Northern Ireland Assembly Flax Flower Logo

Session 2007/2008

Fourth Report

COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE AND PERSONNEL

Report on the
Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill
(NIA 11/07)

Together with the Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee relating to the Report, written submissions, memoranda and the Minutes of Evidence
Ordered by The Committee for Finance and Personnel to be printed 11 June 2008

Report: 23/07/08R (Committee for Finance and Personnel)

This document is available in a range of alternative formats.
For more information please contact the
Northern Ireland Assembly, Printed Paper Office,
Parliament Buildings, Stormont, Belfast, BT4 3XX
Tel: 028 9052 1078

Committee for Finance and Personnel
Membership and Powers

Powers

The Committee for Finance and Personnel is a Statutory Departmental Committee established in accordance with paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Belfast Agreement, Section 29 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and under Assembly Standing Order 46. The Committee has a scrutiny, policy development and consultation role with respect to the Department of Finance and Personnel and has a role in the initiation of legislation.

The Committee has the power to:

Membership

The Committee has eleven members, including a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson, with a quorum of five members.

The membership of the Committee since its establishment on 9 May 2007 has been as follows:

Mr Mitchel McLaughlin (Chairperson)
Mr Simon Hamilton (Deputy Chairperson)*

Mr Roy Beggs Dr Stephen Farry
Mr Fra McCann Ms Jennifer McCann
Mr Adrian McQuillan Mr Declan O’Loan
Ms Dawn Purvis Mr Mervyn Storey
Mr Peter Weir

* Mr Simon Hamilton replaced Mr Mervyn Storey as
Deputy Chairperson on 10 June 2008

Table of Contents

List of abbreviations and acronyms used in the Report

Executive Summary

Key Conclusions and Recommendations

Introduction

Consideration of the provisions in the Bill

Clause 1 – Building Regulations

Clause 2 – Protected buildings

Clause 3 – Building Regulations Advisory Committee

Clause 4 – Further provisions as to the making of building regulations, etc.

Clause 5 – Guidance documents

Clause 6 – Type approval

Clause 8 – Contravention notices

Clause 9 – Registers of information and documents to be kept by district councils

Clause 10 – Civil liability

Clause 12 – Application of Building Regulations to the Crown

Related Issues

Consideration of proposals for further amendment to the Principal order

Plans deposited with a District Council (Article 13)

Appeals to the Department (Article 17)

Deposit of plans to be of no effect after certain interval (Article 19)

Dangerous buildings and places

Control of demolitions

Backland development

Harmonisation of Building Regulations

Application to existing buildings

Departmental responsibility for Building Regulations

Reducing Carbon emissions from New Buildings

Mandating Microgeneration/Low or Zero Carbon (LZC) Systems

A Role for Planning Policy

Promoting LZC Technologies through Funding

Building Regulations and Sustainable Development

Appendix 1 – Minutes of Proceedings (extracts)

7 November 2007

5 March 2008

12 March 2008

2 April 2008

9 April 2008

16 April 2008

23 April 2008

30 April 2008

7 May 2008

14 May 2008

21 May 2008

28 May 2008

11 June 2008

Appendix 2 – Minutes of Evidence

7 November 2007
Department of Finance and Personnel

12 March 2008
Department of Finance and Personnel

2 April 2008
Sustainable Energy Association
Climate Change Coalition Northern Ireland

9 April 2008
Building Control Northern Ireland

16 April 2008
Northern Ireland Building Regulations Advisory Committee
Chartered Institute of Building in Ireland and Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

23 April 2008
Association of Building Engineers and Institution of Structural Engineers

30 April 2008
Energy Saving Trust 123
Local Authority Building Control, England and Wales
Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Republic of Ireland

7 May 2008
Northern Ireland Environment Link

14 May 2008
Department of Finance and Personnel

21 May 2008
Department of Finance and Personnel

28 May 2008
Department of Finance and Personnel

Appendix 3 – Written Submissions

Building Control Northern Ireland

Energy Saving Trust

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Northern Ireland

Sustainable Energy Association

Northern Ireland Environment Link

Association of Building Engineers

Appendix 4 – Memoranda and Papers from Department of Finance and Personnel

Detailed background to policy proposals included in the Building Regulations Bill

Summary consultation and policy proposals taken forward and not taken forward in the
Building Regulations Bill

Mandatory Microgeneration in New Buildings

Proposed Amendments to Building Regulations

Response to Sustainable Energy Association

Response to Committee follow up questions on Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill

Response to Building Control Northern Ireland

Response to Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Northern Ireland

Response to Northern Ireland Environment Link

Response to Energy Saving Trust

Response to Sustainable Energy Association

Response to Sustainable Energy Association on Microgeneration

Response to Association of Building Engineers

Housing Projections

Legislation controlling Dangerous Buildings and Demolitions

Response to Association of Building Engineers’ proposed amendments and further information on Protected Buildings

Response to Renewables Advisory Board Report on the Role of Onsite Energy Generation in Delivering Zero-Carbon Homes

Response to the Committee’s follow up questions on the Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill

Memoranda and Papers from Others

Climate Change Coalition Northern Ireland

Sustainable Energy Association

Northern Ireland Building Regulations Advisory Committee

Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Republic of Ireland

Energy Saving Trust follow up to submission

Association of Building Engineers suggested wording for amendments to the Bill

Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Republic of Ireland,
Housing Projections

Northern Ireland Building Regulations Advisory Committee follow up to evidence session

Northern Ireland Environment Link briefing paper for Committee meeting on 7 May 2008

Northern Ireland Environment Link follow up to evidence session ????

Energy Saving Trust – Code for Sustainable Homes

Appendix 5 – Northern Ireland Assembly Research Papers

The Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill

The Reliability and Costs of Renewable Technology

Synopsis of RoI Regulatory Assessment and Mandatory Renewables in Scotland

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms used in the Report

ABE

Association of Building Engineers

Bbl

Barrel

BCNI

Building Control Northern Ireland

BERR

Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform

BRAB

Building Regulations Advisory Body

BRAC

Building Regulations Advisory Committee

BRE

Building Research Establishment

BREDEM

Building Research Establishment Domestic Energy Model

BSc

Batchelor of Science

CADA

Coalition of Aid and Development Agencies

CBE

Commander of the Order of the British Empire

CBI

Confederation of British Industry

CDM

Construction, Design and Management

CEF

Construction Employers Federation

CEng

Chartered Engineer

CEnv

Chartered Environmentalist

CETI

Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment

CHP*

Combined Heat and Power

CIBSE

Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers

CM

Centimetres

CO2

Carbon Dioxide

CSH

Code for Sustainable Homes

DALO

Departmental Assembly Liaison Officer

DART

Dublin Area Rapid Transport

dB

Decibels

DC

District Council

DCLG

Department for Communities and Local Government

DEFRA

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

DEHLG

Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, (RoI)

DETI

Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment

DFP

Department of Finance and Personnel

DIY

Do It Yourself

DMS

Diploma in Management Studies

DoE

Department of the Environment

DSD

Department for Social Development

DSO

Departmental Solicitors Office

E & W

England and Wales

EEAC

Energy Efficiency Advisory Centre

EEAP

Energy Efficiency Action Plan

EEL

Energy Efficiency Levy

EHS

Environment and Heritage Service

EPBD

Energy Performance of Buildings Directive

EPC

Energy Performance Certificate

EQIA

Equality Impact Assessment

EREF

Environment and Renewable Energy Fund

EST

Energy Saving Trust

EU

European Union

EWP

Energy White Paper

FBEng

Fellow of the Building Engineers Association

FCIOB

Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Building

FMB

Federation of Master Builders

FOI

Freedom of Information

GB

Great Britain

GJ

Giga Joule

GSHP

Ground Source Heat Pumps

GWh

Giga Watt Hour

GWh pa

Giga Watt Hour per annum

HLF

Heritage Lottery Fund

HMO

Houses in Multiple Occupation

HSENI

Health and Safety Executive Northern Ireland

IAG

Industry Advisory Group

K

Thousand

KFC

Kentucky Fried Chicken

kt

Kilo Tonnes

KW

Kilo Watt

KWH

Kilo Watt Hour

KWP

Kilo Watt Peak

LABC

Local Authority Building Control (England and Wales)

LCBP

Low Carbon Buildings Programme

LNG

Liquefied Natural Gas

LPG

Liquid Petroleum Gas

LPS

Land and Property Services

Ltd

Limited Company

LZC

Low or Zero Carbon

M

Metres

MBEng

Member of the Association of Building Engineers

MICE

Member of the Institution of Civil Engineers

MLA

Member of the Legislative Assembly

mm

Millimetre

MP

Member of Parliament

MS

Member States

MSc

Master of Science

MSW

Municipal Solid Waste

NDNM

No Day Named Motion

NGO

Non Governmental Organisation

NHBC

National House-Building Council

NI

Northern Ireland

NIAER

Northern Ireland Authority for Energy Regulation

NIBRAC

Northern Ireland Building Regulations Advisory Committee

NIE

Northern Ireland Electricity

NIEL

Northern Ireland Environment Link

NIHE

Northern Ireland Housing Executive

NIO

Northern Ireland Office

NIRO

Northern Ireland Renewables Obligation

NIROCs

Northern Ireland Renewables Obligation Certificates

NISDS

Northern Ireland Sustainable Development Strategy

NISRA

Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency

OBE

Officer of the British Empire

ºC

Degrees Celsius

OCPANI

Office of the Commissioner of Public Appointments for Northern Ireland

ODPM

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

OFGEM

Office of Gas and Electricity Markets

OFMdFM

Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister

OLC

Office of Legislative Counsel

OPEC

Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries

OPSI

Office of Public Sector Information

Pa

Pascal

PA

Per Annum

PD

Post Dated

PgCertFS

Post Graduate Certificate in Fire Safety

PhD

Doctor of Philosophy

PLC

Public Limited Company

PPS

Planning Policy Statement

PV

Photovoltaic

PV MDP

Photovoltaic Major Demonstration Programme

RAB

Renewables Advisory Board

RIA

Regulatory Impact Assessment

RICS

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

ROC

Renewable Obligation Certificate

RoI

Republic of Ireland

ROS

Renewables Obligation (Scotland)

RPA

Review of Public Administration

RSLs

Registered Social Landlords

SAP

Standard Assessment Procedure

SCHRI

Scottish Community and Householder Renewables Initiative

SD

Sustainable Development

SDS

Sustainable Development Strategy

SEA

Sustainable Energy Association

SEC

Sustainable Energy Centre

SEDBUK

Seasonal Efficiency of Domestic Boilers in the UK

SEN

Sustainable Energy Network

SI

Statutory Instrument

SL1

Subordinate Legislation 1

SoS

Secretary of State

SPICE

Scottish Parliament Information Centre

SPP

Scottish Planning Policy

SROCs

Scottish Renewable Obligation Certificates

tC

Tonne of Carbon

TD

Teachta Dala

TER

Target Emission Rate

TGD

Technical Guidance Document

TGDs

Target Guidance Documents

THI

Townscape Heritage Initiative

TSN

Targeting Social Need

TSO

The Stationary Office

UK

United Kingdom

USA

United States of America

VAT

Value Added Tax

VLA

Valuation and Lands Agency

*(CHP can also stand for Community Heating Plant)

Executive Summary

Building regulations currently play a vital role in securing the health, safety, welfare and convenience of persons in or around buildings, and in furthering the conservation of fuel and power in Northern Ireland. The scope and significance of the regulations will be increased by the Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill, which was introduced to the Northern Ireland Assembly by the Minister of Finance and Personnel on 25 February 2008.

The Bill, which comprises 17 clauses and 1 Schedule, is the first piece of primary legislation on building regulations in Northern Ireland in the last 18 years. It will make significant amendments to the principal legislation in existence, the Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order 1979. In broad terms, the Bill aims to refine the powers, duties and rights of the Department of Finance and Personnel (which has policy responsibility for the regulations), district councils (which enforce the regulations) and applicants. Moreover, it will extend the general principles of the existing primary legislation to include protection and enhancement of the environment and the promotion of sustainable development.

Following Second Stage in the Assembly on 4 March 2008, the Bill was referred to the Committee for Finance and Personnel for Committee Stage. As part of its consideration of the Bill, the Committee took oral evidence from fourteen key stakeholders, including professional bodies, environmental groups and building control practitioners from Northern Ireland and from other jurisdictions. A substantial body of written evidence was received and is included in the appendices to this report.

As part of their evidence to the Committee, several witnesses proposed specific amendments to clauses of the Bill as well as further amendments to the 1979 Order. In addition, concerns were raised on policy issues, including the debate on mandatory microgeneration, that are important to the wider remit of building regulations but which did not engage the specific clauses of the Bill. The Committee’s consideration of each of these areas is covered separately in the report.

As part of its scrutiny, the Committee sought responses from the Department to each of the concerns or proposals raised by witnesses and to additional queries which the Committee itself raised. The Department provided a series of written responses in addition to further oral briefing. This clarified a number of the issues to the satisfaction of the Committee. In addition, the Department indicated where some of the proposed amendments or concerns can be taken forward more appropriately through subordinate legislation or in the associated guidance issued by the Department.

This report represents the outcome of the Committee’s consideration of the evidence presented at Committee Stage. It includes twenty-two key conclusions and recommendations, which are wide ranging and cover specific clauses of the Bill as well as related policy and enforcement matters and topical issues, such as energy conservation and the use of renewable energy technologies. The recommendations aim to support the reform and improve the effectiveness of the building regulations and to contribute to the wider principles, which are proposed in the Bill, of environmental protection and sustainable development.

Key Conclusions and Recommendations

Consideration of the Provisions in the Bill

1. The Committee broadly welcomes the provisions in the Bill and considers that its importance lies not only in that it will update and streamline existing regulatory and enforcement provisions but, more especially, that it will extend the general principles of the primary legislation on building regulations to reflect the increasing significance of energy conservation, sustainable development and environmental protection. (Paragraph 12)

2. The Committee particularly welcomes the provisions in clause 1 of the Bill, which will facilitate any future decision by the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) to introduce a requirement in building regulations for a percentage of energy used in new buildings to be derived from Low or Zero Carbon (LZC) systems. (Paragraph 14)

3. The Committee is content with the commitment which DFP has given to consider how buildings not covered by the definition of “protected buildings” in clause 2 might be addressed in guidance issued to district councils. The Committee looks forward to being apprised of the outcome of this exercise. (Paragraph 17)

4. The Committee welcomes the Department’s acknowledgement of the calls for a strengthening of the statutory duty on district councils in respect of preserving the character of protected buildings and recommends to the Assembly that clause 2 be amended, as agreed with the Department, as follows:

In page 2, line 28, leave out “have regard to” and insert “take account of”. (Paragraph 18)

5. The Committee notes the DFP advice that, given the applicability of building regulations beyond the domestic property sector, it would not always be appropriate to use the Code for Sustainable Homes as a template for the new guidance-based system. Nonetheless, in view of its formal application in GB, the Committee recommends that, where possible, the Code is used to inform the forthcoming guidance documents pertaining to domestic property. (Paragraph 22)

6. The Committee shares the concerns of stakeholders that difficulties could arise in the event of individual district councils not accepting the type approvals of building matters by other councils. DFP advised that it could not take on additional powers in this regard without affecting its role in determining appeals on council decisions on type approval, and the Committee accepts this position. Nonetheless, the Committee concludes that an appropriate form of legislative/legal intervention is likely to be required if the proposed voluntary arrangements fail to ensure consistency of approach by district councils in this area. (Paragraph 28)

7. The Committee agrees with the Department’s proposed amendment to remove clause 10 and thereby retain the provision in Article 20 of the principal Order, regarding civil liability for breach of duty imposed by building regulations. The Committee is also content with the consequential amendments to clause 16 (Commencement) and to the Schedule of Repeals. (Paragraph 32)

Related Issues

Consideration of proposals for further amendments to the principal Order.

8. The Committee believes that there is a need for the Building Control appeals process to be transparent and prompt. Whilst accepting that this can be addressed without the need to amend Article 17 of the principal Order to introduce statutory duties on DFP, the Committee calls on the Department to establish formal protocols covering both the publication of the basis for appeal decisions and the turnaround time for such decisions. The Committee will wish to monitor the performance of the Department in this area. (Paragraph 39)

9. The Committee considers that, on the basis of the advice received, a system of determinations, as pertains in England and Wales, should not be introduced in NI at this time. Instead, the Committee recommends that the present appeals mechanism is reviewed at a later date to assess its effectiveness in the context of the change from “deem-to-satisfy” to guidance-based documents, having bedded down. (Paragraph 43)

10. The Committee shares the concerns raised by some witnesses on the gap in the building regulations regarding commencement of work following approval of plans, which would allow individual houses within multi-house applications to be built to outdated standards. Whilst the Committee understands that this has occurred only rarely it, nonetheless, considers that the current slow down in the property market could increase the risk in this regard and, therefore, calls on DFP to bring forward the necessary subordinate legislation to close this loophole at the earliest opportunity. (Paragraph 46)

11. The Committee notes that DFP has agreed to facilitate discussion with Building Control to examine how best to address the outdated legislation on dangerous buildings and places, including consideration of which Department would be best placed to take this forward. The Committee recommends that this review is given priority and looks forward to considering the findings. (Paragraph 49)

12. The Committee believes that a statutory duty on DFP to work with other jurisdictions in harmonising the building regulations may be impracticable. However, given that developers are increasingly working on a cross-border basis, the Committee would encourage DFP to examine the scope for establishing more formal north-south and east-west arrangements for co-ordinating policy and legislation on building regulations where appropriate. (Paragraph 57)

13. The Committee is mindful of the fact that the current building regulations apply to only a small percentage of the total building stock in NI and believes that continued focus should be placed on identifying and introducing additional measures aimed at reducing the carbon footprint of existing buildings. (Paragraph 59)

14. The Committee, in principle, welcomes the introduction of Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) later this year. However, arising from its scrutiny of the related subordinate legislation – the Energy Performance of Buildings (Certificates and Inspections) Regulations (NI) 2008 – the Committee has sought assurance from the Department that all necessary preparations are being made ahead of the introduction of EPCs, in particular that appropriate steps are being taken to raise public awareness of the changes and to ensure the availability of trained and accredited assessors. (Paragraph 60)

15. The Committee looks forward to examining the outcome of the forthcoming consultation on ‘green rebates’, which should inform consideration of the potential of temporary rates reliefs /rebates as a tool for reducing household carbon emissions by encouraging the retro-fit of existing homes with energy saving materials. Such measures would have the added benefit of helping to address fuel poverty. (Paragraph 61)

16. The Committee calls on the Minister of Finance and Personnel to review the basis for the building regulations function falling within DFP and, in conjunction with the Minister of the Environment, to consider the case for transferring this function (and possibly also the related responsibilities for the government estate and sponsorship of the construction industry) to the Department of the Environment (DoE) with the aim of ensuring closer policy co-ordination between the building regulations and planning functions. (Paragraph 66)

Reducing Carbon Emissions from New Buildings

17. The Committee concludes that there is an important interrelationship between demand for LZC technologies, the capacity of the local renewables industry, and the further commercialisation and development of the technology. The Committee considers that market forces alone may not be able to sufficiently drive increased uptake of LZC systems and to support technological development. A firm and challenging timetable for the introduction of stricter regulations on carbon emissions from buildings will assist in this regard and, conversely, faster technological development will facilitate even higher standards. The Committee, therefore, recommends that the Department:

18. The Committee acknowledges the strong arguments for and against the introduction of mandatory microgeneration. However, the Committee considers that the nub of the issue is one of timing as the use of LZC systems will increasingly become a necessity to help meet the carbon emission requirements in newbuilds. On the basis of the evidence provided, it is clear to the Committee that energy efficiency measures alone will not be sufficient in the medium to long term if NI is to keep in step with GB and RoI in reducing the levels of carbon emissions from buildings. In addition, the current trend in rising fossil fuel prices is likely to result in decreasing payback periods for LZC technologies which, in the view of the Committee, will place the promotion of renewables in a new context. The Committee, therefore, calls on the Department:

19. The Committee welcomes the fact that Planning Service is considering both permitted development rights for small-scale renewable energy systems and the potential for planning policy to take forward the concept of “macrogeneration” schemes for new housing developments. In this regard, the Committee has shared the information which it has received on similar legislative changes in the Republic with the Assembly’s Committee for the Environment. (Paragraph 89)

20. Given the evidence on the importance of stimulating demand for renewables and supporting the early adopter market, the Committee understands the concerns raised recently, including by the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, at the ending of the ‘Reconnect’ grant scheme. The Committee considers that continued provision of an appropriate level of grant funding for household renewables is especially important in light of the decision by the Minister of Finance and Personnel not to proceed with introducing mandatory microgeneration into the building regulations. As such, the Committee calls on the Minister to work with his Executive colleagues to ensure that the necessary priority is given to funding the uptake and development of LZC technologies. (Paragraph 92)

Building Regulations and Sustainable Development

21. The Committee considers that using building regulations to promote and facilitate both energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy in buildings can play an important part in helping NI to achieve the targets which have been set at an EU, UK and regional level for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions and greenhouse gases and increases in renewable energy generation. (Paragraph 97)

22. The Committee understands that OFMdFM is leading a review of the Sustainable Development Strategy, with the aim of producing a strategy that is better aligned with the priorities of the Executive, as expressed by the Programme for Government. The Committee looks forward to considering the contribution which DFP will make to these forthcoming plans by the Executive to strategically address sustainable Development and, in particular, the role which will be identified for building regulations. (Paragraph 98)

Introduction

Background

1. The Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill 2008 was introduced to the Assembly by the Minister of Finance and Personnel on 25 February 2008 and received its Second Reading on 4 March 2008, when it was subsequently referred to the Committee for Finance and Personnel (the Committee) for Committee Stage. The Bill has 17 clauses and 1 Schedule. The provisions in each clause are explained in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum.[1]

2. The purpose of the Bill is to refine the powers, duties and rights of the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP), district councils (which enforce the regulations) and applicants; and to extend the general principles of the existing primary legislation to include protection of the environment and the promotion of sustainable development.

The Committee’s Approach

3. The Committee received briefing from DFP prior to the introduction of the Bill to the Assembly, including an oral briefing from the responsible departmental officials on 7 November 2007 and information on the outcome of the Department’s previous policy consultations in 2004 and 2005. A public notice was placed in the main provincial newspapers on 5 March 2008, following commencement of Committee Stage, inviting written evidence on the provisions of the Bill. The Committee also contacted a number of key stakeholders who had responded to the Department’s earlier consultations.

4. In response to its call for evidence, the Committee received written submissions from the following organisations:

5. The Committee also took oral evidence from the following key stakeholders:

6. A number of the above bodies also submitted additional written submissions proposing specific amendments to the clauses in the Bill and to articles in the Building Regulations (NI) Order 1979 (“the principal Order”). The evidence from the Building Control representatives from England and Wales and RoI was particularly helpful in providing the Committee with an insight into the experiences of other jurisdictions in implementing similar legislative reform to that proposed in the Bill. The Committee also commissioned three separate pieces of research from the Assembly Research and Library Services to inform its initial considerations.

7. Given the volume of evidence received and the range of issues and proposed amendments which were raised, the Committee required additional time to consult with the Department and to reach a considered position on the Bill. As such, on 28 April 2008, the Assembly agreed to extend the Committee Stage to 27 June 2008.

8. The Committee made a detailed analysis of the wide-ranging issues arising from the evidence and sought responses from DFP to each of the concerns or proposals raised by witnesses and to additional queries which the Committee itself raised. The Department provided a series of follow up written responses in addition to further oral briefing. This clarified a number of the issues to the satisfaction of the Committee. In addition, DFP indicated where amendments/changes proposed by witnesses can be taken forward more appropriately through subordinate legislation or in the associated guidance issued by the Department. In addition to the further amendments proposed to the principal Order, the Committee received evidence on policy issues, including the debate on mandatory microgeneration, that are important to the wider remit of building regulations but which did not engage the specific clauses of the Bill. The Committee’s consideration of these issues is covered separately in the report.

9. The Committee carried out clause-by clause scrutiny of the Bill on 28 May 2008. At its meeting on 11 June 2008, the Committee agreed that its report on the Bill would be printed.

10. The Minutes of Proceedings relating to the Committee’s deliberations on the Bill are included at Appendix 1. Copies of the Official Reports of the oral evidence sessions are at Appendix 2 and the written submissions which the Committee received initially are at Appendix 3. Follow up memoranda and papers, including the written responses from DFP to the queries and proposed amendments raised by witnesses and the Committee are at Appendix 4. Finally, Appendix 5 includes the research papers provided by the Assembly Research and Library Services to assist the Committee’s deliberations.

Consideration of the Provisions in the Bill

11. During its clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill, the Committee agreed all the clauses without the need for amendment, save for clauses 2, 10 and 16 and the Schedule of Repeals. In terms of clause 2, arising from the issues raised during Committee Stage regarding the duty on district councils to preserve the character of protected buildings, the Department has agreed to table an amendment which will address the Committee’s concerns, as detailed below. Clause 10 was not agreed to, as the Committee accepted the Department’s proposed amendment to remove the clause and thereby retain the provision for civil liability for breach of duty imposed by building regulations contained in Article 20 of the principal Order. The decision not to repeal Article 20 will result in consequential amendments to clause 16 (Commencement) and the Schedule of Repeals, with which the Committee is content.

12. The Committee broadly welcomes the provisions in the Bill and considers that its importance lies not only in that it will update and streamline existing regulatory and enforcement provisions but, more especially, that it will extend the general principles of the primary legislation on building regulations to reflect the increasing significance of energy conservation, sustainable development and environmental protection.

13. The Committee’s detailed analysis of the issues arising from the evidence on the provisions in the Bill, together with its formal clause-by-clause scrutiny, is detailed in the Official Reports at Appendix 2. However, the following section highlights the key issues upon which the Committee has raised concerns, drawn conclusions or made recommendations. The issues are identified below against the relevant clauses of the Bill, with consideration being limited only to those clauses which attracted substantive comment in the evidence.

Clause 1 – Building Regulations

14. In broad terms the Committee welcomes the provisions in clause 1. In particular, DFP has advised that the inclusion of the definition of “low or zero carbon systems” (LZC systems) has a broader scope than “microgeneration” and, combined with the amendments to Schedule 1 to the principal Order, will clarify and future-proof the primary legislation. The Department has also pointed out that, though the existing primary legislation (i.e. Article 3 of the principal Order) empowers DFP to mandate microgeneration through subordinate legislation, the current powers would not permit a requirement for a percentage of a building’s energy to come from LZC systems. The Committee, therefore, particularly welcomes the provisions in clause 1 of the Bill, which will facilitate any future decision by the Department to introduce a requirement in building regulations for a percentage of energy used in new buildings to be derived from LZC systems.

15. The evidence on this clause included a call by NIEL for a definition of biomass to ensure that only sustainable energy forms are considered and a recommendation by SEA that target emission rates be reduced. In reply, DFP has explained that subordinate legislation and the supporting guidance would be the appropriate means for addressing both of these proposals. The Department also gave a commitment to consider the sustainability of fuel sources as part of future consultations.

16. In response to concerns from BCNI around definitions in Article 2 of the principal Order, the Department provided clarification on the application of the term “owner” and, on advice from the Office of Legislative Council (OLC), cautioned against amending the existing definition of “site” as this could inadvertently lead to tying the regulations to a tighter definition. The Committee was content with the explanations and undertakings which the Department provided in respect of this clause.

Clause 2 – Protected Buildings

17. In response to a call from BCNI and NIEL for the definition of “protected buildings” to be extended, DFP has explained that the term is linked to and harmonised with the definition used in Planning legislation and that attempts to list additional areas in the primary legislation could result in the scope of the powers being restricted. However, the Committee is content with the commitment which DFP has given to consider how buildings not covered by the definition of “protected buildings” in clause 2 might be addressed in guidance issued to district councils. The Committee looks forward to being apprised of the outcome of this exercise.

18. The Committee pursued with DFP a call from BCNI and ABE for the statutory duty on district councils in clause 2 to be strengthened. In response, DFP has offered to table an amendment at Consideration Stage to replace “have regard to” with “take account of”. Having liaised with OLC on the issue, the Department advises that it would not be possible to introduce a more stringent duty on a district council without also including sanctions, such as fines, for failure to carry out the duty. The Committee welcomes the Department’s acknowledgement of the calls for a strengthening of the statutory duty on district councils in respect of preserving the character of protected buildings and recommends to the Assembly that clause 2 be amended, as agreed with the Department, as follows:

In page 2, line 28, leave out “have regard to” and insert “take account of”.

Clause 3 – Building Regulations Advisory Committee

19. In its evidence, ABE proposed that NIBRAC should be enabled to raise, with the Department, issues of concern to the building industry regarding building regulations. In responding, DFP explained that the Construction Industry Forum for NI, which is managed by DFP’s Central Procurement Directorate, already provides an appropriate forum in this regard. The Committee was content with this explanation.

Clause 4 – Further provisions as to the making of building regulations, etc.

20. There has been a broad welcome from the stakeholders for the provisions in this clause, which replace the “deemed-to-satisfy” system with a guidance-based system. In response to calls for the new guidance to be freely available, DFP has stated its intention to make as much as possible freely available on its website. The Committee is content with this commitment.

21. As alluded to already, the Committee welcomes the provisions in the clause to extend the general principles of the existing primary legislation on building regulations to include protection of the environment and the promotion of sustainable development. NIEL had proposed a specific amendment to 4(c) where (b) would read “reduce the demand for, and further the conservation of, fuel and power”. The Department has explained that this addition is unnecessary as reducing demand is integral to furthering the conservation of fuel and power. The Committee agrees with the DFP response on this point.

22. In its evidence on this clause, SEA suggested that the Code for Sustainable Homes could be used as a template for any replacement of the deemed-to-satisfy system. The Committee notes the DFP advice that, given the applicability of building regulations beyond the domestic property sector, it would not always be appropriate to use the Code for Sustainable Homes as a template for the new guidance-based system. Nonetheless, in view of its formal application in GB, the Committee recommends that, where possible, the Code is used to inform the forthcoming guidance documents pertaining to domestic property.

Clause 5 – Guidance documents

23. Several witnesses, including BCNI and RICS(NI), queried the extent to which authorative documents from other sources might be included in the guidance. The Committee welcomes the subsequent assurances from the Department that the guidance will include reference to other authorative third party guidance documents.

24. In response to a proposed amendment from NIEL as to how DFP should publicise and consult on its guidance, the Department advised that this would be a matter for policy rather than statute.

Clause 6 – Type approval

25. There was a broad welcome from the stakeholders for the provisions in this clause, which will empower district councils to “type approve” non-site specific building matters (e.g. house-type superstructures), as this will allow for greater flexibility. It was also acknowledged that provision will exist for applicants to appeal the decision of a district council to the Department. However, several organisations, including BCNI, SEA and ABE, anticipate potential problems where one district council does not accept another council’s type approval or where there is inconsistency in how councils approve applications. Arising from these concerns, it was proposed to include a duty in this clause requiring all councils to sign up to an agreed type approval.

26. For its part, NIBRAC explained the plans that are in place for a Type Approval Committee representing the 26 Councils, which will be established on a non-statutory/voluntary basis. NIBRAC has suggested that failure of the voluntary scheme may require legislative intervention by DoE.

27. In response to Committee queries as to whether a statutory mechanism could be found for DFP to ensure consistency of approach by councils (e.g. a power for DFP to issue directions to councils regarding type approval), the Department has explained that this could affect its role in determining appeals on council decisions on type approval. However, the Department has suggested that an appropriate provision may exist in Article 6(g) of the Local Government (Employment of Group Building Control Staff) Order (NI) 1994, which states that group officers have responsibility “to ensure consistency of interpretation, application and enforcement of regulations”.

28. The Committee shares the concerns of stakeholders that difficulties could arise in the event of individual district councils not accepting the type approvals of building matters by other councils. DFP advised that it could not take on additional powers in this regard without affecting its role in determining appeals on council decisions on type approval, and the Committee accepts this position. Nonetheless, the Committee concludes that an appropriate form of legislative/legal intervention is likely to be required if the proposed voluntary arrangements fail to ensure consistency of approach by district councils in this area.

29. On a separate issue, NIEL proposed an amendment to Article 8(4) of the principal Order, to provide for type approval certificates dealing with “the energy performance of the building”. In response, DFP explained that this would be provided for already under the principal Order and would be a matter for subordinate legislation.

Clause 8 – Contravention notices

30. In their evidence on the clause, BCNI and ABE suggested the need for a definition of “completion of works”. In response, DFP pointed to OLC advice that it is often more restrictive to include a plethora of definitions in primary legislation. The Department also stated its intention to make it mandatory in subordinate legislation for the applicant to request a completion certificate, which will provide a date upon which the contravention notice process can operate. The Committee agreed the clause on the basis of this advice.

Clause 9 – Registers of information and documents to be kept by district councils

31. In response to concerns raised by several witnesses that the provisions in the clause could lead to the public being subject to unsolicited sales material, the Department has explained that councils could refuse to release certain information on applications under the Data Protection Act. Also, DFP has given an undertaking to consult widely in preparing the regulations to cover content and access issues. The Committee was therefore content with the clause.

Clause 10 – Civil liability

32. As explained above, the Committee agrees with the Department’s proposed amendment to remove clause 10 and thereby retain the provision in Article 20 of the principal Order regarding civil liability for breach of duty imposed by building regulations. The Committee is also content with the consequential amendments to clause 16 (Commencement) and to the Schedule of Repeals.

Clause 12 – Application of building regulations to the Crown

33. In its evidence RICS(NI) suggested that a definition of “Crown occupation” should be included to assist designers and district councils to decide whether the proposed building is exempt from building regulations. The Department referred the Committee to the definition of “Crown authority” in the principal Order and indicated that this would be used to determine the Crown status of, for example, a public company where this has not already been established by statute. The Committee agreed the clause in light of this clarification.

Related Issues

34. During the course of the Committee’s evidence gathering, a number of witnesses raised issues relating to the wider remit of building regulations, including areas where additional amendments might be made to the principal Order, but which did not engage the specific clauses of the Bill. The Committee pursued these issues with the Department and the outcome of this is summarised below.

Consideration of proposals for further amendments to the principal Order

Plans deposited with a District Council (Article 13)

35. In its evidence, BCNI proposed that consideration be given to amending the provisions in Article 13 of the principal Order to require Building Control approval of plans before commencement of work, as a means of ensuring that serious and costly mistakes are not made during the construction process. It was further suggested that, to prevent delays for developers, an application could be “deemed approved” if it is not processed within a fixed time period.

36. In responding, DFP cautioned that a change of this nature would require detailed consideration and consultation, particularly to assess Building Control’s capacity to resource the work involved and the potential for bottlenecks to occur in the approval process, which would not be welcomed by the construction industry. The Department also pointed out that the “deemed approved” approach may result in buildings being constructed that do not satisfy the requirements of the regulations. The Committee also noted that prior approval would not facilitate the “building notice” route open to house builders, which streamlines the approval process while allowing them to commence work at their own risk.

Appeals to the Department (Article 17)

37. Both BCNI and ABE called for the Department to publish the reasons why it reached appeal decisions and BCNI contended that there should be a time limit on such decisions. BCNI also proposed that, with the introduction of guidance-based documents, a system of determinations should be established, similar to that which exists in GB.

38. In response to the call for the publication of the basis for appeals decisions, the Department stated that it will shortly be placing the information on the DFP website. It also advised that, while there is no statutory period within which the Department must come to a decision, it generally reaches appeal decisions within two weeks of receiving all the relevant papers from both the appellant and the relevant District Council.

39. The Committee believes that there is a need for the Building Control appeals process to be transparent and prompt. Whilst accepting that this can be addressed without the need to amend Article 17 of the principal Order to introduce statutory duties on DFP, the Committee calls on the Department to establish formal protocols covering both the publication of the basis for appeal decisions and the turnaround time for such decisions. The Committee will wish to monitor the performance of the Department in this area.

40. On the proposal for a system of determinations, the Committee notes that in England and Wales, where an applicant disagrees with Building Control’s application of the regulations at any stage during its consideration of the plans, or where Building Control has rejected the plans, an applicant may seek a determination from the responsible Government department. A fee is payable for this service. In addition, where Building Control serves a contravention notice, the applicant’s only remedy is the court, and the Committee understands that this can be a slow and expensive process. This system of determinations contrasts to the approach in NI, where an applicant may appeal, free of charge, to the Department only when the plans have been rejected.

41. The Committee agrees that, in theory, the determination of appeals system in England and Wales seems attractive. However, members noted the advice from the LABC representative, who previously held responsibility for running the system, that it has not worked well in practice, as the lengthy decision making process has meant that it is inefficient and consequently the procedure is rarely used. As a result, alternative approaches to dispute resolution are currently under consideration in England and Wales.

42. In its response to the proposal, DFP argued that there is more merit in retaining the existing powers requiring Building Control to exercise its professional judgement in deciding whether or not to approve plans or notices, with the Department offering a free appeals service should the applicant disagree with Building Control’s decision. The Department has also pointed out that, in NI, where Building Control serves a contravention notice, the applicant may appeal to the Department, and resolution is relatively quick and at no cost.

43. The Committee considers that, on the basis of the advice received, a system of determinations, as pertains in England and Wales, should not be introduced in NI at this time. Instead, the Committee recommends that the present appeals mechanism is reviewed at a later date to assess its effectiveness in the context of the change from “deem-to-satisfy” to guidance-based documents, having bedded down.

Deposit of plans to be of no effect after certain interval (Article 19)

44. BCNI and ABE informed the Committee that presently, in the case of multi-house applications, so long as one house has commenced within three years, the plans cannot be declared null and void. This can result in individual houses continuing to be built to outdated regulations and standards. BCNI and ABE, therefore, proposed that Article 19 of the principal Order should be amended to provide for the power to declare approved plans null and void where individual buildings have not been commenced on multiple sites. In follow up to its oral evidence, ABE provided a specific form of words for the necessary amendment (Appendix 4), which the Committee forwarded to DFP for consideration.

45. In responding to this issue, the Department explained that, on the advice of OLC, it considers this proposed amendment to be unnecessary as the issue can be addressed through subordinate legislation. The Department is considering making amending regulations which will result in each house in multi-house applications being treated as a separate application for the purposes of Article 19. This would have the effect of requiring work to commence on all houses within three years or the approval for the uncommenced works would become null and void.

46. The Committee shares the concerns raised by some witnesses on the gap in the building regulations regarding commencement of work following approval of plans, which would allow individual houses within multi-house applications to be built to outdated standards. Whilst the Committee understands that this has occurred only rarely it, nonetheless, considers that the current slow down in the property market could increase the risk in this regard and, therefore, calls on DFP to bring forward the necessary subordinate legislation to close this loophole at the earliest opportunity.

Dangerous buildings and places

47. BCNI pointed out to the Committee that, whilst district councils currently have powers to control dangerous buildings and places, these are contained in legislation written in the middle nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and which is now out of date and often ineffective. The BCNI position was supported by ABE and it was proposed that the Bill should include the powers to make regulations to control dangerous buildings and places.

48. The Committee raised this proposal with DFP and also took the opportunity of the oral evidence session with LABC, to explore the position in England and Wales. The advice from the LABC representative was that, in England and Wales, dangerous buildings and places is covered by legislation which is separate to building regulations and that this seems to work effectively.

49. For its part, DFP provided details of the various statutes under which district councils control dangerous buildings, though it was noted that Departmental ownership for this legislation has yet to be determined (Appendix 4). The Department explained that, at this stage, it has not yet been agreed that the building regulations legislation is the most suitable legislative framework in which to prescribe matters relating to dangerous buildings. It added that widening the provisions to include dangerous places would make the link with building regulations more tenuous. The Committee notes that DFP has agreed to facilitate discussion with Building Control to examine how best to address the outdated legislation on dangerous buildings and places, including consideration of which Department would be best placed to take this forward. The Committee recommends that this review is given priority and looks forward to considering the findings.

Control of demolitions

50. BCNI also proposed that the Bill should provide for the making of regulations to control demolitions. In explaining its proposal, BCNI stated that, whilst demolition of buildings falls within the requirements of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (NI) 2007, it is one of the most dangerous aspects of building operations and the current control system is reactive rather than proactive. Also supporting this proposal, ABE expressed the view that Building Control officers have the skills to oversee this work, which in future may relate to recycling or sustainability.

51. In responding to this proposal, DFP provided information on the various pieces of legislation governing demolitions and on which departments and agencies hold responsibilities in this regard (Appendix 4). The Committee accepts the Department’s position that issues relating to enforcement of legislation governing demolitions are a matter for the relevant parent department or departments to address. The Committee would also echo the DFP advice that Building Control should raise any proposals for improvements to the control of demolitions directly with the Health and Safety Executive NI.

Backland development

52. BCNI pointed out to the Committee that “backland developments” exist where emergency and service vehicles have been unable to gain access to the development. In the view of BCNI, no statutory agency appears to have powers to ensure proper access is available and, therefore, consideration should be given to whether this could be addressed in the Bill.

53. DFP responded to this issue by explaining that, although building regulations cover requirements for ensuring the health, safety, welfare and convenience of buildings, the scope in terms of access arrangements is confined to matters where the point of access forms part of the site. In the view of the Department, the access issues raised by BCNI would appear to be outside the scope of building regulations and, therefore, a matter for Planning Service.

54. The Committee noted from the evidence provided by LABC that building regulations in England and Wales include a specific provision requiring access for the Fire Service in all developments. When the Committee raised this with the Department, it was referred to provisions in Part E (Fire Safety) of the Building Regulations (NI) 2000, which appear to make equivalent provision in respect of the Fire and Rescue Service in NI. The Department also provided details of the relevant Planning policy and guidance which covers access for emergency vehicles (Appendix 4). The Committee is content with the clarification provided by DFP, though it sees this issue as another example of the potential for overlap between building regulations and planning, which highlights the need for closer co-ordination between the two functions.

Harmonisation of Building Regulations

55. A further proposal from BCNI was that the Bill should place a duty on the Department to take account of the requirements of other jurisdictions and work with others on a harmonisation agenda, both in terms of technical content and on coordinating the introduction of new regulations.

56. DFP, in it response on this proposal, outlined the voluntary arrangements which exist for ensuring that NI takes account of requirements in other jurisdictions and provides an input into cross-cutting policy development. This includes DFP representation at GB Building Regulations Advisory Committee meetings and regular attendance by colleagues from GB at NIBRAC meetings. In addition, at least once per year, one of the regions hosts a meeting of UK jurisdictions and RoI representatives to share information on issues of potential mutual interest. The Department highlighted its close collaboration with England and Wales on the content of proposed amendments as a means of minimising the resources needed to develop technical detail.

57. The Committee believes that a statutory duty on DFP to work with other jurisdictions in harmonising the building regulations may be impracticable. However, given that developers are increasingly working on a cross-border basis, the Committee would encourage DFP to examine the scope for establishing more formal north-south and east-west arrangements for co-ordinating policy and legislation on building regulations where appropriate.

Application to existing buildings

58. Several witnesses pointed out to the Committee that, at some time in the future, it may be necessary to consider applying building regulations to existing buildings, particularly in terms of reducing their carbon footprint. Both BCNI and ABE raised the issue of whether the Bill should, therefore, provide for regulatory powers applicable to existing buildings. In responding to a subsequent query from the Committee as to whether a suitable enabling power could be included in the Bill, DFP advised that the potential human rights, financial and enforcement issues arising would require detailed consideration and public consultation and the proposal could not therefore be considered for inclusion in this Bill.

