Achieving Building Standards

· Are building standards regulating for the right things in the right way?

Generally, but some things are regulated in too much detail. Certain things are not controllable and are the results of attempts to deal with small problems by introducing unenforceable regulations. Part P is a good example of an uncontrollable and unenforceable (and un-necessary) regulation.

· Are these standards being achieved and if not is there anything stopping them from being enforced?

In some cases the right things are being regulated, but there is now more regulatory burden both in terms of quantity and complexity. As the complexity is ever increasing there is consequently too much for Building Control to handle adequately with the manpower available.

· What helps people comply with them?

Clearly expressed, concise, uncomplicated regulations covering only essential, controllable aspects.

· What stops people from complying with them?

- Complexity. For example AD L is in four parts and it refers to numerous other supporting documents.
- Frequent changes and added levels of detail.
- For existing buildings it is generally not appreciated that aspects of refurbishment and maintenance may well be regulated. This is particularly so for the private sector. The need to cover existing buildings with certain regulations should be reconsidered.

I am familiar with the Building Regs and the process of liaison with LBC. The older regs e.g. part A are invaluable when sizing timbers etc. and I welcome BC inspection of foundations and structural work. Whilst BC fees have risen faster than inflation they are to some extent in proportion to the scale of the work being carried out.

However there seems to be a trend for government to micromanage everything, and soon you will need a certificate of competency to fit a door knob. There are alleged to be numerous breaches of part L, but very few if any prosecutions.

In my opinion the accident statistics for electrics do not justify the cost of part P and in fact injuries have risen sharply since the introduction of part P according to Hansard. To put things into context, hospital acquired infection is rife, killing thousands per year. A recent survey showed that 25% of health workers failed to wash their hands after handling faeces, rising to approx 80% after touching a patient. I would suggest more lives could be saved by the government improving standards in THEIR hospitals.

While I agree with many of the points made by tgirvan - I really cannot let his comment that Local Authorities are being greedy when charging £80 to inspect an instalation that may only cost £10 in materials pass without comment of my own.

Local Authorities are required by Government to make a charge for the Building Control sevice which fully recovers the cost of providing it - it is a statutory requirement - we HAVE to do it.

That cost itself is dictated by the need to employ staff to enter the application onto computer systems, to pay the salary and travel costs for a qualified BCO to visit the site (probably at least twice) and to issue all the paperwork necessary when the job is complete. We have to do basically the same amount of work in dealing with a £10 job as for a £1000 job.

I appreciate that this is frustrating - and may even be couterproductive in causing people to avoid sending a notification - but please do not call us greedy for doing what the law says we have to do. How many electricians out there would be prepared to carry out this amount of work for £80 ?

to tgirvan

Some of your points I agree, but would like to ask what accident figures you consider would really justify the cost of what you suggest. Personally I think your response would be quite correct if the fatality figures were a few hundred per year. Remember its more than an order of magnitude less.

Also explain why only the UK, Eire and Malta do not permit normal RCD protected sockets in Z3 of a bathroom, and yet we have no fewer accidents in the UK than our continental cousins that do - its just that our exploding hairdryer fatalities occur in the bedroom, not the bathroom.

There are also those of us who do not see TNC-S as always being an improvemnt on TT, namely in areas with singles overhead feed, particularly if there is earthed metal work outdoors. Consider an amateur radio mast if you will, connected to the house earth/neutral - could become live by broken neutral if supply were made PME. Otherwise, if we go your way, I think a change to BS7671 is then required to allow the use of neutral loss detectors, (like in SA where copper theft from overhead lines is sadly common) as currently such a device is not allowed in the UK, as it interrupts the PEN.

Probably not, but generally it doesn't show until a problem occurs or accident happens.

Lack of in-depth training and shortages of both properly qualified and experienced tradesmen and inspectors means that building standards can be ignored. The problems of training have been exacerbated by the ever-changing, often incomplete, regulations.

The building industry needs single (by trade) ladders of in-depth training leading to recognisable qualifications which clearly differentiate between the levels of training and experience. These qualifications need to be clearly understood by all clients (including the general public) and they need to be of sufficient quality to engender respect. Attainment of these qualifications needs to be as publicly recognised as, for example, A levels or university degrees. More carrots - fewer sticks.

Standards also need to be revised for greater simplicity and clarity.

More discretion should be allowed to skilled tradesmen and inspectors to encourage imaginative solutions.