Official Report 242KB pdf
Building (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/534)
I open the 32nd meeting in 2006 of the Communities Committee. I remind all those present that mobile phones and BlackBerrys should be turned off.
We were perfectly happy with the consultation process. We did not respond formally, but we were happy with the communication that we had.
The consultation was considerable, but we managed to cover most of the areas about which we had concerns. There were some areas in which we do not have any policy area interest. That aside, there was a huge weight of stuff in the consultation, including some wide-sweeping changes, and we think that the process could have been aided.
Scott Restrick makes some interesting points. We have spoken to our stakeholders—disabled people and disabled organisations—who have told us that that kind of formal consultation is incredibly time consuming. Such organisations do not have the capacity to respond to a document of that size. However, those people are the ones who have the expertise on access.
Are you content that there is flexibility in the document to cover the varying weather and climatic conditions throughout Scotland? Obviously, no one would want a flat roof in a place such as Argyll.
I do not have any specific concerns. However, I endorse what has just been said. The complexity of some of the technical issues in the consultation paper is reflected in the fact that we did not respond formally. Probably like the other organisations that are represented here, we are asked to participate in consultations on 101 different things at any time, and we cannot respond to them all—especially when they are as technically detailed as this one was.
I am not entirely sure what you mean by climatic conditions.
I am based in the Highlands and Islands, and I know for a fact that no one would think of putting a flat roof on a building there. That may not be standard practice now, anyway. Obviously, weather conditions vary throughout Scotland, with more extreme rainfall in the north-west and warmer weather in the west than in the east. Does the document provide flexibility for variations in building standards in different areas of Scotland?
Do you mean from an architectural point of view?
Yes.
I do not think that we have any comment to make on that.
It was just an observation.
The calculations that I use in my methodology allow for flexibility. I do not know whether that answers your question.
Do you want to continue with your line of questioning?
I will continue. My next question is specifically for Scottish Building. My initial impression, on reading the regulations, is that some fairly non-specific terms are used. Do you have any concerns about the introduction of the term "convenience" into building standards—for example, in the statement that room sizes should be designed to ensure the convenience of occupants and visitors? How would you define convenience?
The issue that we often have with building standards is the lack of consistency in the way in which the standards are applied. Words such as "convenience" are open to interpretation. The general feedback that we have received from our members is that there is usually sensible dialogue with building standards departments, although there are exceptional cases. It is necessary to proceed on the basis of trust in a reasonable approach being taken towards building standards. However, I am sure that we could all cite examples of buildings—perhaps including this building—where we question the convenience of use. For example, this morning I wanted to come to the committee room using the stairs, but I was not allowed to do so—I had to use the lift.
Do you see the door being opened to claim situations between contractors and clients when there has been a misunderstanding in the descriptions?
In most cases, unless it is design and build, the builder will work to a contract and a specification. I therefore suggest that it is more for the designers and specifiers to clarify or design what they think will be convenient in a particular instance.
The present regulations say that room sizes should be such that they do not threaten the health of the occupants. We are now talking about ensuring the welfare and convenience of all occupants and visitors. Do you think that the change in wording will lower the standard that is required? Or do you think that the word "convenient" is more appropriate than the current wording about threatening the health of the occupants?
No. I think that it might give designers and specifiers—architects—a problem in interpreting what would be convenient in a particular location or building.
Do you think that the issue was more clear cut when the standards talked about threatening the health of the occupants rather than using the word "convenient"?
Yes. There would have been less disagreement about what would or would not cause danger to health.
What impact will the new standards governing access to and within new buildings have on the cost and supply of new buildings?
I do not think that they will have significant cost implications. Like most things, if they are captured in the design process, they can be incorporated fairly sensibly. Again, that comes down to what is reasonable and sensible in a particular case.
Do you have any concerns about bringing underpinning work within the building control system? Speaking as a former civil engineer, I thought that that was more of a civil engineering concept than a building concept.
We have no major concerns about that, other than the need to ensure that appropriate resources are available to ensure that site inspections, which will clearly need to be carried out by local building standards officers, can be done in a way that will allow the work to proceed in a sensible manner.
Do you think that building control officers are sufficiently qualified to deal with things such as underpinning?
They already cover a wide variety of topics in their job—
It just seems to add to the regulations—
I do not think that that is a major problem. Looking at the range of knowledge that they have at the moment, you could say that there will have to be an education process to ensure that they are all au fait with the requirements for underpinning. However, I do not think that that will present any major problems, apart from the fact that it will be an imposition on an already fairly scarce resource.
Will the certificates for energy performance for most new buildings result in the construction of more energy-efficient buildings? If so, why?
The construction industry has a major role to play with regard to issues such as energy efficiency and sustainability. Obviously, we have regulations about the purchase of a new fridge or a new car and I think that it would be inconceivable for buildings to be left out of that. Whether the certificates result in more energy-efficient buildings being produced will come down to what clients demand and whether clients see that as an important factor.
The committee has been given some evidence to suggest that compliance with even the existing energy standards is quite poor. Given that the Scottish Executive has decided not to go down the route that England has taken, which involves compulsory on-site testing, how can we be sure that the certificates will have any impact if we do not get compliance right?
I know something about some of the issues that you are referring to with regard to current compliance. The evidence is a little bit anecdotal and I would suggest that such stories certainly grab the media headlines. As a trade body, we would be looking for client bodies or anyone else who has major concerns on that front to approach us and discuss how we can improve compliance on a building site rather than getting headlines in the press and so on.
So it would be worth looking at that research.
Yes.