59. The Committee is mindful of the fact that the current building regulations apply to only a small percentage of the total building stock in NI and believes that continued focus should be placed on identifying and introducing additional measures aimed at reducing the carbon footprint of existing buildings. That said, the Committee acknowledges that there are some measures in place and some pending, which will help to improve the energy efficiency of at least a portion of the existing buildings. For example, the Department has explained that, where non-domestic buildings over 1000m2 are extended, have a new service fitted or the capacity of the existing service is increased, they must carry out consequential improvements, which are practicable and cost-effective, to the thermal fabric of the building.

60. As regards forthcoming measures, the Committee, in principle, welcomes the introduction of Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) later this year. However, arising from its scrutiny of the related subordinate legislation – the Energy Performance of Buildings (Certificates and Inspections) Regulations (NI) 2008 – the Committee has sought assurance from the Department that all necessary preparations are being made ahead of the introduction of EPCs, in particular that appropriate steps are being taken to raise public awareness of the changes and to ensure the availability of trained and accredited assessors.

61. There is also the potential for new and novel measures to be introduced. In this regard, the Committee looks forward to examining the outcome of the forthcoming consultation on ‘green rebates’, which should inform consideration of the potential of temporary rates reliefs /rebates as a tool for reducing household carbon emissions by encouraging the retro-fit of existing homes with energy saving materials. Such measures would have the added benefit of helping to address fuel poverty.

62. Finally, in terms of the existing Government estate, for which DFP has lead responsibility, the Committee intends to monitor progress towards achieving the target, which is contained in the existing Sustainable Development Strategy, for the estate to be carbon neutral by 2015.

Departmental responsibility for Building Regulations

63. The Committee has noted that an important theme to emerge from the evidence is the close relationship and the scope for overlap between policy and legislation covering building regulations and that which covers planning. This has been evident in the consideration of issues such as renewable energy, protected buildings and access for emergency services.

64. The Committee also noted from the evidence provided by the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government (RoI) that the experience in the Republic is that there are advantages of having building regulations and planning within one Department, in terms of ensuring policy co-ordination and avoiding overlap. Similarly, in its evidence, NIEL called for greater integration of the building regulations and planning functions at both the departmental level, where policy is developed, and at district council level, where the responsibility for delivery and enforcement lies, in the case of Building Control, or is due to be transferred, in the case of Planning.

65. The Committee has queried the background to the building regulations function falling under the DFP remit. The Department has advised that, whilst responsibility for building regulations in NI was originally held by the Ministry of Finance, primarily because of that Ministry’s responsibility for the Crown estate, in 1984 the responsibility for building regulations, the estate and sponsorship of the construction industry transferred to DoE. The present position was established in 1999, when there was a further transfer of these functions to DFP; however, the Committee notes that the reasons for this transfer have not been established.

66. Whilst recognising that the integration of building control and planning at district council level can be addressed as part of the transfer of functions under RPA, the Committee calls on the Minister of Finance and Personnel to review the basis for the building regulations function falling within DFP and, in conjunction with the Minister of the Environment, to consider the case for transferring this function (and possibly also the related responsibilities for the government estate and sponsorship of the construction industry) to DoE with the aim of ensuring closer policy co-ordination between the building regulations and planning functions.

67. In addition to the aforementioned issues, a number of proposals were raised relating to the policy and administrative aspects of building regulations or which were more relevant to subordinate legislation. These included a call from BCNI for a phased and published programme of proposed new regulations and recommendations from ABE in relation to district council databanks, the potential for district councils to promote Sustainable Communities, and the need to take account of future technologies when designing buildings. The details of these and other proposals from witnesses, together with the DFP responses on each issue, are included at appendices 3 and 4.

Reducing Carbon Emissions from New Buildings

68. Prior to and during the Committee Stage of the Bill, the Committee also received a sizeable body of evidence on a range of issues relating to the need to reduce carbon emissions from buildings. This included the debate over the use of on-site microgeneration systems for heating or providing electricity in homes and buildings, particularly in terms of whether this technology should be made mandatory. Evidence was also received, including from other jurisdictions, on current and forthcoming measures being taken in building regulations and in other policy areas to achieve a reduction in carbon emissions from new buildings.

Mandating Microgeneration/Low or Zero Carbon (LZC) Systems

69. The Committee was notified by the Minister in November 2007 (Appendix 4) of his decision not to proceed with subordinate legislation to amend the building regulations to introduce mandatory microgeneration in all new buildings from April 2008, as had been announced previously by the former Secretary of State, Peter Hain MP. Following the decision by the Minister, which was based on the advice of NIBRAC amongst others, the issue attracted attention in the media and the Committee received written and oral evidence from a range of stakeholders, including those in favour of the immediate mandating of renewables and those who consider that the circumstances and timing are not right for such a measure.

70. In opposing the introduction of mandatory microgeneration at this time, DFP has cited figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) showing many of the LZC technologies having payback periods far in excess of their lifespans and therefore not being cost-effective. It was pointed out that this would leave the Department open to legal challenge under the ‘Wednesbury Irrational’ principle, which prevents government from introducing financial requirements on the public which are not cost-effective. The Department also expressed doubt over the ability of the technologies to deliver intended performance and over the capacity of the local renewables industry to provide enough competent installers. Further, DFP highlighted that LZC technologies are not mandatory in building regulations in England, Wales or Scotland and that the 2006 Regulations, which will reduce carbon emissions by 40% in applicable buildings, are still bedding down in NI.

71. In explaining his decision not to mandate microgeneration, the DFP Minister has pointed out that compliance with the carbon emissions targets is now determined on a “whole building basis”, involving standardised software which measures emissions based on the thermal efficiencies of the building’s external fabric and the fixed energy consuming appliances. This approach, it is argued, offers more flexibility to achieve compliance with energy standards than prescriptive requirements. The DFP position was supported by the view of NIBRAC, which advised that reduced carbon emissions are better achieved through improvements to energy performance of building fabric, including higher insulation standards.

72. The Committee also noted that, in its evidence, LABC, whilst acknowledging that a case exists for promoting and encouraging microgeneration in the regulations, emphasised the risks associated with being prescriptive. Similarly, EST favoured setting a higher carbon standard at this time as this would leave it to the market to find the most cost-effective means for achieving the targets.

73. On the side of mandating renewables, SEA supplied figures to the Committee which, in SEA’s view, disprove both the arguments regarding lack of cost-effectiveness or payback from LZC systems and the doubts around the capacity of the industry. SEA cited the experience of leading NI companies in exporting technology worldwide, including heat pumps, solar and wood pellets systems, as evidence that the technologies are proven. It was argued that the 2006 regulations still leave NI well behind other European countries and that there is no evidence that these regulations are driving an increase in the use of renewables in new builds. SEA also pointed out to the Committee that one third of all councils in GB already mandate renewables in new houses under planning policy, known as the “Merton Rule”, and that a 10 – 20% carbon emissions reduction using on-site renewables is proposed for London. The lead being taken in RoI was also highlighted, where new building regulations will introduce a requirement for LZC systems to provide a specified contribution to the energy needs of any new dwelling submitted for approval after 1 July 2008. In addition, the Committee noted that a requirement exists in Scottish planning policy for on-site LZC equipment.[2]

74. The evidence from NIEL also supported the case for introducing a mandatory element to promote the use of renewables. NIEL explained that, whilst thermal efficiency is vital, promotion of renewable technologies is also vital to ‘carbon neutrality’ as there are energy uses, such as hot water and lighting, which always require input. It also pointed out that payback times for renewables are likely to decrease as fossil fuel and electricity prices continue to increase; a point which, the Committee notes, DFP itself has acknowledged.

75. NIEL advised that the experience of the ‘Merton Rule’ in England is that, due to the requirement of a percentage of on-site generation, developers found it in their interests to reduce the overall energy demand of their projects as they did not have to install as much capacity.

76. The evidence from NIEL also contended that it would be in NI’s interests if government policy encourages development of the indigenous renewables sector and that the decision not to mandate in NI limits the development of renewable technologies. In this regard, it cites the findings from a recent report by the Renewables Advisory Board (RAB), an independent body which advises the UK Government on a range of renewable energy issues.[3] This report, inter alia:

77. The report also forecasts a market for on-site renewables worth £2.3 billion a year from 2016 and NIEL sees this as further evidence that government support for the fledgling industry could support future economic development in NI.

78. In its evidence, EST stated that cost projections at the UK level indicate many microgeneration technologies will produce cost competitive energy by 2020, though biomass, ground source heat pumps and small commercial scale Combined Heat and Power (CHP) units are already cost effective. In its view, the rate at which cost-competitive technologies enter the market depends on: the capacity of the renewables industry; the early adopter market; and policy interventions to develop niche markets.

79. The Committee noted from the EST evidence that the current targets in England and Wales for reduced carbon emissions, including 2016 for zero carbon homes, will not only encourage but will require the installation of renewable technologies. In particular, microgeneration will become necessary in most apartments from 2010, when Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes will apply, and for all levels above Level 4, which will be introduced in England and Wales in 2013. The Committee notes that DFP has commenced work on amending the building regulations in NI to follow England and Wales, by introducing a further 25% reduction in carbon emissions by 2010, increasing to 44% by 2013 and which will equate to levels 3 and 4 of the Code respectively. However, the Committee is concerned that NI has not yet followed England and RoI in establishing 2016 as a target for carbon free homes.[4]

80. Whilst EST stressed that the immediate priority should be on energy efficiency, it also recognised that mandatory microgeneration could build the renewables market and support technological development, but emphasised that any move in this direction should be on a phased basis, with sufficient notice to enable the market to gear up for the change. The Committee noted that a number of witnesses highlighted the importance of preparing the market and giving advance notice to the construction industry of changes to the regulations.

81. The LABC representative advised that a joint taskforce, involving Government and the Home Builders Federation, has been set up in England and Wales to develop policy on how zero carbon homes will be achieved by 2016. Whilst the LABC representative considered that achieving the 2016 target may depend on the electricity-supply industry moving from fossil fuels and towards renewables, he explained that, by setting demanding targets in England and Wales, Government has encouraged closer dialogue between builders and energy supply companies.

82. Related to the issue of the planning and management of change, the Committee also noted from the evidence provided by the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government (RoI) that, after the Irish Government set firm timelines and targets for the use of renewables, the building industry in the Republic came to terms with the changes.

83. The evidence from the Republic also reiterated the fact that the move towards zero carbon emissions will require the use of renewables and, thus, the need to build the capacity of the renewables market. The representatives from the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government also referred the Committee to evidence from the European Energy Agency and the International Energy Agency which shows that if a product’s market doubles, its cost decreases by approximately 20%.

84. From the range of evidence provided, the Committee concludes that there is an important interrelationship between demand for LZC technologies, the capacity of the local renewables industry, and the further commercialisation and development of the technology. The Committee considers that market forces alone may not be able to sufficiently drive increased uptake of LZC systems and to support technological development. A firm and challenging timetable for the introduction of stricter regulations on carbon emissions from buildings will assist in this regard and, conversely, faster technological development will facilitate even higher standards. The Committee, therefore, recommends that the Department:

85. The Committee acknowledges the strong arguments for and against the introduction of mandatory microgeneration. However, the Committee considers that the nub of the issue is one of timing as the use of LZC systems will increasingly become a necessity to help meet the carbon emission requirements in newbuilds. On the basis of the evidence provided, it is clear to the Committee that energy efficiency measures alone will not be sufficient in the medium to long term if NI is to keep in step with GB and RoI in reducing the levels of carbon emissions from buildings. In addition, the current trend in rising fossil fuel prices is likely to result in decreasing payback periods for LZC technologies which, in the view of the Committee, will place the promotion of renewables in a new context. The Committee, therefore, calls on the Department:

A Role for Planning Policy

86. The evidence presented to the Committee highlights the potential role of planning policy in promoting renewable energy, including microgeneration. EST explained how permitted development status for microgeneration systems would enable consumers to avoid cost and delays with seeking planning permission. The Committee has been advised that Scotland, England and Wales are presently reviewing policy in this regard and has received information from the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government (RoI) on how the Republic has already introduced planning exemptions in respect of certain micro-renewable technologies (Appendix 4).

87. Also, in its evidence, NIEL highlighted the scope for requiring “macrogeneration” for new groups of housing or commercial developments, through combined heat and power stations fuelled by waste products or renewable sources. NIEL pointed out that both new and existing houses could be heated from such systems. The Committee also noted that, in his evidence, the representative of LABC, indicated a preference for installing larger scale renewable units to cover multiple housing developments. In view of these proposals the Committee raised with DFP whether there may be scope for introducing an element of mandatory ‘macrogeneration’ into building regulations ahead of any target date for zero carbon homes.

88. In its response to these issues, the Department has advised that, in NI, Planning Service has recently reviewed permitted development rights for small-scale renewable energy systems and that the outcome of this should encourage the use of LZC systems. DFP has also advised that, in GB, the planning framework is being used to take forward the concept of “macrogeneration” schemes, such as community heat networks and larger-scale wind generation for new housing developments. The Committee notes that such a proposal has been included in the recent consultation by Planning Service on “Planning Policy Statement 18 – Renewable Energy”.

89. The Committee welcomes the fact that Planning Service is considering both permitted development rights for small-scale renewable energy systems and the potential for planning policy to take forward the concept of “macrogeneration” schemes for new housing developments. In this regard, the Committee has shared the information which it has received on similar legislative changes in the Republic with the Assembly’s Committee for the Environment.

Promoting LZC Technologies through Funding

90. From the evidence provided to the Committee it is clear that the availability of grant schemes is a key ingredient to encouraging the uptake and development of LZC technologies and that this pump-priming of the market is necessary to further develop the capacity of the renewables industry. EST advised that the current rate of installation of microgeneration technologies in NI is closely correlated with grant funding and that mass market introduction of these technologies is best stimulated by capital grants until the technologies become cost effective. As the majority of the technologies will not be cost effective by the time the present grant schemes cease, EST considers that there will be a need to provide continued capital support. The Committee has also heard how the provision of appropriate levels of grant funding has enabled RoI to move to a mandatory system.

91. In this regard, the Committee notes that ‘Reconnect’, the renewable energy household grant scheme – for which the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment (DETI) has responsibility as part of its wider remit for energy policy – closed to applications on 31 March 2008. The Committee understands that DETI intends to evaluate the performance of the scheme against its objectives, which included the creation of a self-sustaining market and job opportunities, coupled with increased competitiveness and a reduced demand for grid electricity. Whilst the Committee is aware that other sources of grant for renewable technologies are available, in particular the UK Low Carbon Building Programme, it understands that Reconnect was a more attractive scheme in terms of the conditions which applied and the level of funding available.

92. Given the evidence on the importance of stimulating demand for renewables and supporting the early adopter market, the Committee understands the concerns raised recently, including by the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, at the ending of the ‘Reconnect’ grant scheme. The Committee considers that continued provision of an appropriate level of grant funding for household renewables is especially important in light of the decision by the Minister of Finance and Personnel not to proceed with introducing mandatory microgeneration into the building regulations. As such, the Committee calls on the Minister to work with his Executive colleagues to ensure that the necessary priority is given to funding the uptake and development of LZC technologies.

Building Regulations and Sustainable Development

93. The Committee is acutely aware of the implications of NI’s reliance on fossil fuels and the immediate and longer-term challenges which this presents for the Assembly and Executive, not only in terms of climate change and sustainable development but also in terms of fuel poverty. This was highlighted in recent comments by the NI Energy Regulator, Iain Osborne, when he stated that ‘We have got three-quarters of households using the most carbon-rich fuels. We are much more exposed to carbon costs than anywhere else in the UK or Ireland’.[5]

94. In its evidence, NIEL pointed out that energy use in buildings represents 81% of non-transport energy consumption, with oil being the primary fuel for heat generation in NI. The importance of diversifying the sources of energy as well as reducing energy consumption, was also emphasised by NIEL, especially given the issues around increased oil prices and security of supply. In this regard, the Committee notes that only 4% of NI electricity comes from renewable sources and less than 1% from indigenous renewables.

95. The Committee sought clarification from DFP on the targets and timetables which exist, including at an EU level, for reducing carbon emissions and for increasing the uses of renewable energy. An assessment was also sought regarding the part which building regulations will play in meeting these targets. In response, the Department provided the following information on targets:

96. The Department also provided figures from the Carbon Trust NI Energy Study 2002, which estimated that the level of carbon emissions from domestic fuel could be reduced by 30% by 2012, as a result of energy efficiency improvements to existing buildings, including switching to natural gas and changes in electricity generation capacity as well as by building to higher standards. In terms of the impact from building regulations, DFP has also explained that approximately 5% of properties annually (i.e. 2% newbuilds and 3% refurbishments) will have enhanced thermal properties and consequent reduced carbon emissions. The Committee recognises that there will be an additional impact from the forthcoming introduction of Energy Performance Certificates, as alluded to earlier in the discussion on existing buildings.

97. The Committee considers that using building regulations to promote and facilitate both energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy in buildings can play an important part in helping NI to achieve the targets which have been set at an EU, UK and regional level for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions and greenhouse gases and increases in renewable energy generation.

98. The Committee recognises that building regulations form only one element of a much wider programme of measures to reduce carbon emissions and promote sustainable development. The NI Sustainable Development Strategy (SDS) and the associated implementation plan, published in 2006 during suspension of the devolved institutions, reflected the cross-cutting nature of the measures being taken across departments to address the sustainability challenge. DFP, for its part, has a number of key responsibilities in this regard, not least the functions which it fulfils in respect of building regulations and the promotion of energy efficiency in public sector bodies. The Committee understands that OFMdFM is leading a review of the SDS, with the aim of producing a strategy that is better aligned with the priorities of the Executive, as expressed by the Programme for Government. The Committee looks forward to considering the contribution which DFP will make to these forthcoming plans by the Executive to strategically address sustainable development and, in particular, the role which will be identified for building regulations.

[1] http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/legislation/primary/2007/nia11_07.htm

[2] A report published in 2007 by a panel appointed by Scottish Ministers, entitled A Low Carbon Buildings Standards Strategy for Scotland, has recommended that the requirement for on-site LZC equipment should be reviewed and probably removed from Scottish Planning Policy 6 (Renewable Energy) as the very low carbon standards are introduced in 2013.

[3] The Role of Onsite Energy Generation in Delivering Zero Carbon Homes, Renewables Advisory Board, 2007.

[4] The Committee was advised by EST that Wales has set 2011 as its target for newbuilds being zero carbon (which it defines as Level 5 of the Code) and Scotland is also moving towards establishing 2016 as its target.

[5] Newsletter, 25 April 2008.

Appendix 1

Minutes of Proceedings
Wednesday, 7 November 2007
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mitchel McLaughlin MLA (Chairperson)
Mervyn Storey MLA (Deputy Chairperson)
Roy Beggs MLA
Dr Stephen Farry MLA
Simon Hamilton MLA
Fra McCann MLA
Adrian McQuillan MLA
Declan O’Loan MLA
Peter Weir MLA

In Attendance: Shane McAteer (Assembly Clerk)
Colin Jones (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Paula Sandford (Clerical Supervisor)
Mary Thompson (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Jennifer McCann MLA
Dawn Purvis MLA

The meeting commenced at 10.05 am in open session.

8. Evidence Session on Background to the Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill

Mr Beggs declared an interest as a member of the Building Control Group of Carrickfergus Borough Council.

The Committee received oral and written evidence from DFP officials: Philip Irwin, Head of Properties Division; Gerry McKibben, Building Regulations Branch and Bill White, Principal Technical Officer, Building Regulations Unit. The session was recorded by Hansard.

Mr O’Loan left the meeting at 12.12 pm.

Mr McQuillan left the meeting at 12.18 pm.

Dr Farry left the meeting at 12.20 pm.

Mr O’Loan joined the meeting at 12.27 pm.

Dr Farry joined the meeting at 12.39 pm.

Mr Hamilton left the meeting at 12.41 pm.

Wednesday, 5 March 2008
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mitchel McLaughlin MLA (Chairperson)
Mervyn Storey MLA (Deputy Chairperson)
Roy Beggs MLA
Dr Stephen Farry MLA
Simon Hamilton MLA
Jennifer McCann MLA
Declan O’Loan MLA
Dawn Purvis MLA
Peter Weir MLA

In Attendance: Shane McAteer (Assembly Clerk)
Vivien Ireland (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Colin Jones (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Paula Sandford (Clerical Supervisor)
Mary Thompson (Clerical Officer)

The meeting commenced at 10.06 am in open session.

7. Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill – Assembly Research Briefing

Mr Beggs declared an interest as a member of Carrickfergus Borough Council, Building Control Group Committee.

The Committee received a briefing from Jodie Carson, Assembly Research on the Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill.

Agreed: that the Committee Secretariat will provide a list of key stakeholders to approach for written and oral evidence sessions for consideration by the Committee at next week’s meeting.

The meeting continued in closed session at 12.05 pm.

Wednesday, 12 March 2008
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mervyn Storey MLA (Deputy Chairperson)
Roy Beggs MLA
Simon Hamilton MLA
Fra McCann MLA
Jennifer McCann MLA
Adrian McQuillan MLA
Declan O’Loan MLA
Peter Weir MLA

In Attendance: Shane McAteer (Assembly Clerk)
Vivien Ireland (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Colin Jones (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Paula Sandford (Clerical Supervisor)
Mary Thompson (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Mitchel McLaughlin MLA (Chairperson)
Dr Stephen Farry MLA
Dawn Purvis MLA

The meeting commenced at 10.03 am in open session.

5. Evidence Session on Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill

The Committee was briefed by the following DFP officials: Seamus McCrystal, Head of Building Standards Branch; Hilda Hagan, Properties Division and Gerry McKibbin, Building Regulations Branch. The session was recorded by Hansard.

Members noted information from DFP on its proposed amendment to the Bill.

Agreed: that DFP will provide a written response to any further issues raised by the Committee.

Members considered which organisations should initially be invited to give oral evidence as part of the Committee Stage of the Bill.

Agreed: that all respondents to DFP’s previous consultation on the provisions in the Bill will be contacted directly to inform them of the Committee’s call for evidence in relation to the Bill.

Agreed: that representatives from Building Control Northern Ireland and from the Northern Ireland Building Regulations Advisory Committee will be invited to give oral evidence.

Agreed: that the six professional bodies which responded to DFP’s consultation will be invited to give oral evidence and that the possibility of grouping these organisations to give evidence to the Committee will be explored.

Agreed: that representatives from building control bodies in other jurisdictions will be contacted regarding the possibility of giving oral evidence.

Agreed: that further oral evidence sessions may be scheduled after consideration of the written submissions received by the closing date of 16 April 2008.

Wednesday, 2 April 2008
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mitchel McLaughlin MLA (Chairperson)
Mervyn Storey MLA (Deputy Chairperson)
Roy Beggs MLA
Dr Stephen Farry MLA
Simon Hamilton MLA
Fra McCann MLA
Jennifer McCann MLA
Declan O’Loan MLA
Dawn Purvis MLA
Peter Weir MLA

In Attendance: Shane McAteer (Assembly Clerk)
Vivien Ireland (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Colin Jones (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Paula Sandford (Clerical Supervisor)
Mary Thompson (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Adrian McQuillan MLA

The meeting commenced at 10.06 am in open session.

4. Briefing from Climate Change Coalition Northern Ireland

Members were briefed by the following officials: Eithne McNulty, Regional Manager, Trocaire, NI; Dr Ian Humphreys, Operations Manager, Conservation Volunteers; Northern Ireland; Brian Scott, Chief Executive, Oxfam Ireland; and Declan Allison, Campaigner, Friends of the Earth. The session was recorded by Hansard.

Mr Weir left the meeting at 10.40 am.

Mr Storey left the meeting at 10.53 am.

Mr Weir returned to the meeting at 10.45 am.

Agreed: that the Climate Change Coalition Northern Ireland will provide a written submission in follow up to a number of the issues discussed with the Committee.

5. Briefing from Sustainable Energy Association on Mandatory Microgeneration

Members were briefed by the following representatives from the Sustainable Energy Association: John Hardy, Secretary; Patrick Flynn, Board Member; and Gabriel McArdle, Board Member. The session was recorded by Hansard.

Mr Hamilton joined the meeting at 11.22 am.

Mr Storey returned to the meeting at 11.30 am.

Dr Farry left the meeting at 11.32 am.

Agreed: that the Sustainable Energy Association will provide a written submission in follow up to a number of the issues discussed with the Committee.

Wednesday, 9 April 2008
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mervyn Storey MLA (Deputy Chairperson)
Roy Beggs MLA
Dr Stephen Farry MLA
Simon Hamilton MLA
Jennifer McCann MLA
Adrian McQuillan MLA
Declan O’Loan MLA
Dawn Purvis MLA
Peter Weir MLA

In Attendance: Shane McAteer (Assembly Clerk)
Vivien Ireland (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Colin Jones (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Paula Sandford (Clerical Supervisor)
Mary Thompson (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Mitchel McLaughlin MLA (Chairperson)
Fra McCann MLA

The meeting commenced at 10.03 am in open session.

3. Matters Arising

Members noted the outstanding requests for information from DFP.

Agreed: that a copy of the submission to the Committee by the Sustainable Energy Association will be forwarded to the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP).

Members noted that DFP had previously requested that the update on the review of small business rate relief be held in closed session, but has now advised that it should be open to the public.

4. Evidence Session on Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill – Building Control Northern Ireland

Mr Weir joined the meeting at 10.10 am.

Ms Purvis joined the meeting at 10.13 am.

Mr Beggs declared an interest as a representative of Carrickfergus Borough Council on the Northern Area Group Building Control Committee.

The Committee took evidence from the following officials: John Dumigan, Group Chief Building Control Officer, Southern Group Building Control; Donal Rogan, Building Control Manager, Belfast City Council; and Desmond Reid, Director of Building Control, Fermanagh District Council. The session was recorded by Hansard.

Agreed: that Building Control Northern Ireland’s submission and the final transcript of its oral evidence will be forwarded to DFP for comment.

9. Committee Work Programme

Members considered the latest draft of the Committee work programme for the period up to summer recess. It was noted that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors had requested a separate evidence session at next week’s meeting and, to ensure that the agenda is manageable, evidence sessions on the Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill would be restricted to thirty minutes. It was also noted that a briefing from the Northern Ireland Law Commission had been provisionally scheduled for 23 April.

Agreed: that the programme will be published on the Assembly website.

Wednesday, 16 April 2008
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mitchel McLaughlin MLA (Chairperson)
Mervyn Storey MLA (Deputy Chairperson)
Roy Beggs MLA
Dr Stephen Farry MLA
Simon Hamilton MLA
Fra McCann MLA
Adrian McQuillan MLA
Declan O’Loan MLA
Peter Weir MLA

In Attendance: Shane McAteer (Assembly Clerk)
Vivien Ireland (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Colin Jones (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Paula Sandford (Clerical Supervisor)
Mary Thompson (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Dawn Purvis MLA
Jennifer McCann MLA

The meeting commenced at 10.05 am in open session.

5. Evidence Session on Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill – Northern Ireland Building Regulations Advisory Committee

The Committee took evidence from Trevor Martin, Chairman of Northern Ireland Building Regulations Advisory Committee. The session was recorded by Hansard.

Mr Weir left the meeting at 10.57 am.

Mr O’Loan returned to the meeting at 10.57 am.

Mr Weir returned to the meeting at 11.04 am.

Mr Weir left the meeting at 11.14 am.

Mr Beggs left the meeting at 11.15 am.

Mr Beggs returned to the meeting at 11.21 am.

Mr McCann left the meeting at 11.22 am.

Mr McCann returned to the meeting at 11.25 am.

Mr Weir returned to the meeting at 11.26 am.

Agreed: that Northern Ireland Building Regulations Advisory Committee will provide a written submission in follow up to a number of the issues discussed with the Committee.

6. Evidence Session on Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill – Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists and Chartered Institute of Building in Ireland

The Committee took evidence from the following officials: Eddie Weir, Continued Professional Development Officer, Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists NI Region; David Traynor, National Councillor, Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists NI Region; Noel McKee, Chairman, Northern Centre of the Chartered Institute of Building in Ireland; and Alan Mairs, Northern Centre of the Chartered Institute of Building in Ireland. The session was recorded by Hansard.

Mr Weir left the meeting at 11.57 am.

7. Evidence Session on Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill – Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Northern Ireland

The Committee took evidence from the following officials: Liam Dornan, Head of Building Control Faculty, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Northern Ireland; and Ben Collins, Director, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Northern Ireland. The session was recorded by Hansard.

Agreed: that the submission from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors Northern Ireland will be forwarded to DFP for comment.

Mr McQuillan returned to the meeting at 11.50 am.

10. Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill - Timetable

The Committee considered the revised timetable for the Committee Stage of the Bill and a draft motion seeking Assembly agreement for an extension to 27 June 2008.

Agreed: Motion for extension to the Committee Stage of the Bill to be laid in the Business Office.

Members were advised that next week evidence will be taken from the Institute of Civil Engineers, the Association of Building Engineers and the Institution of Structural Engineers.

Members noted a response from the Energy Saving Trust on the Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill (NI) 2008.

Agreed: that the Energy Saving Trust will be invited to give oral evidence.

Members also considered inviting witnesses from other jurisdictions to explain their experience of implementing similar Building Regulations to those proposed in the Bill.

Agreed: that an evidence session will be arranged with representatives from the Republic of Ireland. It was also agreed that a written submission will be sought from a representative from the Local Authority Building Control for England and Wales.

Wednesday, 23 April 2008
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mitchel McLaughlin MLA (Chairperson)
Roy Beggs MLA
Dr Stephen Farry MLA
Simon Hamilton MLA
Jennifer McCann MLA
Adrian McQuillan MLA
Declan O’Loan MLA
Dawn Purvis MLA

In Attendance: Shane McAteer (Assembly Clerk)
Colin Jones (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Paula Sandford (Clerical Supervisor)
Mary Thompson (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Fra McCann MLA
Mervyn Storey MLA (Deputy Chairperson)
Peter Weir MLA

The meeting commenced at 10.05 am in open session.

8. Evidence Session on Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill – Association of Building Engineers and Institute of Structural Engineers

Mr Beggs declared an interest as a representative of Carrickfergus Borough Council on the Northern Area Group Building Control Committee.

The Committee took evidence from the following officials: Billy Gillespie, Council Member, Association of Building Engineers; Joseph Birt, Member, Association of Building Engineers and Joe McGlade, Institution of Structural Engineers, Northern Ireland Branch. The session was recorded by Hansard.

Mr Hamilton left the meeting at 12.29pm.

Agreed: that the Association of Building Engineers will provide the wording for its suggested amendments to the Bill.

Members noted submissions from the Sustainable Energy Association, from Northern Ireland Environment Link and DFP’s response to the submission from Building Control NI.

Agreed: that the submissions from the Sustainable Energy Association; Northern Ireland Environment Link; the Association of Building Engineers and the Energy Saving Trust will be forwarded to DFP for comment, along with the official report of today’s evidence.

Agreed: that the Northern Ireland Environment Link will be invited to give oral evidence.

9. Committee Work Programme

Members considered the latest draft of the Committee work programme for the period up to summer recess.

Agreed: that representatives from Local Authority Building Control in England will attend to give oral evidence on 30 April in respect of the Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill 2008.

Agreed: that Assembly Research will present a paper on the Reliability and Costs of Renewable Technology on 30 April.

Wednesday, 30 April 2008
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mitchel McLaughlin MLA (Chairperson)
Mervyn Storey MLA (Deputy Chairperson)
Roy Beggs MLA
Dr Stephen Farry MLA
Simon Hamilton MLA
Fra McCann MLA
Adrian McQuillan MLA
Declan O’Loan MLA
Dawn Purvis MLA
Peter Weir MLA

In Attendance: Shane McAteer (Assembly Clerk)
Colin Jones (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Paula Sandford (Clerical Supervisor)
Mary Thompson (Clerical Officer)
Meadhbh McCann (Assembly Research)

Apologies: Jennifer McCann MLA

The meeting commenced at 10.02 am in open session.

5. Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill – Evidence from Local Authority Building Control, England and Wales

Mr Beggs declared an interest as a representative of Carrickfergus Borough Council on the Northern Area Group Building Control Committee.

The Committee took evidence from Paul Everall, CBE, Chief Executive, Local Authority Building Control, England and Wales. The session was recorded by Hansard.

6. Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill – Evidence from Building Standards/Environment Assessment, Republic of Ireland

The Committee took evidence from Chris O’Grady, Head of Building Standards Section, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Republic of Ireland and Sarah Neary, Senior Building Standards Advisor, Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Republic of Ireland. The session was recorded by Hansard.

Agreed: that the witnesses will provide a written response to issues raised during the evidence session.

Agreed: that future projections on the number of inhabitants living in existing housing stock and new builds in Northern Ireland will be requested from DFP.

7. Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill – Evidence from Energy Saving Trust, Northern Ireland

The Committee took evidence from Noel Williams, Head of Energy Saving Trust, Northern Ireland. The session was recorded by Hansard.

Agreed: that Mr Williams will provide a written response to issues raised during the evidence session.

Agreed: that Assembly Research will be asked to provide a synopsis of the Republic of Ireland Government’s regulatory impact assessment of its decision on mandatory renewables and a brief update on similar developments in Scotland.

Members noted DFP’s response to the submission from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

Agreed: that the submissions from today’s witnesses and the official report of the evidence sessions will be forwarded to DFP for comment.

Agreed: that the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government’s submission on the Republic of Ireland’s planning exemptions for renewable technologies will be forwarded to the Committee for the Environment for information.

Wednesday, 7 May 2008
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mitchel McLaughlin MLA (Chairperson)
Roy Beggs MLA
Dr Stephen Farry MLA
Simon Hamilton MLA
Adrian McQuillan MLA
Declan O’Loan MLA
Dawn Purvis MLA
Peter Weir MLA

In Attendance: Shane McAteer (Assembly Clerk)
Vivien Ireland (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Colin Jones (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Paula Sandford (Clerical Supervisor)
Chris McCreery (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Mervyn Storey MLA (Deputy Chairperson)
Fra McCann MLA
Jennifer McCann MLA

The meeting commenced at 10.06 am in open session.

5. Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill – Evidence from Northern Ireland Environment Link

Ms Purvis joined the meeting at 10.25am.

The Committee took evidence from Sue Christie, Director, Northern Ireland Environment Link and Robert Colvin, Building Control, Craigavon Borough Council. The session was recorded by Hansard.

Members noted written responses from DFP to submissions which the Committee had received from previous witnesses on the Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill 2008.

Agreed: that the Official Report of today’s evidence from Northern Ireland Environment Link and proposed amendments received from the Association of Building Engineers will be forwarded to DFP for a written response.

8. Committee Work Programme

Members considered the latest draft of the Committee work programme for the period up to summer recess.

Agreed: that next week’s consideration of the evidence taken on the Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill 2008 will be held in closed session as is normal practice.

Agreed: that the latest draft of the programme will be published on the Assembly website.

Wednesday, 14 May 2008
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mitchel McLaughlin MLA (Chairperson)
Mervyn Storey MLA (Deputy Chairperson)
Roy Beggs MLA
Dr Stephen Farry MLA
Simon Hamilton MLA
Fra McCann MLA
Jennifer McCann MLA
Adrian McQuillan MLA
Declan O’Loan MLA
Peter Weir MLA

In Attendance: Shane McAteer (Assembly Clerk)
Vivien Ireland (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Colin Jones (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Paula Sandford (Clerical Supervisor)
Chris McCreery (Clerical Officer)

Apologies:

The meeting commenced at 10.04 am in open session.

The meeting continued in closed session at 11.59 am.

7. Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill - Committee Stage: Consideration of Evidence

Members considered a summary analysis of the evidence received to date.

Mr McCann left the meeting at 12.02 pm.

Mr McCann returned to the meeting at 12.20 pm.

The meeting continued in open session at 12.25 pm.

8. Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill - Committee Stage: Consideration of Issues, Evidence from DFP

The Committee took evidence from the following DFP officials: Seamus McCrystal, Head of Building Standards Branch, DFP; Hilda Hagan, Properties Division, DFP; and Gerry McKibbin, Building Regulations Branch, DFP. The session was recorded by Hansard.

Agreed: that DFP will provide a written response to a number of issues raised by the Committee.

Agreed: that the current timetable for the Bill will be revised to provide a further ‘consideration of issues’ session on 21 May and to start ‘clause-by-clause’ consideration on 28 May.

Mr O’Loan left the meeting at 12.57 pm.

Mr O’Loan returned to the meeting at 1.01 pm.

Wednesday, 21 May 2008
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mitchel McLaughlin MLA (Chairperson)
Roy Beggs MLA
Dr Stephen Farry MLA
Simon Hamilton MLA
Jennifer McCann MLA
Adrian McQuillan MLA
Peter Weir MLA

In Attendance: Shane McAteer (Assembly Clerk)
Vivien Ireland (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Colin Jones (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Paula Sandford (Clerical Supervisor)
Chris McCreery (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Mervyn Storey MLA (Deputy Chairperson)
Fra McCann MLA
Declan O’Loan MLA
Dawn Purvis MLA

The meeting commenced at 10.06 am in open session.

4. Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill – Committee Stage: Consideration of Issues and Evidence from DFP

Mr Hamilton joined the meeting at 10.16 am.

The Committee took evidence from the following DFP officials: Seamus McCrystal, Head of Building Standards Branch; Hilda Hagan, Properties Division; and Gerry McKibbin, Building Regulations Branch. The session was recorded by Hansard.

Mr Beggs declared an interest as a member of Carrickfergus Borough Council and as a representative of Carrickfergus Borough Council on the North Eastern Area Group Building Control Committee.

Wednesday, 28 May 2008
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mitchel McLaughlin MLA (Chairperson)
Mervyn Storey MLA (Deputy Chairperson)
Roy Beggs MLA
Dr Stephen Farry MLA
Simon Hamilton MLA
Fra McCann MLA
Jennifer McCann MLA
Adrian McQuillan MLA
Declan O’Loan MLA
Dawn Purvis MLA
Peter Weir MLA

In Attendance: Shane McAteer (Assembly Clerk)
Vivien Ireland (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Colin Jones (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Paula Sandford (Clerical Supervisor)
Chris McCreery (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: None.

The meeting commenced at 10.03 am in open session.

4. Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill – Committee Stage: clause-by-clause Scrutiny

Mr Beggs declared an interest as a member of Carrickfergus Borough Council and as a representative of Carrickfergus Borough Council on the North Eastern Area Group Building Control Committee.

The following DFP officials provided advice to the Committee during this session: Seamus McCrystal, Head of Building Standards Branch; Hilda Hagan, Properties Division; and Gerry McKibbin, Building Regulations Branch. The session was recorded by Hansard.

The Committee undertook its formal clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill as follows:

Ms Purvis joined the meeting at 10.15 am.

Clause 1 – Building regulations

The Committee noted that Dr Farry wished to reserve his position on whether the promotion of low or zero carbon systems can be taken forward more appropriately through subordinate legislation than on the face of the Bill.

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

Clause 2 – Protected buildings

Mr Weir joined the meeting at 10.19 am.

Question: That the Committee recommends to the Assembly that the clause be amended, as agreed with the Department, as follows: ‘have regard to’ should be replaced by ‘take account of’, put and agreed to.

Clause 3 – Building Regulations Advisory Committee

Clause 4 – Further provisions as to the making of building regulations, etc.

Clause 5 – Guidance documents

Clause 6 – Type approval

Clause 7 – Power to require or carry out tests

Clause 8 – Contravention notices

Clause 9 – Registers of information and documents to be kept by district councils

Question: That the Committee is content with clauses 3 to 9, put and agreed to.

Clause 10 – Civil liability

The DFP officials explained that the Minister intends to table an amendment which would remove clause 10.

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause, put and negatived. clause 10, disagreed to.

Clause 11 – False or misleading statements

Clause 12 – Application of building regulations to the Crown

Clause 13 – Interpretation

Clause 14 – Minor amendment

Clause 15 – Repeals

Question: That the Committee is content with clauses 11 to 15, put and agreed to.

Clause 16 – Commencement

The DFP officials advised the Committee of the need for consequential amendments arising from the Department’s proposal to remove clause 10.

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause subject to the Department’s proposed amendments, put and agreed to.

Clause 17 – Short title

Question: That the Committee is content with the clause, put and agreed to.

Schedule – Repeals

The DFP officials advised the Committee of the need for consequential amendments arising from the Department’s proposal to remove clause 10.

Question: That the Committee is content with the schedule, subject to the Department’s proposed amendments, put and agreed to.

Agreed: that DFP will provide a written response on any issues which arise during the preparation of the Committee’s draft report on the Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill.

The Chairperson brought forward from Agenda item 7 the consideration of The Energy Performance of Buildings (Certificates and Inspections) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2008.

The Committee was briefed by DFP officials on each of the drafting defects in the regulations, which had been identified by the Examiner of Statutory Rules. Members were also advised that these issues will be addressed by the Department by way of amending regulations, which will be in place to meet the commencement provisions of the regulations now before the Committee. The Department fully accepted the comments raised by the Examiner and assured the Committee that there will be no delay in the regulations coming into operation.

Agreed: that the Committee will defer its formal consideration of The Energy Performance of Buildings (Certificates and Inspections) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2008 until the amending regulations are before the Committee.

Wednesday, 11 June 2008
Room 152, Parliament Buildings

Present: Mitchel McLaughlin MLA (Chairperson)
Simon Hamilton MLA (Deputy Chairperson)
Roy Beggs MLA
Dr Stephen Farry MLA
Fra McCann MLA
Jennifer McCann MLA
Adrian McQuillan MLA
Declan O’Loan MLA

In Attendance: Shane McAteer (Assembly Clerk)
Vivien Ireland (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Colin Jones (Assistant Assembly Clerk)
Paula Sandford (Clerical Supervisor)
Chris McCreery (Clerical Officer)

Apologies: Dawn Purvis MLA
Mervyn Storey MLA
Peter Weir MLA

The meeting commenced at 10.03 am in open session.

The meeting continued in closed session at 11.55 am.

7. Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill – Committee Stage: Consideration of Draft Report

Mr Beggs declared an interest as a member of Carrickfergus Borough Council and as a representative of Carrickfergus Borough Council on the North Eastern Area Group Building Control Committee.

Members considered the Committee’s draft report on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis, as follows:

Paragraphs 1 – 13 were agreed.

Paragraphs 14 – 16 were agreed.

Paragraphs 17 – 18 were agreed.

Paragraph 19 was agreed.

Paragraphs 20 – 22 were agreed.

Paragraphs 23 – 24 were agreed.

Paragraphs 25 – 29 were agreed.

Paragraph 30 was agreed.

Paragraph 31 was agreed.

Paragraph 32 was agreed.

Paragraph 33 was agreed.

Paragraphs 34 – 53 were agreed.

Paragraph 54 was agreed subject to the last sentence being amended to read as follows:-

‘The Committee is content with the clarification provided by DFP, though it sees this issue as another example of the potential for overlap between Building Regulations and Planning, which highlights the need for closer co-ordination between the two functions’.

Paragraphs 55 – 59 were agreed.

Paragraph 60 was agreed subject to the first sentence being amended to read as follows:-

‘As regards forthcoming measures, the Committee, in principle, welcomes the introduction of Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) later this year’.

Paragraphs 61 – 68 were agreed.

Paragraph 69 was agreed subject to deleting “Debate on” in the subtitle before paragraph 69.

Paragraphs 70 – 83 were agreed.

Paragraph 84 was agreed subject to the second sentence being amended to read as follows:-

‘The Committee considers that market forces alone may not be able to sufficiently drive increased uptake of LZC systems and to support technological development’.

