This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
NEWS All the latest news from around the building industry


Policy change ‘would be


self-defeating’


Homeowners would carry out fewer improvement works if the ‘consequential improvements’ proposal was introduced, according to a survey of its members by the Federation of Master Builders (FMB). The FMB said that requiring home owners to carry out energy efficiency improvements as part of house conversions would be ‘self-defeating’. The survey found that ‘70% of respondents did not believe that consequential improvements were technically, functionally or economically feasible to implement for most domestic extension projects’. ‘Our research also shows that 73% of builders think that home owners would carry out less work as a result of the proposals, with a further 69% expecting home owners to turn to cowboy builders instead to get around the proposed legislation,’ the FMB said. FMB chief executive Brian Berry said: ‘There is an urgent need to improve the energy efficiency of our existing homes but people should be encouraged and not forced to take action as the current proposals will only backfire on the government.’


Consequential improvements proposal may be scrapped


l Prime Minister is reported as calling for the proposed change to Part L to be dropped


Plans to include ‘consequential improvements’ in the Building Regulations could be scrapped, after the Prime Minister was reported as being unhappy with them. The consultation document on changes to Part L of the regulations includes plans for ‘consequential improvements’, which would require home conversions to be accompanied by some energy efficiency measures. But Downing Street sources told the BBC that such additional measures, dubbed a ‘conservatory tax’ by some MPs, should not be compulsory. The government also stressed that the Green Deal – a voluntary home-efficiency scheme that is separate from the Building Regulations – would not be scrapped, as some newspapers had suggested. CIBSE president Andy Ford said: ‘If the government decides not to implement consequential improvements, it significantly undermines their efforts to cut emissions from buildings.


‘The savings from these measures are estimated to be almost 10 times what we will save from the proposed changes for new buildings. It is hard to see how the government can either meet the requirements of the Energy Performance Directive for major renovations, or be “the greenest government ever” if it drops consequential improvements for existing homes.’ Paul King, chief executive of the UK Green Buildings


Council, described Downing Street’s suggestions as ‘bewildering’. He told the BBC that, under consequential improvements, homeowners would not be required to introduce energy efficiency measures


The consequential improvements policy has been dubbed a ‘conservatory tax’ by some MPs opposed to it


unless these were cost effective. ‘If they’re not cost effective, the homeowner can refuse,’ he said. Separately, several organisations have signed up to become Green Deal providers, offering energy efficiency packages to consumers when the scheme launches later this year.


The government said it would be working with the 22 signatories to ensure the move from testing into a managed launch in October works ‘seamlessly’ and provides a good customer experience from day one. The 22 include several big energy companies, but there are also some smaller firms and community groups.


Analysis of Building Regulations proposals, page 32


6


CIBSE Journal May 2012


www.cibsejournal.com


Shutterstock / David Hughes


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72