Building Control Journal September–October 2016

Building Control Journal A knotty problem Why surveyors need to be aware of Japanese knotweed PG.

8

A superfast future

Best of both worlds

No pain, no gain?

Enabling digital infrastructure for broadband connectivity

Working as a local authority and an approved inspector

A range of perspectives on the APC process

PG.

6

PG.

10

PG.

12

September/October 2016

rics.org/journals

Stand out this Sept

Standing out in the country since 1845, the Royal Agric of opportunities for students wishing to pursue and dev product development to journalism, business marketing

Want to progress your property career?

Our subject areas Want to get ahead in the real estate sector?Why choo • • • • • •

Agriculture Business Management Equine Food Supply Chains Real Estate Rural Land Management

• • • • •

96.3% g Top 10 Safest u Pictures Unique

MSc Real Estate MSc Rural Estate Management Take advantage of our strong links with industry, estab outstanding academic reputation.

Diversify your career MSc International Real Estate knowledge coupled with wide-ranging practical applica BSc (Hons) Real Estate www.rau.ac.uk/clearing admissions@rau.ac.uk BSc (Hons) Rural Land889912 Management +44 (0)1285 Cirencester, Glos. GL7 6JS

Our courses benefit from full RICS

accreditation, a 14,000 strong international alumni network and high graduate employment rates.

Please contact us:

www.rau.ac.uk Tel: 01285 652531 Cirencester, GL7 6JS admissions@rau.ac.uk

C O NTENTS

RI CS BU ILDING CONT ROL JOUR NAL

Building Control Journal A knotty problem Why surveyors need to be aware of Japanese knotweed PG.

8

A superfast future

Best of both worlds

No pain, no gain?

Enabling digital infrastructure for broadband connectivity

Providing services for both public and private sectors

A range of perspectives on the APC process

PG.

6

PG.

10

PG.

September/October 2016

rics.org/journals

12

Front cover: ©Alamy

contents 4 Matters arising

CO N TAC TS BUI L DI N G C O N TR OL JOU R NAL

Martin Conlon looks at concerns in the sector emerging from two recent events

Editor: Barney Hatt T +44 (0)20 7695 1628 E bhatt@rics.org

5 The brain drain

Building Control Journal is the journal of the Building Control Professional Group Advisory group: Dave Baker OBE (Robust Details Ltd), Alan Cripps (RICS), Diane Marshall (NHBC), Michael Morgan (Butler & Young Group), Anthony Oloyede (LABC), Anna Thompson (LABC) Published by: Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Parliament Square, London SW1P 3AD T +44 (0)24 7686 8555 www.rics.org ISSN: ISSN 0265-6493 (Print) ISSN 1759-3360 (Online) Building Control Journal is available on annual subscription.

All enquiries from non-RICS members for institutional or company subscriptions should be directed to: Proquest – Online Institutional Access E sales@proquest.co.uk T +44 (0)1223 215512 for online subscriptions or SWETS Print Institutional Access E info@uk.swets.com T +44 (0)1235 857500 for print subscriptions To take out a personal subscription, members and non-members should contact licensing manager Louise Weale E lweale@rics.org

Editorial and production manager: Toni Gill Sub-editor: Matthew Griffiths Designer: Nicola Skowronek Advertising: Emma Kennedy T +44(0)20 7871 5734 E emmak@wearesunday.com Design by: Redactive Media Group Printed by: Page Bros

Dave Mitchell discusses the trends revealed in a recent Department for Communities and Local Government building control report

6 Enabling a superfast future

Claire Haynes and Helen Garthwaite set out new building regulations that stress the need for sustainable digital infrastructure to enable broadband connectivity

7 Strictly liable

Laurence Cobb discusses potential pitfalls when drafting technical documents

14 More than approval

Mostyn Bullock and Adam Monaghan examine the fire engineering issues of responsibility and liability

16 In praise of red tape

Claire Curtis-Thomas argues that the government’s resistance to new regulations is causing problems for the insulation sector and wider construction industry

18 A single access point

Chris Kendall looks at how an integrated platform is changing the relationship between building control officers and their clients

20 Don’t multiply your problems Ian Streets counts the cost of defective design

8 A knotty problem

21 Widening access

10 Best of both worlds

22 Unforeseen consequences

Paul Beckett explains why surveyors need to be aware of Japanese knotweed

Birmingham-based Acivico’s Head of Building Consultancy Richard Culliford talks to Barney Hatt about the challenges of providing services as both a local authority and a private-sector organisation

11 “A slide to ashes”

Steve Warner asks whether more could be done to improve the accessibility of buildings

Continuing his series from Australia, Mark Anderson discusses the possible impact of banning builders from employing certifiers directly

23 Update

Hugh Johnson draws attention to the tendency for empty historic buildings to suffer neglect

12 No gain without pain?

Karen Rogers talks to a candidate, an assessor/chairman and a counsellor about the challenges and rewards of the APC process

While every reasonable effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of all content in the journal, RICS will have no responsibility for any errors or omissions in the content. The views expressed in the journal are not necessarily those of RICS. RICS cannot accept any liability for any loss or damage suffered by any person as a result of the content and the opinions expressed in the journal, or by any person acting or refraining to act as a result of the material included in the journal. All rights in the journal, including full copyright or publishing right, content and design, are owned by RICS, except where otherwise described. Any dispute arising out of the journal is subject to the law and jurisdiction of England and Wales. Crown copyright material is reproduced under the Open Government Licence v1.0 for public sector information: www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence

SEP TEMBER/OC TOBER 2016

3

RICS B U I L DI N G CO N T ROL J OURN AL

C H A I R M A N ’S CO L U M N

Martin Conlon looks at concerns in the sector emerging from two recent events

Matters arising mid-1960s. There was a major quake in March 2014 that measured 5.1 on the Richter scale, causing nine fatalities with more than 300 injured.

From a building control point of view, any work on properties must take these into account, and around 90,000 buildings have needed strengthening as a result.

I recently went to the Consortium of European Building Control conference in Rotterdam, which was very well organised and attended by more than 40 delegates from Europe and beyond.

The two-day event consisted of talks and presentations by our hosts as well as discussions on topics such as building control systems and regulations.

One of the technical talks was about the frequency of earthquakes in the Netherlands. These centre around the area of Groningen, and there have been more than 1,000 in the last 30 years as a direct result of gas extraction that began in the

Prescriptive regulations During one discussion I was taken back 30 years: the Netherlands is moving from prescriptive regulations towards a more functional set, similar to the transition England and Wales made three decades ago when the regulations were changed from fairly prescriptive requirements to the functional ones we have now. Some Dutch professionals are particularly concerned about the loss of minimum standards – such as floor-to-ceiling heights of 2.6m – as those in the UK were in the 1980s.

The fear in this case is that the new regulations will lead to buildings with much lower

Some countries have exempted migrant housing from certain requirements for three years 4 SEP TEMBER/OC TOBER 2016

floor-to-ceiling heights, and that this will have a detrimental effect on the population. While the same fears were voiced here in the early 1980s, there have been no negative impacts: in fact, the revised regulations helped transform the image of building control from being a technical role into a professional one.

Another interesting discussion was on the impact of migrants in certain countries, in particular the pressure of having to provide dwellings for them and the effect that this has on building control. Some countries have exempted migrant housing from particular requirements, so long as such buildings do not have a lifespan of more than three years. However, at the end of that time, it is necessary either to remove or upgrade the buildings to the standards that apply.

BCA Another event I attended recently was the Building Control Alliance (BCA) meeting in London. RICS is a member of the BCA, a forum for organisations in building control to discuss mutual concerns and agree a common approach. The alliance issues guidance documents as well.

The chair of the BCA rotates annually, and this year

it is the turn of the Chartered Institute of Building under the authority of Kevin Dawson, who has said he wants to engage with the building control sector more.

There are various matters under discussion at the moment at the BCA, such as partial final certificates and a protocol for dealing with them.

A small working party comprising representatives of both the public and private sectors has been established; this will report back to the BCA shortly, and will then issue a guidance note to assist all those involved.

There have also been problems with the BCA website – the main source for its information and guidance notes – which is currently being revamped to make it more user-friendly. Meanwhile, the alliance’s technical group is producing more guidance notes on compartmentalisation in retail premises as well as one on conversion of dwellings into multiple residences.

Do have a look at the site (www.buildingcontrolalliance. org) and make use of the documents there, as well as feeding back with any comments you have. b Martin Conlon is Chairman of the Building Control Professional Group martin.conlon2@btinternet.com

RI CS BUILDING CONT ROL JO UR NAL

C A R EERS

The brain drain

I

strongly suspect that, aside from readers of this journal, very few people will have downloaded and read this year’s Annual Report and Analysis of Building Control Performance Indicators, published recently by the Department for Communities and Local Government (http://bit.ly/295wWnP).

It contains all sorts of interesting data about trends in building control gleaned from survey returns by both private- and public-sector professionals, and – to accentuate the positive – it confirms that there have been very few complaints received from service users. Interestingly, and more worryingly, it also identifies an increase in the average age of building control staff.

Acoustics

The report states that, among the professionals surveyed, “the weakest area of specialist experience was acoustics”, observing a significant reduction in numbers of staff who are specialising in this field. At first sight, this looks like a negative finding – the loss of specialist knowledge in an area of the Building Regulations that is indeed quite challenging, in technical terms. Perhaps readers are invited to brace themselves for an inevitable reduction in compliance rates, and a subsequent increase in customer complaints?

However, to be fair, no alarms are raised in the report – it simply notes the trend – and it is perhaps more interesting to contemplate what might be the consequences of a long-term in-house ‘brain drain’ in this or indeed any other specialism.