Paragraph 85 was agreed subject to the first bullet point being amended to read as follows:-

‘regularly assess the cost-effectiveness of LZC systems in light of the ongoing increases in fossil fuel prices’.

Paragraphs 86 – 91 were agreed.

Paragraph 92 was agreed subject to the first sentence being amended to read as follows:-

‘Given the evidence on the importance of stimulating demand for renewables and supporting the early adopter market, the Committee understands the concerns raised recently, including by the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, at the ending of the ‘Reconnect’ grant scheme’.

Paragraphs 93 – 98 were agreed.

Agreed: that the draft Executive Summary stands part of the report, subject to minor typographical amendments.

Agreed: that the appendices stand part of the Report.

Members noted that the conclusions and recommendations in bold within the main body of the report will be copied to the relevant section at the front of the report.

Agreed: that the relevant extract from the draft minutes of today’s proceedings will be checked by the Chairperson and included in the Committee’s Report as ‘unapproved’ minutes of proceedings.

Agreed: that the Report, as amended, be the Fourth Report of the Committee for Finance and Personnel to the Assembly for session 2007/08.

Agreed: that the Report be printed.

The meeting continued in open session at 12.34 pm.

Appendix 2

Minutes of Evidence

7 November 2007

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Mitchel McLaughlin (Chairperson)
Mr Mervyn Storey (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs
Dr Stephen Farry
Mr Simon Hamilton
Mr Fra McCann
Mr Adrian McQuillan
Mr Declan O’Loan
Mr Peter Weir

Witnesses:

Mr Philip Irwin
Mr Gerry McKibbin
Mr Bill White

Department of Finance and Personnel

1. The Chairperson (Mr McLaughlin): The Committee has agreed that the next agenda item, the Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill (Northern Ireland) 2007, will be held in closed session.

2. Mr Beggs: I declare an interest as Carrickfergus Borough Council’s representative on the local area building control committee.

3. The Chairperson: The Committee is joined by Philip Irwin, head of properties division, Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP), Gerry Mc Kibbin, building regulations branch, DFP and Bill White, principal technical officer, building regulations unit, DFP. Gentlemen, I welcome you to the meeting and invite you to share your thoughts with the Committee.

4. Mr Philip Irwin (Department of Finance and Personnel): We wish to brief the Committee on the Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill (Northern Ireland) 2007. The purpose of the proposed Bill is to amend the existing primary legislation governing building regulations — the Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order (1979). We will do that by refining the powers, duties and rights of the Department, the district councils who enforce building regulations and those applying for building control approval.

5. As a general principle, the existing Order aims to secure the health, safety, welfare and convenience of persons in or around buildings, and to further the conservation of fuel and power. The most significant amendment that we have included in the proposed Bill is to extend those general principles to include the protection of the environment and the promotion of sustainable development.

6. There are then a number of more specific amendments to the Bill. Before going into detail on each of those, I will give the Committee some background on the consultative process that has been undertaken to arrive at where we are now. That process has been extensive. It commenced in early 2004, following ministerial approval to conduct a review of the Order that was granted in June 2003. Since then, there have been two public consultations. An initial consultation in the first half of 2004 invited comments on the existing scope of the building regulations framework in the broadest sense. A second public consultation followed in the second half of 2005, which invited comments on firmer departmental proposals that were tabled at that time.

7. In addition to the public consultations the Department also ran a number of stakeholder workshops for representatives of the building control function in the district councils and representatives of the construction industry. In early 2005, and again in autumn 2006, we presented a series of public seminars on the proposed technical amendments. Throughout the consultation process we have been working with the Northern Ireland Building Regulations Advisory Committee (NIBRAC) and keeping it involved in the process.

8. In late August and early September, officials met NIBRAC, the district council building control officers and industry representatives to discuss the most recent refinements to the proposed amendments. The consultation process has been extensive. In the initial scope we asked if we should look at revising the entire framework for building regulations. The general feedback said no but that changes should be made within the existing framework.

9. I will hand over, first, to Gerry McKibbin and then to Bill White, who will take you through the specifics of the changes that we are proposing.

10. Mr Gerry McKibbin (Department of Finance and Personnel): Philip mentioned the principles of the building regulations, which are set out in article 5(5) of the Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order 1979. They set out requirements for consideration of the health, safety, welfare and convenience of people in and around buildings, and the conservation of fuel and power. The proposals that we have put forward to amend those — and to expand the scope of them to include the protection and enhancement of the environment and the promotion of sustainable development — are similar to those that have already been implemented in England and Wales, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland. The raised profile of environmental issues has meant that people, in those countries, were keen to see that those issues were reflected in the building regulations.

11. In addition to changing those principles, we have amended schedule 1 of the Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order 1979. That schedule lists those matters for which building regulations may be made. In that schedule we have now included such things as: security of buildings; sustainable use and management of water; and the use, reuse and recycling of materials. We have also amended some of the existing provisions to include consideration of low- or zero-carbon systems. The Bill also includes a definition of low- or zero-carbon systems that reflects the definitions in the Energy Act 2004, which lists a number of technologies that we perceive to be equivalent to low- or zero-carbon systems, and any other system for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It also lists the number of greenhouse gases that are currently recognised.

12. One of the changes to the proposals is a very small reference to how NIBRAC is put together. Under the current legislation, the Department seeks representatives of NIBRAC from professional bodies. We are changing the word “bodies” to the word “persons”. That may seem like a small change, but that will allow us to adhere to the Nolan principles that were set out for the appointment of public committees. It also meets the requirements that were set down in the guidance published by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments in Northern Ireland. The legal definition of the word “persons” will still allow us to approach professional bodies. However, we will approach the bodies to ask them to invite their members to self-nominate rather than merely to provide us with two or three names.

13. Article 20 of the Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 relates to civil liability. That article was never commenced. Initially, we had proposed in the amended Bill that that article would be revoked. The Executive will discuss that matter tomorrow, and papers have been circulated. The Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMDFM) came back with some questions about that and asked whether or not we should revoke that clause. It perceived that leaving the civil liability clause in would perhaps encourage people to construct in accordance with building regulations. We had proposed tabling an amendment during the Assembly Stages of the Bill that would remove the revocation. However, we want to have a full consultation process on the proposals rather than commencing that. The wording of the existing article is not appropriate to the way in which building regulations have developed since the introduction of the legislation in 1979. We want to ensure that the full consultative process takes place with the main stakeholders — in particular, with building control.

14. The Bill also introduces a new criminal offence of deliberately, or negligently, producing false information in support of an application to purposely, or recklessly, mislead building control. The background to that came as a result of representations made by Belfast building control, about a case with which it had dealt. An application had been submitted for a new building. During consideration of that application, building control received a second application for an existing building with regard to disabled access. The requirements of building regulations are less onerous for existing buildings than they would be for new buildings. Once it became clear that there was a deliberate attempt to build a new building to less onerous requirements, building control had to step in and take action. There was nothing in the existing legislation that would have made the proposals in the second application an offence. Following building control’s representation, we decided to examine the matter and, subsequently, introduced the new offence into the legislation.

15. Under Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, the Crown is not bound by the requirements of the building regulations. We will commence the binding of the Crown to the substantive requirements of the regulations — in other words, the technical aspects of the regulations to which every Crown building will have to adhere. There is also a change of definition for “Crown building”. At present a “Crown building” is defined as a building in which there is a Crown interest. That definition will be changed to mean a building that is occupied by the Crown.

16. That means that any building that has been built, regardless of whether the Crown is interested in occupying it at some stage, will still have to adhere to the full requirements of the regulations.

17. The legislation would impose two new duties on district councils. DFP will ask the councils to give consideration to the special characteristics of protected buildings when determining an application. Our definition of protected buildings is similar to that used by the Department of the Environment (DoE) in its planning legislation. In other words, that is a building that is listed by DoE — and the Environment and Heritage Service keeps lists of such buildings — or one that is inside a conservation area, as designated by DoE.

18. I will bring the Committee up to speed with developments on the Executive papers that have been issued. DoE asked whether the scope of the Bill could be expanded to include matters such as areas of townscape character, local vernacular buildings, and local landscape policies. DFP’s feeling is that we should not expand it at the moment. As a matter of course, building control currently considers applications for all aspects of listed buildings or buildings that are protected under other policies. Widening the scope of the primary legislation would have negative connotations. We feel that increasing the number of buildings that could be protected would introduce a get-out clause. Buildings could be altered or amended as a way of getting around the need to apply the requirements of regulations that would have to be applied in existing circumstances. Therefore, we propose that the definition of protected buildings remains as it is under the DoE’s strict guidelines and that as a matter of course, building control will apply the policies that are produced by the Planning Service and the Environment and Heritage Service to the buildings in those district council areas.

19. The second, and final, new duty that would be put on district councils would legislate for something that many councils do anyway. Under the new legislation, councils would be required to keep a register that records applications for building control approval. Through regulations, the Department would prescribe the information that should be held on that register. That would allow us to establish databases throughout the district council areas. For example, we could require that information on issue performance is kept, and we would have a source of information if we needed to produce reports for Europe, if that were necessary. Most district councils already do that as a matter of course, but we are trying to achieve a uniformity of approach across all district council areas in order that the regulations will allow us access to any information that is held. The legislation would set out the requirements for the method and medium with which the information can be held and for how long it can be held.

20. That is a brief look at the proposed changes to the procedural processes that are involved with building regulations. Bill White will now explain the technical changes that are to be introduced in the Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill (Northern Ireland) 2007.

21. Mr Bill White (Department of Finance and Personnel): There are around four main technical changes. First, article 5(1)(b) of the Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 requires the Department to give a deemed-to-satisfy solution for every regulation that it currently has. The regulations are written in a functional format. In other words, they set a performance standard that each part of the building should achieve. The deemed-to-satisfy provisions that the Department currently provides set the benchmark by which building control can judge whether those standards have been achieved. That process is becoming restrictive in the modern-day construction industry. It is becoming virtually impossible in some circumstances to give a deemed-to-satisfy solution that covers every eventuality, in every type of building in Northern Ireland.

22. The Department therefore proposes to follow the route that the rest of the British Isles has taken, which is to move towards a guidance-notes system. Technically, there is no difference between the deemed-to-satisfy solution and the guidance information that is provided. However, the subtle difference is that the guidance document will provide the train of thought that the designers should follow when they design a building, especially particular aspects of that building. As well as providing guidance on the process that they should follow, the document will give the designers examples of solutions for typical types of buildings, for instance, simple buildings. For example, Part R of the Department’s technical booklet, which provides deemed-to-satisfy guidance, refers to access and use of buildings. The foreword to that document, which is outside the deemed-to-satisfy text, shows how the various deemed-to-satisfy guidelines have been formalised.

23. We have found that people tend not to bother reading that foreword; they go straight to the body of the text, follow the deemed-to-satisfy system, and try to find, as quickly as possible, the solution for their building. It is becoming very difficult to provide one solution that fits all situations. Therefore, the guidance system would mean that the information that is in that foreword would be incorporated in the main body of the text, and the relevant paragraph would describe the rationale behind the Department’s suggested solutions.

24. At present, if the deemed-to-satisfy route is followed, building regulation approval is guaranteed. The hands of building control officers are also tied in that they cannot ask the builder to do anything over and above what is stated in the deemed-to-satisfy solution. However, under the guidance system, in specific circumstances building control can ask the builder to go that bit further in the design of their building to satisfy the various requirements. As I have said, the rest of the British Isles, and including the Republic of Ireland, follows the guidance system. The technical information that they use is exactly the same as that which we incorporate in our documents.

25. The next technical amendment is to article 8 of the 1979 Order, and it grants an additional power to district councils to type approve superstructures. At the moment, article 8 permits the Department to approve particular types of buildings, thus complying with the regulations. However, that article has never been commenced. The intention is that the article will be amended in order to change that and to give district councils the power to give type approval to prescribed matters. Generally speaking, those prescribed matters involve the superstructure of the building: everything from ground level upwards can be given type approval. That is in recognition of the fact that certain designers in the country design houses or buildings that they intend to build throughout Northern Ireland — it saves them having to reapply to each council area every time that they want to build there. The council in whose area the building is located will be required to consider matters that are specific to the site, that is: foundation, access, and drainage issues. That council will be responsible for checking those points.

26. The council that gives type approval to the superstructure will issue a certificate to that effect, giving details as to what is covered by the type approval. Under current legislation, one of the problems with article 8 of the 1979 Order is that one council cannot tell another what to do. The Bill will mean that that will not apply. Clause 6 of the Bill, which amends article 8 of the 1979 Order, has been drafted in such a way that means that that issue can be dealt with under RPA legislation, which will be debated by the Assembly in the future, rather than under building regulations.

27. Article 12 of the 1979 Order covers the types of test that district councils can require to be carried out to ensure conformity with building regulations. Again, that article has never been commenced. We intend to commence it, but we will also change the scope of it so that the tests for which a council can ask are prescribed in the building regulations. Those tests will be non-destructive. They will include: investigation to determine what sort of soil will be built on; airtightness tests, which are required under Part F of the Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000; and the testing of air conditioning systems, etcetera, which are a requirement of the European Energy Performance Directive.

28. Last, but not least on the technical side, is article 18 of the 1979 Order, which relates to the serving of contravention notices. If a council discovers that something has been built that is contrary to building regulations, it will issue the builder a contravention notice. Having received a contravention notice, that builder is legally bound to take action to correct the defects in their building. Article 18 states that the district council must issue that notice within 18 months after the work in question has been completed.

29. That in itself is pretty straightforward. However, in the past, district councils have had difficulty with ascertaining when the work in question was complete. Therefore, there have been disputes about whether that date was outside the 18-month period of issue of the contravention notice. The Department has endeavoured to deal with that problem through the amendment to the article, and thereby tie district councils to issuing contravention notices to the date of completion of all the work. There will be a mandatory requirement on the builder to notify the district council of the date of completion. That starts the clock ticking: after that date, the district council can issue a contravention notice if it needs to. Those are the technical issues with the Bill.

30. The Chairperson: It seems that that area is problematic. How does one define completion? Sometimes, outstanding work needs to be completed on properties that have been handed over or that have come into use.

31. Mr White: That is the issue. Even simple matters can create problems; for example, when someone wants to build their dream house, it may take three years for them to build the house because they want to do it themselves in their spare time. Therefore, the construction period can drag on for a long period.

32. In its regime of site visits, building control does not carry out a clerk of works-type service. It is not on-site every week to check the progress of work. It visits sites to check on the major implications of the building structure. Obviously, key to that is the final inspection, when all the work is finished, to sign off the building and to confirm that the building in question complies with building regulations. It is at that stage that building control, sometimes, picks up defects. It will say that something is wrong and that it must issue a contravention notice. The developer will say that it cannot do so because that part of the work was completed two years ago or 18 months ago. Therefore, there is a dispute about when the work was finished. The Department is trying to avoid such disputes by tightening up that regulation.

33. The Chairperson: Will the regulations deal with problems, which I am certain that all elected representatives have come across, with regard to group housing or development schemes that have associated works such as access roads, foot pavements or lighting?

34. Mr White: It will deal only with matters that are related to the building regulations. Those that are linked to access roads, etc, are outside the scope of the building regulations. However, issues that concern access to a property from the boundary of the site, such as disabled access, are matters for building regulations and, therefore, they would deal those issues.

35. The Chairperson: Therefore, the regulations do not actually deal with the difficulties that some people have when the developer simply moves on and they are left with unresolved issues for a considerable period thereafter?

36. Mr White: Not necessarily.

37. Mr Weir: I want to ask about a couple of issues, particularly about how they affect local government. I see that a couple of additional duties have been proposed, and I appreciate that you have indicated that district councils are already practicing some of those functions. Having said that, has there been any assessment of what additional burden those duties will put on councils? For example, what will be the additional burden on their resources? It may be negligible, but if an assessment has been carried out, has any consideration been given to the provision of some form of additional resources for local government on that basis? It seems unfair that the cost of additional duties will have to be borne by ratepayers for the reason that central Government have simply thrown those duties at councils and told them to get on with it and pay for it themselves.

38. Mr McKibbin: As one might imagine, the Department has a close working relationship with the building control officers in the district councils. They have been aware of the proposals for some time, and they have actively participated in their development. They seem confident that all the proposals can be met by the resources of each building-control section. As has already been mentioned, the Bill generally legislates for the functions that are already being performed by district councils with regard to registers and protected buildings. It does not propose anything new per se; rather, it legislates for functions that all 26 councils already carry out as a matter of course.

39. With regard to registers, the Bill homogenises the approach that is taken by all 26 district councils and ensures that they all keep and have access to the same information.

40. The legislation will identify that protected buildings will be required to have particular characteristics and will therefore need particular consideration by district councils. However, all the district councils already do that, and they have supported those proposals during the consultation process.

41. Mr Weir: I assume that granting powers to district councils to type approve superstructures will sort out the problems that sometimes arise with building control regulations, such as trying to work out where the exact dividing line is between building control and planning. I presume that granting type approval powers to district councils could avoid their having to stray into getting involved in planning.

42. Mr McKibbin: It could.

43. Mr Weir: I appreciate what you have said, given that new councils could potentially be up and running by 2011. When RPA is fully rolled out, there may be ways of sorting out any difficulties with type approval.

44. However, I am concerned that this type approval — if the legislation is passed — would take effect fairly quickly.

45. Mr McKibbin: Commencement of type approval is one issue that we will be considering. We have been discussing with building control whether we need to see what new structures RPA establishes and what additional powers and duties it will confer on building control.

46. Mr Weir: I am concerned that, for example, Fermanagh District Council could grant type approval for a particular proposal, and the builder who is involved in that project could then show up in North Down Borough Council area stating that they have been given type approval by another district council and that there is nothing that can be done about it. That situation may not arise, but it would take any level of discretion —

47. The Chairperson: That is a theoretical possibility.

48. Mr Weir: Yes, it is a theoretical possibility. However, it could happen in practical situations. It seems that a builder could get type approval in one district council area, and any opposition that they face from another council would become null and void, given that the latter council’s building control would have no powers to constrain that builder. I have some reservations about that.

49. Mr White: During our discussions with building control on that type of issue, it proposed to establish a panel. The legislation will require councils to have discussions with prescribed people before granting type approval. For instance, if someone submitted an application for type approval for across three council areas, it would make sense for whatever council receives that application to discuss it with the other two councils. Therefore, consensus could be achieved.

50. I accept that that process will be voluntary. However, building control is talking about establishing a type-approval panel of building-control officials who will consider all applications. That group could then give panel approval for those applications.

51. That panel’s opinion does not currently carry any legal clout; the panel simply makes a recommendation, and it is up to each district council whether they accept that recommendation.

52. Mr Weir: Could that be incorporated into the legislation?

53. Mr White: It could be incorporated into other legislation.

54. Mr Weir: I understand what you are saying regarding three councils getting together if an application is made that would affect the three areas. My concern is that a situation could arise in which an application is approved by one council and the builder goes subsequently into other council areas that have no input at all.

55. Mr White: That cannot happen. Any application for type approval will have to specify where one intends to build a particular structure. It would be onerous for someone to say that they are going to build a house anywhere in Northern Ireland, given that the structure of a house that is built on the north coast is totally different to the structure of one that is built elsewhere.

56. Mr Weir: From a practical point of view, for example, if I were a builder who had received approval to build a particular type of house that would be acceptable in north Down, Ards and Belfast, and I wanted to build houses in Lisburn, would I need to start the application process again?

57. Mr White: Yes. You would be issued with a certificate with the house type approval, which would say that that type of house had been approved for construction in the places that you had specified. It would also specify any particular issues that would be relevant to that structure.

58. Mr Beggs: I too seek further clarification on that issue. I am aware that in England, where building control operates outside local councils, there is downward pressure on costings and, probably, standards. People in the private sector seem to simply employ whoever will do the job most efficiently but not necessarily to the highest safety standards.

59. It is important that a mechanism exists to ensure that there is joined-up thinking as regards type approval of superstructures. You seemed to say that that would be done voluntarily. Has it not been built into the legislation that such approval must be agreed collectively through building control? For example, if someone makes a mistake, we would not want a precedent to be set and find that such an error becomes the norm, with builders continuing to build a structure that had mistakenly been issued with type approval. How will you ensure that errors are not replicated?

60. Mr White: The legislation will say that, if a mistake is found after the council has issued a certificate, that council can amend the certificate. The council will be able to say that it granted type approval for the type of building that was required, but that it subsequently discovered a mistake. It will then amend the certificate for type approval.

61. Mr Beggs: Why should joint co-operation between councils not be formalised?

62. Mr White: The Department has been advised that it cannot do that. The building regulations that will support the amending Bill will say that the council, when considering type approvals, must consult with certain listed bodies. However, we cannot force all councils to accept co-operation.

63. Mr McKibbin: Part of the difficulty lies with where statutory responsibilities fall. For local government, they fall under DoE, but for building regulations, they fall under DFP. Therefore, anything that would need to be put in place to establish the statutory requirement to accept another council’s decision would have to be done under DoE regulations.

64. We understand from consultation that building control is keen to have that power put in place, and it is keen to pursue DoE to ensure that the provisions that arise from RPA will give councils the statutory obligations to co-operate. Building control is also keen to establish the bodies that Bill White mentioned to ensure that consideration is given to type approval by a wide range of building control officers, particularly those who will be affected by the type approval in question.

65. Mr Beggs: In principle, the legislation is the correct way to proceed. It is a waste of resources to have several people checking the same issue many times. Ultimately, the customer will pay for that because the cost is passed on. However, there must be an appropriate means of ensuring proper scrutiny and joined-up thinking. That must include ensuring that a lower standard is not widely imposed.

66. Mr Storey: Following on from that, the numbers of people who inspect properties must be considered. You have set out the policy proposals that have and have not been developed. However, there seem to be more of the latter. If we examine the purpose of the amendments, has a great deal of work and consultation been done to achieve very little? Although the changes will be meaningful to the overall purpose of the legislation, are many proposals not being developed?

67. Would you like to see reference to the RPA, for example? Given that the RPA contains statutory regulations that are the responsibility of DoE, when will they be brought to the same level that the building regulations have attained? Do we now have a package that will add value to the overall control within building regulations?

68. Mr P Irwin: I think that we have. Many proposals relate to relatively minor issues, but major issues are also addressed, such as the introduction of the promotion of sustainable development and the ability to legislate in that area. The proposed change from a deemed-to-satisfy system to a guidance-based system is also a major issue and is one of the primary reasons for introducing the amending Bill. The Department discussed many other issues that were raised by different people, but we decided not to incorporate them into the Bill. However, the major issues are covered, and I see the areas that were not incorporated as minor issues.

69. Mr McKibbin: Some of those minor issues relate to the subordinate, not the primary, legislation, and those will be considered and consulted on when the Department carries out a full review of its subordinate package based on the changes that are being introduced. Any ideas will be drawn up as appropriate.

70. Mr F McCann: Similar to other members, I think that the proposals make sense. You spoke about the possibility of straying on to the road that is covered by clerks of works and others. Do the proposals allow building control officers to go into estates, for instance, that have been built recently to check that the work for which planning permission has been applied has been carried out? There are serious problems and difficulties with that, and you talked about the 18-month run-through period in which a district council may issue a contravention notice. There is also a problem with builders forfeiting retentions: they feel that the retention is so small that they can walk away from the job without returning to complete it, and some of the work that has been left has been atrocious.

71. Mr McKibbin: Under the Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 building control officers and district council officers are entitled to enter and inspect premises to satisfy themselves that the regulations have been adhered to and that there are no contraventions.

72. Mr White: The difference between the two pieces of legislations is that if a builder has contravened the building regulations and a contravention notice has been issued to him, they have a legal responsibility to correct those contraventions. Mr McCann mentioned retentions. If a client decides to keep back a 10% retention fee from a builder — with whom he has a contract — and states that the builder will not receive the money until the job is completed satisfactorily, the builder may decide that it will cost them more to go back and fix the few small things about which the client is pestering them and be content for the client to keep the 10% retention fee. That is not permitted under building regulations: the builder is legally required to complete the job, and, if they do not, the council will take them to court. A court judgement will be made on the contravention, and the builder will have to do something about it. Furthermore, the builder will be fined for not complying with the regulations.

73. Mr F McCann: Unfortunately, that does not always happen. In some cases, builders leave entire estates in shabby conditions.

74. Mr White: It depends on what the problems are. The building regulations exist for the health, safety and welfare of people, but they do not set a standard for the quality of work. You may disagree with how well a builder has finished a house, but they may have complied with building regulations in that the house is safe and does all the things that it is supposed to do. The building might not look the way that it should, but it might comply with the building regulations. Unfortunately that is one of those issues that cannot be resolved by legislation.

75. The Chairperson: You indicated in your presentation how you responded to some of the issues that arose in the various consultations. Were there issues that you did not agree to proceed on, or any underlying conflicts that we should be aware of at this stage?

76. Mr McKibbin: Building control raised a couple of issues at the most recent consultation back in August, to which we have given some consideration. Up until about three months ago there were clauses in the draft Bill containing provisions in relation to dangerous buildings. District councils currently operate under legislation that goes back to the 1850s in some cases, and building control approached the Department to see whether the Bill could be a home for legislation that would bring all that together. We drafted up various provisions to allow that to happen. However, building control came to the conclusion that you should be careful what you wish for. It considered the matter further and decided that there was more to be discussed and debated.

77. We agreed to take the provisions out of the legislation and to carry on the debate with building control on how best to bring that forward. The provisions that were put in did not sit naturally within building regulations anyway — they would have been separate to the actual regulations — and we have agreed to discuss that further.

78. Building control also raised an issue about demolitions and requested that provisions be put in place that would require any demolitions to be notified to it in advance. Its concern arose from the fact that there are currently various pieces of legislation relating to demolitions, but the enforcement, it felt, was inadequate and wanted some way to beef that up by making notification a requirement.

79. While the Department recognises that that is the case, there is a difficulty in preparing regulations or provisions within primary legislation, even to address issues that are seen as a shortfall of another Department’s legislation. We suggested that RPA might address the issue if some of the Health and Safety Executive’s duties and responsibilities were to go to district councils. The Department thought that it would be better to wait and see what happens with regard to RPA, and then building control could discuss with the parent Departments of the legislation how best to take that forward.

80. Building control brought up the issue of determinations. To give you a little background on that, in England and Wales a system of determinations and appeals operates. Those are two separate entities, but in Northern Ireland there is only a system of appeals. A determination in England and Wales happens when a district council or local authority and an applicant are at loggerheads over how a particular provision of the regulations should be applied. The applicant can approach the Department for Communities and Local Government for a determination on that. If a district council rejects an application, the applicant can approach the Department for a determination on the decision to reject. The Department charges a fee to the applicant for performing that function.

81. In Northern Ireland the Department provides an appeals mechanism for rejection of plans or application, and that provision is provided free of charge to the applicant. There is much more scope in allowing building control, as an organisation of professionals who have been doing the job for a long time and have the experience and expertise built up, to exercise its professional judgement on whether to go ahead with each application, rather than use the Department as a batting board to take the decision on. We already have a lot of consultations with building control on the technical aspects, background and intent of the regulations.

82. The Chairperson: Who conducts the appeal?

83. Mr McKibbin: Professionals from the building regulations unit in the Department conduct the appeal. There has been a suggestion that there should be a statutory time limit put on the Department within which it must conduct the appeal. At the moment there is none. Part of the difficulty is that the Department can only proceed when it is in receipt of all information relating to the application. As a matter of course when we receive an appeal for an application it is given top priority, and everything else is dropped until that appeal is heard.

84. The average time for conducting an appeal is two or three weeks at the most; however, there are some cases where information may not be forthcoming from the district council or from an applicant, which can extend that period. There could also be a particularly difficult technical matter brought in front of us that may best be resolved by setting up a tribunal between the two parties and the Department as the adjudicating body. That again could extend the time limit. We thought that, rather than putting provisions into the legislation to specify a time limit, the appeals should take top priority as a policy issue in-house.

85. The Chairperson: If you had to resort to a tribunal, would that be free to the applicant?

86. Mr McKibbin: Yes, it is in relation to an applicant.

87. A lot of the other policy proposals in the paper that were not taken forward were suggestions that were put forward by us or by building control. However, in discussion with the Office of the Legislative Counsel on the drafting, it was found that either the powers already existed in legislation but had not been applied in that way, or that the provisions were better suited to subordinate rather than primary legislation, and that is where they will be addressed. Those are the main issues that did not go forward. However, the most substantive issues appear in the Bill.

88. The Chairperson: The issues brought forward today have all helped to streamline and improve the draft Bill. Will it go out to consultation?

89. Mr McKibbin: At the time when the draft Bill would have gone out to consultation, we were approached to see whether we could streamline the process. Given the extent and the amount of consultation beforehand, we were asked to consider forgoing the consultation on the draft Bill and to put it through the Assembly process a lot quicker. We agreed to that, and the Executive also agreed that it should go before the Assembly without any further consultation. The major stakeholders are aware of the content of the draft Bill and have been kept up to speed during the process of developing and determining the policy. They have had a very active input into policy development.

90. The Chairperson: When will the Bill be tabled?

91. Mr McKibbin: The First Stage will be on 3 December 2007 and the Second Stage on 11 December 2007.

92. The Chairperson: That seems to be it. No doubt when the Assembly gets its teeth into the Bill there may be a need to follow up on some issues, and the Committee will continue to do that. Thank you all very much.

12 March 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Mervyn Storey (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs
Mr Simon Hamilton
Mr Fra McCann
Ms Jennifer McCann
Mr Adrian McQuillan
Mr Declan O’Loan
Mr Peter Weir

Witnesses:

Mrs Hilda Hagan
Mr Seamus McCrystal
Mr Gerry McKibbin

Department of Finance and Personnel

93. The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Storey): I welcome Seamus McCrystal, head of building standards branch, Hilda Hagan of properties division, and Gerry McKibbin of building regulations branch to the Committee.

94. Mr Seamus McCrystal (Department of Finance and Personnel): I will keep the presentation brief because the purpose of the session is for members to ask us questions and clarify matters. The Bill proposes amendments to the Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, which has been amended once, in 1991. The 1979 Order is the primary legislation relating to building regulations in Northern Ireland, and the Bill aims to update the Order to take account of changes to industry practice and changes to the legislation in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland.

95. The purpose of the Bill is to build on the existing legislative framework by refining the powers, duties and rights of the Department, the district councils that enforce the regulations, and applicants. The existing general principles of the Order are to secure the health, safety, welfare and convenience of persons in and around buildings and to further the conservation of fuel and power.

96. The Department has proposed several amendments to the Bill, the two most significant of which aim to extend those general principles to include the protection and enhancement of the environment and the promotion of sustainable development, matching similar amendments to building regulations in England, Wales, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland, and to facilitate a move from a deemed-to-satisfy-based system to a guidance-based system.

97. The Deputy Chairperson: Thank you, Seamus. What targets and timetables are there, including those on an EU level, to reduce carbon emissions and increase the use of renewable energy sources? How will the building regulations contribute to meeting those targets?

98. Mr McCrystal: At the moment, building regulations make a significant contribution, but they apply mainly to new buildings only or to buildings that are being substantially refurbished. The Department made an amendment in August 2006 — which came into effect in November 2006 — to that part of the building regulations relating to the conservation of fuel and power. The amendment aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from buildings by up to 40% compared with previous levels.

99. The Minister has asked building standards branch to make a further amendment to the building regulations to produce another 25% reduction in emissions by 2010, and a subsequent reduction in 2013, in order to achieve an overall reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 44%.

100. The last amendment to the building regulations took into consideration a number of the requirements of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive, which required the use of national calculation methodologies. Previously, compliance with building regulations relating to conservation of fuel and power involved assessing each element on its own thermal value. However, the methodologies combined those elements using nationally available software packages to produce a target emissions rate per building. An applicant must then demonstrate to building control that the actual building design either meets, or betters, those target emissions.

101. Mr Hamilton: When the concept of type approval first arose in briefings, it seemed like a good idea that should have been operating a long time ago. The Department’s paper indicates that the principal Order allowed for type approval some time ago but that it was never commenced. Will you clarify for my benefit and the benefit of the Committee the range of properties you envisage will be covered by type approval? At the higher end of the scale, what types and scales of buildings will be allowed? Why was that part of the Order never commenced?

102. Do you envisage all type-approval decisions becoming the responsibility of district councils, or will any element be retained by the Department?

103. Mrs Hilda Hagan (Department of Finance and Personnel): We expect type-approval decisions to be confined largely to buildings in the private-dwelling sector, although, if, for example, someone wanted to build a particular design of storage warehouses in Belfast and Coleraine, type approval could extend to such industrial buildings. It could even apply to companies such as McDonalds.

104. Mr Hamilton: Could it apply to fast-food restaurants?

105. Mrs Hagan: Yes; type approval will facilitate a broad range of building types.

106. I do not know why that element of the Order was not commenced, except to say that no one approached, or lobbied, the Department in an effort to commence it until 2004-05, when the scope of the primary legislation was being considered and we decided to review the 1979 Order as amended. Having said that, although type approval has, to some extent, been operating informally, the matter has never been formally raised. However, the fact that the same types of social housing have been built in different district council areas is evidence that building control and the Department for Social Development have informally been type-approving. Therefore, although the commencement of type approval has not been formally requested, or used, it has been operating informally to some extent. I do not remember your third question.

107. Mr Hamilton: Will any type-approval powers be retained by the Department, or will such decisions lie totally with district councils?

108. Mrs Hagan: Type-approval powers relate only to non-site-specific matters. For example, if someone wishes to build a particular type of dwelling in three district council areas, the primary legislation requires the district council that receives the application to consult with the other two councils. Councils will set up administrative mechanisms to allow other councils to have a say in specific type-approval decisions. However, they will only be able to deal with non-site-specific matters; for example, overall type approval.

109. When it comes to building a house in one of the approved district-council areas, site-specific matters — such as ground conditions, drainage, soil, or the proximity of a building to other structures that might constitute a fire hazard — will be the responsibility of the local district council. Superstructure elements — the above-ground bits — and the house’s design are non-site-specific elements that can be type approved by any district council.

110. Mr Hamilton: In practice, what financial impact will the Bill have on district councils? Type approval and other elements of the Bill have the potential to cause additional work for district councils. Will resources follow that work? Building control can be quite — for the want of a better word — profitable, and although district councils are not in the business of making profits, they can cover costs incurred. Therefore, in order to maintain the situation, are there any assurances that district councils will not be unduly burdened and that central-Government resources will follow the work.

111. Mr McCrystal: The Building (Prescribed Fees) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1997 are due to be amended, and we have discussed the matter with building control. If type approval were to be introduced as a result of this Bill, it would be part of the overall fees regulations review, which would ensure that building control would be funded to carry out its work.

112. Mr Hamilton: That is good.

113. Mr McCrystal: Mrs Hagan said that, in the past, type approvals have been used successfully in social housing. The best example of that was the Housing Executive’s remit to build general family housing. It had a range of standard house types that were approved and accepted by building control throughout Northern Ireland.

114. The Deputy Chairperson: If type-approval powers were to be given to each council, would there be a danger of different approaches being taken?

115. Mr McCrystal: That is a concern associated with function-based regulations, which require reasonable measures to be taken. District councils might interpret regulations differently.

116. The converse of that would be true in this case. If a type-approval system were introduced, and if building control had an administrative mechanism in place to deal with it, the approach would be more uniform and consistent, which would not just affect type approvals; it would have a knock-on effect for one-off applications. We discussed the matter with building control, which will consider the administrative provisions to be put in place.

117. Mr Weir: Mr Hamilton covered some of the ground that I intended to cover. Financial implications for councils was mentioned. Leaving that aside for the moment; as the detailed work will be carried out by building regulation officers at district-council level, what other implications would district councils face?

118. Mrs Hagan: Basically, a type-approval system would streamline the approach taken to approvals because councils could organise themselves to approve an application that falls across several council borders. It will bring consistency and uniformity to councils’ approach.

119. The cost would have to be worked out through the fees regulations, and a balance will have to be struck between how the councils charge under the new system and the impact on the applicant or applicants. Details of that division will have to be worked out through the review of the fees regulations. The key positive impact will be the streamlining of the application process so that an individual applicant will not have to apply separately to three different district councils and pay three separate fees for building exactly the same type of house in three district council boundaries.

120. Mr Weir: Clause 3 deals with the building regulations advisory committee. Has any consideration been given to how its members will be appointed? Will the Minister make nominations? Will there be open competition, or will bodies be asked to make nominations? What is the thinking on that issue?

121. Mr Gerry McKibbin (Department of Finance and Personnel): The existing committee was set up in accordance with the Nolan principles. We approached the professional organisations and asked them to inform their members that self-nominations to the committee were being sought. The idea behind the committee is to ensure that there is representation from a good cross-section of the industry and that there is expertise from, and knowledge of, particular parts of that industry, rather than representation from a particular body.

122. There have been moves in one of the other Departments to introduce statutory requirements as regards the Nolan principles, so we have pre-empted that to some extent. We do not envisage the need for appointments by Ministers. Given that the Nolan principles allow for self-nomination, we believe that that is the best way forward, whether it involves approaching professional bodies or placing a public notice in the paper or whatever.

123. Mr Weir: That is a reasonable position. However, would you expect — or allow for — one or two nominations for places on the advisory committee to come from building control officers?

124. Mr McKibbin: Four building control officers sit on the committee at present. Two elected council representatives served on the previous committee, and a good cross-section of council opinion is represented on the Committee.

125. Mr Weir: I appreciate the remarks about the Nolan principles, but would there be merit in securing those places? I presume that thoughts are not finalised on the composition of the new advisory committee; so, would it make sense to ring-fence those places to at least ensure such representation continues? From the technical perspective, if the work is to be carried out at council level, it is vital to have council representation at both officer and elected member level on the committee. I appreciate that there is such representation at present, but it is not guaranteed. The committee would be in a position to say that although some proposals may be great from the professional perspective, they would not work at the practical, council level. That aspect needs to be considered.

126. Mr McKibbin: We have always had district council representation on the Northern Ireland Building Regulations Advisory Council (NIBRAC), whether at elected representative level or building control level.

127. We normally look at NIBRAC’s planned work programme for a three-year period, or the subsequent three-year period, and consider what appropriate experience and expertise we need to bring to the committee to cover that work. It is inevitable that building control will always be represented because district council’s voice is vital to formulation of the policy on building regulations.

128. Mr McCrystal: Much of the work in developing proposals for the regulations is carried out at subcommittee level. When we feel that there is a need for additional expertise at that level, we co-opt members. We have co-opted a couple of individuals, including building control officers, and we have found their contribution to be invaluable to our discussions.

129. Mr Weir: The same applies to those who are involved directly in the profession. It is vital that an advisory committee covers all the angles. There is no point in having something that will work out brilliantly at district council level, if it does not meet professional standards.

130. Mr McCrystal: In addition to that committee, we meet on a quarterly basis with a representative body from building control and discuss the issues that it is experiencing at ground level. Some of the issues that have been included in the Bill have come out of those meetings. We find the feedback from district councils invaluable.

131. The Deputy Chairperson: How are people appointed to the committee?

132. Mr McCrystal: We propose to catch up on what we did last time around, when there were vacancies on the committee. A number of years ago, we would have asked representative bodies, such as the professions and the district councils, to nominate individuals to sit on the committee. However, in order to follow the Commissioner for Public Appointments code of practice, we have asked those bodies to advise their members that we were seeking nominations from individuals. They encouraged individuals to apply, and they did apply. An appointments process was drawn up, overseen by an independent observer appointed by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. He scrutinised every stage, sat in on the interviews, and reported to the Commissioner afterwards.

133. Mr McQuillan: If the Committee is content to move on, may I ask about clause 4 of the Bill?

134. The Deputy Chairperson: That is OK. If members want to ask questions about individual clauses, we can return later to those that have not yet been mentioned.

135. Mr McQuillan: I want to know the difference between the terms “deemed-to-satisfy” and “guidance-based”. What benefits will flow from the change from one to the other?

136. Mr McCrystal: Technically, there is no difference between the provisions. The deemed-to-satisfy provisions provide a benchmark which, if followed, will satisfy the requirements of a regulation, through the adoption of the solution that is in the technical booklet.

137. With functional-based regulations and solutions; when the regulations ask for reasonable provision to be made, and a solution is provided, and if an applicant then decides that they do not want to follow that solution, or cannot, because of individual circumstances, a gap arises in understanding the background to the regulation.

138. With a guidance-based system, we will be able to set out the objectives and design considerations of the requirement and provide a solution. It will be a more holistic approach. It is not as though, by moving from one system to the other, we will not be providing adequate solutions. The deemed-to-satisfy measures state that the solution “will meet the requirements” whereas the guidance measures will state that the solution “should meet the requirements”. It will be for the building control officer to determine, in particular circumstances, whether something additional is required.

139. Mr McQuillan: Is there not a risk that the change will lead to greater disparities in the system?

140. Mr McCrystal: I do not think so: the regulations and the solutions will still exist. We will be providing the design considerations. It is really meant for the situation in which someone does not want to follow the “prescriptive” solution, and I hesitate to use that word because one does not have to follow any of the solutions.

141. If people decide not to follow the given solution, they must demonstrate to a building control officer how they will meet the requirements. If they can demonstrate that they followed the objectives of the requirement and took on board the design considerations, an alternative approach will be considered.

142. Mr McQuillan: It seems to be going in the same direction as the Planning Service, in that individual officers are going to be left to make up their own minds. It will be unregulated, and it will mean different things to different people.

143. Mr McCrystal: I do not think that that will be the case. However, the Committee will be taking evidence on that point. Building control officers, by and large, support the changes in the legislation. The deemed-to-satisfy provision is potentially restrictive in the modern-day construction industry, and in some instances makes it difficult for us to provide a solution in every circumstance — we simply cannot do that. In such situations, if we can supply the design considerations, the designer will know what direction to follow in order to meet the requirement.

144. The Deputy Chairperson: Given that other jurisdictions have gone through the process and will have made the changes, has there been any information from them, or has the Department consulted them, on that? There is a concern that individual officers might interpret the regulations differently under the new system.

145. Mr McCrystal: With a functional-based requirement, there will always be room for interpretation regardless of whether we provide guidance-based or deemed-to-satisfy solutions.

146. With regard to other jurisdictions, the system has been in place in England and Wales since the mid-1980s. It was introduced in Scotland last year, and it has existed in the Republic of Ireland for several years. In a sense, we are playing catch-up.

147. In England and Wales, there is a review of building regulations, which was brought about as a result of criticism of an amendment that was made several years ago. It was decided to ask stakeholders for their views on the guidance. Some respondents stated that the guidance had become overly complicated. The Royal Institute of British Architects made the point that it welcomed the guidance when it was first introduced, and that although it stills sees benefit in the guidance-based system, successive amendments to the documents have made it somewhat complex. The review is trying to stop the drift and return the guidance to what the designers and building control require it to be.

148. The Deputy Chairperson: Mr Beggs; is your question about this clause?

149. Mr Beggs: No.

150. The Deputy Chairperson: Before we move away from clause 4, there is the use of the term “promote sustainable development”. Is “sustainable development” defined in the legislation? Is it concerned with environmental, financial or economic sustainability? What is the definition of that phrase?

151. Mrs Hagan: Sustainable development is not defined in the Bill. In general, we refer to the definition of sustainable development that is included in the sustainable development strategy. Many minds have tried to define sustainable development, and one of many definitions could be inserted. One of the difficulties in drafting primary legislation is that one must be careful not to over-define certain terms, because that can restrict what one can do.

152. The types of things that we are thinking about are listed in the amendments to the schedule, and cover issues such as the sustainable use of water, limiting pollution and so on. I cannot remember everything that is listed in the Order.