Are there any other issues beyond the energy concerns? The section on solid waste storage makes it clear that there must be access to remove that solid waste, but it says nothing about making buildings compatible with segregated recycling provision, for example. One of the reasons that some local authorities give for not providing that service is that the housing stock does not suit it. Would it not have been better to broaden out that section? Are there other aspects that you would like to change?
I put out a bag and box this morning for my local authority to pick up, but whether one finds that convenient or inconvenient is a personal choice. We do not need further regulations at this point. We have to accept that a lot of learning still has to be done in order for society to operate in a more sustainable fashion.
I invite Mr Levack to comment on the contradictions that can arise between the different objectives of different Government agencies. We are talking about building regulations, in which energy efficiency is rightly a high priority, but what happens when, for example, there are concerns about the appearance of buildings that are being renovated in a conservation area where regulations might rule out the use of available windows? I am sure that we have all had constituency cases about such conflicts—I had another one yesterday. Is there usually a way round that?
There can be conflict when many agencies and departments want to promote best practice in sustainability. Even trying to define what sustainability means to society and the construction industry is difficult. There are major conflicts, but most of the time building contractors work to a design and we seek guidance from the designer or a local authority.
If the building control people are saying that you have to put in double or triple glazing and someone from the same authority says, "No, this a conservation area; you may not do that", how do you deal with that? Might it be helpful if there were a clear understanding of which regulations should take priority under those circumstances? Perhaps the regulations on energy efficiency should take priority.
I am not trying to avoid the question, but in most cases the building contractor would be commissioned as the builder and he would build to a specification. Any conflicts such as those that you describe would generally require the design team, project manager or architect to liaise with the authorities. Equally, I have experience in my previous life not far from here doing a Communities Scotland-funded project, which contained many such conflicts. We managed to tackle them because we had an architect on the job who was extremely experienced in designing in a sustainable manner.
Good morning, Ms Fisken. My questions will mostly be directed at you.
To answer the first question, you would have to ask each individual. What might not work for me—intercoms or communications without a video link, for example—might work for someone who uses a wheelchair, so it very much depends on the individual. Every building has its problems. I do not think that the perfect building exists or ever will, because there is such a range of disabilities, including progressive disabilities.
I understand perfectly that there is such a range of disabilities that one cannot cater for every individual requirement. However, to give an example, how well does the Parliament building, which was built not that long ago, comply with the new regulations? Are there access issues in this building that require to be addressed?
I would love to answer that, but it would take weeks for a qualified person to do a proper access audit. However, off the top of my head, something that is probably not covered in building regulations is the fact that it is virtually impossible in this room to sight the lip-speaker because of all the accoutrements on the wall, the windows, the lighting and glare, and the fact that she cannot sit in front of me because of the table's design. We have to recognise that the building regulations have limitations. We cannot regulate for the other aspects, such as the background in this room.
I was talking about access into the building rather than its interior. We have already had Mr Levack saying that he had to take a lift, although we have that system for security reasons. I am interested in the example that the building gives to other new buildings. There has been a thorough disability audit of the building, and I think that it passed well.
I beg your pardon, but could you repeat the question?
We had a disabled access audit of this building—it is my understanding that it passed really well. If we are looking at the practical effect on access to new buildings, is this building a good template?
I must reply honestly and say that I am not qualified to answer that, because I cannot speak for every disability. That is the only answer that I can give. If you have had an access audit done, I would say that that is evidence.
For information, this evening at 6 o'clock, there is to be a meeting for people with multiple sclerosis, for which we are expecting 80 wheelchairs in the garden lobby. That will provide an opportunity to see how accessible the building is to disabled persons. That will be an interesting experience.
That is very interesting, but we should keep to the matter that is before us, which is the regulations that we are considering.
I was trying to get an illustration of how they could be better.
Sorry, but could I clarify whether you are talking about the size of bedrooms?
That is an issue on which you can comment. I am talking about the requirement that at least some of the rooms that are to be used as bedrooms should be accessible to those with disabilities. The most obvious case that leaps to mind is accessibility for people who are in a wheelchair, but that is not the only issue.
I apologise. I have not looked at the building regulations, but at the guidance, which we have to hand. A couple of days ago, we spoke to some of the voluntary organisations and stakeholders. The Scottish Disability Equality Forum, which is the umbrella organisation for most of the access panels in Scotland, reported to us that it felt that, when furniture is included, there will still not be enough manoeuvrability. I suppose the issue boils down to the personal question of how much furniture people want in their bedroom. The working party discussed that issue and, if I recall correctly, the sense was that there would be a bed, a chest of drawers and a wardrobe. However, I have more furniture than that in my bedroom. Perhaps the issue boils down to minimum expectations. The guidance is supposed to set out the minimum that people will have to do to meet the building regulations, but we want to encourage people to go beyond that and get to good practice.
In the 2006 regulations, there is a requirement that sanitary facilities that are provided in dwellings should be "convenient" to use for all occupants and visitors, in addition to the current requirement that they should not threaten the health and safety of occupants or visitors. I ask Heather Fisken what will be the implications of that for disabled people.
I am sorry; I am not following any of this. I beg your pardon, but this room is really difficult to lip-read in. Could you repeat the question for me?
In the 2006 regulations, there is a requirement that sanitary facilities that are provided in dwellings be "convenient" to use for all occupants and visitors. Have you got that?
I beg your pardon, but I understand that that is one of the questions that was given to us. Is that correct?
I seek advice from the convener.
The answer is yes.
The amendment regulations move away from the visitability standard in the 2004 regulations. For example, a disabled person could visit a dwelling but get no further than the lobby, which would give rise the situation at Christmas time where somebody says, "Go and ask Uncle Peter if he wants another mince pie. He is under the coatstand in the hall." That is not a situation that we want to continue. We are all for health and safety, of course, but not convenience.
