Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140
- 159)
WEDNESDAY 23 JUNE 2004
DR DAVID
CROWHURST, MR
DAVID WARRINER
AND MS
DEBORAH BROWNHILL
Q140 Mr Thomas: The capacity is there.
Ms Brownhill: The capacity is
there, yes.
Q141 Mr Challen: Is that capacity
just in the building industry? What about local authorities that
monitor Building Regulations and so on? I was reading recently
that the policing of regulations is a big issue; not enough is
being done. We can train these people but do they actually implement
it?
Ms Brownhill: That is one of our
concerns about Building Regulations ever being more than a mandatory
baseline level. BRE has carried out research that shows that the
Building Regulations system overall is not well equipped to police
the environmental standards that are currently in Regulations.
To actually keep increasing them, unless we address the fact that
the building control officers are not really trained nor do they
have the resources to check on the environment aspects, you are
not going to achieve anything; you are going to have legislation
for legislation's sake. Through a mechanism like EcoHomes or BREEAM
which is, if you like, funded by the industry, that puts more
money in the system, better databases, better checking up facilities,
one is more confident about the results of the certification.
Q142 Mr Challen: With all these new
houses that are being proposed, how many extra people would we
need to effectively implement proper enforcement of Regulations
particularly affecting environmental issues?
Ms Brownhill: Obviously I have
not worked out the answer to that one in advance, but there are
precedents within Building Regulations, for example a SAP Rating,
which is the energy rating is carried out by a competent person
(someone who is deemed to be competent), it does not have to be
carried out by the building control officer. EcoHomes works in
the same way: a certificate can be issued by a competent person
(just as a structural engineer would do the structural calculation)
and that is acceptable by the building control officer. He does
not really have to go around and check then. There are mechanisms
that would enable other organisations to help with that burden
on building control. Building Control Officers come from a background
concerning themselves very much with health and safety issues
and it is true that not too many complaints come from home owners
just because their home is a little bit cold or draughty or uses
a lot of water or whatever it may be. Traditionally they have
always had a slightly different focus. There is more than one
way to address that. There are already something like 160 organisations
trained to deliver EcoHomes which is just a method that we licence
broadly across the construction industry. Anyone can train to
deliver this; anyone can have a licence provided they show competence
on the examination and training course.
Q143 Mr Challen: Are they independent
of the house builders?
Ms Brownhill: Totally independent
of the house builders.
Q144 Mr Thomas: I want to ask about
alternative construction methods. We have talked a lot about things
that could be add-ons to make things better, but there are also
alternative ways. If you look at the Centre for Alternative Technologies,
for example, you see rammed earth buildings there or straw bale
buildings or passive heating and all the rest of it. One of the
concerns must be that these construction methods firstly are not
widely available—or the skills are not widely available—and
it is also very difficult for the consumer to decide whether such
a house would be sustainable in the long term, would they stand
up for fifty years or whatever it may be, how could you benchmark
a house or a building like that against a similar, more traditional
type of construction. Do you have any thoughts on how we can get
alternative methods out there and whether you even have experience
of what methods could potentially be used?
Ms Brownhill: You have to be a
little bit careful because your assumption is that some of the
houses that are built using the rammed earth or using some unusual
technology are necessarily more sustainable than can be built
in the traditional way. There is an awful lot that can be achieved
with what you would call your standard house types and assumptions
that windmills and photovoltaic cells are necessarily increasing
sustainability can be incorrect. You have to measure things like
the embodied energy in the production of the PV's, say, and put
that into the whole equation which is what we try to do to actually
get an answer. We do research into modern methods of construction
and obviously we keep a close eye on the alternative technologies.
We have a Faraday partnership programme that looks at building
in renewables so we are very supportive of all those things. However,
they are not necessarily required to increase standards from where
they are now to a much higher level.
Q145 Mr Thomas: Is there a particular
method of alternative construction that you think may come into
play over the next 10 or 20 years or whatever, or do you think
on the whole we would be better off concentrating on the traditional
but improving that and making it more sustainable?
Dr Crowhurst: I think before we
embark on any one particular technology whether it is new or traditional—particularly
if they are technologies which may be seen as fringe—we
have to do a proper evaluation of their performance under real
conditions whether it be straw bales or rammed earth. The research
to establish that needs to be done; it would not be sensible to
go down a route which favoured a particular type of construction
without some reasonable research.
