Does the update to Part L really address Climate Change?

Last week I finally got around to reviewing the new Approved Document Part L of the Building Regulations which, for those of you who I have completely lost already, deals with the Conservation of Fuel and Power in buildings. Part L (as I shall refer to it) has, for some time now, been the primary tool of the Government for reducing the carbon footprint of both our residential and non-residential building stock through the application of ever tougher performance standards for the thermal envelope of a new building, the efficiency of any heat source used to heat said building and, latterly, requirements for some energy efficient lighting installations.

The basic aim of Part L is to drive down the CO2 emissions of buildings on an ever steeper curve until, eventually, new housing will be carbon neutral. The latest version of Part L comes into force in October of this year and, according to some, is likely to add around 6% to the cost of the construction of a new dwelling. The cost implications for extensions and refurbishments is talked about less and will probably vary - needless to say it won't be cheaper to build after October '09!

Last week I also got to go to the first day of the first Test Match against Bangladesh at Lords.

Now, you may be forgiven for asking what the connection was between these two momentous events, let me explain.

On my way to Lords and facing an hour long commute to St Johns Wood, I grabbed a free copy of the Telegraph courtesy of a free voucher. Having caught the train at Harlow Town station I settled down and opened my paper to wile away the journey and, on page 3, was confronted by the headline "A summer of '76 every decade (Met Office predicts)", it's worth a read (although I would suggest you read the rest of the blog first before clicking on the link above)!

The long and short of the article is that the Met Office, whilst dropping their seasonal predictions (after all who can forget the summer of unbroken Bar-B-Ques we had last year) the Met Office continues to provide the Government with long range forecasts and is predicting that climate change will result in extreme droughts occurring ten times as often as they do now with their worst case scenarios indicating an increase of temperature of 4degC from current averages! All of this is being compared to the Summer of 1976 which (so I am told - being two at the time) was excruciatingly hot with temperatures reaching record highs of 36degC. These exceptionally hot conditions led to reservoirs and rivers drying up, water being rationed, people being rushed to hospital with heat exhaustion and forest fires breaking out left right and centre!

Now, we should take this with a pinch of salt, after all it is only a prediction and a long range one at that, but it does raise an interesting point. Eleanor Burke, Climate Extremes Scientist with the Met Office, states in the article that:

"Britain has to prepare for 1976-style droughts. This could include designing buildings to cope with heat......"

Approved Document Part L of the Building Regulations addresses the conservation of energy primarily through the use of insulation and air tightness to keep heat in but what happens when you want to keep temperatures low? The Approved Document does cover the control of Solar gain but, in my opinion, does not ensure that extreme air temperature levels outside the building do not affect the level of comfort inside the building.

One of the criticisms that can be leveled at Part L, is that it can promote a singular approach to energy efficiency (i.e. increasingly high levels of insulation) at the expense of other considerations, after all it was never originally designed to be a vehicle for driving down carbon emmissions! In doing so it fails to recognise the benefits that can be gained in providing a stable internal environment all year round.

As Architects, we often see buildings that have been constructed with a good level of insulation that have then needed air conditioning or other mechanical cooling devices to stop the occupants overheating in summer. This is particularly noticable in lightweight buildings.

We also see other examples, such as St Albans Cathedral (which I also visited this week - more about that in another post) where, through the limitations of building technology at the time, the building retains a stable internal temperature all year round due to it's massively thick masonry walls.

This use of thick masonry structures to regulate internal temperature is known as Thermal Massing. Thermal mass is a property that enables building materials to absorb, store, and later release significant amounts of heat. Buildings constructed to be thermally massive absorb energy (heat) slowly and hold it for much longer periods of time than lightweight buildings, which are designed to heat up quickly and rely on insulation to stop heat escaping.

This effect delays and reduces heat transfer through a thermal mass building component, leading to three significant benefits:

• 
  
  There are fewer spikes in the heating and cooling requirements, since mass slows the response time and moderates indoor temperature fluctuations.
• 
  
  A massive building uses less energy than a similar lightweight building due to the reduced heat transfer through the massive elements.
• 
  
  Thermal mass can shift energy demand to off-peak time periods when utility rates are lower.

The greatest advantage with thermally massive buildings, in the context of the Telegraph article, is that the effect is the same whether the heat source is internal (i.e. underfloor heating) or external (i.e. extreme external temperatures), the structure is slow to radiate heat.

If we are faced with the likihood of increasingly hot summers, it is not sufficient for Part L to simply look to make the heating of our houses and work spaces more effcient, it also needs to look to make the cooling of those same spaces equally as efficient and preferably passive.

Although the latest update to Part L is much welcomed, until it encompasses all aspects of achieving a comfortable environment for building occupiers, it will remain an ineffective way of addressing both the cause and effect of Climate Change!

What price an architectural legacy?

Architecture and buildings have, for some time now, been the darling of the television with programmes ranging from DIY SOS through Grand Designs and now, the latest kid on the block Restoration Man - my personal favorite!

