2016 is way too soon for a zero carbon target

Only if you ignore the externalities (carbon emissions) it is supposed to address. From that point of view it's really rather late. I think you are right that it would be extremely hard to meet if it were not watered down to the new 'fake zero carbon' targets.

My impression of the building industry is that it is actually changing remarkably fast to get to grips with the clearly-changed environment of building, where energy usage and emissions matter. But then I probably mostly only see the greener end of things. So far as I can tell most people involved (at least at the higher levels) do actually want to change things for the better, it just slow because there are a lot of ingrained behaviours. methods, and conventions to shift.

Posted By: wookeyit just slow because there are a lot of ingrained behaviours. methods, and conventions to shift.

Exactly.

Changing practices quickly by top-down decrees is a pretty ineffective way of instituting change in my experience. You tend to get buy-in from a small cadre of keen individuals, but the majority just view any kind of change as an inconvenience. Resistance to change is (unfortunately) one of the defining characteristics of the British national psyche. Just look at the ridiculous attitudes to things like the metric system. Just because something is better, it doesn't mean people will leap to embrace it. Many folks will resist even positive change.

Fraction of 'better than standard' builds is much better than 99% round here. There is a continuous stream of extensions and renovations and whilst most are fairly conventional cavity builds, I've seen good standards of insulation (and more to the point fitting - e.g. PIR properly taped and flush-fitted before building outer leaf) as well as some more radical builds (rendered pavatex/steico on one building, and another well-insulated one gone up this year). Maybe as much as 30% are what we might call 'not too bad'.

And so it begins...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/oct/26/government-building-standards-review-regulation?newsfeed=true

"Regulations including fire safety and wheelchair access could be torn up in an attempt to cut costs for the construction industry..."

Wish I was wrong about this one.

A bit of rationalisation, common sense approach and updating would not go amiss I am sure, just depends on where they do it.

Two examples:

Example One: To reduce cost of new build one could reduce the thermal efficiency by not insisting on an over all U-Value of say 5 W.M^2.K^-1 (or whatever) for walls, floors and roof.

Example Two: To reduce cost you could allow a house to be built that currently could not possibly be built because of access issues, say a flight of steps because a ramp would be impractical.

I can understand the need for social housing to be made accessible to all as the tenets often change (and new legislation may forcefully remove unsuitable tenets), but private developments in the free market are subjected to buyer choice and if, for example, a house is unsuitable for someone with mobility problems, they are not going to buy it. If the owners circumstances change, they they can, either though moving, council grants, borrowing against equity get a place suitable for them.
Seems am odd system to do all the modifications (or potential for modifications) at the initial design stage, forcing the cost up, for something that may never be needed. Be a bit like having buying a second car just in case your primary one does not work.
There is usually a way around a market failure, which this issue is, so maybe a one off payment from the developer that goes into a well managed fund for the rare occasions that a private dwelling has to be modified. I am sure there is enough data in this area to for an actuary to work out the premium.

I agree with ST about the accessible to all point. I think things such as door widths and downstairs toilets are good for new builds and desirable in renovations but not if the costs are to high. There have been heated discussions on this topic in the past on this forum so I will not go on to much about this.

I would say that trying to 'FUTURE PROOF' housing is fairly futile as it is difficult to know what the world will be like in 25 years time. On the point of wheelchair access if a bionic skeleton were developed that made walking easier than wheelchair use and so 99% of users switched to them all the access issues would be put on their head. Do it where it is needed but not forced on to all. Why does my house have to be accessible but not my car?

I find the reduction of safety requirements disturbing however though the burglar alarm should not be a requirement

Jonti

I used to think complying with Part M (Disabled Access) was a waste of money..................until I worked for a lovely couple, I obtained planning permission for them for a barn conversion and we all had a good grumble about having to comply with the regulations, level access, WC facilities, etc.

Ben was diagnosed with Multiple Schlerosis 6 months after completion and now 5 years on is very grateful that he can gain access to his home in his wheelchair and has much needed toilet facilities (& shower room) on the ground floor.

The point is we all think this will never happen to us, but it happens to someone; by beginning to upgrade the housing stock we offer more choice to disabled people now and in the future.

