building regulations part f + l review - elmhurst energy · and annex a, but with the addition of...

Elmhurst Energy’s response to:

Building Regulations Part F + L

Review

Prepared for: Welsh Government 9th March 2020

Page - 1

Elmhurst Energy, 16 St Johns Business Park, Lutterworth, Leicestershire, LE17 4HB

T: 01455 883 250 E: [email protected] W: https://www.elmhurstenergy.co.uk

Introduction

Elmhurst Energy are pleased that Welsh Government are consulting on proposed

changes to Part F and L and as such we are delighted to respond to each question

in turn.

The Consultation asked 64 questions and we have answered them all below. We

hope you find the responses considered and useful for creating a net zero carbon

future.

Questions and Answers

Q1. Do you agree with our expectation that a home built to our future Part L

2025 standard should produce 75-80% less CO2 emissions than one built to

current Part L requirements? a. Yes b. No – 75-80% is too high a reduction in

CO2 c. No – 75-80% is too low a reduction in CO2 If no, please explain your

reasoning and provide evidence to support this.

a. Yes, Elmhurst agrees that the target should be to reduce carbon emissions by 80%

of current building regulations. As this will be significantly impacted by progress to

decarbonise the grid, which is outside the control of the builder and building

owner, reducing the on-site energy demand of the dwelling must be managed

to deliver truly efficient homes.

Elmhurst supports the 80% reduction by 2025 but propose that there is a new version

of SAP issued, and referenced in the building regulations, in 2023 that can include an

update of carbon intensity factors and adopt new innovative technology, this

should be SAP 11. In 2025 when the regulations will be change to achieve the 80%

carbon reduction a further version of SAP will be required i.e. SAP12

mailto:[email protected]://www.elmhurstenergy.co.uk/

Page - 2



Q2. We think heat pumps and heat networks should typically be used to

deliver the low carbon heating requirement of the future standard. What are

your views on this and in what circumstances should other low carbon

technologies, such as direct electric heating, be used?

To achieve the 80% reduction innovative products, including heat pumps, will be an

important part of the solution. Previous experiences with heat networks have been

mixed and some have become ineffective and unreliable. Development of modern

networks, powered by green energy, should be explored. Certainly regulation should

not stifle innovation. But it is essential that ‘proven’ innovation is recognised within the

SAP methodology in a timely manner.

Q3. Do you agree that the fabric package for Option 1 set out in Chapter 3

and Annex A, but with the addition of higher specification glazing (i.e. triple

glazing units), provides a reasonable basis for the fabric performance of part L

2025? a. Yes b. No – the fabric standard is too demanding c. No – the fabric

standard is not demanding enough d. No - high specification glazing (i.e.

triple glazing) should be specified in option 1 for the 2020 proposed

specification If no, please explain your reasoning

a. Yes the fabric package for option 1 is a reasonable basis for the fabric

performance of Part L 2025.

Q4. What level of uplift to the energy efficiency standards in the Building

Regulations should be introduced in 2020? a. No change b. Option 1 – 37%

CO2 reduction (the government’s preferred option) c. Option 2 – 56% CO2

reduction d. Other Please explain your reasoning.

b. We applaud the Welsh Government for going beyond other parts of the UK in

terms of the proposed uplift to the Energy Efficiency standards. We would just

state by introducing the 37% uplift over current standards this would probably be

closer to the preferred option of MHCLG in the Future Homes Standard

consultation, thus preventing a wide gulf between England and Wales. Currently

developers have to build to differing specifications across the two regions

causing some confusion for the industry, the supply chain and our members.

However we do support Wales in going further and faster than other regions.


Page - 3



Q5. Do you agree with the concerns raised in paragraph 3.1 regarding MVHR

systems at this time? a. Yes b. No Please explain your reasoning or how these

concerns could be overcome in the future

a. Yes. We are aware that poorly designed, installed and commissioned MVHR

systems can be very inefficient and in some cases cause issues with poor indoor

air quality and condensation in dwellings. With the current lack of appeared

enforcement of Part F we agree that it would not be advisable to encourage the

use of MVHR. However we must stress that Part F needs enforcing (as per later

questions) and as we move to low energy homes, with tight ventilation strategies;

technologies such MVHR must be embraced, and they must be designed,

installed and maintained in a quality assured manner.

