10 C O N T E X T 1 0 9 : M A Y 2 0 0 9 Changes to building regulations Strong views on Part L exemptions ‘Catastrophic, devastating... we might as well all pack up and go home.’ These were some of the comments from conservation officers concerning the proposed removal of the exemptions for historic buildings under Part L (Conservation of fuel and power) of the Building Regulations. They were responding to a questionnaire from English Heritage seeking to find out what impact the exemptions had had since their introduction three years ago. There was virtually unanimous agreement that the exemptions had been helpful in conserving historic buildings. A majority confirmed that their own building control teams felt that they were beneficial. The main reason for this was that the exemptions brought clarity to a complex system. It was made clear that the government valued historic buildings and that the pressure to tighten energy efficiency targets should not result in a loss of character or introduce technical risks. Exemptions did not mean that improvements were not carried out. On the contrary, good liaison between officers from building control and conservation permitted an effective and balanced approach. These issues were discussed at a meeting in March between researchers from Leeds Metropolitan University (who are undertaking research for Communities and Local Government [CLG] on the implementation of Part L 2006), representatives from English Heritage, conservation officers, and church and cathedral architects. Given that plans for the consultation document on Part L are well advanced, it is unlikely that the results of the questionnaire and of the meeting will influence the proposals. However, the views expressed will be fed back to CLG, and all those with an interest in the conservation issues relating to Part L are encouraged to respond to the formal consultation document. Tightening the targets in Part L is one of the main vehicles used by the government to make buildings more energy efficient and thereby reduce carbon emissions. However, the government recognises that some of the suggested measures could be harmful to historic and traditional buildings. Both the 2002 and 2006 approved documents state that the aim is ‘to improve energy efficiency where and to the extent that it is practically possible, [but] not prejudice the character of the historic building, or increase the risk of longterm deterioration to the building fabric or fittings’. Work specifically allowed to historic buildings is replacing lost elements (such as facsimiles of historic windows); rebuilding lost buildings (such as a gap site in an important terrace); and making provisions to allow buildings to breathe. These special considerations should be taken into account by building control officers. In any cases of doubt they should take account of the views of the conservation officer. A limited survey commissioned by English Heritage in 2006 indicated that this approach was working reasonably well and that building control officers were compromising on the targets. However, feedback from the latest questionnaires suggests that this is no longer the case in a great many authorities. The 2006 changes included some last-minute wording copied out of the European Directive. These changes introduced the exemptions for listed buildings, buildings in conservation areas, ancient monuments and churches in use, where compliance would unacceptably alter their character or appearance. The special consideration clauses were retained, although the definition of historic buildings in the 2002 edition was mistakenly omitted in 2006. These have not been restored despite promises to do so. The proposals for 2010 are likely to include removing the exemptions, but retaining the special considerations and stressing that the English Heritage guidance note should be followed and that the advice of the conservation officer should be taken into account. A wider definition of buildings to be included is also proposed. A total of 399 questionnaires were emailed to local authorities posing the questions set out in the table. Eightyfive replies were received, representing a 21 per cent return. This was very impressive, considering the short time allowed for replies and the fact that this was the third questionnaire sent out by English Heritage recently. It clearly demonstrated the gravity of the issue. The table shows the results from 85 responses. Most of the replies included comments. In particular the answers to questions 1 and 4 were heavily qualified. The major conclusion from the exercise is that there is overwhelming support for retaining the exemptions. The main reason appears to be that the word is clear and readily understood by all.Yet ironically it does not mean that energy improvements are not implemented. They are, and it is apparent that exemptions act as a trigger for most authorities to discuss this with conservation staff. A common point was that building control staff were not trained to negotiate or apply discretion, preferring more certainty. Others reported that many were not interested Question Yes % No % Both yes & no % 1 Have exemptions been widely used in your local authority? 75 88 9 11 1 1 2 Have they been helpful in conserving historic and traditional buildings? 82 96 1 1 2 2 3 Do building control officers consult you over applications under Part L? 64 75 21 25 – – 4 Do building control officers follow your advice and recommendations? 77 91 5 6 3 4 5 If the exemptions are removed, will this make a significant difference to how historic and traditional buildings are dealt with under Part L? 73 87 12 13 – – 6 Do your building control officers view the exemptions as a problem? 21 25 53 63 11 13 7 Do your building control officers view the exemptions as a benefit? 47 56 32 38 5 6 8 Do you want to see the exemptions remain? 74 87 8 10 3 4
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=