Q146 Mr Thomas: Is anybody doing
that research?
Dr Crowhurst: Not that I am personally
aware.
Q147 Mr Thomas: Would you do it if
you had the money?
Dr Crowhurst: If we had the money,
yes. We have particular facilities in a number of our laboratories
that can look in an accelerated way at ageing effects on building
materials, climate effects on building materials. The capability
is still there; resources would be needed to utilise that capability.
Q148 Mr Thomas: I can understand
your caution about alternative methods and saying that we need
to be sure, but on the other hand the Government is introducing
new methods of construction like off-site pre-fabs. As far as
you are aware has the Government done any benchmarking on whether
those are actually going to be sustainable homes? They seem very
keen on them; about a quarter of new homes are supposed to be
constructed in this way.
Dr Crowhurst: Again there are
good reasons why modern methods of construction may provide advantages
in construction. Not least there is the potential for reduced
waste because of factory construction. There is also potential
for savings particularly in health and safety in terms of the
ability to build and the skills required to do that more safely.
We know that the construction industry does not have a good record
amongst industries for health and safety. I think there is still
work to be done in order to establish whether there are true and
tangible environmental benefits from the use of modern methods
of construction.
Q149 Mr Thomas: Are we about to embark
upon a massive support for these types of construction and yet
you are saying that we do not really know if they are environmentally
any better; they could be worse.
Dr Crowhurst: That is possible.
Q150 Mr Thomas: Is anyone doing that
work?
Dr Crowhurst: Not to our knowledge.
Ms Brownhill: Not in any great
quantity.
Dr Crowhurst: There have been
some case studies where some of those issues were looked at, for
example, was the energy performance substantially better? That
still comes down to design. If you design a traditionally built
house well then it can perform as well as a system built house.
There were distinct benefits in terms of time on site and safety
issues associated with that, but I think some of the wider
environmental implications—possible of transportation—have
not been fully investigated.
Q151 Mr Thomas: I have a concern
there because on the one hand you are saying there needs to be
some caution for alternative methods; they look wonderful but
are they really, over the long term, going to be an improvement
and yet we seem to be seeing governments and housing corporations
and so forth encouraging new methods of construction when we really
do not know whether they well be in the long term actually more
environmentally beneficial. Whether it is traditional houses or
new methods of constructions or alternative houses, are we building
houses that are really sustainable? In year terms, are they meant
to last as long as they should be lasting in that there is a huge
environmental cost in putting houses up in the first place?
Dr Crowhurst: Are we building
volume housing in a sustainable manner now, regardless of its
modern methods or traditional? I would say, no. I think the fabric
and form of the housing that we do in the majority of cases could
not, under current circumstances, be considered sustainable. The
performance in terms of insulation and energy levels—air
tightness in particular—much can be lost if the fabric and
form—the insulation and thermal performance form of a building—if
it is built in such a way that all the benefits of what is done
are lost by the fact that it leaks badly because it has been badly
constructed. Those are the sorts of issues that need to be adequately
addressed whatever the form of construction.
Ms Brownhill: It is true that
the environmental performance of MMC in our experience has not
been widely researched but most MMC does have to go through a
kind of formal certification as fitness for purpose. I suspect
in some cases of alternative building types that is what is lacking.
The environmental performance is demonstrated but the fitness
for purpose is not demonstrated so the insurers like NHBC who
insure 85%—or whatever it is—of all new homes, would
be reluctant to accept that sort of thing without the fitness
for purpose certification, so you really have to have it all before
you can say to the industry, "This is what you should deliver
in every way". We do seem to have bits of it in some places
and bits in others but not the whole picture overall.
Dr Crowhurst: There is no evidence
that modern methods of construction are not better; work still
needs to be done.
Ms Brownhill: Case not proven.
Q152 Chairman: There seems to be
a woeful inadequacy of information. If we are, as Mr Thomas said,
going to embark on a massive house building programme in this
country it is essential that that work is done first so that we
know what we are building and what the impact on the environment
will be, not only the immediate future but in the long term as
well. Do you not yourselves professionally feel a sense of failure
that these sorts of concerns that you have been raising for a
very long time are simply out of the equation.