153. Mr McCrystal: Clause 1 of the Bill deals with article 2 of the principal Order. Article 2 defines several terms and we propose to include definitions for low- or zero-carbon systems. Clause 1(2) of the Bill refers to schedule 1 of the Order, which lists the matters for which building regulations may be made. We have listed a number of proposed amendments to be included in the schedule, basically to widen the scope of building regulations to take into consideration, as Mrs Hagan said, aspects such as pollution, nuisance, matters affecting conservation of fuel and power, sustainable use of water and so on.

154. Mr Beggs: My understanding of clause 1 and the amendment to schedule 1 of the 1979 Order is that they will enable the introduction of subsequent regulations without going through the tortuous consultation process that has taken place to date. Will you confirm that clause 1 will mean the facilitation of mandatory microgeneration at some point without the requirement for significant new legislation, and that only the regulations would change?

155. Mr McCrystal: That would not require an amendment to the primary legislation but would require an amendment to building regulations. When amendments to building regulations are made, consultation always takes place. We would not simply make regulations and enforce them; they would be brought to the Committee, be issued for public consultation, and the responses would be brought back to the Committee.

156. We recognise that although microgeneration is not cost-effective at the moment, there could be a time when it will become so — when the systems are more reliable and more readily available than they are now. To use a crude analogy, microgeneration could be considered in the same way that computers were thought of in the 1980s — they were very expensive and had little capacity or power. In the past 20 years, many people have got computers that are much more cost-effective than they were. If microgeneration were to get to that point, and a regulatory impact assessment showed that there would be a decent payback, we would go that way. At the moment, we intend to concentrate on improving the thermal efficiency of buildings, because that is currently a much more cost-effective way of conserving power.

157. Mr Beggs: I appreciate that, but, in deciding not to take the route of mandatory microgeneration, did you consult other Departments? It is unfortunate that the Reconnect programme is ending at the same time as this promised programme, not now being considered, was to be introduced — it means that the sector faces a double whammy.

158. Mr McCrystal: No, we did not consult other Departments on that matter.

159. Mr Beggs: Clause 2 is entitled “Protected buildings”, and uses the phrase “have regard to” with respect to the protection of historic buildings. The character of historic buildings such as Carrickfergus Castle and some historic town halls would be altered if the regulations did not give them some protection. Are you satisfied that that wording will provide sufficient protection? What degree of flexibility will the wording, “have regard to”, provide to building control officers when making their assessments?

160. Mrs Hagan: Informally, building control already has regard to the character of protected buildings. It has been doing that for some time. The legislation will formalise what building control has already been doing. The term “have regard to” has been included by the Office of the Legislative Counsel as a fairly standard way of drafting a provision such as this one, but it nevertheless has a legal standing and it will place a legal requirement on district councils to bear that in mind. I imagine that they will continue to do that, as they have done informally for the past few years. That will not make any difference to how building control considers applications that impact on protected buildings.

161. Mr Beggs: I am trying to get a better understanding of clause 10, which is entitled “Civil liability”. The wording used in the briefing is that the Minister has announced that he will remove the proposed repeal of article 20. That means that it will stay in. Why was a proposal made to take it out and another made to keep it in? The briefing says that OFMDFM considered that its retention may encourage compliance with the regulations. In the light of that, why has it not been introduced before now and put to use?

162. Mr McKibbin: Article 20, as it stands, and if it were to be commenced, would allow someone who is taking action for personal injury or property damage to use non-compliance with building regulations in support of their case. Defendants could use also non-compliance to support their case. When the article was written and introduced into the 1979 Order, building regulations were largely prescriptive; they set out the exact requirements to be met.

163. The regulations subsequently became more functional, whereby one could show that one had made reasonable provision to satisfy certain parts of the requirements. We proposed to revoke the article because we never had a request to commence it, nor was it felt that there was a need to commence it at the time. However, when the Bill was passing through the Executive in November, OFMDFM asked whether commencing the article would not be a way of further encouraging compliance — by having a legal stick, so to speak. In other words, it could be used in all claims involving non-compliance. Although that would still be the case, the way the article is currently written would no longer be appropriate because of the move to functional regulations.

164. Building control might find itself joined in many cases in which it has to show that the regulations were reasonable or considered to be reasonable. We have agreed with the Minister — and the Minister said in the debate last week — that we will see whether there is any way of amending the article to make it more appropriate for existing regulations. We will do that and, if necessary, bring a further amendment to replace article 20. The decision to remove the revocation was to allow the Bill to stand, so it would be amending rather than inserting a new piece of legislation.

165. Mr Beggs: When do you hope to have that amendment? Obviously, the sooner it is brought forward the better, so that it can tie in to the rest of the process that the Committee is dealing with.

166. Mr McKibbin: It is not likely to be during the lifespan of this Bill passing through the Assembly. I believe that it will come after that. There is considerable work involved with this and with other matters and we do not have the resources to take those forward at the moment. However, it is a matter to which we shall be returning.

167. Mr O’Loan: As regards clause 4, and the shift from the deemed-to-satisfy system to the guidance-based system, you said that “deemed-to-satisfy” is felt to be too restrictive and that people can get into jams in which everyone wants to move along but cannot do so because of the existing regulations. You indicated that building control officers would be happier moving to a guidance-based system, which would give them more discretion. Are developers in favour of that change?

168. Mr McCrystal: Developers are represented on NIBRAC. We have also met with builders and developers as part of stakeholder consultations. They welcome the change because it is more in line with regulatory procedures in the rest of the British Isles. Rather than having to take guidance documents from elsewhere and translate them into deemed-to-satisfy provisions, we could be more responsive to changes elsewhere and write guidance more quickly so that there would be a more unified standard in building regulations throughout the country. Builders are now much more mobile, so developers from here can be found working in Scotland or England. It becomes onerous for them if they find that they have three different standards to meet. On that basis, they welcome the change.

169. Mr O’Loan: Turning to clause 1 and energy performance: the thrust of the clause is to enable the Department to make regulations regarding the energy performance of buildings. The Department and the Minister have indicated that that should include energy emissions, focusing on insulation standards and the efficiency of heating systems.

170. Mr McCrystal: Absolutely.

171. Mr O’Loan: You said that microgeneration is not cost-effective, by which, I presume, you mean that payback times are lengthy given the technology available at the moment.

172. Will EU targets on energy emissions from buildings be achieved without some level of mandatory microgeneration for domestic buildings? Is there not an argument that technological improvements will be enhanced and accelerated by introducing a mandatory element?

173. Mr McCrystal: The difficulty with building regulations is that they are the minimum legal requirement — they were never best practice, but a mop-up procedure. However, the standards in building regulations are by no means low.

174. The last amendment made to building regulations was on the conservation of fuel and power. Mr O’Loan mentioned efficiency of heating systems — we require boilers to be 86% efficient and good heating control systems. We also facilitate developers who want to use microgeneration systems rather than preventing those who want to. However, we do say that there is a carbon-dioxide emissions level that people must not go above, which is a high target to meet. Wood-pellet boilers are regarded as the most cost-effective microgeneration system, but they are not appropriate in every circumstance. If they work, that is grand.

175. Mrs Hagan: With respect to meeting EU emissions targets, it is worth bearing in mind that building regulations only apply, as Mr McCrystal mentioned, to new buildings, or to those buildings that are undergoing major refurbishment — less than 2% of the building stock in Northern Ireland. Building regulations cannot be applied retrospectively because of cost implications. Therefore, the opportunity for building regulations to reduce carbon emissions is quite limited because they only apply to 2% of the building stock.

176. Mr O’Loan: Do building regulations apply when there are refurbishments, extensions and other similar works to buildings?

177. Mrs Hagan: Yes.

178. Mr O’Loan: That would increase the percentage of the stock to which the building regulations would apply; would it not? I have heard high figures quoted from building control in my district council on the changeover in houses. In other words; that such activities could have a significant impact on the percentage of buildings that the building regulations apply to over a short period of time. Therefore, what you are saying is surprising. You are making a contrary argument.

179. Mr McCrystal: To expand the discussion away from the Bill, energy-performance certificates will have a significant effect and will bring house efficiency to the attention of householders. Not long ago, we brought an SL1 to the Committee, and we hope to be making regulations relatively soon. Each certificate will give a band rating for properties when they are constructed, sold or rented, which must be given to the purchaser or the tenant and will be similar to the markings on a fridge, or other white goods, in a shop.

180. There will be a list of cost-effective recommendations with the certificate. For example, if every bulb in a household is replaced with a low-energy light bulb, each would cost £3. However, the householder will save £7 a year per bulb and £60 over the lifetime of the bulb. If that saving were multiplied, the cost of the certificate will be recouped in about two years. Those fundamental recommendations will be given to the householder. Other examples include the benefits of upgrading the insulation in the roof space of a building or putting a lagging jacket on the hot-water storage tank. That is how the Department can affect those houses where structural alterations are not caught by building regulations — through another set of regulations.

181. Mr O’Loan: I am interested in the comment that building regulations are not thought of as the best practice, because I thought that they were. By some international standards, the insulation and energy-efficiency standards in our buildings are awful; I have been to Canada where, years ago, people would have had very high standards of insulation.

182. I certainly take the point that cost effectiveness must be a factor. However, I would have thought that the Assembly should be leaning heavily towards the best-practice argument as being the test for regulations.

183. The Deputy Chairperson;

184. Will certificates apply only to new and refurbished properties, or will they apply to every property?

185. Mr McCrystal: They will not apply to every property: they will apply to buildings upon construction and to those that are sold or rented. Therefore, if you intend to stay in your house, you will not need a certificate. However, if you intend to sell your house, one of the first things that the estate agent will ask you is whether you have an energy performance certificate. If you do not, you must acquire one because it has to be made available to the potential purchaser and be given to him or her on completion of the sale.

186. The Deputy Chairperson: Will that be carried out by the local council?

187. Mr McCrystal: Production of certificates is carried out by accredited energy assessors. That is a requirement of the EU Energy Performance of Buildings Directive.

188. The Deputy Chairperson: I want to return to clause 2 and the preservation of the character of protected buildings. There is currently a listing and grading of buildings. At what point in the spectrum are we operating? With respect to clause 2, what will initiate and define what is to be construed as a protected building? A range of buildings has been specified in the clause. Will it cover all of them?

189. Mrs Hagan: The Department has drawn on the specification that the Department of the Environment uses to define a protected building. The range of buildings included on the list of protected buildings is exactly the same as that to which building regulations will apply, and as the list is amended, so building regulations will extend — or contract — if certain buildings are added to or taken off the list. The Department of Finance and Personnel will stick closely with the Department of the Environment’s definition in the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.

190. Mr McKibbin: There is nothing to prevent building control from considering buildings outside that definition, such as those that are examples of local vernacular architecture or are in an area of townscape character not caught by the Department of the Environment’s definition. Building control might still consider those characteristics when it applies the regulations. However, it will be required under legislation only to apply the regulations to protected buildings.

191. The Deputy Speaker: Is that the definition or mechanism to which the terms used will have regard? Are there other factors that would be taken into consideration?

192. Mr McKibbin: There could be other factors. Indeed, with regard to the earlier discussion on guidance, the Department could, for example, produce guidance for district councils to use when they are having regard to such buildings. National Heritage has produced guidance in England and Wales, and the Environment and Heritage Service has produced a document that could be used, effectively, as a guidance document, and which would give district councils a line to follow.

193. Mr F McCann: In the past, buildings that have been listed have been bought, and builders have demolished them and said, “Oops, we did not realise that the building was listed.” Who has the power to deal with those people when that happens?

194. Mr McKibbin: Demolition of listed buildings is covered by planning legislation, not by building control. It is up to Planning Service to deal with that situation.

195. The Deputy Chairperson: If I have followed the course of events today, we have considered clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4. Clause 5 deals with guidance documents. How will the new guidance differ from existing technical documents? Will it be more accessible and easier to understand?

196. Mr McCrystal: Because they are technical documents, they are meant to be read by a technical audience. However, as I said earlier, the Department will provide guidance on the thought process, design considerations and suchlike. It is hoped that when a designer works his or her way through the guidance and gets to a solution, he or she will understand how we have moved away from the functional requirement to reasonable provision. When he or she is considering an aspect of their building — whether it be access, conservation of fuel and power, or whatever — they will understand the objectives of the requirement for design considerations and follow it through to the solution. In fact, with a guidance-based system, the Department may provide more than one solution.

197. We may offer a solution ourselves, or we might refer to British standard, or other recognised technical documents.

198. The Deputy Chairperson: Will there be a legal basis for any of that?

199. Mr McCrystal: No. The current legal basis, “deemed to satisfy”, is written into the regulations. However, it would be a foolish designer who would ignore the guidance. Clause 5(1) of the Bill provides for the introduction of article 5A(7), which will state that: “A failure on the part of a person to comply with guidance published under this Article does not of itself render that person liable to any civil or criminal proceedings; but the guidance is admissible in evidence”.

200. If building control has to take legal action against someone, the guidance could be used in evidence to establish whether the designer had followed the correct route or ignored it completely.

201. The Deputy Chairperson: Is there a risk involved? I hope that I am interpreting it correctly. As that requirement is not based in a legal context, as the current structures are, could it be used as an opt-out if a matter were to go to court?

202. Mr McCrystal: I do not think that that would be the case. The designer may opt for a different solution to the one in the guidance document. Building control will assess that, and if it is decided that the solution offered does not satisfy its requirement for reasonable provision, the discussion between the two parties will follow the design considerations to see whether or not the designer has followed the guidance, and it will go through the objectives of the requirement and the design considerations. The onus is always on the applicant to demonstrate to building control that he or she has satisfied the requirement.

203. The Deputy Chairperson: Clause 7 of the Bill mentions article 12 of the principal Order, which covers the existing provision for tests. Has that been commenced?

204. Mr McKibbin: No. The change in clause 7 is quite a small one. As article 12 of the 1979 Order stands, it lists a number of tests that can be applied. We are changing that to allow us to provide in the regulations for those tests. It will allow us, to some extent, to control the number of tests that can be requested, rather than just give people carte blanche to ask for anything and save them from satisfying the requirements of the regulations.

205. For example, the amendment to technical booklet F that came about in 2006 could require an airtightness test to satisfy ventilation requirements regulations, which could be one of the tests that we could provide for in these regulations.

206. Article 12 was never commenced. We never had any call to commence it. However, bearing in mind that we are now moving towards prescribing tests in building regulations, we feel that the article is now applicable and we will be starting the process to commence it when this Bill completes its legislative stages.

207. The Deputy Chairperson: If the Committee has other questions in relation to the other clauses, would you be happy if we forward them to you for reply?

208. Mr McCrystal: Yes.

209. The Deputy Chairperson: In conclusion, the consultation that was carried out raised issues to which no resolution was found. In addition to building control practitioners and the professional bodies, was there any feedback from the general public, or bodies representative of house buyers or self-build organisations?

210. Mr McKibbin: Most of the consultee responses that we received came from district councils or professional bodies. As the Minister said in the debate last week, it is quite a dry subject for the man in the street. Historically, we tend to get responses from the designers who are involved in building regulations on a daily basis, rather than interested members of the public.

211. The Deputy Chairperson: So, nothing was raised during the consultation that has not been resolved?

212. Mr McKibbin: Several issues were raised either about the proposals that we put out for consultation initially or about those that arose from the consultation and that were not, for various reasons, taken forward in the Bill. Often, that was because consultees were considering matters that were better addressed by subordinate legislation — the building regulations — than primary legislation.

213. Until a fairly late stage, we were proposing to insert clauses on the control of dangerous buildings. Building control approached the Department with that requirement. Building control currently uses extremely old pieces of legislation, some going back as far as 1854, to control dangerous buildings. They had asked whether we could consolidate those pieces of legislation into one, to which we agreed.

214. However, during subsequent consultations at a building control workshop, it became a question of “be careful what you ask for because you may just get it” and further discussions were requested. Therefore, we agreed to remove the clause from the Bill and to discuss with building control, and any other parties, the inclusion of clauses that would be more appropriate to their requirements.

215. Mr McCrystal: We had a meeting with building control on Friday at which we suggested that, because it operates at ground level and applies the current legislation, it should put together a working party to examine the matter in more detail and come back to us, at which point we will give the matter further consideration.

216. The Deputy Chairperson: As members have no further questions, I thank Seamus, Gerry and Hilda for coming today. It has been a useful and informative meeting. No doubt, we will see you again.

217. Do Members agree to forward to any outstanding issues from the Committee paper to the Department and request a written response?

Members indicated assent.

2 April 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Mitchel McLaughlin (Chairperson)
Mr Mervyn Storey (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs
Dr Stephen Farry
Mr Simon Hamilton
Mr Fra McCann
Ms Jennifer McCann
Mr Declan O’Loan
Ms Dawn Purvis

Witnesses:

Mr John Hardy
Mr Patrick Flynn
Mr Gabriel McArdle

Sustainable Energy Association

218. The Chairperson: Item five on the agenda is a briefing by the Sustainable Energy Association on mandatory micro-generation. Members should note that Hansard is recording the session and, therefore, telephones should be switched off. The Committee will be addressed by Sustainable Energy Association secretary John Hardy, and board members Patrick Flynn and Gabriel McArdle. Gentlemen, you are most welcome; perhaps you would like to make your presentation.

219. Mr John Hardy (Sustainable Energy Association): Good morning. Thank you for the invitation to speak to you today. I want to give the Committee some background information on the Sustainable Energy Association. We are a trade association that represents the renewable-energy industry on the island of Ireland. The association encompasses more than 1,000 companies, most of which are small to medium-sized businesses, and up to 4,000 employees. Many bigger companies — particularly manufacturing companies — are based in Northern Ireland, where the manufacturing base is located. I am accompanied by Mr Gabriel McArdle from Thermomax Ltd, which has recently been acquired by Kingspan Group plc. He is the company’s senior executive and is in charge of the commercial-development department. Mr Patrick Flynn is the owner of Green Energy 4 U, which is a small, renewable-energy business based in County Down. It installs heating and energy appliances in homes.

220. Our submission presents evidence that demolishes the advice that informed Minister Robinson’s decision not to implement the mandatory installation of 10% renewables in all new homes, which was due to be introduced in building regulations in April 2008. Civil servants put forward a four-fold argument: that the industry lacks the capacity to deliver; the lack of cost benefit in renewable-energy technologies; the unproven nature of the technologies; and the lack of precedents for that policy direction. We hope to show that those arguments and the evidence that supports them are inaccurate and unfounded and that the Minister was misled.

221. Precedents for such policies exist in the UK and Ireland; for example, the Lord Mayor of London introduced proposals under the London plan review. Developments must achieve carbon-emission reductions through mandatory on-site renewable energy of between 10% and 20%. Likewise, in the Republic of Ireland, building regulations to be introduced on 1 July 2008 will mandate that 10 kW hours per annum of thermal energy per sq m in each building, or four kW per annum of electrical power, must be introduced in all new builds. Overall energy consumption in new buildings will be reduced by 40% initially and eventually to 60%.

222. Mr Gabriel McArdle (Sustainable Energy Association): The Lord Major of London introduced the new policy on the back of the policy statement in 2004. The Merton rule also mandates the use of 10% renewables. To date, 150 councils — almost a third of the 468 councils throughout Britain — have adopted the policy.

223. It is also worth pointing out that it is more than likely that the company that I represent — Thermomax Ltd, which is a recent acquisition by Kingspan Group plc — will meet most of the Republic’s new building regulations demands for 10 kW hours of solar energy from its manufacturing base in Bangor, which is pretty good.

224. Mr Hardy: Thank you very much, Gabe. That shows that the claim that there are no precedents is untrue.

225. The claim that the technologies are unproven is surprising, given that they are mainstream in mainland Europe. In fact, in Germany and Sweden houses cannot be built unless they incorporate some of those technologies. I will ask Gabe to elaborate on that.

226. Mr McArdle: I represent my own company, Kingspan Group plc, and also, as a member of the Sustainable Energy Association, companies such as Balcas in Enniskillen, which produces biomass products and brites wood pellets; and Glen Dimplex in Portadown, which produces heat-pump products.

227. The industry employs approximately 8,000 people. My business employs some 500 people in manufacturing in Northern Ireland, with factories in Bangor, Newry, Portadown and Banbridge working on renewables and the environmental sector of the business.

228. To date, Thermomax has produced and delivered 20 million solar tubes worldwide, although, unfortunately, not many to Northern Ireland. Recently — thanks to the Housing Executive — we have been supplying products to Northern Ireland. To put that into context, those tubes are equivalent to the output of Kilroot power station, which is a coal-firing power station, although it was recently adapted to be a coal- and oil-firing station. Ironically, it is the largest polluting power station in the UK. The solar energy generated by our Bangor product would take that power station off the map.

229. Balcas has evolved and is producing brites products locally for servicing the industry. Patrick is involved in biomass. Local manufacturing produces a small carbon footprint when the raw material is moved to the source of the product. We have supplied major European manufactures and, as a Northern Ireland-based company, we have also supplied the largest Far Eastern installation in Shanghai Airport, which produces 150,000 litres of hot water a day.

230. The technology is proven elsewhere in the world. Unfortunately, if the new legislation is not applied, we may not be given the opportunity to prove it locally.

231. Mr Hardy: Patrick works in installation and has first-hand knowledge of the technologies.

232. Mr Patrick Flynn (Sustainable Energy Association): The biomass heating in my home uses Viessmann tubes — or Thermomax — which are made in Bangor. From mid-March on, my home, and others with similar technology, will not require oil heating for hot water, which will be quite a saving. Some figures bandied about suggest that biomass does not pay. Oil heating does not have a payoff: oil is used. Biomass is both sustainable and financially beneficial to the client, with savings of up to 50% on their heating bills; that means that the average householder can expect a payoff in approximately three to five years.

233. We have an increasing demand for solar systems because the sun is available every day and it is free — free for ever more. On the other hand, the price of oil and gas continues to rise. Investing in solar technology now will benefit us all financially, as we will be less dependent on fossil fuels.

234. Mr McArdle: I do not want to be selfish and talk about Thermomax in Bangor. Nevertheless, it has been making and exporting tubes for 27 years, which is a long time to prove technology, and it has been accepted worldwide. Viessmann is a huge German company. We brand the product and make it in Bangor, and Viessmann puts its name on it and sells it throughout Germany, which is the biggest solar market in Europe. It has been doing that for 15 years, so it is a proven technology.

235. Mr Hardy: We dealt briefly with cost benefit and the technologies; Gabe will tell us more

236. Mr McArdle: Patrick has already referred to costs. The reference to the payback and cost benefit comes from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), but it has not taken into account any figures for oil or gas, although we are unsure of the reason for that. The cost benefit from the renewables point of view is available. We have installed renewables for many years, which proves that there is a payback on solar energy, and that, combined with a biomass system in a domestic situation on a properly sized, designed and controlled system, can show a payback in six to eight years.

237. Bewley’s Hotel in Dublin airport is an example of a large-scale installation; at the moment it has more than 300 sq m of collector on its roof. The payback period for that installation is 10 years, because the capital was quite large due to the scale of the property. The hotel is saving €15,000 a year, as well as 15 tons of carbon; that is a quarter of the carbon emitted per year when the hotel was gas-fired. There are cost benefits and a payback to be gained from investing in renewable energy systems, which will last for 25 years. A gas- or oil-fired system does not offer payback in the long term.

238. Mr Flynn: I will back up that point, taking biomass systems as an example. Several years ago, an hotel in Newry that we looked at was burning 10,000 to12,000 litres of oil a week to sustain its heat and demand for hot water. A solar energy system would reduce the hotel’s oil consumption considerably, but a biomass system would make a saving of 10% on oil expenditure. Taking today’s heating oil prices at about 50p per litre, that 10% would represent a colossal saving, not only on money that can go back into the economy but also on carbon output, as there are about 55 times fewer carbon emissions from wood than from oil. That is significant, considering the Kyoto protocol agreements that must be met. There are substantial fines if those are not met; the money that would be needed to cover those fines would pay for many grant-aid schemes and incentives for businesses, and all of our homes, to change.

239. Mr Hardy: As outlined in our submission, the Sustainable Energy Association asked an accountant to examine the DEFRA payback calculations that were part of the consultation on the decision not to introduce mandatory microgeneration. The accountant made eight telling criticisms of those calculations, the most important of which, — as Patrick mentioned — is the fact that the figures seem to be based on an out-of-date pricing of oil at $50 a barrel. The calculations also fail to consider the fact that there is no payback whatsoever on fossil fuels energy systems. The criticisms of the DEFRA calculations are detailed in our submission paper, so I will not go into detail at the moment, but I urge members to look at our paper.

240. Regarding the alleged lack of capacity in the industry to deliver, the progressive and joined-up policy that was advanced by Peter Hain was two-pronged. The Secretary of State decided that in order to bring about the adoption of more renewable energy systems into the mainstream, it was necessary to build capacity. Once that had been developed to a certain degree with grant aid, the building regulations could be introduced to provide a sustainable market for the industry. In order to do that, the Secretary of State introduced the environment and renewable energy fund. It included £9·8 million for the Reconnect scheme, which enabled microgeneration systems to be installed in 4,000 private-sector and 600 social-sector dwellings.

241. In addition, Action Renewables established the Renewable Energy Installers Academy to ensure that there is a highly skilled indigenous workforce in Northern Ireland capable of maintaining capacity. The figures in our submission speak for themselves: there are 850 qualified installers. Capacity has been built up to the current level as planned, and the Reconnect grant is now being removed, as was planned.

242. Unfortunately, the mechanism that was supposed to be in place to maintain that capacity — the introduction of building regulations — is not happening. Therefore the industry no longer has grant aid or building regulations and is facing a crisis.

243. I think that we have demolished the arguments that were presented to the Minister, as we feel that Mr Robinson was misled by inaccurate evidence in making his decision.

244. Our chairperson, Ruth McGuigan, had discussions with Trevor Martin, who is the chairperson of the Northern Ireland Building Regulations Advisory Committee and the head of building control in Belfast City Council. He explained that he had opposed the mandatory introduction of regulations because he felt that it would be better if the Department supported the introduction of strong and vigorous codes for sustainable homes.

245. Although one of the Sustainable Energy Association’s founding aims is to endorse the code for sustainable homes, unfortunately we have reached the stage at which capacity exists, grants are coming to an end, building regulations have not been put in place and the code for sustainable homes may not be introduced for several years. Therefore in order to facilitate the code for sustainable homes, the capacity that has been built up will disappear and will have to be reintroduced and redeveloped.

246. Mr McArdle: Furthermore, although it is great that 850 people who are trained to install renewable-energy systems have gone through the training academy — and more are coming through — and graduate schemes specialising in the emerging renewable-energy and building-services sectors are ongoing at Queen’s University and the University of Ulster at Jordanstown, if those graduates are to find jobs, they will have to leave Northern Ireland.

247. I mentioned manufacturing, which is my side of the industry. Under various company brand names throughout the Province, Kingspan employs 500 people. In addition, there is Balcas and Glen Dimplex, and, of course, Harland and Wolff’s dry dock is now being used for the manufacture of offshore wind turbines. The capacity exists here, and the situation is ripe for progress.

248. As with the Sustainable Energy Ireland grants in the Republic — which are coming to an end — the next phase must be support by means of legislative changes to part L of Building Regulations 2000. In Northern Ireland, unfortunately, that is not happening, and, as John said, we are heading into a cul-de-sac and our industry is heading for a tough time.

249. Mr Flynn: Based on personal experience in my own business, I can reiterate those comments. The building industry is experiencing a slight downturn, and I have been receiving phone calls from people who were previously employed in all sectors of the building trade but who are now seeking jobs. I have been telling them that we have plenty of work until Christmas, but they may have to look for work after that because there is no legislation and incentives to drive the industry forward.

250. Traditionally, those guys had to travel around the British Isles or further afield in search of work, and that will happen again. I spend much of my time training guys who have skills in all sectors to fit renewable-energy systems that could save people money, reduce our carbon footprint and help everyone. However, I fear that our business will become much smaller and, if we do not make progress, we will have to let many employees go.

251. Mr McArdle: We are not seeking subsidies, grants or handouts — the Reconnect grant programme is coming to an end — however, we require support in the form of legislation on building regulations.

252. Mr Hardy: We hope that we have provided evidence for our case, and we urge the Committee to ask Mr Robinson to reconsider his decision on mandatory microgeneration. Thank you for having us, and we welcome any questions.

253. The Chairperson: I repeat the question that I asked of the previous delegation: do you intend to make a submission to the Committee concerning the Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill 2008?

254. You have set out the effects of the Minister’s decision in the here and now, but the key issue for you is strategic development. I believe that a submission from your association, among others, that addresses that issue will also have a strategic effect. I am aware that you want to address that, and I am sure that members will follow that line of questioning. However, we must also consider how the Assembly will address the key priority of sustainable development.

255. Mr McArdle: We are happy to do that. It is important to say that the industry body does exist. Perhaps we were not consulted because we are not public enough, but if there is still time to make a submission, we will.

256. The Chairperson: You have until 16 April.

257. Mr Hardy: We recently made a submission to the Planning Service on PPS 18, which deals with renewables technology, so we are not coming here to argue that you should have done this or that you should have done that. We realise that we have to have our say in the upcoming consultations to try to shape policy to our benefit. We are aware of the consultation period on the building regulations and we are drafting a submission.

258. Mr Beggs: Thank you for your presentation. I was particularly struck by your corrected calculations on simple payback years and annual cost savings on the different forms of microgeneration. The Committee is interested in that because the Minister wrote to us in November and included those figures, which were DEFRA-referenced. It is important that accurate figures be available that decisions can be based on. Can you provide the Committee with the back-up calculations to show where those figures come from so that we can submit them to the Department? Have you already done so? The payback period and the savings ought to be clarified because there are huge variations — for example, a wood-burning stove goes from a 60-year payback to a payback period of less than one year.

259. Mr Hardy: Exactly.

260. Mr Beggs: Another example is that microgeneration goes from having a 6·5-year payback to less than a one-year payback. There ought not to be a debate about it; there ought to be evidence, and the sooner that is clarified the better.

261. Mr Flynn: The simplest way is to show it in practical terms. This is not a new industry to Northern Ireland. We have been in the business for four, almost five, years, and we have clients who were saving money on biomass, for example, when oil was $50 a barrel. We can publish what those clients’ savings were. Unfortunately, DEFRA’s viewpoint is from the outside looking in, whereas we are on the inside looking out, saying that we have already proved that it works and have no problem restating that.

262. Mr Beggs: Can you provide the Committee with that information? We suggest that you make it part of your submission.

263. Mr Hardy: We had an accountant look at the savings, so providing the information to the Committee is no problem. The DEFRA figures were based on 2006 costs when the price of oil was lower. We do not know the size or proportion of the technologies that DEFRA is considering. The payback will be different depending on the size of the technologies that it is dealing with, but that is not a problem. If the Committee would like those figure, we will include them in our submission.

264. Ms Purvis: Appendix B includes another set of figures relating to payback — where did they come from?

265. Mr Hardy: I believe that they are internal Department of Finance and Personnel figures. As to where they originated, I assume that they also came from DEFRA. They may have been updated, but they do not include the source.

266. Mr Beggs: They come from DFP. There are two issues. One is the introduction of mandatory microgeneration; the other is the Reconnect programme. You said that you have work until the end of this year. After that, if the situation remains as it is, the skills will dissipate and people will go elsewhere. How long would it take to build up contracts again? I am trying to find out how small the window is in which to solve the problem.

267. Mr Flynn: It has happened twice before in two grant schemes. The first was a taster to assess the position of the industry in Northern Ireland; it stopped, and there was talk of something else being introduced. From our conversations, we hear that Joe Public thinks that the Government will do something about climate change; therefore people sit back and allow the cost of the technology to rise. Energy and resources are getting more expensive all the time.

268. Previously, it took between nine months and a year to get the industry up and running again. That happened twice before. The grant scheme is great in that it gets many people interested and it promotes the industry. However, that is not what we want: we want a sustainable industry, but grants are not sustainable. We want an industry that moves forward. Incentives that benefit the economy as a whole are required, not handouts. Those might include incentives that benefit the householder through rates or incentives for businesses.

269. Mr Weir: Thank you for your evidence. I am aware of the good work and the major contribution that Thermomax, which is based in my constituency of North Down, makes to the economy. Many of us were delighted with the successful rescue of Thermomax; its difficulties were not the fault of the firm.

270. You said that you wanted to reverse the decision to end mandatory renewable energy targets. Have you sought a meeting with the Minister about that?

271. Mr Hardy: We have attempted to arrange a meeting, but without success — it is difficult enough to secure an invitation to a Committee meeting. We tried to meet several Ministers: Margaret Ritchie, Nigel Dodds and Peter Robinson. We argue for joined-up thinking among the Departments on energy and on sustainable development in particular. If we thought that it was worthwhile asking for another meeting, we would do so.

272. Mr Weir: Your document mentions developments in London and the Republic. Have there been any developments in the way in which the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales treat renewable energy and microgeneration?

273. Mr Hardy: Recently, a press release from the Scottish Executive announced that they were tripling grant aid for renewable energy to encourage the industry. They wanted to ensure that more houses would install renewables to reduce the effect on the grid and on carbon emissions. The code for sustainable homes is being introduced in Wales and will be fast-tracked compared to the speed at which it was introduced in England. Even on a larger scale of renewables, Scotland is well above its UK requirements.

274. Northern Ireland’s target for generating electricity or energy from renewables is 12%. For instance, a wood pellet-fired power station supplies most houses in Cardiff.

275. Scotland and Wales are following the same lines of legislation as England. Gabe mentioned the Merton rule. Members may not be aware that Merton Council in London introduced a mandatory requirement that all new houses must have a percentage of renewables. Of 468 councils, 150 have adopted that requirement, which represents one third of councils in the UK. That has set a precedent, and there is an impetus for the people of Northern Ireland to follow that lead. A fund was recently set up for local councils to adopt something similar; therefore, I see no reason why we cannot do so.

276. Mr Weir: As an aside, we could introduce wood-pellet fires in Northern Ireland, as we use them quite successfully in July already. Although some of the items that are burned might be slightly less environmentally friendly.

277. Mr Hardy: It could be the zero-carbon fortnight.

278. Mr Weir: Forgive me if this is slightly commercially sensitive, but you spoke about Thermomax’s successful exporting side. What share of Thermomax’s business might be described as domestic as opposed to international?

279. Mr McArdle: It is in single digits, and it is primarily associated with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Kingspan has had a good relationship with the Housing Executive over the years in supplying many different products. Last year, there were 1,200 installations. Things are a little unstable at the moment with the Housing Executive and funding has ceased, but we hope that that will free up during the summer, as it typically does.

280. The domestic figures are small in Northern Ireland, although they could increase up to 5%. In the overall scheme we are lucky that Thermomax has a world export market. However, the incremental increase that we deliver locally is phenomenal, and it is keeping jobs here.

281. Mr Weir: I understand that the domestic side has been beneficial, but principally your focus will remain on global export market. You seem concerned that the opposition to microgeneration — or at least the opposition to changing building regulations — comes from some civil servants. You also highlighted pressures in the pre-devolution phase and in the present devolution phase. There has been reference to concerns about additional costs being placed on industry. Have people in the industry lobbied against that because they feel that it will increase costs in the building trade or elsewhere?

282. Although some people in the Civil Service may be unsure about microgeneration, I would be surprised if that was the ultimate source of the opposition. If a head of steam has been built up to try to block that move and there has been pressure from some people in the industry, where do the major problems lie?

283. Mr Flynn: That is correct. It is not a matter of one body opposing the idea. Some people in the building industry want to build better, more sustainable homes.

284. Equally, those who are more business-oriented and concerned with making a profit view it as an extra and unnecessary cost. They are probably not sufficiently educated on why there is a need to move in that direction. However, there are many reasons: the Kyoto protocol; carbon emissions; the cost to the future population; and growing the economy for young people. Rather than seek funding, and so forth, which will be important as we move ahead, one of the association’s biggest concerns is to promote the benefits of microgeneration.

285. Unfortunately, the days of cheap energy will soon end, and the other solution is nuclear energy, which brings its own problems. As Gabriel said, enough solar panels were installed in Germany last year to replace two power stations. It cost a population of 80 million €1 a month, or €12 each a year, to fund that scheme. It is not a massive amount, but it is tailored over a 20-year period, after which there will be no funding; however, by that stage most of Germany should be using sustainable energy.

286. Ms J McCann: To a degree, your answer to Peter covered the question that I was going to ask. There is much debate about renewable and sustainable energy. However, the previous presentation on climate change and yours on sustainable energy seem to suggest that microgeneration makes sense: environmentally because it cuts carbon emissions, but also socially and economically.

287. The Reconnect grants have been mentioned. Although they may not have much effect on businesses, they do on those who want to modify their homes. Many people who simply want to save money or who want to be more environmentally friendly cannot do so without the Reconnect grant.

288. I was interested in what you said about exporting. This is another case of a small local business not getting the same help as larger foreign direct investors. The argument that organisations such as Invest NI always throw up is that companies are not exporting enough. However you export, you employ people — which is of economic benefit to the North of Ireland — and you retain a skills base here.

289. I met some smaller organisations that deal in renewable energy, and they told me the same thing: they employ people who are skilled to a certain level, but those skilled people will leave. Therefore increased microgeneration makes sense. What is the main stumbling block? It is money. However, when we talk about money, we talk about value for money. Microgeneration makes sense because it offers value for money in the long term.

290. Mr McArdle: The Reconnect scheme benefits everyone. As the cost of property everywhere increases, fewer people are moving house; they are refurbishing, developing and making available added space for living rooms, and so forth. As you point out, there is now an ideal opportunity to consider different concepts of renewable energy, some of which are simple. From a selfish point of view — although it applies to all renewable energy — solar energy is extremely simple to retrofit.

291. We export a great deal. I talked about the availability of academically trained people in Northern Ireland through Queen’s University and the University of Ulster, and we are now keen to invest in Thermomax. We employ people with PhDs in technical subjects, and we are looking for more of the same calibre to service not only the local market but all our markets.

292. In addition to requiring people to perform the hands-on physical manufacturing and installation of our systems, we need more people with academic qualifications. For as long as we remain in Northern Ireland, we will take on people who have been academically trained. I am not suggesting that we will not remain in Northern Ireland, but that depends on where our future markets are. We will keep an eye on what is a fluid situation.

293. Ms J McCann: It is also important to note that if the scheme is not adopted or replaced by another scheme, sections of the workforce will lose their jobs. Although we want to employ people and build a strong economy, we are not putting effort into developing small local businesses; a mix of the two would be beneficial.

294. Mr McArdle: Grants will help, but legislation will undoubtedly drive the process. There are 5,300 houses to be built over the next three years, and it would be great to introduce legislation to support the installation of local renewable energy sources and to see those products manufactured, installed and supplied to those houses by local people. It would be ideal for Balcas in Enniskillen to supply a percentage of the houses with its wood-pellet fuel. However, without legislation, it becomes a commercial issue with builders or developers.

295. The Chairperson: The Committee will consider its options as a result of your interesting presentation — in particular the critique of the economic modelling that informed the Minister’s decision. I assure you that the Committee will examine that matter and engage with the Department in a focused way. The Sustainable Energy Association’s correspondence with the Department should inform the discussion.

296. The cost and strategic availability of fossil fuels in the long term brings the need for alternative technologies and renewables into sharp focus and compels us to adopt a business-like and policy-driven approach. We may need to discuss the issue with you again. You should act upon Peter’s suggestion and renew your application to meet the Department to discuss the matter. In the meantime, the Committee will consider its next step. Thank you, gentlemen, for your interesting and informative presentation.

2 April 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Mitchel McLaughlin (Chairperson)
Mr Mervyn Storey (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs
Dr Stephen Farry
Mr Simon Hamilton
Mr Fra McCann
Ms Jennifer McCann
Mr Declan O’Loan
Ms Dawn Purvis

Witnesses:
Mr Declan Allison (Friends of the Earth)
Dr Ian Humphreys (Conservation Volunteers NI)
Ms Eithne McNulty (Trócaire)
Mr Brian Scott (Oxfam Ireland)

297. The Chairperson (Mr McLaughlin): I welcome the representatives from the Climate Change Coalition to the meeting. If you make your presentation, members will ask follow-up questions.

298. Ms Eithne McNulty (Trócaire): Thank you very much for receiving us; it is a pleasure to be here. We have a short presentation that will take no more than 10 minutes, and then we will have a discussion with you, which will probably be the richer part of the meeting.

299. The Climate Change Coalition for Northern Ireland comprises a wide range of environment and development groups who all wish to see Northern Ireland play its full role in combating global climate change. The coalition claims that, without urgent action, climate change is likely to devastate life on earth as we know it. That is a very powerful statement, but that is exactly how it is. Importantly, the world’s poorest and most vulnerable are, and will continue to be, affected most. In fact, it is those who have offended least — those in the developing world —who will be punished most.

300. Species and habitats are also at risk. Northern Ireland will not escape negative impacts, and we must think about that when planning for the future. High-emitting countries must reduce their emissions. Whether we like to admit it or not, we are among the high-emitting countries, and the onus is on us to reduce emissions. Additionally, there are strong moral, economic, social and environmental imperatives for Northern Ireland to bear its fair share of global energy cuts. We would welcome a discussion on the finer points.

301. We ask the Northern Ireland Assembly to support the international negotiations for global warming to peak at no more than 2º C above pre-industrial levels. We ask that the Assembly set an annual Northern Ireland carbon budget to enable an immediate and sustained decline in Northern Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions by an average of at least 3% per annum. The two figures of 2º and 3% are important for us. In particular, we ask that we assist the poorest countries to adapt to the unavoidable effects of climate change and that biodiversity options be considered.

302. Dr Ian Humphreys (Conservation Volunteers Northern Ireland): We would like a Northern Ireland climate Bill to set legally binding carbon dioxide reduction targets and a target of at least an 80% reduction on 1990 carbon dioxide levels by 2050. Scientists say that to remain below the 2ºC threshold, global emissions of greenhouse gases will have to be reduced by at least 60% from 1990 levels by 2050. Our historic contributions impose a moral obligation on us to reduce our emissions further than that, because other countries will be unable to reduce their emissions by the same percentage. For those on the threshold of what can sustain life, cutting by even a little would be to fall below the level of survival. It is only appropriate that we take a slightly larger cut — take our fair share.

303. We also want aviation and shipping emissions to be included in such a Bill, as they comprise a significant and growing component of our emissions and must be taken into account. To achieve the reductions that we have discussed, a reduction of 3% per annum is necessary. The action plan is for a five-year carbon budget so that we can measure progress towards the agreed targets.

304. Not only do we want the emissions reduction achieved in Northern Ireland to be measured, we also want to ensure that the reductions are made in Northern Ireland. We do not want to reduce our emissions by buying in through trading emissions schemes, such as the clean development mechanism. The moral argument would be that our emissions reduction should take place in Northern Ireland. There would be a financial incentive in that money invested in Northern Ireland to make reductions and to improve efficiencies and how people live will achieve a sustainable reduction; on the other hand if we buy in reductions by trading carbon budgets, the money leaves Northern Ireland and provides us with no benefits in the long run. The moral argument has also been put forward by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee, which said that overseas credits should be purchased only as a last resort.

305. We want annual progress reports to be made to the Assembly from the Committee on Climate Change. The issue could be made public, which would enable the public and the environmental and development charity sector to express their views. It would also enable you, as elected representatives, to monitor progress in Northern Ireland.

306. A climate change Act would allow a judicial review if targets were not met. I hope that we would not have to go down that road, but it should be embedded in legislation.