Q6. Do you agree with using primary energy as the principal performance

metric? a. Yes – primary energy should be the principal performance metric

b. No – CO2 should remain the principal performance metric c. No – another

measure should be the principal performance metric Please explain your


a. Yes Elmhurst is in broad agreement that a move to monitor energy demand is

positive but would recommend that this be a true energy demand for the home

without deduction for renewable energy produced locally. By making this small

shift it will ensure a fabric first policy of reducing demand and the

encouragement to generate electricity locally from green sources will be driven

by the CO2 limits being used as a secondary performance metric.

The Energy Performance Certificate should be re-presented to ensure that

performance against each of the metrics is clearly stated. There is a good analogy

here with food labelling presenting data on fat and salt content, all in an effort to

drive consumer understanding when purchasing a new home.

Q7. Do you agree with using CO2 as the secondary performance metric? a.

Yes b. No

a. Yes Elmhurst agree that CO2 should be retained as a performance metric so to

ensure that the energy demand is generated from the greenest possible source.

The Energy Performance Certificates should be re-presented to ensure that

performance against each of the metrics is clearly stated.


Page - 4



Q8. Do you agree the need to set a minimum target to ensure that homes are

affordable to run? a. Yes b. No Please explain your reasoning.

a. Yes Elmhurst agrees that there needs to be a minimum target to ensure that

homes are affordable to run. To not do so may encourage builders to deliver low

carbon solutions that the occupier cannot afford to run creating fuel poverty

and, in extreme cases, ill health and death.

The Energy Performance Certificate should be re-presented to ensure that

performance against each of the metrics is clearly stated

Q9. If yes above should the minimum target used to ensure that homes are

affordable to run be a minimum Energy Efficiency Rating? a. Yes b. No If yes,

please suggest a minimum Energy Efficiency Rating that should be achieved

and provide evidence to support this. If no, please suggest an alternative

metric, explain your reason and provide evidence to support this.

The cost target should be based on SAP, the Government’s National Methodology,

and should specify the minimum in terms of the EPC Banding, requiring a minimum of

a B from 2020 and an A from 2025. EPC bandings, unlike SAP scores, are well

understood by consumers. Currently 82% of new build properties are a B rating or

above so this trajectory should not be over burdensome.

The government needs to invest in the development of SAP to ensure that ultra-low

energy homes, such as those advocated by Passiv Haus, can be adequately

assessed.

Q10. Do you agree with the proposed minimum fabric standards set out in

Table 3.1? If you do not agree with any one or more of the proposed

standards, please explain your reasoning and provide evidence to support

this.

We agree with the proposed minimum fabric standards in Table 3.1 as we believe

they are realistic for the industry to achieve. We would also advocate the

introduction of a new Welsh Fabric Energy Efficiency Standard (FEES), similar to that

used in England Part L1A 2013, this would in our opinion ensure a fabric first

approach is taken to the construction of new dwellings and prevent any unintended

consequences that may occur e.g. overly reliant use of technologies to show

compliance.


Page - 5



Q11. Do you agree that the limiting U-value for roof-lights should be based on

a rooflight in a horizontal position? a. Yes b. No If no, please explain your


No strong opinion

Q12. Do you agree that we should adopt the latest version of BR 443? a. Yes b.

No 17 If no, please explain your reasoning and provide evidence to support

this

a. Elmhurst agree that the latest version of BRE 443 be adopted. Elmhurst also

propose that this essential document is subject to regular review, involving all

stakeholders overseen by effective governance. This will better ensure that the

standards are kept up to date with the latest innovations moving forward.

Q13. Do you agree with the proposal of removing fuel factors to aid the

transition from high-carbon fossil fuels? a. Yes b. No If no, please explain your

reasoning.

a. Yes. Elmhurst agree that the fuel factors should be removed. The SAP

methodology should always be focussing on the truth and should not be

corrupted to achieve commercial or political ends.

Q14. Do you agree with the proposed changes to minimum building services

efficiencies and controls set out in table 3.2? 19 a. Yes b. No If you do not

agree with any or more of the proposed changes, please explain your


a. As with U-Values, for certain building elements Elmhurst agree that a backstop

value should be applied to services. It is important that the units of measure are

compatible with SAP, for example SAP considers the boiler and the controls as

individual items, not as a system and it could not currently cope with an ERP

efficiency rating which considers the two in combination.