It was from initial thinking by the Home Builders Federation that the idea of ‘robust details’ for Part E originally grew. Back in 2003, the challenge for housebuilders and the building control profession alike was to arrest a trend of growing customer dissatisfaction with the levels of sound insulation in new buildings. The call for change concentrated initially on raising standards; however, by the time of public consultation, there was as much interest in securing widespread compliance as there was in picking a higher decibel number for separating walls and floors.

Images © Shutterstock

Dave Mitchell discusses the trends revealed in a recent Department for Communities and Local Government building control report

I suppose that, looking back a few years, the traditional approach to a worrying trend of diminishing expert knowledge would have been to look to improve the specialist skills at building control bodies, targeting both staff training and recruitment. The emergence of a government report concluding that “the weakest area of specialist experience was acoustics” would have resulted in an even tighter focus on the need for action.

Compliance rates Yet despite concerns over a Part E brain drain, the fact is that compliance rates are very good in this area and customer complaints are at a record low, at least as far as new-build homes are concerned. So, there must be other factors at play – and I would suggest that the concept of robust details has been pivotal in this matter.

There may be other technical areas where a robust details approach would work well, and I thought that these would logically emerge from the development of regulations for building thermal performance. But maybe it will not be new standards that will catalyse change; rather, trends in building control skills and experience will determine whether a matter is best solved by in-house staff development or whether an industry-led solution along the lines of the robust details scheme can be applied.

This is not the same as subcontracting out the technical deficit, which entails engaging specialist consultants at the expense of the building control body to review designs and control works on site. Rather, I see it as reducing the need for deep in-house technical knowledge and using whatever we can learn from the success of Part E – be it pattern books, checklists, sample testing, feedback loops, data collection or whatever.

So, what might be the next area where an in-house brain drain can be plugged in this way? Answers on a postcard please. b

Dave Mitchell is Technical Director at the Home Builders Federation www.hbf.co.uk

SEP TEMBER/OC TOBER 2016

5

RICS B U I L DI N G CO N T ROL J OURN AL

C O N N E C TI V I TY

Claire Haynes and Helen Garthwaite highlight the importance of sustainable digital infrastructure for broadband connectivity

Enabling a superfast future

S

uperfast broadband connectivity is now seen as essential by businesses and by most homeowners, while the government targets 95% coverage of the UK by 2017.

The Building (Amendment) Regulations 2016, implementing the Broadband Cost Reduction Directive 2014/61/EU in England and Wales, aim to reduce costs and obstacles to superfast broadband.

They introduce a Part R for Schedule 1 to the Building Regulations 2010, with a requirement 1 that all new or existing buildings subject to major renovation are equipped with infrastructure to support superfast broadband of at least 30Mbps.

The government has also issued Approved Document R: Physical Infrastructure for high-speed electronic communications networks by way of guidance on complying with the technical parts of requirement 1. While following the guidance does not guarantee compliance, there will be a presumption of compliance; as there is no obligation to adopt any solution set out in an approved document, other routes can be discussed with the relevant building control body.

The Building Regulations take effect on 1 January 2017 in England and at a few energy-generating sites in Wales, but they will not apply to works subject to existing building control notices and applications that have already been submitted. A building will meet the requirements if it is ready to receive superfast broadband in the future, but this need not be installed immediately after completion of the works.

The new regulations apply not only to new-builds but also major renovation of the entire internal physical infrastructure of building or a “significant part” of it, and entail installations such as ducting for the networks by which services are delivered. No explanation is offered as to what is meant by a “significant part” of internal infrastructure, though, which will lead to uncertainty. This being so, it will be a question of fact and degree in the particular circumstances of each case.

6 SEP TEMBER/OC TOBER 2016

Access points The regulations provide that in-building infrastructure is to be installed up to a “network termination point”, where an occupier receives broadband access.

Multi-occupancy buildings will usually have multiple points, one for each occupier.

Such a building will also be required to have a “common access point” inside or outside, where broadband providers can connect to internal infrastructure.

Single-occupancy buildings will also have to have such a point, but this will connect to one network termination point only.

The regulations only require in-building infrastructure between the access point and network termination points.

Infrastructure extending externally from the access point is outside their scope, as is cabling or in-building infrastructure beyond the network termination point.

But the regulations have missed an opportunity to meet requirements for site-wide infrastructure – an important consideration given the increasingly connected world in which we live, and the drive towards ‘smart cities’.

Exemptions The regulations will apply to dwellings and non-residential property, but there are exemptions for: b conservatories and other small detached buildings with no room to sleep b listed buildings or conservation areas where compliance would unacceptably alter character or appearance b isolated buildings where a high-speed connection is too remote to justify b major renovation where the cost of compliance would be disproportionate to the benefit gained.

In the latter case, the cost of work required and the alternative means of high-speed broadband delivery must be demonstrated to be unreasonable.

There is no guidance, though, on what constitutes an “unreasonable” expense.

Incentives for stakeholders The guidance states that suitable ducting should be provided to connect all network

termination points to an appropriate access point, for example wall ducts or, for multi-occupancy buildings, dedicated vertical and horizontal riser service routes. Implementation of the new regulations will not be without challenges or costs, particularly for older buildings that were not designed with space for broadband infrastructure and ducting.

The regulations will encourage developers, investors and occupiers to consider IT infrastructure at an early stage when moving or during development, because non-compliance could significantly affect a building’s value, marketability and use. For some developers and investors, the cost implications may be minimal as many new buildings are designed with ducting for broadband access and termination points integrated into the design; for others, the changes will be a wake-up call.

The regulations are another step in the right direction for the law to keep pace with the practical realities of technology.

A new Electronic Communications Code is promised as part of the forthcoming Digital Economy Bill, underpinning agreements to install and maintain communications apparatus.

A project led by the City of London Corporation has also developed a standardised wayleave. Together with the new regulations, these initiatives should help to improve connectivity and reduce the costs and delays of the current protracted processes for wayleaves and street works. b

Claire Haynes is Professional Support Lawyer in the Commercial Property team at Wedlake Bell chaynes@wedlakebell.com Helen Garthwaite is Partner in the Construction team, Wedlake Bell hgarthwaite@wedlakebell.com

Related competencies include Building pathology, Legal/regulatory compliance,

RI CS BUILDING CONT ROL JO UR NAL

LEG A L

Strictly liable

W

Laurence Cobb discusses potential pitfalls when drafting technical documents strategies

hatever your position in the contract chain, the extent of your liability as advisor or project manager can vary – as indeed it can when you are an individual putting together contract documents and appointments.

Sometimes, this situation leads to unintended or even dangerous consequences.

One case with such unintended consequences was MT Hojgaard A/S v E.ON Climate and Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Limited [2015] EWCA 407. In this instance, the Court of Appeal considered the interpretation of contract provisions that required the contractor to work in accordance with both the specification and industry standards, exercising reasonable skill and care.

The design of the foundations was based on an internationally recognised standard, J101, but as a result of a significant error in that standard – and through no fault of either party – the design failed. This resulted in a lengthy dispute while the court considered which party had to foot the bill for repairing the foundations, necessitating the application of the rules concerning contractual interpretation to the large number of documents involved.

Technical requirements In particular the court had to consider the wording in the technical requirements, which required the foundations to have a design lifetime of 20 years. It also had to reflect on the interaction between this wording and the conditions in clause 8.1 of the contract, which provided for the design to be fit for purpose – as determined by the specification and good industry practice – as well as calling for the exercise of reasonable skill and care.

The Court of Appeal was satisfied that the contractor had not warranted that the foundations would have a service life of 20 years. Considering both J101 and the contract conditions, the contractor was found not to be in breach of the contract.

Although the technical requirements were directed at ensuring a “design life” of 20 years, this did not mean that it would inevitably function for 20 years, and clause 8.1 did not require an absolute warranty of quality. Neither did the contract provisions contain a free-standing warranty or guarantee.

statements were construed as imposing strict liability for design on the consultant, although not in the provision of the other services where the obligation remained simply one of reasonable skill and care.

Sometimes the contract remains silent on the particular issue.

In those circumstances, there is usually an implied term relating to design that is imposed by the court – a consultant, such as an architect, will usually have a duty to act with reasonable skill and care, and a contractor has a strict obligation to achieve the desired result; see for example the case of Independent Broadcasting Authority v EMI Electronics Ltd [1980] 14 BLR 1.

Nevertheless, the extent of design liability is sometimes difficult to ascertain.

The case of Trebor Bassett v ADT Fire and Security [2012] EWCA Civ 1158 provides further guidance. The Court of Appeal determined that the contractor, in the absence of clear contractual terms, owed a duty of reasonable skill and care, as opposed to the more onerous fitness-for-purpose obligation.

The dispute arose out of a catastrophic fire that destroyed a confectionery factory in Pontefract, after ADT Fire and Security had been engaged to provide a fire protection system for the “oil pop” popcorn production lines.

The Court of Appeal considered that the system that was designed and installed by the contractor was not tantamount to goods, for the purposes of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, and consequently there was no implied term that the fire system would be reasonably fit for purpose. The design and installation of the fire system involved more than the provision of an off-the-shelf product; it would be necessary, therefore, to use clear words in the contract if a fitness-for-purpose obligation was desired.

These decisions serve as reminders that contract documents should set out what is intended by way of liability. For the purposes of compliance with statutory requirements, such as those in building control, the documents should set out clearly who is responsible and to what extent; but questions of design liability can be tricky.

