be no repeat business, or where there is perceived unfairness or a personality clash.

Warning signs that a dispute may be on the horizon include a sudden change in the tone of your subcontractor’s letters or emails, an increase in contractual notices, reference in correspondence to a dispute, requests for early payment or a refusal to meet, and a general breakdown in dialogue.

In these circumstances, you have a number of options if you want to avoid the cost and disruption of defending a claim as part of a formal dispute resolution process such as adjudication.

56 Journal September/October 2019

Communications sent as part of a genuine attempt to resolve a dispute are inadmissible as evidence in court; in other words they are private, and any concessions offered in communications made without prejudice cannot be used against you later.

On this basis, such ‘without prejudice’ meetings and communications are a good, candid way to get to the nub of the issue early on, and pinpoint the subcontractor’s true motives and expectations.

Structured or timetabled negotiations with a clear end date often allow the parties to put their cards on the table and air their grievances. You might ask key members of the team on both sides to focus on a particular issue with a view either to reaching agreement or reporting back what cannot be agreed and why.

This often narrows the disputed issues.

Alternatively, you might propose that a representative from each side – ideally someone with the entrenched position – presents their case to an executive panel, who can then discuss the claim on a more objective basis. Hearing one side’s arguments presented after the other’s will

often enable the senior representatives of the parties to reach a sensible resolution.

It is commonly assumed that the party doing the work will have the most accurate contemporaneous records, but this is not necessarily the case. Providing samples of your records to show that you can substantiate your position might make the subcontractor realise its position is less clear-cut than it thought.

The sorts of records you might provide include progress reports, sequences of works or amended programmes, dated photographs, meeting minutes, invoices and so on. A strongly worded, well-reasoned letter, potentially from external lawyers, can often have the same effect as such records, calling the subcontractor’s bluff.

If correspondence and negotiation do not resolve matters, then bringing in a third party might help to unlock the resolution.

Expert determination, for instance, involves an independent specialist in a relevant discipline producing a binding determination on the dispute. If the dispute revolves around a point of contractual interpretation rather than a technical issue, an independent legal review by a mutually agreed lawyer might be similarly helpful.

Another alternative is mediation, a voluntary, non-binding and private process where a neutral person helps the parties reach their own negotiated settlement.

Mediations are usually conducted in a single day, and the mediator’s focus is on getting the parties to resolve their impasse rather than on the rights and wrongs of the arguments. No two disputes are the same, and as such there is no standard solution.

However, it is advisable to try to break each dispute down and resolve as much as you can as early as you can, before it snowballs into something that is expensive and becomes difficult to manage.

Charles Blamire-Brown is a partner and David Greenwood a senior associate at Pinsent Masons charles.blamire-brown@pinsentmasons.com david.greenwood@pinsentmasons.com Related competencies include: Contract administration, Legal/regulatory compliance

Building control

Opinion

Training

‘The performance gap does not seem to have gone away, and developers, designers and regulators must all play a part in closing it’ Anna Thompson LABC

Building control has always played a key role in keeping the industry up to speed with legislative and technical changes.

LABC is continuing to demonstrate its commitment to improving compliance and competency with its series of technical update roadshows for designers, architects, contractors, developers, and local authority building control surveyors. The LABC roadshow has visited dozens of venues across England and Wales, ensuring these updates have as wide a reach as possible.

Working with manufacturers, trade bodies, distributors and industry experts LABC delivers popular morning seminars, that are free of charge. There’s no shortage of information, and this is served up in six bite-sized chunks between 8.30 and midday, with sessions on solutions to common issues, best practice, and defect avoidance.

The drainage and water management session from Polypipe Building Services addresses issues such as how landlords and building owners can replace stacks in high-rise residential buildings without moving occupiers out or compromising compartmentation and fire protection.

Acoustic failure is an all too common issue for housebuilders and contractors undertaking conversions, and LABC Acoustics therefore offers UKAS-accredited sound insulation testing as required by Approved Document E. It also provides design and consultancy, noise and vibration survey services, and assistance at planning permission stage. Its session focuses on practical advice for builders to avoid defects and non-compliance.

There are also regular presentations from Actis Insulation, addressing the performance gap using reflective products.

The performance gap – the discrepancy between the designed and as-built energy performance of buildings – sadly does not appear to have gone away.

The Zero Carbon Hub’s evidence review report of 2014 states that: ‘There is now clear evidence of a gap between the designed and as-built energy performance of new homes’ (bit.ly/ZCHperfgap). The reasons have also been attested by the Hackitt review and Passivhaus Trust studies among others, so the Actis session concentrates on the role that developers,

designers and regulators must all play in closing the gap.