Page - 6



Q15. Do you agree with the proposal that heating systems in new dwellings

should be designed to operate with a flow temperature of 55°C? a. Yes b. No

– the temperature should be below 55°C. c. No – dwellings should not be

designed to operate with a low flow temperature d. No – I disagree for

another reason If no, please explain your reasoning and provide evidence.

a. Yes Elmhurst believe house design should be future proofed wherever possible,

however unintended consequences should be considered. For example,

oversized radiators needed for low temperature systems may be positioned

poorly, and the increased body of water may impact on the responsiveness of

the system.

Q16. How should we encourage new dwellings to be designed to operate

with a flow temperature of 55°C? a. By setting a minimum standard b. Through

the target primary energy and target emission rate (i.e. through the notional

building) c. Other

b. Through the primary energy and target emission rates. Larger radiators would,

presumably, need a larger body of water to be heated which may impact of

responsiveness. Research is needed to ensure the implications of such as change

is fully understood.

Q17. Do you agree with the proposal to improve minimum fabric standards in

new dwellings to help futureproof the house for low carbon/temperature

heating systems? a. Yes b. No – the current minimum fabric levels are

sufficient c. No – I disagree for another reason If the final option, please

explain your reasoning.

a. Yes we agree with the proposed minimum fabric standards as we believe they

are realistic for the industry to achieve right now, and ensure a fabric first

approach.

As per our answer for question 10, we would also advocate the introduction of a

new Welsh Fabric Energy Efficiency Standard (FEES), similar to that used in

England Part L1A 2013, this would in our opinion ensure a fabric first approach is

taken to the construction of new dwellings and prevent any unintended

consequences that may occur e.g. overly reliant use of technologies to show

compliance.


Page - 7



Q18. Do you agree with the proposals to simplify the requirements in the

Building Regulations for the consideration of high-efficiency alternative

systems? a. Yes b. No If no, please explain your reasoning.

a. Elmhurst agree the need to simplify the requirements when considering high

efficiency alternative systems so not to suggest that they are limited in any way.

When we have clear roadmap innovative will ensure that “high efficiency

alternative technology” will become the norm.

Q19. Do you agree with the removal of government Approved Construction

Details from Approved Document L? a. Yes b. No If no, please explain your

reasoning.

a. Yes, Elmhurst agrees that unless suitable investment in their update is provided

the details should be withdrawn and replaced by details developed by the

private sector. Accepted details should be listed in a central database to ensure

an audit trail and good provenance.

Government should consider an approval process, similar to the process in place for

SAP software applications, for accepted Psi value software applications. As psi-

values are used in the national calculation methodology then there should be

consistency in the outputs provided by psi-value software applications.

Support should also be given to Psi-Value Competent Persons Schemes, such as that

run by Elmhurst, as a recommended process for generating values.

Q20. Do you agree with the proposal to introduce the technology factors for

heat networks, as presented in the draft Approved Document? a. Yes b. No –

they give too much of an advantage to heat networks c. No – they do not

give enough of an advantage to heat networks d. No – I disagree for another

reason. Please explain your reasoning.

No strong opinion other that the technology must be proven.


Page - 8



Q21. Do you agree with removing this supplementary guidance from

Approved Document L, as outlined in paragraph 3.65 of the consultation

document? a. Yes b. No If no, please explain your reasoning.

a. Yes Elmhurst believe that it is confusing to blend the guidance and requirements.

Instead encourage commercial organisations, and trade bodies to produce best

practice guidance where the lack of guidance is detrimental to quality.

Obviously care should be taken to ensure that “requirements” are not lost in the

editing process.

Q22. Do you agree with the external references used in the draft Approved

Document L, in Appendix C and Appendix D? a. Yes b. No If no, please

explain your reasoning and suggest any alternative sources.

a. Yes, references are useful.

Q23. Do you agree with incorporating the Compliance Guides into the

Approved Documents? a. Yes b. No If no, please explain your reasoning.

a. Yes, Elmhurst believes that the requirements should be removed from the

Compliance Guides and included in the Approved Document. Good practice

guides should come from competent persons schemes, commercial

organisations and trade bodies.

Q24. Do you agree that we have adequately covered matters which are

currently in the Domestic Building Services Compliance Guide in the new

draft Approved Document L for new dwellings? a. Yes b. No If no, please

explain which matters are not adequately covered.

No strong opinion


Page - 9



Q25. Do you agree that we have adequately covered matters which are

currently in the Domestic Ventilation Compliance Guide in the new draft

Approved Document F for new dwellings? a. Yes b. No If no, please explain

which matters are not adequately covered.

