Building Standards Scholarship 2015/16 Building Control Influence

Building Standards Scholarship 2015/16

Building Control influence on the energy performance gap of buildings

Bernadette Bowden Southend-on-Sea Borough Council

January 2016

Abstract

The performance gap (buildings which consume more energy in operation than was predicted in design) has been found in new buildings and across all sectors, in the UK and worldwide; studies have shown that operational energy use can be up to five times higher than estimates during design (Carbon Trust, 2011).

Specific factors relating to the design and construction (including commissioning) of new buildings can be influenced by building control professionals through their involvement in plan checking and site inspections, as they carry out their function.

Poor construction leading to the avoidable waste of energy was attributed by building control as predominantly a result of poor quality control on site, lack of an appropriately skilled workforce, and incorrect thermal detailing on site.

Increased awareness of the performance gap, particularly for less experienced building control professionals, will assist them to address poor construction or issues surrounding late or incomplete commissioning.

The risk-based approach to site inspections, building control staffing levels, and the competitive environment in which building control bodies operate, are barriers to building controls ability to carry out Part L compliance checking, and results in reduced opportunity to influence the factors identified as contributing to the performance gap.

Lack of information reduces the ability of the building control body to check for

Part L compliance. The Building Notice application type has been identified as

2 resulting in less information and its suitability for use with new build has been questioned. Further research into this area is recommended.

Contents

Abstract ...... 2 Contents ...... 4 List of Tables and Figures ...... 6 Glossary of Abbreviations and Definitions ...... 8 Acknowledgements ...... 9 1. Introduction ...... 10 2. Theory and literature review ...... 12 2.1 What is the performance gap ...... 12 2.2 The factors contributing to the performance gap ...... 15 2.3 The function and limitations of building control ...... 21 2.4 The existing process for regulating the energy performance of new buildings in England ...... 24 2.5 Building Control influence over the factors identified as contributing to the performance gap27 2.6 Barriers and drivers for building control’s influence on the improved energy performance of new buildings ...... 30 3. Methodology ...... 32 4. Ethics ...... 35 5. Results and findings ...... 36 5.1 The energy performance gap ...... 38 5.2 The factors contributing to the performance gap ...... 41 5.3 The function and limitations of building control ...... 46 5.4 The existing process for regulating the energy performance of new buildings ...... 50 5.5 Building control influence on the factors identified as contributing to the performance gap... 53 5.6 Barriers and drivers for building control influence on the improved energy performance of buildings ...... 55 6. Discussion ...... 60 6.1 The energy performance gap ...... 60 6.2 The factors contributing to the performance gap ...... 63 6.3 The function and limitations of building control ...... 67 6.4 The existing process for regulating the energy performance of new buildings ...... 69 6.5 Building control influence on the factors identified as contributing to the performance gap... 71 6.6 Barriers and drivers for building control’s influence on the improved energy performance of buildings ...... 73 7. Conclusion and recommendations ...... 75

7.1 Recommendations ...... 78 8. References and bibliography ...... 80 9. Appendices ...... 84

List of Tables and Figures

Figures Page

1 The Performance Gap (Menezes, 2012) 12

2 The Performance Gap growth from Design to Operation (Green 15 Construction Board, 2013, p.4).

3 Factors which affect performance gap (Green Construction Board, 17 2013, p.6)

4 Total Energy Consumption in Operation (CarbonBuzz, 2013) 19

5 Part L of Schedule 1: Conservation of fuel and power (CLG, 2013) 25

6 Employment by Sector 36

7 Awareness of Performance Gap by Length of Experience (in years) 39

8 Awareness of the performance gap compared with level of agreement 40 to Q6 – Compliance with Part L is not as important as compliance with other areas of the regulations

9 Likelihood of changes during construction being reflected during as- 42 built energy rating

10 Factors contributing to poor construction 43

11 Likelihood of provision of commissioning certificate to Building 45 Control

12 Opinion of whether Part L is properly enforced, by Sector 47

13 Responsible for checking Part L compliance on site 49

14 Responsible for ensuring overall Part L compliance 49

15 Adequacy of existing Part L Regulations 51

16 Likelihood of site inspection checks of insulation being carried out 52

17 Importance placed on Part L in relation to other areas of the 56 regulations, by sector

18 Opinion of whether risk-based approach to site inspection has 57 resulted in less site inspection

19 Barriers to ability to check for Part L compliance 59

Tables Page

1 Building Control influence over the factors identified as contributing to 28 the performance gap

2 Building Control influence over the factors identified as contributing to 54 the performance gap including survey results

Glossary of Abbreviations and Definitions

ACAI Association of Consultant Approved Inspectors

AI Approved Inspector

ARU Anglia Ruskin University

BC Building Control

BCO Building Control Officer/Surveyor

BMS Building Management System

CABE Chartered Association of Building Engineers

CCC The Committee on Climate Change

CIBSE The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers

CIOB The Chartered Institute of Building

CLG Department for Communities and Local Government

CPD Continuous professional development

LABC Local Authority Building Control

PG Performance Gap

SAP Standard Assessment Procedure

SBEM Simplified Building Energy Model

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the following people for making this research possible:

- The Building Control and Standards Scholarship Panel (Gina Al-Talal, Kevin

Dawson, Ben Langford, Tony Perks & Anna Thompson) for their guidance,

reassurance and for giving me the opportunity to carry out this research,

- LABC and the ACAI for distributing the survey to their members,

- The building control professionals who participated in the survey, and the

construction professionals who agreed to be interviewed,

- The Building Control Team at Southend-on-Sea Borough Council,

- The Essex Building Surveyors Association,

- Carlos for keeping me on track during my MSc Sustainable Construction,

- My family for their support and encouragement.

1. Introduction

The UK government has committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to tackle the global issue of climate change. The government aims to move towards a more energy efficient and low-carbon economy to enable the UK to be become less reliant on fossil fuels and therefore less vulnerable to higher energy prices. The

Climate Change Act 2008 sets the first legally binding target for the net UK carbon dioxide emissions for the year 2050 to be at least 80% lower than the 1990 baseline

(Climate Change Act 2008).

Buildings account for 17% of the UK’s direct greenhouse gas emissions

(primarily due to fossil fuel use in space heating) and indirectly through electricity demand from lighting and appliances (CCC, 2015), consequently the construction industry has a significant role to play in reducing the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions. Clearly the carbon emissions from buildings need to be reduced to assist the UK in meeting this target. However, many new buildings do not live up to the standards of energy efficiency or user satisfaction for which they were designed.

This is known as the ‘performance gap’. Strong (2010) defines the PG as buildings that consume far more energy in operation than was promised in design. This causes many problems, for example Government climate change targets to reduce carbon emissions, as identified above, will not be met if new buildings built to current regulations use more energy than was anticipated. It appears that the PG is widespread and has been observed that too many new public and commercial buildings fail to live up to their expectations for energy savings and user comfort

(CIBSE, 2012).

This research aims to establish ways in which building control can influence the closing of the performance gap. Building control professionals are ideally placed to have an influence on the closing of the PG because of their existing involvement through plan checking, inspections, and giving advice at design stage and on-site.

The study aims to identify how Building Control can influence the construction of new buildings to reduce the PG. This will be determined by achieving the following objectives:

- Define the energy performance gap

- Identify the factors contributing to the performance gap

- Identify the function and limitations of building control

- Identify the existing process for regulating the energy performance of new

buildings

- Determine whether building control can influence the factors identified as

contributing to the performance gap

- Identify the barriers and drivers for building control’s influence on improved

energy performance of buildings

In order to achieve these objectives, a literature review has been carried out followed by a survey and interviews to obtain the opinions of building control and construction professionals. The findings are discussed leading to conclusions and recommendations at the end of the study.

2. Theory and literature review

The PG is a relatively recent phenomenon consequently secondary data for

the literature review is largely only found in journals, professional magazines and

trade literature, as opposed to books. The questions identified in Chapter 1 will

be considered in turn.

2.1 What is the performance gap

New buildings in England are required to meet the minimum energy efficiency standards set by the Building Regulations (see section 2.4); however there is a gap between the design intent and the actual energy performance of many new buildings, i.e. the ‘performance gap’. The PG is demonstrated in the graph below

(Fig. 1):

Fig 1. The Performance Gap (Menezes, 2012)

The above graph represents the median CO2 emissions for both design and actual records for the education, offices and retail sectors on a scale of 0-250

12 kg/CO2/m²/yr. The graph clearly illustrates the extent of the performance gap identified in the study buildings for all three sectors. The Carbon Trust (2011, p.2) had similar findings and state, ‘for our case study projects, the operational energy use was up to five times higher than estimates during design’.

Strong (2010) observed that experience has shown that the carbon savings promised in design can fail to materialise in the finished building. Too many newly constructed public and commercial buildings do not live up to their energy efficient expectations (CIBSE, 2012). It is clear that government carbon reduction targets will not be achieved if buildings designed to current building regulations use far greater energy in operation than was designed.

Studies to date by CarbonBuzz 2013, Bordass, Cohen and Field (2004),

Carbon Trust 2011, and others highlight the extent of the PG, as demonstrated on the graph above (Fig. 1). The Carbon Trust has carried out research with the aim of providing advice on closing the PG (Carbon Trust, 2011). The findings of this research will be discussed in section 2.2 where the factors identified as contributing to the performance gap will be identified.

In March 2013 Don Foster (former Building Regulations Minister) announced that the government will fund a construction industry wide scheme aimed at closing the performance gap. ‘He said, “The alternative would be further regulation of industry but I do not want to add red tape and financial burdens that would just be passed on to already struggling homebuyers. Instead I want to work with industry to improve standards and performance in practice”’ (Pitt, 2013). Bordass (2013, p.25) states, ‘consistent underpinnings that can bring together statutory, professional and industry measures’ are required to close the performance gap’.

Although government has indicated that it does not want to add further regulation to the industry in its drive to close the PG, the building control process has an important regulatory role in ensuring building regulation compliance and could be ideally placed to assist with the closing of the PG. The function of building control in relation to building regulation compliance is detailed in section 2.3 and the current process for regulating the energy performance of new buildings is identified in section 2.4.

The PG is not limited to buildings within the UK and the difference between predicted and actual energy use has been identified across Europe and beyond. A study by Accame, et al. (2012) analysed buildings designed to be energy efficient in both the USA and China, and found the buildings in operation failed to achieve the predicted energy performance.

CarbonBuzz (2013) observe that there are commercial risks associated with

‘low carbon’ buildings falling short of performance expectations and the PG therefore is an important issue facing the construction industry affecting buildings in the UK and beyond.

2.2 The factors contributing to the performance gap

There is growing evidence of the PG (CarbonBuzz, 2013) and there have been a number of studies carried out to establish the causes and the contributing factors.

The Green Construction Board (2013) found a number of factors that result in the PG such as inaccuracies in energy modelling, variations in construction or value engineering altering design intent, inadequate or incomplete commissioning and building control and management. All introduce huge variations once the building is occupied. Fig. 2 illustrates how these factors contribute.

Fig. 2 The Performance Gap growth from Design to Operation (Green

Construction Board, 2013, p.4).

Regulated energy (regulated by Part L of the Building Regulations) covers areas such as space heating, lighting and hot water. Cooking and appliances are not regulated by Part L and fall within the category of ‘un-regulated energy use’.

The Green Construction Board (2013, p.6) found the cause of the gap between predicted and actual energy use to be down to the following headline issues:

- Predicted energy use based solely on use regulated by Part L of the

building regulations

- Energy modelling that does not simulating the occupied building with all its

vagaries of operation, control and patterns of use

- Construction not carry-through design intent

- Commissioning not carried out adequately and which may often require a

seasonal approach;

- Operation, management and occupant use having a significant impact on

actual energy consumption.

The principal factors which affect the PG as identified by the Green

Construction Board are shown on the diagram below (Fig. 3). They can be separated into three categories: design, construction (including commissioning), and operation. The Zero Carbon Hub (2014) support this view and state that at each stage of construction there are issues identified that could contribute to the PG.

During the construction stage, factors such as the substitution of products, the quality of workmanship, and the incompatibility of components, have been seen to contribute (Zero Carbon Hub, 2014).

Fig. 3 Factors which affect performance gap (Green Construction Board, 2013, p.6)

Research by the Carbon Trust (2011, p.4) found, ‘design intent is not delivered on-site during construction’, as one of the issues identified as to why good intentions did not translate into low carbon buildings. The lessons learned from their research suggests, ‘make sure that the design intent is maintained in the transfer to the contractor and from the contractor to the sub-contractor’ (Carbon Trust, 2011, p.6). It has also been acknowledged that new houses built using the ‘design-and- build’ approach to construction can lead to poor-performing buildings (CIBSE, 2012).

Previous studies have focused on occupant behaviour, commissioning and

‘soft landings’, but there has been less focus on poor construction. From their

PROBE studies into the PG, Bordass, Cohen and Field (2004, p.1) state, ‘While some differences are legitimate (e.g. the building is used more, or has more things in it), surveys nearly always reveal avoidable waste - which can arise from poor briefing, design, construction and commissioning, and not just bad training, bad maintenance, and bad management.’ The ‘avoidable waste’ resulting from poor construction, identified by Bordass, Cohen and Field (2004), is a contributing factor to the PG and therefore research into this area could benefit the construction industry’s drive to close the PG.

‘CarbonBuzz’ is a RIBA CIBSE platform that collects anonymous building energy consumption data to highlight the performance gap between design figures and actual readings (CarbonBuzz, 2013). It aims to help the construction industry deliver buildings that perform to design expectation i.e. to close the performance gap. It is not a certification process but is a voluntary benchmarking platform. The data collected by CarbonBuzz is used to identify the causes of possible discrepancies between designed energy use and actual performance (CarbonBuzz,

2013), and the lessons learned from it can assist the construction industry address the closing of the PG. The figures from CarbonBuzz (2013) show that on average buildings consume between 1.5 and 2.5 times the predicted values, as indicated on the diagram below, Fig 4.

Fig. 4 Total Energy Consumption in Operation (CarbonBuzz, 2013)

The research by the Zero Carbon Hub (2014) into the closing of the gap between design and as-built performance identify a number of areas that have contributed to the PG. Building fabric is often incorrectly constructed, for example problems with junctions, insulation and the positioning of windows and doors. All reduce the actual performance of the thermal envelope. The Zero Carbon Hub (2014) also identified problems with the lack of knowledge and skills of the site teams, leaving them unable to construct energy efficient houses with consistent as-built performance. Another area identified by the Zero Carbon Hub (2014) relates to the as-built SAP calculation.

