Is building regulations compliance a tick box exercise?
There is a fundamental dilemma at the heart of building regulations and the issue of compliance. On the one hand, regulations are essential to deliver a built environment that is safe and energy efficient. On the other, there is the widespread recognition that performance gaps exist – and if a building doesn’t live up to its designed standard then can it really be said to be compliant?
The short answer is: yes, technically it is compliant because it has been approved and signed off. Performance monitoring and evaluation is not part of building regulations, so there is no requirement – and little incentive – to check how a building performs in use. Building owners have little to no comeback with regard to as-built performance.
How can we translate compliance to as-built performance?
There is no doubt that building regulations are a minimum standard. While some people see a longer-term benefit to achieving performance that goes beyond the minimum, it can’t be expected that every project should or can go above and beyond.
However, some people see legislative requirements like building regulations as little more than red tape, and something to be addressed as quickly and easily (and probably as cheaply) as possible. They see a change in regulations, requiring better performance or higher standards, as an obstacle to completing their project, rather than an opportunity to do better.
Overcoming such attitudes is very difficult, if not impossible. One way to try and do it is mandate the highest possible levels of performance as the minimum. Some people advocate for the Passivhaus standard being the standard for building regulations, for example, and Scotland is making a move in that direction.
It will take time for the impact of such changes to be felt, even if they are successfully implemented. How, then, can we demonstrate the benefits of simply ‘doing compliance’ better than it’s often done now?
Ticking all the boxes for psi values
One way to see compliance as something more meaningful is to look for areas of the building design and specification where the most positive impact can be felt – even for people who see regulation as a burden. Thermal bridging details and junctions between building elements fall into that category.
As energy efficiency standards in national building regulations have improved over the last twenty years or so – mainly in the form of lower and lower U-values – thermal bridging has become responsible for an increasing proportion of the heat loss that does occur.
Regulations require thermal bridging to be addressed, so it’s possible to design and specify junction details that achieve just enough to comply. But the other option is to enhance the performance of those details where possible. Even small improvements could have a significant effect on lowering psi values, reducing overall heat loss, and improving comfort within the building.
It could even save money overall, by avoiding overspecification in other areas of the building fabric specification.
That’s why BRS Technology developed the online modelling tool AutoPSI. It offers quick and easy calculation of psi values, in accordance with relevant standards and conventions, to help achieve buildable, high performance junction details.
A drag and drop interface allows fully customisable junction details to be modelled, so it’s possible to experiment with different solutions that can achieve the most efficient outcomes. To find out more, visit the AutoPSI website.
