Jump to content

Building Regs 2021


ADLIan

Recommended Posts

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!

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Andehh
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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 by nod
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...