Often the as-built SAP calculations are produced without including the amendments made to the design specification that have occurred during construction.

Many lessons can be learned by the construction industry from the research into the PG and from studies of successful buildings, constructed without a PG, such as the Elizabeth Fry Building. Bordass (2013, p.25) states, ‘consistent underpinnings that can bring together statutory, professional and industry measures are required to close the performance gap’, suggesting that there is no single best method to address the issue, rather a combined approach using regulation and other methods is required.

As stated above, the factors identified by Carbon Trust (2011), Bordass (2013),

Green Construction Board (2013), Zero Carbon Hub (2014) and others, can be split

19 into three main areas; design, construction (including commissioning), and operation, as shown in Fig 3. The research into the causes have shown that there is not one single factor that, on its own, results in buildings using more energy in operation than was promised in design. Rather, there are a number of contributing factors that, when combined, can lead to a substantial gap of up to five times higher (Carbon

Trust, 2011). As stated by Neil Jefferson (Chief Executive, Zero Carbon Hub),

‘While some may rush to blame house builders and/or building control for the apparent failings, in reality there are likely to be many factors that contribute to the

CO2 performance gap’ (NHBC, 2012, p.iii).

Building control have a role to play in the construction of new buildings

(discussed in section 4.3) and as stated above by the NHBC, ‘blaming’ building control for failings may be unhelpful; however identifying where building control could influence contributing factors would be beneficial to the construction industry and could lead to steps or recommendations towards closing the gap.

2.3 The function and limitations of building control

In the absence of any formal control, the design and construction of buildings would be determined by a client and builder who are heavily influenced by the desire to maximise profit and it has been observed that building development often ignores the social needs of the majority of the population whilst meeting the financial demands of the few (Ley, 2000). These economic pressures, together with political and social pressures have all played their part in affecting the quality of buildings constructed in the UK.

London has led the way in the introduction of building regulations, followed by other major cities. There was a need to control the densely packed housing and following a major disaster (the Great Fire of London in 1666, which wiped out 80% of the City), the London Building Act of 1667 was introduced (Manco, 2009). This Act was the first to provide for surveyors to enforce its regulations and the London

Building Acts showed how a city council could obtain and administer legislation that would control the construction of buildings in the interest of safety and public health

(Ley, 2000), laying the foundations for the current Building Act 1984.

The building regulations are made under powers provided in the Building Act

1984 and apply in England. They are minimum standards for new and altered buildings to ensure that they are safe, accessible and energy efficient. The building regulations are developed by the Government and approved by Parliament, and are required because it is recognised that the market would not make the necessary changes of its own accord (CLG, 2012). The building regulations contain definitions, procedures and details of what is expected in terms of the technical performance of building work (CLG, 2015a). The primary purpose of the Regulations is to establish

21 minimum standards to ensure the health and safety of the building’s occupants; they do not necessarily define quality or levels of workmanship (Marshall and Worthing,

2000).

All building work carried out in the UK should meet current building codes and regulation requirements, and the main function of building control is to advise on the compliance of buildings relating to the current building regulations. It is important to note that the role of building control is to check for compliance. The responsibility to ensure the provisions of the regulations are met rests with those carrying out the work and, if they are not the same person, the owner of the building (CLG, 2015b).

Some other functions of Building Control have been identified by LABC (2014):

- Encourage innovation to produce energy efficient and sustainable

buildings

- Support local, regional and national businesses

- Educate and inform building professionals, contractors and trades people

- Defend vulnerable communities and householders

- Safeguard the investments of individuals and companies

The building control function can be carried out by building control bodies from local authorities or by private approved inspectors where the basic tasks of plan checking and site inspections are the same, however formal enforcement powers lie only with local authority building control teams. Local Authorities have a general duty to enforce the building regulations in their area under the Building Act 1984 and failure to comply with the building regulations could lead to prosecution in the

Magistrates’ Court or the serving of an enforcement notice on the building owner, requiring alteration or removal of work which contravenes the regulations (under

22 section 36 of the Building Act 1984). Building control therefore has a statutory role to ensure the minimum standards of energy efficiency are achieved, thus contributing to the UK’s reduced carbon emission target, together with an advisory role to encourage energy efficient and sustainable buildings.

The building control process can never guarantee buildings with 100% compliance, but its success is demonstrated through helping to achieve reasonable standards of health and safety, energy conservation, accessibility, and sustainability for building users (CLG, 2006). The wording on the certificate issued on completion of the works by the local authority or approved inspector confirms that 100% compliance may not have been achieved, stating that the certificate is evidence (but not conclusive evidence) that the requirements specified in the certificate have been complied with (Building Regulations 2010). There is also a time limit for a local authority to serve an enforcement notice.

2.4 The existing process for regulating the energy performance of

new buildings in England

EU legislation such as the 2010 Energy Performance of Buildings Directive and the 2012 Energy Efficiency Directive, aim to reduce the energy consumption of buildings in Europe. This EU legislation has driven the changes to the energy performance regulations in the UK. Under the Energy Performance of Buildings

Directive, EU countries must set minimum energy performance requirements for new buildings and all new buildings must be nearly zero energy buildings by the end of

2020 (European Commission, 2015). There are different building regulations within the countries in the UK. The Building Act 1984 sets out the building regulations that apply in England whilst the Building (Scotland) Act 2003 applies in Scotland. The

Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act 2004 has introduced new powers and requirements relating to a range of building related issues including sustainability, however not all sections of the Act have effect as yet.

In England and Wales, energy conservation measures in dwellings were introduced into the Building Regulations in 1972 and extended to non-domestic buildings in 1974. This was followed by the Part L functional requirement to make reasonable provision for the conservation of fuel and power under the Building Act

1984 (Davies, 2013).

The guidance in the approved document Part L was initially straightforward with an elemental approach to fabric efficiency until 2002, when the focus shifted from energy efficiency to CO2. A carbon performance calculation methodology was introduced for non-domestic buildings as an option (Davies, 2013). Later changes to

Part L, driven by EU legislation, made whole-building carbon emissions calculation a requirement, introducing SBEM and SAP as the way to demonstrate compliance.

Part L of Schedule 1 of the Building Regulations 2010 sets out the current energy efficiency requirements (Fig. 5):

Fig. 5 Part L of Schedule 1: Conservation of fuel and power (CLG, 2013)

Guidance in the Building Regulation Approved Documents, states that the responsibility for compliance with the applicable requirements of the Building

Regulations rests with the people who are responsible for building work (for example the agent, designer, builder or installer), together with the building owner (CLG,

2015b) and, as stated in Section 2.3, prosecution and enforcement action could be taken for failure to comply with Part L of the Regulations.

It is the responsibility of the builder to notify the building control body of any changes in specification between design and completion however, as observed by

Holland, et al. (2011), such notification is unusual. Changes during the construction should be reflected in the as-built energy calculations and it has been recognised by

Zero Carbon Hub (2014) and others that this is a contributing factor to the PG, as identified in the previous section (see section 2.2).

A small survey carried out by CIBSE among its members suggested that Building

Control Officers rarely carry out the checks that are required by Building Regulations to ensure Part L compliance (Modern Building Services, 2010). It has been argued by Holland, et al. (2011) that clarification is required by Government on the role of the Building Control Officer in Part L compliance checking on-site during construction in order to counter the assumption that this responsibility rests with Energy

Assessors and their certifiers. These areas will be explored further in this study to seek the view of Building Control professionals in relation to Part L compliance checks.

2.5 Building Control influence over the factors identified as

contributing to the performance gap

The function of building control has been described and the factors contributing to the performance gap have been identified in the previous sections.

The potential influence that building control could have over these factors will now be considered.

The Zero Carbon Hub’s evidence review report into closing the gap between design and as-built performance (2014) found that inconsistent evidence is being requested by and provided to building control bodies. This lack of information results in uncertainty around the actual constructed specification and energy performance of the new building, and could be a contributory factor. Areas such as Accredited

Construction Details and building services commissioning were identified as particular areas of concern in their review.

As discussed in section 2.4, Part L of Schedule 1 of the Building Regulation

2010 sets out the current requirements for the conservation of fuel and power. It has been argued, in a report produced by the NHBC (2012), that the UK’s building control process has not paid enough attention to Part L of the Building Regulations and that there is a case for greater enforcement in this area. This report suggested that post-construction tests and checks must be fit for purpose. Building control could have a role to play in this area and this will be explored in more detail in section 6 following the survey of building control professionals.

Table 1 details the factors which contribute to the performance gap, as identified in section 2.2, and gives an indication, based on the function of building control and the current process for regulating the energy performance of new buildings, discussed in section 2.3 & 2.4.

Table 1: Building control influence over the factors identified as affecting the performance gap.

Factors which affect the Building control Influence performance gap (Green Construction Board, 2013) Design: Design modelling naïve Yes Pre-application advice from BC could influence design Unregulated energy (Part L No energy quoted) omitted or poorly modelled Assumed perfect control Yes Thorough plan checking for Building Regulation compliance by BC Construction: Value engineering changes Yes BC influence through plan checking and on-site inspection Contractor designed elements Yes BC influence through plan checking and on-site inspection Quality of construction Yes BC influence through on-site inspection Commissioning: BMS Controls not working as No intended Commissioning rushed or Yes A commissioning notice is required to be incomplete provided to BC by the installer within 5 days of commissioning for all fixed building services Operation: Unmanageable complexity No Changes to BMS and Controls No Poor Energy Management No Building used differently than No originally assumed occupancy densities and hours, processes

The survey of the opinions of building control professionals seeks to test the assumptions made in Table 1, and the results of the survey are discussed in section

Building control professionals could, during plan checking and site inspections influence issues such as, ‘avoidable waste’ resulting from poor construction as identified by Bordass, Cohen and Field (2004), and the design intent not being delivered on-site during construction (Carbon Trust, 2011).

The factors relating to the buildings operation, as shown in table 1 above, are unlikely to be influenced by the building control process. For example, changes to how a building is used or managed cannot be controlled by building control professionals or through the existing building regulations.

2.6 Barriers and drivers for building control’s influence on the

improved energy performance of new buildings

There is a need for the PG to be reduced, as discussed in section 2.1. Factors identified in previous studies have been considered together with building control’s ability to influence these. The barriers and drivers for building controls influence on the improved energy performance of new buildings will now be discussed.

Possible barriers could be the introduction of risk-based site inspections and the drive to maintain a profitable business (or a cost neutral service in the case of local authority building control). As a result of changes to the building regulations coming into effect on 6 April 2013, the requirement to notify the local authority at prescribed stages of the building process changed. Regulation 16 of the Building Regulations

2010 allows for local authorities to specify notice of any other stage of construction where it considers a site inspection necessary. This risk-based approach to site inspections could impact positively on the level of inspection carried out relating to

Part L matters and is considered in section 6. This is linked to the competitive environment in which building control bodies operate. As discussed in section 2.3, the building control function can be carried out by either local authority (LA) or approved inspectors (AI’s). Competition between service providers can encourage greater efficiencies and higher standards of customer service; however these market forces could also potentially drive down the number of inspections carried out on a project.

Another area of concern facing building control is the age profile and the high level of staff aged over 55 within the building control profession. This creates a potentially serious shortfall in replacing older staff approaching retirement age

(Building Control Performance Standards Advisory Group, 2015). A lack of suitably

30 qualified staff will impact on building control’s ability to check for building regulation compliance in all areas, not just compliance with the requirements of Part L of the building regulations.

The NHBC (2012) consider that enforcement relating to Part L of the building regulation has its challenges, with resources devoted to Part L being limited due to the focus on structure, fire, safety etc. It is also recognised that there are challenges relating to the inspection of Part L related matters, with construction details being covered up prior to inspection being carried out by building control. NHBC suggest that it is unwise to regard building control as the instant panacea when it comes to tackling the PG issue (2012). These areas are explored in the next part of this study.

LABC have developed a scheme – LABC Registered Details - for registering products systems or house types, proving compliance with building regulations and standards across England, Wales and Scotland, to increase industry confidence in performance and suitability of each registration (LABC, 2015a). Registered construction details aim to minimise heat loss through weak points in the building envelope and have been developed by LABC in conjunction with industry partners to prevent poor performing buildings (LABC, 2015b).

3. Methodology

An internet based questionnaire was designed for the first stage of the study.

Using the contributing factors identified through the studies conducted by others, as identified in section 2, 18 questions were designed to seek the opinions of building control professionals on their knowledge and possible influence on the performance gap (appendix 1). The results of the first stage were used in the formulation of three semi-structured interviews for the second stage (appendix 5).

A mixed methods approach using both quantitative and qualitative elements has been used to gain insights and results, and to assist in drawing conclusions (Fellows and Liu, 2008). The questions sought to establish the level of experience, the sector of employment (local authority building control or private sector approved inspector), and the nature of work predominantly undertaken (domestic/non-domestic/new build/alterations etc.) by of the respondents so that the results could be analysed by each of these variables.

The questionnaire featured multiple choice questions and ratings on a Likert scale for opinion based questions. Ranking scales from 1-4 were used to gain order of importance to certain areas. A free form text box allowed for any further observations or comments, giving survey participants the freedom to express their views on the subject. For the Likert rating questions the neutral position was omitted from some questions as a means of eliciting an opinion from the participants

(Oppenheim, 1992).

A self-administered questionnaire sent out via email was considered the most suitable method of reaching building control officers, as opposed to sending out a paper based questionnaire – this would have had time and financial implications plus

32 there would have been associated environmental impacts of this method (use of resources such as paper). For these reasons, the web-based questionnaire using

Survey Monkey software was selected for this study. The self-administered method of the survey also helped to reduce the chance of bias and the anonymous nature of the survey was designed to elicit an honest response from participants.

A pilot study (n=9) was carried out to test the questionnaire before the final questionnaire was distributed and this resulted in some minor adjustments to the wording of some questions to provide additional clarification.

Consent was obtained from LABC (the membership organisation that represents all local authority building control teams in England and Wales) and the ACAI (a member organisation for private sector building control) to distribute the survey to their members. This would allow for the study to have a balance of opinion of both private and public sector views.

Local authority building control professionals within England and Wales and approved inspectors, were invited by email to be involved in the study. The questionnaire was for building control professionals only and excluded administrative staff who would not be involved or able to comment on these matters.