Will the regulations have any benefits for people who have disabilities other than mobility problems?
Yes, absolutely. I would go so far as to say that everybody benefits from the regulations, not just people with disabilities, in the sense that they benefit people with young children, especially with prams, and elderly people. We have said from day one that the message is that design should be inclusive. As you say, that applies not only to people with mobility impairments. There are provisions on communication and hearing enhancement systems in the regulations. There are also provisions on protection barriers, which will be of assistance to people with visual impairments. However, as I said earlier, we would like those elements to go a bit further, although we recognise the regulations' limitations.
Would you have liked any other changes to be made to access-related building standards? If so, what are they? I ask in case there is anything about which you feel strongly.
There are a few things. The introduction to each mandatory standard should refer people to British standard 8300 or perhaps to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It refers them to other standards, and we would like it to be clear. People dip into the big book of standards and might read the introduction to the one on which they are reading up, so we would like overarching statements to be made.
I have some questions for Scott Restrick of Energy Action Scotland. Will the requirement to produce an energy performance certificate for new buildings result in the construction of more energy-efficient buildings?
No. I will explain.
Please do, and then I will ask Mr Levack to comment.
It is partly explained in the documentation that comes along with the building standards. The requirement to produce an energy performance certificate is simply so that there will be a report; it will not enforce any kind of action to make the energy performance of a building better. All that the certificate does is report on the condition of the building as it is. So the answer to Tricia Marwick's question is no.
Do you mean a car?
Yes.
I am sorry. I am into grandchildren at the moment and I thought "jag" meant immunisation.
I used the wrong example there.
Would you like there to be compliance with energy standards as part of the building regulations?
I suppose that compliance is implicit within the building standards process. Testing for compliance with building standards is not really part of the energy performance certificate process. Compliance is, however, tested for the completion certificate.
Scott Restrick is correct about that. As I said earlier, introducing an energy performance certificate is a good first step. I do not think that we are yet ready for any heavier regulation. We will have to see how the market reacts, whether it is the commercial market or domestic households. I do not know how many people look at the carbon dioxide emissions when they want to buy a Jaguar or a fridge. We can put the requirement in, but I am not sure how many people will actually refer to the information that is given.
I was going to touch on that point with both witnesses. Do you have any evidence that, for example, tenants would choose to rent in a more energy-efficient building if there was a cost premium in the rental? Would people choose an energy-efficient home if the cost of it was greater?
Are you talking about private renting or social renting?
Whatever.
There are some differences. For the social rented sector, things like housing allocation policies have to be taken into account. Perhaps the people who would be given the option of renting an energy-efficient home would have been assessed as appropriate for that house because they could afford to live there. However, there should be an education process that gives up-front information and an education process that tells people about the running costs of a property that are outwith the rental costs. That has as much influence on the affordability of a property as anything else does. Whether someone would choose to take a more energy-efficient home would come down to them being given the right information when they were given the choice. Such choice might not be particularly widespread within the social rented housing sector.
Does Mr Levack want to comment?
We have a lot of work to do with the construction industry, working with organisations such as Energy Action Scotland. The construction industry is not resisting the change that is required. We fully understand the requirement for change, but it must be implemented at a sensible pace so that it can be delivered and can tie in with market demands.
I apologise for being late this morning.
The question was on new build, rather than refurbishment. What, in effect, drives energy efficiency in new build is building standards. If you are asking whether an energy performance certificate would mean better standards, you are asking whether the industry would exceed building standards. Evidence over the past 30 or 40 years suggests that buildings are built to keep out of jail, as the terminology goes; they are built to minimum standards.
My aims, opinions and views are probably similar to yours. However, I point out that there is nothing to force people to buy the most energy-efficient product when they make a choice about white goods such as washing machines, yet most people I know will do so when they replace their washing machine or whatever. It has taken us a wee while to get there. Are the certificates not moving us in the right direction, in that if builders and developers provide a product that is energy efficient the consumer would want to buy an energy-efficient home?
The analogy with white goods is often used, but there is a slight difference. As you rightly say, the white goods industry has taken a while to accommodate the A-rated and B-rated appliances. We hope that such an approach would be matched with new buildings, but in the white goods industry manufacturing costs and manufacturing practices have changed. The cost of producing an A-rated or B-rated appliance is now similar to what it would have been 10 years ago to produce a D-rated appliance. Things have changed in manufacturing, but practices in the construction industry have to change as well if there is to be the same step change in that sector.
Can you explain what is meant by
I would love to, but it is not really my area of expertise.
Michael, can you explain what is meant by that?
No, although I can point to an example of good practice. In countries such as Austria and Germany, such facilities are often provided in basements, often on a communal basis. However, a huge cultural change would be required in Scotland.
The regulations state that all new homes should have
I do not think that it is clear.
The purpose is perhaps to get away from using tumble driers. I think that that is really what it is about. Scotland is not the driest place in the world, so on a number of days in the year people cannot dry their washing by putting it outside. The aim of the regulation might be to ensure that there is a facility in new buildings to encourage people to dry clothing indoors without causing a condensation problem.
Is that practical?
It is practical, but it could be expensive, because an internal space would have to be set aside. It might be possible to use a basement area, as Michael Levack said, but that would increase the cost of the building.
We should also bear in mind the lessons of the past. We now seal up buildings and we are moving towards energy efficiency and air tightness, but good ventilation is required in buildings to prevent condensation. Given fuel poverty, we have to balance the two. Otherwise, we end up with homes that individuals cannot afford to heat properly. There are problems if people dry washing internally but the building is not breathing naturally.