307. The Executive should be obliged to respond to the reports of the Committee on Climate Change, which would enable the Assembly and a public scrutiny Committee to monitor performance. The public, elected politicians, the Committee on Climate Change and, ultimately, the courts all have roles and responsibilities in ensuring that targets in Northern Ireland are met.

308. Mr Brian Scott (Oxfam Ireland): My colleagues have laid out our shopping list. I will focus on the behaviour of our Government and in particular the Strategic Investment Board, which recently announced a £16 billion infrastructure-development programme. For the first three years, a mere £8·3 million of that £16 billion is devoted to measures relating to climate change, carbon reduction and energy efficiency. That is simply unacceptable. The Strategic Investment Board’s documents and plans ignore the issue, which is a missed opportunity.

309. We are particularly concerned at the imbalance in the amount of money being spent on encouraging and stimulating private transport. Of course, our roads need to be improved, but minimal attention is being paid to public transport. There is a stark contrast between what Dublin and Belfast spend on public transport. For example, Dublin has the Luas, the Dublin Area Rapid Transport (DART) system, new plans for underground connections and so on; all Belfast seems to have is a few bus lanes and a bus-replacement programme. That is unacceptable.

310. We are also interested in Government procurement, particularly Fairtrade and ethical procurement, and we are pleased with the progress in that area. The Central Procurement Directorate issued a guidance note in March 2006; we want a report on the progress of those recommendations. Is Fairtrade procurement increasing throughout Government apparatus? Are statistics available? Is it being measured? If not, can we discuss with the Committee a procedure by which the above could be done? We are pleased with the exhortations and guidance notes, but what we require is action.

311. Mr Declan Allison (Friends of the Earth): I will talk a bit more about the roles of DFP and this Committee. An area in which the Department could have significant influence on carbon emissions is buildings, particularly building regulations. There is a zero-carbon homes scheme — the eco-homes scheme, which Committee members are probably area of — the aim of which is to have all new builds rated at zero carbon by 2016, with a phased-in increase in energy efficiency until that time.

312. The materials and techniques for achieving zero-carbon homes already exist; therefore it could be done now or in the near future. Northern Ireland could leapfrog ahead of the rest of the UK without waiting for the phased timetable. We should be building on our strong construction industry to position Northern Ireland as an exemplar in low-carbon development.

313. We were disappointed that the Minister of Finance and Personnel overturned Peter Hain’s decision on the mandatory use of renewable energy in new builds, as it has left about 160 businesses and several hundred trained installers in limbo. In effect, the Minister has torn up their business plans. It is a regressive step, and we want that requirement to be reintroduced into building regulations.

314. A 20-year programme to improve the energy efficiency of our housing stock by about 5% would create long-term quality jobs, improve the well-being of the people who live in those houses and make a significant contribution to reducing carbon emissions.

315. Grants from the environment and renewable energy fund should be reintroduced. Although the Reconnect programme is not directly the Department’s responsibility, it would release the funds for it and in that sense it has a financial responsibility.

316. An innovative scheme could be introduced to examine the energy efficiency of homes and apply a banded rates system, based on eco-homes standards, whereby a much reduced rate would be applied to the most energy-efficient homes. However, there would probably also have to be some upfront grants, because installing insulation and bringing homes up to high levels of energy efficiency is expensive and an incentive to homeowners to carry out the required improvements would be necessary. Furthermore, it would be perverse if, having improved the energy efficiency and watched the value of their homes increase, homeowners would have to pay higher rates.

317. The coalition would like the achievement of zero carbon emissions by the 2015 target to be extended to the entire Government estate and not just to the Civil Service estate; that would include hospitals and Government agencies. A development plan should be drawn up with the aim of meeting the 2015 target; otherwise, the target will exist in limbo, and it will probably be filed away as a good intention that never came to fruition.

318. In summary, we want support for a Northern Ireland climate change Bill and, at this stage, we particularly want MLAs to sign the no-day-named motion calling for the Bill, which has just been tabled by the Business Office. That would deal not only with Northern Ireland’s carbon emissions, although that would form a central part of it, but would also improve technology transfer and development aid. Leading by example would place a moral obligation on the rest of the world, particularly on developing countries.

319. There should be increased investment in renewable energy schemes to enable people to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. We also want to see a move towards sustainable procurement; improved building regulations to include renewable energy; increased support for renewable energy; a banded rates system to incentivise people to improve the energy efficiency of their homes; and an action plan for the Government estate to achieve zero carbon emissions. That is all I have to say for now, and we will answer any questions from members as best we can.

320. The Chairperson: Thank you for your wide-ranging presentation, although some of the points that it raised may fall outside the direct remit of the Committee; our function is to scrutinise the Department, so our focus will be on its role and its contribution to the broad agenda. Nevertheless, I thank you for drawing attention to the actions that the Department can take and how the Committee can get involved.

321. Dr Farry: Thank you for your presentation. I support the principle of a climate change Bill. However, in line with the Chairperson’s direction, I will try to stick to questions about finance and economic policy. This is a huge subject, and I appreciate that our time is limited. I hope that this discussion will form part of an ongoing dialogue.

322. My questions merge into one another. You have given your view on the investment strategy, but perhaps you could give us your view on the impact of the Budget on climate change, which would be more in line with the responsibilities of the Committee. I am interested in how we can shift public perceptions. The Budget focused on economic development, which was welcome; however, economic development and the protection of the environment are often seen as being competing objectives. The question is how to convince the public that both those objectives are complementary and that they should be merged. What is your reaction to the Stern Review? I understand that although it has been welcomed in some quarters, there are people on both sides of the debate who have questioned it.

323. There is a significant debate in Northern Ireland about how to produce energy in future, which parallels what is happening in Britain. There is a great deal of scepticism about the ability of renewable energy sources to deliver sufficient energy capacity. Much of that debate has focused on future projections using available technology. How can we introduce reliable estimates into that debate about how technology will improve over the coming years if investment is made in it? There have been huge changes in computing technology over the past 20 years.

324. The Committee has examined congestion charges. What are your views on congestion charges in our inner-city areas and the broader issue of road pricing? I am conscious of the point that you made about the public-private split in transport funding.

325. Those are very broad questions. It will probably take you two hours to answer them.

326. Mr Scott: We do not believe that the Budget has caused a clash of ideas. In fact, economic growth can provide the technological solutions that we require as well helping to reduce carbon emissions and construct sensible buildings that do not emit carbon and which are built and maintained in a way that does not consume so much carbon dioxide.

327. As one of my colleagues said, we need visionary leadership not just in setting an example to other parts of the UK and the rest of Europe and the world, but also to take economic advantage of the opportunities that are presented. I would like to make a prediction that by 2050, we in Northern Ireland and on the rest of this island — and, presumably, the Scottish islands as well — will be net exporters of electricity to land-locked Europe. We have enormous tidal power resources. Wind power is the flavour of the month — only yesterday, the first commercial tidal turbine pilot was installed in Strangford Lough — but the real opportunity lies in the North Channel between here and south-west Scotland, which has enormous potential.

328. From my experience of fish farming in that area, I know that there is a constantly running three-knot tide that could produce prodigious quantities of energy. Adequate research and development has not been put into that. Twenty-five years ago, Queen’s University developed some of that technology, and it has been lying largely unused ever since. We have the engineering capacities and the energy resource, and we should use them.

329. There is no conflict between economic growth and reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The Budget could allow us to make significant strategic economic growth as well take advantage of renewable energy schemes — and that does not simply mean windmills.

330. I am in favour of congestion charges in the short term; however, we ought to be working towards abolishing congestion. We ought to be planning our public transport systems to replace the systems that existed in our cities and countryside more than 100 years ago. That provides significant opportunities, as local companies are involved in public transportation. The Wright Group is one of the leading producers of buses in the UK. In addition, economic opportunities exist to develop our public transport.

331. Mr Allison: You mentioned a perceived conflict between economic development and the environment. The solution to that is sustainable development. One of the greatest failings of the Programme for Government and the Budget is that the phrase “sustainable development” only occurs with the word “economic” inserted between those two words. It does not occur in its own right, and there is no understanding of sustainable development and the opportunities that it offers.

332. We are moving towards a carbon-constrained future with very high fuel prices. Oil has already topped $100 a barrel; it is predicted to top $200 a barrel by the end of the year. We simply cannot continue with our oil-dependant lifestyles. We must invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency, which is where we can make the greatest gains. It is regrettable that the Budget does not tackle that issue.

333. Dr Humphreys: You asked how we could shift public perception. Many people do not see it as a question of the environment versus the economy; that may a perception of elected representatives rather than the public. People could be incentivised to make small shifts in how they run their houses; they may find that they have an extra £10 per month in their pockets to pay for the increased oil prices, for example. It would incentivise people if they saw the Government doing the same by investing in renewables or technologies that will not come online for a long time. People could trust that that would work in the way that the Government intend.

334. Ms McNulty: Education and awareness-raising can play a role in shifting public pereceptions. There is still a perception that there will be new fossil fuels finds and that the Arctic will provide the solution. However, even if gas and oil were found at the Arctic, worldwide resources would still diminish. Fossil fuels are not the future; a reliance on coal mining is not an option. Renewable energy —the wind energy that Brian mentioned — is a message that the public needs access to.

335. Mr Beggs: Thank you very much for your presentation and useful discussion; it is a theme that the Assembly must develop.

336. You mentioned the need for mandatory measures and for providing incentives; however, I am unclear about where you think each is appropriate. Have you costed your proposals for improving the housing stock? Judgements must be made: should we build more social houses or fewer but of higher quality? Costings for building improved housing stock and for operating that which already exists would be useful if they are available.

337. I turn to renewable energy. I am surprised to learn that there has been no discussion between the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment about the end of the Reconnect scheme and the changes to building regulations. Both will affect the sector at the same time; therefore I am sympathetic to continuing incentives to encourage the use of renewable energy.

338. You have criticised the Department for removing the mandatory nature of microgeneration. Do you not accept that it would be more environmentally friendly to have higher standards of insulation to avoid the need to generate energy in the first place? You seem to have missed that point. The Department said that there have been significant improvements in the new building regulations and that it plans to upgrade standards in 2011 and again a few years later. Do you not accept that it can be better for the environment to use high-quality insulation and reduce the need for the generation of any form of heat?

339. Mr Allison: You are absolutely right: the greatest gains can be made from energy efficiency. That produces the biggest bang for your bucks in reducing carbon emissions. However, it does not have to be either/or; we can improve energy efficiency and have high levels of renewable energy as well. It need not be very complex renewable energy; it could be the provision of a water solar panel for every home. That would be simple to achieve and not particularly expensive.

340. The difficulty with removing mandatory renewable energy targets is that businesses were geared up to expect mandatory targets to be in place and had based their business plans on them. Now it has been scrapped and those businesses are in limbo.

341. That presents major difficulties. The Finance Minister has left all those businesses with no future.

342. Dr Humphreys: I have no figures on the percentage of houses that have insulation to the necessary level or which have fitted low-energy light bulbs or which have made other simple changes. However, I agree that those are the first steps: they are the quickest gains or the lowest-hanging fruit. As Declan says, people will still need to heat water and will still have to burn electricity for other things. For that we still need to look to renewables: insulating and other measures will not help with that.

343. Mr Beggs: Do you not accept that until you produce costs you cannot make a coherent argument?

344. Mr Allison: We can send you a report by the Renewables Advisory Board. It is estimated that £6,000 is needed on average to bring a home up to standard; that would produce an annual saving of £725 per home. The £6,000 would be paid off in less than 10 years.

345. The Chairperson: Does the coalition intend to make a submission on the proposed building regulations, which are out to public consultation as a part of the Committee Stage? The consultation ends on 16 April. The case has to be made by as many of the interested parties as possible.

346. Dr Humphreys: There will be a submission, delivered by first-class post.

347. Ms J McCann: Thank you for your interesting presentation. Most people agree that Governments have a social and moral obligation to the poorest and most vulnerable Third World countries.

348. I have spoken to locally based renewable energy organisations about the Reconnect grant scheme, which would encourage people to take energy-saving measures to make their homes more environmentally friendly. Many people in my constituency of West Belfast could not afford to take those measures unless such grants were available.

349. An additional benefit of the Reconnect grant scheme is that it would employ local people and local businesses. We are keen to have that scheme reintroduced.

350. The Reconnect grant and the building regulations are the two best ways of making a difference. They would constitute the action that you want, over and above a mere Government acknowledgment of their responsibility.

351. What can individual MLAs do for groups such as yours? How can we progress your objectives? Is the best way forward for the Reconnect grant scheme and emissions criteria included in building regulations to be put back on the agenda?

352. Dr Humphreys: Our main request is for a Northern Ireland climate bill; we want MLAs to support such a Bill if it comes before the Assembly.

353. If a climate Bill were enshrined in legislation, it would drive the other relevant issues, probably making your job easier. If there were legislation, plans to incentivise people — such as bringing back the Reconnect scheme or furthering building regulations — would fall into place. We all learn by example. Legislation would drive everything else, and help from MLAs would help that process.

354. I support the measures that you referred to; both are worthwhile, and investment on them would be recouped very quickly.

355. Ms McNulty: I thank Jennifer for mentioning the Developing World in relation to climate change.

356. We have taken particular care to address the Committee on the areas in which it has competence. However, if we think only within that restriction, our progress will be limited.

357. Northern Ireland is part of a globalised world, and the poor in the Developing World are already affected by climate change.

358. There are three reasons why the poor suffer most from climate change. First, they have experienced floods and droughts to a much greater extent than we have; secondly, those who are already poor are extremely vulnerable when faced with additional crises, such as climate change; thirdly, they rely heavily on rain-fed agriculture, and rain is either not coming at all, coming too late, coming out of season, or coming in deluge.

359. I appreciate that the Committee is restricted to approaching the subject within its own competencies; however, morally and ethically, we have a responsibility to think more broadly. A climate change Bill for Northern Ireland is imperative not only for our society but also for the Developing World.

360. Mr Scott: The reference to Fairtrade promotion may seem tangential to the issue of renewable energy, but it relates directly to what Eithne said. It is also directly within the Committee’s remit — how the Northern Ireland Government spend their billions of pounds a year. Will they spend their budget to aid poverty relief and assist people overseas to cope with the effects of climate change?

361. Climate change is already happening and is affecting the poor and vulnerable.

362. By going out of our way to buy Fairtrade and to procure goods ethically we can make an important contribution to the global picture. The Climate Change Coalition is made up largely of environmental organisations and bodies such as Oxfam Ireland and Trócaire. The Coalition of Aid and Development Agencies (CADA) in Northern Ireland comprises 20 organisations devoted to the eradication of global poverty. We care so much about what we are doing about climate change locally because we know from our work overseas the effect that climate change is already having on vulnerable populations in Bangladesh and in east, central and southern Africa. Buying Fairtrade products — a simple, easy measure in the remit of the Committee — can benefit people in the Developing World.

363. The Chairperson: The message could hardly be clearer; we hear it. The slogan about thinking globally and acting locally comes to mind. Declan, regarding the strategic investment strategy and the distinction between sustainable economic development and sustainable development, it might be worthwhile supplying the Committee with a critique of the investment strategy to inform the discussion and help the Committee to examine it and to return to basic principles. The Committee would like to have as much information as possible so that we can make the most effective response within our limitations.

364. Mr Allison: I am sure that we can produce a detailed critique.

365. The Chairperson: That can be part of an ongoing relationship. You will find that people are ready to support the broad principles and can benefit from direct advice about how we can apply ourselves.

366. Mr O’Loan: Thank you for your presentation, most of which I strongly support. I have one question about housing stock. Progress was made recently on the building regulations for new houses and extensions; however, we have a major problem with the existing housing stock. Even in recently built houses the standards are very low. What would be the best way to tackle that problem? You referred to the Reconnect scheme. It is very easy to achieve great improvements in energy efficiency through the insulation and efficiency of heating systems and the paybacks are rapid, so there are many incentives for owners to act. How can we encourage people to do that cost-effectively? If the best way to proceed were pointed out to people, many would do it for themselves. If we were to put money into free surveys of houses with a set of recommendations for owners, as well as education and marketing about climate change, would that be a significant way forward?

367. Dr Humphreys: I doubt that a survey would affect many people, even if they were told that they could save on their bills. Some organisations — Bryson House, for example — already offer energy audits and tell people how to save on their bills. However, there is a certain inertia. People are reluctant to change, or their bills may be paid by direct debit, and so they do not improve their houses even though doing so could save them money.

368. Mr O’Loan: Is grant aid the only incentive to bring about change? There is a perfectly sound argument that grant aid is not needed because energy-efficient devices pay for themselves.

369. Dr Humphreys: A more community-based approach in which community champions could be trained to take on those issues and provide more on-the-spot support would be beneficial. Those people would be trained to know what measures would be most suitable for the types of houses in their areas, and they would also revisit the houses with energy metres to check what materials were being burned, for instance. They would provide support for householders. The position would be voluntary, and there would be a support infrastructure to train the position holders. Such an approach would have a strong effect, and it could be targeted at the areas in which improvements in housing are most needed.

370. Mr Allison: Householders who insulate their homes will recoup their money in six months or a year or two, but, as Jennifer McCann said, that is meaningless to people who cannot afford to insulate their homes in the first place. That is where grants are important. Saving people money through a banded rating system is also an important incentive.

371. Mr F McCann: Have you met representatives of the construction industry? What is its response to the design and build of new homes? Should there be one standard of build? It is argued that private dwellings are built to the minimum required standard and social homes are built to the maximum standard. There is, therefore, a large gap between the two, especially regarding energy efficiency.

372. Mr Allison: We have not met representatives of the building trade, but a private dwelling should not be more energy efficient than a social home merely because the householder has the money to build his or her own home.

373. Mr F McCann: Private homes are built to the minimum standard, so the issues that you referred to are irrelevant to their owners.

374. Mr Allison: I do not think that that is fair. All homes should be built to a high standard, and eco-homes standards are being phased in. However, we could leapfrog ahead now and go for the highest standards because we have the techniques, materials and know-how.

375. The Chairperson: Would you provide the Committee with further information on the application of the banded rating system and details of how it will be applied — considering the move to a capital-based calculation system? That would help the Committee.

376. Following this evidence session, the Committee will receive evidence on mandatory microgeneration. We have had discussions on incentivisation, but a comprehensive approach must be taken at policy level. It is a common cause, and we have work to do on informing policy development on it.

377. How will low- or zero-carbon energy heating systems contribute to achieving t EU targets for renewable energy? Your expertise on that subject will benefit policy makers in their discussions. The Committee will have the opportunity to comment on that in the future, and your support would be helpful.

378. I thank you for your contributions; it was an interesting discussion. We have just opened the door on this work, so I anticipate that we will be in touch.

9 April 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Mervyn Storey (The Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs
Dr Stephen Farry
Mr Simon Hamilton
Ms Jennifer McCann
Mr Adrian McQuillan
Mr Declan O’Loan
Ms Dawn Purvis
Mr Peter Weir

Witnesses:

Mr John Dumigan
Mr Desmond Reid
Mr Donal Rogan

Building Control Northern Ireland

379. The Deputy Chairperson: Item 4 on the agenda is the evidence session on the Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill (Northern Ireland) with Building Control Northern Ireland. I welcome Mr John Dumigan, Mr Donal Rogan and Mr Desmond Reid to the Committee. As there is considerable information contained in your presentation, I suggest that we go through each paragraph, item by item. That would help you and members who may wish to ask questions on certain articles and proposed amendments. Mr Dumigan, do you want to make an opening comment?

380. Mr Beggs: It is appropriate that I declare an interest as a member of the North Eastern Group Building Control committee, on which I represent Carrickfergus Borough Council.

381. Mr John Dumigan (Building Control Northern Ireland): Building Control Northern Ireland welcomes the opportunity to address the Committee. We hope that our presentation will be of benefit to your deliberations. We have a voluntary networking system, which is a central panel system, of which I am chairman. I hope that, between the three of us, we will be able to answer members’ questions. I will leave it to you, Chairman, to decide how you want to make use of us. If you wish us to go through the presentation, we can do so; if you wish us simply to answer questions on the presentation, we are happy to do that as well.

382. The Deputy Chairperson: If members are content, I suggest that we start with paragraph 3.1 of the presentation and work our way through the issues. If any questions arise, we can ask Mr Dumigan and his colleagues to comment. Are members agreed?

Members indicated assent.

383. The Deputy Chairperson: Paragraph 3.1.1 recommends that the definition of “owner” should be changed to “responsible person”. How would the responsible person be determined in cases in which, for example, there is a legal owner, an agent or a tenant? Is that approach taken in other legislation?

384. Mr Dumigan: It is difficult to determine who the owner is in some legislation. In many instances of enforcement, people refuse to declare their ownership of property. That makes it difficult to make a prosecution. In article 66 of the Pollution Control and Local Government (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, there is a requirement on people to declare their interest in a property. If they refuse to do so, a prosecution can arise. The Bill does not give us that power, although it would probably help us to determine the ownership of a property and, therefore, enable us to take action against the owner.

385. The Deputy Chairperson: Therefore you do not believe that it would be difficult to establish the person responsible for a property?

386. Mr Dumigan: At present, it is difficult. However, if the legislation required the owner to declare him or herself as such, that would certainly help the enforcement process. We would agree with that, Chairman. It is not an issue that we have raised, but it is a difficulty.

387. Mr Donal Rogan (Building Control Northern Ireland): The Committee may want to take advantage of the opportunity to harmonise definitions in the Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 and allied legislation. For four years, we have worked with Land and Property Services to produce information so that properties may be valued for local authority rating. There are overlaps in completion notices and completion of works as to how properties are measured in relation to the Land Registry (Fees) Order (Northern Ireland) 1976. It is not dealt with specifically in the Bill; however, if possible, there should be an opportunity to attain harmonisation across regulations.

388. The Deputy Chairperson: Let us discuss each article in turn. If it were helpful, John could give an explanation of each to help members. Shall we move on to paragraph 3.2?

389. Mr Beggs: I have a question on paragraph 3.1. You said that there may be difficulties in identifying the “responsible person” if work needs to be carried out.

390. Building Control recommends that “owner” should be changed to “responsible person”. Is that a sufficient definition or does it present any problems? Might “responsible person” refer to the builder or the tenant? How have you come up with that term?

391. Mr Dumigan: We hoped that the term “responsible person” would be specified in the Bill, as, previously, the term “owner” was defined in article 2 of the 1979 Order; it is a more modern term. Under article 18 of the 1979 Order, Building Control can serve a contravention notice on the “owner”; we would like that term replaced by “responsible person”, which embraces a variety of categories.

392. Dr Farry: It may be unusual, but occasionally the owner of a building or the person formally responsible will be outside the jurisdiction. How would you proceed in that event?

393. Mr Dumigan: Making the definition include any person, agent or trustee acting on behalf of that owner, including the occupant — and the current definition includes occupants — would deal with such a situation.

394. Mr Desmond Reid (Building Control Northern Ireland): It also includes the person carrying out the work, so it is a broad definition.

395. The Deputy Chairperson: If there are no other questions on that paragraph, we will move on to paragraph 3.2., “Article 3A — Protected Buildings”.

396. Mr Dumigan: Is the Committee happy with paragraph 3.1.2?

397. The Deputy Chairperson: Since are no questions from members, we will move on.

398. Mr Dumigan: Article 3A:

“requires Building Control to have regard to the desirability of preserving the character of protected buildings”.

399. When Building Control applies the regulations, it should not do so in a manner that would destroy the character of such buildings.

400. We consider that requirement to be weak. Building Control officials may look cursorily at a building, “have regard to it” but nevertheless destroy the character of the building. We recommend a statutory requirement on Building Control to consult with Government agencies that have responsibility for such buildings. We also suggest that the list of buildings for which such agencies should be consulted ought to be extended to include those of townscape character and others of historic or architectural value.

401. The Deputy Chairperson: Should that be in place of or in addition to the duty in the Bill, requiring Building Control to have regard to the desirability of preserving the character of protected buildings?

402. Mr Dumigan: It would place more of an onus on Building Control to recognise to a greater degree that we could destroy the character of buildings and that we should have more care in that area. It places a greater duty on us to act in a more responsible manner; we should not deal with the issue in a frivolous way. However, the proposed wording could allow some building control officers to do so if they were so inclined.

403. Mr Beggs: You mentioned townscape character and historic buildings; are conservation areas already included in technical booklet F?

404. Mr Dumigan: My understanding is that they are.

405. The Deputy Chairperson: If I do not get any indication that members have a specific question on each section of Building Control’s submission, we will just move through it. Section 3.3 refers to article 5A, which deals with guidance for the purpose of building regulations.

406. Mr Dumigan: Building Control fully supports proposed new article 5A, as it is a much more flexible way to deal with building regulations. However, our concern is that the legislation states that only those documents that are published by the Department can be used as guidance. However, it is likely that many other organisations will produce documents that could be used as guidance, for example the Building Research Establishment. We are concerned that as such documents are not published by the Department, they could not be used as guidance.

407. The Deputy Chairperson: Do you envisage there being a list of accredited guidance publications that have been published by other bodies — such as the one you referred to — and are in the public domain? Is there not a risk that there could be contradictory guidance? Are we running the risk of having various sets of guidance that could be interpreted differently and lead to confusion?

408. Mr Dumigan: We envisage the Department’s spelling out what the guidance would be. It would not be a free market in which publications could simply be picked off the shelf and classed as guidance. The guidance would perhaps be “issued by the Department”, or “listed by the Department,” rather than published by the Department.

409. Mr Reid: That already occurs in other aspects of the building regulations. When undertaking mechanical and electrical work, for example, we use guides published by the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE). We refer to other guides, but 5A seems to restrict our ability to do that.

410. Mr O’Loan: Provided that it can be made watertight, I see the point of your recommendation. I take the point that other guides are used in other fields.

411. Mr Dumigan: Paragraph 3.4 deals with type approval. We welcome that provision, as Building Control has had type approval for a considerable time; it benefits the industry by speeding up approvals. However, some councils do not wish to sign up to the scheme, and some disagree with parts of a type approval, because somebody feels strongly about some particular matter. After all, building regulations are open to interpretation. However, that undermines the scheme, and in my view undermines Building Control itself. We recommend that all councils be required to sign up to the agreed approval scheme so that a particular council cannot opt out of it. We need a robust system to ensure that whatever is type approved is in compliance with building regulations.

412. However, we are anxious to ensure that if a builder or developer goes to the trouble of getting a type approval from one council, another council does not tell him that it does not agree with that.

413. The Deputy Chairperson: Is there not an argument for keeping the power to type approve in the hands of DFP centrally rather than devolving it to councils?

414. Mr Dumigan: Yes, if DFP wants to retain that power.

415. Mr Rogan: A potential difficulty with that is that our customers value the right of appeal to a third party, which would be DFP. Therefore the councils should have the power to type approve. However, we recommend that action be taken to require all councils to comply with an agreed type approval scheme.

416. Mr Weir: How many councils resisted the scheme?

417. Mr Dumigan: Two or three.

418. Mr Weir: Do they object to certain aspects of the scheme or do they reject the scheme in its entirety?

419. Mr Dumigan: Two or three councils will not sign up to some parts of the scheme.

420. Mr Weir: Opposition is therefore relatively limited.

421. Dr Farry: Mr Dumigan, you stated that building regulations are open to interpretation and are not an exact science. How much variance is there in the approach to type approval taken by different building control professionals who work in similar settings but in different locations? How frequently are there are disagreements and what is the range of those disagreements?

422. Mr Dumigan: We have a close interface with the users of the service, and their message to us is that they want uniformity and consistency above all else. We tried to deliver that through the central panel system in which panels provide guidance on how to interpret and apply regulations. No matter how hard we work, there will never be 100% compliance or uniformity, but we are moving to get as close as possible to achieving that.

423. Each council is autonomous, and each council officer can make his or her own decision. We have a voluntary networking arrangement: it is not mandatory for an officer to accept any decision by a panel. That is the weakness in the system. However, we are much stronger than other building regulatory authorities, in that we work so closely together.

424. We work in a small Province with 26 councils. Our surveys and focus groups show that our customers are reasonably content and that we have not inflicted any major inconsistencies on them. We deliver a reasonably good and consistent service, but it is not 100% consistent — there will always be differences.

425. Mr Rogan: The point about achieving consistency was well made. The central panel recently devised an audit to determine the effectiveness of the building control system. It is a voluntary audit, and no one else does it. We ask how effective the regulations are and whether they achieve what they are set out to do. Our objective is to achieve added value by achieving overall compliance.

426. Dr Farry: The review of public administration will reduce the number of councils from 26 to 11. How important will the power of type approval be in the new context? For example, developers who currently work in both the North Down Borough Council and Ards Borough Council areas may experience consistency issues, but when those two councils merge, there will be a central building control approach. However, I do not imagine that too many developers are involved in similar schemes in North Down and, say, Fermanagh. When the number of councils changes from 26 to 11, will type approval become less significant?

427. Mr Dumigan: I do not believe so. Several multi-nationals requiring type approvals, such as McDonald’s, are moving into Northern Ireland. The Department of Education requires type approvals for temporary classrooms and other pre-fabricated buildings. All sorts of buildings are being erected throughout Northern Ireland, and the people using those buildings would benefit.

428. Mr McQuillan: I have a question on the review of public administration. I thought that the move from 26 councils to 11 would make it easier for type approvals to be granted.

429. Mr Dumigan: Having read the Bill, I gather that the Department had in mind a type approval system similar to that which pertains in England and Wales, whereby one council assesses an application and all the other councils accept it. That was not the system that we had in mind for Northern Ireland, nor was it the way things were done in the past. Representatives from different parts of the Province would meet in a working panel to assess a type approval. They decided whether a project complied with building regulations, and their decision was adopted by the councils. That is different from how things are done in England and Wales. Problems have occurred in England and Wales when one council has made an approval that is not accepted by others. Our proposals are for a more robust system in which more people have an input into what the type approval is.

430. Mr Beggs: Do you agree that if there were no panel to make a decision, the multi-nationals would apply for approval to a council that required slightly lower standards, which in turn would lower the standard elsewhere in Northern Ireland. Therefore a panel system is a better method of protection.

431. Mr Rogan: We agree with that and see it as a way forward. The central panel, which we are here to represent today, has satellite panels that work to it, one of which is a standards panel, comprising a group of volunteers who come together to represent councils and take decisions on the interpretation of regulations. It is all about trying to achieve consistency. The model that we are presenting today, of a group of members who meet to interpret matters, is a stronger one. We do not want the regulations to be diluted by one council taking its own view. The evidence from England and Wales is that that has happened on occasions.

432. The Deputy Chairperson: We will now move to paragraph 3•5.

433. Mr Dumigan: Article 13 of the1979 Order deals with plans deposited with a district council. Although the Bill does not contain any amendment to article 17, Building Control would like to propose an amendment to it. I said earlier that councils are autonomous bodies, and we are here to put the view of the vast majority of councils. However, in their assessment of this article, several councils, but not all, expressed the view that plans should be approved before work is commenced, which would ensure that serious and costly mistakes are not made during the construction process. At present, developers can submit a plan to Building Control and start the project half an hour later. The result is that, in general, mistakes are made and remedial work has to be carried out, which is a waste of time and resources for developers and for us. It has created problems in some areas. I will ask Dessie to elaborate on that.

434. Mr Reid: As John said, not all councils hold the view that plans should be pre-approved; members may be aware that in Scotland developers must have approval before they start. The repercussions can be costly. No later than last week, I was presented with a situation in which a developer submitted plans with very little detail, got them out of his agent’s office, and wanted to get started. The plans were for a multi-storey building with an underground car park. An initial look at the plan showed me that it was completely up the left; it may even require another lift.

435. That would have implications for the structure of the building. The underground car park requires extensive ventilation, which the plan did not cover that. We must discuss the matter further, and consider whether to allow building to proceed before approval. At the moment, some developers proceed without approval, but that can be a costly decision for the developer or applicant.

436. The Deputy Chairperson: Are there any bottlenecks in the approval process?

437. Mr Reid: Building Control has 56 days to consider plans, after which it is considered a deemed refusal. We suggest that that should be changed, and, after 56 days, should be considered a deemed approval. England and Wales do it that way; it puts the onus on Building Control to respond.

438. We encourage pre-application consultation whereby applicants discuss the plans with us before submission. However, that only happens occasionally because of the pressure to commence work on the site.

439. Mr O’Loan: You said that not all councils advocate the proposal; its intentions are clear but there are difficulties. Will bottlenecks or delays in the process hold up development? There are concerns about the planning system, and the Committee wants to ensure that legitimate development is not delayed. My understanding is that buildings are approved in stages and often can not proceed beyond the first stage — foundations and so on — because the proposal gets buried in the planning process. In a way, the system offers protection.

440. If that formed part of the legislation, how would it be enforced? The proposal is not ripe enough for the Committee to advocate an amendment to the Bill. Your evidence proves that it requires further examination.

441. Mr Rogan: Most councils approved the plan to introduce targets of 35 days for the commercial sector and 21 days for the domestic sector. However, 90% of Belfast’s plans are turned round in 35 days. That does not mean that plans are approved, rather that a meaningful response is issued to the applicant. We approve only 38% of newly submitted plans, as most contain a contravention. Some clients — or sometimes the agent or developer — commence work before approval, but, as Dessie said, they do so at their own risk.

442. There are ways around it; we and our clients value greatly pre-submission consultation. On occasion, we use the stage approval system; sometimes clients prefer stage approval for a superstructure or a substructure. There are economic considerations in approving plans before commencing building work.

443. Mr O’Loan: If the proposal formed part of the legislation, how would it be enforced?

444. Mr Reid: I am not familiar with Scottish legislation, but it is illegal to start building before approval. We would have to introduce the measure slowly and perhaps take enforcement action against those who commence before approval. That would become a contravention, as it is in Scotland, where it is also a contravention to occupy before completion.

445. Mr O’Loan: I will leave it there.

446. The Deputy Chairperson: You say that you would like article 17 of the 1979 Order to be amended.

447. Mr Dumigan: Article 17 concerns appeals to the Department. When applicants are aggrieved by a decision taken by a council, they have a right to appeal to the Department. The Department publishes information on how it arrives at appeal decisions, which is a recent development. Hitherto, we have always had a problem in Building Control in trying to understand how the Department reached a decision. Although the Department now publishes such information, a new incumbent might decide not to publish. We are asking that the power be introduced to require the Department to publish information on the rationale that it uses to reach an appeal decision. We also suggest that, with the introduction of guidance-based documents, there be a system of determinations. The problem for developers and builders when working on-site is that if they have done something that Building Control feels to be wrong and requires them to fix, and they feel that it is not wrong and that they do not want to fix it, one cannot afford to wait a month or six weeks for an appeal to be heard. It would be of great benefit to the industry and to Building Control if there was a fast-track method for resolving such disputes.

448. The Deputy Chairperson: Is there a problem with delays at present?

449. Mr Dumigan: Usually, a developer will decide that he cannot afford the delay and will give up. I suppose that that could be considered a loss of rights. However, if there was a fast-track method to allow a decision to be reached in a matter of days, the issue would be over and done with and the builder could get on with his work.

450. Mr Beggs: How many appeals have there been?

451. Mr Dumigan: Most appeals happen as a result of planning applications. To the best of my knowledge, there are not many appeals about work on site. The Department has a better idea of the number.

452. Mr Beggs: Are you aware of any appeals in your own areas?

453. Mr Rogan: There were six appeals in Belfast last year, particularly on part R of the building regulations for disabled access and lifts. There were two in the past year about decisions on site.

454. The Deputy Chairperson: Article 18.

455. Mr Dumigan: Article 18 concerns serving contravention notices for work that contravenes building regulations. Under that article, councils have 18 months from completion of the works to serving notice. However, “completion of the works” is difficult to define and is open to legal interpretation and legal battles. Under paragraph 3.7.2, we are working to the enforcement concordat through a democratic process. Councils are not keen to take enforcement action. Such action is a last resort. Councils are anxious for us to try to resolve matters before they reach court. Building Control considers reaching court to be a failure in that we have been unable to prevent that from happening. Therefore, when the time that we are required to devote to that process is added up — either through the democratic process or telling people what they are required to do according to the processes and the concordat — as well as the time in which people have to appeal, and the general slowness of the legal system, we are often outside the 18 months. Therefore, the period within which we must serve a contravention notice has elapsed.

456. In addition, unauthorised work — that is, work undertaken out of our sight — often results in contraventions that are a danger to health and safety.

457. If that work has been completed for more than 12 months, we cannot serve a contravention notice. We can apply for an injunction for the removal or alteration of any contravening work.

458. However, the legal advice that we received states that that process is exceedingly expensive. In addition, courts expect requests for injunctions to be made in a timely manner. If the work was completed five or 10 years ago, an injunction is not timely; we will not win such cases. Our concern, therefore, is that there is an area of the Bill over which we have no control.

459. Paragraph 3.7.4 of the briefing note states that article 18A (1)(a) allows for a person upon whom a contravention notice has been served to submit a report to the council. That person has the right to appeal within a certain period. They also have the right to submit a report within a certain time; and after that submission, another appeal can be made. Indeed, a total period of 84 days is allowed for the report to be submitted. That period allows site work — if it is ongoing — to continue for a considerable time before a decision is made on whether to proceed or withdraw the notice.

460. The facility of submitting a report is seldom used. The whole process would be speeded up if that was facility removed. Article 18 is not effective for us — it can prevent us from taking enforcement action. It gives the applicant certain appeal and legal rights; if we serve contravention notice, the applicant can appeal against that notice, submit a report, etc.

461. Article 21 provides the right for councils to go straight to court when provisions are contravened. Therefore although the process is convoluted and difficult for us, we could — if we so wished — circumvent it and go straight to court. That scenario is unfair on the developer and the applicant. If we implement the provisions of article 21, lawyers seem to grant the applicant certain rights and then take those rights away.

462. We need a more effective procedure for processing contravention notices and taking legal action.

463. The Deputy Chairperson: Do you have any suggestions about how completion of work could be defined? Admittedly, that is a minefield, but could it not be taken as the date of the completion certificate?

464. Mr Dumigan: I realise that the Department intends to let the clock run from the day that the completion notice is issued. However, we have had experiences in court when, although a completion notice had not been given under current legislation, the work was deemed to have been finished. We had argued that the work had never been completed and, therefore, that we had the right to serve the notice long after the 18-month period. The magistrate countered that although the appropriate documentation was absent, it was not reasonable to argue that the house had not been completed. I accept that it is difficult to define the time of a work’s completion, but it is critical that we do it.

465. Mr Beggs: You said that councils have 18 months from the completion of the works to serve a contravention notice. We have discussed to whom notices are served and occasions when you have been unable to locate the owner. Is the system being abused, inhibiting your ability to serve the appropriate notice? Could the proposed legislation give rise to such a situation?

466. Mr Dumigan: I have taken legal action on several occasions against builders who have subsequently claimed in court that they are not the builder.

467. I told the magistrate that he was on site and that he was directing the work. The man said that he was the foreman, but not the builder. There are difficulties in the legal process, as I am sure you all know. The t’s must crossed and the i’s must dotted, and one must go on site and identify the builder, find out his name, where he is from and record those details. However, there have been instances when that has been difficult.

468. Mr Beggs: In supporting your wider interpretation earlier, I do not want deadlines to be missed because of technical difficulties in getting the appropriate person with the notice, and what you say supports the definition of a responsible person. That may stop people circumventing the law.

469. Mr Dumigan: It is not infrequent to go to court and have the defendant say that he is the wrong person.

470. The Deputy Chairperson: Should councils not have access to the contract that was established between the builder — the person who is carrying out the work — and the company that is doing the work on their behalf? Anyone involved in building projects knows that if there is a legal framework an agent is used. That agent must have legal documents that stipulate clearly the builder’s name for insurance purposes and for other reasons. It should not be that difficult to find out the name of the builder.

471. Mr Dumigan: On many occasions there are no written contracts — especially with smaller works.

472. The Deputy Chairperson: You are referring mostly to smaller works; however, one would expect a contract with larger works.

473. Mr Dumigan: The situation is easier with larger works. However, the difficulty with larger works is knowing which member of the board of directors to serve notice on.

474. The Deputy Chairperson: Yes, or whether the work was subcontracted, and that can take you into another area.

475. Mr McQuillan: Surely that information can be found out through the planning process and the agent. Everything has to be advertised clearly.

476. Mr Dumigan: Not necessarily. Often applications are transferred from person to person. There have been difficulties in trying to identify the owner and the builder, and we do not have much power to demand that information.

477. Mr Rogan: Although we make that point, the provisions in the Bill are an improvement on the present situation. The reference to making false statements is also helpful, especially when filling out application forms. Traditionally, that has been misleading and frustrating for the local authority.

478. Dr Farry: My question is slightly tangential, but it relates to the issue. Does Building Control proceed, regardless of the payment of the fee? What is the legal link between payment of fees and the work? Are you honour-bound to inspect works, even though there is a default on the payment of fees?

479. Mr Reid: We are legally bound to carry out all our statutory inspections; it does not matter whether the fee is paid or not; we must carry out the full regime of enforcement. Fees relate to a separate piece of legislation, and we must pursue their payment separately. We cannot refuse to do our work or to issue completion notices.

480. Dr Farry: How big a problem is non payment or default on payment of fees?

481. Mr Reid: It is quite a big problem, and it is increasing with the drop in the industry and the number of commencements.

482. Dr Farry: Is that covered by the long title of the Bill or are you suggesting that it is a parallel piece of legislation?

483. Mr Reid: Prescribed fees is a separate piece of legislation.

484. Dr Farry: In the longer term, would it be advantageous to change the law to require payment of fees before certificates are issued?

485. Mr Reid: Yes. I have always advocated that.

486. Mr Rogan: I agree with Mr Reid. A link could be made between the issuing of the certificate and the fee, and that would strengthen our position. If a fee is not paid but work has commenced, that is an issue concerning different legal opinions. For example, in entertainment licensing legislation the local authority in Belfast has explained that the application is not legitimate if everything is not made up front, including the fee. Local authority building controls tend to be customer-focused. The industry tends to make last-minute decisions due to cash flow and other constraints.

487. When an application is lodged, it suits us to go through with the inspection process anyway, because undertaking the process that Mr Dumigan explained — the issue of contraventions — is much more difficult and is a burden on the rate payer. We would rather try to achieve compliance through negotiation and discussion as opposed to formal legal action because that could become a rate-born activity and could go beyond what the prescribed fees are intended for.

488. The Deputy Chairperson: Are Members content?

Members indicated assent.

489. The Deputy Chairperson: Can you elaborate on article 19?

490. Mr Dumigan: Article 19 covers the deposit of plans to be of no effect after a certain interval. At present, if plans are submitted for building works and are not commenced within three years of the date of that submission, councils can declare them to be null and void. However, what seems to happen is that developers will start to build a site of 100 houses, for example, and say that if one house has been started the whole site has been started. That site could then run for years, building to standards that could be long outdated. In fact, there have been recent instances of people building to 1973 standards.

491. Our concern — and we have spoken to the Department about this — is that building to lower standards should not happen in this day and age. There should be some mechanism whereby houses that have not been started on a site should have to comply with current building regulation standards.

492. I understand that the Department is of a mind that that can be addressed in secondary legislation, but our concern is that that will not deal with the thousands of sites that are in the pipeline. Thermal standards were raised at the end of 2006, and Building Control across Northern Ireland was swamped with applications for houses. The obvious intention of developers was to get planning permission before the new standards were introduced. We are concerned that all that is still in the pipeline. It could go on for many years, and we are anxious to ensure that there is some mechanism to allow us to declare that those plans will be null and void.

493. Mr Beggs: I support that measure. Householders could purchase houses and could be unaware that they are inefficient. Why should the new standards not be adopted in order to provide more sustainable buildings and deal with energy requirements in the future?