No strong opinion.

Q26. Do you agree with all of the proposals for restructuring the Approved

Document guidance? a. Yes b. No If no, please explain your reasoning.

a. Yes, Elmhurst agrees with the proposed structure of the Approved Document

Q27. Do you agree with our proposed approach to mandating self-regulating

devices in new dwellings? a. Yes b. No If no, please explain your reasoning.

a. Yes, Elmhurst agrees that self-regulating devices should be fitted in all

appropriate rooms/zones e.g. not where a room stat is fitted.

Q28. Are there circumstances in which installing self-regulating devices in

new dwellings would not be technically or economically feasible? a. Yes b.

No If yes, please explain your reasoning and provide evidence.

No strong opinion

Q29. Do you agree with proposed guidance on providing information about

building automation and control systems for new dwellings? a. Yes b. No If no,

please explain your reasoning.

a. Yes, Elmhurst agree with the proposal to provide advice about building

automation. However it is important that such automation especially that

originally designed for commercial buildings is recognised in the SAP

methodology. Where the building occupier needs knowledge or information to

use the technology then it should be supplied in a central repository (similar to

the Data warehouse, or in a property log book) that is accessible by other

stakeholders and future owners of the property.


Page - 10



Q30. Do you agree that the guidance in Appendix B to draft Approved

Document F provides an appropriate basis for setting minimum ventilation

standards? a. Yes b. No If no, please explain your reasoning.

a. Yes, Elmhurst believe that the guidance in Appendix B should be the basis for

setting minimum standards.

Q31. Do you agree that using individual volatile organic compounds,

informed by Public Health England guidelines, is an appropriate alternative to

using a total volatile organic compound limit? a. Yes b. No – the Public Health

England guidelines are not sufficient c. No – individual volatile organic

compounds should not be used to determine ventilation rates d. No – I

disagree for another reason If no, please explain your reasoning, and provide

alternative evidence sources if appropriate.

No strong opinion

Q32. Do you agree with the proposed guidance on minimising the ingress of

external pollutants in the draft Approved Document F? a. Yes b. No If no,

please explain your reasoning

a. Yes, Elmhurst agree with the guidance on reducing the ingress of external

pollutants but not at the expense of providing an adequate ventilation system.

Q33. Do you agree with the proposed guidance on noise in the draft

Approved Document F? a. Yes b. No – this should not form part of the statutory

guidance for ventilation, or the guidance goes too far c. No – the guidance

does not sufficiently address the problem d. No – I disagree for another

reason If no, please explain your reasoning.

b. No, whilst Elmhurst accept that it is difficult we do not believe that the proposal is

an improvement. Noise, often caused by poor installation, is often cited as a

reason for occupiers to switch off mechanical ventilation devices and whilst we

recognise the challenge determining “Unduly noisy” as a threshold is unlikely to

improve the situation. Consideration should be given to an onsite sound

measurement that can be undertaken when testing the performance of the

device.


Page - 11



Q34. Do you agree with the proposal to remove guidance for passive stack

ventilation systems from the Approved Document? a. Yes b. No If no, please


a. Yes, Elmhurst agree that passive stack system can be removed because they are

both rare and, if appropriate to a building, should be installed with the input of

an approved competent person.

Q35. Do you agree with the proposal to remove guidance for more airtight

naturally ventilated homes? a. Yes b. No If no, please explain your reasoning.

a. Yes, as natural ventilation is unlikely to be adequate for the most air tight homes it

should be removed from the guidance. If it is appropriate for a particular

situation then it should be designed by an approved competent person.

A warning in the BRWL, generated from SAP software, should alert readers to this

issue. Government should insist on the independent testing of a home’s ventilation

systems to ensure adequate design and functioning.

Q36. Do you agree with the proposed guidance for background ventilators in

naturally ventilated dwellings in the draft Approved Document F? a. Yes b. No

– the ventilator areas are too large c. No – the ventilator areas are too small d.

No – I disagree for another reason If no, please explain your reasoning.

a. Yes, Elmhurst agree on this simplification and it should improve levels of

compliance and does not rely on cross room air transfer. In addition Government

should insist on the independent testing of a home’s ventilation system to ensure

adequate design and functioning which will ensure that ventilation is considered

on a par with airtightness. Once compliance with the requirements has improved

then more research should be undertaken to ensure the simplified method of

defining regulations is adequate.