It is estimated that the questionnaire was sent out to approximately 3,000 people

(exact number unknown due to the questionnaire being distributed to their members by external organisations and not directly by the author), giving an estimated response rate of 7% (218/3,000).

A designer, an energy assessor and an architect (Associate Director of BRE

Wales) were interviewed to gain a more in depth insight into the area of study

(appendix 6).

The results of the questionnaire and interviews were used to identify the influence building control have over the performance gap. The barriers and drivers for building control using this influence are discussed in sections 5 and 6.

4. Ethics

Research ethics approval was obtained from Anglia Ruskin University (ARU) using the ARU Research Ethics Application (see Research Ethics Application approved 20th January 2015, appendix 2). There are no potential risks foreseen to the building control professionals who participated in this research. Names of individual questionnaire participants and their local authority, or company, have been kept confidential.

Informed consent was gained from the participants prior to their taking part in the study. All participants had the right to exclude themselves or withdraw from the study at any stage (appendix 1). The transcripts of the interviews were sent to interview participants for their prior approval and/or their right to withdraw.

Interviewees had the right to see details and notes with regards to their interview

(under the Data Protection Act 1998) however they were not be permitted to see the notes regarding the interviews of others. The results of the completed study have been made available to any interested participant.

5. Results and findings

The results and findings of the questionnaire are outlined below. Deeper analysis of the results can be found in the discussion in section 6. Questionnaire result data tables can be found in appendix 3 and transcripts of the interviews in appendix 6.

The online questionnaire was completed by 218 respondents; of these 93%

(199/214) were from Local Authority Building Control (LABC) and 7% (15/214)

Private Sector Approved Inspectors (AI’s), as shown in Fig. 6 (4 skipped this question). Previous surveys of building control professionals have resulted in similar response rates, with a much greater number of responses from LABC than AIs. For example a self-fill survey regarding ‘Part P’ issued to LABC and

ACAI members in January 2015 was completed by 198 LABC members and 25

ACAI members (Lychgate, 2015).

Fig. 6 Employment by Sector

Responses were gained from BCOs involved in the full range of construction work (Question 3), both domestic and non-domestic, new build and alterations, and differing lengths of experience, less than 4 to over 21 years, within Building Control.

Three interviews were carried out to seek the view of a designer, an energy assessor and an architect (BRE Wales Associate Director) (appendix 6). The questionnaire and interview results will be considered for each of the study objectives.

5.1 The energy performance gap

The literature review found the performance gap (PG) to be defined as the gap between the design intent and the actual energy performance of many new buildings. The results of the questionnaire showed that the majority of BCOs are aware of the PG, with 74% (158/213) confirming that they were aware of it prior to taking part in the study. The overall awareness of the PG gap was similar for both

Private Sector and Local Authority Building Control. The results showed that less experienced BCOs were more likely to be unaware of the performance gap, as shown in Fig. 7. The interview participants had a good understanding of the performance gap.

Fig. 7 Awareness of performance gap by length of experience (in years)

The awareness of the performance gap decreased when compared against the importance given to Part L within the regulations, as shown in Fig. 8, (Q4 ‘awareness of the performance gap’ compared with Q6 ‘compliance with Part L is not as important as other areas of the regulations’).

Fig. 8 Awareness of the performance gap compared with level of agreement to Q6 – Compliance with Part L is not as important as compliance with other areas of the regulations.

5.2 The factors contributing to the performance gap

There have been a number of studies that have identified the factors contributing to the performance gap, as found in the literature review. The factors can be separated into factors relating to design, construction (including commissioning) and operation. Three key areas were considered in the questionnaire; changes to design intent, poor construction and commissioning.

5.2.1 Changes during construction reflected in as-built SAP calculations

The Zero Carbon Hub (2014) found that the as-built energy calculations are produced without including the amendments made to the design specification occurring. Q8 of the questionnaire sought to explore this and the results were mixed; 52% (110/212) of the respondents stating either never or rarely, while 48%

(102/212) selected often/always, as shown in Fig. 9. The energy assessor confirmed that the information provided for the energy calculation is often incomplete so assumptions have to be made for the SAP calculation. The designer stated that any changes should be checked with the energy assessor before it is changed, however it would appear that the information does not always reach the assessor.

Fig. 9 Likelihood of changes during construction being reflected during as-built energy rating

5.2.2 Poor construction

Bordass, Cohen and Field (2004) found poor briefing, design, construction and commissioning to be factors contributing to the performance gap. Q.13 aimed to find the main causes of poor construction.

Lack of quality control on site was selected by 85% (182/213) of the respondents as a factor leading to poor construction; this was followed by lack of appropriately skilled workforce which was selected by 72% (153/213). 61% (129/213) felt that poor construction was a result of incorrect thermal detailing on site, as shown in Fig.

10.

Fig. 10 Factors contributing to poor construction

There were several additional suggestions provided for this question relating to poor construction (appendix 4), a summary is provided below:

- Lack of knowledge or understanding (8 responses)

- Issues surrounding design complexity (7 responses)

- Competition between building control bodies (6 responses)

- Issues surrounding building materials (5 responses)

- Financial/time pressures (5 responses)

- Lack of responsibility by SAP assessors/designers/unworkable details (3

responses)

The designer and energy assessor attributed poor construction to the lack of knowledge or understanding of the contractor. The importance of passing the information from the deisgner to the builder was stressed. There was a concern that builders continue to build to older standards and are not changing construction to take account of the current regulations.

5.2.3 Commissioning

The literature review found commissioning not carried out adequately to be a contributing factor to the performance gap (Green Construction Board, 2013). Q.14 found that 57% of the BCOs in the study (109/191) a commissioning notice for all fixed building services is rarely provided to building control (within 5 days of commissioning completion) and 8% said it is never provided (15/191), as shown in

Fig. 11.

Fig.11 Likelihood of provision of commissioning certificate to building control

The energy assessor suggested that the commissioning process can become just a

‘paper exercise’ and the importance is lost also, the architect observed that commissioning is happening at a time where there are a number of pressures on the contractor, which may explain why it does not always happen as it should.

5.3 The function and limitations of building control

The literature review found that the function of building control is to advise on the compliance of buildings in relation to the current building regulations and this is carried out through checking of plans and site inspections. The building control function can be carried out by local authorities or private building control bodies, but only local authorities can formally enforce the building regulations. The responsibility to ensure complinace with regulatinos rests with those carrying out the work, and the owner of the building. The questionnaire considered these matters.

5.3.1 Enforcement

Q11 asked whether the existing regulations for the conservation of fuel and power in buildings are properly enforced. Overall just over 50% (114/200) agreed/strongly agreed that the existing regulations are properly enforced. A higher percentage of AI’s agreed/strongly agreed that the regulations are properly enforced,

67% (10/15) compared to 48% (94/194) of public sector BCOs, as shown in Fig. 12.

The results of the interviews suggested that Part L of the regulations is a difficult area to enforce.

Fig. 12 Opinion of whether Part L is properly enforced, by Sector

5.3.2 Responsibility for compliance

Q.7 and Q.9 aimed to find out who, in the opinion of the building control professionals, is ultimately responsible for checking Part L compliance on site and for ensuring overall compliance. ‘Contractor/Builder’ was selected as ultimately responsible for checking Part L compliance on site by 44% (94/213) of the respondents, followed by ‘Building Control’ at 36% (76/213). 2% (5/213) were unsure who has ultimate responsibility, as shown in Fig. 13.

‘Contractor/Builder’ was selected as ultimately responsible for ensuring overall

Part L compliance by 32% (68/214) of the respondents, again followed by ‘Building

Control’ at 24% (52/214), as shown in Fig. 14.

Fig. 13 Responsible for checking Part L compliance on site Fig. 14 Responsible for ensuring overall Part L compliance

5.4 The existing process for regulating the energy performance of

new buildings

The literature review found that Part L of schedule 1 of the building regulations sets out the current energy efficiency requirements. It is suggested by Holland, et al.

(2011) that clarification is required by Government on the role of the building control officer in Part L compliance checking. The questionnaire aimed to establish whether the existing Part L regulations are adequate and whether insulation checks are carried out.

5.4.1 Adequacy of the existing regulations for the conservation of

fuel and power in buildings

62% (133/215) of the respondents stated that the existing regulations for the conservation of fuel and power are adequate, as shown in Fig. 15. There was no difference in the opinion of LABC compared to AIs in relation to this matter.

The energy assessor stated that for new build the regulations are adequate, but considers that more could be done for conversions and extensions. The designer considered the existing regulations to be adequate and the architect felt the regulations are adequate however the national calculation methodology is a compliance tool, not a design tool, and suggested that it is sometimes used incorrectly.

Fig. 15 Adequacy of existing Part L regulations

5.4.2 Site inspection checks of insulation

The survey results for Q.10 demonstrate that site inspection checks of insulation are carried out often/always in 78% (167/214) and shown in Fig. 16 below.

Fig. 16 Likelihood of site inspection checks of insulation being carried out

5.5 Building control influence on the factors identified as contributing

to the performance gap

Table 1 gave an indication of the areas that building control may be able to influence based on the information found in the literature review. In Q.17 and Q.18 of the questionnaire, the BCOs in the study were asked to select which of the factors identified in section 2.2 as contributing to the PG, they thought they could influence.

Table 2 reproduces the information from Table 1, together with the survey results for

Q.17. Table 2 shows 82% of the respondents felt they had influence over ‘quality of construction’ (143/175) and 51% over ‘contractor designed elements’ (88/175). The responses from LABC and AIs were consistent with this response. A minimum of

20% of BCOs stated that they had an influence over all of the factors identified as affecting the performance gap.

Table 2: Building control influence over the factors identified as contributing to the performance gap including survey results

Factors which affect the Building control Influence Q17 results (% of BCOs performance gap (Green surveyed who think they Construction Board, 2013) could have an influence over the factor) Design: Design modelling naïve Yes Pre-application advice from BC could influence 29.7% design Unregulated energy (Part L energy No 28.6% quoted) omitted or poorly modelled Assumed perfect control Yes Thorough plan checking for building regulation 37.7% compliance by BC Construction: Contractor designed elements Yes BC influence through plan checking and on-site 50.3% inspection Quality of construction Yes BC influence through on-site inspection 81.7% Commissioning: BMS controls not working as intended No 25.1% Commissioning rushed or incomplete Yes A commissioning notice is required to be provided to 31.4% BC by the installer within 5 days of commissioning for all fixed building services Operation: Unmanageable complexity No 27.4% Changes to BMS and controls No 20.0% Poor energy management No 23.4% Building used differently than No 40.6% originally assumed occupancy densities and hours, processes

5.6 Barriers and drivers for building control influence on the improved

energy performance of buildings

Contributing factors over which building control could have influence are considered in section 5.5. The barriers and drivers are now considered.

5.6.1 Priority given to Part L

The literature review showed that building control resources devoted to Part L are limited due to the focus on structure, fire, safety etc. (NHBC, 2012), therefore the importance given to Part L in relation to other areas of the regulations was explored.

Q.6 shows that the BCOs were split regarding the priority given to Part L as shown in

Fig. 17, with 52% (108/208) agreeing that Part L was not as important as other areas of the regulations. However 67% (10/15) of the AIs agreed that Part L was not as important, compared to 49% (94/193) for LABC.

Fig. 17 Importance placed on Part L in relation to other areas of the regulations, by sector

5.6.2 Risk-based site inspections

The risk-based approach to site inspections and the drive to maintain a profitable business, or cost neutral service, were identified in the literature review as possible barriers to building controls influence over contributing factors. From Q.12 it was found that over 70% (149/211) of the respondents agreed/strongly agreed that the risk-based approach to site inspections has resulted in fewer site inspections relating to Part L matters, as shown in Fig. 18.

Fig. 18 Opinion of whether risk-based approach to site inspection has resulted in fewer site inspections

5.6.3 Barriers to check for Part L compliance

The biggest barrier to a BCO’s ability to check for Part L compliance was insufficient information provided by the applicant or their agent, and was selected by

73% of the respondents (133/177). This was consistent across both sectors.

Building control staffing levels (60%, 109/177) and insufficient time allocated to site inspection (52%, 95/177) were the next biggest constraint, as shown in Fig. 19.

There were several additional areas that were given as an unprompted barrier to checking Part L compliance (detailed in appendix 5), summarised as follows:

- Site inspection issues, not called out to inspect/details, and junctions too

difficult to inspect (6 responses)

- Complexity of regulations/design/lack of training (6 responses)

- SAP assessors (4 responses)

Some suggestions for change were given:

- Design should include a factor of safety to allow for some deviation from

original design. (LABC)

- The regulations should include ‘deemed to satisfy’ provisions that would

help smaller developers or DIY self-builders understand what is required to

achieve compliance (LABC)

Concerns were expressed by the Energy Assessor and Designer regarding lack of information when Building Notice applications are used. The Designer suggested that for new build a Full Plans application should be used and Building Notices scrapped, or used only for very minor projects.

Fig. 19 Barriers to ability to check for Part L compliance

6. Discussion

The six objectives identified in section 1 are considered in turn using the findings from the literature review in section 2 and the results of the questionnaire and interviews in section 5, to establish ways in which building control can influence the closing of the energy performance gap of buildings.

6.1 The energy performance gap

The literature review revealed a number of existing studies, for example studies by CarbonBuzz (2012), Bordass, Cohen and Field (2004), Carbon Trust (2011) and others. These highlight the extent of the PG, where the operational energy use could be up to five times higher than estimates during the design (Carbon Trust,

2011). The performance is a global issue.

The results of the questionnaire highlight the relevance and importance of the issue surrounding the energy performance gap of buildings, with three quarters of the BCOs surveyed confirming they were aware of the issue before participating in the study (section 5.1). It is perhaps to be expected that the percentage of BCOs aware of the performance gap increased as the number of years experience increased, with inexperienced BCOs (with under 4 years in the profession) the most likely to be unaware of the issue, due to their developing knowledge of issues facing the constructon industry. Conversely, newly qualified BCOs are likely to have recently completed training such as construction related degrees. These results could be considered unexpected since environmental and sustainability issues should be covered on all construction related degrees. It is surprising that recent graduates would be less aware of the PG.

