The introduction states that the thermal performance of buildings designed to Building Regulation requirements (or better?) is such that they could actually be ”consuming in excess of 40% more energy than the predicted values”, and possibly much more in some cases!

I’d recommend people to read it.

With a background of climate and demographic change & the apparent demand for more housing the Government wants a building control system that produces better compliance (at a reduced cost to users!) coupled with a greater understanding of what building control does and doesn’t do so as to better address the challenges of climate change & sustainability.

There’s also a focus on making the building control process easier for responsible builders possibly by widening the self-certification route to compliance. As the document states, the self-certification scheme currently involves areas of low risk but that the scheme could be extended into areas other than structure, fire & drainage.

I’m not entirely convinced myself that this would necessarily be a better way of doing things (I would say that wouldn’t I given that I want to earn a living getting building regulation approvals for people) but I have to say in my time as a builder I’ve never found the building control process particularly onerous or difficult.

I contacted my local Building Control and they confirmed that there was over-specification and that, actually, they were not under any obligation to highlight where a specification un-intentionally went beyond the Building Regulations. This is something that for a long time lurked on the periphery of my mind but was never really an issue.

Having said that only until recently I laboured under the impression that a fire door to a loft conversion on the second floor was not in question. For the first time I haven’t gone with Local Authority Building Control (used MLM Building Control) – we wanted to use Actis Tri Iso Super 10 on a loft conversion.  Imagine my surprise when I learned that a fire door to the loft room might not actually be required!

The logic was that it’s the protected stairwell from the loft room (the escape route) that required protection from fire hence all doors onto the stairwell to be FD30. The actual loft room itself didn’t present a risk to the stairwell as, in the event of a fire, a person would be wanting to get out into the stairwell to escape. Does that make sense?

Despite the controversy surrounding the claim by Actis that Super 10 has a U-value equivalent to 210mm of mineral wool, TRADA continues to support the product for roof construction applications.

Government department Communities & Local Government has recently published (18 June 09) a report on multi-foil insulation by Professor Philip Eames of Loughborough University. At the same time they have issued a circular & divisional letter.

The Department continues to support the so-called ‘hot box’ test and other tests agreed at a European level for insulation materials and that results from such tests only will carry a ‘statutory presumption’ of being correct. The Department, however, accepts that there is a scientific dispute over test methods and that Building Control Checking Authorities and Approved Inspectors are therefore free to decide for themselves whether to accept a construction detail that involves a multi-foil (as has always been the case it seems).

For those of you who are interested there is a long running debate on multi-foils at the Green Building Forum.

For several years my Local Authority Building Control department has refused to accept Actis Tri Iso Super 10. I’ve just finished two loft conversion designs and we used MLM who are happy accept Actis.