Do you share my concern about that requirement?
I share your concern about how it will be met in practice.
Scott, do you agree?
Meeting that requirement would be a great thing. I will give you a figure. It costs about 30p to tumble dry a load of washing, so you can imagine the annual cost of doing that every day. Meeting the requirement would ensure sustainability because people would avoid using electricity and producing carbon dioxide.
I do not want to ask Patrick Harvie to be so brief that he does not ask his questions, but I am conscious that the lip-speaker has not had a break and that she should have had one by now. I ask Patrick to keep his questions as brief as possible so that we can wind this session up.
I will do my best, convener. I continue the questions to Scott Restrick. There is a new requirement on the storage of woody biomass fuel, which I guess just means wood. Will that have an impact on the uptake of domestic wood-fuelled boilers and heating systems?
The answer depends on how many new houses are built with wood-fired boilers. I have no idea about that. I do not know whether Michael Levack has a view.
That gives me a convenient opportunity to comment on a point that Scott Restrick made earlier. I take slight exception to the construction industry's being viewed in such a negative way. Many changes have occurred in the industry in the past 10 to 15 years and even in the past few years. We have some fine examples in Scotland of cases in which clients, together with designers and builders, are choosing not just to meet minimum standards but to provide buildings that exceed them. There are some excellent examples. It is all about continuing that change. We have a lot of work to do, but please let us not castigate the industry constantly in such a negative way. If we do not work together to make the improvement, we will not achieve it.
Let us move on. My next question is for Scott Restrick. New regulation 17 requires regular inspection of air conditioning systems and the provision of energy-efficiency advice on their running. There are no standards for their energy efficiency; there is just the requirement for the provision of advice. Do you welcome that measure? Could it have gone further? Should it have applied to other systems, such as electrical lighting and so on?
I do not honestly believe that a country such as Scotland requires air conditioning. I think that it is bad design if that is needed. There are many examples of good building practice in which, although there may be the potential for summer overheating, there is no requirement for air conditioning because of the design of the building.
I have one broad, final question for Scott Restrick, which I asked Mr Levack earlier. Would you have liked any other changes to the building standards? I talked about compliance earlier. We could also consider how we could impact on existing buildings, not just on new build, by saying, for example, that a proportion of any spend on extensions or improvements to existing buildings should be spent on the energy performance of the existing structure. We could do that within the context of the Government's overall target for a 60 per cent cut in CO2 emissions within a little over 40 years. With the best will in the world, ensuring an emissions saving of 20 per cent or so in new build—which, I understand, makes up about 1 per cent of the total housing stock per year—will not get us anywhere near that target. Do you agree that the Executive could achieve a great deal more if it chose to incorporate existing buildings into the building standards regulations?
I will try to keep my answer short. First, I will pick up on your point about the Government's commitment to a 60 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 and how the building standards system fits in with that. Some things that were intended to encourage the installation of low and zero-carbon technologies have been taken out of the regulations. That is not to say that the need to encourage that kind of measure has disappeared. We would like those things to be reinstated in some way. I am aware that there may be issues regarding the ability of the market to supply those technologies; however, where there is a will there is always a way. There is always someone who will be more than happy to supply technologies at the right rate. We are talking about 20,000 to 23,000 new homes a year. What would happen if the regulations required a solar panel for heating water on each roof? I am sure that the industry would be able to respond to that, especially as including such technology in new build at the design phase would reduce the cost considerably.
So, in short, the regulations will not put an end to the building of gas-guzzlers in Scotland.
Insulation will stop gas being guzzled, but the use of electricity within properties needs to be addressed.
That concludes the committee's questions for you. Thank you for your attendance. I suspend the meeting to allow the changeover of witnesses.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I welcome our second panel of witnesses. We are joined by Dr Paul Stollard, of the Scottish Building Standards Agency, and Len Murray, of the Scottish Association of Building Standards Managers. Thank you for joining us, gentlemen.
That is a requirement of the energy performance of buildings directive, which we are introducing through the regulations. Compliance will be enforced by a continuing requirement to ensure the maintenance and inspection of air conditioning plant throughout the life of a building. We are developing a protocol with the Heating and Ventilating Contractors Association so that it can provide the advice and information. Its members will be able to undertake that work efficiently.
Will you ensure that the advice is written in plain English and that householders will be able to understand it easily?
I do not think that the measure will apply to householders. It is about heating and ventilating plant in commercial and large buildings: we are talking about hospitals and shopping centres. We would not encourage householders to install air conditioning at all. The measure is about large plant, and there is a threshold cut-off, so it will not apply to small properties.
My questions also lead on from the questions that Patrick Harvie asked the previous panel. Do you think that the requirement to provide energy performance certificates for most new buildings will lead to a general improvement in the energy efficiency standard of new buildings in Scotland?
I do not think that the certificates will do that for new buildings. The directive requires that a building's energy performance should be stated on a certificate, which the regulations will require to be attached to the building in such a way that it remains a permanent physical part of the building during future sale or rental. The value of the certificate will come not from the requirements for new build—new buildings need to meet our standards anyway, so we know that they meet an acceptable level—but from the fact that they will be displayed on the property when it is put up for sale or rental. We hope that the energy performance certificates will become part of the house buying process.
The new regulations will require architects and builders to take account of the impact of new buildings on the stability of existing properties. Does that not happen at the moment? What effect will the new requirement have on building design and construction?
That almost certainly already happens. Most codes of practice and the British standards to which civil engineers and structural engineers work require such impacts to be taken into account. Therefore, the requirement is already part of the design process for most, if not all, structural engineering projects.
