ADLIan Posted December 31, 2021 Share Posted December 31, 2021 All On 15 Dec Govt issued the new Approved Doc L for England. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/conservation-of-fuel-and-power-approved-document-l Also new version of SAP, Part F (Ventilation) & Part O (Overheating). All becoming effective in June 2022. Does not look to be a big change in U-values apart from tightening of worst case values. Air tightness tightened and use of solar PV used in Notional Dwelling. I am waiting for the new software from Elmhurst to assess the impact in more detail. One good point is plenty of practical guidance - not read it all so not sure how relevant. One big change is information gathering - documentary and photographic evidence required of almost all construction stages (insulation being fitted, junctions, windows, boilers, controls etc, etc....... ). These will be required by Building Control and the SAP energy assessor to assess the 'as built' dwelling. I can see this increase in red tape increasing the cost of assessments considerably. Personally I do want to spend the majority of my time chasing this data knowing its probably not available (I tend to deal with self builders and small developers) so will cease to be a SAP assessor for the new version of the Regs. I'll switch to 2D thermal modelling of junctions for bespoke psi-values. Plenty to read in the new ADs and SAP - perhaps 500 pages! Get your Building Reg application in before next June! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andehh Posted December 31, 2021 Share Posted December 31, 2021 (edited) U value of 0.13 and 0.11 for flooring and ceilings, then 0.18 for walls seems a large step up from current which is nearly double some of these figures? Or am I reading it wrong? (page 12) Edited December 31, 2021 by Andehh 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADLIan Posted December 31, 2021 Author Share Posted December 31, 2021 I regularly see those U-values under current Regs, walls perhaps slightly higher at 0.20-0.22. They are only slightly better than the current Notional Building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nod Posted December 31, 2021 Share Posted December 31, 2021 The as built Sap as needed addressing for a long time All taken on face value Open to abuse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADLIan Posted December 31, 2021 Author Share Posted December 31, 2021 Totally agree. But checking BR compliance is a job for Building Control not a SAP assessor who will never visit the site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Punter Posted December 31, 2021 Share Posted December 31, 2021 2 hours ago, ADLIan said: Totally agree. But checking BR compliance is a job for Building Control not a SAP assessor who will never visit the site. I think the onus will be on the contractor to gather and submit the evidence, not the SAP assessor. Same as all the rest of the BRegs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Punter Posted December 31, 2021 Share Posted December 31, 2021 I see there is no longer a reference to fuel factor and air-to-air heat pumps are now included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andehh Posted December 31, 2021 Share Posted December 31, 2021 3 hours ago, Andehh said: U value of 0.13 and 0.11 for flooring and ceilings, then 0.18 for walls seems a large step up from current which is nearly double some of these figures? Or am I reading it wrong? (page 12) Sorry to bump my own comment, but im still trying to get my head around this? Have they really dropped the numbers by nearly half in some of these contexts? Vs current PART L values? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nod Posted December 31, 2021 Share Posted December 31, 2021 3 hours ago, ADLIan said: Totally agree. But checking BR compliance is a job for Building Control not a SAP assessor who will never visit the site. So many things are difficult for BC to check Thickness of insulation PV etc Without referring to the sap the can’t know if you are using the correct materials or the correct thickness Our plans stated we should have PV BC never mentioned it do we didn’t bother Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvin Posted December 31, 2021 Share Posted December 31, 2021 26 minutes ago, Andehh said: Sorry to bump my own comment, but im still trying to get my head around this? Have they really dropped the numbers by nearly half in some of these contexts? Vs current PART L values? The smaller the U-value the more thermal resistant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Punter Posted December 31, 2021 Share Posted December 31, 2021 23 minutes ago, Andehh said: Sorry to bump my own comment, but im still trying to get my head around this? Have they really dropped the numbers by nearly half in some of these contexts? Vs current PART L values? The new standards v the 2016 ones are very similar. I think you are confusing the standards for the Notional Dwelling and the Limiting Standards, which are far more lax but can only be practically used for very small areas. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Punter Posted December 31, 2021 Share Posted December 31, 2021 Old regs: New regs: 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andehh Posted December 31, 2021 Share Posted December 31, 2021 Thank you very much Mr Punter, that makes much more sense on a comparison point of view! Very grateful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADLIan Posted December 31, 2021 Author Share Posted December 31, 2021 2 hours ago, Mr Punter said: I think the onus will be on the contractor to gather and submit the evidence, not the SAP assessor. Same as all the rest of the BRegs. 1 hour ago, nod said: So many things are difficult for BC to check Thickness of insulation PV etc Without referring to the sap the can’t know if you are using the correct materials or the correct thickness Our plans stated we should have PV BC never mentioned it do we didn’t bother But the sap assessor must have this info to sign off this part of the works. Rock and a hard place come to mind!! I give my clients a full design stage report with recommendations/requirements for building reg compliance (or more), not really my issue if Building Control do not take this into consideration. SAP assessor is not responsible for policing this part of the Regs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nod Posted December 31, 2021 Share Posted December 31, 2021 (edited) Very true Most on here will comply or exceed the Sap calcs I was just surprised that BC had no interest in the Sap calcs We where down to full fill the cavity Would anyone of noticed if I had decided to change this to ridged with an air gap Quite a lot of trust involved Edited December 31, 2021 by nod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now