The results of the survey (section 5.1) appeared to link awareness of the PG to the priority given to Part L within the building regulations; those who agreed or strongly agreed that compliance with Part L is not as important as compliance with other areas of the regulations such as Part A (structure) or Part B (fire safety), were more likely to be unaware of the PG issue than those who disagreed/strongly disagreed that Part L is not as important. It could be that those who give lower priority to Part L matters would be unlikely to carry out related continuous professional development (CPD) and therefore would be less aware of issues surrounding the energy performance gap of buildings. Professional bodies such as the Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB), the Chartered Association of Building

Engineers (CABE) or the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), could address this by including a requirement for this topic within their accredited courses and competencies, but it may be difficult to reach those already qualified. However, this could generate demand for Part L related courses for colleges, CPD providers and other training bodies.

Although the survey was sent out to all members’, bias could have been introduced by those who responded. For example it is possible that a greater number of building control professionals who are interested and/or aware of the PG, may have responded to the survey, than those either unaware or disinterested. It would be difficult to address this potential weakness due to the voluntary nature of those participating in the study, however the number of participants (n=218), is similar to the number of responses received to previous surveys to building control professionals on unrelated subjects (Lychgate, 2015).

It is therefore reasonable to assume that the response is a good sample of the opinions of building control professionals.

6.2 The factors contributing to the performance gap

The literature review revealed that research into the causes of the performance gap have shown that there is no single factor that on its own results in buildings using more energy in operation than was promised in design; there are a number of contributing factors, that when combined, can lead to a substantial gap (up to five times higher) (Carbon Trust, 2011). The factors identified by the Carbon Trust

(2011), Bordass (2013), Green Construction Board (2013), Zero Carbon Hub (2014) and others, can be split into three main areas; design, construction (including commissioning), and operation.

Green Construction Board (2013) found construction variations and construction not carrying through the design intent, to be factors that result in the performance gap. The Carbon Trust (2011) also found that good intentions did not translate into low carbon building. The lessons learned from their research suggests making sure that the design intent is maintained in the transfer to the contractor, and from the contractor to the sub-contractor.

In the experience of 52% of the BCOs who participated in the study, changes during construction or deviations from the original design intent are not reflected in the as-built energy rating (section 5.2.1). Changes on site during construction have been identified by Green Construction Board (2013) to be a contributing factor to the performance gap and it appears to be a common occurrence often encountered by building control and one where they can exert a positive influence. The survey results support the research by Carbon Trust (2011), highlighting the importance that the design intent is transferred to the construction of the building, and ensuring all changes are reflected in the as-built energy rating.

Rushed or incomplete commissioning is another contributory factor identified in previous studies by the Green Construction Board (2013) and others. The results of this study (section 5.2.3) support the view that commissioning is not carried out as it should be, with 57% of particiants stating that a commissioning notice for fixed building services is rarely provided to building control by the installer within 5 days of commissioning completion. Further research would be required to establish whether the commissioning notice was provided late (after the required 5 days) or not at all.

There appears to be a significant issue around the commissioning process for fixed building services, resulting in a notification process which does not work as intended.

Together with variations in construction and changes to the original design intent, poor construction has been identified as a contributing factor to the performance gap. Bordass, Cohen and Field (2004) described ‘avoidable waste’ resulting from poor construction as a factor. The survey results (section 5.2.2) attributed poor construction primarily to a lack of quality control on site, followed by a lack of appropriately skilled workforce and incorrect thermal detailing.

Some of the additional comments by survey participants provided an insight into this issue (appendix 4):

‘Those installing the insulation do not appreciate the benefits of installing it correctly’ ‘Basic lack of understanding of how poorly installed insulation…can reduce its effectiveness in use’.

These comments are linked to incorrect thermal detailing on site and a lack of appropriately skilled workforce. The Zero Carbon Hub (2014) identified problems with lack of knowledge and skills of the site teams, leaving them unable to construct energy efficient houses with consistent as-built performance. It would appear from

64 the study results that, building control professionals encounter poor construction

(although it may comply with the minimum standards of the building regulations) during their site inspections, as described in the additional comments from survey participants (appendix 4). LABC (2014) identify educating and informing building professionals, contractors and trades people, as a function of building control. There is an opportunity for building control professionals to inform contractors, building professionals and trades people regarding incorrect thermal detailing where it occurs on site and to educate building professionals.

Factors such as variations in construction, or value engineering which alter the design intent can result in the PG (Green Construction Board, 2013) and these variations will require the provision of information to building control. In the absence of design details it may not be possible for building control to properly check. The survey and interview results highlighted the lack of information provided by the applicant or agent as the biggest barrier to building control’s ability to check for Part

L compliance (5.6.3). The nature of Part L compliance has changed from the original elemental approach to fabric efficiency, to a whole building carbon emissions calculation methodology, as discussed in section 2.4. Any variations in construction or value engineering will require building control to be provided with enough information to check the works on site. It is clear that any lack of information provided will impair their ability to check for compliance. It has also been found

(section 2.2) that the ‘design-and-build’ approach to the construction of new houses can lead to poor performing buildings (CIBSE, 2012). Further investigation is recommended to determine whether there is less information provided to building control to allow for them to check for Part L compliance for a ‘design-and-build’ approach to construction, compared to the traditional approach. It is also suggested

65 that the type of Building Regulation application used affects the information provided to building control, with both designer and energy assessor suggesting that Building

Notice applications should not be used for new build projects.

6.3 The function and limitations of building control

The function of building control, as found in the literature review (section 2.3), is to advise on the compliance of buildings in relation to current building regulations and this is carried out through checking of plans and site inspections. The absence of any form of control would leave the design and construction of buildings to be determined by a client and builder who are heavily influenced by the desire to maximise profit ignoring the social needs of the majority of the population whilst meeting the financial demands of the few (Ley, 2000). The building control function can be carried out by local authorities or by private approved inspectors, however formal enforcement powers lie only with local authority building control.

As seen in section 2.4, the current building regulations relating to the conservation of fuel and power, are found in Part L and the results of the survey showed that the majority of BCOs feel that the existing regulations in England relating to Part L, are adequate (5.4.1). However, views as to whether the regulations are properly enforced are divided (5.3.1). It is interesting to note that approved inspectors, who are not carrying out the enforcement function, are significantly more likely to agree that the regulations are properly enforced than

LABC. The small number of approved inspectors (n=15, 7%) who participated in the study could make these results unreliable.

The general approach used by building control to achieve compliance is to work with the people carrying out the work to get the problem rectified. Prosecutions are only used as a last resort by most local authority building control teams (Lychgate,

2015). However, a lack of proper enforcement of the regulations for the conservation of fuel and power in buildings, may contribute to the energy PG.

Further investigation is recommended to determine the reasons why a large

67 percentage of the building control professionals feel this area of the regulations is not properly enforced. This would also establish whether it is just Part L regulations that are not properly enforced, or all areas of the regulations.

The building control process cannot guarantee buildings with 100% compliance

(CLG, 2006). The building regulations state that the responsibility for compliance with the requirements of the regulations rests with the person who is responsible for the building work (as identified in section 2.4). The survey results agree with this

(section 5.3); the largest percentage of participants selected ‘contractor/builder’ as being ultimately responsible for checking Part L compliance on site (44%) and ensuring overall compliance (32%). However, 36% of respondents selected building control as being responsible for checking Part L compliance on site and 24% selected building control as ultimately responsible for Part L compliance. This supports the findings of the small survey carried out by CIBSE (see section 2.4) where it was suggested by Holland, et al. (2011) that clarification is required by

Government on the role of the building control officer in Part L compliance checking on site during construction. The results of the questionnaire imply that building control officers assume responsibility for checking and assuring Part L compliance, even though the regulations state that the responsibility for compliance rests with those carrying out the works.

6.4 The existing process for regulating the energy performance of

new buildings

The Building Act 1984 sets out the building regulations that apply in England and

Part L provides the functional requirement to make reasonable provision for the conservation of fuel and power.

The primary purpose of the building regulations is to establish minimum standards to ensure the health and safety of the building occupants, as discussed in section 2.2. The current building regulations relating to the conservation of fuel and power are detailed in Part L and the results of the survey showed that the majority of

BCOs feel that the existing regulations in England relating to Part L are adequate

(5.4.1).

The regulations cover a range of aspects and the survey results showed that half of the BCOs surveyed appear to give equal priority to Part L matters as they do to other areas of the regulations such as Part A (structure) and Part B (fire). The lower priority given to compliance with Part L by half of those partaking in the study could be a contributing factor to the PG. Less priority given to Part L compliance could result in fewer Part L related site inspections, or the reduced likelihood of enforcement action for non-compliance in relation to Part L matters, compared to other areas of the regulations. This tends to support the findings of the report produced by NHBC (2012) where it argued that the UK’s building control process has not paid enough attention to Part L of the building regulations, and supports the case for a greater emphasis on enforcement in this area.

A larger percentage of approved inspectors than local authority BCOs state that

Part L is not as important as other areas of the regulations (section 5.6.1). It is

69 unclear why private sector building control surveyors may put less of a priority on

Part L than Local Authority BCOs, when compared to other areas of the regulations.

6.5 Building control influence on the factors identified as contributing

to the performance gap

The factors which affect the performance gap, as identified by the the Green

Construction Board (2013), are reproduced in Table 2 together with the percentage of building control professionals who stated that they could have an influence on that factor (section 5.5).

‘Quality of construction’ was selected by the highest percentage of BCOs (82%) as a factor which they influence. Poor construction is a significant factor contributing to the PG and there is the opportunity for building control professionals to carry out the additional function as described by LABC (2014), of informing and educating those carrying out the work. Problems such as incorrect thermal detailing where it occurs on site, and the ignorance of how poor insulation installation reduces effectiveness, should be addressed. The Zero Carbon Hub Builder Book and LABC freely available Registered Construction Details and Builder Bulletin have been developed to aid this education process.

There is potential, through building control professionals involvement in the construction process, to address the BCOs concerns regarding the lack of knowledge and understanding of the people undertaking the work, as identified in section 5.2.2. The responsibility for compliance as detailed in section 2.4, rests with the people responsible for the building work (for example the agent, designer, builder or installer) together with the building owner (CLG, 2015b) and it is through building control’s interaction, both educating and informing on matters relating to the quality of construction, that could lead to the avoidance of poor construction hence the associated risk of an energy performance gap.

A minimum of 20% of participants stated that they could have an influence over all of the factors listed as contributing to the performance gap (table 2). Further investigation is required into this area to establish how building control professionals could influence the factors relating to the operation of the building, such as ‘poor energy management’ and ‘changes to building management systems and controls’.

From the functions of building control as identified in section 2.3, it was recognised that building control have involvement in the construction of buildings but not any on- going control over the building in operation.

6.6 Barriers and drivers for building control’s influence on the

improved energy performance of buildings

Building control staffing levels were identified during the literature review (section

2.6) as an area for concern facing the building control profession, caused in part by the high level of staff approaching retirement age and the shortfall in being able to replace staff. The survey highlighted staffing levels of building control as a barrier to checking Part L compliance however, this was only seen as an issue to local authority BCOs (section 5.6). It is likely that any shortfall in staff would impact on checking compliance of all areas of the regulations not just Part L. However, as previously discussed, due to the lower priority assigned to Part L matters, it is possible that checking for Part L compliance could be reduced as problems with staffing levels increase. This is an important issue facing the building control profession and it is recommended that research be carried out into the extent of the problem regarding staffing levels, and to establish steps that could be taken to encourage new surveyors or recent graduates/trainees into the profession.

Part L compliance appears to be given less priority than other areas of the regulations by around fifty percent of the BCOs in the study (section 5.6.1) and this may in part explain why over two thirds of the respondents agree that the risk-based approach has resulted in fewer site inspections in relation to Part L matters (5.6.2).

If the risk-based approach require less inspections, then it follows that the areas of regulations given the least priority, may have less inspections. It is possible however, that this has resulted in less site inspections, relating to all areas of the regulations. Further research into the overall level of site inspections relating to all areas of the regulations as a result of risk-assessed site inspections, would be required before trends could be seen relating to less Part L related inspections. The

73 survey results have shown that the risk-assessed approach to site inspections has resulted in fewer Part L related inspections, and in terms of ensuring Part L compliance, this can only have a detrimental effect on the closing of the PG, for example resulting in fewer opportunities to educate and inform builders or contractors, and to address occurrences of poor construction as discussed in section

8.5.

The results suggested that site inspection checks of insulation are carried out in

70% of cases ‘often or always’ and only 2% said that insulation is ‘rarely or never’ inspected (section 5.4.2). This together with the results in section 5.6.2 suggests that prior to risk-based site inspections more than one site inspection relating to Part

L would have been carried out despite this not being a statutory notification, and currently, although there are fewer inspections relating to Part L, generally an insulation inspection is still carried out. Further investigation would be required to confirm this.

7. Conclusion and recommendations

This study aimed to establish ways in which building control can influence the closing of the performance gap and this has been achieved by meeting the six objectives detailed in section 1:

- Define the energy performance gap

- Identify the factors contributing to the performance gap

- Identify the function and limitations of building control

- Identify the existing process for regulating the energy performance of new

buildings in England

- Determine whether building control can influence the factors identified as

contributing to the performance gap

- Identify the barriers and drivers for building control’s influence on improved

energy performance of buildings

Strong (2010) defines the performance gap as buildings that consume far more energy in operation than was promised in design. The UK Government has committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to tackle the global issue of climate change. Buildings account for 17% of the UK’s direct greenhouse gas emissions

(CCC, 2015) consequently the construction industry has a significant role to play in reducing the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions to meet the targets set by the Climate

Change Act. However, it will be more difficult to meet the climate change targets if buildings constructed to current regulations use more energy in operation than was promised in design. Therefore there is a need for the PG to be closed and this study has shown that building control are in a position to influence some of the factors identified in research by others.

The performance gap has been found to be a relatively recent phenomenon affecting new buildings across all sectors within the UK and across the world. The literature review revealed a number of existing studies into the performance gap and the factors that contribute to the gap, for example studies by CarbonBuzz (2012),

Bordass, Cohen and Field (2004), Carbon Trust (2011) and others, highlight the extent of the performance gap. The research into the causes have shown that there is no single factor that on its own results in buildings using more energy in operation than was promised in design. Rather, there are a number of contributing factors which when combined, can lead to a substantial gap - up to five times higher

(Carbon Trust, 2011).

The factors contributing to the performance gap can be divided under three headings: design, construction (including commissioning) and operation. The results of the study suggest that building control can predominantly influence the factors relating to the design and construction of buildings.

