The challenges of applying sustainable construction methods

With the environment in danger of becoming an overplayed hand, the construction industry needs to sit up and listen in order to ensure it seizes and maximises every opportunity. The less generous of us working in the area of sustainability would describe the current situation a shambles.

That's on a number of accounts. Firstly, pressure from government is dictating the way the industry plans, procures and builds and secondly, that all-important client demand. Whichever pressure point you are feeling, there is a real need for the industry to gain clarity out of what can at best be described as a confusing tangle of red tape.

This is made more acute when all the many disciplines of construction industry endeavouring to implement the European Building Directive, as well as adapt to the restrictions being placed on us by the sustainability agenda.

Serious situation

Most of us realise that we are now facing a very serious situation. When governments around the world are telling us that the threat of climate change will have a greater impact upon our society than terrorism, it has to be something we need to view as a priority in our industry.

You only have to consider the costs that this situation will force upon us and that will no doubt impact on the way whole societies live and work for the rest of the 21st century and beyond.

But, what is the reality on the ground? Across the country, there is a diverse application of the Directive. In our experience, some planning departments are taking this very seriously and are requiring quite high standards in the implementation of the Code for Sustainable Homes level 3 or level 4 is not uncommon among this group, this being tied into the 10% Merton rule.

Other councils and planning departments are doing very little - if anything. There is at least one planning department that has taken legal advice, being told that if a builder appealed the standard that had been set, it would lose the case and therefore have to pay costs for this action. As a result, due to the legal implications, this planning department is now not inclined to apply the standard.

So although we can see quite clearly the need for this new legislation, the actual situation among those with the responsibility to monitor its application is chaotic. However good or innovative an idea is, if the implementation is weak then it weakens the whole process. At the moment, what we need is the firm hand of political will to require everyone to have the same standard of implementation across the country.

There is no doubt that the original legislation was good, but the government has been wavering when faced with all the possibilities of implementation. Changes and postponements over the last two years have not helped many of those in local government to have the confidence to lay down strict adherence to the code. The end result of this is that construction standards are not consistent and it is totally unreasonable to expect a builder in one authority to be building to code level 4 plus the 10% Merton Rule, and then possibly doing a similar development under another planning authority and not being required to meet any standard at all.

The implications for the builder as far as his costs are concerned could be thousands of pounds per dwelling. So, what we need is a stronger lead from the government.

The other problem is that both planning departments and building control are under-resourced and under-funded. This means it's difficult for planning departments and building control to implement the latest legislation.

Price guidelines

According to current price guidelines, the government and the EU are expecting the developers to spend several thousand pounds per dwelling so that dwelling will come up to a minimum of code level 3.

Surely if the government is expecting the developer to make this kind of investment, then it should be prepared to make a similar investment in the departments charged with the responsibility for approval, checking and signing-off those developments.

To raise the necessary funds, a possibility is to double the planning fees. In comparison with the total cost of a build, the planning fee is usually minimal, but if increasing the fee dramatically would mean a consistent standard, then it must be worthwhile.

It's frustrating to think that so many people in the construction industry are working so hard to conserve energy while others, due to lack of investment in local government, are being allowed to build with few, if any, requirements to satisfy the code.

So, while the word 'shambles' cannot be applied to the construction industry as a whole, maybe we could apply it to the implementation of Part L by the government.

Don Howard is technical director of Energist and a Code for Sustainable Homes assessor.