There is nothing wrong with including express provisions that impose strict liability to ensure that a finished building is reasonably fit for a specified purpose, or that foundations must comply strictly with the specification – the contract simply needs to be clear so that all parties are aware of the extent of their respective responsibilities. C

Design obligations Another case in which the contract contained conflicting design obligations was Costain v Charles Haswell [2009] EWHC 3140 (TCC), where the consultant’s appointment stated that the services were to be performed with reasonable skill and care, but a separate provision stated that the design would meet the requirements set out in the specification. These conflicting

Laurence Cobb is a partner at the law firm Taylor Wessing l.cobb@taylorwessing.com

SEP TEMBER/OC TOBER 2016

7

RICS B U I L DI N G CO N T ROL J OURN AL

JA PA N E S E K N OTW E ED

A knotty problem

I

Paul Beckett explains why surveyors need to be aware of Japanese knotweed

nvasive non-native species (INNS) cost the UK economy around ÂŁ1.7bn a year through loss of crops, damage to buildings and infrastructure and harm to biodiversity (http://bit.ly/1WBI79Z).

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 made it illegal to allow such species to spread, but when originally enacted only two terrestrial INNS plants were listed: Japanese knotweed and giant hogweed. The list was expanded by an amendment in 2010 and there are currently 39 terrestrial, freshwater and marine plants listed, with more to be added soon. Nevertheless, Japanese knotweed remains a particular concern for surveyors, who should take appropriate care when dealing with the potential risks that it poses to property.

Appearance Japanese knotweed is essentially a large mass of underground root growth called a rhizome system. This lives on year after year, remaining dormant over the winter and emerging as annual shoots above ground each spring and summer. In the growing season, the plants capture energy from the sun through photosynthesis and store it as biomass in the rhizomes, which then use this for new growth.

This results in an extensive root system that can spread several metres from the stems and penetrate a few metres into the soil. A simple analogy would be to imagine the rhizome system as an iceberg, where the relatively small mass above ground belies a much more significant mass beneath.

The main identifying features of mature Japanese knotweed plants are: b dense thickets of green, purple-speckled, bamboo-like stems around 3m tall b heart- to shield-shaped leaves b alternate leafing pattern along stems b completely hollow stems that can be snapped easily.

Many other plants have a similar leaf shape to knotweed, so that should simply be an initial identifier. If a plant has woody or solid stems that are bendy or do not snap easily and if the leaves are arranged opposite one another along the stems then it is not Japanese knotweed.

8 SEP TEMBER/OC TOBER 2016

Why knotweed is a problem New knotweed shoots can spread a long way underground, exploring areas for cracks and openings into which to grow, searching for sunlight. Once in a crack, the expanding growth can exert considerable sideways pressure that can, over time, significantly damage built structures, tarmac and hardstanding.

Rhizome fragments are also easily excavated and spread when soil is disturbed at what would seem a considerable distance from the stems above ground. Indeed, the spread of knotweed in the UK after its introduction in the mid-1800s has been almost entirely as a result of rhizome fragments in contaminated soil.

Given that a female plant alone was originally introduced here, Japanese knotweed does not readily spread by seed in the UK. It is therefore testament to its invasive nature how rapidly it has colonised much of the country – and Europe and North America, for that matter.

Perhaps as a result of adverse press coverage in the mid to late 2000s, surveyors were increasingly noting Japanese knotweed on their property surveys. Trying to understand the risk the species posed, lenders approached the then unregulated knotweed treatment industry and were overwhelmed with the confusing array of advice they received.

As a consequence, lenders took a highly cautious approach and many homebuyers were unable to secure mortgages wherever there was an inkling that knotweed might affect a property.

This led the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Building Societies Association to approach the industry again for a solution. The RICS produced the information paper Japanese knotweed and residential property, 1st edition, in 2012 (http://bit.ly/1WBSIBO) with an addendum published in 2015 (http://bit.ly/28feQpl), while the Property Care Association (PCA) established the Invasive Weed Control Group, which now sets the professional benchmark for knotweed control firms (http://bit.ly/1VHGtT6).

Legal status The 1981 act focuses on tackling INNS impacts on ecology and the countryside. The recent review of INNS policy in the UK and Europe, however, seems to agree with the industry and has identified knotweed as a special case, where the issue is one of

RI CS BU ILDING CONT ROL JOUR NAL

It should be no surprise that it is the surveyor, with their safety net of professional indemnity insurance, who is often singled out as the soft target in such litigation, where those more culpable but less likely to pay out are absolved.

The lesson for RICS members is that, whenever they carry out a survey, they should be mindful of the reasonable surveyor test and ensure that they collect evidence, such as photographs, to show why they did not record knotweed on a disputed site. A reasonable defence could include: b access restrictions such as high boundary walls or dense, overgrown vegetation b very large grounds, where it might be necessary to advise that a specialist knotweed survey be carried out Images © Phlorum

Japanese knotweed growing through the floor... ... and through the skirting board l

l

the impact on people and property rather than on ecology.

Although the Infrastructure Act 2015 and the EU Invasive Alien Species (IAS) Regulation 2014 are designed to combat INNS, guidance from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is that this legislation is inappropriate for dealing with knotweed in residential areas. Knotweed isn’t even on the list of Species of Union Concern under the IAS Regulation, because its ubiquity across Europe makes specific efforts to prevent it spreading very difficult.

In 2014, reform of antisocial behaviour powers made it possible for community protection notices (CPNs) to be issued against anyone unreasonably having a detrimental effect on those nearby due to INNS. The supporting Home Office guidance makes specific mention of Japanese knotweed, the species against which the new power has mostly been directed (http://bit.ly/1wCgzAG).

For instance, a whole street in Coventry was recently issued with a CPN, as was a homeowner in Peterborough who initially refused access to their garden to allow treatment of knotweed affecting the adjacent owner.

However, by far and away the most active area of legal action is civil litigation. Knotweed has a blighting effect that can significantly affect property transactions: the diminution in value can be very large indeed, with property prices falling by between 5% and 20% as a result of knotweed. The knotweed does not even have to be located at the property in question, as in the Peterborough case; the RICS information paper applies the higher-risk categories to all knotweed within 7m of a property, regardless of boundaries.

The liabilities associated with a single property transaction are wide ranging. Consequently, the defendant in a litigation case could be: b the vendor, who did not know they had knotweed and so possibly provided incorrect information on their TA6 form by stating that none was present on their property b the surveyor, who might have reasonably or negligently not noticed knotweed during their valuation b a neighbour, whether an individual, company or local authority, whose property was the clear source of the knotweed affecting the subject property b any of myriad professionals, individuals or groups who might be held responsible for spreading or introducing knotweed to an affected area.

b vendors hiding knotweed – a phenomenon that is sadly on the increase b time of year – although live growth above ground is absent in winter, surveys at this time can identify dead canes from previous seasons’ growth, unless these have been cleared away b uncooperative neighbours, who can complicate the securing of appropriate treatment guarantees.

It is important that all surveyors realise that Japanese knotweed can pose a significant and costly risk, which is why lenders have been so wary of it. However, the mechanism for quantifying and managing this risk, put in place by RICS and the PCA, should effectively solve most knotweed problems.

That being said, there is a burgeoning litigation market, which means that surveyors need to be on their toes with regard to potential knotweed impacts on property. As such, it is vitally important that surveyors fully consider the risks and collect evidence to support the reasonableness of their surveys. This could simply involve taking photographs or including caveats that limit their liability when growth is obscured or cleared away, for instance in winter.

You can also significantly help your case by familiarising yourself with the RICS and PCA knotweed guidance and using online tools such as www.planttracker.org.uk and various other knotweed plant identification services (http://bit.ly/1UtF795). C

Paul Beckett is a director and owner at Phlorum paul.beckett@phlorum.com

SEP TEMBER/OC TOBER 2016

9

RICS B U I L DI N G CO N T ROL J OURN AL

B U I L D I N G C O N TR O L CHA NG E

Birmingham-based Acivico’s Head of Building Consultancy Richard Culliford talks to Barney Hatt about the challenges of providing services to local authority and private-sector organisations

Best of both worlds What are the pros and cons of having approved and local authority status?

These are exciting times for Acivico as we are now able to offer two paths for clients. Over the years, their feedback suggested that some preferred a local authority route and others an approved inspector route. It therefore made business sense to seek an approved inspector licence so we could offer clients their preferred alternative.

We now have a number of options: for example, many clients favour the local authority partnership scheme, which combines the local knowledge of the council’s site inspection team with Acivico’s design-checking service.

Has it saved you money?

It has always been about offering clients the right service, building a sustainable business and increasing turnover. There is no doubt that our approved inspector service has helped us boost turnover, which for any business is an important consideration, and its initial success suggests we are on the right path. Our business plan includes both routes, and we very much hope both services grow.

What challenges have you faced when supplying services?

We are fortunate to be part of a very exciting company that can harness local

authority transactional trading services and help them hone their commercial edge while building on established public-sector ethics.

We are keen for more clients to make use of the local authority building control route; we are also providing managerial and technical support to two nearby councils, and have entered a collaborative working agreement with another core city as well.

At the moment, our approved inspector service is a small part of the business – but an important one, as we plan to secure new income opportunities over the coming years. While demand grows for these services, Acivico’s biggest challenge – as for any other growing business – is not to overextend.

What feedback have you received from the public?

Our local authority service has always been highly regarded, and the level of repeat business has increased over recent years; I think this offers an excellent indicator of how well an organisation is doing.

Our net promoter score – that is, the industry standard for measuring customer loyalty – was an excellent +43 last year, which is up there with the best.

So, as a team, we feel we are getting many things right.

Louisa House: Acivico’s new office

Image © Ivan Jones

10 SEP TEMBER/OC TOBER 2016

Image © Acivico

Together with the Chartered Institute of Building and the Built Environment Hub, we host the annual Local Authority Building Control (LABC) Awards ceremony, which is now in its 18th year.

At this event, there is overwhelming and supportive feedback for what the business is doing and where it is going.

Why did Acivico decide to get an approved inspector licence?

