A recent enquiry about the best way to insulate a solid wall has highlighted some 2010 changes to L1B. On reading the document I was surprised (admittedly as a non-expert) to find:

The changes impact on anyone who is working through their house to add wall insulation internally, tackling one room at a time when redecoration falls due. Previously, this process was open to homeowners to undertake at any time; the requirement to go to the Building Control Officer for approval - and insulate to the full U value specified in the Regs - did not kick in unless 25% or more of the whole external wall of the building would be affected. (Or at least that seems to be the way many people interpreted the old rules, which were not totally clear).

The revised L1B requires any change to thermal elements (such as hacking off plaster to reinsulate, or adding any new insulation layer) to be notified to the BCO, if the work affects more than 50% of the external wall in the room where the work is being done. All such work is also required to be done to the new U = 0.30 standard (unless the floor area will be reduced more than 5%, there are other good reasons why this is impracticable, or payback will not be achieved in 15 years).

Many (most?) people may be unaware of this change - not least because some of the advice on the Planning Portal is still quoting the old 25% rule, as do some Building Control websites.

There is cause for concern here. Not least, it seems that BCO approval will now be required in nearly all cases (what would be the point of insulating less than 50% of the external wall area in a room?). The real-world consequences of this change may be that (1) few DIYers will opt to add insulation when they redecorate and (2) more old houses will receive no wall insulation. Of course there is also possibility (3) that most DIYers will either go ahead in ignorance, or opt to ignore the rule (and say if challenged later that the work was done before 2010).

It is also of note that the EST website now strongly advises against DIY "unless you're very experienced".

Closing down the unregulated DIY one-room-at-a-time route might be argued to reduce instances of poorly planned or badly installed insulation. However this is not necessarily true. DIY is chosen by some homeowners as a way to achieve a known standard of workmanship at an affordable price and without the risks that can arise from using time-constrained or inexpert builders.

Going through the Building Control process every time one wants to insulate a room could be a big disincentive. In the present economic situation, many people will not be able to afford high-spec insulation or multiple BC applications. And will the BC departments in cut-ravaged councils have any resources to handle more applications?

Did those responsible for the revised L1B either ignore or become complacent about these aspects? Para 5.8 states the change was made because "the marginal cost of dry-lining with insulated plasterboard rather than plain plasterboard is small". That might be true if one is paying for the labour of dry-lining; but it is surely incorrect in the DIY context, where one is only concerned with the cost of materials.

For anyone who thinks that some insulation is usually better than no insulation, this revision looks a step in the wrong direction. It may add to other concerns about the new L1B. (There are arguments elsewhere on this forum that L1B may need a rethink as the stringent U-values it mandates might lead to unacceptable moisture levels in solid walls, according to recent Irish research - "Breaking the Mould V", 2010).

Am I right about this and is there a way forward? In the meantime I'm tempted to abandon all attempts at upgrading my house's insulation and wait until EWI becomes a more widely accepted and affordable way forward. If, that is, it ever does.

Djh - no, you are not mistaken, but when it's external, it's 50% of the elevation you're looking at. Not that it really makes a differenmce - you're not going to do EWI to only part of a wall, I think!

I have always banged on about the 2006 25% rule, and now the 2010 50% rule, and support anything which bumps up insulation values to the benefit of the building and the occupiers. The sort of issues raised in 'Breaking the mould', and the certain knowledgte that not everyone details IWI properly do worry me. However the decision to go for a U value of, say, 0.6 (where Joe Little suggests you may not get problems) is in breach of Bldg Regs. How much will prudent concern re the 'health' of the property complicate matters when it comes to sale? And bear in mind too that both contractors and householders are responsible for ensuring adherence to Bldg Regs.

Nick

How long now do you get to 'complete a project' under Regs? If I am correct in thinking it's 3 years, you could maybe do at least 3 rooms in that time, even if you are piggy-backing on decs.

Nick

Dear Sir,

I wish to hang some 75mm wallpaper.....

Posted By: SaintSuper Flock....I can see it now

Best Baaaaa none, can hear it too

The biggest 'problem' with Building Regulations, especially the ones that try to impact on areas outside the trades and professions who are assumed to check and work within the official guidelines (and this particular aspect of L1B is typical), where DIY is well within the capabilities of a DIYer it will be done without reference to the Regs for no other reason than because it can be done without reference to the Regs. Whether by design or ignorance, it's one aspect of L1B that could be predicted to have multiple failures.

As Jim implies, if you can get away with it you will. Unless you're a trade or consulting professional with an ass to protect, who the hell is going to to go through all the bother and expense of notifying BC?

I also agree with Jim that it's a good thing if it forces the otherwise-errant developer (whether professional or self-build) to comply and build/refurb to a standard we'd all like to see, but the transgressions are still going to outnumber the compliances (and, surprisingly, that is a word!), so probably written more in hope than expectation.

