A forum for open discussion on communities and local government policy.

Achieving Building Standards

The Government has recognised that there are some issues with the existing system of Building Regulation, including concerns about compliance and enforcement. In particular, the Government is interested in reviewing the effectiveness of its guidance, concerns about industry’s ability to find the right resources, and questions about whether Building Regulations are targeting the right things in the right way.

As a result we have initiated a programme of work to consider the current situation of Building Regulations and how we manage and maintain them, and to identify what we might do to improve this.

This topic will provide input to this work and will run until 13 December 2006. Below is a list of the points that we hope that this discussion will help us to address. We anticipate that many people will want to contribute to this discussion, so in order to manage the site more efficiently we will only be able to display responses which address at least one of the questions below, and which follow the discussion rules of this site.

  • Are building standards regulating for the right things in the right way?
  • Are these standards being achieved, and if not is there anything stopping them from being enforced?
  • What helps people to comply with them?
  • What stops people from complying with them?
  • How could we improve compliance and why will this work?

All of your views are welcome and will be even more effective if you state in which capacity they are made; either as a member of the general public e.g. home owner or as someone with a professional interest e.g. architect.

previous discussion | next discussion

Part P - flawed and needs improving

Posted by Dr Jonathan Pearson on 13/12/2006 - 14:00

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.

Whilst I agree with the spirit of part P in raising standards and ensuring that more work is tested after installation, I feel the implementation is flawed and much needs to be done to make it fair and workable.

Is the government conducting a ‘private’ experiment comparing the CORGI approach to part P? Gas and electrical work can both involve small jobs where the cost of notification vastly exceeds the cost of the job and is not cost effective. The homesellers pack has been watered down so far that it is practically useless and does nothing to ensure a safe electrical installation.

In theory a lot of certificates, diagrams, and design specifications are produced which are vital to the trades expected to maintain a building over its life and often after a change of ownership. In practice the public find these ‘boring’, do not appreciate their value and lose them. Solicitors seem to find them boring too and seem more concerned with the title of a property and who owns the fence. We need some means of filing these documents with the title deeds. For example many owners of septic tanks do not know where their soakaway field is located or anything about the installation.

CORGI members are only assessed every 5 years against every year for part P. DIY gas work is permitted as long as it is done competently, whereas most electrical work is notifiable. The public understand CORGI even though there is no competition (will NAPIT change this?), but often there is a bias towards NICEIC by local authorities and the other part P scheme providers have to fight for equal recognition.

I am a member of the IEE (now IET) and have no wish to join another trade body, but am forced to if I want to self-certify. There are many chartered electrical engineers that work with e.g. high voltage radar at work, but are not deemed competent to put a socket into their garage.

I have City & Guilds 2381, and 2391 which should prove that I am competent to inspect and test. I have to pay a substantial fee for an assessment from a scheme provider to repeat ground covered in 2391. According to DCLG, the schemes are supposed to be non profit making. Please explain why the NAPIT ‘Just 8’ scheme is so much cheaper that all the rest. The cost of the inspection is the same and either you are competent or not. In my opinion the schemes are overpriced and a lot of empire building is going on. The IEE write the regs and I have no wish to join another trade body.

If an electrical engineer were to prove his competence via ‘Just 8’, it is unreasonable to require him to have insurance for doing work in his own home.

Although it is a non-statutory document, BS7671 is the ‘bible’ of electrical work and is referenced by part P. All building regs can be downloaded for free, however it is not possible to download BS7671 or the more accessible Onsite Guide without paying a substantial fee which will probably deter the competent DIYer who wishes to learn about best practice. The government should fund the production of these documents and make them available for free download. There seems to be a conflict between some of the requirements of BS7671 and the building regs that require the installation to be no worse after the works.

In conclusion I feel that part P has been badly implemented and I welcome the chance to work with DCLG to make improvements. I can be contacted via email and would welcome the chance to discuss part P in more detail.

Dr Jonathan Pearson BSc(Eng), ACGI

back