48 INDUSTRY VIEWFINDER: BUILDING REGULATIONS (PART F AND PART L) PROBLEM ASSESSMENT WHY ARE THE CHANGES NECESSARY?
hen considering the challenges posed by the interim standards, it is important to understand why they are being introduced, and to ascertain whether housebuilders and developers can see any benefi ts of their introduction. Encouragingly, an array of benefi ts were listed by our respondents, the most common being ‘making a maor contribution to the ’s ourney to net ero emissions,’ at . This was closely followed by ‘reducing fuel poverty through better building fabric’ understandable given the looming cost of living crisis at the time of uestioning then ‘a useful stepping stone towards more stringent standards’ , the latter following the trend of the most popular option. Then, listed by less than a third of our respondents, were an ‘improved reputation for the building industry’ , ‘levelling the playing fi eld for ecoconscious builders’ , ‘closing the performance gap’ , and fi nally, ‘satisfying maor consumer demand’ .
espite falling last among the biggest benefi ts of the changes, positively, our respondents noted that issues around reducing the carbon footprint of their homes has become a ‘big factor’ for of their customers, with this increasing slightly or a lot for the maority of our respondents in recent years.
INDUSTRY VIEW
When asked what our interviewees thought were the biggest benefi ts of the new standards, as with our quantitative respondents, the most common answer was its contribution to the UK journey’s towards net zero. John Dally of Hayfi eld homes, for instance, noted that the changes are “helping to lead the industry in the right direction, sooner.” Similarly, Sam Smart of Stonewood Partnerships believes
that, “as well as reducing carbon emissions and energy requirements, the changes will lead to a high level of building control, as new buildings will be made fi t for the future.” Lee Harris of Springbourne Homes said: “We are all
responsible and accountable for our actions, with buildings having long term impacts on what materials are used, how they are manufactured, applied and adopted by the end user.”
AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDING espite the awareness of these benefi ts, the introduction of the interim regulations was not warmly welcomed by all our respondents, with a lack of awareness and understanding of the changes being clear. s noted earlier, almost a uarter of our respondents had not
even heard of the recent art and regulation changes prior to this research. f those who had heard of it, only ‘completely understand’ them, with mainly understanding them, slightly, partially, and not understanding them at all.
This is perhaps understandable, considering that when asked how the overnment has performed in engaging the following stakeholders of the upcoming changes, the maority believed they had done so ‘uite’ or ‘very’ poorly to buyers , builders , developers , and planners with only manufacturers believed to have been informed uite or very poorly by less than half of our respondents .
INDUSTRY VIEW
systems are the largest contributor. Air source heating may well be part of the solution, however the operational models are so diff erent to gas or oil fi red systems that the homeowner needs re education,” he continues. “The operating temperatures diff er signifi cantly, therefore the
Lee Harris of Springbourne Homes echoed our respondents, noting a need especially for homeowner reeducation: “Building regulations are generally an unknown entity for customers, therefore they have no knowledge of how altera- tions will be implemented.” “We are all being driven to reduce CO2
, and the heating
heat is less intense and takes longer to react. The timer cycles require activation for longer periods and this goes against their previously learnt methods. The heating contractors have been slow to react and therefore the commissioning is often challenging as is fault fi nding.”
COMPLIANCE – IN THEORY OR PRACTICE
s noted above, with the interim standards only applying to new developments starting after the th of une and our survey being held in ugust only ust under a uarter of our respondents had worked on a proect that’s fallen under their remit when surveyed.
f those that had, when asked how hard they have found compliance to be, the vast maority found it to be hard to some degree, with saying etremely, uite, and a little though reported they haven’t found it any different perhaps refl ecting some of those who were already building to as high, or higher standards previously.
lightly more challenging, when asked how hard they had found measuring their carbon reductions across the whole site, said etremely, uite, a little, and had seen no difference.
f those who had not worked on a proect under the changes’ remit yet, the estimations followed reasonably closely to
PRODUCED IN ASSOCIATION WITH
WWW.HBDONLINE.CO.UK
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 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92