494. The Deputy Chairperson: A situation could arise where houses could be built that do not comply with current standards, because somebody received approval several years ago. There are probably houses that have been built recently that only comply with standards that were in place in the 1970s or 1980s.

495. Mr Beggs: Would that cover issues such as disability access?

496. The Deputy Chairperson: Such cases would not have to comply with disability regulations.

497. Mr Beggs: That has strengthened my view on the issue.

498. Mr Reid: It is important that “commencement” be defined: on occasions, developers have started minor drainage work but claimed that a site has been started. The legislation needs to define “commencement”.

499. The Deputy Chairperson: The definition of commencement is also relevant to planning applications. A site entrance may be opened, but the site might lie dormant for years, yet such sites are deemed as having commenced material works.

500. Mr Dumigan: Proposed new article 19A relates to the maintenance of registers by district councils. Councils keep registers, and we are concerned that suppliers and builders have access to those registers. I extended my house recently, so I know that people who are doing building work are inundated with junk mail from those people. The public should be protected from that sort of abuse, because that is not what the registers are there for. I am not sure how that abuse can be eradicated, because there is perhaps a requirement on us to provide that information under the Data Protection Act 1998.

501. If the Department specifies that we have to provide information, all of that information will be available. However, access to the registers is a difficulty.

502. The Deputy Chairperson: The minute that a planning application is advertised in a newspaper, the applicant will receive notification from a local builder because it is in the public domain; I am sure that we all have been subjected to that at some stage.

503. Ms Purvis: There is an edited version of the electoral register, on which people can request to be included. That may be one way of keeping information from manufacturers, suppliers and builders. Planning applications will be published in the press, but it will be up to the builders, for instance, to work harder to chase that up.

504. Mr Beggs: I am not sure how councils could restrict access to registers under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

505. Mr Rogan: The Land and Property Service’s chief executive and director of operations will be attending the Committee later today. The register that is kept by district councils could perhaps be expanded to facilitate the rating legislation. That ties in with what was said earlier about harmonising definitions. We have to deal with linkage across the various legislations.

506. The Deputy Chairperson: We will move on to the additional issues.

507. Mr Dumigan: Building Control has powers to enforce dangerous buildings legislation and so protect the public. However, some of that legislation was drafted in 1847 — the year of the famine; it needs to be brought up to date. We are not even certain whether it can be legally applied outside towns because the legislation was the Towns Improvements clauses Act 1847, and it related to towns only. We are not sure how much of it has been transferred. We have taken a great deal of legal opinion, but even the lawyers are uncertain of our legal standing.

508. We asked the Department to include that in the Bill, which it did. However, the definition was so broad that it appeared that we would apply dangerous buildings legislation to anybody who did something that was dangerous when involved in new build. That is not what we intended. It was intended that the legislation would apply to existing property, not to property under construction. The Department’s action, therefore, was too broad.

509. In its wisdom, the Department realised that the legislation would need more consideration, so it removed the provision dealing with dangerous buildings. However, the Bill should include power to make legislation; if it does not, responsibility for the current legislation will lie in another Department. I am not certain whether another Department would be interested in undertaking that responsibility.

510. As we are dealing with buildings, the Bill should be more of a one-stop shop that deals with new buildings and dangerous buildings; then the public should know that it is all focused in one area.

511. We are anxious that the opportunity be taken now to provide for the power rather than for the regulations.

512. The Deputy Chairperson: Should DFP hold the power for dealing with dangerous buildings or should the councils hold it?

513. Mr Dumigan: The power should be held by the councils.

514. The Deputy Chairperson: DFP said that the issue of dangerous buildings must be further researched and evaluated before firm provisions are made. Do you agree?

515. Mr Dumigan: Yes, and we suggest that the power to make the regulations be taken now. The regulations would be made later.

516. Ms J McCann: Could the dangerous buildings legislation be broadened to include a provision that, when the site is under construction but work is not taking place, would make the site safer for people who live in the vicinity, particularly young children? When a building is completed, roads and footpaths that had been dug up as a result of the construction must be replaced. Could the legislation be extended to cover that?

517. Mr Reid: Most of those issues are covered by health and safety legislation and the construction, design and management (CDM) regulations when work is ongoing. The contractor has a responsibility to the general public to ensure that a site is safe. The existing legislation, to which the Roads Service is subject, covers the restoration of footpaths; the Water Service and other agencies are also subject to legislation. It would be difficult to apply the dangerous buildings legislation to the type of situation that was mentioned. I appreciate such problems arise, but they are already covered by legislation.

518. Ms J McCann: It is not enforced enough.

519. Mr Reid: I did not say that it was.

520. The Deputy Chairperson: We will now discuss harmonisation of regulations.

521. Mr Dumigan: General press releases, trade magazines and television programmes say that new building regulations are being introduced; however, they are being introduced in England, not here. That causes confusion about what regulations are applicable. Moreover, the requirements in England and Wales are similar but slightly different from those here. The requirements in Scotland and the Republic of Ireland are also similar but slightly different from those here. The trade literature to advise architects and builders how to comply must be spelled out in four different jurisdictions.

522. It causes confusion, so we want the Bill to include an aspirational requirement for the Department to try to harmonise regulations, even if that only includes their introduction; if that were done, these islands would introduce the same measures at the same time. Most of the legislation comes from the European Union anyway. The harmonisation of regulations would benefit the industry and the profession.

523. The Deputy Chairperson: Is there an argument that Northern Ireland requires to do things differently?

524. Mr Dumigan: We acknowledge that that is your right; that is why there is an Assembly. I heard the same argument in the National Assembly for Wales. Scotland also has autonomy. Our suggestion is for each of the legislative bodies to get together to discuss the issue, as it would be beneficial if the regulations were given the same names. In Northern Ireland, fire safety is covered by part E of the regulations; part B of the Building Regulations 2000, which covers England and Wales, refers to fire safety; and in Scotland it is covered by another part of its regulations. That leads to total confusion.

525. The Deputy Chairperson: We will move onto the issue of backland development.

526. Mr Dumigan: I am sure that the Committee is aware that the issue of builders making use of backland development has been prevalent recently. On several occasions, access for the Fire Service and refuse lorries has been impossible. Those services cannot get access under arches to get to a development. We have spoken to colleagues in the Planning Service and to other colleagues, and it appears that there is no control over that difficulty. There are developments to which the Fire Service could not get access if there were a fire. That is a serious issue that must be addressed.

527. Mr Rogan: In the consultation on part J of the Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000, we spoke to the Department, which emphasised that much of the backland development restricts access for refuse lorries and cleansing services. We ask that that be considered in the review of the regulations, particularly part J or, if required, in the Bill.

528. The Deputy Chairperson: It is serious if a development is under construction but cannot be accessed by the Fire Service.

529. Mr Rogan: There are examples, one of which is in Moira.

530. The Deputy Chairperson: In my constituency a couple of years ago, the Housing Executive had to demolish some of its properties because the Fire Service could not access them.

531. Mr Reid: In a village in Fermanagh, there are three houses in a backland development that cannot be accessed. To get access from behind the development, the developers are negotiating to use Housing Executive development land. However, the residents there do not want that to happen, so it is in a kind of no-man’s land at the moment.

532. Mr Beggs: Is that because a Department has failed at the planning stage? If so, which one? Alternatively, has there been a failure in the planning legislation?

533. Mr Reid: There is no onus on the Planning Service to discuss its proposals with us. The Planning Service is given permission for the layout and design of a scheme; we cannot control that in our legislation.

534. Mr Beggs: I may take query elsewhere. If the Fire Service were consulted even at the planning stage, the situation would be improved.

535. Mr Rogan: Under the draft houses in multiple occupation (HMO) plan, councils are consulted on waste, fire safety and part R of the Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) on building issues. However, that is only under the draft HMO plan. Better consultation is required, and there should be a body that can ensure that proper access is a requirement.

536. Mr Beggs: Can Building Control refuse to approve plans if there is no fire access?

537. Mr Reid: No.

538. Mr Beggs: If Building Control had that power, it could assess buildings with drawings to determine whether there was fire access.

539. Mr Reid: That issue should be dealt with at the planning stage of a development before building permission is granted.

540. The Deputy Chairperson: That raises my concern about the planning process and the building control regulations — in some cases, it seems that never the twain shall meet and that they live in separate silos. That is a huge issue. Surely it should be incumbent on the Planning Service to take cognisance of the basic important element of safety. There is a pre-consultation with planning in building regulations and planning applications, so there should be consultation between the Planning Service and Building Control. I assume that Building Control is not a statutory consultee in planning applications.

541. Mr Dumigan: That is correct.

542. The Deputy Chairperson: Do you regard being a statutory consultee as a valuable tool?

543. Mr Rogan: Building Control is a proposed statutory consultee under the draft HMO plan.

544. The Deputy Chairperson: However, not in normal circumstances.

545. Mr Rogan: No; the local authority is the statutory consultee, but it does not prescribe building regulations, which is difficult and tends to be on matters of pollution control and contaminated land.

546. In his review of social housing in England and Wales that the Government commissioned, John Calcutt links planning conditions, local authorities and warranty systems.

547. Mr Reid: Under RPA, all the planning powers will go back to councils — I say that facetiously.

548. The Deputy Chairperson: It is a salient point.

549. Mr Reid: It is easier to organise and take on board.

550. The Deputy Chairperson: We are running over time, so I invite John to continue. If Members have any specific questions, feel free to raise them.

551. Mr Dumigan: The building industry is the most dangerous industry in the country, yet it seems to be self-regulated. There appears to be no robust inspection regime in place to ensure that things are done safely; it is mostly reactive as opposed to proactive.

552. We are particularly concerned about the demolition of buildings. Responsibility for that lies with the Health and Safety Executive, but we are of a mind that control of demolitions should lie with Building Control, because we would be reactive as we already inspect buildings. The Pointer database of addresses for the whole of Northern Ireland has been established; however, it lacks information on demolished properties, so the data are incomplete. No one holds such information, but if we were given that responsibility we could help to fill the gap. Our recommendation is that the Committee consider making regulations to control demolitions. In effect, Building Control could become a one-stop shop.

553. Mr Rogan: Most demolition is a precursor to reconstruction, which brings Building Control on site. We could ensure proactive measures to ensure that we control the whole demolition process.

554. The Deputy Chairperson: Who controls demolition at present?

555. Mr Dumigan: It is largely self-regulated, but it falls to the Health and Safety Executive. If something goes wrong, the executive will investigate.

556. Mr Rogan: Planning approval is required before the demolition of listed buildings and other proscribed buildings, but it is not necessary for other aspects of demolition.

557. Mr Dumigan: The Health and Safety Executive does not control a demolition. Representatives from the building industry have strongly suggested that we need a published programme of proposed new regulations so that people know what is in the pipeline. They have also suggested that when amendments to regulations are introduced, there should be a breathing space of three or four years to allow people to catch up with the new requirements. After that, further amendments could be introduced. However, there was a major upheaval when the last amendment was introduced in 2006. We have still not come to terms with that, and it is still disturbing Building Control and the industry. We merely suggest a system that is better planned.

558. The Deputy Chairperson: The amendments are driven by EU directives; therefore, in many regards, they are beyond our control.

559. Mr Dumigan: I accept that. However, we suggest that amendments be controlled and phased.

560. Mr Reid: England and Wales are reviewing the situation; they recommend a periodic review of building regulations every three years to allow the building industry to forward-plan rather than have continual changes, which happens at the moment.

561. The Deputy Chairperson: What about existing buildings?

562. Mr Dumigan: It might be appropriate to take on that power, because in future we may wish to apply regulations retrospectively. We might never wish to do that, but we will not get an opportunity like this for some time, so we should build in that power now.

563. The Deputy Chairperson: Would there be an enforcement issue? How would we police something like that?

564. Mr Dumigan: If someone wanted to upgrade buildings thermally, they would simply make an application in the normal way, saying that the buildings require that work. There is much talk of climate change and saving the planet, so we could take this opportunity to require buildings to be more energy-efficient. If the regulations could be applied to the existing building stock, it might help the situation. We are not saying that the regulations should be brought in; we are merely suggesting future-proofing and providing a power to carry out the work if necessary.

565. Energy-performance certificates, which Committee members will be aware of, are one method of doing what John suggests, but, in relation to schedule 1, we understand that there is provision to allow for application of building regulations to existing building stock.

566. Ms J McCann: Do you consider it important to have renewable-energy equipment installed in new buildings, in view of the debate about renewable energy?

567. Mr Rogan: I am aware of that debate. We have to try to achieve compliance with the building regulations. The building regulations are functional in the sense that they are not prescriptive; prescriptive regulations go against the ethos of our performance-based standards. Our argument is that the current regulations — particularly the energy conservation regulations — include provision for the regeneration of power. Therefore we are absolutely not against regeneration and micro-regeneration.

568. Our problem is that the economic payback is difficult. We will encounter resistance when we are interfacing with the applicants and trying to ensure compliance with a technology that is not financially beneficial, because, ultimately, the cost of the technology is always passed on to the end-user. Therefore we will encounter resistance to all the regulations. The current provisions give consideration to the micro-regeneration industry; however, the question of whether renewable-energy equipment should be installed in new buildings must be considered from the wider perspective of achieving the overall objective, which is to reduce carbon emissions.

569. Mr Dumigan: Building Control is unanimous on that. There are certain circumstances in which renewable energy does not work — for example, if a house is not south-facing, a solar panel will not work as well as it would if the house were south-facing. Therefore it is not appropriate to put solar panels there; photovoltaics will never pay back. Similarly, if 500 houses burn wood pellets, a person will need breathing apparatus to be able to live on that estate. [Laughter]

570. The Deputy Chairperson: Yes, there are practical implications.

571. Mr Dumigan: It would be very difficult to make the installation of renewable energy equipment mandatory.

572. Ms J McCann: At last week’s Committee meeting, we met people who gave a good presentation about why we should be changing to renewable energy sources in the long term. Using renewable energy sources could also have a social and economic benefit, for example, by insulating the homes of people living in disadvantaged areas. Any initiative should be cost-effective as well as being environmentally friendly, but both objectives could be achieved in the long term.

573. Mr Dumigan: I do not believe that small schemes will ever achieve what the Committee might want them to — such schemes will not save the planet. The Committee must look at the large scale; for example, wind farms and tidal schemes, such as the one in Strangford Lough, which the Committee should visit. Large-scale projects will provide the answer to the problem of energy consumption rather than small-scale projects.

574. Mr Rogan: One of our difficulties is that we are always tasked with measuring our performance, and we therefore measure many outputs. One of the things that we must measure to be effective — and it is a challenge for every Department — is the outcome of what we are trying to achieve. What we are trying to achieve is compliance with the regulations, and what we are trying to achieve with that particular regulation is CO2 reduction.

575. Some lobbyists confuse the debate between energy diversification and CO2 emissions. We can meet the CO2 emission target in areas such as the power generation sector, which John mentioned. However, that outcome is covered by the provisions in part F.

576. We know that provisions are in place to further reduce CO2 emissions. Perhaps that will attract micro-regeneration or larger-scale regeneration, which would result in the economic benefits starting to kick in. However, making such provisions prescriptive goes against the concept of functional-based regulations.

577. Mr Dumigan: I want to put on record my acknowledgement of the excellent working relationship that we have with the Department of Finance and Personnel, which is a good example of joined-up Government. We communicate regularly with each other, we do not work in silos and there has been contact about the Bill.

578. We are making the Committee aware that during our debates with the Department, we got some, but not all, of what we wanted. We have listed for the Committee the issues that we feel were not addressed, and we were glad of the opportunity to do so.

579. Mr O’Loan: This has been a useful session. As we anticipated, the bodies that the witnesses represent have been closely involved with the Department on the issue. They have a high level of expertise, and they have made some important points.

580. The witnesses’ submission makes 15 recommendations, one or two of which would probably require considerable work — even to formulate the recommendations. However, most of the recommendations have merit.

581. Our task, in conjunction with making recommendations to the Department, is to turn those recommendations into workable amendments. Not to use the valuable information that we have received during this session would be a huge mistake.

582. The Deputy Chairperson: I thank the witnesses for their attendance today. This has been a useful session and has given us more detail and information that we can use as we move the process forward.

583. Do members agree that it would be useful to forward the witnesses’ submission and the Hansard report of today’s proceedings to DFP?

Members indicated assent.

16 April 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Mitchel McLaughlin (Chairperson)
Mr Mervyn Storey (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs
Dr Stephen Farry
Mr Simon Hamilton
Mr Fra McCann
Mr Declan O’Loan
Mr Peter Weir

Witnesses:

Mr Trevor Martin

Northern Ireland Building Regulations Advisory Committee

584. The Chairperson (Mr McLaughlin): Before we begin, I remind everyone that as electronic devices interfere with the recording equipment, they must be switched off completely; it is not sufficient to turn them to silent mode.

585. Members will find the briefing paper from the Northern Ireland Building Regulations Advisory Committee (NIBRAC) in their papers. I welcome Trevor Martin from NIBRAC, who I invite to make some introductory remarks.

586. Mr Trevor Martin (Northern Ireland Building Regulations Advisory Committee): Good morning. I do not want to go through the Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill, because NIBRAC — of which I am chairman — was behind the Bill and was involved in its drafting. Instead, I will spend 10 minutes telling the Committee a little bit about NIBRAC and our involvement in the consultation process. I will pick up on the key issues about which members have asked some of my colleagues and which have been highlighted in the Committee papers.

587. As I said, I am chairman of NIBRAC. For my sins, I am also head of building control at Belfast City Council. I have been in the industry for about 30 years, working in both the public and private sector, and, at one time, for the Government. I have been chairman of NIBRAC for the past four years and a member for five years. NIBRAC is an advisory committee that was set up by the Government to advise on the introduction of the building regulations.

588. NIBRAC comprises 16 members who were appointed as individuals, rather than on behalf of their professions or employers. They represent the industry and are appointed under Nolan Commission rules. They are therefore subject to rules on confidentiality, vested interests and so on. NIBRAC meets three or four times each year, but its subcommittees, particularly one that would meet to discuss the Bill, meets much more frequently. I am an ex-officio member of subcommittees.

589. The members of the subcommittee that considered the Bill have all since left NIBRAC; indeed, some have retired from the industry. However, Orla McCann of Disability Action chaired that subcommittee. She cannot attend today, but she has seen the papers that I have presented, and she is perfectly happy with their content.

590. The public consultations on the Bill were held in 2004 and 2005, and there was a good response rate to them. We worked with the Department on those responses, and we tried to address all the issues that were raised — we did not shirk any of the matters that were mentioned. We also dealt with suggestions that members of NIBRAC made about the way in which to proceed with the proposals. To get the process to the Assembly, we had to draw a line under our deliberations at some point, because issues kept cropping up all the time. However, we drew that line under a point that included as many elements as possible at that time.

591. Under direct rule, an Order would be subject to review only every 25 to 30 years. That being the case, it was essential to include as much as possible in the Bill. Life is easier now that the Assembly has been restored. If amendments to regulations are needed, we can bring them to the Assembly, subject to the available parliamentary time. Therefore, we do not have to agonise over the process, but adjustments may be needed in future, and it is easier to do that under the current system.

592. Some aspects of the Bill caused debate. The move from technical booklets to approved documents is a great improvement of which the industry heartily approved. It means that we can introduce other types of guidance into the regulations, and it frees up certain matters.

593. District councils carrying out type approvals is to be welcomed — that is an essential element of any regulatory jigsaw. It always seemed bizarre that 26 councils operated one set of regulations, yet people had to apply separately to each council for approval under what was, essentially, the same set of regulations. Therefore, the inclusion of this provision is fundamentally a major improvement and a good move that will save time and money. For architects, it provides conformity of interpretation across the Province, given that one big issue for them is that different councils ask for different things.

594. The main issue for Building Control is the establishment of a mechanism that will make such conformity happen. Type approvals exist in England and Wales, where the mechanism is voluntary. That works in some ways but not in others. In Northern Ireland, such a mechanism is necessary. One of the big challenges for Building Control — and for me — is to get such a mechanism in place. With the review of public administration (RPA), that will be easier, and Building Control officials are considering it.

595. The type of information that district councils keep on registers is not an issue. Most councils keep much more information than is required. In planning, all the information is in the public domain, and rightly so. However, Building Control information is always privileged between the applicant and the council. In the past, Building Control officials have been uncertain as to whether to release information. The Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 mean that it is good for the industry that there is clarity about what information in registers the Department may make public.

596. One other issue is dangerous buildings and places, which the Committee has already discussed. That matter arose because councils sometimes use complex and archaic legislation to deal with that. Were that matter included in the Buildings Regulations (Amendment) Bill, it could make life easier by modernising how dangerous buildings and places are dealt with. The issue arose late in the consultation process. The problem with it was that when the Department tried to draft a form of words to address the problem, it sometimes ended up with a draft that was worse than the current regulations. As head of building control in Belfast City Council, I can say that the Belfast Improvement Act 1878 was better than the regulations that we were drafting for 2008. The decision to remove that provision from the Bill and give it more thought was sound. I take most of my management theories from Winnie the Pooh: Winnie got stuck in honey pots and rabbit holes because he did not think over things carefully. It would therefore not be a bad idea to consider that matter more carefully.

597. Harmonisation of building regulations across Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom would be a good thing, but any devolved legislature should be able to move further than others in the rest of the United Kingdom on certain issues if it so wishes. Some issues are peculiar to Northern Ireland, and we may want to move on those, but they should not be subject to harmonisation.

598. When the Bill was being drafted, NIBRAC studied the Scottish building regulations and those in England and Wales. The committee’s unanimous view was that the local authority building control system that we have in Northern Ireland was the best, and we were perfectly happy with it. Most committee members felt that local authority services were good, but that they may need to be tweaked and improved. Harmonisation would apply to regulations, not to the system. Sometimes we get things right in Northern Ireland, and it is not necessary to copy the systems that are employed in England and Wales or Scotland.

599. It is essential that NIBRAC agree a programme of work with the Department, but pre-programmed amendments are submitted all the time. Things must be subject to cyclical change. European directives also influence the programme of work, but vested-interest groups can now lobby the Assembly through the Committee for Finance and Personnel, which can then ask the Department to introduce new items on the programme or to move things up the agenda. Therefore, an opportunity exists to influence the programme.

600. I congratulate the Department of Finance and Personnel on the introduction of the regulations. The Department introduced part F of the building regulations, which related to thermal energy. That was a massive change in the regulations, and it was a model for other jurisdictions. The industry in England and Wales was given only 16 days before their introduction, whereas the Department here gave three months’ notice, which was a lot of time. Therefore, what we did in Northern Ireland was a model for other jurisdictions.

601. Finally, I want to touch on building regulations and microgeneration, mainly because it has raised its head in the Committee and in the industry. I gave a couple of media interviews, and in one I was painted as being somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun and George W Bush. Microgeneration and building regulations are huge issues. If global warming is the biggest problem facing the world, we must tackle it. However, one can get into an emotional battle about such issues, and sometimes we can lose all reason and logic. Indeed, we started to stray when we reached that point in the debate.

602. The advisory committee discussed the issue at great length, and it is absolutely committed to the reduction of carbon emissions. However, we thought that Peter Hain’s announcement was not the best route to follow. We welcomed Minister Robinson’s announcement, and the committee’s recommendation on that matter was unanimous.

603. The committee does not comprise housebuilders, and the only person who could possibly profess to having any interest in house building is one member from the National House-Building Council (NHBC). Two academics are on our committee — Professor Chris Tweed and Dr Patrick Waterfield. They are experts in their field, and they agreed that there are better ways of cutting CO2 emissions. The committee therefore recommended that we can introduce microgeneration by other methods.

604. Building regulations are about outcomes. The Department or the Government should state the outcome that we need to achieve; it should be a matter for the industry to find out the best method of achieving it, and the solution should be imposed by Government.

605. That is all that I wish to say. I wanted to raise those issues, say a little about NIBRAC, and offer the Committee an opportunity to ask me any questions on what I have said or on any other parts of the industry.

606. Mr F McCann: Trevor has asked most of my questions and answered them at the same time.

607. Mr Martin: Like any good officer.

608. Mr F McCann: You should always be careful about mentioning Belfast to Committee members as some of them are liable to jump all over you. With regard to health and safety, how can Building Control staff help to protect people on building sites, especially in light of some of the recent injuries and deaths on building sites across the North?

609. Mr Martin: Northern Ireland is unique in that building control is the responsibility of the local authorities. That is not the case in England and Wales, because building control there has been privatised. Building control professionals in Northern Ireland can play a role in areas other than those that are related to building regulations. Anybody can consider building regulations: it consists of looking at a drawing; assessing it; stamping it; and checking the works on site.

610. Building control is a wider issue. There is a series of professionals in the 26 councils who could be used in a wider field, one of which is health and safety. There are approximately 300 building control professionals on site in Northern Ireland at any one time, and they could add greatly to the work of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), because they would provide another set of eyes and ears on building sites. That has to happen, and the Assembly and councils must examine that opportunity and see what value the building control staff can add. A recent incident in Belfast, in which a floor collapsed, might well have been prevented had we taken a more proactive role. Building control professionals could, therefore, play a larger role.

611. It is crucial that the building control professionals have the basis for the building regulations, because that is what gives them their financial basis on which to add the extra value, and it provides the intelligence. The work on building regulations that is carried out by building control professionals can add greatly to the work of the industry.

612. Mr Beggs: You said that academics have determined that microgeneration is not the best method of obtaining renewable energy at this time and that increasing the insulation of a building is more effective. Nevertheless, microgeneration will become a more viable and relevant option in the future. Should a relevant provision be included in the Bill now so that it will be less difficult to introduce regulations on that matter in the future?

613. Mr Martin: The Bill amends the Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 by including microgeneration, and it mentions CO2 and greenhouse gases. The building regulations are not against microgeneration. Let me take off my NIBRAC hat and don another: if global warming is the biggest problem facing the world, we should address it holistically. However, we are not doing that. Rather, it is being addressed in a piecemeal fashion: the planners introduce PPS18; somebody else brings in microgeneration; and somebody else gives out grants. That means that three or four Departments are dealing with it.

614. Last year, I wrote an article for ‘Agenda NI’ in which I said that one Minister — namely Minister Foster — should take responsibility for the issue. Everyone who has an involvement in this area — the microgeneration experts, architects, builders, mortgage lenders, Land and Property Services, HM Revenue and Customs — should be brought into one room, and the Minister should tell them that she wants zero-carbon buildings by a particular year. It is up to the professionals to tell the Minister how that can be achieved, and no one should be allowed to leave the room until a solution is found. That way, nobody will be able to shirk a question or pass it on to someone else. In such an environment, the professionals will be able to tell the Minister whether such buildings can be designed and built. If it so happens that regulations or a lack of money are preventing the design and build of zero-carbon buildings, it can be determined whether regulations can be changed and whether green mortgages and tax exemptions can be obtained. By doing that, microgeneration will be brought into the heart of the debate, and a system will be established.

615. The great thing about Northern Ireland is its parochialism; everybody knows everybody else. Such a holistic approach could be taken only in Northern Ireland, because of its size — it could not be taken in England, Wales or Scotland. Northern Ireland, more so than any other jurisdiction, could be the leader in bringing microgeneration and tackling CO2 emissions to a bigger platform.

616. Mr Beggs: The Committee has been advised that so long as building has commenced on one house on a site with multiple houses, the other houses can be built to some of the older regulations. We were also told that certain buildings were required to have Building Control approval even though the original parts of those buildings had been built to 1970’s regulations and had poor insulation and disability access.

617. Will enforcement be easy, practical and consistent to ensure that all newbuilds will gain that approval in a shorter time frame? Can that be managed practically so that such systems will not be abused in the future?

618. Mr Martin: I believe that it can. Although abuse occurs, it is less likely in the current marketplace than previously, especially since the introduction of energy-performance certificates that rate houses. When you buy a house, just as when you buy a fridge, you know whether it is an A-rated house or a B-rated house. Although it is less likely that abuse will occur, a mechanism could be introduced to prevent it. As with any new regulation, someone will always try to find a way round it. Current market forces mean that people are now more aware that they should buy energy-efficient houses. That, in a sense, will reduce the problem. However, if abuse continues, some sort of provision, such as a cut-off period, should be included to prevent it.

619. Mr Beggs: Do any amendments need to be made to the Bill, or can that matter be dealt with in subsequent regulations?

620. Mr Martin: I would have to discuss that with the Department. Certainly, the matter could be brought up at the next NIBRAC meeting. However, it may be that amendments can be made to the Bill to try to close that particular loophole or to alleviate its effects.

621. The Chairperson: The final sentence of paragraph 3.2 of your brief, which deals with type approvals by district councils, mentions that the review of public administration should ensure:

“that the scheme works easily and carries validity.”

622. Do you know whether the Department of the Environment (DoE) is dealing with that particular concern? What changes do you believe are needed?

623. Mr Martin: I do not believe that DoE has examined that matter, but it may have to deal with it. A type approval system currently exists in England and Wales, and in that system, a particular council’s approval of a type of building is then acceptable across other councils.

624. Competition is the driver for that system in England and Wales. The reason that councils do that is to keep out private inspectors. They have banded together to offer a valued product. If a local authority’s building control approves a house in, say, Sevenoaks, that type of house will then be permitted in any other council area. Privatisation being the driver of building control does not exist here, because local authorities’ building controls have a monopoly. At present, in order for NIBRAC to introduce type approvals voluntarily, all 26 heads of building control would need to buy in to the system. If two or three of them opted out and decided that they want to be kings in their own particular kingdoms, the system would start to fail and lose credibility. In that case, the Government and DoE must consider some sort of mandatory system that forces councils to accept the decisions of others.

625. Wearing my building-control hat, I want to point out that Northern Ireland Building Control and my colleagues are working hard — before the Bill is enacted — to agree on a system that we can all find workable. We are considering a panel system. At present, if a plan is not approved by building control in Belfast, for example, it will automatically go to Strabane’s building control and be accepted. We are examining a more representative system in which a committee of the 26 local authority building controls will look at a plan, discuss it, agree and put a stamp on it. All 26 councils must absolutely agree that plan before it can be stamped. I hope that that system can be implemented and that the DoE will not have to introduce mandatory change. If we cannot get such a system, mandatory change must be introduced. That is the big challenge for Northern Ireland Building Control.

626. The Chairperson: Have you made a formal submission about that? Can you come back to the Committee with your written opinions about that matter? That would be helpful

627. Mr Martin: We could, Chairman.

628. The Chairperson: Your submission refers to proposed new article 19A and whether data that are held by Building Control are considered to be privileged information. Have you sought legal advice about that?

629. Mr Martin: We sought legal advice about that some time ago, and we were advised that the information was not in the public domain and was therefore privileged. However, that was prior to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 coming into force. Given that planning permission relates to building work that affects people’s neighbours, it should be in the public domain. However, someone carrying out work to the inside of their house is not affecting their neighbour, so why should that neighbour, or anyone else, know about it? Building Control did not give that information to third parties; it was not in the public domain. The Freedom of Information Act 2000 has blown that situation open, because obviously any information can now be requested.

630. We believe that the registers will clarify the situation by acknowledging that the information that Building Control holds is in the public domain and should therefore be released if requested. That is a difficult area for us. For example, about two weeks ago I received an enquiry from someone who wanted to know what building work was going on in their neighbour’s house. If I were to release that information, the person working on their house would query why their neighbour should be informed of it, arguing that what they do in their own house is their own business and is not public information. The registers will add some of clarity to that situation, and Building Control will welcome that.

631. The Chairperson: Are you confident that the Department is responding to that concern, or will that need to be tested at some stage?

632. Mr Martin: No, I do not think it that will need to be tested. The Department is aware of the issues that we face. The relationship between Building Control and the Department, through their liaison panels, and NIBRAC’s relationship with the Department will ensure that that issue is addressed.

633. The Chairperson: Another issue that we face is the vexed question of microgeneration. Presentations about that have been made to the Committee previously. NIBRAC made a recommendation about it, and the Minister responded. Clearly, microgeneration has implications for the building industry. Have you considered the direction that is being taken in the South of Ireland, where a mandatory minimum renewable energy requirement in all new homes is being introduced?

634. Mr Martin: We have considered that. We also considered what is known as the Merton rule, which exists in England, where the councils have attempted something similar. That rule is beneficial for the microgeneration industry; however, it does not result in much reduction of carbon emissions. Therefore, it imposes additional expense on people without any real financial gain for them. There is much debate about the payback times for some forms of renewable technology. However, most people would agree that, if their options are to add insulation to a house or to put up a wind turbine, added insulation is the much better option. Insulation is better value, it results in a greater — in fact, an immediate — reduction of carbon emission, whereas it may take many years to recover the cost of a wind turbine.

635. Therefore, we must be sensible about what we are trying to achieve with the Bill. If the aim is to reduce carbon emissions, we should state what reduction we want. We should then continue to raise the standards, but allow the developers and individuals to choose the most effective and efficient way of meeting those standards. With standards being continually raised, a stage will be reached where microgeneration automatically becomes one of the better methods of reducing carbon emissions. However, all the other methods must be exhausted first.

636. The challenge for the microgeneration industry is to create a situation whereby building regulations do not force people to incorporate microgeneration technology into their building work; we must look at the problem from a holistic viewpoint, which will make those in that industry a bigger player than they are now. That involves offering grants and raising targets for the reduction of carbon emissions. Currently, the issue of microgeneration probably has more to do with fuel diversity than with the reduction of CO2 emissions.

637. Mr F McCann: Several weeks ago, I mentioned that some people in the building industry believe that the house building standards that have to be met by private developers fall far short of those to be met by, for example, people building social housing for housing associations. Should one standard not be applied right across the industry?

638. Mr Martin: One set of building regulations applies across the industry; however, the problem is that they set minimum standards. Therefore, a private developer may choose to build at a minimum standard. However, when a developer is building social housing, the Housing Executive will introduce voluntary standards that are over and above the minimum standards.

639. The standards will depend on the market that the developer is targeting: if they are targeting an expensive market, their work will obviously be of a higher quality. The regulations do not refer to the quality of the work; rather, they refer to whether a developer meets the minimum standard.

640. If what you are saying is that better houses are required, the best way to achieve that is to raise standards continually. I have often found that great intentions will not force developers to take certain measures. For example, ramps and toilets for disabled people started to appear in buildings only in the late 1980s. That was despite the fact that there have always been disabled people in Northern Ireland. Developers started installing those facilities only after legislation was introduced.

641. If the thinking is that the quality of building is poor across the industry, the best way to address that is to raise standards and ensure that everyone has to comply with the same set of regulations.

642. The code for sustainable homes has been introduced by the Department for Social Development (DSD). If that is deemed to be a good measure, perhaps an increase in the standards in the building regulations should also be encompassed by that code.

643. Mr O’Loan: I agree that the issue of dangerous buildings and places should be considered carefully. In last week’s evidence session, Building Control Northern Ireland recommended that the Bill include powers to make regulations to control dangerous buildings and places. That was one recommendation of 15. However, you said that you would prefer the legislation to be amended at a later date. The same argument could be applied to several of the recommendations — they all require careful consideration and cannot be rushed. I accept that.

644. The representatives of Building Control Northern Ireland also made the point that stabilisation is required, and they said that there should be a breathing space of three or four years after the Bill is enacted. Is it not possible to consider fully the issue of dangerous buildings and places and amend the Bill so that it deals with that matter?

645. Mr Martin: NIBRAC would have to discuss that with the Department. Building regulations have never covered the issue of dangerous buildings; that has always been covered by public health Acts, and, in Belfast, by the Belfast Improvement Act 1878.

646. The difficulty is that legislation can cover too wide an area. For example, a building could be defined as dangerous if it contained anything that could be hazardous, such as asbestos. Covering such a wide area could start to impinge upon other legislation under which other people operate. Alternatively, legislation can cover too narrow an area. Most councils have said — and I know that mine has — that what is proposed is better than the existing legislation. If that is a big issue for building control practitioners, there is a possibility that we, through the Committee, could raise it with the Department and ask for a bit more thought to be put into it.

647. Given the old legislation under which some councils operate, I know that they find it difficult to take action on dangerous buildings. Having worked in Belfast for many years, I am aware that not dealing with dangerous buildings quickly can lead to loss of life. Therefore, it is an important issue, and I will take it back to NIBRAC for consideration.

648. Mr O’Loan: That is fair enough. My second question concerns the harmonisation of regulations. I was surprised that you made no reference to the Republic of Ireland. Obviously, a lot of builders and developers from Northern Ireland work across the border. In some ways, harmonising our regulations with those in the Republic of Ireland is more important than doing so with those that apply across the water, although that is also relevant. Surely there is a good case for seeking all-island harmonisation.

649. Mr Martin: Absolutely. The regulations in the Republic of Ireland closely mirror those in England and Wales, as do ours. Therefore, harmonising the regulations between England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic is probably the easier option. Scotland tends to be slightly different and has always done its own thing.

650. Apart from Scotland, the existing regulations are not wildly different. The most pronounced difference is in how they operate. I know fairly well how the regulations operate in the Republic, because I go there every year, and I speak about regulations at a conference there every other year. The Republic’s regulations are closely aligned with those in England and Wales. The main issue in the Republic is self-certification or, as some people argue, the lack of certification.

651. The harmonisation of the regulations on the major issues should not be too problematic. The main issue for jurisdictions is how to enforce, and ensure compliance with, the regulations. It is unlikely that agreement can be reached on that, because people have different views on how it should be done. However, to answer the question, we have close links with our colleagues in the Republic.

652. The Chairperson: Thank you, Trevor. No doubt debate on the matter will continue.

16 April 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Mitchel McLaughlin (Chairperson)
Mr Mervyn Storey (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs
Dr Stephen Farry
Mr Simon Hamilton
Mr Fra McCann
Mr Declan O’Loan
Mr Peter Weir

Witnesses:

Noel McKee
Alan Mairs

Chartered Institute of Building in Ireland

Mr David Traynor
Mr Eddie Weir

Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists

653. The Chairperson: The Committee will now hear from the Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists and the Chartered Institute of Building in Ireland. I advise members that due to work commitments, the witnesses were unable to provide a briefing paper to the Committee. However, I refer members to the copies of the paper that was produced by the secretariat.

654. The witnesses from the Northern Ireland region of the Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists are Eddie Weir (CIAT), the continued professional development officer, and David Traynor, who is the organisation’s national councillor. The witnesses from the Northern centre of the Chartered Institute of Building in Ireland (CIOB) are its chairman, Noel McKee, and Alan Mairs, who is a member.

655. Gentlemen, you are most welcome, and I invite you to address the Committee.

656. Mr Eddie Weir (Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists): I thank the Committee for inviting us today. My colleague and I represent the Northern Ireland region of the Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists, which is recognised internationally as the qualifying body for chartered architectural technologists. Our discipline specialises in the technical side of architecture and the design of buildings.

657. As representatives of the construction industry, we are pleased to have been involved in the consultation for the proposed changes to the primary legislation. We do not need to go into detail about the proposed changes, because they are generally satisfactory. We appreciate that the Bill’s major revisions are designed to expand the current regulations to include the protection and enhancement of the environment and the promotion of sustainable development in order to place the regulations here on a par with those already implemented in GB and the Republic of Ireland.

658. However, we are concerned that although the Bill will not initially place a financial burden on the public purse or the general public, future changes to building regulations, for which the Bill paves the way, will have a huge impact on the cost of construction, particularly if microgeneration is to be introduced into the design of new dwellings. That, combined with the impending reduction of U-values in the fabric of buildings, may lead to the rapid increase of house prices to compensate for those costly additions.

659. Given that we already struggle to build low-cost, affordable homes and that the use of microgeneration will eventually be mandatory here — the first area in the UK to make it so — the introduction of a grant programme must be considered to compensate for that financial burden.

660. Mr Noel McKee (Chartered Institute of Building in Ireland): I am chairman of the Northern centre of the Chartered Institute of Building. I too thank the Committee for inviting us to put our views. The CIOB represents the management sector of the construction industry. It has approximately 2,400 members in five regional centres throughout Ireland and approximately 42,000 members worldwide. The Northern centre, which I chair, represents 789 members from Counties Antrim, Down and Armagh. The north-western centre is based in Londonderry, and it represents members from Counties Derry, Tyrone, Fermanagh and Donegal.

661. Each centre is run by an organising committee of elected voluntary members of the Chartered Institute of Building in Ireland, they and deal with promoting the institute to the industry and to local schools. I have served two years as chairperson of the Northern committee, working alongside senior and junior vice-chairpersons.

662. Our work includes providing continuous professional development seminars and social events. A condition of membership of the organisation is that each member is required to continue their career development. We are also aware of the need to promote the industry and the institute to local schools and colleges. We must look to the future and provide young people with accurate and useful information as they consider their future careers.

663. The institute promotes good practice and professionalism in the construction industry and, therefore, we are pleased to be involved in discussions on the Bill. We are glad that the Assembly is developing and updating building regulations to take new technologies into account in the ever-changing face of construction and the building environment.

664. The Chairperson: Thank you very much. Do members have any questions to ask or any comments to make?

665. Other witnesses have addressed the issue of mandatory provision of renewable energy systems. Do you have any views or advice on that?

666. Mr Alan Mairs (Chartered Institute of Building in Ireland): I reiterate the views of other witnesses. The most important thing is to raise standards and to let the industry decide how best to provide renewable energy systems.

667. The enforcement of mandatory provision of specific systems, such as microgeneration, could stifle the innovation and development of new methods to meet standards. If the standards are s high, people will see a niche market and will develop other ways of improving the energy efficiency of buildings. However, if microgeneration becomes mandatory, the general attitude would be that there is no point in bothering devising long-term methods to improve energy efficiency.

668. The Chairperson: The effect on existing stock — as opposed to guidance on new builds — is another issue that has come before the Committee. Do you have any view on the retrospective application of the new guidelines?

669. Mr Mairs: There are difficulties with the retrospective application of the guidelines in that it puts quite a large burden on existing homeowners. Indeed, people who are renovating a property are already required to improve the building’s energy efficiency.

670. If the standard is raised, energy efficiency will improve and CO2 emissions will be reduced throughout the country. However, that puts extra burden on current homeowners.

671. The Chairperson: Do you have any comments to make on that, Eddie?

672. Mr E Weir: Part F of Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 already has a mechanism to ensure that any building with a fabric that has undergone 25% of a material change — to the roof, for example — must comply with the regulations.

673. Mr Beggs: Do you feel that the Department gives sufficient training and guidance for the industry to fully understand, and adapt to, the practical outworking of the new regulations? Is three months sufficient for the introduction of the changes? Three months is better than the time that given in England and Wales. Due to the building control process and the subsequent planning process, architects need to design buildings well in advance of the implementation of the regulations.

674. Mr E Weir: As a rule, we are prepared for changes that will be made to the building regulations up to two years prior to their introduction. Therefore, by the time the three-month clock starts ticking on the introduction of the regulations, our members will be up to speed already.

675. We must hit the ground running on such matters. We are already preparing for future changes, such as the reduction of U-values, to create A-rated homes. Last week, we held a seminar for our members on bringing the U-values of wall constructions down to 0·2 w/m2, which would help to produce A-rated, low-carbon homes.

676. The new regulations will probably come into effect in the next year or two. We will liaise with Trevor Martin from NIBRAC and all the relevant Government bodies to ensure that we are well prepared for their implementation.

