Communities and Local Government CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Greater Manchester Local Authority Building Control North West County Group
Summary
The Building Regulations provide a significant contribution to Health and Safety in and around dwellings. Evidence can be sought from LABC interventions. However, the competitive business environment of building control is diluting compliance.
There are existing and emerging risks particularly with the increased use of low carbon technologies.
Problems exist with enforcement.
The rules around competency appear to work better for gas appliances.
There are emerging risks from low carbon technologies, particularly wood burning stoves.
Prosecutions have been possible preventing dangerous installations and possible fatalities. However, CP Schemes appear unwilling to get involved with enforcement.
With respect to Part P, clearer guidance is required to define competency and to clarify which types of installations do not require notification.
The benefits of joining a CPS scheme for contractors needs to be clearer.
Removal or significant reduction would encourage non-compliance and would not deal with emerging risks.
Greater Manchester Local Authority Building Control would be willing to assist with further consultation.
Are Building Regulations adequate in safeguarding Health and Safety in domestic dwellings?
Greater Manchester LABC (GMLABC) believes that building regulations have contributed a great deal to securing health and safety in domestic dwellings. Evidence for this can be taken from LABC’s pre-contravention intervention data, which shows a significant number of contraventions are prevented through the LABC process of plans approval and timely and focused site inspections. It is worth noting however that GMLABC believe that the current competitive business environment is contributing to a dilution in compliance in some cases. This is due to business pressure to reduce cost and complexity for clients at the expense of regulatory compliance.
In terms of current compliance, there are existing and emerging risks that are not adequately dealt with, particularly around electrical work and low carbon technologies.
Part P has been problematic for Building Control since its inception, particularly following revisions to the original Approved Document, which was amended to express that responsibility for safety lies with the building control body. This is at odds with the general understanding that it is the person undertaking the building work that is responsible for ensuring building regulation compliance. In many cases, the designer and applicant will declare an exempt Part P competent person electrician at plan approval stage and it is common to discover after installation that the electrician is not a member of a CPS scheme. This produces a very difficult enforcement problem with Periodic Electrical Certificates (now replaced with Electrical Installation Condition Reports) being used as a method of determining compliance. The acceptance of periodic certificates for new installations varies and leads to confusion and a lack of consistency.
In terms of gas safety, the system of requiring a Gas Safe installer works better than the Part P electrical process, which allows DIY and/or non-CPS installers. The Gas Safe scheme removes any ambiguity and the rules for competency appear to be a lot clearer. However, there are still some issues with evidence that not all gas installations are being reported through the CP Scheme and there appears to be reluctance from Gas Safe to get involved in any enforcement. It would appear that Gas Safe does not hold the same technical expertise as the previous CORGI organisation. Therefore, when a complaint is received regarding a gas appliance, which has not been installed by a Gas Safe contractor, it is unclear what enforcement should take place by the CPS scheme and what enforcement should be taken by local authorities. If a complaint is made, even if an installation has been installed by a CPS member, Gas Safe appears reluctant to take any action.
This reluctance to get involved in enforcement appears common to most CPS schemes, particularly with respect to the fraudulent use of part P electrical certificates.
In terms of emerging risks there is a growing trend for home owners to turn to low carbon technologies, particularly solid fuel burning appliances. There are a significant number of appliances now on the open market and a temptation for DIY installation without a full understanding of the risks from carbon monoxide and fire. Clearer and updated guidance is needed on the types of installations available and the risks associated with incorrect installations.
Similarly the installation of solar and photo voltaic panels are presenting problems with Building Regulations compliance particularly with respect to identifying competent persons and installations that comply. The situation is exacerbated as it is common for this building work to be completed before it comes to the attention of building control. Therefore, consideration should be given to a requirement for prior notification of all works that are executed under a competent person scheme.
What are the costs of complying with the regulations?
LABC charges are set to recover the cost of delivering the service and charges are subject to competition. Competent Person Schemes must remain competitive therefore the cost to the public must be low compared to the outcomes of increased health and safety
How could the Regulations be revised to be streamlined and made more effective?
There is little doubt that the introduction of Part P has raised electrical standards in domestic properties. There have been prosecutions under building regulations in Greater Manchester, which have, in our view, prevented highly dangerous installations, which could have lead to fatalities.
However, there is evidence of some confusion amongst electricians with respect to defining a competent person. Competent Person is defined in BS7671 and many electricians do not understand why they are required to be part of a separate Competent Person Scheme. Part P does not adequately define a competent person. Most electricians have heard of Part P but are not clear about what it is. Some electricians have left CP Schemes as they do not recognise any benefit from being a member.
The regulations could be revised by making it clearer what type of work is not notifiable. For example, it is not clear in the approved document whether replacing an electrical shower unit is notifiable. This is a common domestic alteration that should be clear in the guidance to improve avoidable contact. Therefore, it is our view that the regulations should be more prescriptive with respect to what work can be undertaken without notification with more common domestic examples given.
What would be the consequence of removal or significant reduction?
It is our opinion that removal or significant reduction would be a retrograde step, leading to a significant increase in risk for homeowners and a reduction of the achieved standards, particularly for the most vulnerable groups. Whilst improvements can be made to Part P, particularly in respect to the guidance in the approved document, removal or reduction of the regulation would open the market place to less competent and qualified contractors to the detriment of the better quality organisations now operating.
Greater Manchester Local Authority Building Control would welcome an opportunity to assist further with consultation or future proposals.
January 2012