As Acivico is a wholly owned company, application for an approved inspector licence was an option. We asked many of our prospective clients that preferred to use the approved inspector route whether they would be interested in using us if we were licensed, and the answer was yes.

The increase in turnover will help us invest in IT to improve our mobile apps, enhance online submissions and enable greater integration with project teams through building information modelling.

Acivico is very proud of being the first local authority company to gain an approved inspector licence. We feel it is an achievement that endorses the quality of our building control service.

What is your opinion of the approved inspector licensing process?

The application process was very robust and rigorous. We found it very useful as

RI CS BU ILDING CONT ROL JOUR NAL

it helped us recognise our strengths and address certain areas where we were not so strong. We gained our registration in August 2014.

The architect’s impression of Acivico’s new reception

H

What future do you see for local authority building control bodies?

I think such bodies have a very strong future. Over time, local authority building control services will move towards different models from those that we have now. There will be more shared services, some wholly owned companies or mutuals, and others that may seek approved inspector licences. I also expect there to be more joint ventures with the private sector.

LABC also has a great product in the shape of its warranty, which will help members strengthen their market share in the new build private housing sector.

I think there are two big issues facing all building control bodies, whether they are local authorities or approved inspectors. The first is attracting and training future generations of professionals. It is encouraging that both LABC and the Association of Consultant Approved Inspectors (ACAI) are putting

initiatives in place to help expand the next generation of building control professionals and make younger people more aware of the exciting and important role the sector plays.

Second, all building control bodies need to help developers to bridge potential performance gaps between the design specification approved on a plan and the finished product. This may require additional targeted interventions on site from building control bodies, as well as a willingness on the part of developers to pay appropriate fees for such interventions.

It is great to see both the LABC and the ACAI are committed to promoting and supporting good practice in the profession, and at Acivico we are keen to play our part. C

www.acivico.co.uk Barney Hatt is Editor of Building Control Journal bhatt@rics.org

“A slide to ashes”

aving been responsible at my local authority for identifying dangerous structures and making them safe, I have discovered too late that a significant proportion can be predicted, sometimes years in advance.

I recently attended a seminar at which Stewart Kidd of the British Automatic Fire Sprinkler Association showed that empty historic buildings are on to “a slide to ashes” – that is, following a well-known path to destruction.

This begins when a building is disused for a longer period than would normally be expected. This sometimes occurs because of high maintenance costs, the numerous planning conditions imposed on a large building, or encumbrances owing to heritage considerations.

So the slide to ashes begins with a long vacancy – a time during which it would appear that it is a national tradition to throw stones at every bit of exposed glazing. Next come litter and graffiti, intrusion and theft of such things as

fireplaces and lead from the roof, then illegal occupation followed by further intrusions and associated vandalism.

Small fires are then lit by trespassers, usually on fine timber floors, and this leads to the final phase of larger fires with consequent loss off the whole building.

My textbook experience of the slide to ashes is the case of Nocton Hall near Lincoln. The ‘present’ Nocton Hall, a grade II listed building, was built in 1841 – ironically to replace the earlier 17th-century edifice that burnt down because of careless use of candles. Its most famous occupant was Frederick Robinson, the first Earl of Ripon and UK Prime Minister from August 1827 to January 1828, when he had to resign.

Last century, the replacement building became the manor house of a Lincolnshire potato and crisp empire, a hospital for US servicemen in both World Wars, then RAF Nocton Hall hospital and latterly a home for the elderly. It burnt down on 24 October 2004, having been subject to a number of accelerant-aided fires. An earth tremor registering 5.2 on the Richter scale in February 2008 further damaged the remaining shell of this once proud building, now a ruin. C Images © Hugh Johnson

k l Nocton Hall: before (above) and after (below) damage

Hugh Johnson is the former secretary-general of the Consortium of European Building Control and a previous member of the Building Control Professional Group Board hugh.johson@cebc.eu

Related competencies include Building control inspections, Legal and regulatory compliance,

SEP TEMBER/OC TOBER 2016

11

RICS B U I L DI N G CO N T ROL J OURN AL

APC

No gain without pain?

A

Karen Rogers talks to a candidate, an assessor/chair and a counsellor about the challenges and rewards of the APC process

As an assessor/chair, Michelle Bernhardt has heard many candidates over the years telling her that obtaining professional membership has been the most stressful and difficult thing they have ever done. While she fully sympathises, she says that membership is something to be cherished.

“RICS has a long and established history as a professional organisation: our brand is recognised worldwide for quality and standards. To ensure that all

12 SEP TEMBER/OC TOBER 2016

members meet a universal level of attainment, we have a quality education system. The process may be perceived as hard or difficult, but it is important that we have such rigorous standards to uphold the future of the profession.”

Counsellor Kostas Papacharalampos agrees: “The APC process is indeed stressful and has to be taken step by step. It needs ambition, good spirit and hard work, but by becoming a chartered surveyor you put a global audience in a position to trust your skills.”

Support mechanism A common complaint Bernhardt hears from candidates is that they feel they are not getting enough support from their employer, supervisor or counsellor in guiding their day-to-day work in relation to the APC. But she

says it is up to the candidates themselves to ensure that they meet the requirement.

After all, she adds, it is the candidate who sits in the room at final assessment, not their employer.

RICS helps candidates in a wide range of ways, though: from the basic candidate’s and pathway guides providing highly detailed information about competencies and on the assessment process itself, through to specific training courses dealing with interview technique or preparation of submissions.

“But you would be surprised how often I see submissions that do not meet the stated criteria in the candidate’s guides,” says Bernhardt.

“Case studies may be too long or in the incorrect order and may not address key issues. The guidance is there for candidates, and as an Image © Istock

assessor, I expect them to adhere to it.”

Then there are other, more personal, support groups: RICS Matrics, regional training advisors, mentors and the LinkedIn APC community where questions and queries can be posted online. “These networking-based groups are vital,” says Bernhardt.

“The ability to talk and share concerns or worries is a very important element. I would urge all candidates to take full advantage of all elements of support available to them.”

Papacharalampos recalls his own experience. “I had good support from my employer with additional training and discussions with my supervisor, counsellor, APC specialists and colleagues. However, an element of challenge was there for me.” As a result, he says, he finds it important to

RI CS BU ILDING CONT ROL JOUR NAL

Keeping up to date with training plans, meeting employers and obtaining appropriate professional development to address any technical or skills gaps is crucial been difficult to monitor my progress appropriately.”

Advice and hints

establish an open and honest relationship with the people he is helping. “I believe there are no wrong questions on anything. With this in mind, I encourage all sorts of questions from candidates.”

He continues: “The challenge is to own the process. My aim is to establish a strong understanding of candidates’ everyday activities in their APC, both in personal and in professional and technical matters. Being a bit of a mentor does help and inspire candidates.”

As the first person in his company to undertake the APC, candidate Ben Stupple says he had to be quite proactive in his approach to ensure that he achieved sufficient experience under each of the competencies.

“Fortunately, both my counsellor and supervisor have been very willing to assist, meeting me regularly to ensure I am reaching the required competencies as well as providing the exposure required to obtain level 3.

This has been imperative to my training, because without this input it would have

The key to the APC is preparation, says Bernhardt.

Keeping up to date with reviewing training plans, meeting employers and obtaining appropriate professional development to address any technical or skills gaps is crucial.

“Give yourself enough time. Do not rush towards the final assessment if you do not feel ready. Do not put yourself in the position of having to compile your submissions hastily to meet a deadline. Take time to prepare your case study.

Choose a topic that allows you to demonstrate your competencies to the full. Draft and redraft it, then do so again afters others have read and reviewed it.”

At final assessment it is often easy to see the candidates that have come forward too quickly, Bernhardt adds. “There are gaps in the submissions, or a lack of technical understanding to demonstrate the necessary level 3 competencies. The APC is not a race. Do it once, and do it well.”

Having submitted documents some months previously, candidates should read them again, she advises.

Ensure you are fully familiar with the various cases you have outlined in your summary of experience to demonstrate your competence. “When the candidate looks blankly at you

after an assessor has asked a question, it is not a good start,” she says.

She adds: “The other thing that comes up too often is the ‘we’ versus ‘I’ scenario.

It is appreciated that as a trainee member there are certain things you may not be able to do. However, constant reference to ‘we’ in submissions or interview can lead an assessment panel to doubt your experience.”

Papacharalampos reiterates this advice.“There are experienced people who are there to answer your questions during the months of training – the more you get them involved, the better. Make the APC your own personal, professional and technical commitment and seek help from RICS Matrics and APC mentors volunteering across the UK. Owning this process will give you the best rewards.”

Some recent changes in the APC have been announced by RICS after extensive consultations.

Papacharalampos’ advice is to keep informed and speak to your employer and the dedicated APC teams in RICS, in order to understand where you now stand in the process and what actions, if any, you need to take to remain in a good position with your submission plans.

In the meantime, he says, regularly assess your existing APC plan and actions to ensure you are prepared with your summary of experience and your case study. Is your

everyday work relevant to your APC requirements? Is your manager aware of this?

Aiming to have interesting and challenging projects in your work pipeline will be to your own benefit as well.

From the candidate’s point of view, particularly those working for small and medium enterprises, Stupple offers some tips: b be proactive and do not become complacent b meet regularly with your supervisor/counsellor b seek out opportunities that will help you to broaden your learning b get involved with your local RICS Matrics group – a great chance to meet people undergoing the APC and see RICS in practice.

In the longer term, professional membership will help your career advancement, and the RICS networks will offer you support and assistance as you develop in your working and personal life.

Bernhardt urges members to consider helping others going through the system once they have qualified. “I qualified in 1996 and shortly after put some time in to help as an APC doctor – now known as mentors.