Dr Crowhurst: Building Regulations
and the changes to future Regulations that are envisaged now have
moved the goal posts a long way. One would not want to step back
and delay those improvements that are already in train by saying
that we have to stop now and re-assess all the various methods
of construction. We need to build to higher levels of performance;
to some extent we know that some of the traditional methods can
have longevity. I think there are parallel tracks that we need
to pursue in that context. In a sense we cannot afford to stop
the building programme dead while research is going on, but it
is important that the research itself is undertaken so that we
can build better in the future.
Q153 Joan Walley: I think you were
in here when we had the previous witnesses, when Councillor Sparks
began his comments by talking about learning the lessons of some
quite big mistakes that had been made in the 60s. In view of what
you have just said and the really bleak picture that you are painting,
do you feel your institution or organisation should have some
input into avoiding those mistakes—not the same mistakes
but mistakes we could be making now—and what mechanism is
there for feeding through because we are just about to be embarking
on one of the biggest building programmes that we have seen in
our life times.
Mr Warriner: Traditionally BRE
has had a very strong role in that sort of activity, particularly
looking at issues of durability and the like.
Q154 Joan Walley: Has your changed
status had an effect on that?
Mr Warriner: There is clearly
a change in terms of the availability of funding for some of the
traditional areas of research that BRE would have done. I think
we need to be careful not to get too despondent about all this.
We are building to a much better standard now than we were in
the past and the capability, I think, is much greater than it
was. With issues like modern methods of construction there are
approaches through formal certification schemes—as Deborah
said—and BRE has set itself up to promote and offer that
type of service that can give the industry confidence that particular
methods are better than others or will meet particular standards.
I think the widespread promotion of formal certification for this
type of system is definitely to be encouraged. The capability
exists to do that.
Q155 Joan Walley: Is the certification
happening at the moment?
Mr Warriner: Some manufacturers
see the value of that and see the benefit of being able to demonstrate
that they have done it and some do not. Across the whole industry
you get that spectrum of some who are leading the way and seeing
the benefit and some who do not think it is necessary.
Q156 Joan Walley: When you talk about
that are you referring to the EcoHomes code?
Mr Warriner: Not specifically,
no. Certification is a much broader issue than just working out
the environmental performance. It would include fitness for purpose,
durability, safety, fire safety, the whole range of things you
might want to include; the sort of things that would give you
or I confidence as a purchaser that this thing was going to perform
over a long period and needs to be safe and durable. EcoHomes
is specifically looking at the environmental performance of housing.
Dr Crowhurst: We also have tools
and methodologies that can be used to assess the environmental
impacts of construction components and materials through their
life time so the tools do exist and some companies are taking
advantage of those tools early; some are not pursuing that with
quite the same vigour.
Ms Brownhill: At the policy level
we are commissioned by English Partnerships to help them devise
the briefs for their developments, review the sustainability standards
that are being used on developments and also consider things like
modern methods of construction. They do ask BRE for advice in
a lot of cases when they are encouraging developers to use modern
methods of construction. There are bits of government that are
in isolation; some are coming to us and asking for specific pieces
of advice. English Partnerships has set mandatory standards using
BREEAM for all developments on their land—the land they
own—and they have to meet a standard of a very good everywhere
or an excellent on flagship schemes. They are already delivering
across the spectrum of housing; it is not just social, it is all
the private sector housing as well. The LGA were a little bit
negative about what was going on in private sector housing, but
actually private house builders have accepted that they need to
do this so they are taking it on board.
Q157 Joan Walley: Do you have figures
of the take-up of that?
Ms Brownhill: We will soon issue
certificates on 20,000 homes.
Q158 Joan Walley: Out of how many?
What is the percentage?
Ms Brownhill: They are only building
about 100,000 a year at the moment I suspect.
Q159 Joan Walley: That is about a
fifth, then.
Ms Brownhill: It will be a fifth
in about a year's time I would say. EcoHomes was only invented
in the year 2000 so in terms of a product it has not had long
to be out there. We are regularly getting 10,000 homes pre-registered
on our database. We could certainly find out more figures and
give you further information on that as and when you require it.
It is not happening in ones and twos now; it is happening in thousands
and that will roll on. The Housing Corporation has also set standards
using EcoHomes and that will ultimately lead to about 20,000 to
30,000 of their homes every year having higher environmental
standards than Building Regulations.
| 