Bordass, Cohen and Field (2004) identified the avoidable energy waste resulting from poor construction as a contributing factor to the PG. The results of this study suggest that despite the risk-based approach to site inspections leading to less inspections relating to Part L related matters, site inspection checks of insulation are usually carried out. Poor construction on site was attributed by building control to be a result of the lack of quality control on site; lack of appropriately skilled workforce, and incorrect thermal detailing on site.

Building control has a statutory role in ensuring the minimum standards of energy efficiency are achieved thereby contributing to achieving the UK’s reduced carbon emission target. They also have an advisory role to encourage energy efficiency and

76 sustainable buildings. The building regulations are made under powers provided in the Building Act 1984 and apply in England. They are minimum standards for new and altered buildings to ensure that they are safe, accessible and energy efficient.

The current building regulations relating to the conservation of fuel and power are detailed in Part L.

The results of the study showed that the majority of BCOs agreed that the existing regulations in England relating to Part L are adequate, however just under half of the BCOs stated that Part L is not properly enforced and just over half stated that Part L is not as important as other areas of the regulations such as Part A

(structure) and Part B (fire safety). This supports the findings of the report produced by NHBC (2012) where it was argued that the UK’s building control process has not paid enough attention to Part L of the building regulations and supports the case for a greater emphasis on enforcement in this area. The survey results support the view that building control need to pay more attention to Part L, with a greater emphasis on enforcement in relation to Part L matters. This could influence the construction of buildings and play a part in the closing the energy performance gap.

The role of building control can be more than just advising on compliance of buildings with the current building regulations, but can include encouraging innovation to produce energy efficient buildings and to educate and inform building professionals, contractors and trades people (LABC, 2014). The results of the study support these additional functions of building control, with BCOs stating they could influence contractor designed elements. There is also the potential for building control professionals, supported by existing tools such as Zero Carbon Hub’s Builder

Book, LABC’s Registered Construction Details, and the training and support offered by the LABC and Federation of Master Builders (FMB) partnership, to address

77 issues regarding the lack of knowledge and understanding of Part L matters for the people undertaking the work.

Increased awareness of the PG amongst building control professionals, particularly the less experienced, would be beneficial and influence the closing of the

PG, albeit in a small way. Results have shown that a quarter of building control professionals are unaware of the issue so it is recommended that steps are taken either by training providers or professional bodies, to increase awareness. This could be through articles in professional magazines and websites, or through short presentations at conferences.

The study highlighted that private sector approved inspectors are more likely than local authority building control officers to agree that the regulations for the conservation of fuel and power in buildings should be properly enforced. Further investigation to establish why the professionals responsible for enforcement are less likely is required as better enforcement relating to Part L matters could be a factor that would assist with the closing of the performance gap.

7.1 Recommendations

Further research into the impact of risk-based site inspections and competitive pricing on the level of site inspections relating to all areas of the regulations is recommended to establish whether it is all areas of the regulations that have been affected or just Part L related inspections that have been reduced.

Further research into the commissioning process for all fixed building services is recommended to investigate whether the notice is provided to building control late

(within the required 5 days) or not at all. The study identified an issue with commissioning notices being provided to building control, and incomplete or rushed

78 commissioning is a factor contributing to the PG. Further research into this area could establish ways in which the process could be tightened up with building control could having a positive influence in closing the PG caused by commissioning related issues.

This study has identified that the Building Notice application route may lead to the submission of less information, which has been shown to subsequently reduce the ability of the building control body to check for part L compliance. Further research into the suitability of this method of building regulation application is suggested with a view to assessing whether the use of Building Notice applications should be restricted to less complex works, or to exclude new build. Further study into this area could lead to recommendations by Government regarding changes to the building control process to assist with the closing of the energy performance gap of buildings.

8. References and bibliography

Accame, F., Cesare, J., Chen, Y., Walsh, E. and Wu, Q., 2012. Green Buildings in the US and China: Bridging the Energy Performance Gap. MESM. University of California, Santa Barbara. Available at: [Accessed 5 July 2015]

Biggam, J., 2008. Succeeding with your master’s dissertation: a step-by-step handbook. 2nd ed. [e-book] Maidenhead: Open University Press. Available through: Anglia Ruskin University Library website [Accessed 24 February 2013].

Bordass, W., 2013. Mind the Gap: Why does energy use fall so short of predictions? http://www.usablebuildings.co.uk/Pages/Unprotected/TimeToGetReal.pdf [accessed 05/05/13]

Bordass, W., Cohen, R., & Field, J., 2004 Energy Performance of Non-Domestic Buildings: Closing the Credibility Gap. [online] Available at: < http://www.usablebuildings.co.uk/Pages/Unprotected/EnPerfNDBuildings.pdf> [accessed 27/04/13]

Building Act 1984. London: HMSO.

Building Control Performance Standards Advisory Group, 2015. Annual Report and Analysis of Building Control Performance Indicators. [online] Available at: [Accessed 30 May 2015]

Building Regulations 2010. 2010 SI 2010/2214. London: HMSO.

Carbonbuzz, 2013. CarbonBuzz [online] Available at: [accessed 27th April 2013]

Carbon Trust, 2011. Closing the gap – lessons learned on realising the potential of low carbon building design. [online] Available at: [accessed 12 March 2013]

CCC, 2015. UK Emissions by Sector. [online] Available at: https://www.theccc.org.uk/charts-data/ukemissions-by-sector/buildings/> [accessed 31st August 2015]

CIBSE, 2012. Test of Time. CIBSE Journal, [online] Available at: [accessed 13th April 2013]

CLG, 2006. Building Control Performance Standards. [online] Available at: [Accessed 3 May 2015]

CLG, 2012. Proposed changes to Part L (Conservation of fuel and power) of the Building Regulations 2012/13 in England: Consultation stage impact assessment. [online] Available at: [accessed 28th April 2013]

CLG, 2015a. Current Legislation – Introduction. [online] Available at: [Accessed 2 May 2015]

CLG, 2015b. Building Regulations.[online] Available at: < http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/responsibilities/buildingregulations/> [Accessed 24 August 2015]

Climate Change Act 2008. (c.1), London: HMSO.

Committee on Climate Change, 2013. 2013 Progress Report to Parliament. [online] Available at: < https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/CCC-Prog- Rep_Chap3_singles_web_1.pdf> [Accessed 24 August 2015]

Creswell, J., 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approaches. 3rd ed. London: Sage

Creswell, J., and Plano Clark, V., 2007. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. London: Sage

Davies, H., 2013. Tracing the continuing development of Part L. Modern Building Services, [online] Available at: [Accessed 9 May 2015].

European Commission, 2015. Buildings. [online] Available at: [Accessed 5 July 2015]

Fellows, R., and Liu, A., 2008. Research Methods for Construction. 3rd ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell

Green Construction Board, 2013. The Performance Gap: Causes & Solutions. [online] Available at: [Accessed 30 May 2015]

Holland, J., Davies, H., Tebbit, T., Eastwell, A., and Coxon, R., 2011. Improving Complaince with Part L: Closing the Gap between Design Intent and As-built Carbon Emissions Calculations. [pdf] Available at:< http://www.ukace.org/wp-

81 content/uploads/2012/11/Improving-Compliance-with-Part-L-FINAL.pdf> [Accessed 9 May 2015]

Kiernan, N.E., 2005. Is a Web Survey as Effective as a Mail Survey? A Field Experiment Among Computer Users. American Journal of Evaluation, [e-journal] 26(2). Pp.245-252. Available through: Anglia Ruskin University Library website [Accessed 2nd May 2013]

LABC, 2014. DIY training – Member Development Session. [PowerPoint Presentation] Available at: < http://www.labc.co.uk/members/member-development- hub/diy-training> [Accessed 5 July 2015]

LABC, 2015a. Registered Details. [online] Available at: [Accessed 23 November 2015]

LABC, 2015b. Registered Construction Details – Helping the industry to get it right on site. [online] Available at: [Accessed 23 November 2015]

Ley, A. J., 2000. A history of building control in England & Wales 1840-1990. Bristol: RICS Books

Lychgate, 2015. Part L – Safe Electrical Work in the Home. Attitudes of Building Control teams and Homeowners. [pdf] Available through: LABC website < http://www.labc.co.uk/news/part-p-electrical-contracting-homes> [Accessed 6 September 2015]

Manco, J., 2009. History of Building Regulations. [online] Available at: [Accessed 2 May 2015]

Menezes, A., (2012). Mind the Gap. [online] Available at: [accessed 27th April 2013]

Modern Building Services, 2010. CIBSE survey reveals that non-compliance with regulations is widespread. Modern Building Services, [online] Available at: < http://www.modbs.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/8601/CIBSE_survey_reveals_that_no n-compliance_with_regulations_is_widespread_.html> [Accessed 9 May 2015]

NHBC, 2012. Low and zero carbon homes: understanding the performance challenge. [pdf] Amersham: NHBC Foundation. Available through: Anglia Ruskin University Library website [Accessed 31 August 2015]

Oppenheim, A. N., 1992. Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. 2nd Ed. London: Pinter

Pitt, V., 2013. New Scheme to tackle energy efficiency ‘performance gap’, Building. [online] Available at: < http://www.building.co.uk/sustainability/new-scheme-to-tackle- energy-efficiency-performance-gap/5051361.article> [accessed 8th April 2013]

Strong, D., 2010. Mind the performance gap, Building, [online] Available at: [accessed 8th April 2013]

Survey Gizmo, 2015. Best Practices: Understanding and Reducing Bias in Your Surveys. Available at: [accessed 31st August 2015]

Zero Carbon Hub, 2014. Closing the gap between design and as-built performance – Evidence Review Report, [online] Available at: [accessed 1st May 2014]

9. Appendices

Appendix 1 – Building Control and the Performance Gap questionnaire

Appendix 2 - Research Ethics Approval Anglia Ruskin University January 2015

Section 1: RESEARCHER AND PROJECT DETAILS

Researcher details: Name(s): Bernadette Bowden Department: Engineering & the Built Environment Faculty: Science & Technology Anglia Ruskin email address: [email protected] Status: Undergraduate Taught X Postgraduate Staff Postgraduate Research If this is a student project: SID: 9907108 Course title: MSc Sustainable Construction Supervisor/tutor name Carlos Jimenez-Bescos

Project details: Project title (not module title): Building control influence on closing the performance gap Data collection start date: 5th January 2015 (note must be prospective) Expected project completion April 2015 date: Is the project externally funded? No Licence number (if applicable): N/A CONFIRMATION STATEMENTS – please tick the box to confirm you understand these requirements The project has a direct benefit to society and/or improves knowledge and  understanding. All researchers involved have completed relevant training in research ethics, and  consulted the Code of Practice for Applying for Ethical Approval at Anglia Ruskin University. The risks participants, colleagues or the researchers may be exposed to have been  considered and appropriate steps to reduce any risks identified taken (risk assessment(s) must be completed if applicable, available at: http://rm.anglia.ac.uk/extlogin.asp) or the equivalent for Associate Colleges. My research will comply with the Data Protection Act (1998) and/or data protection  laws of the country I am carrying the research out in, as applicable. For further advice please refer to the Question Specific Advice for the Stage 1 Research Ethics Approval. Project summary (maximum 500 words): Please outline rationale for the research, the project aim, the research questions, research procedure and details of the participant population and how they will be recruited.

Rationale:

The aim of the research is to determine the influence of building control on the performance gap. Many new public and commercial buildings fail to live up to their expectations for energy saving and government carbon reduction targets will not be achieved if buildings designed to current building regulations use far greater energy in operation than was designed. There is a significant need for the performance gap to be closed and the study will establish whether building control can influence this.

Aim: To establish how building control influence the construction of new buildings in the UK to reduce the performance gap. The study will be designed to identify the influence that Local Authority building control bodies in East Anglia have on the performance gap and identifying the barriers and drivers to this.

Research questions: What is the performance gap? What are the factors contributing to the performance gap? What is the function of Building Control? What is the existing process for regulating energy performance of new buildings? How can building control influence the factors identified as contributing to the performance gap? What are the barriers and drivers for building controls influence on improved energy performance of new buildings?

Methods of data collection A mixed methods approach using both quantitative and qualitative elements will be used. Primary data will be obtained through the use of questionnaires during the first stage of the study. The results of the first stage will aid the formulation of semi-structured interviews for the second stage, to identify the influence building control have over the performance gap and barriers and drivers to building control using this influence. The results will be analysed to test the study hypothesis.

Participants 31 local authority building control departments within East Anglia will be involved in the study. Participants will be professional building control officers (age range 18-65 years). Interview participants from the LABC and Usable Building Trust will be professional persons from these organisations. LABC East Anglia will be approached to request their consent to participate in the research. Written consent will be obtained prior to commencement of the research. Written consent will be gained from a senior person within the 31 local authorities. Representatives of the LABC and Useable Building Trust will be selected and their written consent obtained. Approximately 100 questionnaires will be sent via a web based survey, to building control officers within the 31 Local Authorities in the East Anglia region. Willing participants from the questionnaires will then be selected for interviews in the second stage of the study. Participants selected from the LABC and Useable Buildings trust will also be interviewed (6-8 interviews in total).

Section 2: RESEARCH ETHICS CHECKLIST - please answer YES or NO to ALL of the questions below.

WILL YOUR RESEARCH STUDY? YES NO 1 Involve any external organisation for which separate research ethics clearance  is required (e.g. NHS, Social Services, Ministry of Justice)? 2 Involve individuals aged 16 years of age and over who lack capacity to consent  and will therefore fall under the Mental Capacity Act (2005)? 3 Collect, use or store any human tissue/DNA including but not limited to serum,  plasma, organs, saliva, urine, hairs and nails? Contact [email protected] 4 Involve medical research with humans, including clinical trials?  5 Administer drugs, placebos or other substances (e.g. food substances,  vitamins) to human participants? 6 Cause (or could cause) pain, physical or psychological harm or negative  consequences to human participants? 7 Involve the researchers and/or participants in the potential disclosure of any  information relating to illegal activities; or observation/handling/storage of material which may be illegal? 8 With respect to human participants or stakeholders, involve any deliberate  deception, covert data collection or data collection without informed consent? 9 Involve interventions with children and young people under 16 years of age?  10 Relate to military sites, personnel, equipment, or the defence industry?  11 Risk damage or disturbance to culturally, spiritually or historically significant  artefacts or places, or human remains? 12 Involve genetic modification, or use of genetically modified organisms above  that of routine class one activities? Contact [email protected] (All class one activities must be described in Section 4). 13 Contain elements you (or members of your team) are not trained to conduct?  14 Potentially reveal incidental findings related to human participant health  status? 15 Present a risk of compromising the anonymity or confidentiality of personal,  sensitive or confidential information provided by human participants and/or organisations? 16 Involve colleagues, students, employees, business contacts or other individuals  whose response may be influenced by your power or relationship with them? 17 Require the co-operation of a gatekeeper for initial access to the human  participants (e.g. pupils/students, self-help groups, nursing home residents, business, charity, museum, government department, international agency)? 18 Offer financial or other incentives to human participants?  19 Take place outside of the country in which your campus is located, in full or in  part? 20 Cause a negative impact on the environment (over and above that of normal  daily activity)? 21 Involve direct and/or indirect contact with human participants? 

