Is the Dept of the Environment wilfully ignoring whether its own regulations work?

Setting ambitious building regulations, as Ireland has arguably done with 2011 Part L, is all well and good. But is the industry actually achieving compliance with the regulations? And if so (or if not), how are those buildings actually performing, in terms of the likes of energy usage and indoor air quality? I put some questions to the Dept of the Environment press office just after Christmas, and the response leaves a lot to be desired.

The questions I asked were:

  1. Is the department aware of any evidence to demonstrate how homes subject to current or recent versions of Parts L are actually performing in terms of energy performance?
  2. Is the department aware of any evidence to demonstrate how homes subject to current or recent versions of Part F are actually performing in terms of indoor air quality, and/or the prevention of condensation in the habitable space and roof space? 

The British government has resolved to address the performance gap between a building's theoretical and actual energy use, with a target that 90% of all new homes in England must perform as well as or better than the designed energy/carbon performance. In preparation for this target it has appointed the Zero Carbon Hub to address the issue, with significant ongoing work including detailed analysis and monitoring of developments built by 21 of England's largest house builders.

  1. Does the department know the extent of the performance gap with Irish buildings built to the latest or recent versions of Part L?
  2. If so, does the department have any plans to close the performance gap?
  3. If not, does the department have plans to identify the extent of this gap, and develop a strategy to close it?

The response I got back - almost a month later - left a lot to be desired:

The Building Control Act 1990 sets out the legal framework in relation to the control of building activity.

The role of the Minister is to set reasonable and appropriate minimum technical standards in relation to conservation of fuel and energy and ventilation, among other matters.

Compliance with these minimum statutory requirements is the responsibility of owners, builders and designers.

Enforcement is a matter for the relevant local building control authorities or can be effected by civil proceedings.

The Department does occasionally commission research in relation to the impact of the regulatory standards but the focus is more on our ensuring its own responsibility is fulfilled in relation to ensuring that appropriate standards are in place.

The national BER database maintained by the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland now provides a useful indication of improvement in energy performance standards in buildings over time and the Central Statistics Office now publishes a regular statistical report based on this source, an indication of the increasing significance of energy performance measurement as an input into policy formulation.

In response to widespread market failures in the construction market, the Building Control Regulations 1997 to 2014 now require owners, builders, designers and their agents to verify and certify compliance with relevant requirements of the building regulations. These enhanced controls will ensure that the quality of design and construction activity improves and will result in an enhanced level of compliance with all requirements of the Building Regulations.

How does the minister know whether the standards are reasonable and appropriate if he hasn't checked how the buildings are performing in reality?

The reference to the national BER database is entirely irrelevant, by the way. While the tool to which the department refers is indeed hugely useful - and its actual name is the National BER Research Tool - it tells us nothing of how homes built to Part L or F are actually performing. Rather it includes lots of theoretical information (plus airtightness test results in some cases) on how buildings were supposedly built. It doesn't tell us whether the buildings were actually built as per the BER - and SEAI's Energy Performance Survey of Irish Housing gives us reason to believe that they typically aren't - or weren't when the study was done, at the very least.

Anyway, that reply came in on 3 February, and I couldn't resist the urge to pick the department up on what I saw as thoroughly inadequate responses. So I sent off this missive, to which I've had no reply....

I appreciate the response, but unfortunately I don't think it addresses the questions I put to you, in spite of the length of time I had to wait. Is it possible to ask for answers which relate to each question, as I had originally requested? In addition I have some further questions below, and again I'd appreciate answers to each question, and as soon as possible.

The national BER database is a fantastic resource, and it certainly reveals some very interesting findings about the extent to which the information Deap assessors are inputting corresponds to the requirements of TGD L. But airtightness testing aside, it doesn't tell us whether those buildings were actually built to the levels claimed by the calculations. Nor is there any evidence that I'm aware of to suggest that these buildings are necessarily built to meet the calculated minimum standards. In fact the best evidence we have indicates that during the boom at least, the overwhelming majority of homes were not built to meet minimum compliance. SEAI's unpublished 2005 report, the Energy Performance Survey of Irish Housing, which is the only evidence I'm aware of to take a representative sample of Irish housing and check for compliance against any parts of building regulations in the history of the state - and I stand to be corrected on that - found two remarkably contradictory pieces of evidence. 52 homes were assessed with the naked eye, and the report concluded that 87% appeared to be "properly" insulated in accordance with TGD L 1997. But 20 of those same 52 houses were subjected to simultaneous airtightness testing and thermal imaging. 19 of those homes showed either missing insulation or cold bridging indicating contravention of TGD L. So 87% appear to be properly insulated based on the naked eye - which is all the BER assessor can rely on, to the extent that they can see insulation levels, etc when doing their assessments - but actually 95% aren't properly insulated when more meaningful analysis is done. I trust the department possesses a copy of the unpublished report, which SEAI gave to me in 2011, and that the officials in building standards have read it closely.

That report also noted a significant increase in actual heating consumption in the post 1997 homes compared to each of three earlier cohorts in the study. Where the earlier cohorts had been showing reductions in heating bills for each newer band of homes in the study, the post 1997 group showed a (from memory) 16% increase. The study listed a decline in standard of workmanship as one of the possible reasons for this increase.

In the absence of any other credible evidence - and again I stand to be corrected - we have no reason to suppose that homes built since that study was completed comply with building regulations. I'm frankly astonished, given how bad the findings of the Energy Performance Survey of Irish Housing were - that the department hasn't taken the opportunity to commission similar studies to check compliance levels with all other parts of building regulations - an in particular fire and structure - given the implicit public health threat. Note also that breaches of TGD J picked up in the aforementioned survey also indicate a widespread potential fire hazard with regard to oil tanks.

The CSO statistical reports are interesting, but it's arguable whether they tell us much or anything about energy performance measurement, given that - airtightness tests aside, assuming tests were actually completed in a given case - the BERs they draw from are based on calculations, and not measurements of actual energy performance.

  • You state that "The role of the Minister is to set reasonable and appropriate minimum technical standards in relation to conservation of fuel and energy and ventilation, among other matters." How can the minister decide whether the proposed standards are "reasonable and appropriate", if they're not calibrated against performance data from buildings built to those standards?
  • What evidence is there to indicate that the calculated energy performance figures in Deap are reflected in reality either in general, or in the case of low energy buildings?
  • The Energy Performance Survey of Irish Housing also suggested that comfort-taking may partly explain why TGD L1997 homes showed an increase in actual heating usage compared to post 1991 homes. Has the department taken into account that the same phenomenon, along with other possible causes of a performance gap, may be undermining the calculated energy savings for homes built to current or recent versions of TGD L, and if so, to what extent?
  • Did the department provide the energy saving data attributed to Part L 2008 & 20011 by DCENR in Ireland’s Report under Article 3 of the EU Directive on Energy Efficiency (2012/27/EU) on Energy Efficiency Targets, and if so, were the claimed energy savings taken from Deap alone, or did they apply a reduction to take acount of a performance gap between actual and calculated energy use?


I'd be obliged if you could reply to these questions as soon as possible. 

Last modified on Thursday, 30 April 2015 10:05