Thermal performance in roof window installation and the provision of natural light in a thermally efficient way ties into this theme, and is the topic for a session

by Keylite. Meanwhile, off-site innovations and the prevention of thermal bridging in lintels and masonry support is covered by Keystone, the chairman and founder of which Sean Coyle was a building control surveyor who spotted a gap in the market.

Abbey Pynford’s substructure experts in turn present a session focusing on brownfield and second-use sites, and how it is possible to make more cost-effective and sustainable choices for ground floors and foundations. Guest sessions have included presentations on Legionella prevention and building owners’ responsibilities from Swiftclean, and the firm has also presented to certain audiences on preventing the duct fires that are often caused by a lack of cleaning and maintenance.

Given the different legislative context, the recent event in Swansea also included an interesting session on the requirement for domestic sprinklers in all new dwellings in Wales, with practical guidance on the need for tanks and pumps where an adequate water supply cannot be guaranteed. This was presented by RSP Sprinklers Wales, an active member of the British Automatic Fire Sprinkler Association, and was particularly well received by the Welsh delegates.

Other highlights included LABC Warranty’s focus on preventing defects and claims, and on how to get things right first time, reducing costs, health issues, and of course the headlines that are troubling consumers, housebuilders, regulators and government today. LABC rounded off the morning of learning and networking with a topical update on regulations, standards, competency and compliance.

Anna Thompson FRICS is LABC head of business development anna.thompson@labc.co.uk Related competencies include: Construction technology and environmental services rics.org/journals 57

Advance your career with RICS Gain CPD with this networking event • RICS & SPAB Building Conservation Summer School 2019

Take your career to the next level with in-depth online or face-to-face training programmes including: • • • •

Certificate in Building Surveying Practice – enrol anytime Managing Fire Safety - Level 3 - Online eLearning Contract Administration – various locations Residential Building Pathology: Inspection and Diagnosis

Stay on top of your day job Access all RICS information, sector insight and professional support surrounding standards in one easy-to-find place through isurv.

Book online rics.org/benvoffering or call: +44 (0)24 7686 8584

®

Wednesday 16 October 2019 RICS HQ, Parliament Square, London Whether you’re looking for your first career break, or have years of experience to draw on, RICS Recruit Live will return this autumn to help you future proof your career and take it to the next level.

At the event you can: • Speak directly with employers about the latest and upcoming vacancies • Network with leading employers and fellow surveyors • Speak to the RICS training and RICS membership teams • Listen to the latest insights from key speakers in the surveying profession • Gain personalised CV advice • Gain informal CPD points

Visit rics.org/recruitlive to book your free space today

Building surveying

Comment

Legal

‘The Hackitt review says that some incidents prompt changes in standards, but disasters still recur and issues persist’ Vivien King and Jeffrey Tribich Malcolm Hollis

In all, 72 people died in the fire at Grenfell Tower. This horrific event led to the ongoing public inquiry sought by many at the time. But what action will follow Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s report?

Previous property disasters that have led to public inquiries and subsequent recommendations include: ••the collapse of Ronan Point tower block in east London in 1968 ••the fire at Summerland leisure centre on the Isle of Man in 1973 ••the Bradford City FC stadium fire in 1985 ••the King’s Cross St Pancras underground station fire in 1987 ••Hillsborough football ground crush in Sheffield in 1989.

In her interim report on fire safety and the Building Regulations after Grenfell Tower, Dame Judith Hackitt said that such incidents prompt changes in standards; nevertheless, disasters recur and some issues stubbornly persist. Reasons for this could include, first, a deficient inquiry. This was certainly a criticism of the Ronan Point report, an analysis later vindicated by the forensic demolition of the building itself.

Second, legislation may be changed but not followed. For instance, the Summerland inquiry found locked escapes led to greater loss of life, yet one still hears of locked fire escapes in public buildings, in breach of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

Third, inquiry recommendations may be implemented inadequately or not at all.

Half a century after the progressive collapse of Ronan Point, buildings constructed using the same prefabricated concrete panel system still stand, with news reports stating that strengthening works may not have been carried out.

Even where recommendations are put into practice, this can happen slowly: the fire at King’s Cross St Pancras in 1987, in which 31 people died, started on a wooden escalator; but it was not until 2013 that the last wooden escalator was removed from the London Underground system.

There have been 68 public inquiries since 1990, costing a total of more than £500m according to the Institute for Government (IfG). This is a huge sum.

How public inquiries can lead to change, an IfG report published in December 2017

(bit.ly/IfGinqrep), looks at the three main questions posed by an inquiry.