“That developed, and my involvement with the APC and education has continued, which is incredibly rewarding and also beneficial to my career,” she says. b

Karen Rogers is RICS Matrics and UK Operations Manager krogers@rics.org

Isurv offers a range of advice and guidance for APC candidates, supervisors and counsellors: visit http://bit.ly/1QIdTPe

SEP TEMBER/OC TOBER 2016

13

RICS B U I L DI N G CO N T ROL J OURN AL

FIRE

Mostyn Bullock and Adam Monaghan examine the fire engineering issues of responsibility and liability

More than approval m Fire stopping of services in a fire compartment wall using incompatible materials: during handover, defect liability periods or fire risk assessment, issues commonly come to light with the way systems or construction processes have been specified under the RIBA Plan of Work 2013 stages 4–5. Often, the fire engineer will not have been retained or appointed for these stages and the BCB’s input is likely to have been limited. The fire engineer is usually not in the frame and liability falls in most cases to the main contractor and principal designer

I

t’s fine because it was signed off by building control.” As fire engineers, we hear this said in design team meetings, on site and, increasingly, in the domain of the expert witness.

Yet the construction industry appears unaware that the position carries little if any weight at all in terms of liability, while the fact that it is uttered with any sort of conviction shows how pervasive a misconception it has become.

Building control approval is, of course, important. It assures the occupiers of new buildings that the works have received independent regulatory scrutiny.

However, despite what project teams often believe, this does not amount to certification of design and construction.

The root of the problem is the lack of understanding about who is responsible for the adequacy of the design, its proper construction and, subsequently, its fitness for use as a building. It should be noted that building control approval offers no 14 SEP T EMBER/OC TOBER 2016

certification that works comply with the Building Regulations.

Project team liability Liability for building defects almost always rests with the project team.

This often comes as a bit of a shock to designers, who remain legally responsible for the adequacy of the design, and contractors, who are likewise responsible for the adequacy of construction.

Figure 1 shows a common arrangement proposed by architects that nevertheless fails to comply with current fire safety guidance because the exit from the stairs is via a lobby. The architect remains liable for this design even if a building control body (BCB) approves it; if the lack of compliance is picked up subsequently, it is for the architect to justify, failing which the costs of redesign and remedial works may be sought.

It is important to note that the liability is not transferred to or shared with the BCB. When carrying out its approval role, the BCB is acting neither in the capacity of a designer nor a contractor.

As such, the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 do

not apply to the BCB, which carries professional indemnity insurance for the approved inspector function but not for design or construction.

While a suitably qualified fire safety designer should have sufficient confidence in a design that they will assume responsibility for it, there is, unfortunately, considerable pressure to design on the erroneous assumption that the only objective is securing BCB approval under the Building Regulations.

The mistaken inference is that the designer is not expected to worry about whether a design is safe or not because that is the BCB’s responsibility. If those responsible for the execution of projects thought logically about what the BCB actually has to do, and for what fee, they might realise the folly of this attitude.

Images © Tenos

RI CS BUILDING CONT ROL JO UR NAL

Figure 1 Design showing fire compartmentation – 30- and 60-minute fire resistance – that does not comply with fire safety guidance

FD30S

60 minutes FR

FD30S

Riser

Stair

30 minutes FR

FD30S

Lobby

FD30S

Final exit FD30S FD30S

FD30S

Designers’ responsibility A designer should understand that they remain responsible for the adequacy of their design, but in practice, this is given insufficient thought.

Designers are always liable for any advice they provide from the project’s outset. On appointment, contractual documentation outlines their ongoing accountability for a significant period, often by means of collateral warranties.

While this may be quite straightforward for practitioners in the built environment to understand, it then gets more complicated.

Who is responsible when no fire engineer is engaged? Who is responsible for fire

m Early installation of services, preventing completion of a fire wall above a suspended ceiling: poor project management or work such as this is usually outside the fire engineer’s influence, even when they are retained to provide input during the construction and handover stage, under the RIBA Plan of Work 2013 stages 5–6.

Fire engineers are rarely asked to inspect completed works and the statutory completion inspection by the BCB is not required to look at everything. A sample inspection will in any case be an “assessment” that is defined as an “estimate of the extent” to which its findings apply. Provided any issues identified are reported for remedial action, the assessor cannot be held liable for construction defects that were not seen during inspection

Kitchen

FD30S

Corridor

safety design if the architect acts on the BCB’s suggestions? At what point could this ‘advice’ begin to attract liability?

Put very simply, if no fire engineer is engaged on the scheme then the lead designer – usually the architect – is both responsible and liable for the fire safety design. If the lead designer acts on advice from someone who is not a designer – that is, the BCB – then they are still responsible and liable for the outcome, irrespective of their competence in relation to fire safety engineering. Many lead designers are unaware of this.

The basic fact is that BCB approval is important because it protects applicants from prosecution under the terms of the Building Act 1984. But it is certainly not the only consideration.

How will the client use the building?

What other constraints apply? How will the building be constructed and then maintained, and have the associated risks been controlled and mitigated?

Who is responsible for fire safety during construction? Who will be responsible for managing general and process fire precautions required under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005?

The point is that BCB approval is of course needed, but does not provide the single defining criterion for the building’s adequacy. Neither should it.

There are other misconceptions, such as the following.

b “We’ve done this previously and it was fine.” There is a danger of this being received wisdom. b “It’s got a certificate so it must be all right.” This is fine if the scope of the certification is relevant to the specific fire safety requirements of the project.

However, the design is often outside the field to which the certification applies, and there is a failure to check this. b “No one has ever told us this was not appropriate before.” Once again, there is a real danger of this received wisdom being wrong. b “The product brochure says it has achieved the right level of performance.”

Most product brochures reflect accurate performance and manufacturers also offer, on request, fire test evidence of performance. But there are some brochures that do not provide this information, while there are others that drift dangerously close to misrepresenting the performance.

Project teams need better understanding of these misconceptions, which take root in a lack of appropriate competency. The fire engineering profession must do more to educate and to stand up for the right product, system and built arrangement, rather than give in to flawed thinking, decision-making or marketing.

Test of adequacy Like it or not, we increasingly find ourselves in situations where clients believe a BCB’s approval is an acceptable measure of adequacy. Such approval is not certification and does not discharge the designer of their responsibility for the adequacy of the design, either contractually or ethically. The ethical imperative for a professional fire engineer is to ensure that anything they are submitting for approval passes their own test of adequacy.

This requires a certain toughness: the competent fire engineer needs to be prepared to tell people what they need to rather than want to hear. If the client does not want to listen, or the relevant authority is prepared to approve something that the fire engineer does not believe adequate, then the engineer must have the strength to walk away. C Mostyn Bullock is a director at Tenos and Adam Monaghan is a director at Design Fire Consultants mostyn.bullock@tenos.com adam@designfireconsultants.com

SEP TEMBER/OC TOBER 2016

15

RICS B U I L DI N G CO N T ROL J OURN AL

BBA

In praise of red tape

B

Before the calamity that is Brexit, the UK insulation industry already faced more than enough challenges from the government. Since the last downturn in 2008, manufacturers, installers and certification bodies have been trying to engage with ministers who talked the good talk but were in reality utterly ambivalent about improving building performance.

Couple this with what appears to be rank

Claire Curtis-Thomas argues that the government’s resistance to new regulations is causing problems for the insulation sector and wider construction industry indifference about the impact of boom-and-bust investment policies on companies lured into the energy sector, and you end up with an industry that has developed a bunker mentality, frightened of investing in case all government support is removed following dreaded reshuffles or the latest economic crisis.

Growing market But quietly, despite the vacillations of successive governments, some UK-based and global manufacturers have either borrowed money or drawn on reserves to develop new products and services for a construction market that they knew would eventually have to grow to meet housing demand.

16 SEP TEMBER/OC TOBER 2016

The British Board of Agrément (BBA) assessed proportionately more innovative construction products immediately after the 2008 recession than during the boom years.

This statistic was, I believe, inextricably linked to the fact that construction product manufacturers wanted to prepare themselves for the upturn when it eventually arrived, but the recession lasted so long that some excellent British companies could not maintain their cash flow and went to the wall.

The bedrock of the construction industry slowly crumbled – brick and block manufacturers fell like ninepins, and manufacturing facilities that had been established on the basis Image © Istock

of multimillion-pound investments closed their facilities. Confidence in government support for the industry through tough times dwindled to nothing.

Politicians keen to talk up the economy still speak of new opportunities, and in the grand scheme of things bringing new plant online is relatively easy.

However, without sustained demand and experienced hands it becomes an almost unachievable ambition. If there is money but no skill to realise the investment, then there is no investment.

Disadvantaged industry Policymakers’ almost systemic lack of understanding or complete disregard for the

RI CS BU ILDING CONT ROL JOUR NAL

The ministerial post with responsibility for construction has been held by more individuals in the last 15 years than any other in government business investment cycle has seen UK industry routinely put at a disadvantage relative to our global competitors.

Major investment requires years of planning, but given that most ministers are not even sure they will hang on to their positions beyond the next reshuffle, getting them to think further than two years ahead is almost impossible.

Their eyes glaze over and the challenge is popped into their “not now” drawer.

When decisions are eventually wrung from ministers, the competitive advantage has usually been lost and the long line of hopefuls has diminished to a small number of companies, which invariably means there will be a poorer outcome for the public purse.

The current government, like those before it, has promised less red tape, and consequently the slightest mention of a new policy to drive improvements in performance sees most ministers leaving the room. It appears to be a career suicide for one of them to suggest signing up to such a measure.

This is in addition to the fact that the ministerial post with responsibility for construction has been held by more individuals in the last 15 years than any other in government, changing hands faster than bets at Aintree. With few exceptions, hardly any of the incumbents have had any experience or knowledge of the construction industry that generates billions of pounds of income and underpins hundreds of thousands of jobs in the UK economy.