677. The Chairperson: That is all, gentlemen. Thank you very much.

16 April 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Mitchel McLaughlin (Chairperson)
Mr Mervyn Storey (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs
Dr Stephen Farry
Mr Simon Hamilton
Mr Fra McCann
Mr Declan O’Loan
Mr Peter Weir

Witnesses:

Ben Collins
Liam Dornan

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

678. The Chairperson: I refer members to the written submission provided by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and to the secretariat paper, which is still of use. I welcome Mr Liam Dornan, head of the institution’s building control faculty and Mr Ben Collins, its director. I invite Liam to make a presentation to the Committee.

679. Mr Liam Dornan (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors): Mr Collins will make an opening statement, if that is OK.

680. Mr Ben Collins (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors): I thank the Committee for inviting us to give evidence on the Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill. My colleague Liam Dornan is head of the building control faculty of RICS Northern Ireland, and I am the organisation’s director. Liam has worked for the building control service of Belfast City Council for 24 years. During that time, he has worked with a wide range of clients in both the public and private sectors.

681. RICS Northern Ireland is the principal body representing professionals employed in the land, property and construction sectors. We are here to represent our 3,000 members from across Northern Ireland. We asked for a separate session because of our extensive experience in the matters in hand. Our members practice in land, property and construction markets, and they are employed in private practice, in central, regional and local government, in public agencies, academic institutions, business organisations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). We have a network of experts who work in those areas, and we can tap into that expertise when we are examining the detail and practicality of every proposed change to regulations.

682. In short, the Bill is of great interest to our members because we recognise the importance of building regulations. We all work, live and relax in buildings. Our 3,000 members, however, work with the built environment. They work with buildings from the cradle to the grave — from the original conception to the end of a building’s life span. Furthermore, as part of our Royal Charter, the institution has a commitment to advise the Government of the day. In doing so, it has an obligation to bear in mind the public interest, as well as the development of the profession.

683. RICS Northern Ireland is therefore in a unique position to provide a balanced perspective on issues that are important to the land, property and construction sectors and on all related environmental matters. We welcome the opportunity to give evidence to the Committee, as we consider building regulations to be crucial to the built environment. We are happy to go through the clauses of the Bill, if the Committee would like us to do that.

684. The Chairperson: That would be helpful. If we examine the Bill clause by clause, members will have the opportunity to ask questions.

685. Mr Dornan: I will begin with clause 1. RICS believes that building regulations will be a key component of the Government’s energy-saving aspirations. We believe that the Government should encourage a greater focus on sustainability through enhanced building fabric and efficient energy production in buildings, through the use of building regulations and financial incentives. However, although the Bill does not include a mandatory requirement to use renewable sources of energy, it gives people the opportunity to use them if they so wish. We believe that that is the way to go. Some further work on technology is required, and, possibly, on a commitment to extend financial incentives. When the technology is in place, the use of renewable energy sources will be promoted.

686. The Chairperson: If there are no questions about that, we will move on to clause 2.

687. Mr Dornan: Clause 2 could be more effective if a greater partnership existed between the Government agencies that deal with protected buildings. Such a partnership would be helpful to both building control staff and designers alike.

688. For example, I am currently dealing with some protected listed properties in Belfast. When the owners approached me, I was the third party with whom they discussed converting and altering their protected building. When I discussed energy conservation and fire safety, they said that the Planning Service and the Environment and Heritage Service told them that the walls could not be altered, the windows could not be removed, and the roof could neither be removed nor insulated. Matters such as those are governed by building regulations. I am probably repeating what other witnesses have said, but I believe that one agency should make decisions such as those. If that were the case, costs could be reduced.

689. The Chairperson: Do you have a specific amendment in mind that would address that anomaly? I can see that tension could emerge from that situation.

690. Mr Dornan: I would leave the introduction of such an amendment to the Department, but if my opinion is being sought on who should make such decisions, I think that the responsibility should fall to Building Control. The specifics for altering the building will come under the umbrella of Building Control, which is where I think that responsibility lies. Without such an agency, matters could become confusing for designers.

691. Mr Storey: That is a valid point. Does it not question the basis of the relationship between the Planning Service and Building Control?

692. Mr Dornan: Yes, and again there may be changes in that relationship in the future, and I would leave the responsibility for making those changes with the Government. Building Control will work with whatever the Department suggests. The details of the changes that will be made to buildings such as those I have mentioned can generally be found in the building regulations, and it is at that point where decisions should be made.

693. Mr Beggs: You have suggested that a greater partnership should exist. Proposed new article 3A states that:

“a district council shall have regard to the desirability of preserving the character of protected buildings.”

694. That means that Building Control must have regard for the sensitivity of a building. Are you really suggesting that planners and the Environment and Heritage Service should have regard for building control? I am trying to establish whether building control can be used or whether other regulations need to be changed.

695. Mr Dornan: My knowledge of planning is not as thorough as my knowledge of the building regulation system, but I believe that the Planning Service will give approval, in principle, for works to be carried out in a particular area while having regard to the visual impact that it will have on surrounding areas. Building regulations, however, will take care of the construction methods and of any physical changes to the building in question. If you are asking me whether Building Control can currently do the work of the Planning Service and Environment and Heritage Service, I would think not. However, resources will probably be made available and staff will have to be trained to carry out such work in any building control agency that may be established.

696. Mr Beggs: I take it that the answer is that changes need to be made elsewhere.

697. Mr O’Loan: The explanatory and financial memorandum on clause 1 states that the:

“Order is amended to enable building regulations made by the Department to regulate energy performance of buildings, including the proportion of energy used which is to come from a particular source.”

698. Does that mean that if people were of a mind to move to mandatory microgeneration in the future, it would not be necessary to introduce primary legislation? Could something be done about that under the regulations?

699. Mr Dornan: Yes; that is my understanding.

700. Clause 3 deals with the Northern Ireland Building Regulations Advisory Committee. We are happy with the proposed amendments to article 4(2) of the principal Order because we believe that people can be asked to represent the committee based on their merits without necessarily having to be part of a large organisation.

701. Clause 4 proposes amendments to article 5 of the principal Order. RICS Northern Ireland finds the changes acceptable; we have nothing to add.

702. Clause 5 deals with guidance documents. RICS Northern Ireland welcomes that inclusion. From our perspective, if we allow a move from technical booklets to approved documents, any credible guidance documents that are produced by proven accredited bodies, such as the British Research Establishment (BRE), the British Standards Institution (BSI) or European Normale, should be available for designers to use. That may help to demonstrate compliance with building regulation standards.

703. Mr O’Loan: Would somebody have to approve guidance documents?

704. Mr Dornan: Yes, they would have to be approved, and a mechanism would need to be put in place to do so. The body that approves the British Standard and European Normale Standard should be that which would approve guidance documents. Approved documents in England and Wales undergo scrutiny, and the same should happen in Northern Ireland.

705. Clause 6 deals with the power of district councils to approve types of building. RICS Northern Ireland welcomes that provision. There is great potential for cost cutting and efficiency savings for those people who use the building control system. Designers and property developers alike will welcome the inclusion of the provision.

706. Type approval has been used by the Housing Executive and Building Control for around 20 years. Agreed details that were used in house building schemes were type approved, and once they were submitted to Building Control, there was no need for further assessment. That step has reduced the time that is needed to assess an application. In other countries, many large multinationals, such as Marks and Spencer and McDonald’s, have type approvals that assist them in setting up in other parts of any given country without having to go through a lengthy assessment period. The IKEA building in Belfast, which my staff looked after, is almost a replica of that in Glasgow. Although there was no type approval system in place, the negotiations between the RICS, Glasgow building control and the developer reduced the amount of time that it took to get it up and running. That in turn helped the developer and building control. We have already rated the building, which means that £2·9 million will soon be in the public purse.

707. Clause 7 deals with the power to require or carry out tests for conformity with building regulations. The proposed amendments to article 12 of the Order are welcome. It could assist with innovation in the design and construction of buildings. For instance, Building Control may be presented with a design for a new type of concrete or type of concrete floor of which we have no knowledge. The design for that may not satisfy the guidance documents, and a test might be the only way to prove that it complies. We welcome that.

708. Clause 8 deals with contravention notices. Our organisation believes that it would be helpful if the period in which a contravention notice could be served were extended from six to 12 months. It might be of use to those members of our organisation who are supervising alterations to buildings if a 12-month period existed for the contravention notice to be served so that any latent defects could be discovered. Six months may not allow Building Control to be as reasonable as it is at the moment in following the enforcement concordat. Currently, people who are believed to be contravening standards are given a warning, followed by a period of time to comply, and then they are given several other warnings to prove that we are asking something reasonable. Twelve months appears to be a more reasonable time in which to deal with that process.

709. Mr O’Loan: I think that the explanatory and financial memorandum on clause 8 actually states 12 months.

710. Mr Dornan: Does the amended 1979 Order state that the period is 18 months?

711. Mr O’Loan: I do not want to start doing legal work, but I think that that refers to 12 and 18 months. I do not know the meaning of those references, but I do not see six months mentioned.

712. Mr Dornan: I think that the proposal was to reduce the notice period to six months; however, perhaps I am wrong. Anyway, the RICS would proffer a 12-month period within which a contravention notice could be served.

713. The Chairperson: We can revisit that issue. I suggest that we ask the Department for a response to the observations in your submission in order that we can satisfy ourselves about the details.

714. Mr Beggs: If that particular detail is to be checked, I ask clause 8(b), which amends article 18(6) of the amended 1979 Order, also be checked. Clause 8 states that the words:

““18 months from the completion of the work” substitute “the period mentioned in paragraph (5)””

be inserted into article 18(6).

715. I have been looking at article 18(5) of the amended Order to see what period of time is mentioned, and it is not obvious to me what that is. I would like that to be clarified.

716. Mr Dornan: Clause 9 deals with the registers that are to be kept by district councils. Most councils will keep comprehensive registers of their business anyway; I know that Belfast City Council building control does so. The Department may need to give further guidance on how such a register will be administered and it may determine whether there should be a statutory schedule of fees for giving designers or members of the public access to registers.

717. Registers may contain sensitive information; for example, there may be information on proposals submitted by two property developers who are vying for the same job. Although I am not a lawyer, the Department may have to examine the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 on that issue. In Belfast there may be 10 design houses all going for the same job — schools, in particular, are open to competition — and when they show me their proposals, they will expect me to keep them to myself, as they know that their competitors will come to me the next day. Therefore, the sensitive proposals and issues in that register must be examined.

718. The Chairperson: Your submission seems to indicate that your organisation is addressing the issue of a statutory schedule for fees, and, as other witnesses indicated, there is an obvious tension about the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and data protection legislation that will have to be addressed in some way.

719. Mr Dornan: Our organisation accepts clause 10, and we have no comment to make on it.

720. The Chairperson: There are no indications from members wishing to comment on that, so we shall just move along.

721. Mr Dornan: Clause 11 deals with false or misleading statements. It is important for people who act as experts in the field do so professionally. If structural engineers, architects or chartered surveyors submit reports or structural calculations to Building Control, knowing that those reports or calculations are not correct, the stakes can be high, particularly where fire safety or structural stability are concerned. Some self-regulation exists. For example, the RICS has a code of conduct, and its journal reports each month on what action is taken against those who fall short of the code. This provision is therefore an important inclusion.

722. However, the offence has to be matched by an appropriate sanction. I see that £5,000 has been mentioned; perhaps that is an appropriate sanction for particular offences, but I will leave it to the Department to decide the scale of financial sanctions.

723. Mr Beggs: Are you suggesting that £5,000 is too little?

724. Mr Dornan: I am not saying that it is too little; I am saying that the offence has to be matched by an appropriate sanction.

725. The Chairperson: I think that Mr Dornan is talking about proportionality.

726. Mr Dornan: Clause 12 deals with application of building regulations to the Crown. We welcome that clause. What normally happens is that speculative builders develop a building and then release it. As the Bill states, that building might be taken and occupied by the Crown. At that point, building regulations cease to apply. The shell building could be constructed in accordance with building regulations. However, the fitting out of the building will not be subject to building regulations, given that the tenants are the Crown. Someone else will have to consider sustainability, for example, the heating system that is installed.

727. The Chairperson: I was thinking of asking Fra to define “Crown occupation”. [Laughter.]

728. Mr F McCann: Do you have a couple of hours?

729. Mr Dornan: The changes that are proposed in clause 13 are acceptable to the RICS Northern Ireland. Turning to clause 14, the removal of the term “rack rent” is acceptable and will modernise the Order. However, it will then be important to examine the definition of “owner”, which the Committee might have discussed with other witnesses. Building control services are enforcement bodies: we have to serve notices. Serving a notice is a last resort, but we need to serve it on the right person. Therefore, the definition of “owner” is an important issue that needs to be examined and possibly changed to mirror definitions in other legislation. In England and Wales, the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 has, I believe, a three-fold definition that makes is possible to pinpoint the responsible person who can be contacted contacting. The Department will probably want to examine that issue if it decides that a new definition of “owner” is needed.

730. Clause 15, which deals with repeals, is acceptable to RICS Northern Ireland, as are clauses 16 and 17.

731. RICS Northern Ireland welcomes the return of the Assembly and the opportunity to make this presentation, and I thank the Committee for its time.

732. We launched our manifesto in Parliament Buildings yesterday, and I was glad to see some Committee members present for that. The RICS is committed to sustainable development and to helping the Government meet their targets on the reduction of carbon emissions. We believe that that can be achieved by building on the success of the building regulation process, and many of the necessary structures are in place already.

733. As a professional institute, we have the luxury of having a multi-disciplined membership working in the private and public sectors, and that is one of our strengths. I hope that what we have proffered today has helped the Committee and that we can be of further use on policy issues on land, property, construction, and other environmental matters in the Province. Thank you very much.

734. The Chairperson: Liam and Ben, that was very helpful; thank you very much and good luck.

23 April 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Mitchel McLaughlin (Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs
Dr Stephen Farry
Mr Simon Hamilton
Ms Jennifer McCann
Mr Adrian McQuillan
Mr Declan O’Loan
Mrs Dawn Purvis

Witnesses:

Mr Joseph Birt
Mr Billy Gillespie

Association of Building Engineers

Mr Joe McGlade

Institution of Structural Engineers

735. The Chairperson (Mr McLaughlin): I welcome Mr Billy Gillespie, who is a council member of the Association of Building Engineers, Mr Joseph Birt, who is a member of the Association of Building Engineers, and Ms Kerry Greeves, who is a member of the Northern Ireland branch of the Institution of Structural Engineers.

736. Mr Joe McGlade (Institution of Structural Engineers): Mr Chairman, my colleague Ms Greeves is feeling unwell, so I am volunteering to speak on her behalf. I assume that that is acceptable?

737. The Chairperson: Absolutely. You are very brave, Kerry, to have come along at all.

738. Mr Beggs: I declare an interest as Carrickfergus Borough Council’s representative on the north-eastern building control committee

739. The Chairperson: I suggest that each witness make a short opening presentation, because two separate organisations are present.

740. Mr Billy Gillespie (Association of Building Engineers): The Association of Building Engineers (ABE) does not have a large membership in Northern Ireland, but the majority of its members are in the public sector, mostly in building control departments. The association does not have a formal consultative mechanism, but the views contained in the submission reflect the opinions of all or most of its members on the Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill.

741. I will expand on my role and Mr Birt’s. Mr Birt is a member of the Association of Building Engineers and advises on technical issues. He has been in building control for 12 years, and he works with Down District Council and the building control south-eastern group of councils. He is on the Building Control Northern Ireland standards panel, which addresses issues of interpretation and guidance; and he is also the chairman of the Building Control Northern Ireland fire safety panel, which works closely with the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service. Mr Birt is also a member of the Northern Ireland Building Regulations Advisory Committee (NIBRAC).

742. I am a chartered civil engineer and a chartered environmentalist, as well as a fellow, council member and director of the Association of Building Engineers. Mr Birt and I have been in building control since 1996. I am the assistant group chief building control officer in the building control north-eastern group of councils. I am chairperson of the Building Control Northern Ireland training and communication panel and provide training for building control, architects, designers, builders and students. I am also a member of the Northern Ireland Building Regulations Advisory Committee.

743. We have a very good working relationship with all our professional colleagues and liaise closely with the Department of Finance and Personnel on the development and intended purpose of building regulations. The regulations are open to interpretation, and the Department maintains the role of arbiter in the event of an appeal against building control decisions.

744. The Association of Building Engineers is multidisciplinary, and its members have a wide range of building-related expertise. ABE members in building control are ideally positioned to take on additional functions as a consequence of the Bill or changes in local government regulations.

745. The association hopes its submission to the Committee is constructive and helpful. The ABE wants to encourage a building-control system that benefits the community and adds value to designers, builders and householders; the ABE hopes that the opportunity will be taken to ensure that, after enactment, the Bill will serve Northern Ireland as well in the future as the previous Orders have until now.

746. The Chairperson: Mr Gillespie and Mr Birt, do either of you want to draw attention to amendments or changes that have been recommended?

747. Mr Gillespie: Our submission refers to specific amendments. Would you like us to explain those amendments?

748. Mr Chairperson: Yes; please outline your proposed amendments briefly, and the Committee members may ask questions as each point is raised.

749. Mr Gillespie: The Bill must address the fact that the definition of “site”, as interpreted in article 2 of the Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, has become outdated. The current definition of a site relates to the building’s footprint. However, regulations have changed to include drainage, access from parking areas and access for the fire service. New consultation also considers issues such as retaining and garden walls and at how far refuse bins must be moved for collection.

750. The Association of Building Engineers feels that it is necessary for the term “site” to cover the entire area encompassed by the boundaries of where the building is being constructed rather than simply relating to the building itself. The Department should address that issue.

751. Mr O’Loan: The ABE’s summary introduction states: “Initial consultations on the Order suggested that a complete re-write was planned and led to anticipation of far reaching changes. Many of these proposals would have been welcomed and it is hoped may be incorporated in the near future.”

752. Is the Association of Building Engineers expressing a general sense of disappointment with this Bill?

753. Mr Gillespie: No, it is not, and I am sorry if it has come across that way. The initial consultation provided a panoply of options that could be included in the amended building regulations Order. Many people hoped that it would widen the horizons for the application of different regulations. Some of those have come to fruition, and others have not. Some people were disappointed that a few of those were not included. The ABE hopes that they will be included in the future or that the Order could be written in such a way that could enact other parts.

754. The Chairperson: I read that in the same way that Declan did. Do those references or amendments reflect the views of the Association of Building Engineers on the Bill?

755. Mr Joseph Birt (Association of Building Engineers): The ABE would have preferred to have seen other measures included in the Bill. Those are included in our submission and will be addressed as we work our way through it.

756. The Chairperson: I thought that we might address any reservations or issues as we discuss your submission.

757. Mr O’Loan: A similar issue arose when Building Control Northern Ireland submitted approximately 15 recommendations to the Committee. Its representatives said that their working relationship with the Department of Finance and Personnel was very good. I thought that the Bill, as currently presented, would have incorporated most of the measures that the sector viewed as being sensible.

758. Mr Birt: I am happy to go through our submission. That process should identify any constructive suggestions that the Association of Building Engineers has.

759. Mr Gillespie: Clause 2 of the Bill concerns protected buildings and the insertion of a new article 3A in the 1979 Order. The Association of Building Engineers felt that the way in which the clause is worded: “a district council should have regard to the desirability of preserving the character of protected buildings”

was not positive enough. There should be a requirement for councils to take a more proactive view; they should actively preserve protected or listed buildings. The ABE felt that the wording could be strengthened.

760. Mr Beggs: The current wording is “have regard to”. Do you think that that is weighted too much towards the new insulation efficiency measures, rather than protection?

761. Mr Gillespie: The current insulation regulations request consultations with the Environment and Heritage Service (EHS) about listed buildings. The phrase “have regard to” seems to suggest that one could consider it but would not have do anything more than that. If the point of the regulations outweighs historic considerations, the regulations have priority. If that is the case, the character of historic buildings will disappear. More emphasis should be put on preserving the historic character of buildings rather than conforming to new regulations.

762. The Chairperson: In those circumstances, would it be helpful to supply an alternative form of words?

763. Mr Gillespie: Yes, we would. The ABE could suggest a form of words.

764. The Chairperson: The Committee will welcome the ABE’s guidance and technical expertise on that issue.

765. Mr Gillespie: Article 4 of the 1979 Order relates to the Building Regulations Advisory Committee. Mr Birt and I are members of that committee, which liaises with, and advises, the Department and forms useful links with the industry. At present, NIBRAC members do not have the opportunity to highlight issues of concern for the industry to the Department. We would propose amending the criteria to allow that to happen, but not necessarily in a forceful way.

766. Mr O’Loan: Do you mean raising concerns about issues other than building regulations? I thought that NIBRAC’s function was to advise the Department on that.

767. Mr Birt: As I understand it, NIBRAC’s function is to advise the Department on matters that the Department, for other reasons, may consider introducing through regulations and amendments.

768. However, there are circumstances in which specialist niches in the industry raise concerns; the ABE would propose that a suitable avenue should be provided for NIBRAC to highlight those concerns. NIBRAC is currently involved in the assessment of proposals that are put to it by Departments and Ministers; the relationship is reactive.

769. The ABE understands that Ministers give instructions to Departments on a range of different matters about what regulations should be introduced, which is entirely appropriate. However, the ABE is proposing another vehicle through which to make constructive suggestions about what should be included in legislation concerning the built environment.

770. Mr O’Loan: Should that be mentioned in the relevant article, or should the Committee simply be mindful of that?

771. Mr Birt: The way in which the article is currently worded suggests that NIBRAC’s role is purely consultative. A slight rewording would be required to extend NIBRAC’s remit to enable it to raise issues of interest.

772. The Chairperson: That sounds reasonable. Committee members are not technical experts, and they will need some support from your association in the wording of a proposed amendment to the article. In support of your argument, will you suggest an alternative wording, which the Committee will consider in light of its own feedback?

773. Mr Birt: Absolutely; the ABE will do that.

774. The Chairperson: As general rule of thumb, that is the best way to proceed. The ABE has a significant amount of background experience on the issue, which will be helpful to the Committee.

775. Mr Gillespie: Clause 5 of the Bill seeks to insert a new article 5A in the 1979 Order about guidance for purposes of building regulations. Under the current legislation, technical booklets provide a way of complying with the building regulations. If builders work in accordance with the technical booklets, they are deemed to satisfy the requirements of the regulations.

776. The Department is now suggesting that it will provide guidance documents, which should be considered to ally with building regulations. For builders and designers, there remains an option to rely on other documents, which may be produced by other technical groups in the United Kingdom, or if a better system were to be devised in Australia, that could become the standard used for design in that particular case. However, it is essential that the builder or designer ensures that building control is content with the codes or standards being used. We are happy that the change has been made from technical booklets to guidance documents.

777. Clause 6 of the Bill amends article 8 of the 1979 Order to deal with the power of district councils to approve types of buildings. The Association of Building Engineers welcomes the use of type approvals as more companies such as Lidl, KFC and McDonald’s are building outlets in Northern Ireland. Those companies like their buildings in Northern Ireland to be the same as the ones that they build in England, Wales and Germany. Although the standards in Germany are somewhat different to ours, the approach is similar: the companies want to present a pre-designed building in Belfast, Craigavon or Derry that is accepted by councils. That is a good idea that should be recommended.

778. In the past, Building Control Northern Ireland has done that through its standards panel — a group of volunteers from group areas and districts representing the whole Province — which examines particular designs. If the panel feels that those designs comply with building regulations, it recommends that they are accepted for use in all the councils of the Province. Due to the nature of the regulations, some difficulties have arisen because certain councils want to interpret the regulations slightly differently. Those councils may continue to do that, but their concerns should be on only site-specific issues, such as foundation conditions, ground conditions or contours on the ground, which may mean that different access is required. In principle, we recommend type approval and suggest that the Department writes to the councils asking for their commitment to accept that form of type approval.

779. Article 17 of the 1979 Order deals with appeals to the Department. In England and Wales, the relevant Department publishes the appeals that it has received and the rulings that it has made. ‘Building Engineer’ publishes those rulings, which are the most widely read part of that journal because readers can learn from the experiences of others. The Department should publish the outcomes of the appeals that are made to it under article 17.

780. Mr Birt: The publishing of those rulings has proved to be particularly useful for designers and the wider industry, not only people in building control, because they clarify the intent.

781. The Chairperson: The benefit of sharing that information can readily be seen.

782. Mr O’Loan: What do you mean by “publishing”?

783. Mr Birt: The appeals and rulings can be published on the Department’s website, as in England and Wales, or they can be published in other industry newsletters or journals. Publishing the appeals and their outcomes is a useful tool and would be more useful if they were widely available.

784. Mr Gillespie: Clause 8 of the Bill seeks to amend article 18 of the 1979 Order, which deals with contravention notices in respect of work contravening the building regulations. I apologise, because our submission suggests that the Bill would bring the time period down to six months — it should say 12 months. When I was writing the submission, I was looking at an earlier consultation document that suggested that the time period be six months.

785. Clause 8 would mean that there is 12 months from the time that the work is completed for building control to put on a contravention notice. Building control tries to persuade builders to build in compliance with building regulations. We often see that, if we have to take someone to court, it is a failure of ours to encourage people to build properly. In instances where we fail to get a builder to comply, we must issue a contravention notice.

786. Clause 8 amends the period in which a contravention notice could be served to 12 months of completion of a building will give us less time to do that. However, over 18 months, other construction work can go on, and that would mean that more remedial work would have to be done.

787. Taking people to court has a dramatic effect for building control. We try to comply with the enforcement concordat, and most council building control departments have signed up to that. The difficulty is that taking someone to court is a time-consuming and expensive operation. Council finance departments will often suggest that going to court is too expensive to contemplate. I have been involved with a number of other bodies that are involved in the regulatory forum, and they also come up against that. I encourage the Department to try to prevail on the Criminal Justice System Northern Ireland to streamline the court system to make it easier to take people to court to ensure their compliance.

788. Mr Birt: The proposed reduction in the period in which a contravention notice could be served from 18 months to 12 months is critical to our ability to achieve compliance with the regulations. For example, self-builders who are building their own homes might do so over a period of time. From experience, we find that, near the end of a project, funds run short and the house is built more slowly because it takes some time to build aspects such as external steps, the driveway and more expensive details inside the house. Building control may need to write to the property owner if it discovers an offending piece of work at the property. It may find that, after a number of months, that is not resolved, despite receiving assurances from the property owner. For example, we are often told that the work will be done when the owner gets the VAT back. The change that the Bill proposes would bind building control to a shorter time frame and would necessitate enforcement action on people who genuinely intended to do the work.

789. Given the current market conditions, that could also occur on some development sites. If developers were left with buildings that were built but were not being sold, they would not finish the buildings for that reason, and work would cease. A longer time lag is needed, and clarity is needed on the issue of completions. Therefore, we suggest that the 18-month period be retained in the interests of fairness and proportionality.

790. Mr Beggs: Are there any negative aspects to allowing that extended period for remediation work?

791. Mr Birt: On some occasions, particularly on big projects, it is reasonable to suggest that a developer could carry out some contravening work and that building control would not take any action for 18 months. That can potentially happen under the current legislation, which allows contravention notices to be served only after 18 months. However, in reality, building control would make the developer aware of any contravening work as soon as that were identified. Negotiations would take place between building control and the developer, who would attempt to resolve the situation or would employ some experts to give advice. Therefore, the 18-month period is useful, and, to my knowledge, it has never been abused.

792. Mr Gillespie: Article 19 of the 1979 Order deals with the deposit of plans to be of no effect after certain intervals. Building Control Northern Ireland and the Association of Building Engineers are concerned that there will be a rush of applications before the new regulations are about to come into force. For example, in the week before regulations came into force —particularly energy regulations — in November 2006, the equivalent of six months of applications for houses were submitted to one particular council. Consequently, in some district councils, part of the regulations are only now being applied, 18 months after they came into force, because so many applications were made prior to that.

793. The problem is that, when an application is made for a development of 30 or 40 multiple houses, that constitutes a single application. As soon as work starts on that application, the developer can then take as long as he or she wants to complete the development. The regulations that apply to all the houses are the regulations that were in force at the time of the application. If an application is made to build 30 houses, and building control give building regulation approval, those houses could be built over 30 years, if undertaken by a small builder — and some developments do take a long time. They could be building to regulations that were in force 10 or more years earlier. There have been instances where builders are building to regulations that were in force in 1973. Fortunately, that is rare, but we would like a mechanism to try to remove that anomaly. The Department has suggested that the ability exists to prevent builders building to regulations that are out of date, but we feel that it is not straightforward and would be difficult to pursue.

794. Mr Birt: I concur with that; it is important to have a mechanism to deal with that issue. An example of the type of thing that can be missed through that loophole — which, effectively, is what it is — is that buildings that are built under current regulations would require escape windows, but which do not have those. There are new buildings on the market that should have heat detectors in kitchens and smoke detectors in living rooms, but they do not have them. The accessibility standards that are invoked today are not necessarily adhered to, and it is an area which is being exploited by developers, obviously to the detriment of prospective purchasers and the wider community.

795. The Chairperson: The Committee would appreciate some assistance with the wording of a proposed amendment to article 19.

796. Mr Gillespie: Clause 9 of the Bill seeks to insert a new article 19A into the 1979 Order to deal with registers to be kept by councils. The current councils were established in 1973, and many of them have records that go back to that date. In those days, everything was done on paper, and it became difficult for councils to store that paper, so many of them were looking for ways either to dispose of those records or to reduce the amount of space taken up by them. Some councils have digitally photographed their records and kept them on computers, but often that has resulted in loss of detail of some of the printing as well as some of the content.

797. Some councils have gone so far as to dispose entirely with records that go back beyond 10 years. That was partly due to initial fears about the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the view that, if one does not have the information, one does not have to give it to people. Those initial fears have not actually been realised, and there have not been such demands.

798. We have heard about people who have been building, or have made an application, and have had unsolicited sales and marketing information sent to them. However, the ABE feels that it is important that councils should keep a register of information, and that that should be made available to, for example, future owners. The issue is dealt with more fully in the additional comments to our submission.

799. The first such comment relates to council databanks. The ABE feels that councils are in a unique position to hold all the information about the details of the construction of houses and other buildings. Increasingly, with the evolution of electronic data, we are able to store material electronically on computers. Council building control departments go out on site when a new building or renovation is under way, and they hold records of that. Most building control departments provide information on property searches to solicitors to assist them in the conveyancing process.

800. Building regulations have changed over the past few years. They have become more rigorous and have been extended to require testing and commissioning of flues, gas fires, unvented hot-water systems, boilers, heating controls, air-conditioning systems and airtightness. That information could be gathered and held by building control.

801. Building control provides information to Land and Property Services (LPS), which was formerly known as the Valuation and Lands Agency (VLA), on the commencement and completion of houses. Some councils are in negotiations with LPS over the possibility of getting details of house dimensions for valuation purposes. In the fullness of time, all that useful information could be used. Home information packs have been introduced in England and Wales, but not in Northern Ireland. Building control could hold all the information here.

802. A building logbook may be introduced here to provide information to new homeowners. The logbook would document certification processes, inspection records on houses, requirements for servicing and maintenance and, possibly, sustainability information on disassembly and reuse of appropriate materials.

803. The Department should consider provisions to require local authorities to gather and store that data safely for future use so that it could be passed to new owners or tenants.

804. Mr O’Loan: That is a major recommendation, but it is clear.

805. Mr Gillespie: In Northern Ireland, around 12,000 new dwellings are built each year. There are approximately 720,000 dwellings with which building control does not deal, unless an extension or attic conversion is carried out. Those 700,000-odd houses may not be up to current standards and may be producing carbon dioxide emissions that we are trying to reduce in the new regulations. Therefore, they are not energy efficient.

806. The Department may wish to consider control being extended through building regulations to existing dwellings, particularly in light of the fact that energy performance certificates will become law, and they will be policed by local authorities, probably through building control. The energy performance certificates will draw attention to deficiencies in the energy efficiency of houses. It may be appropriate to set a standard whereby the energy efficiency of houses should not fall below a recommended figure. However, there is currently no responsibility on someone buying a new house to upgrade it. It may be worth considering suggesting that that work should be carried out when a house changes hands. Furthermore, there is no responsibility on councils to promote or advise on current standards. We do that by trying to improve submissions coming into building control. Part of the energy performance certificate requirements will be that building control departments should endeavour to promote certificates. There is no requirement for us to promote building standards and regulations, but it is something that we do to assist quality and consistency of standards.

807. Mr Birt: We are suggesting that the Bill amend the Order to provide for regulations to be made that will resolve the issue of carbon dioxide emissions in existing buildings. We are not suggesting that that happens now but that the Bill will include a provision enabling that to happen, should it be required in the future.

808. My colleague also suggested that building control could play a role in educating the industry about what the building regulations require. That would be an important role, given the recent changes in the industry, which were fairly significant. There is no obligation on building control or on councils to carry out that role, but the Committee may feel that it is important and should be built into the legislation.

809. The Chairperson: Of course, you are talking about existing stock. You are not talking about the industry so much as about general households.

810. Mr Gillespie: The matter of demolition was included in the original consultation. In England and Wales, local authorities control demolition and issue licences for it. Building control officers have the skills to oversee that work and when we have requirements for recycling and reuse of existing materials in future, it may be prudent to give responsibility for overseeing demolition to local authorities and building control. I suggest that legislation regarding party walls should also be included for enactment at a future time, and that building control could be involved in that.

811. The original consultation document also referred to dangerous structures. Building control currently enforces dangerous buildings legislation, some of which is over 150 years old. We have discussed that with departmental officials, who indicated that it has been difficult for them to frame legislation that would be beneficial to building control at present. We suggest that the Department should take the opportunity to include a reference to dangerous structures in the Order. By structures, I mean retaining walls and structures that may not be attached to buildings but which would be unsafe for members of the public. The Order should include that provision for enactment at a later date, when regulations appropriate to dangerous structures have been framed.

812. Mr Birt: We felt that those two previous issues were omitted from the draft Bill, and would prefer if they were included. If building control has information about how a building was constructed, it will be in a position to ensure that the materials being taken out of that building are reused effectively and not necessarily disposed of, something which is covered by other legislation. That would be an appropriate way to deal with, for example, the steel structure, the timber members and even the masonry elements in the concrete.

813. We are not suggesting that time is available to redraft the Order to include a reference to dangerous buildings, but the enabling legislation must be in place to allow the necessary regulations to be developed in the near future. The Committee has a unique opportunity to implement those changes and introduce the enabling legislation at this stage.

814. Mr Gillespie: Our penultimate comment is about sustainable communities. Councils are well positioned to co-ordinate community sustainability strategies. For example, communities could be advised on renewable energy systems, such as grey-water recycling, rainwater harvesting, community heating plants to provide combined heat and power, arrays for solar panels and photovoltaic cells. If all those schemes were undertaken on a community-wide basis rather than in individual properties, they would be more efficient and would do more to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

815. Councils might be requested to provide advice, information and training about sustainability and best practice. Similarly, via pre-submission consultations, councils might provide such advice to people intending to make planning applications. The Department should consider framing legislation in such a way that district council building control departments could be utilised for sustainability matters.

816. Mr Birt: Much information about such matters is available from manufacturers and other sources. The Association of Building Engineers values the independence of local authorities, which offer an existing voluntary pre-submission advice service for people who are contemplating work on their properties. That could be made mandatory — specifically in relation to sustainability — which would mean that members of the public would have access to independent, impartial advice about building proposals from their district councils.

817. That suggestion is linked to my earlier comment about training. There should be an obligation to inform the public about new regulations, which would greatly aid their implementation.

818. Mr Gillespie: The final element of our submission, which is a catch-all point, concerns future-proofing buildings. Material technology and construction methods are changing rapidly, and there is more emphasis on electronic data presentation and storage. It may be appropriate for the Department to include provisions in the Bill that would ensure that future buildings incorporate, and take advantage of, modern technologies and electronic communication systems.

819. Mr Birt: Before we conclude, on behalf of the Association of Building Engineers’ members, I acknowledge the Department’s openness and accessibility in giving advice. Although the Department remains impartial and will not discuss specific projects, the ABE and, indeed, Building Control Northern Ireland accept that we have a good relationship with the Department, and that greatly assists the understanding and interpretation of regulations, which must be commended. Furthermore, the Department’s regulatory briefing sessions are part of a relatively new initiative that enhances the wider industry’s understanding of regulatory requirements.

820. We also commend the Bill and welcome many of its improvements, including its clarification about low or zero carbon emissions. The provisions for the protection of historic buildings are useful. Type approval is an industry-wide demand to which it looks forward. Clause 1 of the Bill incorporates the use and recycling of materials, and that clause’s adoption will contribute to meeting the Government’s commitment to reuse materials. The proposed amendments will future-proof protected buildings, and the sustainable use of materials is also included. We welcome those proposals, and, if some of the other measures that we suggested were included, the proposed amended Order would be excellent and — pardon the pun — would provide an exceptionally good foundation for the Northern Ireland built environment.

821. The Chairperson: Thank you. Some suggestions, particularly those concerning additional responsibilities and duties for the councils, would, for example, involve the Department of the Environment. The Committee will need to consult the Department of Finance and Personnel on that issue.

822. Joe, you have been very patient. We do not have the benefit of a written submission, so I invite you to focus specifically on issues in the regulations that you would like to see amended. Please feel free to flag up any concerns that you may have. Thank you for your patience.

823. Mr McGlade: Thank you for your invitation to give evidence. The reason that a written submission was not entered was that the Institution of Structural Engineers did not recognise any proposed amendments that would have a major impact on a structural engineer’s role in the building process. Our position has been well covered by Billy, and I have only one comment regarding the new type approval. It has specifically excluded the structure where it has been implemented elsewhere, for such reasons as Billy has mentioned.

824. Much of our work is site-specific — for example, a site could be very exposed and have wind problems or it could have foundation problems — so I see type approval as excluding structural matters. Building control has always recognised the role of the structural engineer in the field of demolition and the assessment of dangerous buildings. I do not see that role changing.

825. Reuse of materials is fairly new to the institution; reuse of structural materials is an area in which we would have to become more involved. I can envisage that developing.

826. Generally, I have little to add to the excellent submission that has already been delivered by Billy and his colleague, and I thank you for the opportunity to attend.

827. The Chairperson: If you and your colleagues feel that there is something in particular that you would like to submit — for example, a written amendment focusing on that issue to help the Committee — we would be very open to that.

828. Thank you for the presentation. Will you be responding to the Committee’s requests, Billy?

829. Mr Gillespie: We will suggest some amendments to the wording.

830. The Chairperson: I assure you that that would be very helpful to the Committee. Thank you.

30 April 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Mitchel McLaughlin (Chairperson)
Mr Mervyn Storey (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs
Dr Stephen Farry
Mr Simon Hamilton
Mr Fra McCann
Mr Declan O’Loan
Mr Peter Weir

Witnesses:

Mr Noel Williams

Energy Savings Trust

831. The Chairperson (Mr Mitchel McLaughlin): The Committee will now hear from the Energy Saving Trust (EST). The usual warning about switching off mobile phones applies because Hansard is recording the session. The Energy Saving Trust has provided the Committee with a briefing paper along with further statistical information. I welcome Noel Williams, who is the head of the Energy Saving Trust, and I invite him to make his presentation.

832. Mr Noel Williams (Energy Saving Trust): Thank you, Chairperson.

833. The Chairperson: Noel, if you are proposing changes to the Bill, it may be helpful if you stop at each proposed change in order to give members the opportunity to explore it rather than our having to trawl backwards and forwards over the same territory.

834. Before we move on to the trust’s presentation, I want to refer to a point made by Dr Farry regarding the projected number of people who would be living in new houses over a time. I thought that that was an interesting perspective and is a matter that we should put to our own Department. Is the Committee in agreement that we should do that?

Members indicated assent.

835. The Chairperson: Mr Williams, would you like to make your presentation.

836. Mr Williams: Thank you for the invitation to talk to the Committee.

837. If I may, I will take a couple of minutes to brief the Committee on some of the points in the evidence on microgeneration, building regulations, the consultation on policy planning statement 18 — I am aware that that relates to another Department, but it is worthy mentioning — and the Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill itself. I have provided members with background information about the trust, so you will be pleased that I not will bore you with that today. I have brought two charts showing where the trust wants to be and the market transformation curve.

838. It may be useful if I comment on what the countries adjacent to our two islands are doing, although I am aware that you have had evidence from representatives from those areas. I will offer the trust’s view on what Northern Ireland should be doing; and, finally, I will be pleased to answer members’ questions.

839. The first paper is about microgeneration and building regulations. We have said for some time that it is vital that any amendments to building regulation should aim to ensure that the fabric of the building is robust and energy-efficient. Energy-efficient measures are likely to last for the lifetime of a property. For our statistical analysis, we work on the basis that energy-efficiency measures will last about 60 years because of segregation and suchlike in the building, but the house may last much longer. Therefore it is important not to treat the building of integrated renewables in isolation from the energy demand in a building; energy supply is logically linked to the energy demand in buildings.

840. The key to delivering sustainable energy solutions is to reduce the demand for energy. That can be done with energy-efficiency measures. Energy efficiency is more cost-effective than renewable technologies but, as the Chairperson said earlier, renewables could become a very valuable tool in future.

841. Our research suggests that regulating renewables has huge potential and this, in turn, will encourage microgeneration. However microgeneration must be part of the mix and not the panacea. It is important to lead by example, which I hope our Government will do. Although microgeneration cannot be a substitute for reducing heat loss in new homes, technologies will be required to deliver carbon savings as Northern Ireland moves towards zero carbon heating; a concept, you will not be surprised to hear, that I will be recommending today.

842. I have sent the Committee our response to the consultation of draft PPS 18. The response demonstrates our support for the Executive’s desire to facilitate and encourage greater integration of renewable energy and for the technologies — both in the design of new buildings and through the appropriate retro-fit for the technologies in existing properties.

843. Recent research that we have undertaken for the Renewables Advisory Board highlights the role of the planning system and the role it can play in facilitating the uptake of microgeneration technologies. The research shows that if the planning process makes the adoption of such technologies easier, people will not find it too difficult to jump through a particular hoop.

844. Draft PPS18 rightly encourages low-carbon renewable energy supply. Unfortunately, it does not mention the importance of reducing energy demand and considering this in tandem with energy supply. After all, it makes little sense to build and install a generating capacity if much of the output is wasted through the fabric of the building. There is also a financial issue: if capacity is lowered, it will cost less if the demand is low.

845. There is no mention of a building’s geographic orientation in draft PPS 18. Indeed, the Committee might ask why would there be? However, it would be a positive step if all our buildings were orientated to facilitate renewables. I appreciate that it would be impossible for all new buildings to have a south-facing aspect, but if the properties are to be orientated from east to west, let us have a roof that can accommodate renewables. Let our housing stock be renewables-ready in the same way that our televisions are digital-ready as we move down the renewables stream.

846. I wish to comment on clauses 1, 4, 5, 7 and 12, particularly clauses 1 and 7.

847. We welcome the provision in clause 1 for building regulations to be able to regulate the energy performance of building, and we believe this concept to be important. Northern Ireland has not yet set a target date by which all new builds should be zero-carbon. That should be introduced and a target of 2016 established. Moreover, it is important that changes to building regulations are seen as an intermediate stage towards the creation of zero-carbon buildings.

848. Under the code for sustainable homes being adopted in England and Wales, microgeneration becomes necessary in all codes above code 4. England and Wales plan to bring this into building regulations in 2013.

849. Code level 3, for example, needs microgeneration in most flats and becomes part of building regulations in 2010. Developers should adopt energy-efficiency measures where possible so that there will be no need for universal microgeneration. There will not be such need in England and Wales until 2013. However, we encourage developers to aspire to codes 3 and 4 before the standards are introduced in building regulations.