••What happened?

••Who is responsible?

••What can we learn from this?

The report says much attention is given to the first two questions, ‘but it is the third question – of preventing recurrence and identifying lessons that can … improve institutions, regulations and behaviours – which is arguably of the most significant public interest’.

Yet, with some notable exceptions, ‘there is no routine procedure for holding the government to account for promises made in the aftermath of inquiries, the implementation of recommendations is patchy, in some cases repeat incidents have occurred, and there is no system for allowing inquiries to build on the learning of their predecessors.’ Action is therefore now required.

Meanwhile, what of Grenfell Tower?

The Hackitt review made comprehensive suggestions to change the existing regulatory system, and the Moore-Bick inquiry has wide-ranging terms of reference, including reviewing the regulatory system (bit.ly/GTInqterms). Maybe this combination of independent review and public inquiry – together with the many industry initiatives – will ensure we do have substantive and positive change this time around.

Gary Strong, RICS global building standards director, says: ‘We have been working closely with Dame Judith, the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government and the Home Office, and with the publication of Building a Safer Future: Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety: Final Report, we are confident that changes will come into force (bit.ly/HackittRev). We remain committed to persuading politicians of the need for change in the public interest.’

Vivien King is a consultant and Jeffrey Tribich is lead health and safety consultant at Malcolm Hollis vivien.king@malcolmhollis.com jeffrey.tribich@malcolmhollis.com Related competencies include: Fire safety, Health and safety rics.org/journals 59

Building surveying

APC

Pathological conditions How can you be sure of achieving the core competency of Building pathology?

Ewan Craig

Building pathology is a significant core competency for the Building Surveying pathway of the APC, and draws on competencies such as Construction technology and environmental services, Design and specification, Inspection, and Legal/regulatory compliance.

The levels ••At Level 1, you should demonstrate your knowledge and understanding of building defects.

••At Level 2, you should apply your knowledge to undertake surveys, and use survey and other information to diagnose the cause and mechanisms of failure.

••At Level 3, you should be able to give reasoned advice and recommendations, including preparing and presenting reports.

You should be familiar with the building pathology issues in your submission documents, and be ready to address questions on them or on related issues.

Questions Actual questions for final assessment will be based on the candidate’s experience. Two examples are given below, at Levels 2 and 3 respectively; the answers in each case should explain the pertinent issues.

Q: Please explain the how you assessed the movement to the wall of building K. A: The owner was concerned about cracks to one elevation of a single-storey 1960s commercial building that they had acquired.

I carried out a desktop study using the client’s drawings and information. I followed this with a visual inspection, noting the construction, location and cracks to the building. The affected elevation has an external cavity wall leaf made of calcium silicate brick. The external wall had vertical cracks at regular intervals running from the damp-proof course (DPC) through the window openings; the wall also oversailed the DPC at each end. Only the southern elevation, facing the sun, was affected.

I followed BRE guidance including DG251 and DG227–229 and monitored the cracks with gauges, pins and digital callipers to 60 Journal September/October 2019

assess the cause. My calculations and findings confirmed it was due to thermal movement, so thermal movement joints were required.

Q: You gave advice on damp affecting an office, X, converted from an 1890s house. Could you explain your reasoning?

A: The client had noticed recent low-level staining to the porch’s internal finishes. I inspected the construction and investigated the staining, which was characteristic of damp to the external solid wall. Damp-meter readings of the skirting were in excess of 22 per cent moisture content but nine per cent elsewhere, indicating damp-affected timber with an increased risk of fungal growth.

A wall profile gave higher relative readings at a low level.

Moisture meters can provide potentially misleading results in masonry; following guidance including BRE’s Understanding dampness and its DG245 as well as isurv, I used a calcium carbide meter that confirmed the higher moisture content in the lower wall area. Thermo-hygrometer readings indicated no condensation risk.

Externally, a new flowerbed breached the slate DPC, and the client said the stain became worse after rain. Protimeter salts analysis tests indicated nitrates and chlorides were present, which supported a groundwater or soil issue rather than condensation.

No other damp sources were present. I advised that the likely cause was the high soil level, which should be reduced to at least 150mm below the DPC. I followed guidance including BS 6576 to recommend that, after it is confirmed that there is no further damp and the wall is sufficiently dry, then the finishes should be repaired.

Care Given the time constraints of the APC, your answer should be a brief but comprehensive response; the answers given above are not exhaustive. Care should be taken to demonstrate your own skills, abilities and knowledge to the assessors.