22 Raise any other ethical concerns not covered in this checklist? 

Section 3: APPROVAL PROCESS

Prior to application: 1. Researcher / student / project tutor completes ethics training . 2. Lead researcher / student completes Stage 1 Research Ethics Application form in consultation with co- researchers / project tutor.

NO answered to all questions Research can proceed. (Risk category 1) Send this completed form to your relevant DREP for their records. i) Complete Section 4 of this form. ii) ii) Produce Participant Information Sheet (PIS) and Participant Consent Form (PCF) if applicable. iii) Submit this form and PIS/ PCF where applicable to your Faculty DREP (where available) or Faculty FREP. Two members of the DREP/FREP will review the application and report to the panel, who will consider whether the ethical risks have (STAGE 1 APPROVAL) been managed appropriately. NO answered to question 1-13 • Yes : DREP / FREP inform research YES answered to any question 14- team of approval and forward forms 22 (Risk Category 2) to FREP for recording. • No: DREP / FREP provides feedback to researcher outlining revisions required. The panel may recommend that the project is upgraded to Category 3 - please see below for procedure.

Submit this completed form to your FREP to inform them of your intention to apply to an external review panel for your project. Yes answered to question 1 and / For NHS (NRES) applications, the FREP Chair or 2 would normally act as sponsor / co-sponsor for (Risk Category 3A) your application. The outcome notification from the external review panel should be forwarded to FREP for recording.

Complete this form and the Stage 2 Research (STAGE 2 APPROVAL) Ethics Application form and submit to your Yes answered to any question 3-13 FREP. FREP will review the application and (Risk Category 3B) approve the application when they are satisfied that all ethical issues have been dealt 97 with appropriately.

Section 4: ETHICAL RISK (Risk category 2 projects only)

Management of Ethical Risk (Q14-22) For each question 14-22 ticked ‘yes’, please outline how you will manage the ethical risk posed by your study. Question 21 – human participants. There are no potential risks foreseen. The individual questionnaire and interview participants and their local authority or company will be kept confidential.

Participant consent form and information sheet will be provided prior to the commencement of the study. No individual building control officer or local authority will be named. Transcript of interviews will be sent to interview participants for their prior approval and their right to withdraw from the study will be assured.

Interviewees will have the right to see details and notes with regards to their interview (under the Data Protection Act 1998) however they will not be permitted to see the notes regarding the interviews of others. At the end of the study, results will be made available to any interested participant.

Informed consent will be gained and participants will have the right to exclude themselves from the study at any stage.

Section 5: Declaration

*Student/Staff Declaration By sending this form from My Anglia e-mail account I confirm that I will undertake this project as detailed above. I understand that I must abide by the terms of this approval and that I may not substantially amend the project without further approval. **Supervisor Declaration By sending this form from My Anglia e-mail account I confirm that I will undertake to supervise this project as detailed above. *Students to forward completed form to their Dissertation Supervisor/Supervisor. ** Dissertation Supervisor/Supervisor to forward the completed form to the relevant ethics committee.

Date: August 2014 V 5.2

Appendix 3 – Questionnaire results: data tables

Q1. How many years' experience do you have in Building Control? Answer Options Response Response Percent Count Under 4 years 5.6% 12 4-10 years 15.7% 34 11-20 years 24.1% 52 21 or more years 54.6% 118 answered question 216 skipped question 2

Q2. Who do you work for?

Answer Options Response Response Percent Count Local Authority Building Control 93.0% 199 Private Sector Approved Inspector 7.0% 15 answered question 214 skipped question 4

Q3. What type of work are you predominantly involved in? (tick all that apply) Answer Options Response Response Percent Count Domestic alterations and extensions 88.4% 191 Domestic new build (one off) 61.1% 132 Domestic new build 62.0% 134 Non-domestic alterations and extensions 68.5% 148 Non-domestic new build 58.3% 126 answered question 216 skipped question 2

Q4. Many new buildings, built to Part L, use far more energy in operation than was promised in design; the performance gap. Before reading this statement, were you aware of this issue? Answer Options Response Response Percent Count Yes 73.8% 158 No 26.2% 56 answered question 214 skipped question 4

Q5. The existing regulations in England for the conservation of fuel and power in buildings are adequate; Answer Options Response Response Percent Count Strongly disagree 7.4% 16 Disagree 30.7% 66 Agree 55.3% 119 Strongly agree 6.5% 14 answered question 215 skipped question 3

Q6. Compliance with Part L (Conservation of fuel and power in buildings) is not as important as compliance with other areas of the Regulations such as Part A (Structure) or Part B (Fire Safety); Answer Options Response Response Percent Count Strongly disagree 9.4% 20 Disagree 39.2% 83 Agree 44.8% 95 Strongly agree 6.6% 14 answered question 212 skipped question 6

Q7. In your opinion, who is ultimately responsible for checking Part L compliance on-site during construction? (tick one option) Answer Options Response Response Percent Count Building Control 35.7% 76 Contractor/builder 44.1% 94 Designer 4.7% 10 Owner 6.6% 14 Energy Assessor 6.6% 14 Don't know/unsure 2.3% 5 answered question 213 skipped question 5

Q8. In your experience changes during construction or deviations from the original design intent, are reflected in the as-built energy ratings; Answer Options Response Response Percent Count Never 2.4% 5 Rarely 49.5% 105 Often 40.1% 85 Always 8.0% 17

100 answered question 212 skipped question 6

Q9. In your opinion, who is ultimately responsible for ensuring overall Part L compliance? (tick one option) Answer Options Response Response Percent Count Building Control 24.3% 52 Contractor/builder 31.8% 68 Designer 15.4% 33 Owner 17.8% 38 Energy Assessor 7.9% 17 Don't know/unsure 2.8% 6 answered question 214 skipped question 4

Q10. Site inspection checks of insulation are carried out;

Answer Options Response Response Percent Count Never 0.5% 1 Rarely 1.9% 4 Sometimes 19.6% 42 Often 50.5% 108 Always 27.6% 59 answered question 214 skipped question 4

Q11. The existing regulations in England for the conservation of fuel and power in buildings are properly enforced; Answer Options Response Response Percent Count Strongly disagree 6.1% 13 Disagree 44.1% 94 Agree 47.9% 102 Strongly agree 1.9% 4 answered question 213 skipped question 5

Q12. The risk-based approach to site inspections has resulted in less site inspections relating to Part L matters; Answer Options Response Response Percent Count Strongly disagree 4.3% 9 Disagree 25.1% 53

101

Agree 55.9% 118 Strongly agree 14.7% 31 answered question 211 skipped question 7

Q13. Poor construction has been identified as a contributing factor to the performance gap. In your opinion poor construction is a result of (tick all that apply); Answer Options Response Response Percent Count Lack of appropriately skilled workforce 71.8% 153 Incorrect thermal detailing on site 60.6% 129 Complexity of design 41.8% 89 Lack of quality control on site 85.4% 182 Other (please specify) 24.9% 53 answered question 213 skipped question 5

Q14. In your experience, a commissioning notice is provided to building control by the installer (within 5 days of commissioning completion) for all fixed building services; Answer Options Response Response Percent Count Never 7.9% 15 Rarely 57.1% 109 Often 31.9% 61 Always 3.1% 6 answered question 191 skipped question 27

Q15. Barriers to your ability to check for Part L compliance include (tick all that apply); Answer Options Response Response Percent Count Insufficient time to check plans 29.3% 53 Insufficient time allocated to site 52.5% 95 inspections Insufficient knowledge of the applicable 11.6% 21 regulations Insufficient knowledge of materials and/or 18.8% 34 construction techniques Complexity of design 35.4% 64 Insufficient provision of information by the 73.5% 133 applicant or their agent Building Control staffing levels 60.2% 109 Other (please specify) 32

102 answered question 181 skipped question 37

Q16. Rank the top 5 barriers to your ability to check for Part L compliance, in order of importance from 1-5, where 1 is most important and 5 is least (choose the 5 biggest barriers then rank them from 1-5) Answer Options 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Respo nse Count Insufficient time to check 7 13 23 21 40 104 plans Insufficient time allocated to 26 33 34 28 15 136 site inspections Insufficient knowledge of 3 9 6 19 26 63 the applicable regulations Insufficient knowledge of 4 11 16 37 17 85 building materials and/or construction techniques Complexity of design 11 40 33 15 27 126 Insufficient provision of 75 34 24 21 9 163 information by the applicant or their agent Building Control staffing 51 27 29 18 11 136 levels answered question 185 skipped question 33

Q17. The following factors have been identified as affecting the performance gap. Which of these factors do you think you could have an influence over (tick all that apply); Answer Options Response Response Percent Count Design modelling naïve 29.7% 52 Unregulated energy (Part L energy quoted) 28.6% 50 omitted or poorly modelled Assumed perfect control 37.7% 66 Contractor designed elements 50.3% 88 Quality of construction 81.7% 143 Building Management System Controls not 25.1% 44 working as intended Commissioning rushed or incomplete 31.4% 55 Unmanageable complexity 27.4% 48 Changes to Building Management System 20.0% 35 and Controls Poor Energy Management 23.4% 41 Building used differently than originally 40.6% 71 assumed, occupancy densities and hours

103 answered question 175 skipped question 43

Q18. Rank the top 5 factors which affect the performance gap, in order of importance from 1-5, where 1 has the biggest affect and 5 the least (choose the 5 most important factors, then rank them from 1-5); Answer Options 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Respo nse Count Design modelling naïve 22 14 11 13 17 77 Unregulated energy (Part L 12 3 13 17 11 56 energy quoted) omitted or poorly modelled Assumed perfect control 9 24 14 14 19 80 Contractor designed 13 22 21 12 9 77 elements Quality of construction 70 28 18 10 9 135 Building Management 4 16 16 12 5 53 System Controls not working as intended Commissioning rushed or 4 19 15 11 12 61 incomplete Unmanageable complexity 9 13 14 16 19 71 Changes to Building 2 4 15 13 8 42 Management System and Controls Poor energy management 12 10 16 12 20 70 Building used differently 11 7 8 27 24 77 than originally assumed occupancy densities and hours answered question 170 skipped question 48

104

Appendix 4 – Question 13. Poor construction (freeform responses exactly as submitted by the respondents).

Poor construction has been identified as a contributing factor to the performance gap. In your opinion poor construction is a result of:

Other (please specify)

 Manufacturers being allowed to carry on with false claims for their products without challenge or sanction. See "YBS" range of insulation products like this: http://www.ybsinsulation.com/foiltec_vcl.html for example. (LABC)  In my experience contractors who has worked with the private sector tend to have poor workmanship and does not request inspections because they are used to taking photographs. This has caused a lot of issues onsite with work needing exposure. The standards applied in the private section to retain their customers and make profit has allowed the contractors to have the upper hand as they now can choose the body that would allow them to what ever they want. LA has been put under pressure to accept less insulation because we risk losing them to the private sector. (LABC)  Financial and time to complete pressures (LABC)  When the design perameters allow one to provide extra thickness of floor insulation to ofset extra glazing how can energy be saved! Pt L has become too specialised, the standard that was introduced with the original SAP was a good idea and Building Control were trained to check the whole, now the compliance is " put in the hand of specialists and unless requested, if indeed we can the system has become a theoretical box ticking excercise. When the new regs come out we are told that new build will require additional features to comply i.e. PV's in practice we are receiving SAPs which prove the building as it was three sets of regulation change before! Unless the responsible persons "are in a position to see/agree the design parameters at the beginning and follow through during the construction (risk assessing as their experience allows) they are the only persons who will be in a position to hand on heart say this building conforms to the design theory. With the best will in the world the assessor will not be able and in the main takes his brief from the builder/owner who quite honestly do not understand the principles let alone the finer details of Pt L. In conclusion the problems that the experts are finding is due to the control that has been put in place to endeavour to produce a reasonable standard is being excluded from the procedure, aditionally the theory of producing energy efficient buildings is some what flawed. Suggestion include all aspects of energy useage /wastage in the SAP, simplify the procedure, makesure good principles are clearer and acheivable to all parties and require Building Control to do their job. The system as at present allows a pass the buck attitude, as long asa a piece of paper exists that complies! Apologies but that is the result of over 40 years in the job having seen many different aproaches to this subject. (LABC)  Lack of Building Control staff. (LABC)  les a faire attitude of all involved. Race to the bottom - who will accept the lowest level of compliance. lack of time on site due to cost control. commercial pressure central government playing with building regulations as a political toy Lack of serious commitment by CG (LABC)