Page - 12



Q37. Do you agree with the proposed approach for determining minimum

whole building ventilation rates in the draft Approved Document F? a. Yes 37

b. No – the ventilation rate is too high c. No – the ventilation rate is too low d.


a. Yes, Elmhurst agree that standardising the ventilation rates irrespective of the

current or intended occupation is correct. Elmhurst do not have the knowledge

to know whether the proposed values are adequate.

Q38. Do you agree that background ventilators should be installed for a

continuous mechanical extract system, at 5000mm2 per habitable room? a.

Yes b. No – the minimum background ventilator area is too low c. No – the

minimum background ventilator area is too high d. No – other If no, please


No strong opinion

Q39. Do you agree with the external references used in the draft Approved

Document F, in Appendices B, D and E? a. Yes b. No If no, please explain your

reasoning.

Yes the external references are useful.

Q40. Do you agree with the proposed commissioning sheet proforma given in

Appendix C of the draft Approved Document F, volume 1? a. Yes b. No If no,

please explain your reasoning and suggest any alternative sources.

a. Yes Elmhurst agree that the proforma is useful but would go on to propose that it

should be completed by a tester who is independent of the building owner to be

assured of its accuracy. Government should insist on the independent testing of a

home’s ventilation system’s to ensure adequate design and functioning.


Page - 13



Q41. Do you agree with the proposal to provide a completed checklist and

commissioning sheet to the building owner? a. Yes b. No If no, please explain

your reasoning.

a. Yes the Government should insist on the independent testing of a home’s

ventilation system’s to ensure adequate design and functioning and this should

be presented to the building owner, and the occupants.

Q42. Do you agree that there should be a limit to the credit given in SAP for

energy savings from airtightness for naturally ventilated dwellings? a. Yes b.

No If no, please explain your reasoning.

b. No, the SAP methodology should always be attempting to get to the truth and

therefore Elmhurst does not agree that the SAP methodology should be

corrupted in an attempt to prevent developers building homes with inadequate

levels of ventilation. SAP assessors must record the actual airtightness result and

SAP should highlight, on the BRWL report where there is a situation that the air

tightness and ventilation systems may be incompatible. The BRWL report should

be presented to the enforcement authority with an independent report, issued

by a competent person, as to why this permutation is considered adequate.

Q43. Do you agree that the limit to the credit should be set at 3m3 /m2 .h? a.

Yes b. No – it is too low c. No – it is too high. If no, please explain your

reasoning and provide evidence.

b. No Elmhurst does not agree that a limit on airtightness should be set other than to

instigate a warning on the BRWL report that warns the air tightness result and

ventilation system may be incompatible.

Q44. Is having a standard level of uncertainty of 0.5m3 /m2 .h appropriate for

all dwellings undergoing an airtightness test? a. Yes b. No – a percentage

uncertainty would be more appropriate c. No – I agree with having a

standard level of uncertainty, but 0.5m3 /m2 .h is not an appropriate figure d.


c. No Elmhurst does not agree that the air tightness result should be rounded for fear

reducing the accuracy of the SAP calculation.


Page - 14



Q45. Currently, only a proportion of dwellings are required to be airtightness

tested. Do you agree with the proposal that all new dwellings should be

airtightness tested? a. Yes b. No If no, please explain your reasoning and

provide evidence to support this.

a. Yes, Elmhurst agree that the current sampling procedure creates anomalies

where neighbouring properties may be overly air tight to achieve the “right”

result and its neighbour be untested and very leaky. In practice most responsible

builders test all their homes so the extra cost should be minimal.

Q46. Currently, small developments are excluded from the requirement to

undergo airtightness tests. Do you agree with including small developments in

this requirement? a. Yes b. No If no, please explain your reasoning and


a. Yes Elmhurst agrees that the exemption for small developments be removed. The

dispensation for small builder was, presumably, to level the playing field because

they were unable to sample properties. Now the opportunity to sample test has

been removed the playing field should be levelled in the other direction. In our

experience most small developments are fully tested anyway.

Q47. Do you agree that the Pulse test should be introduced into statutory

guidance as an alternative airtightness testing method alongside the blower

door test? a. Yes b. No If no, please explain your reasoning.

a. Yes, Building Regulations need to be prepared to adopt new method of

construction, evaluation and measurement. Pulse, developed by BTS Limited (a

sister company to Elmhurst Energy) has undergone extensive independent

investigation to prove its value. The portability, speed and ease of operation will

mean that more intermediate testing can be conducted ensuring that air

tightness is considered at all stages of construction. Elmhurst supports new proven

technology and certainly Pulse is a great British innovation, which has been

proven to be an alternative to blower door technology.