Ewan Craig is an APC assessor, APC coach and consultant Related competencies include: Building pathology, Inspection Further information: rics.org/pathways

Roof dilapidation & refurbishment systems

How we support speciďŹ ers Survey and condition report

Approved contractor quotes

Review and consultation

Site audit and inspection

Bespoke speciďŹ cations

Authorised guarantee

Gutter and roof systems

Guaranteed system performance

Extend building lifecycle Nothing else comparable 30+ years tried and tested Proven technologies Product and single point guarantees

Call: 01298 812371 Email: info@hdsharman.co.uk hdsharman.co.uk

Building conservation

Materials information sheet

BUILDING MATERIALS INFORMATION SHEET 10: Earth buildings II

Summary The term ‘earth building’ covers a wide range of techniques that tend to use unfired subsoils. Buildings made from such materials are surprisingly widespread, found in almost all inhabited regions of the world and forming a significant part of architectural heritage (see Building Surveying Journal May/June 2018, p.31). Following periods of ill-advised maintenance, understanding of earth building materials and techniques has improved in recent years, and this has also led to a growth in new earth architecture.

Materials and properties The main applications of earthen construction such as adobe, cob and rammed earth, use inorganic subsoils as the main raw material.

Some techniques such as sod use organic topsoils.

Subsoils vary greatly with the geology of the surrounding area and the processes that have led to their formation. The composition of a subsoil can therefore be considered in terms of its particle grading, breaking it down into the size of its constituents: ••gravel-sized aggregates: 2–63mm ••sand particles: 63 m – 2mm ••silt particles: 2–63 m ••clays: less than 2 m.

The relative mix of constituents and their mineralogy will greatly influence the suitability and properties of the soil in earth building.

To improve their characteristics for earth building, materials are often added to subsoils by builders during construction. Straw is a common additive, used in adobe, cob construction and types of plaster to reduce shrinkage and weight. Lime has also been used traditionally as a chemical additive to bind materials together, increasing strength and resistance. Other traditional additives include cow dung, animal blood and urine, linseed oil and casein.

Earth building materials are used in load-bearing wall construction due to their compressive strength, deriving compressive resistance from the blend of constituent materials and suction forces of water present between soil particles. The compressive strength of earthen materials therefore varies with moisture content.

Natural – that is, unstabilised – earth materials will lose all strength when saturated, and have the greatest resistance when dry.

Density is also an important factor for compressive strength; the tighter the particles are packed together, the higher the material’s strength and durability. Compared to other building materials, the dry compressive strengths of natural earth materials are modest, ranging from less than 1N/mm2 to a little more than 10N/mm2. The density of natural earth materials is typically 1,500–2,000kg/m3.

Applications The primary use of earth material has been for wall construction.

The main traditional techniques found in the UK are: 62 Journal September/October 2019

Traditional moulded earth construction in Mali

• adobe or mud bricks: wet-moulded mud bricks, sun-dried pre-formed masonry units that are laid using an earthen mortar • cob: an in-situ form of solid-mass mud walling made by stacking and moulding layers of wet, earth and straw mixed together • rammed earth: dry earth formed in situ by compaction in layers using ramming tools in a temporary formwork to create solid walls • wattle and daub: wet clay plaster moulded on to a skeletal framework of wood wattles to form panels, typically in traditional timber-frame structures.

In areas of southern England, rammed-chalk buildings can be found dating from the early 19th century onwards, formed in the same manner as rammed earth. Compacted earth floors are found in traditional buildings such as barns, while clay-based mortars can be found in some traditional masonry construction. As well as traditional forms for earth buildings, relatively modern variations include compressed earth blocks and prefabricated lining panels, the later increasingly used in conservation works.

This materials information sheet was compiled by Pete Walker, professor of innovative construction materials at the University of Bath p.walker@bath.ac.uk Additional data sources Jaquin, P. and Augarde, C. (2012). Earth building: History, science and conservation. Watford: IHS BRE Press.

Keefe, L. (2005). Earth buildings: Methods and materials, repair and conservation. London: Routledge.

Minke, G. (2012). Building with earth: Design and technology of a sustainable architecture. Basel: Birkhäuser.

WE HAVE NEVER OFFERED FELT...

WE HAVE NOW. INTRODUCING SIKABIT® RETHINKING FELT Previously, Sika didn’t do felt. But then we thought, if we did, it should be backed by the industry leading expertise you’d expect from Sika.

So, we developed SikaBit® - the fully compliant, Safe2Torch reinforced bituminous membrane. Now what do you think about that?

THINK YOU’D LIKE TO KNOW MORE? Visit sikabit.co.uk, email sikabit.roofing@uk.sika.com or call 0800 112 3837