105

 Over complex regulations. (LABC)  Little appreciation of what is poor construction and how and why it should be corrected. Generally those installing the insulation do not appreciate the benefits of installing it correctly. (LABC)  The workforce has difficulties in knowing what is required as specifications differ from project to project and as to when the application was submitted (LABC)  all of them above (LABC)  attitude of both builders/developers and in some cases the owners who all generally want the construction costs to be as cheap as possible. and they don't care how much energy is wasted as they don't have to foot the running costs (LABC)  Basic lack of understanding how poorly installation of the correct material can reduce its effectivness in use. (LABC)  Lack of technical knowledge from the installer (LABC)  not reading specifications/plans (LABC)  Energy assessors issuing DER/final design based upon initial design therefore giving the builder the impression that what he has built is ok, when of course it is not...hence performance gap! (LABC)  Lack of care, cost cutting, and the low importance placed on Part L by the developers. (LABC)  A combination of all of the above (LABC)  lack of understanding what is required (LABC)  Sometimes details that "work" on paper are not achievable on site - they are not thought through at design stage (LABC)  Fee competition has forced a reduction in site inspection service. (LABC)  Poor supervision, Poor audit of materials, Changes imposed by site based managers to obtain available materials from local sources to keep costs down, QS changes to materials to keep costs down, Poor control over SAP and Pressure testing companies, Lack of responsibility from SAP and Pressure Testing CXompanies, CPS installers self-certifying systems not fit for purpose, lack of BC inspection at pre-plaster stages to pick-up possible fabric issues, poor design SAP calcs specifying wholly unrealistic fabric values to reduce need to install renewables - to mention but a few (LABC)  Unworkable accepted details eg partial cavity fill, dry lining (LABC)  cost of materials and lack of supervision that pays attention to detail. Like most aspects of life this only improves the more bespoke the development is. (LABC)  lack of specified products, poor planning on site, lack of understanding by workforce (LABC)  Cost of insulation, and the pressure of Approved Inspectors accepting photos of works. (LABC)  Competition between the building control providers. since the contractor will always look for the building control provider who will accept the cheapest/ more flexible approach. In turn, allows contractors to make savings during construction and therefore increase profits. (LABC)  There is to too much emphasis on insulation bein ghte answer to energy efficiency. The way in whihc a building is used is much more significant. Eg home owners do not understand/are not interested in using room thermostats,

106

alternative energy sources or common sense. They put the heating on full and open the windows when it gets too warm! (LABC)  Complexity of regulations and guidance (LABC)  Supply problems. Items not in stock so they are substituted with inferior products. (LABC)  Part L being too complex for designers checking authority and builders (LABC)  Inspections not carried out on site, ie photograohic evidence used (LABC)  Competion within Building Control gives power to the builder/architect/client and hence the easiest/cheapest option is pursued to ensure business is retained. (LABC)  Lack of ownership between trades. (I've done my bit so I don't care anymore, just pay me) (LABC)  Materials not suitable for use e.g. extreme difficulty of cutting Kingspan and similar insulation to size for correct fit i.e. no compressibility to allow fit between rafters etc. (LABC)  Insufficient resources employed by Building Control bodies to inspect compliance with critical elements such as Part A and Part B on site whilst also inspecting quality of construction in relation to Part L. (LABC)  pressure of time and rushing to complete jobs (LABC)  No thought really given to how compliance will be achieved at design or construction materials swapped from original design, designs changed by builder, owner or developer with lack of consideration for the effect (LABC)  Poor understanding and application of Part L requirements by Building Control. (LABC)  Contractors and housebuilders are only interested in the cost and time a job takes not its effectiveness. (LABC)  Competing agendas (LABC)  People open windows! (LABC)  3 main problems are: Air voids on both sides of the thermal elements allowing air to convect around the insulation by passing its often superb thermal resistance. Building Regs Approved docs could easily address this by prohibiting voids both sides of insulation. i.e. insulation and air tight elements should be in direct contact. 2 - The Current 'tick box' approach results in buildings where the air tightness of the thermal insulation is not assessed. Instead plasterboard linings often provide the air tightness to tick the air test box whilst thermal insulation is usually anything but air tight. 3 - approved documents require buildings to be air tight but fail to stipulate that it is the thermal element that should be air tight. (ACAI)  Inappropriate / lack of design detailing. (LABC)  Poor quality site management relating to Part L issues (ACAI)  Poor understanding of design requirements, and impractical design by 'designers' (ACAI)  Lack of verification by contractor and energy assessor (ACAI)  Poor building control enforcement and lack of consequences (ACAI)  Builders generally just build the same construction every time using the same materials especially on domestic work. (LABC)  lack of inspections. Builders tell me that when they have used Approved Inspectors, they never do a visit just to inspect insulation. (LABC)

107

 All of the facors listed will contribute to the performance gap; however poor quality control on site and a genuine belief in the importance of compliance amongst the site team are the two biggest factors (LABC)  Builder/developers frequently just wish to pass the air-tightness test and feel that Part L compliance is less important/critical than other life saftey issues. (LABC)  Bad design of element eg fans trickle vents etc (LABC)  Inadequate communication between Assessor and designer/builder (LABC)

108

Appendix 5 – Question 15. Barriers to the ability to check for Part L compliance (freeform responses exactly as submitted by the respondents).

Barriers to your ability to check for Part L compliance:

Other (please specify)

 Lack of training give to us. We been told that no training will be given and we are expected to learn our self but there is no time because we are overloaded with work. (LABC)  The fact that our hands are tied by the government believing that the matter of Pt L compliance lies in the hands of qualified assessors who unless asked do not need to pass on their design parameters to BC I believe that staff shortages/ insufficient time/lack of k nowledge partly imposed due to the fact the matter is in the hands of competent persons has helped inthe current situation. (LABC)  Substitution of materials (LABC)  In my view Building Control cannot check against part L. It is the job of the SAP sssessor to design the insulation/ boiler/heating control. Buuilding control can only check that what is fixed on site is the same as the SAP calculations (LABC)  All of them above (LABC)  not a statutory requirement therefore not reliant on the Air test (LABC)  lack of tools to easily check compliance (LABC)  the regulations/guidence on the commercial are far too complex to understand. Domestic is fine (LABC)  None of the above (LABC)  lack of being called out by the developer. (LABC)  Enforcement procedures are woeful. (LABC)  The regulations should include deemed to satisfy provisions that would help smaller developers or diy saelf build understand what they need to do to achieve compliance (LABC)  We are not site agents, Junctions (such as wall roof) can be difficult to police. Financial pressure on councils feeds down to difficult justification for extra site visits necessary to go back to check junction rem3edial measures have been carried out. (LABC)  Poor information from SAP assessors and similar and builders expecting BCB's to act as gamekeeper and poacher - supplying and checking certain info e.g.: SAP calcs, EPC's, Pressure tests, Comms certs etc, Race to bottom to win work and offer the world has led some buiders to abdicate their obligations NHBC do this as an example. (LABC)  Often SAP and SBEM assessors do not provide clear easy to read information - they often blind you with science! (LABC)  Complexity of regulations and guidance (LABC)  contractor changing design / materials without informing anyone relying on works being covered up so that BC do not check. Lack of knowledge on the part of the contractor on the performance of different materials. (LABC)  Accredited Construction Details are just a tick box usually completed after the development is complete. These are a waste of time and are too complex.

109

Heating controls are too complex and are not highlighted for Building Control to check. Also if you were to query junction details with a builder it would be the last time they would use you for Building Control and move onto an AI (LABC)  See answer 13. Keeping contractors happy to ensure repeat custom. (LABC)  changes to approved design (LABC)  This is more to do with the nature of the Building Control inspection service. However it is for the designer and builder to ensure that it is done correctly in the first place (LABC)  The target that have been set are not acheiveable (LABC)  Lack of notification by owner/builder/designer at critical stages (LABC)  The above can all be barriers to some extent although the biggest problem is we cannot be on site all the time, work is undertaken and concealed without thought about part L compliance materials swapped, concealed details either not designed or carried out incorrectly. Design should include a factor of safety to allow for some deviation from original design (LABC)  whether or not we are called out to site to see insulation in place and other factors that can affect part L (LABC)  Design decisions related to Part L being introduced toolate in the process consideration needs to be undertaken at planning stage not when it is handed to contractor to build. (LABC)  The fee, marketing, risk assessment. (LABC)  Insufficient Building Regulation ground rules regarding thermal continuity and air tightness i.e. too much design freedom. see previous answer. Drawings being in 2 dimensions only cannot address complex corner connections leaving this part of the design to the specialist subcontractor or site agent. At this level there seems insufficient expertise to identify air tight elements. (ACAI)  Areas being covered over prior to being able to inspect specific areas on site. (ACAI)  Lack of specific information on what has actually been done/used on site (LABC)  Lack of understanding by site staff. Tell site staff time and again what they should be doing but does not sink in to some site agents or tradesmen. On other sites it's really good so can be done. (ACAI)  None (ACAI)

110

Appendix 6 – Interview Transcripts

111

1 Interview Transcript: 1 (designer) 08/12/15

2 Interviewer: The performance gap is defined as buildings that consume more 3 energy in operation than was promised in design. What is your 4 understanding of the performance gap?

5 Designer: Basically, builders that do what they normally do and don’t bother 6 reading the drawings and they don’t bother putting the correct 7 insulation in, they don’t bother doing all the proper details, the 8 accredited enhanced details etc. etc., clearly shown on the drawings 9 and just do what they’ve done for the last 30 years, so basically nothing 10 is as it is shown on the drawing, therefore there is a massive 11 performance gap.

12 Interviewer: [name] this is very good and I will be able to use this. Question 2, Part 13 L of the Building Regulations sets the minimum standards for the 14 conservation of fuel and power in buildings, do you think that the 15 existing regulations are adequate and, if not, what alternative 16 standards should be applied?

17 Designer: I think that they’re adequate.

18 Interviewer: Right, ok. In your opinion who is responsible for Part L compliance?

19 Designer: Building control.

20 Interviewer: That’s interesting. The regs are written so that the person responsible 21 for compliance is the person carrying out the works, but a lot of people 22 think that it is building control.

23 Designer: I suppose so, but they are there to enforce it aren’t they, if the builder, if 24 no one is there to enforce it, then the builder is just going to do what he 25 wants, isn’t he?

26 Interviewer: That’s true.

27 Designer: Yeah. He doesn’t care, all he’s interested in, is making his money.

28 Interviewer: That leads me nicely onto my next question, can you tell me about your 29 experience of how Part L is complied with and enforced?

30 Designer: Well, in what way?

31 Interviewer: Do you think Part L is properly enforced?

32 Designer: Not really no, because the other day I had that job, I won’t name where 33 it was, but the drawings specifically said they had to put Xtratherm in, 34 which was on the SAP calculation and they said to the Building Control 35 Officer, ‘is is alright if we just put in Drytherm 32?’, which is about half

112

36 the performance and he said ‘yeah, that will be alright’. I said that 37 won’t be alright because it won’t pass the SAP at the end of the job. 38 So I think that probably building control need to read the drawing as 39 well to make sure that they give them the correct information.

40 Interviewer: Ok, great example. My next part of that question was to ask you for 41 any examples or observations of that, can you think of any other jobs.

42 Designer: That example in [name of place].

43 Interviewer: Ok.

44 Designer: A new build job where no one read the plan, no one. Not even building 45 control.

46 Interviewer: So the quality of construction can influence the performance gap, so 47 have building control influenced the quality of construction for any of 48 the projects you have been involved in?

49 Designer: In a good way or bad way?

50 Interviewer: Both.

51 Designer: Well, that example I just gave you is a bad way. Umm… a good way, I 52 suppose where they’ve told them to change certain details to avoid 53 thermal bridges and so on, where the builder is not clued up. I’ll tell 54 you an example, one where the builder still thought he had to do block 55 returns in the cavity wall and then they came along and said no, no, no, 56 put in Thermabates, but I think that’s just general idiot builders, not 57 knowing what they are doing.

58 Interviewer: Yes, ok, good. How could building control insure that changes during 59 construction are reflected in the as-built energy rating?

60 Designer: Umm. I think really, what in the SAP?

61 Interviewer: Yes

62 Designer: Well I think, if they’re going to change it, they should check with 63 whoever did the SAP calculations before they change it. I think that’s 64 half the problem isn’t it, that they change it and then think ‘oh hang on, 65 it doesn’t work, what are we going to do now’

66 Interviewer: I think you’re right, it is half the problem.

67 Designer: They shouldn’t make any changes without any further advice. To keep 68 changing things is stupid.

113

69 Interviewer: Right, I’ve got two more questions. The first one is about the 70 commissioning process. So the commissioning is not always carried 71 out as intended, commissioning notice for fixed building services is 72 supposed to be provided to building control within 5 days of 73 commissioning completion, so why do you think that doesn’t happen?

74 Designer: Because I don’t think anyone particularly cares, to be honest. I think 75 it’s just another rule that’s written down and if they don’t ask for it then 76 they’re not going to get it. The builder’s not going to go out of his way 77 to just give it to him so maybe there should be some sort of thing that 78 says if you don’t give it then you don’t get your completion certificate.

79 Interviewer: Ok. Last one. Lack of information being provided to building control 80 reduces their ability to check for Part L compliance. What is your 81 experience of this and how could it be address?

82 Designer: I don’t know because I didn’t hear that, the phone lost connection.

83 Interviewer: Lack of information, so building control don’t get enough information 84 then it reduces their ability to check for Part L compliance.

85 Designer: What on the plans or from Building Notice?

86 Interviewer: Yes, Building Notices are an example of that.

87 Designer: I think they should scrap the Building Notice. I think Building Notice 88 should be for where someone wants to put a window or something in 89 the side of their house and it only needs a lintel or whatever, anything 90 more complicated than that should be done on Full Plans only and 91 that’s all there is to it. A Building Notice is a waste of time. Anyone 92 who tries to build a house on a Building Notice is crazy.

93 Interviewer: That is really good. Thank you very much for that, I’m going to finish 94 the interview there.

114

1 Interview Transcript: 2 (Architect – Associate Director of BRE Wales) 09/12/15

2 Interviewer: The performance gap is defined as buildings that consume more 3 energy in operation than was promised in design. What is your 4 understanding of the performance gap?

5 Architect: I think you just defined it [laughs], yes pretty much what you defined, 6 it’s the difference in real performance compared to envisaged 7 performance and what would be calculated as the performance.

8 Interviewer: Ok, I’ll move on. Some of these questions may be less appropriate 9 perhaps for yourself, an expert in the field. So, Part L of the Building 10 Regulations sets the minimum standard for the conservation of fuel and 11 power in buildings. Do you think that the existing regulations are 12 adequate and if not, what alternative standards should be applied?