What resource implications, if any, will the regulations have for local authorities when they implement them?
The fees for warrants are set by statute under the building fees regulations. The fees are set as a percentage of the building cost and rise in proportion with construction costs. We keep the fees under review. However, the local authorities might have a different view.
There is no doubt that the placing of additional duties on local authorities has implications for resources. At the present time, the SABSM and a number of local authorities are involved in trying to provide training on the new regulations before they come into force in May 2007. If the new regulations have monetary implications for local authorities, each authority will need to handle those through the normal budgetary processes.
I should perhaps declare that I have a love-hate relationship with the City of Edinburgh Council's building control officers. I had a war about a ground-level ventilator, but we reached a compromise on the matter. I think that we could solve Iraq after that.
We were certainly consulted on the new regulations, and some local authorities also responded to that consultation.
We have talked about building standards officers and building control officers. Are they different people or are they one and the same?
Having spent 28 or 29 years working in building control, I have taken some time to get used to calling it building standards. We are now known as building standards officers.
So my battles will now be with building standards officers. I just wanted to get the terminology right—I do not intend to have any battles in early course.
On the human resources issue, does the level of vacancies vary throughout Scotland? As a Highlands and Islands representative, I would like to know whether local authorities have difficulty in attracting people to work in more rural areas. Are there more vacancies up there than down here?
I am sorry, but I cannot speak for that area in any great detail. I know that there are a number of vacancies throughout Scotland. Most local authorities face pressures in trying to recruit construction professionals because of the volume of work that is being carried out by the construction industry.
So the issue is serious.
Yes.
Who will be responsible for the production of energy performance certificates?
The duty to produce the certificate will fall on the property owner, who will probably need to take advice and use someone who is competent to produce the certificate. In the construction process, the certificate will be produced by the builder or designer and will be handed to the verifier, who will check it at the end of the process. When houses are sold or rented, the certificate will become part of the single survey process that is currently being discussed and debated. We will combine the certificate with the survey so that only one obligation is placed on the seller.
Who will be the verifier?
The Scottish ministers have appointed each local authority as the verifier for its geographical area. The local authority will check that the certificate is true and valid.
That is my next question. How on earth can verifiers ensure that an individual building's certificate accurately represents the energy performance of that building? I understand that building control officers—or whatever they are now called—can look at a set of plans and specifications for the building that might, on paper, comply perfectly with the regulations and should produce a very energy-efficient house. However, building control officers do not have X-ray vision. They cannot see whether there are heat bridges in the cavity walls, whether gaps exist in the roof insulation or whether there are draughts and other problems and defects. How will building control officers ensure that a good design is actually built?
We have a two-stage process. First, the design must be approved before the builder can start building on site. Secondly, before the building can be occupied, a certificate must be submitted to the verifier to confirm that the building complies with the regulations. The verifier can choose to accept or reject that certificate. If the verifier rejects it, the building cannot be occupied.
You have made the point that householders—and, no doubt, builders—are not too happy about the burden of inspection. Another complaint that I often receive from constituents, perhaps because there is a lot of new build on my patch, is that they often find defects of one kind or another after they have moved into their new house and subsequent to the completion certificate and approval certificate being provided by the local authority. In many cases, people think that the local authority should be responsible for the defects because the local authority has signed off the certificate. How on earth can we ensure that the people who are responsible for any defects—the house builders—actually get things right?
The Building (Scotland) Act 2003 made it unambiguously clear that the duty lies on the owner of the property. Until the property is sold to the house buyer, in law the duty falls on the developer or house builder. One issue that the 2003 act tried to resolve was the tendency of some conveyancing solicitors to transfer property to the house buyer before the property had been fully signed off. We now require a completion certificate for every separate house. That should—I stress the word "should"—ensure that those issues do not arise. That is the first part of the process.
Do you mean put right by the person who has bought the house?
The notice can only ever be served on the owner. It is a form of civil redress. That is why we worked with the CML to ensure that there was some form of insurance system.
That is clearly a problem area.
I recognise that.
You partly answered a question that I was going to ask about the point at which the purchaser owns a building once it is built. Is there not an anomalous situation, with an increased tendency among people to buy off plan—that is, before a house is actually built? If people buy off plan, do they become the owners before the building is built? Does that not negate the developers' responsibility?
I am not a lawyer but, from our discussions on the matter and from the terms in which the Building (Scotland) Act 2003 was couched, I understand that someone who buys off plan has not legally bought the property; they have bought the right to buy it.
So they do not actually have it.
Yes.
It will probably take me a wee while to get used to the term "building standards officers", so I will stick with building control officers for the moment. I know that building control officers multitask. Unlike Christine Grahame, I have not had to lock horns with any before, but I know that the service that they provide to us is very much needed. How will building control officers be able to monitor compliance with the new and continuing air conditioning inspection requirement?
If I am at a bit of a loss in answering that, it is because continuing requirements are a new requirement under the 2003 act, and authorities will have to address the issue with protocols and procedures. Whether that will be done through the purchase of the property, I really have no idea. I apologise if I seem a bit reticent in answering that question. As authorities, we see the continuing requirement as being the vehicle for addressing the matter, but time will tell how that approach will impact on practice.
Perhaps Paul Stollard could help. There is to be a requirement to inspect air conditioning systems at regular intervals. I do not know how building control officers will have the skills to do that. Will you need to have a new type of officer with the right skills?
The continuing requirement to inspect is imposed on the person who owns the property, not on the building standards officer. Their duty will simply be to check that the inspection has taken place. The obligation to do that will become part of the title to the property, so if the property is sold on, there will be an awareness of that duty.