The cost of change The stock response to pleas for improved standards from government departments is: if this new approach is needed by the industry, then the industry should introduce higher standards itself. This completely ignores the fact that there is a cost associated with change, and, if such change is not driven by government policy, why should purchasing power be directed towards anything other than the products that comply with existing rules?

Everybody wants better products or services, but typically at the same cost that they would pay for the unenhanced service.

There are some individual exceptions, of course, but they are small in number and so do not translate into the volume market that is necessary to drive investment in the first place.

So while the industry knows what needs to be done to improve performance, individual companies will not invest unless every one of their competitors does so as well, because to do so alone would put them at an economic disadvantage.

Some companies have acted unilaterally, but this entrepreneurial spirit has slowly diminished in relation to the investment required.

Meanwhile, overseas governments, supported by ministers who do understand that regulation can be incredibly good for business and consumers alike, raise their domestic standards and then go on to argue their case in front of receptive European standards committees.

After an eternity of consultation, these standards are agreed and ultimately adopted by EU countries.

Such new standards invariably raise the barrier to entry for cheaper, inferior imports, thus protecting manufacturers in the EU – and for the time being, the UK – which is exactly what most people who are eager to see British people employed in British jobs want to happen.

Leaving Europe Pulling out of Europe will remove a significant driver for improvements in energy efficiency measures in the UK, but the whole focus of the government for the next two years will be constitutional reform, followed by fiscal realignment then a review of justice and homeland security.

Small matters such as climate change protocols pale into insignificance against the frenzied excitement associated with disentangling ourselves from our European partners. The climate change agenda will only return to the fore as a result of a major weather event – and then only for as long as it takes to get the story off the news.

Increasing levels of litigation and the appetite among product insurance companies to keep their premiums low will continue to drive the need for certification bodies.

At BBA, we will increase our advocacy on behalf of the industry, maintain our campaign to promote the value and benefit of certification to the specifier and end-user alike and encourage new regulation, because we believe that higher standards are always good for business and, ultimately, the consumer.

We note that during the course of the last two years, although the vast majority of insulation installed in homes has been successful – less than 1% has caused dissatisfaction – we have still been contacted by a number of housing associations and

consumers who are having to deal with failed installations.

Where the companies involved are registered with the BBA, we shall take action to ensure that they meet agreed standards, and we shall investigate the performance of the product or installer and compare it with the published certificate or installer scheme. However, it is becoming more obvious that the lack of regulation or certification in some parts of the industry will mean some people and organisations are left hugely disadvantaged, and even if there is regulation there is simply no mechanism to enforce it.

There is also no means to share information about good and bad practice, while regulations that lack teeth are valueless and can even make a bad situation worse.

Existing arrangements, under Ofgem for the big players and Trading Standards for everything else, simply do not work. While bad practices are being identified, the availability of sanctions is very limited and costly to enforce.

The BBA has the appetite and capability to provide an enforcement service for the industry; but who in the industry is willing to pay, or how? The answer is that consolidating and streamlining existing requirements would free up some financial capacity in the industry, while an enforcement capability enhanced by the BBA could ensure that polluters pay. Certification provides reassurance of that, and regulation designed to improve performance and support sanctions and enforcement is, we believe, a good thing. b

Claire Curtis-Thomas is Chief Executive at BBA ccurtis-thomas@bba.star.co.uk

SEP TEMBER/OC TOBER 2016

17

RICS B U I L DI N G CO N T ROL J OURN AL

TE C H N O LO GY

A single access point Chris Kendall looks at how an integrated platform is changing the relationship between building control officers and their clients

I

nformation management company Idox has responded to the government’s drive for innovation in the planning and development sector by launching iApply, the first UK website to provide a single access point for local government transactions.

The software for iApply is designed for businesses and residents involved in planning, building control and development, to make the application process more efficient by streamlining and standardising forms and interactions.

Unlike the Planning Portal – the former government service privatised by the Department for Communities and Local Government in 2015, which deals solely with planning – iApply integrates planning and building control into one platform, meaning that it is more than just an alternative to existing services.

Not only does it break down barriers between applicant and authority, it also enables management of information throughout the lifetime of a project, providing tools for tracking, project management and collaboration that are unavailable elsewhere. Some 80% of local authorities in the UK already use other Idox systems to manage planning 18 SEP TEMBER/OC TOBER 2016

and building control applications, and iApply was able to build on these when it went live in December 2015.

Tangible timelines Unlike other available systems, iApply sees a transition towards unrestricted file sizes, improved validation and transparency, access to submission details and enhanced application tracking and notification. Instead of just simplifying the submission process, it changes the way applicants, their representatives and local authorities can interact.

The facility is just as useful to private approved building inspectors as it is to

local authority building control officers.

Approved private inspectors – qualified professionals and experts who can guide clients through the planning and building process – offer an alternative to such local government services.

The system allows applicants of all types to follow the progress of their applications. In an age when customers expect to be able to track consignments around the world digitally by phone or other mobile device, it is perhaps surprising that this is not possible for applications much closer to home.

The iApply technology enables applicants to submit planning and building

RI CS BUILDING CONT ROL JO UR NAL

applications, then follow their progress in real time from a single dashboard. This means businesses do not have to monitor the websites of every council to which they have applied, or spend time and resources chasing individual applications by phone.

It also significantly benefits any business that is managing multiple applications across a number of authorities, and offers opportunities for improved and more timely pipeline and resource management. It is easy to imagine how a national housebuilder, commercial developer or outdoor media company, for example, might have dozens of applications in progress at any one time, but until now, each would require an individual resource to track.

The service also enables applicants, their colleagues and clients to receive automatic notifications as changes occur in local authority case management systems, whether these are status updates or simply receipt of consultations. Once construction work is under way, interaction with building control throughout the process is also readily compatible with the software.

Given the twin challenges presented by an ever-increasing squeeze on local authority resources and a national drive to build new homes, the need for efficient Images © Idox

solutions that smooth the development process from planning to building control has never been greater.

Into action Many local authorities have already welcomed the introduction of iApply, recognising its potential to enable substantial time savings that can free resources for more productive work. In its first week of operation, more than 100 authorities took up the service and its benefits are readily apparent.

At North Yorkshire Building Control Partnership, Head of Building Control Les Chapman has been impressed with the software’s implementation and effectiveness. He says: “One of the things that has made iApply such an attractive proposition is how simple and intuitive the product is. The fact that our applicants can use iApply to collaborate with others involved in the project – from the architect to the client – is also a major benefit, as is the ability to pay online.

“In addition, iApply will help us become more efficient and our aim is to be able to turn building notices around in one day. This leads to cost savings and time savings. Our customers are confident in using iApply – and so are we.”

Idox believes that iApply can bridge the gap between local government and its

customers in the same way that gov.uk has for central government – particularly given that the most recent spending review allocated £1.8bn in funding for the Government Digital Service, to speed up the transformation of public services, but gave nothing to local government. With various parties, clients and inspectors accessing the information from different platforms, all data must be searchable, compatible and interactive. Digitising such service offerings is an essential part of that process.

Beyond the immediate benefits for local authorities and building control, iApply can serve as the foundation for the first national planning register, by offering a search tool that automatically scans every local authority planning application database and provides location or text-based results instantly on an interactive map. Each database record links back to the local authority’s site for further information, while every result can also be easily posted on social media to help interested parties share and discuss relevant applications.

The opportunities are diverse. The facility can provide valuable tailored insights, whether you are a concerned resident monitoring planning applications in your neighbourhood, a tradesperson looking for sales leads or a building control inspector keeping track of the progress of your project.

Idox is already looking beyond planning applications and building control as well, and is considering how iApply could be adopted for other local authority processes, for instance in issuing and managing licences.

Andrew Riley, Idox’s Chief Operating Officer, says: “As with planning and building, the aim is to create standard forms for all licence types. Beyond that, new opportunities for joining up services across local authorities are being set out, with links between residents, businesses and local authorities benefitting from advances in technology. These interactive links can be the basis for a range of applications that can make a difference to our daily lives.” C

Chris Kendall is Digital Strategy Owner at Idox Group chris.kendall@idoxgroup.com http://iApply.co.uk

Related competencies include Legal and regulatory compliance

SEP TEMBER/OC TOBER 2016

19

RICS B U I L DI N G CO N T ROL J OURN AL

INCLUSIVE DESIGN

Don’t multiply your problems

G

Ian Streets counts the cost of defective design ood design is important regardless of the property, the product or the people using it. The additional factor to consider when designing access for disabled people is the possible cost of rectifying any errors – and of dealing with any discrimination claims that may result.

This can leave you facing a triple whammy – paying for improved design, loss of business and compensating the customer – and it underlines the importance of getting the design right at the outset.

A new construction project or major renovation can involve an army of experts all working towards the same end but not necessarily aware of the fine detail that can make or break the best-laid plans.

You might have a lead architect, someone looking after construction design and management, a fire engineer, a mechanical and electrical expert and a landscape architect.

They are all specialists in their respective disciplines, but they may not necessarily anticipate the impact of their individual contributions on the accessibility of the wider project.

The general principle of a tenfold increase in the cost of an error for each stage of a process is particularly applicable to building design. For every £1 you might spend remedying a problem at the concept and preparation phase, you can expect to spend £10 if it is not resolved by the time you get to scoping a project, and £100 at the planning and pre-construction stage. Add another zero if it remains at the point of application and construction, and be prepared for that initial £1 to have multiplied to £10,000 if the failure to act early leaves you making alterations once the property is occupied and in use.

Access consultant By appointing an access consultant to the team, you can ensure you get things right first time, avoiding the delays and cost that result from having to revise the work of one specialist and then making sure it fits with the plans of all the others. The savings in time and money are such that the investment will typically pay for itself.