The early incarnations of this genre of popular TV were focused on cheap thrills and the visual effects that could be achieved using Velcro and accesories (remember Changing Rooms?).

Latter attempts to do justice to this subject were much better at dealing with some of the real issues that, as Architects, we face every day - the inconsistancies of the Planning System, the rigidity of the Building Regulations and the unrealistic expectations of our Clients to mention but a few!

Great as these programmes are (I'm still banned from watching Grand Designs because I throw things at the TV in frustration) they fail to focus beyond the "trauma" experianced by the hapless family/couple embarking on the "greatest adventure of their lives".

Then along came "Restoration Man"!

Finally A property programme fronted by an Architect and one that knows what he is talking about! Not only does the programme cover the ups and downs of each project but it also draws out the architectural history of each building.

This weeks episode is a good example of how this genre could be. Yes there were ups and downs, battles with the authorities and the perenial "cashflow issues" that provide the drama, but in addition there was a genuine appreciation of the real craftsmanship on show in how the building was being slowly and sensitively returned to practical useage and an intelligent assesment of the processes and techniques being deployed.

The final result will (when finished) be a stunning home in a stunning location, even more so because of the attention to detail.

In this increasingly consumerist society we are in danger of sacrificing craftsmanship, quality and our architectural legacy in favour of speed and economy.

As an Architect practicing in Harlow, I am all too aware of the implications of such a cavalier attitude to our built environment. Yes our schools and hospitals are undergoing huge investment and renewal - but at what cost?

As an industry we need to exploit modern methods of construction but what's the point if the buildings we create are poorly detailed with an uncertain lifespan?

If we are to leave our great grandchildren a meaningful architectural legacy that can be adapted and restored as sensitively as the buildings featured in Restoration Man then quality and detailling has to be our priority - not just the cost and speed of construction.

As a profession we have a responsability to educate our clients not only about the practical aspects of the process (Planning, Building Regulations, Contract etc) but also the need to focus on the quality of design, detailing and construction of the overall project.

As a society we need to demand the very best of public buildings - not just in terms of environmental performance but in terms of anticipated lifespan, architectural quality and detail and in terms of future reuse. Doubtlessly there will still be bland, cheap, "shiny" new buildings that garner headlines but there also needs to be quality Architecture created that will last the test of time and establish a legacy that future generations want to preserve!

Who benefits?

It's been an interesting start to the week and one that quite neatly illustrates some of the challenges of being a local Architect.

As with all Architects, we offer our Clients unbiased, professional advice with the aim of steering them away from the potential pitfalls (and financial exposure that accompanies them) and down the path to a well concieved, well constructed, end product - but events yesterday have made me question who really benefits from our expertise and do they recognise the benefit?

My first example is a small domestic project (approx contract value £90k). The Clients, whilst lovely people, are quite demanding and have caused us some twenty hours of additional work trying to identify cost savings to bring the tender return within budget.

Fair enough, you may say, you shouldn't have designed a building that was over budget! That would be fair comment if the overspend weren't the result of their list of "desirables" which have since become "essentials"!

We have managed to identify and negotiate the savings required without diluting the scheme and everyone is happy.....full speed ahead....apart from the fact that the Client is now querying our invoice for five hours of the extra time, even though it is clearly for work outside of our original commission.

Despite our success in saving our Clients about £15k and in ensuring that their dreams could be realised on their limited budget....our efforts were valued at less than the £375 (plus VAT) invoiced!

Do other professionals face this challenge, of course not! Now it may be that, because we don't charge the hourly rates of an Accountant or Solicitor, we aren't considered as much of a neccesity...but when was the last time your Accountant saved you £15k?

Another Client rang us recently complaining that we wouldn't instruct a whole bunch of additional work items on his commercial project!

Now, again, you might be of the opinion that we are out of order - until you hear that his building contract is at large and issuing an instruction at this stage will cost him thousands in lost Liquadated and Ascertained Damages AND he doesn't have Planning Permission for what he wants to do!

For what seems like the millionth time, we explained to him that our primary concern is his position - contracturally, financially and with regards Planning. In effect we are trying to save him from himself - yet I get an earful and (once again) questions about why he bothers to pay us!

Would you question why you pay your Solicitor as he stops you getting sued, ripped off or jailed? I think not!

On the other hand, we have recently had a Local Authority Building Control Department express their pleasure that we are involved in a project because the quality of our drawings and specification mean that they're not having to guess how the project is going to be constructed. We have also had a contractor express similar feelings.

It's a strange thing, but I am increasingly becoming convinced that it is clear that all parties to a building project benefit from the involvement of an Architect (especially architecture & design services Ltd - http://www.aandds.co.uk/) but it seems that the Client is often the last to recognise the value.

I was reminded this evening of the Project Manager who, wisely, observed that in order to be considered a great Project Manager you have to been seen to be great at putting out fires - not preventing them!

The challenge always used to be to get the contractor to value you as an Architect - now it appears that our challenge is to persuade our Clients that the benefit of employing us is that they won't always see the problems we solve or pitfalls we steer them clear of!