That is the point that I was making—those responses have been very useful. I presume that the person who carries out the inspection and leaves a certificate or whatever must have some professional standing.
That is exactly why we are working with the Heating and Ventilating Contractors Association. We are working with the association to agree a protocol whereby its members will undertake additional training to make them aware of the law. That will allow us to recommend that trade association. We are not doing anything exclusive; there are other trade associations and if they came to us we would establish a protocol with them as well. We would then say that there was an open market and that different trade associations could be used. However, the HVCA is the lead trade association and we expect its members to do most of this work.
I have another question—I hope that the answer will not be too long. How will the regulations improve the accessibility of buildings?
The regulations can only be good in that respect. The SABSM welcomes enhancements in access standards and other improvements for disabled people. Facilities for disabled people have come a long way over the past 20 years. I can remember having huge arguments with builders and developers when I was a building control officer and such issues were first being introduced. By and large, those arguments have now been won. Any improvements are welcome.
I will give the committee a couple of concrete examples. In the domestic sector, we introduced the idea of visitability under the most recent changes. In other words, people with mobility impairments or who were disabled in some other way had to be able to visit someone in their home. We are now suggesting what we call "livability". New houses should be capable of being lived in longer even if people's mobility or physical senses become weaker.
Heather Fisken also highlighted the problems of people with a sensory impairment gaining access to buildings by using intercoms or other entry systems. Is there anything in the regulations to improve such access?
We have not gone so far as to require video entryphones. It would be nice if they were fitted, but for cost reasons we did not yet feel able to justify that for every new apartment block. However, audio entryphones are required.
Dr Stollard mentioned the European directive and explained that several things had been included in the new building regulations because they had to be. How will the implementation of the new directive impact on Scotland? Is the Executive going further than the directive requires in some areas, or is it simply doing what has been imposed on it?
We were already doing many of the things that the directive required. We already set energy standards for buildings, had a methodology for doing that and had enforcement procedures. We were already compliant with most of the articles of the directive.
I want to press you a little further on reductions in CO2 emissions. We have been told that the Executive hopes to achieve a saving of between 18 and 25 per cent on CO2 emissions from domestic buildings. That is in the context of the target for cutting carbon emissions across the economy by 60 per cent by 2050, in meeting which it is expected that domestic property should play its part. New build accounts for about 1 per cent of the housing stock per year. By 2050, there will be some properties that will have been built way back in 2007 or 2008 that will have been making carbon emission savings throughout the whole period. There will be other properties—those that will have been built in 2048, 2049 or 2050—that will have made very little savings. The majority of the housing stock will be completely unaffected because it will not have been constructed in the period between now and 2050. We are looking for a ballpark reduction of between 20 and 25 per cent, but it seems to me that we will need to halve that figure because, on average, only half that period will be covered, given that some of the buildings will have been built more recently than others. The figure will need to be halved again because most property will not have been built during that period. In other words, we are talking about a reduction of about 5 per cent or so, if we are lucky.
The percentage that we gave related to individual buildings—it was not the percentage for the whole of Scotland.
So across the housing stock, we might be looking at a reduction in CO2 emissions of 4 or 5 per cent, if we are lucky.
You are quite right that the housing stock changes by only 1 per cent a year, which is a small percentage. I agree that the long-term issue is how we achieve improved energy efficiency in the existing stock.
Do you agree that the Executive might have taken the opportunity of amending the regulations in response to the European directive to go further and to introduce some of the consequential improvements that I mentioned earlier? For example, it could have required that when money is spent on extensions to or redevelopment of existing buildings, some of that money should be spent on improving the energy performance of the existing structure.
The building regulations are about new buildings and new building work. Existing buildings are a different issue that requires a slightly different approach. We need to provide financial incentives to encourage people—especially owners of large properties—to make progress and I do not think that the building regulations are the correct vehicle for that.
We were told that zero-carbon and very low energy systems would be included in the regulations. Why were they not included?
We included a trade-off in early drafts when we were considering whether a property in which someone was prepared to install low or zero-carbon technologies could be allowed to have slightly lower thermal insulation properties, so the standards would be about as bad as those in England and Wales, rather than the higher standards.
You may be right that Friends of the Earth was against the trade-off, but it is clear from its briefing that it was not against including measures on zero-carbon and low-carbon technologies.
We are keen to encourage low and zero-carbon technologies and we were keen to give incentives. The industry is still very small and we want it to grow. At the moment, half a dozen technologies—including solar panels, photovoltaics and ground and air-source heat pumps—are vying with one another. We would like to ensure not that one has a market advantage but that all have the opportunity to thrive and develop.
We are still waiting for that.
The air-conditioning requirement concerns a particular issue with very expensive kit for very large buildings.
Those very large buildings also use expensive kit for heating and lighting.
We take an holistic approach to calculating energy consumption in large buildings, which becomes part of the package. If someone were considering the air conditioning for the Parliament building, they should also consider the lights. This room probably has enough lights to heat it. That ought to be part of the package that is considered. In the regulations, we simply implemented the requirements of the directive without gold plating.
Without gold plating—that seems clear.
We have a limited research budget. We have said that we will consider not only how the energy standards work out in practice and how buildable they are, but issues that relate to disability, access and amenity, which we have discussed. We will certainly commission work on that.
When might we hear about that?
As soon as buildings have been built under the regulations.
Does the Scottish Building Standards Agency or the Scottish Executive intend to take the requirement to produce energy performance certificates further by, for example, requiring them to be produced for existing homes that are the subject of refurbishment or significant building work?