At our consultancy About Access, we conduct appraisals to ensure that inclusive design is achieved throughout the construction process. We study accessibility provision from the earliest stage, looking at the plans and giving our advice at a point where corrections and improvements can easily be accommodated.

We use our experience and understanding to make recommendations that will assist a design team in incorporating features to improve access, and we also help them save time and money by avoiding costly corrections once construction is under way – or even complete.

Our advice could be as simple as suggesting the provision of a meeting room on the ground floor, but even that can be a 20 SEP TEMBER/OC TOBER 2016

significant saving in an environment where having just a little knowledge can prove dangerous and expensive.

Ramp installation We were called in by one client to advise on installing a new ramp for an existing emergency exit, which was to become an entrance for a member of staff who uses a wheelchair.

The client had already had to arrange for the previous ramp to be removed, redesigned and rebuilt, all at the architect’s expense, because it was not suitable. We reviewed the design and made recommendations, and also pointed out areas that had not even been considered. It was clear that, without our input, the same failings would have happened again.

Another client engaged us to give design guidance on an accessible toilet for an improvement programme at a small church. We offered our advice, but the builders failed to stick to the plan and their completed job required substantial and expensive modifications.

But there is more to accessibility than complying with the law and avoiding the discrimination against disabled people that could leave your business vulnerable to a claim. Think also about the cost of the business lost when a disabled person and the other members of their party decide to shop, eat or stay elsewhere because your facilities do not extend the welcome and level of care that they are used to.

The Department for Work and Pensions refers to the “purple pound” to indicate the spending power of a disabled person and others in their household. Citing the Family Resources Survey for 2012–13, it calculates that the 12.2m households in the UK that include a disabled person have a combined income, after housing costs, of £212bn (http://bit.ly/25Jsjng). C

Ian Streets is Managing Director of About Access www.aboutaccess.co.uk

Image © About Access

INC LUSIV E DESIG N

RI CS BUILDING CONT ROL JO UR NAL

Steve Warner asks whether more could be done to make buildings more accessible

Widening access

R

ecent changes to cater for an ageing population have been made to the Building Regulations, requiring the construction of accessible or adaptable homes. These bode well for the future, as currently, any new dwelling has to be accessible. But could more still be done?

The majority of surveyors, architects and developers have a reasonable understanding of designing for the UK’s 1.2m wheelchair users, yet there are other groups that could benefit from increased awareness and design improvements, for example, people with hearing loss, visual impairment and learning difficulties.

Approved Document M (access to and use of buildings) Volume 1 and 2 both mention people with visual impairment, and the latter goes into greater depth about people with hearing and speaking difficulties (http://bit.ly/1Ms5Pvl; http://bit.ly/1RcO5aF).

However, there still remains the mandatory get-out clause from the Equalities Act 2010, which says: “It remains for the persons undertaking building works to consider if further provision, beyond that described in Approved Document M, is appropriate.”

Nosings I am sure that we are familiar with contrasting nosings, or edgings, on staircases.

But to someone with sight problems these can look like ramps, so the ideal solution is to use a contrasting colour on the top and bottom step

of any flight of stairs. By the same token, handrails should be continuous and of low reflectance, and neither hot nor cold to the touch.

However, there is presently a trend for glass balustrades and polished stainless steel handrails, which fails to fulfil these criteria.

This could present a significant problem because, by 2020, the number of people with some form of sight loss in the UK is predicted to have risen from 2m to 4m. One in five people over the age of 75 will suffer loss of sight of one kind or another, because our eyesight deteriorates as we age, and a typical 70-year-old needs three times more light than a 20-year-old for the same visual performance.

The latest Approved Document M therefore requires suitable tread nosings to external steps in housing categories M4 (2) & (3) together with diffused lighting on a dawn-to-dusk sensor to the entrance door – something that would benefit all homes.

Builders and architects try their hardest to ensure that the building does not seem institutionalised. They incorporate these features

One in five people over the age of 75 will suffer loss of sight of some kind as eyesight deteriorates as we get older

in modern design, seemingly to blend in with their surroundings, but still being functional. I am confident that in time such facilities will be accepted as the norm, just as ramped access to new dwellings is today.

Colour contrast Our guide refers to the heights of switches and sockets, but should it ask for a colour contrast or require large switches as well? In some ways, though, manufacturers are already addressing these issues today by producing different coloured switches.

Likewise, surveyors familiar with the need to install a toilet suitable for wheelchair users will be familiar with contrasting colours for the grab rails and other features; yet we often forget to differentiate between the pan and toilet seat.

On the subject of colour, we have known for some time that it plays a major role in how we feel, so it comes as no surprise that internal decor is used to make people feel more comfortable and relaxed in hospital waiting rooms, doctors’ surgeries and so on.

Colour can also be used to provide visual wayfinding and contrast skin tone, to highlight sign language.

A person may choose to wear dark or light clothing depending on their own skin tone to accentuate any signs used, as this tends to take place at chest height.

Equally, with the right choice of background colour we can help make communication easier for signers.

Audio and autism As well as those experiencing visual impairment, there are

currently 11m people in the UK with some form of hearing loss, and this is predicted to rise to 15.6m by 2035. More than 70% of 70-year-olds and 40% of 50-year-olds have some form of hearing loss.

Another design consideration, then, should be reverberation of sound waves off hard surfaces such as glass or tiles, which can make it difficult for individuals using hearing devices. In the ideal world, a building should be designed to reduce background noise.

Meanwhile, it is estimated that over 700,000 people in the UK are on the autistic spectrum; but like those with sight loss and hearing difficulties, there may be no outward sign that they are experiencing any difficulty at all.

Buildings with large glass panels can cause problems for those with this condition, so particular design considerations include avoiding geometric and repeating patterns and excessively bright colours on floors and walls. This can help those on the spectrum and would equally benefit those who are partially sighted.

As a profession, there is much we can do to help those experiencing these conditions today – and in the light of our ever-ageing population, we will also be preparing for those who will experience them in future. C

Steve Warner is an approved inspector at Assent Building Control stevewarner@assentbc.co.uk

SEP TEMBER/OC TOBER 2016

21

RICS B U I L DI N G CO N T ROL J OURN AL

I N TE R N ATI O N A L

Unforeseen consequences

U

Continuing his series from Australia, Mark Anderson discusses the possible impact of banning builders from employing certifiers directly nder a radical shake-up of construction law in the state of Victoria, builders are to be banned from hiring their own surveyors– a move designed to target unscrupulous builders who have incurred unnecessary consumer costs.

The new regulations, introduced by the state’s Planning Minister Richard Wynne, are designed to tackle an industry rife with disputes. Building surveyors in Victoria have been found guilty of more than 700 misconduct claims since 2009, and now the state government is to implement strict guidelines to try to boost confidence in the profession.

The measures include: b tougher scrutiny of registration b certainty that the skills required are available now and will be in the future.

A conflict of interest between the certifier and the builder is seen as being the main reason for the large number of disputes. The close relationships between some builders and their surveyors has – in the opinion of the Victorian Building Authority (VBA) – led to the high level of disputes and allegations of misconduct.

A more even split In England and Wales, there is a more even split between private and public surveyors, which may account for better perception of the practice of self-regulation as the public sector is subject to considerable legislation: the Department for Communities and Local Government introduced governing standards after reviews of the service in 1998, 2006 and 2014.

In the English and Welsh reviews of legislation – Scotland has not adopted private certification – the following performance measures were implemented to ensure the public remains confident that there will be no conflicts of interest and work will be of a good quality.

The standards include reviews of all the following: b private certification performance b the business ethics complaints procedure b resourcing b management systems such as ISO 9001 for the monitoring of performance b continuing professional development.

Private certifiers have their own set of guiding principles in the form of a code of conduct.

Victoria measures The fact that the VBA is tackling the certification problem is laudable. However, in my opinion there are a number of 22 SEP TEMBER/OC TOBER 2016

other measures that should also be adopted to ensure that registration is more robust. The business of certification should be run as such, which would ensure that both the regulatory authority and the client are satisfied with the outcomes and of course still make a profit.

The outcome for the client is that the building complies with the standards in place, both on plan and on site as far as is reasonably practicable, and that the overarching principle of public safety is maintained for them and those in and around the building.

The outcome for the registering authority should be the same as for the client, but should also include ensuring the following: b the surveyor has the appropriate qualifications to perform the services b the surveyor has the relevant experience to assess the type of building at all times b all statutory obligations are correctly carried out and outcomes are recorded and are auditable.

The VBA only partially addresses these requirements and leaves the other performance measures to self-regulation, which has in my opinion resulted in the systemic failure. Only by ensuring that there are adequate business measures in place as well as increasing scrutiny of the certifiers’ experience and continuing professional development will the system start to improve its public perception. At present, the registration process may only be seen as a sticking plaster for a wider problem.

The fact that all states and territories recognise one another’s registrations means that any increased level of scrutiny applied in one state should be applied to all others. But in practice this is unlikely to occur as a result of privacy laws and the cost of implementing systems that record the correct information, so it is therefore possible to game the system. If registration is easier in other states, then those wishing to be practitioners may go there to register.

All the registration bodies should set up a commission to ensure that building certifiers maintain the same performance standards, are adequately resourced and offer the appropriate level of experience.

Once there are agreed performance standards and these are adopted by all states, a committee comprising representatives from professional bodies, research organisations and specialist business associations should oversee the code of conduct for building certifiers. All certifiers should be registered with this body to ensure standards are maintained throughout Australia.