850. Clause 7 is about the power to require or carry out testing. Testing in airtightness is important for energy saving. A survey commissioned by the Energy Efficiency Partnership for Homes showed that one third of new homes failed the indicative airtightness levels set out under the previous building regulations regime, part L (2002) for England and Wales, which is the equivalent to part F in Northern Ireland. It is unclear to what extent those findings will be transferred to Northern Ireland.

851. It is sensible to have a robust compliance and enforcement regime that involves testing and that ensures that new-built homes meet specifications and contain the necessary design features to make them truly low-carbon.

852. I have distributed two charts to members. The first is entitled “Where We Want To Be” and it maps a horizontal timeline against a vertical measurement of carbon emissions. The Committee will see where the line starts to divide at 2010. If we do absolutely nothing from that year to 2050, we will run along the top line, which forecasts that emissions in the UK will rise to between 140 and 160 on the graph’s carbon measurement scale. Under present forecasts we are doing a certain amount, but only enough to get us down to the second line, which dips under the measurement of 140 on the scale of emissions.

853. The important thing that I want to highlight is the depth shown up between the top line and that represented by the potential impact of the energy-efficiency sector. There is so much still to be done in energy efficiency, and that gap stays static after 2030.

854. Much more also needs to be done on renewables, which is illustrated by a further widening on the graph to potentially even lower carbon emission levels. Below that, there is a line representing the effect of CO2 sequestration, which means burying material in oil or gas fields. Then hydrogen, which has a line of its own, has to be considered; I hope that you will not ask me about that because I do not know anything about hydrogen. However, it is a technology that will find its feet in due course.

855. The Chairperson: We will try to resist the temptation.

856. Mr Williams: Thank you. [Laughter.]

857. The second graph shows “The Market Transformation Curve”, which reflects what the Energy Saving Trust and the Carbon Trust are trying to achieve. The “R&D” on the lower left-hand side of the graph represents the Carbon Trust’s input. We deal with the domestic side and we have roles in demonstration and early adopter grants through schemes such as the Reconnect programme. We conduct marketing, have energy advice centres, and inform the public. In Northern Ireland the Energy Savings Trust advice centre had contact with 67,000 households in 2007-08.

858. We hope that the market will move up the curve on the graph. We look to people — such as those on the Committee — to draw up regulations that sustain and enliven the industry. The graph peaks with the introduction of a regulation and we eventually get to that low-carbon concentration.

859. Dr Farry: Does the horizontal axis on “The Market Transformation Curve” represent the percentage of people who are involved in renewables?

860. Mr Williams: Yes. We think that that curve is reasonable. People will not act unless we demonstrate the technologies and hope that those who can afford to do so take it up. Our role is to educate, advise and encourage take-up through our marketing and advice network.

861. May I highlight what is being done in some of our neighbouring countries?

862. For example, as the Committee may already know, the code for sustainable homes was launched in England in December 2006. It sets a new standard for sustainable design, and, since April 2007, the developer of any new home in England can choose to be assessed against its criteria. The code measures the sustainability of a new home against certain criteria and has levels or stars that range from one to six. It sets minimum standards for energy and water use at every level, and it replaces the old eco-homes scheme.

863. The eco-homes scheme was an interesting wee standard, which was a bit wacky at times — one could put six or seven bird’s nests boxes in your house and trade that against energy, whereas now the sustainable standard is such that energy is set, which is much better. The code sets sustainable design performance criteria in nine areas: energy, carbon dioxide emissions, water, materials and surface water run-off. A code level is then awarded based on how the mandatory minimum has been achieved.

864. The building regulations were last updated in England and Wales in 2005, in Northern Ireland in 2006, and in Scotland in 2007. The Committee has just heard that in the Republic of Ireland the regulations were last updated in 2007 and that they come into effect in July this year. Code levels correspond to the percentage by which the standards have been exceeded. For example, code level 1 is awarded when a standard has been achieved that is 10% above the standard. Similarly, the percentage for level 2 is 18%; for level 3 it is 25%; for level 4 it is 44%; and for level 5 it is 100%. Code level 6 means that zero carbon has been achieved. All social housing must be built to code level 3.

865. Our position is that developers should aim for energy efficiency where they can, so there is no need for universal microgeneration until 2013. However, we encourage developers to aspire to code level 3 or 4 before the building regulations.

866. The National Assembly for Wales has signed up to the code for sustainable homes and has set a target that all newbuilds in Wales will be zero carbon by 2011. That is an ambitious target, but that is a matter for them, not for me. They define zero carbon as being code level 5, although with some commitment to extend it to code level 6. They say that there are certain issues with the higher rating, but I do not know what they are. To enable the National Assembly for Wales to make progress in that area, the proposal is that the building regulations be devolved to the Welsh Government in the same way as responsibility for our regulations has been devolved.

867. Unlike England and Wales, the Scottish Government have not as yet set a target date for achieving zero-carbon newbuild. However, recent policy documents from the Scottish Government suggest that they want to move towards zero-carbon newbuild. The Scottish Government convened an expert panel to advise on the development of low-carbon buildings for Scotland, and a report entitled ‘A low carbon building standards strategy for Scotland’ was published earlier this year.

868. The panel recommended that new buildings should be zero carbon — as regards space and water heating, lighting and ventilation — by 2016-17, if practical, and that there should be two intermediate stages as they move along the road to achieve zero-carbon buildings. One stage was the 2010 change in energy standards, which involves low-carbon buildings. Another stage would be the 2013 change in energy standards, which involves very low-carbon buildings, to use their terminology. Percentages are provided: low carbon means that energy standards should deliver carbon dioxide savings of 30% more than 2007 standards. Very low carbon means that energy standards should deliver carbon dioxide savings of 60% more than 2007 standards. The target is to achieve zero-carbon buildings in 2016, and total-life zero carbon buildings by 2030. The latter is an interesting standard, which means that there would be zero carbon from the construction, maintenance and demolition processes. Thus, very high standards have been set.

869. In addition, the Scottish Government have introduced their Scottish Planning Policy (SPP6) Renewable Energy, which sets out an expectation that all future applications proposing development with a total floor value of 500 sq m or more should incorporate on-site and low-carbon equipment that provides at least 15% of the energy. That percentage is similar to that of the Republic.

870. The report referenced comments that the requirement was to be reviewed after 2013 and will be removed from the regulations by then. This is because it will have been achieved by that date.

871. The Republic of Ireland will be fresh in your memory due to the preceding presentation. I made a couple of interesting observations as I looked through the material which was distributed. Ms Neary mentioned part L1 of the Building Control Act 1990, which states:

“The amount of CO2 emissions associated with this energy use insofar as it is reasonably practicable”

872. That is a bit wishy-washy, and should be made more robust. The Act also states that:

“primary energy consumption and related CO2 insofar as is reasonably practicable”

873. Ms Neary was talking about the 10 kW hours per square metre per annum statistic. That is a big, long technical term but leaving that aside, a reasonable portion of the energy consumed to meet the energy performance of a dwelling is provided by renewable energy sources. Scotland is setting a target and a percentage, which is interesting. Statements that include the phrase “where appropriate” should be tightened up. I have references to the 86% efficiency of boilers, but those statistics have already been discussed, so I shall move on.

874. I understand from my colleagues in Sustainable Energy Ireland that the code for sustainable homes is on the agenda of the Republic of Ireland, which has also been discussed.

875. I am nearing the end; I am moving onto the subject of Northern Ireland. Any consideration of changes to building regulations, including microgeneration in newbuild, should be in the intermediate stages on the way towards zero-carbon buildings. As such, the energy demand and efficiency need to be considered in tandem with supply and microgeneration. Energy efficiency is the best value for money, but that may change. Building regulations must also be used to ensure that existing homes are energy-efficient. When boilers are replaced for example, they should be replaced with the most efficient options.

876. There is no doubt that as the cost of microgeneration technologies approaches that of conventional technologies, it will fall, as, for example, the price of PCs has fallen. The least efficient models must be taken off the market.

877. Look at what has happened in white goods with the EU energy label scheme — A-rated machines have become so popular that one can no longer buy washing machines that are c-rated or below. We have had to introduce A+ and A++ standards; that is the way forward. Our research shows that regulation on building regulations can encourage microgeneration. The help there by preparing dwellings and renewables.

878. Northern Ireland has not signed up to the code for sustainable homes, although it should or at least adopt an equivalent mechanism. There is no reason to follow the lead of other countries in any way, but any equivalent mechanism developed would have to be tight.

879. I am pleased to announce the extension of the low-carbon buildings programme to June 2010. Northern Ireland residents will be able to access £10 million to install micro- or renewable technologies. By doing that, they can play a vital role in tackling the global challenge of climate change and save money in the long run. The grants are not as lucrative as the Reconnect programme, but they are available and I have provided a table that you will see in due course.

880. Mr Beggs: Your evidence suggested that energy efficiency is more cost-effective than microgeneration and that changes to the fabric of a building will last for many years; they are not a short-term measure. If we want to help the environment, I assume that you would recommend that we should consider increasing insulation standards rather than making microgeneration mandatory. Is that a correct interpretation of what you said?

881. Mr Williams: Insulation standards were increased. If you were to ask members of the public whether they had loft insulation, they would probably say, “Yes”. They might also guess that its thickness is about a hand’s width, although it should be 11 in. The challenge is to encourage people to top-up their insulation to keep energy in the building. That is what we are trying to achieve, Mr Beggs.

882. Mr Beggs: I appreciate that insulation standards have increased significantly. However, given the changes to building regulations and the EU directives, further efficiency of buildings will be required in future. If we were to consider enhancing our standards before those requirements come into effect, should we examine insulation before we consider microgeneration?

883. Mr Williams: We must consider them in tandem. We must increase insulation and bring microgeneration in when it is required. It is not a matter of choosing one method or the other; we must join the two together.

884. Mr Beggs: I note that your submission says that your energy-efficiency work is funded not from the Northern Ireland block grant but from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and BERR. What is BERR?

885. Mr Williams: BERR is the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform; it was previously the Department for Trade and Industry. It is the equivalent of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.

886. Mr Beggs: I was interested to note that routes to renewable energy grants are still open. However, I find it confusing that several bodies handle grants and that several different grants are available. Have any members of the public or organisations voiced concern about there being multiple routes and multiple schemes because that is not an efficient way of providing encouragement and assistance?

887. Mr Williams: On the contrary, the Energy Saving Trust has a one-stop shop now. Phoenix Natural Gas — I became a customer of Phoenix only a few days before the price increase — uses our number, as do Northern Ireland Electricity and the Housing Executive. The Northern Ireland consumers ring us, and we steer them through the grant process, so the confusion has gone away. Reconnect can be contacted via a different number, but the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment decided to do that. Normally, there is little confusion. As far as the public are concerned, if a grant exists and we can point them to it, they will gladly apply for it.

888. The Chairperson: Noel, the Renewables Advisory Board in England recently called upon the Government to stimulate demand for renewables in order to build capacity and avoid a supply gap by the due date for zero-carbon homes. It pointed to a mandatory renewable requirement as one approach for achieving that. What is your view?

889. Mr Williams: I hope that we introduce mandatory renewables in future. I agree with the decision of the Minister of Finance and Personnel not to make microgeneration mandatory from 1 April 2008. That was the right decision for the present. However, in future, we will have to make microgeneration mandatory. If we do not make microgeneration mandatory, some people will try to avoid it. One could argue that the market will get there eventually, and that may be so, but we can make it so.

890. The Chairperson: Earlier, you described an approach with intermediate stages. Do you anticipate guidance being issued in the foreseeable future?

891. Mr Williams: If the Government give enough notice of the requirement to the industry — for example, if it was to be introduced in 2013 — and we made everyone aware of it, there would be no excuse. We would gear up for the change and keep the market energised, if I may use that expression. When microgeneration becomes mandatory, people will be ready for it.

892. Dr Farry: What should we opt for in the Bill? Should we make microgeneration compulsory or should we simply facilitate the use of renewable sources of energy in a set target and specify microgeneration as one way of achieving it?

893. Mr Williams: If we are to get where we want to be by 2050, we will have to make microgeneration mandatory, and we will have to do that by 2020. Right now is not the time, but that time is not far off.

894. Dr Farry: Should microgeneration be mandatory for every household or is it a combination of individual and collective approaches, whether for an apartment building or an entire development, for example, when it comes to erecting a wind turbine?

895. Mr Williams: It is a combination of both. A fair proportion of houses are self-built, and if the regulations make solar or water power mandatory, the house builder must comply accordingly. There is an argument, with house prices being what they are, that such regulations add another £3,000 to the price of the building. However, the savings that can be made over the life of the house make that figure pale into insignificance.

896. Dr Farry: You made the comparison between information technology and the dramatic improvements in the performance of various technologies over the years. There is a need for massive investment in research, development and innovation in order to bring down the costs of renewable technologies. The IT market took care of itself because consumers demanded more efficient devices. That may not be the case with renewables; hence the need for more regulation.

897. It strikes me that we are approaching these issues home by home or country by country. Each of the four jurisdictions in the UK is doing its own thing, as is the Republic of Ireland. Those interventions are designed to pump-prime the market. However, the market for the supply of renewable technology devices and the related research and development does not take place on a self-contained basis in those five jurisdictions; it takes place on a European or global scale. How can each jurisdiction plug into the wider regulatory picture, and how does that relate to the need to pump-prime the market?

898. Mr Williams: The various areas of the United Kingdom ought to look at the situation in a different way; however, there are common measures that can be applied. For example, it would be a major step forward if we could get our wind capacity on to the grid instead of using micro wind turbines, for example. I do not have an opinion about micro wind turbines at the moment. We are engaged in a year-long study, which will conclude in June, of 100 urban micro-turbines. A wind turbine on top of a hill in rural Northern Ireland is a winner; I am not so sure whether it would be equally successful attached to the side of my house. Those studies take in the whole country in order to make the regulation easier so that projects can be made cost-effective in future.

899. Mr Beggs: I wonder whether any house in Northern Ireland has a wind turbine attached to its gable. I have heard that B& Q did not sell too many of them in Northern Ireland because they did not make economic sense.

900. The Chairperson: I have never seen one.

901. Mr Williams: Some people in Northern Ireland have installed micro wind turbines, some of whom are involved in our study. We are taking that into consideration.

902. Mr Beggs: It would be useful to see the results of that study. In your submission you state that micro-generation at code level 4 will become a requirement of the regulations in England and Wales and that that requirement will be included in building regulations by 2013.

903. You also said that that will be the case in most flats from 2010. Does that refer to England and Wales too? Is Northern Ireland lagging behind in the regulations compared to what is happening in England and Wales? Perhaps we need more information about code levels.

904. Mr Williams: I can provide you with that information. I was referring to the code levels for England. The code for sustainable homes is something that we should sign up to because of that standard. Renewable energy is needed to reach code level 4 in the building regulations. The higher the code, the more renewables are needed: the aspect of the building must be right, for example, and there must be solar gain. The Committee, the Department and the Minister must decide whether the code is introduced in this way or by an appropriate mechanism. We suggest that the code can apply as well in Northern Ireland as it does in Wales.

905. Mr Beggs: You said that code level 4 will be in the building regulations by 2013. Has that been agreed in England, and has it been agreed that it will be implemented in Northern Ireland by that time?

906. Mr Williams: No; it has not been agreed that it will be implemented in Northern Ireland.

907. The Chairperson: Thanks very much, Noel. The Committee finds it necessary from time to time to follow up with written requests for clarification or elaboration from witnesses. I trust that we can do the same with you should the need arise.

908. Mr Williams: Yes, of course.

30 April 2008

Members present for all or part of the proceedings:
Mr Mitchel McLaughlin (Chairperson)
Mr Mervyn Storey (Deputy Chairperson)
Mr Roy Beggs
Dr Stephen Farry
Mr Simon Hamilton
Mr Fra McCann
Mr Declan O’Loan
Ms Dawn Purvis
Mr Peter Weir

Witnesses:

Mr Paul Everall

Local Authority Building Control, England and Wales

909. The Chairperson (Mr Mitchel McLaughlin): The next item on the agenda is the Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill, and we will hear evidence from colleagues who have travelled from England. The session will be recorded by Hansard, so I remind Members that mobile phones must be turned off completely; otherwise they will interfere with the recording equipment.

910. I welcome Mr Paul Everall CBE, who is the chief executive of Local Authority Building Control (LABC) in England and Wales; we appreciate his making the effort to be with us today. Mr Everall, will you outline the role of your organisation and your experience of implementing building regulations in England and Wales that are similar to the regulations that are proposed in our Bill? Will you also detail your experience of the use of renewable energy sources in buildings in England and Wales? I invite you to share your wisdom and experience with the Committee.

911. Mr Paul Everall (Local Authority Building Control): Thank you very much, Chairperson. Good morning, everyone. It is a great pleasure for me to be in Belfast.

912. I have been the chief executive of LABC for some three years now. Before that, I was a senior civil servant in London, advising Ministers in Whitehall on matters involving buildings. I was head of the Buildings Division in what is now the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister — the title changed several times in the years that I was there. I was appointed head of the Buildings Division in 1991, so I served some 14 years advising Ministers on the content of the building regulations and on the building control system in England and Wales.

913. At that time, I occasionally had the pleasure of visiting Belfast as I used to sit as an observer on the Northern Ireland Building Regulations Advisory Committee (NIBRAC). I believe that the Committee heard evidence from a friend of mine, Trevor Martin, who is chairperson of that committee. Since that time, I have been a member of the policy committee of the Consortium of European Building Control. I mention that because that role has given me the opportunity to study the different systems of building regulations across Europe, which I certainly found helpful to me in my Civil Service role.

914. I now turn to my current role. LABC is the representative body for local authority building control in England and Wales, and it represents some 276 local authorities that have building control responsibilities — either district councils or unitary authorities. However, we are not just a representative body, which is important. It is difficult for the Government to talk to all 276 authorities, so if they want a collective view of what local authorities think about Government proposals, they come to us, and we try to develop that collective view on behalf of all local authorities.

915. As the Committee may be aware, unlike in Northern Ireland, building control in England and Wales is subject to competition from the private sector. Private-sector bodies called approved inspectors can be licensed to carry out building control work. Thus, for example, people who are having building work carried out on their house can choose to use either the local authority or an approved inspector.

916. Understandably, local authorities want to maintain a decent market share across all aspects of buildings work — commercial educational, public and domestic. Therefore LABC is also a marketing body; it tries to sell the services of local authorities to architects, clients and developers and tries to convince them that they would be wise to use local authorities rather than private-sector building control.

917. I have been in that role for three years, and it has been an interesting time. Last month, the Government published a consultation document on the future of building control. It suggests ways in which the system in England and Wales can be improved. We have held discussions with the Government about some aspects of that document, and I will be glad to answer any questions that the Committee may have.

918. There are two aspects of the Building Regulations (Amendment) Bill that interest me. The first is the move from “deemed to satisfy provisions” to approved guidance documents. As a result of my experience, primarily in England and Wales, but also elsewhere in Europe, I have become a strong supporter of the guidance document system. Before the system in England and Wales was changed 25 years ago, we had very prescriptive regulations that made it difficult for developers to do anything innovative or to keep up to date with developments in Europe and implement directives such as the European energy building performance directive.

919. The system was inflexible; under the system that we now have in England and Wales, the regulations — which are themselves eight pages long — set the objectives that we expect builders to achieve in their buildings. Meanwhile, the approved documents for England and Wales, which are published by the Government, give guidance on how to comply with the requirements of the regulations. Those documents are not mandatory, but if developers want to do something different, they must convince the building control bodies that their proposals are at least as good as those contained in the approved documents. Following the advice of the approved documents, however, demonstrates compliance with the regulations, and means that a developer would be unlikely to be prosecuted for any breach of the regulations.

920. One of the challenges for central Government is to continue to update the approved documents so that they reflect changes in technology and the continuing demands of society. The Government proposes to review or change energy efficiency regulations in England and Wales every three years in order to tighten up the requirements on climate change.

921. The other aspect of the Bill that interests me is type approvals. Those are very important in England and Wales, partly because of the complexity of the environment. Type approvals allow an architect to present his design to one local authority, have it checked and approved by that authority and have it accepted by all other local authorities in England and Wales. We had to develop that system because of competition, which was first introduced in the housing sector in England and Wales under pressure from the National House Building Council (NHBC). The NHBC offered a form of type approval, in the sense that once it approved a house type, it could be built anywhere in the country, as long as the NHBC was used as the approved inspectors. Had local authorities not decided to do the same thing, we would have lost a great deal of business to the NHBC because the process of getting plans checked was so much simpler.

922. The type approval system had to work very well; otherwise we would lose all our housing work to the NHBC. When I came to this job from the Civil Service, I was surprised to find that every local authority in England and Wales, without exception, had signed up to type approvals. The type approval system will work in Northern Ireland only if all local authorities agree to sign up to it or are required to do so. Type approvals are important in reducing the burden of the building control system on architects and developers.

923. Those two features were of particular interest to me when I studied the Bill, and I felt that I could share my views on them.

924. The third point concerned renewables. There is a great deal of interest from Ministers in Whitehall, just as there is here, in looking at the best way in which to combat climate change. As the Committee will have heard from other evidence, renewables may be the way forward. I have some concerns about how a policy might be applied. Personally, I believe that it is better to have goal-based regulations that set standards to be achieved rather than to prescribe that a certain proportion of energy must come from renewables. I would prefer that the use of renewables be encouraged through grant regimes or other forms of incentives rather than through regulatory change.

925. The Government in England and Wales have not yet proposed to require — through the building control system — that a proportion of the energy generated should come from renewables.

926. I am particularly concerned about microgeneration because last year some politicians were encouraging everybody to have wind generators on their properties. I have concerns about that from a building regulations perspective, because if generators are inadequately fixed or fixed to a chimney or to a gable wall, they can cause serious damage to the structure of the building, no matter how helpful they may be in reducing energy consumption. It may not be the case here, but building regulations in England and Wales contain requirements for electrical wiring and connections. It is important that wind generators on roofs are properly wired up and that the wiring complies with the requirements in the regulations.

927. I recognise the importance of increasing the amount of energy that is generated from renewable sources, but, personally speaking, I would not like to see it being made a mandatory requirement of building regulations in England and Wales. In a way, that would be against the philosophy of building regulations in England and Wales because we set objectives, for example, by setting the maximum amount of carbon that should be generated from a particular property, and we allow the developer to choose how to meet those requirements. If we were to start prescribing too much, we would go against that general principle of flexibility.

928. I am conscious that I have spoken for about 10 minutes. I am sure that members would rather ask questions than listen to me. I hope that I have given a helpful introduction to the topic.

929. The Chairperson: Yes, indeed.

930. Mr Weir: Thank you. It is good to have a witness who has such experience in these matters. To use a cliché, a wise person learns from his mistakes, but a wiser person learns from somebody else’s mistakes. You mentioned initial problems with the system that was put in place in England and Wales, such as inflexibility. How might we combat potential implementation problems in the proposed reforms and in the Bill for Northern Ireland?

931. Mr Everall: When I read the Bill, I could not see anything in it that might cause difficulty. Please do not take this the wrong way, but it often used to be the case that we would introduce changes to the regulations in England and Wales, and, two or three years later, Departments in Northern Ireland would examine our experience — including the guidance and the approved documents — to see what mistakes we might have made, and they were able to learn from our mistakes when producing deemed-to-satisfy requirements. Now, perhaps, the situation is different because all parts of the UK have been subject to the energy performance of buildings directive, which had to be implemented in Northern Ireland on the same timescale as that in other regions.

932. To answer your question precisely, I cannot see anything in the Bill that I find to be unhelpful. I recommend that you use guidance documents and encourage type approvals.

933. Mr Weir: I understand that planning policy in England and Wales has been a key tool in ensuring the inclusion of renewables in newly built houses. Given your experience of that in England, do you believe that Northern Ireland should adopt that process?

934. Mr Everall: There are contrasting views on that. I am a purist, and I believe that regulatory systems should not overlap. Measures included in building regulations should not also form part of the planning system. In England and Wales some planning authorities have attempted to set higher standards through the planning system than are required under building regulations. That confuses developers and is therefore unhelpful. For example, the London borough of Merton tried to establish higher standards for the planning system than are required under building regulations; that is not a good idea.

935. The Government in England and Wales have developed a code for sustainable homes — Northern Ireland may use a similar code — that is not mandatory but encourages people to aim for higher standards of energy efficiency than present building regulations standards. It has a ratchet effect. Public-sector bodies will have experience of that, and bodies such as the Housing Corporation and English Partnerships advocate reaching the higher standards outlined in the code rather than compliance with building regulations.

936. Gaining experience in building homes at a higher level will make it easier to attain the required standards in 2010 when building regulation standards are next increased. Such a voluntary code is helpful, but to demand that the planning system provide that 20% or 40% of all new houses must have energy-efficiency standards that amount to a 20% higher standard than contained in building regulations is unhelpful.

937. Mr Beggs: I declare an interest as a member of Carrickfergus Borough Council on the north-eastern building control committee. You said that every local authority in England has signed up to type approval. How is that managed? How do we ensure that a lower standard is not applied in one authority area and imposed on other areas, resulting in lower overall standards?

938. Mr Everall: If an architect wants to have a house type-approved, he takes the plans to a local authority, which ensures that the plans comply with building regulations. If the plans are approved, they are referred to LABC, which issues a certificate to all local authorities and the developer to the effect that the design has been approved and, if brought to a local authority, must be accepted. Checks must still be carried out on site, but local authorities do not need to check the plan again. As far as I am aware, that works very well.

939. The receiving authority might, occasionally, raise an eyebrow about whether the authority conducting the original type approval was too lax but such cases are uncommon. LABC has a technical working group to examine such issues and to provide advice.

940. Mr Beggs: During evidence sessions the Committee heard that houses built in Northern Ireland can be built to out-of-date standards in cases where development had commenced a long time ago. Recent building control approval was given to developments designed originally in 1973. Therefore houses are built with poor energy-efficiency standards and poor disability access. An amendment to the Bill could provide for the power to declare null and void any individual buildings that have not been commenced on multiple sites after a specific time period.

941. Can you give us your views on such an amendment?

942. Mr Everall: I would have to think of what the implications are of such an amendment and if there were any compensation or fairness issues that need to be considered. I am not aware of the problem being widespread in England and Wales. However, the rules are basically the same: if you commence one house on a multiple site, that is regarded as commencing work. Therefore the rest of the houses in the scheme should be built to the earlier standards; even if the building regulations are tightened up before the work is completed.

943. That has not been a problem in recent years in England and Wales, as the demand for housing has been such that it is not in the developer’s interest to take a long time to develop a site. However, it may be that with the downturn in the economy that this would be a good thing to start thinking about. You could introduce provision to create a time limit on how long an approval is listed. There are time limits — I think that it is three years in England and Wales — where you must make at least a start on the site; otherwise the building permit becomes invalid. It may be prudent to consider how you might extend that to cover all the houses on a site and not just the first one.

944. Mr O’Loan: Such provisions may be strictly beyond the terms of the Bill and may be covered under previous criteria for type approval. However, we all agreed that the implementation of the Bill is desirable. However, how exactly do we implement it? You talked about two ways: by agreement or by making it mandatory. In case agreement does not work, why do we not just simply make it mandatory?

945. Mr Everall: That may be more of an issue in Northern Ireland. In England and Wales, the incentive for local authorities to sign up to a voluntary scheme, run by LABC, is that if they do not, they are likely to lose work to the private sector. If you do not have competition from the private sector — and I am not aware that you are planning that at present — t what is the incentive for every local authority to sign up?

946. Getting a local authority to agree to it would be the best option. However, if you have any fears that some authorities will not sign up to it voluntarily, you should seriously consider making it mandatory.

947. Mr O’Loan: We should consider why local authorities would not sign up to it.

948. The Chairperson: Imposing a different set of conditions or responsibilities on councils on housing provision may prove to be the tipping point in councils voluntarily signing up. We may need to consider a different approach.

949. Mr O’Loan: The issue of licensed inspectors does go beyond the proposals, but it is worth exploring. You seem to be saying that those inspectors have had a significant impact on the system.

950. Most of us who have some experience of the building control system in Northern Ireland would be pleased and impressed by the introduction of licensed inspectors. However, we should listen to experiences from elsewhere and whether the creation of an alternative has improved the system and made it more responsive. Is that your view?

951. Mr Everall: Yes. This is slightly difficult for me as my employers are a local authority. They are, of course, perfect in every way and we should never have introduced competition in England and Wales —

952. The Chairperson: The Hansard report has taken note of that. [Laughter.]

953. Mr Everall: However, in my previous days I did see the advantages of competition. Developers who have been around for a long time in England and Wales will say that the service that they receive from local authorities on building control has greatly improved over the past 25. There were stories told in the past of building control officers who found great joy in finding 101 reasons why a development did not comply with building control regulations.

954. The culture has completely changed, and building control recognises that unless it works with the developers to encourage and persuade them to comply, they can choose to go to an unapproved inspector. When the Labour Government came into power in 1997, Nick Raynsford, who was the Construction Minister, conducted a review of whether private-sector building control should continue. Ministers in England and Wales reached the conclusion that the benefits outweighed the disadvantages, and the Conservative and Labour parties have supported competition ever since.

955. The experience has been good, and developers often ask us why on earth politicians do not introduce competition into the planning system, as it might produce a more responsive and customer-friendly response from planners. However, you will understand why I will not comment on that. Competition improves the efficiency of building control.

956. The downside for us, and the reason that we need a marketing side, is that local authorities are there to provide a public service, but we are the building control body of last resort. People can choose to go elsewhere, but a local authority cannot turn work away and, therefore, we must provide an effective service. If all the lucrative work — by which I mean the commercial building work that generates large fees for the building control body — were to go to the commercial sector, it would leave local authorities to deal only with house extensions and similar work.

957. Although that is important work, building control would not be the interesting career that it is, and the service from local authorities would suffer. The biggest risk attached to introducing private-sector competition is that it would spoil the service that local authorities deliver. It is not only because I am chief executive of Local Authority Building Control that my recommendation is that it is not necessary to go down the private-sector route: there are other ways to maintain an efficient service.

958. Mr O’Loan: When talking about more efficient and lower-carbon homes, you said that your inclination is to set targets for the efficiency of households and to allow householders and developers to create methods to achieve them. You suggested that grant-aiding is preferable, particularly for encouraging microgeneration, to making it mandatory. My concern is that the point of a grant is to encourage people to do something that they might not otherwise do because the grant makes it more cost effective.

959. However, there are many cost-effective measures to improve the efficiency of homes, but lethargy and inertia prevent people from taking them. People could take sensible measures that would produce a quick payback, but they do not. I am sympathetic to the idea of encouragement rather than compulsion, but that is not producing results at the required rate, particularly among the existing housing stock.

960. Mr Everall: It would be difficult to see how regulation could address the existing housing stock. It would be a bold move for politicians to require people to carry out building work on their houses that they had not planned to do. However, without regulation that issue cannot be tackled through introducing legislation. Building control can get to grips with an issue only when someone states their intention to do some building work. Building control cannot touch people who are content to sit in their low-energy efficiency 1950s house and have no such intention. Therefore building regulations would not necessarily help to deal with the existing housing stock. If anything, it is even more important to provide incentives for people to improve the existing stock. Building regulations can set standard for new houses, but they cannot do anything about the existing stock.

961. Mr O’Loan: The question of how to encourage people to make improvements to the existing housing stock is left open.

962. Mr Everall: Yes, that leaves open the question of how we deal with the existing stock.

963. Dr Farry: Thank you, Paul, for coming over from England to brief the Committee this morning.

964. Returning to the issue of renewables, can it be argued that advances need to be made across a broad front in order to achieve carbon reductions? In the same way that building regulations cannot affect existing buildings that are not going to be modified, people who do nothing with their buildings will not come into contact with the planning system.

965. I am concerned that exacting carbon reduction targets have been set in the Climate Change Bill. There is often a tendency to delay the pain of meeting targets by seeing them as something to be dealt with in the future and believing that tough decisions will have to be taken by our successors rather than by us. I am not sure whether that is a credible approach.

966. I am conscious that there is a target in England and Wales for all new homes to be carbon neutral by 2016. I was interested in your comments regarding how that will be achieved by taking a joined-up approach that incorporates all the different targets that are being set and all the relevant programmes.

967. Should there be grants to encourage homeowners to use microgeneration as well as regulations for new homes — introduced either through planning and/or through building regulations — in order to shift to microgeneration as quickly as possible?

968. There are some parallels between this issue and that of recycling. Initially, people were encouraged to recycle voluntarily, but without a great deal of success. Councils — particularly in Northern Ireland, and that is possibly one example of our being ahead of some councils in England and Wales — then began alternating between collecting household rubbish and recycling every other week, which resulted in a sudden upsurge in recycling. Recycling may have reached a plateau and will need a new initiative. Do you agree that recycling is an example of the effective use of regulation and encouragement?

969. My final point may contradict what I have already said about microgeneration. To what extent is it appropriate to encourage — either through planning or building regulations — microgeneration per household or per building, when some form of shared generation, particularly in new housing developments — for example, slightly larger wind turbines — may be more appropriate? I appreciate that a similar approach is perhaps already being taken in other parts of Europe. Do you see any particular cultural problems here that may be holding us back from introducing that — for example, a greater focus on owning one’s property as opposed to the renting culture that exists in other parts of Europe? Is that a viable option, either different from individual microgeneration schemes or working in conjunction with them?

970. Mr Everall: Dealing with your last point first, in the case of using wind power, I would rather see a reasonably large wind pump generating power for 100 or 200 houses than 200 wind pumps on 200 houses. That is a way forward. The Committee may be aware that the Government have announced that there will be 15 new eco-towns in England and Wales, and it will be interesting to know what the proposed energy-generation scheme will be for those.

971. The 2016 target that all new homes will be zero-carbon is very demanding. I do not believe that zero-carbon homes can be achieved without the full co-operation of the energy-supply industries. I do not believe that zero-carbon homes can be achieved simply by installing more insulation or more efficient boiler systems. That is partly because of all the electrical equipment, such as computers, that we now have in our homes.

972. In England and Wales a joint taskforce has been established involving the Home Builders Federation and the Government, which is developing a policy on how zero-carbon homes will be achieved by 2016. In my view, it will depend on the electricity-supply industry fully coming on board and moving towards using renewables rather than fossil fuels. I was interested in the session that the Committee had about that earlier this morning.

973. One of the challenges in England and Wales is that the Government have said that three million new homes are required by 2020 and that they want homes to be zero-carbon rated by 2016. It will be a challenge to meet both of those objectives at the same time. I am sceptical whether that can be done. Nevertheless, the fact that the Government have set such demanding targets has meant that there is much more dialogue between house builders and energy supply companies than in the past. There are moves afoot to extend that dialogue into the commercial sector.

974. In answer to Dr Farry’s third point, there may be a role for promoting and encouraging microgeneration in the regulations, but I am nervous about being prescriptive. A couple of months ago, we might all have prescribed biomass as the right way forward. Now, of course, there is controversy about whether we are driving up world food prices because land that would otherwise be used for food crops is being diverted towards the production of biomass. I may be entirely wrong, but it would not surprise me if the use of biomass goes down the list of priorities significantly. When I was a young engineer, wave energy was to be the solution, and here we are 50 years later and it is not. The danger of being prescriptive is that we prescribe the wrong things.

975. Dr Farry: I appreciate the point that you make. I am sometimes tempted to make a comparison between the revolutions in renewable technology and information technology that have taken place over the past 20 or 30 years. Much concern is being expressed about whether current technologies are capable of providing significant reductions in energy use. There is a need for investment in research and development in order to improve efficiencies, which must be driven by the market.

976. Huge improvements in information technology were brought about by consumer demand over the past three decades for more efficient high-performance, high-capacity devices. I foresee a difficulty in the renewables market, in the sense that there is not the same drive from consumers for more efficient devices. It is a societal benefit. People do not recognise the benefits to the individual of renewable energy that they can, for example, from a more efficient personal computer. In economic terms, there is a much greater problem with the “free rider” tendency. Therefore in order to prevent market failure, is there not a stronger argument for some form of regulation that will drive the renewables market and improve technologies? Is there not a danger that those technologies might not improve through voluntary buy-in and grants alone? Is there a need to pump-prime the market?

977. Mr Everall: I fully understand your argument. There is a more pressing case for greater regulation of renewables than there is for information technology, where the market has done an excellent job. A great deal of careful thought is required before one becomes too prescriptive about the use of certain types of renewables. The market may not deliver. I attach some hope to the fact that people as a whole, and children in particular, seem much more concerned about the future of the planet than they were 10 years ago. Even if people do not want to save money by improving the energy efficiency of their homes, more and more are concerned about the state of the planet. Whether that is enough to make the changes that are required remains to be seen.

978. The Chairperson: In an earlier answer, you said that you were not convinced that we could achieve the carbon-neutral target by 2016. Does that not indicate that, without being prescriptive, we must be proactive in encouraging and developing capacity?

979. Mr Everall: Indeed, much more work must be done. As I said, some of that work is going on in England, at least. I am still not convinced that we will get there, but much more work is being done now than two years ago.

980. The Chairperson: What helpful and constructive work can we do on the Bill to help us to achieve the targets? How can we change the regulations to improve on what has been done in England and Wales?

981. Mr Everall: You can continue to raise targets in the regulations. You propose to issue guidance documents, so you can continue to develop the guidance to show people how to achieve targets. You can work with industry and with others to produce bigger, better guidance. The faster the industry can develop the technology, the faster you can tighten the regulations and raise the standards. Members may be familiar with the standard assessment procedure (SAP) ratings, which are energy-efficiency ratings on houses. For example, you can say that, instead of new houses having a rating of 80 on the SAP scale, you will want them to have a rating of 85 next year. However, you must be convinced that the technology exists to deliver that rate economically. That is a long-winded way of saying that the way in which you appear to be developing the regulatory system should provide the basis for achieving the results that you want.

982. Mr F McCann: It has been recommended to the Committee that further consideration be given to requiring approval of plans by local council building control before commencement of work. That approach has been taken in England and Wales, and there seems to be division between rural and city councils on how that is handled.

983. Mr Everall: I am not sure that I see that distinction. There are two ways in which one can carry out building work in England and Wales. One can either submit plans to the local authority, which is required to issue a decision on the plans within a certain time; I think that it is five weeks, but I do not have the regulations at my fingertips. If those plans are approved, the work can proceed. We also have what is called the building-notice system, which was intended for simple work, whereby one gives 48 hours’ notice to the local authority that one intends to start work. One does not have to submit any plans. The local authority will inspect the work from time to time.

984. I mentioned earlier that a review of the building control system is ongoing in England and Wales. One of our arguments to Government is that the building-notice system has been misused. Works such as loft conversions or complicated extensions that can require a great deal of building-control officer time to ensure that they are done correctly are being carried out on building notices, without any plans having been submitted. I do not know how prevalent loft conversions are in Northern Ireland, but many people in London and other parts of England like to convert lofts into living accommodation. There are all sorts of issues to do with structural safety, means of escape and so on. If plans are not submitted for approval by the local authority, the local authority can find it difficult to ensure that problems are corrected as the building work progresses. That system has been misused by some developers.

985. Although that was not a very precise answer to your question, it may give the Committee a flavour of the problems that we face.

986. Mr F McCann: I am a member of Belfast City Council, which is inundated with requests for permission for loft conversions. Some of the building control officers would have difficulties if the system was changed, because their work would probably pile up.

987. Mr Everall: LABC is putting together evidence that English building regulations actually cost more than submitting plans, even though they are supposed to be more straightforward. You may be aware that in Scotland a warrant is required before starting work. However, in England and Wales one can start work without any prior approval. I am not sure that it is necessary to go quite as far as the Scottish model, but we are concerned about how the system works in England and Wales.

988. Mr McQuillan: It has been recommended that our Bill include powers to create regulations to control dangerous buildings and on the demolition of buildings. What is the position in England and Wales?

989. Mr Everall: Those areas are not controlled under building regulations. There are powers under the Buildings Act (1984) — the principal statute under which building regulations are made in England and Wales — but there are also separate provisions that go back to Victorian public health legislation. Local authorities have powers to take action if a building is considered to be dangerous; either by taking direct action themselves or requiring others to do so. It has never been necessary, and I have never heard it suggested, that in England and Wales those powers need to be contained in building regulations. They seem to work well as separate legislation.

990. Mr McQuillan: I am not sure whether we have separate legislation here or whether we would need to include that in the Bill. Do you know if that is the case?

991. Mr Everall: I do not know if you have separate legislation in Northern Ireland for dangerous structures or for demolition; if you do not, perhaps you should consider it.

992. The Chairperson: I think that we have separate legislation, but I am not sure of the details. The Committee can follow up on that separately, as it is any interesting point.

993. Mr Everall: We should not have to spend a long time filling out building regulation applications while deciding what to do with a dangerous structure. It is an emergency power and should be used as such. That is why it is separate from building regulation legislation.

994. Ms Purvis: There have been backland developments in Northern Ireland to which emergency and service vehicles have been unable to gain access. At present, no statutory agency appears to have the power to ensure that proper access is available. Has that been an issue in England and Wales and, if so, how have you dealt with it?

995. Mr Everall: The issue has arisen in England and Wales and part B of the regulations — I appreciate that your letters are different; in England and Wales we use the same letters as in the Republic of Ireland — deals with fire safety. That requires that there should to be access for the Fire Service in all developments, and that was specifically written into the regulations, I believe in 1991.

996. Ms Purvis: There was a recommendation that the Northern Ireland Bill should require the Department to work with counterparts in England, Wales and the Republic of Ireland to harmonise building regulations. That would apply to the technical content and to the time of introduction. Do you have any views on that?

997. Mr Everall: It would be desirable where it can be achieved. One of the reasons that I attended the Northern Ireland Building Regulations Advisory Committee and why colleagues from Northern Ireland attended our buildings regulation advisory committee in London was so that we could compare notes. Often, regulations are introduced in England and Wales and similar changes are made a few years later in Northern Ireland.

998. I strongly support the principle of harmonisation, particularly for developers who work in different parts of the United Kingdom. It would be good — although we have never achieved it in Scotland — if type approvals that have been agreed in England and Wales were also accepted in Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, its feasibility remains to be seen due to different methods of construction. Furthermore, there is perhaps a tendency to move away from harmonisation because of the effects of devolution.

999. The Scottish regulations differ from the English and Welsh ones, partly because Scottish politicians believe that they do not need to do the same as England and Wales. I am sure that there will also be issues in Northern Ireland. Northern Irish policies on radon are somewhat different from regulatory requirements in England and Wales, and that may be due to geological differences.

1000. I would like to see harmonisation achieved wherever possible, as that would help the construction industry, although there may be occasions where the different parts of the UK need different requirements.

1001. The Chairperson: Where an applicant deals with building controls application of the regulations at any stage of the planning consideration in England and Wales, they can ask for a determination from the Department. There is no provision here for an applicant to approach the Department until building control has concluded and rejected the plans.

1002. Other witnesses have recommended to the Committee that, with the introduction of a guidance-based documents approach, a system of determination should also be established similar that which exists in England and Wales. How has that process worked in practice, and has the fact that the applicant can appeal at any stage of the process been beneficial in your view?

1003. Mr Everall: The process has worked in principle. I used to be the senior civil servant responsible for running the determination of appeals system. The time that it took to get a decision meant that the system was inefficient, and consequently the procedure was rarely used. In theory, it was a very useful system to have, but it was not of much use.

1004. The Government’s consultation paper on the future of building control consultation asks whether LABC, together with the equivalent private-sector organisation, could set up its own mediation system for disputes. LABC is looking into that possibility. If there were a dispute at any stage — for example at the plan-checking stage if the developer thinks that the