This is a really worrying trend. Internal insulation was already problematic in that if insulating a house with oldish wiring every time you get to a socket going round a room and replace a bit of cable you should be notifying BC, who will want 200 quid for sending an electrician round. (I know adding a socket is OK - is replacing cable like for like allowed?), and you aren't supposed to be putting in new windows and doors as you go round either, or potentially moving plumbing about, or cutting out thermal bridges, or upgrading boilers, or installing woodburners. I reckon a proper refurb will cost a couple of grand in BC notifications if done 'to the book'.

And a competent DIYer (like us here, who are generally at least as well-informed as BC) gets exactly nothing for all this - we already know the regs, and when derrogation is appropriate (e.g for IWI condensation risk reasons).

I note there is a 'regularisation option' in the BC regs which allows you to get them in retrospectively for 25% extra. One call to say 'I've changed everything - come and check' at the end should be a great deal cheaper.

I'm not sure exactly what the right answer is, but something is in the process of going badly wrong with the balance of rights and responsibilities. I guess it's actually the costs that really offend me. I really wouldn't mind having BC round to show them my handiwork if they didn't want a 100-200 quid bung for it every time. Seems to me if you actually _want_ to empower people to make changes then the inspection regime needs to be either enormously scaled back, or funded some other way - not by charging the people who _are_ doing something and trying to do it right.

.

Under 17th Edition you can do minor work and that includes moving sockets and adding to circuits. It is well documented what you can do but not going to look it up tonight.

And (2) by a previous owner of the house concerned killed our (then) local MP's daughter, which may have some bearing on the issue...

Rgds

Damon

Posted By: DamonHDAnd (2) by a previous owner of the house concerned killed our (then) local MP's daughter, which may have some bearing on the issue...

Rgds

Damon

Sorry, that was work done for the owners of the house by a professional kitchen fitting firm. So no DIY involved and no previous owner involved.

Hi,

So the cable was installed by “professionals” as part of a kitchen refit so no DIY. The cable was slightly off vertical/horizontal by 5deg against practice and should have been deeper in the wall or perhaps shielded in a metal trunking but was not installed DIY.
The DIY was by her husband screwing a utensil rack below the extractor, where he did assume that the cable dropped exactly vertically but he was out by some margin which in turn snagged the extractor cable. As the extractor was looped off of dishwasher the poor lady completed the cut between the extractor/dishwasher/rack.
My problem is the quote - Royal Society for of Prevention of Accidents - This case re-emphasises the need to ensure that all electrical work is carried out by experts - it isn't something for DIY.
That’s the point isn’t it – it wasn’t DIY electrical it was by people contracted to do a fitting so they should have been certified (or known better) and it was still botched.

The Royal Society of Prevention for of Accidents should have said that it means one should always beware of hidden cables particularly in kitchens where there are more electrical points in various places than in other rooms i.e. use a cable detector first. Or suggested banning the fitting of any wall fitment below any electrical device etc etc.

Oh and why didn’t they name the kitchen company (it does actually say builders) but then they’d probably subbed it out anyway. So for another key question to ask is “are the people sent by you to do work in my house actually employees of your company”. On the whole I think more care is taken by employees than if it’s subbed out often your fitter might be a sub sub sub.

Cheers

Mike up North

a problem with regs is they are and can only be trade specific .
Why would a carpenter know its fine to run cables vertically up to 150mm down from a ceiling under the plaster ? Why should and electrician know timber sizing for a given span ?
it great getting qualified people to do work , but its impossible for them to know the details of each others professions.
And then are they going to ask for qualification/trade bodies for hanging a shelf ?

It would be interesting to find figures on whether accidents/injuries had drop in this area since bringing in part P

Whats is a great idea is the 17th edition regs advising all buried cable are either mechanicially protect or require additonal protect from electricial shock via a RCD
why didn't they do it years ago ,

Part P cost me about £500 a year + lost labour and additonal paper work cost , which I either take as a loss or pass on to the customer.
The DIYer and Cowboys still do what they've always done , the only difference is if you want a part p guy you'll
have to pay more.

Going back to regs. asking for BC notice for improvement in insulation etc, Most the jobbing builders/ roofers i know are completely unaware of any 25% -50% rule and many other of the notifiable works , they just crack as usual BC known the wiser. This applies to customer and diyers also many who see BC as an unwanted additonal cost which they see no value in.

From what I understand a one off indemnity insurance to cover any concerns, paid for by the seller, can solve that.
Not how it should be , but it happens

My guess is the only reason it's been brought under BCO is so they can charge you.
And the indemnity thing is correct - otherwise noone would ever be able to sell a house.