The absence of full performance standards for building certification will only go a little way to stopping the systemic failure in Victoria. There is a strong possibility that those wishing to game the system to circumvent the new measures will do so. C

Mark Anderson is a senior building certifier at KPMG SGA manderson4@kpmg.com.au

UPDATE

RI CS BUILDING CONT ROL JO UR NAL

UPDATE Domestic Renewable Heat Incentive The Domestic Renewable Heat Incentive is a UK government financial initiative designed to encourage a switch to renewable heating systems and help reduce carbon emissions. A homeowner must install loft and/or cavity wall insulation before applying, if this is listed as a recommendation on their energy performance certificate, though should a property be genuinely unable to meet the insulation requirements it requires an exemption.

This could be the case, for instance, where older properties have a loft that could be insulated but due to the presence of a protected species of bats, covenants on the building itself or other reasons this is not possible. Any exemption requires a professional such as a chartered surveyor to investigate and provide a report confirming that it is not possible to insulate the property.

As the incentive continues to expand, there is potential for an increasing number of homes to require a building professional to provide these services. n For more information, contact DomesticRHI@ofgem.gov.uk or visit http://bit.ly/1V0Y0pF

Scotland energy rules

From 1 September, owners of buildings in Scotland greater than 1,000 sq. m in size will be required to provide an action plan when they sell or rent their property. They will also have to ensure that energy improvement data, including the action plan and energy performance certificate (EPC), is submitted to the Scottish EPC Register.

UK integrates energy and business policy

BEPE

The Built Environment Professional Education project (BEPE) aims to continue the legacy of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games (above) by helping to change the way that inclusive design skills are taught in the UK. The aim is for all built environment professionals to receive mandatory, high-quality teaching on inclusive design so that they can help create inclusive buildings, places and spaces for future generations.

After more than two years of support from the government and the Greater London Authority, BEPE now has the active backing of 18 major institutions and organisations in the sector, as well as prompting changes to professional standards and competencies and raising the profile of inclusive design among professional educators and students. n http://bit.ly/1T4vnWt Images © Getty/Istock

The UK government has integrated the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) into the Department for Business Innovation and Skills to form the Department for Business Energy and Industrial Strategy (DBEIS). This will take on all the DECC’s policy areas and Greg Clark has been appointed as the first Secretary of State for DBEIS. The abolition of DECC is disappointing.

DECC has been under-resourced for too long but as a dedicated department clearly demonstrated the UK government’s commitment to tackling climate change. This, together with the ‘slash and burn’ approach to energy policy over the last year or so, creates yet more uncertainty and could undermine the positive announcement of the Fifth Carbon Budget, committing the UK to reducing carbon emissions by 57% against 1990 levels by 2032.

It is only to be hoped that this move upgrades the status of energy policy and that DBEIS minister Baroness Neville-Rolfe’s assertion “energy and climate change will be at the heart of the new department” proves to be the case.

Mat Lown is Partner and Head of Sustainability, Tuffin Ferraby Taylor mlown@tftconsultants.com

SEP TEMBER/OC TOBER 2016

23

RICS B U I L DI N G CO N T ROL J OURN AL

U P DATE

UPDATE Flooding

The British Standards Institute has published BS 85500: 2015, Flood-resistant and resilient construction. Guide to improving the flood performance of buildings.

The standard looks at the growing risk that buildings face from flooding, and is based on the Department for Communities and Local Government’s 2007 publication Improving the flood performance of new buildings: Flood-resilient construction. It brings the document up to date by focusing on the flood performance of modern methods of construction, and provides guidance on how to improve the resistance and resilience of buildings to reduce the effects of flooding from all sources through the use of suitable materials and techniques. n http://bit.ly/1YhhB1P

RRO study

The London Fire Brigade has commissioned an independent review by BRE Global into the effectiveness of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (the RRO). Evaluating the review, the Brigade says: “The study finds that while RRO is generally fit for purpose there are possible improvements that might be sought to the details of the legislation; that changes to existing guidance on the RRO may be needed; and the level of awareness of the RRO and its provisions among ‘responsible persons’ under the RRO is not as high as it should be.” n http://bit.ly/1YhhB1P

Publications

The Building Services Research and Information Association has published its Future Building Trends – Impacts – Solutions white paper, looking at what are expected to be the biggest, most relevant changes in buildings over the next 10 years, the impact on the industry, and the products and services that will be required in future. n http://bit.ly/1RImXmT The UK Green Building Council has published its Delivering Building Performance report, which says high-performing sustainable buildings can reduce both construction and operating costs. n http://bit.ly/1TzPuIx

To ad ve rtise con t a c t Em m a Ke n n e dy +4 4( 0 ) 20 7 8 7 1 5 7 3 4 or emmak@wearesu nday. c om Cembrit-book-150x426.indd 1-2

24 SEP TEMBER/OC TOBER 2016

Image © Shutterstock

RI CS BU ILDING CONT ROL JOUR NAL

Surveying data digitally

GoReport has published The value and importance of data in surveying. The report, which explains the growing value of survey data gathered electronically, says: “The digital revolution in surveying won’t happen overnight. But it has already begun, and surveyors getting involved early can have an advantage. The starting point is when they move towards capturing and storing survey data electronically rather than by pencil and paper. Proven technology is already available now to capture, edit and publish survey information and is being increasingly widely adopted by many surveying practices. There is no reason to delay getting involved.” n http://bit.ly/25nMtqa

Enterprise Act 2016 receives Royal Assent

Referendum paper

The Enterprise Act 2016 has received Royal Assent, meaning that damages for late payment can now be enforced. The provisions introduce into every contract of insurance an implied term requiring the insurer to pay sums due within a reasonable time. Failure to do so will entitle the insured party to remedies, including damages. The key provisions will slot in as sections 13A and 16A of the Insurance Act 2015, but will not come into effect until 4 May 2017.

RICS has gathered the opinions of industry professionals to help produce its EU Referendum: Impacts for land, property and construction policy paper, which looks at the impact of the outcome for the property sectors. n http://bit.ly/1XX1sj3

New housing

The All-Parliamentary Group for Excellence in the Built Environment has published its More Homes, Fewer Complaints report. n http://bit.ly/29NBXkm

RICS training 20 October, London Inclusive design and access n www.rics.org/inclusivedesign

RICS Online Academy Approved Document G n www.rics.org/adg BS9999: The concept n www.rics.org/bsconcept Managing fire safety: Level 3 n www.rics.org/firesafetylevel3 14 November Construction Design Management regulations 2015: an introduction n www.rics.org/cdmregs 18 November Japanese knotweed: identification and client advice n www.rics.org/japknot

Everything you need to know about fibre cement slate.

(All under one roof)

For a free copy of this 80 page book please contact Cembrit on 020 8301 8900 or email sales@cembrit.co.uk www.cembrit.co.uk

To a d ve r t i s e c o n t a c t Em ma Kennedy +4 4 ( 0 ) 2 0 7 8 7 1 5 7 3 4 or emmak @wearesu nd a y.co m 11/04/2016 09:50

SEP TEMBER/OC TOBER 2016

25

RICS B U I L DI N G CO N T ROL J OURN AL

A DV E RTI S I N G

RICS & SPAB Building Conservation Summer School 4-8 September 2016 Royal Agricultural University, Cirencester Unlock your career in historic building surveying - essential guidance into inspecting and repairing old and traditional buildings.

Spanning five days, this event aims to reinforce undergraduate and graduate training in traditional buildings, construction techniques and materials, as well as support new surveyors and other specialists in this field.

Book your place online today:

rics.org/summerschool

Untitled - Page: 1

2016-05-05 14:30:44 +0100

Historic Building Condition Surveys Improve your knowledge of surveying historic buildings and gain skills needed to provide accurate recommendations and repair costs.

By the end of this one day course you will be able to: •

Identify the different building methods and materials used in the UK

•

Avoid common pitfalls associated with surveying old constructions

•

Make appropriate recommendations on repairs or conservation work

•

Produce concise surveying reports that clearly identify issues that need re-addressing.

To find out more: t +44 (0)2476 868 584 w rics.org/historicbuilding e training@rics.org

To ad ve rtise con t a c t Em m a Ke n n e dy +4 4( 0 ) 20 7 8 7 1 5 7 3 4 or emmak@wearesu nday. c om 26 SEP TEMBER/OC TOBER 2016

A DV ERTISING

tember

RI CS BU ILDING CONT ROL JOUR NAL

A FRESH APPROACH TO BUILDING SKIN CARE

cultural University boasts a wealth velop careers in diverse areas from g to scientific research.

ose us

graduate employment rate for entrepreneurship university in South West 2013 PROVIDING EXPERT BUILDING INTELLIGENCE sque Cotswold campus / Restoration / Protection scholarship/ Consultancy opportunities

/ CPDs

REQUEST YOUR FREE LIMITED EDITION COPY OF THE BOOK TODAY. VISIT www.buildingtransformation.co.uk/modus TO ORDER OR CALL 01234 964 019

blished course programmes and r by gaining extensive theoretical ation.

APPROVED INSPECTOR BUSINESS FOR SALE

An excellent opportunity to purchase a small, London based, limited company with a good client base and great potential for expansion / growth.

• • •

High levels of referrals and repeat business Licenced by the Construction Industry Council RICS Regulated

This is an ideal opportunity for an experienced Building Control professional(s) to move into the private sector, for an existing Approved Inspector to expand into the South East/London area or for anyone seeking a cash generating business.

Please submit expressions of interest to: Alexander & Co (Accountancy) Limited via email to: alexanderaccounts@live.co.uk

To ad ve rtise con t a c t Em m a Ke n n e dy +4 4( 0 ) 20 7 8 7 1 5 7 3 4 or emmak@wearesu nday. c om SEP TEMBER/OC TOBER 2016

27

Transforming planning & building control iApply is convenience:

everything you need in one place

iApply is collaboration: sharing is easy

iApply is transparency:

track your project and stay informed

iApply is simplicity: built-in tools

Visit www.iapply.co.uk and find out why choosing iApply makes sense