Page - 15



Q48. Do you think that the proposed design airtightness range of between

1.5m3 /m2 .h and the maximum allowable airtightness value in Approved

Document L Volume 1 is appropriate for the introduction of the Pulse test? a.

Yes b. No If no, please explain your reasoning and provide evidence to

support this.

b. No, it would be regrettable that any limits on the use of Pulse were set, especially

in the scenario when the actual air tightness will only ever been known only at

the point of testing.

Elmhurst understand from colleagues in BTS that the figure selected was chosen

because of a lack of evidence, rather that the presence of evidence that provide it

to be unsuitable. Independent evidence of its performance has now been

submitted to the department that shows it to be suitable even at very high levels of

air tightness.

Q49. Do you agree that we should adopt an independent approved

airtightness testing methodology? a. Yes b. No Please explain your reasoning.

a. Yes, Elmhurst agree that the airtightness test methods should be written and

owned by an organisation that permits input from all stakeholders.

Q50. Do you agree with the content of the CIBSE draft methodology? Please

make any comments here.

Whilst the previous test specification was developed without input from all

stakeholders it did contain some essential requirements and useful guidance that air

tightness testers found useful. It is hoped that the early redraft of the CIBSE guide,

supported by a cross industry working group who meet regularly, can be enhanced

quickly. Elmhurst will offer every support.


Page - 16



Q51. Do you agree with the introduction of guidance for Build Quality in the

Approved Document becoming part of the reasonable provision for

compliance with the minimum standards of Part L? a. Yes b. No Please

explain your reasoning and provide evidence to support this.

a. Yes the “reasonable provision” requirement should apply to the installation of

services and fixing of building elements whoever with 100% testing issues are

likely to result in a higher than expected air infiltration result.

Q52. Do you have any comments on the Build Quality guidance in Annex C?

No comments.

Q53. Do you agree with the introduction of a standardised compliance report,

the Building Regulations Wales Part L (BRWL) report, as presented in Annex D?

a. Yes b. No – there is no need for a standardised compliance report c. No – I

agree there should be a standardised compliance report, but do not agree

with the draft in Annex D If no, please explain your reasoning.

a. Yes, Elmhurst agree with the new standard compliance report. It is essential that

all SAP reports, including the BRWL compliance reports, at both design and as-

built stages, are only accepted when produced by an energy assessor operating

and submitted via a Government approved scheme.


Page - 17



Q54. Do you agree with the introduction of photographic evidence as a

requirement for producing the as-built energy assessment for new dwellings?

a. Yes b. No If no, please explain your reasoning.

a. Yes, Elmhurst agree that there should be a photographic record kept of key

aspects of the construction supplied to, but not necessarily captured by the

accredited energy assessor, before issuance of the BRWL and EPC. For the

evidence to be credible it should be;

Taken by an individual independent of the building owner

The photographs should be date and time stamped, as well as geotagged to

prevent misuse

If more responsibility is being put onto the On Construction Energy Assessor then it

may be appropriate to review their role along the line of a competent person’s

scheme for energy efficiency.

It is accepted that some aspects of the building will be hidden at the time of

completion and photographs may not be possible however those aspect of the

building that have the largest impact on energy efficiency will be visible e.g.

Boiler/Heat Pump, controls, hot water cylinder, any renewable technology etc.

Copies of the photographs should be supplied to the future occupants via the

Building Logbook portal.

Q55. Do you agree with the proposal to require the signed standardised

compliance report (BRWL) and the supporting photographic evidence to be

provided to Building Control? a. Yes b. No. Please explain your reasoning.

a. Yes Elmhurst agrees the photographs supplied to the energy assessor, building

control officer and the building occupier(s) via a property log book portal.

Accreditation schemes will audit the accredited energy assessor as part of their

normal surveillance activity. Enforcement by building control at both design and

as built stage is essential.


Page - 18



Q56. Do you agree with the proposal to provide the homeowner with the

signed standardised compliance report (BRWL) and photographic evidence?

a. Yes b. No Please explain your reasoning.

a. Yes Elmhurst agrees that the occupiers of the building should be provided with

the BRWL compliance report and supporting photographs. Those should be via a

property portal that is accessible by authorised stakeholders and future

occupants.