We will require certificates to be produced on the sale or rent of a property. As I said, the sale requirement will form part of the single survey and the rental requirement will be adopted at about the same time. We will certainly implement that before January 2009, which is the last date for implementation under the European directive. We will comply with that.
So the measure will apply to existing properties.
Yes—what I described will apply to all existing domestic and non-domestic properties, which will include the Parliament building.
Does Len Murray wish to comment?
We welcome the requirement to provide an energy performance certificate. I picked up on the point that Scott Restrick made about the fact that when you buy a car costing £10,000, it must pass a series of tests and insurance must be provided, but you can buy a property at £100,000 and just pick the keys up. To my mind, there seems to be a contradiction in that.
What will be the practical effect of changes to building standards that govern access to and within buildings? Are there plans to do more work to improve standards in that area?
I have given a couple of examples of how the changes will change the nature of housing and non-domestic property. As I said, we have to watch the situation to see what happens. We did the last stage about five years ago, when we had the visitability standard, and we commissioned research to see how that went and what the costs for builders were. We are conscious that the costs of that standard hit disproportionately in respect of smaller houses. It is not difficult to meet that standard in building a large five-bedroom house, but it can be quite onerous in building a two-person starter home. Our concern is to examine how the measures can be taken on board, particularly in respect of entry-level houses. We have already done some work with quantity surveyors to cost that, and we will carry on watching what happens. We have good dialogue with the Disability Rights Commission and other groups: we will maintain that and be responsive to what they suggest, but we have no immediate plans to improve the standards.
Elevators and fire escapes will obviously have a significant financial impact in relation to new-build flatted properties. What is your view on that?
We do not require lifts in the traditional walk-up blocks of two or three stories. I cannot see that changing because we do not want to drive that sector out of the market, although we will have to monitor that to see how we will maintain the standard.
I understand that there is a moratorium on changes to the building regulations following the Building (Scotland) Act 2003, while the 2004 regulations are bedding in. Does the Scottish Building Standards Agency intend to resume regular updating of building regulations and standards, as was the case before the passing of the 2003 act?
Yes. After the big procedural change with the 2003 act, the deal that the minister agreed with the industry was that, between 2002 and 2007, there would be stability on the technical side. We have managed to keep to that, which is why there is now such a large block of regulations being presented to Parliament for implementation in 2007. The agency's corporate plan sets out the three main topics that we wish to address next; we anticipate that they will come into force in about 2009. That may sound like a terribly long time, but we always give the industry six months to plan for changes, which is why we will publish the two handbooks as soon as Parliament agrees to that. There must also—in Europe—be three months' public consultation, so it takes us about two years to go through the full discussion. I am happy to say what the three main areas are, if that is of interest to the committee.
Briefly, yes.
First, there is sustainability. It encompasses a wide range of issues, from whether primary schools should have sprinkler systems to stop them being burned down, to water usage and space standards. Secondly, there is means of escape, which we have just talked about. Thirdly, there is noise. There is a lot of concern about noise in flatted developments, including the problems that are caused to neighbours by laminate floors, by lifts going up and down and so on, so that is another area that we are considering.
Constituency MSPs would welcome attention being paid to that issue; it cannot come soon enough. The changes are, no doubt, something to look forward to for the industry—or perhaps not.
We made an agreement with the industry that we would, in order to provide absolute consistency, make changes on 1 May every year. It looks as if there will be updates every second year. The procedural changes were made in 2005, so we expect more changes in 2007 and 2009.
Are there in the pipeline any other building-related European directives of which the committee ought to be aware?
There are lots. I do not know how detailed you want my answer to be. The two big ones are the construction products directive, which provides that we must not erect barriers to trade in construction products—we will have to be careful about using particular materials—and the energy performance of buildings directive, which is, as we have discussed, likely to be revised. I am happy to provide the committee with the whole list of directives on particular products, such as low-voltage electromagnetic capability, passenger lifts and F-gas, but they are fairly technical.
It would be helpful if you could provide us with that information in writing.
We will write to the committee with that list.
I hope that the list is not too long.
I am glad that Dr Stollard mentioned noise because I intend to ask him about it. As he said, it is a huge problem. You said that work was being done on noise. When can we expect to see results?
We expect to have measures in force in 2009. We have to develop additional specifications for how to design walls and floors to provide sufficient noise reduction, which is not simple. We have to resolve the difficult issue of how far we control what people put in their flats in the way of laminate floors.
And sound systems.
On the size of rooms, you said that every apartment will ensure the welfare and convenience of all occupants and visitors. There have been a lot of complaints, although perhaps more in England than in Scotland, about the size of rooms that are being built. Do you envisage any minimum standard for individual rooms within houses or apartments?
We have very simplistic and basic guidance on minimum standards, along the lines that it must be possible to fit two or three normal pieces of furniture in a room. On the liveability standard, we are now saying that one apartment at least must be big enough to have a reasonable range of furniture in it and that a person in a wheelchair must to be able to go into it and move around. That is what we call an enhanced apartment, which is bigger. It is still not enormous, but at least it is guaranteed that a person who uses a wheelchair can live in it. We have no plans at this stage to go further than that.
I am lobbying you for that because it is important that we set down minimum standards for the amount of space that people have in their homes.
People often mention storage, which we will consider. One of your colleagues talked about the need to provide segregated storage to permit recycling, which we will certainly consider. Another issue is the provision of enough storage in the kitchen to allow people to separate their solid waste, rather than have soggy bags outside in the garden.
