Green Building Forum

Home  5  Books  5  GBEzine Subscription  5  News  5  HelpDesk  5  Your Cart  5  Register
Enforcement Action by LABC on insulation. - Green Building Forum
›

Hello

Welcome to the Green Building Forum. Reading any of the public conversations is free but if you want to join in the discussions then you need to register first to obtain a code for which there is a small charge. Please follow the link on the left. OR:

Sign In Register

Categories

GREEN BUILDING MAGAZINE
Get the next four copies of this fantastic magazine delivered directly to your door.
1 year Green Building magazine subscription
Price: £20.00
Discount books available with subscription:


Enforcement Action by LABC on insulation.

tony
edited September 2014 in Building Regulations and Standards
Has anyone ever heard of any cases of enforcement action or warnings by LABC in relation to non compliance with part L1b (insulation)

I am for ever seeing re-roofing and re rendering going on with no insulation being carried out and have a problem case where a free holder has insulated half a roof!

Comments

  • DarylP
    Tony,

    Yes. A LA BCO has picked up on a client's loft conversion, and the lack of insulation/type of insulation.

    Why ask...? :bigsmile:
  • rhamdu
    I should know the rules. But are you saying that any time a house is re-rendered, it should be insulated up to Part L1b standards?

    That would have epic consequences for places like Brighton where most homes have a sand-cement render.
  • Ed DaviesEd Davies
    Daryl, did they pick up a lack of insulation in the original plans or the lack of installation of the supposedly-planned insulation?
  • tony
    Part L1b does apply to re rendering yes

    I am not talking about when building extensions, conversions or loft conversions but when work is being carried out that L1b applies to.
  • CWatters
    What others have said. If you change or add an "insulating element" such as render you may have to insulate to certain mim standards as well. However there are some get out of jail free cards in the regs. For example if there are technical reasons that make it difficult or you can show the payback period is too long to make it economical.
  • Nick Parsons
    edited September 2014
    Cwatters wrote:

    ''What others have said. If you change or add an "insulating element" such as render you may have to insulate to certain mim standards as well. However there are some get out of jail free cards in the regs. For example if there are technical reasons that make it difficult or you can show the payback period is too long to make it economical.''

    But if your insulation (to bring wall U values down to 0.3, say, as per AD L1B) does nopt achieve pure payback in 15 years (using alleged savings as defined by SAP) it does not mean you need do nothing. IIRC, it states that a lesser standard may be acceptable. rarely works in practice, since the labour to fit, say 100mm of ins board is little less than to fit 150, and the materials savings are marginal.
  • Mike George
    Part L1B came into force in 2006. I have never seen it enforced in relation to works on a thermal element. For those of you who have the Green Building Bible I wrote a piece in Volume 1 which discusses the requirements in great detail - though the u-vale requirements have since become more onerous.

    As Nick says there are get outs where 'technical issues' (such as floor levels) make improvements impracticable. Also the payback clause but I don't see many scenarios where this could be applicable as the savings are always going to achieve the payback where no insulation exists at the outset (which is really the point of L1B)
  • jamesingram
    I've had quite a few BC officers asking me why 'im putting in so much insulation' over the years :)
    generally other than drainage, footings and beams they seem disinterested.
  • Nick Parsons
    edited September 2014
    Mike George wrote:

    ''Also the payback clause but I don't see many scenarios where this could be applicable as the savings are always going to achieve the payback where no insulation exists at the outset (which is really the point of L1B)''

    Don't agree, Mike. It certainly was not the case when, about 6 years ago, we had the rear elev and one gable of six one-bed (terraced) almshouses insulated. The costs far outweighed the annual savings x 15 yrs.

    And it's a while since I did a calc for my house, but I think the full cost for EWI would be about 25,000, and savings, even if over-egging the pudding, maybe 500 p.a. That's a lot more than 15 years. How do the figures come out for yours, if you do not take into account the cash-back?
  • tony
    Get a better quote for the work!
  • Mike George
    Nick, Yes EWI very expensive. But L1B does not specify *how* the thermal element is upgraded - only that it must be if u-value higher than threshold.

    IWI much much cheaper - and if EWI too expensive then the requirement can be satisfied by IWI within the payback rule
  • Mike George
    Will be an interesting exercise to see how cost compare on mine EWI v IWI . Bearing in mind that EWI can be done much cheaper than the Green Deal cash back scheme (as can IWI) I think for the purposes of realistic calculation Green Deal works have to be ignored..
  • SteamyTeaSteamyTea
    Someone I know has just had a lot of work done on his house. When I mentioned about upgrading the insulation his architect said that no one took any notice of it down here. His builder did a lot of the work without building control notification.
    Seem that at all levels the rules are not enforced.
    The work looks nice now it has a new coat of paint.

    Been the driest September ever though :wink:
Sign In or Register to comment.