Q57. Do you agree with the proposal to specify the version of Part L that the

home is built to on the EPC? a. Yes b. No Please explain your reasoning.

a. Yes Elmhurst agree that the EPC should declare the version of the regulations

against which the property has been built. Where these are not the latest this

should be highlighted to the home buyer. In addition the EPC needs to be re-

presented to ensure that performance against each of the metrics is clearly

stated. See Question 7.

Q58. Do you agree Approved Document L should provide a set format for a

home energy guide in order to inform homeowners how to efficiently operate

their dwelling? a. Yes b. No If yes, please provide your views on what should

be included in the guide.

a. Yes Elmhurst agrees that the home owner should have a full set of the user guides

related to the property. To ensure that these guides are accessible to future

occupiers they should be retained in a property log book, together with the EPC

and the BRWL, for future occupiers to access.


Page - 19



Q59. Do you agree that the transitional arrangements for the energy

efficiency changes in 2020 should not apply to individual buildings where

work has not started within a reasonable period – resulting in those buildings

having to be built to the new energy efficiency standard? a. Yes – where

building work has commenced on an individual building within a reasonable

period, the transitional arrangements should apply to that building, but not to

the buildings on which building work has not commenced b. No – the

transitional arrangements should continue to apply to all building work on a

development, irrespective of whether or not building work has commenced

on individual buildings If yes, please suggest a suitable length of time for the

reasonable period in which building work should have started. If no, please


b. No, Elmhurst believes that transitional arrangements have been abused meaning

that some homes being sold today comply with regulations that were set over

ten years ago.

If the Government is committed to achieve its ambitions then the transition

arrangements must be short, and strictly enforced. Elmhurst believe that within

twelve months of the regulations being effective any new home must comply the

new regulations at the point of building control approval.

Compliance should be determined on a plot-by-plot basis, not for a whole site

development.

Elmhurst can think of no other industry which is permitted to use previous investment

strategies to delay implementation of increased regulation. With the roadmap now

clear swift implementation is justifiable. Leaving a reasonable transition to build the

home, but ensuring that loop holes are not used that undermine consumer

confidence in new build homes.

Q60. Do you foresee any issues that may arise from the proposed 2020

transitional arrangements outlined in this consultation? a. Yes b. No Please


c. No, Elmhurst does not perceive any issue with the development of new software,

or the training of members to meet the new requirements


Page - 20



Q61. Overall, do you think the assessment of the impact on development is

broadly fair and reasonable? Please justify your view and provide alternative

evidence if necessary.

No evidence to the contrary.

Q62. The Impact Assessment makes a number of assumptions on

fabric/services/ renewables costs, new build rates, phase-in rates, learning

rates, etc for new homes. Do you think these assumptions are fair and

reasonable? a. Yes b. No Please explain your reasoning and provide

evidence to support this


Q63. Overall, do you think the impact assessment is a fair and reasonable

assessment of the potential costs and benefits of the proposed options for

new homes? a. Yes b. No If no, please explain your reasoning and provide

evidence to support this.



Page - 21



Q64. Do you consider that it is reasonable for a 75% reduction of the

combined cost of radiators and associated heating distribution pipework

associated with reducing the space heating load to around 15kWh/m2 /year

in SAP? a. Yes b. No If either yes or no, please explain your reasoning and


We are not necessarily in a position to make a decision on the possible reduction in

combined ‘cost’ of heating emitters and pipework as a result of reducing the space

heating load. However, we would raise a concern that a very low space heating

demand could have unintended consequences such as developers favouring direct

electric heating; which may be sufficient to meet the heating demand, but would

likely result in higher fuel bills for the homeowners (due to paying on-peak electricity

prices) which is why it essential to have ‘balanced’ set of targets based on cost,

carbon and energy within the Building Regulations. Research has shown that

domestic hot water generation is likely to be the largest energy use within a dwelling

in the future and the focus on space heating ‘only’ does not address this aspect of a

dwellings’ energy consumption (let alone lighting). We must makes sure that the

drive to low energy homes (space heating only), does not introduce more

unintended consequences.

As a final note, this approach seems to be in contradiction to MHCLG’s Future

Homes Standard consultation, which advocates the potential use of oversized

radiators for low temperature heating systems. This could create confusion for

developers, the supply chain and ultimately consumers.


Page - 22