Posted By: SteamyTeaNot wishing to be disrespectful to any individual but if the choice comes down to not building a house at all because there would be an infringement that may only effect a tiny proportion of the population, that is denying someone else a home.

It's not a tiny proportion. Part M's biggest target is the elderly.

I can say from experience that we often turn to the latest British Standards before the Approved Documents these days as the guidance is usually more up to date and comprehensive (e.g. BS8300 usually contains more detailed guidance than Part M) and the AD's tend to just advise you to look here anyway . So a 'tidying' of the existing regs is not unwarranted by any means.

I can also say from experience that if something in a design is not a defined legal requirement (i.e. stipulated in the Building Regs) then we will almost always be asked by contractors on Design and Build projects (the bulk of larger scale public work) to remove it. There are numerous reasons for this and I'm certainly not looking to assign blame - ultimately any client wishing to save money is entitled to do so, my point is that the Regs are often the only reason that anything of any durability, safety or quality is built. The idea of allowing the industry the "scope for self-regulation" is truly terrifying...A variation on the 'Tragedy of the Commons'.

The fact that "at least two large construction firms expressed doubts about the importance of regulation as a barrier to building" makes it all the more pathetic.

Posted By: tonyso long as regulations apply to all and there is a level playing field then they have no influence on things

Indeed it could be argued that the better benefit for all, the country, our economy and all future owners and the public purse that regulations concerning conservation of energy should be a great deal more stringent (and indeed should have been in the past too)

Tony,

the problem is that the enforcement is not the same. An individual builder will have the BCO check each stage of the construction but a large building firm building multiple units will usually have odd construction stages checked not each stage on each unit (or so I understand) Now that is not a level playing field in my book.

Shevek,

whilst I agree with building to allow access for all where practically and financially reasonable as ST says it should not prevent the building or renovation of housing where this is not possible. If you are suggesting that it's not a tiny proportion but a sizable percentage of the population in wheelchairs then I disagree.

Jonti

Yay, Shevek!

Posted By: JontiWho mentioned wheelchairs? I DID!!! Most of the access issues are to do with disabled access and not elderly. The elderly part has been tacked on to add convenient weight to the argument but just been elderly does not mean that you will have access issues.

So you're creating your own strawman, blaming it on Shevek, and then shooting yourself down? Not a very reasonable way to discuss things IMHO. Disabled doesn't just mean wheelchairs, it also includes crutches after a skiing accident as well as lots of other things that affect people of all ages. And indeed, some elderly people are lucky enough not to have access issues. Neither of my parents did, for example, but that was because they died before they got to an age where such things become more common. We're all living longer now.

Posted By: Jonti775mm id the minimum but many BCOs demand wider even if this will incur much higher costs.

How does that work then? BCOs can demand what's in the regs, not arbitrarily make their own rules. Widths depend on the approach, which is up to the designer.

djh,

where did I blame anything on Shevek? I just disagreed with him.

You say 'BCOs can demand what's in the regs, not arbitrarily make their own rules. Widths depend on the approach, which is up to the designer'. Is this really true? I have had a situation where the BCO felt that wider doors were more appropriate as the wall was 4ft thick and so nearer to being a corridor in his opinion. I had to go higher up the COC to get the original plans approved.

You also say 'Disabled doesn't just mean wheelchairs' which is true BUT from an actual access point of view dimensions are taken from a wheelchair being pushed perspective. A person on crutches after a skiing accident is also disabled but this is not used as the BS benchmark.

Some can just as easily be many and your claim that every single person is living longer is clearly not true rather it is the average life expectancy which is something different to your claim.

Jonti

Posted By: djhI call troll

I will give you time to consider and retract.

Jonti

nikhoward,

I agree with your sentiments but many self builders do not really self build but rather rely on a builder to do the work for them. It surprises me how little people often inform themselves. Even people in the trade are often very ignorant of the other trades.

As for being nice to each other there was only one contributor being unpleasant on this thread and he hasn't had the character to retract, redact or explain his comment. Says a lot about him in my book.

Jonti