13 Architect: [laughs] good question. Um…there is a lot of questions underneath 14 that one. The existing reg….Part L is regulated energy use and most, 15 part of the problem over the performance gap is that people think that 16 the predicted use from tools such as SAP should equate to the actual 17 use, or energy in use, which of course it was never intended to do that 18 in the first place. Add to that the fact that it is not a design tool, it is a 19 compliance tool, then you, you sort of have part of the problem of the 20 performance gap. You’re using a, I don’t know, a chocolate fire guard 21 to try and make an icebreaker or something. It’s just not the right tool 22 to do what people expect, or people might think it’s going to do. So I 23 think that the regulation itself and to take it to the letter of the law, the 24 regulation is fine, it’s simple. The Approved Document which expands 25 on the actual statutory requirement and measure, has pros and cons, 26 but of course, I’m speaking to you from Cardiff which means I have a 27 different Part L from you, albeit not very different, and I prefer ours to 28 yours…

29 Interviewer: [laughs]

30 Architect: But then I would, wouldn’t I. So whichever method, they all run back to 31 the national calculation methodology that underpins the methods that is 32 a UK wide requirement, so that applies to Scotland, Ireland and Wales 33 and England. The regulation to reduce the energy used in buildings is 34 a good direction, and you can argue whether or not it goes further or 35 not, but ultimately it’s more about the implementation of the measure, 36 than it is the measure itself. I think. So one could question the national 37 calculation methodology, but ultimately again, the national calculation 38 methodology is a compliance tool not a design tool, or I think…I’ve 39 almost forgotten the question that you opened with, but my answer is 40 probably as a regulation it probably does what it needs to do as a

115

41 regulation. It’s probably not being used correctly in that people use it to 42 try and design with.

43 Interviewer: Ok that’s very interesting, thank you. So carrying on, in your opinion 44 who is responsible for Part L compliance?

45 Architect: [laughs] well, the responsibility….now I’ve got to get my law right 46 here...[indeterminate].., I should know… [laughs]..the ultimate 47 compliance obligation is with the client, who usually divulges it, or 48 whatever word I’m looking for, to contractor and/or to design team, or a 49 combination of the above. So compliance obligation is on the client 50 fundamentally. There are lots of people that could hopefully pick up 51 problems on the way through, but that’s where it sits I think, at the end 52 of the day.

53 Interviewer: Yes, ok. The next question: can you tell me about your experience of 54 how Part L is complied with and enforced and following on from that, 55 do you think that Part L is properly enforced?

56 Architect: I think, it’s a proper can of worms. I think that building regs as a whole 57 have issues over enforcement and I think that part of that is to do with 58 Westminster’s drive to introduce private sector, things like approved 59 inspectors, who, many of whom do an exemplary job, but ultimately 60 when you are being paid by the client, you are slightly more inclined, or 61 there is a higher risk, lets say, of someone taking a lenient view on 62 what complies or might be deemed to be, and that’s a problem 63 with…competent person schemes and self assessment schemes 64 across the construction industry and ultimately approved inspectors are 65 a sort of self assessment scheme for a development. Their own 66 appointed inspector does the assessment and is naturally inclined to 67 look favourably upon problems or of how to get round them and part of 68 that is good and part of that is potentially a relaxation. So I think that 69 there is an issue over how much things are checked and validated, in 70 terms of all building regulations and by extension that means that Part 71 L has the same sorts of problems. I think in design terms, actually 72 that’s one of the easier ones to achieve. You will have at any scale 73 either SAP or SBEM pinned into various design tools and you are 74 producing a number and you’ll be able to demonstrate that it matches 75 or exceeds the nominal building, the notional building that you compare 76 it to and you know, an approved inspector or a building control from a 77 local building control body, either of the BCB’s will be able to look at 78 one number and look at the other, and that’s pretty black and white. I 79 think that the problem starts to stem once you start to get to the 80 implementation of the building and whether buildings are 81 commissioned exactly in line with the data that was entered in the SAP

116

82 and whether, right down to things like kit replacement, with new 83 versions or new models that may, or may not be better or perform 84 differently and then, beyond the commissioning stage there’s the 85 issues around the operation stage and the tales of building managers 86 that don’t quite understand or can’t source the biomass so therefore 87 they use, what was supposed to just be a backup gas system running 88 all the time. All sorts of stuff that tales that may or may not be true but 89 certainly are believable in that you can envisage that there are other 90 pressures on the people running the building and some of the more 91 esoteric requirements might go out the window. So I think that there’s 92 a series of issues that go round whether it is enforced or whether it is 93 achieved, so that little cuts at every step mean that you’ll end up with a 94 very big difference at the end.

95 Interviewer: Yes

96 Architect: Was that the question?

97 Interviewer: Yes [laughs]

98 Architect: I went on long enough that I forgot the answer.

99 Interviewer: That’s going to be really useful, so thank you. We’re halfway through 100 my questions. Next one is about the quality of construction, and the 101 quality of construction can influence the performance gap, so have 102 building control influenced the quality of construction for any of the 103 projects you have been involved in or could they on future projects?

104 Architect: They certainly could. To answer the second bit first, building control 105 certainly have the capacity to be, to enforce the quality, or to push the 106 quality of the building fabric. The issue there is certainly if you are 107 talking about local building control, the problem would being more 108 vigorous is local building control, is it would cost more in time and 109 expenses and would lose you clients to approve inspectors, because 110 they almost certainly won’t be being more vigorous, because it is not in 111 the interest of their client and they ultimately want to win clients. So as 112 building control bodies overall, there is certainly the capacity for 113 building control bodies to drive standards in as much as they can as an 114 occasional site visitor, but certainly in terms of commissioning testing, 115 pushing for air-pressure tests, making sure that they are done properly, 116 making sure that they’ve got records of developments and such.

117 Interviewer: Well that leads of nicely onto the question about commissioning, so the 118 commissioning process is not always carried out as intended. The 119 commissioning notice for fixed building services should be provided to

117

120 building control within five days of commissioning completion. Why do 121 you think that this is?

122 Architect: Why do you think that..?

123 Interviewer: That is doesn’t happen as it should

124 Architect: I think that it is almost certainly, that, commissioning is happening as 125 the building is heading towards practical completion and so there are a 126 wealth of pressures on the contractor and the client that will be around 127 pre-lets or sales, or whatever depending on the type of building and 128 there will be a long list of what is not officially called snagging items 129 which are being picked up by design teams, being challenged, so 130 commissioning and commissioning certification is just one element of a 131 lot that happens. It is a busy period in the construction site. So I think 132 it’s one of a number of things that have to happen, that doesn’t excuse 133 it not happening, it simply says that in essence there is a lot happening 134 and busyness. I think it also probably an element that building control, 135 that local authority building control and to a large extent approved 136 inspectors, tend to focus on core issues of life safety and that is a 137 necessity of things being driven in a competitive market, people will 138 have to, they will have to limit what they can do in the budget that they 139 can charge a client, so there is a factor of time which means I think 140 building control bodies don’t necessarily hammer on the door every five 141 minutes to demand it and refuse to issue the building control approval 142 notice as necessary. They could theoretically be holding onto those 143 and not issuing and therefore stopping practical completion on almost 144 every construction contract would grind to a halt if building control 145 didn’t give their completion notice, then I think that there is a reticence 146 to do that for things which aren’t life safety.

147 Interviewer: Ok. How could building control ensure that changes in construction are 148 reflected in the as-built energy rating?

149 Architect: In the as-built energy rating…I’m not sure I understand the question?

150 Interviewer: Things that change during the construction, making sure that those 151 changes are actually reflected in that final as-built, rating.

152 Architect: Yes I suppose that there is two sides to that. Changes during the 153 construction process that substitute anything that has an impact on the 154 SAP calculation ought to trigger a re-run of the SAP or the SBEM 155 depending on the building type, in order to demonstrate that the 156 building would remain compliant against it’s notional building with the 157 replacement product. So as far as that should be done in order for it to 158 comply with the law then building control should certainly be pushing

118

159 for, if they see something on site, on the occasional visit, that doesn’t 160 look like the product that they thought went into the SAP calc or the 161 SBEM calcs, then you know raising a flag would be helpful is probably 162 not be the word that the client would use, but would be helpful to 163 comply with the law, in terms of the buildings overall performance 164 compared to the SAP or the SBEM, then it is a design , it is a notional 165 design minimum, so it doesn’t have to accord with the calculation that 166 was provided to building control, it just has to be no worse than it. So I 167 think from that point of view there’s sort of two halves, if the building is 168 built to at least the standard that is defined in the SAP or the SBEM, 169 then that is actually all that building control really have the capacity to 170 push for and certainly on that side they could push for it but in terms of 171 other aspects then providing it is still remains compliant with the 172 minimum standards which ultimately is all building regs is, which is 173 minimum levels of acceptability, if it doesn’t conform with that predicted 174 energy use by being better, then as far as I am aware it is perfectly 175 acceptable.

176 Interviewer: Ok, final question, nearly there. Lack of information provided to 177 building control reduces their ability to check for Part L compliance. 178 What is your experience of this and how could this be addressed?

179 Architect: In truth, my experience is that most building control, local authority 180 building control and approved inspectors, having worked on both sides, 181 will take, certainly on larger schemes, will take the calculations 182 provided by the M&E consultant and will largely sort of give them a 183 quick once over to check that it looks semi-sensible and will otherwise 184 will just go ‘thank you very much, you’ve done it’ and it will go into the 185 file. I don’t think from my experience there is much digging into what 186 the evidence based behind the calculations is, other than the cursory 187 sort of once over to check that the building has the same number of 188 storeys, whether it is mechanically ventilated or not, so those sorts of 189 things. Perhaps in smaller scale where SAP is a somewhat simpler 190 tool, that might be more likely to be the case in that it is easily, it’s 191 effectively just a spreadsheet you can print off if you wanted and it 192 would be fairly easy to tick off elements from it, than the SBEM 193 calculation, it becomes sufficiently complex and where time is tight for 194 the building control bodies, it is very much taken as the professional 195 consultant who is doing a professional job and one hopes that he is 196 doing it in accordance with whatever chartered institute he is with and 197 the guidance that they ask.

198 Interviewer: Well [name], thank you very much, that concludes my questions, and I 199 really appreciate your answers, there is lots of useful stuff in there.

119

1 Interview Transcript: 3 (Energy Assessor) 09/12/15

2 Interviewer: The performance gap is defined as buildings that consume more 3 energy in operation than was promised in design. What is your 4 understanding of the performance gap? Are you familiar with it?

5 Energy Ass: Well, my understanding of the performance gap is design and the 6 finished product.

7 Interviewer: Ok, thanks. So Part L of the Building Regulations sets out the 8 minimum standards for the conservation of fuel and power in buildings. 9 Do you think the existing regulations are adequate and if not, what 10 alternative standard should be applied?

11 Energy Ass: I think that they’re adequate for new houses, I think that they are 12 reaching saturation point if anything. But for the conversions to houses 13 and flats, and…the…extensions, I think more can be done in that area.

14 Interviewer: Yes, ok. In your opinion who is responsible for Part L compliance?

15 Energy Ass: Who is responsible?

16 Interviewer: Yes.

17 Energy Ass: The building owner.

18 Interviewer: Yes. It was surprising, on the questionnaire results, lots of Building 19 Control Officers…thought that they were.

20 Energy Ass: Right [laughs]

21 Interviewer: Ok, can you tell me about your experience of how Part L is complied 22 with and enforced, and do you think Part L is properly enforced?

23 Energy Ass: I think it’s a very difficult area of regulation to enforce…to start 24 with,…properly, because there is all sorts of different issues and 25 problems with it. I mean it’s a very misunderstood part of the 26 regulations in my view, for the designers and certainly the builders as 27 well and some of them just don’t have a clue. They tend to think they 28 would use the same u-values for an extension as they do for a new 29 house, because it’s a back door requirement, if you like, because it’s 30 not laid out properly within the requirements and because the u-values 31 are much higher than you would get on a normal extension and that is 32 where you get all the confusion comes.

33 Interviewer: The quality of construction can influence the performance gap. Have 34 building control influenced the quality of the construction for any of the 35 projects that you have been involved in?

120

36 Energy Ass: I think again it’s about information, it’s about passing on the information 37 from the designer to the builder [coughs]. Excuse me. And I think 38 there’s the a real problem there because it’s misinterpreted and 39 builders, a lot of the older builders take the view that ‘I’ve been doing 40 this for thirty years’ and that ‘this is all new to me’ and that sort of 41 attitude, and therefore I think really, that the designers have got to get it 42 in their own head to start with, before they can actually push forward 43 and transfer the information to the actual developer.

44 Interviewer: Ok. So that leads us on nicely to the next question, how could building 45 control ensure that changes in construction are reflected in as-built 46 energy ratings?

47 Energy Ass: Right, how can they ensure it?

48 Interviewer: Yes. How can they make sure it happens?

49 Energy Ass: How can they make it happen? By the transfer of information, correct 50 information. I mean the actual SAP’s now, the EPC’s, do have the final, 51 the as-built calculations, do have quite a clear laid out, procedure for 52 the builder to follow, but they don’t always get sight of those 53 calculations. And u-value calculations, and I think a lot of the time, my 54 experience is that I very rarely, if ever, get a drawing, where I can use 55 all the data on it straight into the SAP calculations.

56 Interviewer: There’s a lot of information missing?

57 Energy Ass: Yes, yes or incorrect. And therefore I always produce a schedule of 58 my assumptions, of the factors I’ve actually used in the calculation, in 59 the design calculation. So…in an effort to try and transfer the 60 information further up the chain, so to speak.

61 Interviewer: Yes, that’s a good idea. So the commissioning process is not always 62 carried out as intended. Commissioning for fixed building services 63 should be provided to building control within five days of 64 commissioning completion. Why do you think this is?

65 Energy Ass: I think they just see it as more paperwork, I think…I don’t, the 66 emphasis is really on the actual product itself. It’s just a paper exercise 67 and that’s how it’s seen. But once again, it’s down to building control 68 to, not to release the completion until all this paperwork is in place. 69 Give it more importance.

70 Interviewer: Ok, I’m down to my last question. Lack of information provided to 71 building control reduces their ability to check for Part L compliance. 72 What is your experience of this and how could it be addressed?

121

73 Energy Ass: Well the one that really comes to mind is Building Notices. I mean that 74 is a total disaster, I mean I’ve had properties, new properties trying to 75 be built on a Building Notice and it just doesn’t work. I mean Building 76 Notices are ok if they’re for small alterations….but, I mean, even 77 extensions, you know, a Building Notice, the builders or the building 78 owner don’t have a clue of what insulation to put in where and 79 therefore building control will go round there to inspect the work and 80 go, ‘oh no, this is all wrong, you haven’t got this in’ and ‘you’ve got too 81 much glazing in here’ and ‘you’ve got this’ and it’s just a total 82 nightmare. So I think the sooner that they do away or require Full 83 Plans submissions for extensions and new buildings, I think that that 84 would be a major step forward. Because, I mean, it’s just utter chaos 85 when you get a Building Notice on these sort of projects.

86 Interviewer: Ok, that’s really good and that concludes my questions [name of 87 Energy Assessor], thank you very much.

122