I just received a very interesting comment from a “simple builder” about the regulatory maze. There are some interesting points in there. I don’t agree with all of them but I wanted to draw attention to them just the same:
Sorry guys I just have to speak out.
I speak as a simple Builder, we are a practical breed, not scientists, but we are being treated with rafts of legislation written by lunatics…
As builders we know how to build, but nowadays we spend ages faffing around for months unproductively trying to get figures and costs to stack with too many variables of components, technologies and building elements. This is typically done by using expensive experts who have no single answer and Architects ultimately only became an Architect because they have a passion for drawing.
The truth is we are scared, fudging it and no-one on site understands it.
The over complex rule sets are written by boffins that should go and work for the energy companies (the source of Co2) where they would be better employed.
What we need is to bring back the old Elemental U values but tightened up to meet very good thermal standards, say:
Walls 0.15
Windows 1.0
Roofs 0.1
Floors 0.13
Air tightness of 4
MVHR and 70% LE lightingRevise SAP just to calculate the TER and DER based on a max parameter /m2 to prevent too many windows in design.
This way the construction industry can focus and come up with tailored solutions, components, methods and technologies that will achieve a set of U values set by Building Regs – Everyone will know what they are doing and be able to get on with the job in hand – easier to price, programme, legislate, check and build.
It is clear to me that the true future of carbon reduction sits with the energy companies with billions of pounds and teams of scientists, not us poor builders.
Also get rid of gas, and go all electric. Its running out and apart from anything else it is dangerous stuff to install in blocks of flats and a stupid idea.
Our job as builders is to build a good product to save energy, not produce energy, The energy companies job is to produce clean energy without creating C02
Nuclear Fusion and keep it simple – the way ahead….
carbon limited 
Now you know my view of MVHR, which is slightly conflicted given that I am considering it for our place.
Irrespective of this, whats encouraging about the comment from Cookie is that here we have a contractor saying they can acheive the U-values that 5 years ago were unthinkable for all except the wild crazies….
I would also agree that the complex route to regulatory compliance is a pain for all concerned and needs to be simplified, but I suspect that this is a by-product of the standards changing at an unprecedented pace for the UK construction industry. Just as we get used to one set of rules, along comes a revision.
Is this a period of growing pains and once we come out of it, will it all appear straightforward again?
No ‘Simple builder’ he. The electric comment aside, he knows far more than most builders I’ve ever met.
I wonder how much of it he knew 5 years ago? If not all, then it appears to suggest that all this change actually does educate.
If he is self-employed and multitrade, it must be awful. We all know that we could spend all day, every day just reading DeCLoG docs.
If he is part of a large volume concern, then a lot of the problems with UK building quality lies with the standard practice of piecework.
Either way, we do need to simplify the regs somewhat, re-train the trades, change the SOP’s and a million other things.
After that; lunch
at last!
cookie has captured what contractors have been feeling and trying to voice for what seems like years.
surly the simple way of doing things is always the best way and the current “energy saving” approach is nonsense quite frankly.
each guidance document seems to have been created in isolation which ultimately means the builder needs to put them together and try to explain to a client what his getting which a present means nothing until they get keys as most of them are similar simple folk too.
somebody needs to ask the question “is this worth it?” I suspect most clients would say no but as long as there funding box gets ticked then I don’t think there bothered. This is not right. They should know what they want and ask for it.
CHP, biomass, solar, all nice on paper but lets see how they work in the real word. As far as i know U values dont need maintaning and have no shelf life but we need to ignore that and just stick a box of tricks or combination of boxes of tricks and get a white coat to give his thumbs up.
if we could build something cheaper, quicker and to a more predictable spec (egan anyone) then I’m sure projects would benefit.
also, i agree with cookie in respect of gas. gas is a pain in flats and is only suited to houses. yes good to cook with but who cares as long as your food is hot and water is warm.
dear Mr brown, “keep it simple stupid”
… another simple builder