Can I wash up, as we say, on a final point that I raised with our previous witnesses about the reference in the regulations to
There is a page on that in the guidance, which I will happily give you. Basically, it means that a property will have to contain a space where it is possible to dry washing without a tumble dryer. We want to permit drying of washing to be done in a low-energy way. That designated space could be over the bath or it could be a wall-mounted unit, but a property will have to have a designated space. Most important, it will have to be a space that can be ventilated. The key problem has been how such spaces could be ventilated. The space may just be a fitment over the bath, but there must be adequate ventilation to cope with it.
That was the point that I was coming to next. Paragraph 3.15 of schedule 5 to the regulations talks about condensation. Is there a conflict between the need for
The drying space must have adequate ventilation and must not cause condensation.
We are not necessarily talking about a separate room for drying.
It could be a separate room, but it is very unlikely that people would wish to use a separate room.
I remember pulleys in kitchens. I am not terribly happy about going back to those.
What was wrong with them?
I hated them.
I have a quick supplementary question on solid waste and segregation for recycling. I am puzzled by what Dr Stollard said. It is intended to provide space for that, but it is not being done in the amendments to the building regulations. Local authorities are currently designing their recycling services and are saying—certainly in Glasgow—that we cannot have proper door-to-door collection because of the building stock. Why cannot we just crack on and include in the regulations provisos that would enable such collections?
It is a question of how many square metres are needed to install such a facility, where it should be sited and its cost. Each square metre of house is quite expensive. It is a question of finding the space, costing that in and seeing what the regulatory impact assessment says about it. We have already added about 2.5m2 to the starter home to allow for disability access. The cost of adding space for recycling might be another £5,000 for 2m2. The issue is how to balance the cost, although it is an issue that we want to take on board.
You just do not want to take it on board yet.
Not quite yet.
Certain councils, including the City of Edinburgh Council, seem to have an aversion to allowing external drying areas. What is your experience of that with regard to the building regulations? Do you allocate certain areas in housing developments for external drying, or are there problems with the councils?
We tend not to cover external spaces. That would be an issue for planning rather than building.
In your experience of planners, is there a problem with planning authorities not allowing external drying areas?
I could not comment on that with any competence.
That concludes the committee's questions to you. Thank you very much for your attendance. I suspend the meeting briefly to allow our witnesses to leave.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
Following the evidence that we have heard, do members have any comments to make on the Building (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 2006 (SSI 2006/534)? I remind members to have regard to the distinction between whether we want to agree to the regulations and any desire that we might have to see them go further. We can consider whether to write to the minister or to Dr Stollard about things we think the Executive should be doing.
Some of the witnesses said that they had been fully involved in the process, but I am concerned that they are still slightly confused about what some of the terms will mean in practice. I am thinking particularly about terms such as "convenience" and what is meant by a "sustainable" drying space. I am concerned that people who have been involved in the process are still slightly unclear about what some of the wording in the regulations means.
I support what Patrick Harvie said, although the regulations are better than what we have at the moment.
I am happy to support the regulations, which go a long way. As one of the witnesses said, and as Patrick Harvie has highlighted, the regulations are not gold plated, although we should remember that they are the first amendment to building regulations for 50 years. We have come a long way and we cannot change things overnight. I am happy that we are going in the right direction and I want the regulations to be approved as soon as possible so that they can be sent to all those who have an interest in the matter, to ensure that they are more knowledgeable about what will be required of them when the regulations take effect.
I hear what Patrick Harvie and Tricia Marwick are saying about the case for going further on some areas, but the options that are open to this committee are to support or reject the regulations. If we were to fling them out, not only would we lose them, we would have to start all over again consulting on something completely different, which none of us wants to do.
I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I am not—
There may in due course be a case for examining further the issues of sound insulation, better energy efficiency and so on. However, having got to where we are now, I strongly believe that the committee should endorse the regulations, which will improve building standards for new buildings in Scotland.
There has been no motion to annul, so they cannot be annulled.
I am not proposing that we should fling them out.
I never meant that we should in our report suggest that the regulations not be accepted: they should be. However, Cathie Craigie's suggestion that we write to the minister to set out the areas in which we hope further improvements will be made and more work be done is sensible. I am happy to support that.
I agree with the general consensus, which is that the regulations should be accepted. However, I am intrigued by the fact that Dr Stollard would like a lot of things to be implemented in the near future and would encourage the minister to do something along the lines that he suggested. Finally, use of words such as "convenience" in legislation leaves matters totally open because they are not specific.
I think we have consensus. However, an interesting point about education arose from our discussion today and I would like it to be flagged up in writing to the minister. When I was at school, we learned how to fix a fuse or a dodgy ball valve and things like that. It was part of the basic physics curriculum.
My husband must have missed those lessons.
Those things are not being taught now. People are buying expensive houses that have a lot of complicated equipment that they do not know how to work. The need for basic knowledge about such things could usefully be brought to the attention of the Minister for Education and Young People.
Patrick Harvie suggested that his concerns be reflected in the report to Parliament. Does the committee agree to that or should we write to the minister to make those points and simply recommend the regulations to Parliament?
Can we say, in the report to Parliament, that the committee is satisfied with the regulations but that we consider that ministers need to examine how to progress them and that we have concerns about X, Y and Z?
Would you be content with that, Patrick?
Would Parliament see that form of words in the report?
Yes.
In that case, I am content with that.
Do members agree to frame our report in those terms, to write to the minister with our concerns and to copy that letter to Dr Stollard for his information?
Is the committee content with the regulations?
Yes.
Therefore, the committee will not make any recommendations in its report to Parliament. However, the concerns that were expressed in our discussion will be reflected in our report.
When is it expected that that report will come to Parliament in the chamber?
It will not come to the chamber, but will simply be laid before Parliament.
Meeting closed at 12:35.