Air filtration for all!

Local and central government officials have missed (or ignored) the link between outside air pollution and building related health problems for years.

Within the building engineering community we have been pointing out for some time that polluted air does not simply mysteriously disappear when it reaches a building. On the contrary, it has a catastrophic impact on indoor air quality (IAQ).

Yet, while there have been plenty of high profile efforts to measure outside air pollutants and lots of political grandstanding on the issue – there has been almost total silence on what all this means for the indoor environment. This is despite the fact that we spend most of our lives indoors.

However, the release of the Environmental Audit Committee’s latest report just before Christmas could mark a significant change of direction.

This group of influential government advisers is now calling for the installation of air filtration in all existing school buildings close to pollution hot spots. Their report clearly explains the impact of diesel vehicle emissions; nitrogen dioxide (NOx) and particulate pollution on building occupants.

They said air pollution was now a ‘public health crisis’ causing nearly as many deaths as smoking in the UK every year – about 29,000. They want changes made to the National Planning Policy Framework and new guidance to ensure local authorities prioritise IAQ before granting planning permission for new schools, hospitals and clinics.

Particulates
NOx is known to cause inflammation of the airways, reduce lung function and exacerbate asthma while particulates are linked to heart and lung diseases as well as certain cancers. Traffic is responsible for 42% of carbon monoxide, 46% of nitrogen oxides and 26% of particulate matter pollution. The Committee also pointed out that the problem had become much worse because of the promotion of diesel vehicles in a bid to cut CO₂ emissions.

Committee chair Joan Walley said the main priority was to ‘stop a new generation of children being exposed’ to these risks by retrofitting air filtration in more than 1,000 schools close to major roads. She added that it made ‘sound economic sense’ to filter the air coming into buildings in polluted areas – particularly urban centres.

B&ES speakers recently addressed the Healthcare Estates conference in Manchester where it was agreed that, despite the desperate need for cost savings across the NHS, building systems are rarely inspected, serviced or updated. A few weeks later Channel 4 News revealed the growing scandal about unserviced fire dampers in the ductwork at the PFI flagship Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham.

Refreshing
The NHS is already at the forefront of the General Election campaign – and as usual the arguments are all about funding. Wouldn’t it be refreshing if the debate could be a bit broader and bit more intelligent.

There is, therefore, a great opportunity here to ram home the message that, while ventilation systems may be ‘out of sight out of mind’ and the air we breathe is invisible, that does not make the link between airborne pollutants and increasing rates of respiratory disease less obvious.

Current NHS technical design guidance is exclusively focused on managing the risk posed by the transmission of infections inside a building – again paying no heed to the dangers lurking outside. However, the building engineering services industry has a wide range of solutions to offer  including filtration, but also other (mainly low cost) improvements, such as upgrading fans and simple maintenance. These could not only reduce health risks to building occupants, but also do it in a way that improves the overall efficiency of the ventilation and so significantly cut running costs.

This same argument applies to a wide range of buildings under attack from outside air pollutants with vulnerable occupants at risk – schools being the most obvious example.

Save lives and save money – now surely that’s got to be a vote winner?

So they do listen!

The coalition government has struggled with renewables; falling out repeatedly with the industry and creating damaging uncertainty for investors by continually moving the goalposts and changing policy direction.
However, they have been more or less consistent on solar farms and the new Environment Secretary Liz Truss hammered the final nail into their coffin this week calling them ‘a blight on the landscape’.
The renewables industry hoped she would be more sympathetic than her predecessor Owen Paterson – who has now gone completely rogue by calling on the government to tear up the Climate Change Act – but she has kept up his attack on solar farms by scrapping subsidies for any new developments.
Chris Huhne drastically reduced the Feed-in-Tariff for solar power when he was Climate Change Minister and this latest announcement marks the end of a steady erosion of a misguided policy, which dates back to the previous Labour administration.
Credit
I am not claiming too much credit here, but B&ES (we were the HVCA back then) warned the government that solar farms would suck up a huge proportion of the public subsidy available for solar power in this blog in March 2011: ‘Farms are for food – not solar panels’.
It took a while for the penny to drop, but it was clear from the outset that, if farmers could make more money from FITs than from growing food, they would hand over their fields to the solar speculators.
The subsidies were designed to create a market for solar power by encouraging householders and small businesses to install panels on their roofs and, therefore, generate electricity close to the point of use and benefit directly themselves. Instead – and who can blame savvy financial investors from seizing the opportunity – commercial organisations saw them as a source of profit.
Prices
The UK now has more than 250 solar farms, which have pushed more of our food production overseas contributing to rising prices. And as I said at the time:
‘The FIT scheme was not intended to be an alternative to the equities markets, but to stimulate the generation of household renewable power. [Huhne] is, rightly, concerned that the subsidies are, instead, making their way into the pockets of so-called “shrewd investors”…’
I also warned that they risked putting the solar energy industry into reverse if they were too draconian with their cuts to the FiTs scheme – which is precisely what happened. However, getting solar panels out of the countryside and onto otherwise underused roof space was the right thing to do.
Perhaps, in this case at least, the government was listening to the industry.

Energy efficiency is not a tax

The General Election campaign is off and running as the political party conference season comes to a close and the emotive subject of housing looks set to be a key battleground.
The Conservatives tried to grab the political high ground at their conference in Birmingham by announcing 100,000 new homes for young (under 40) first-time-buyers at a 20% price discount.
This came hot on the heels of Ed Miliband’s pledge to ensure the country would have all the homes it needs by 2025. A hugely ambitious aim and almost as ambitious as the ‘war on cold homes’ announced by the Labour Party that would make it illegal for landlords to rent poorly insulated and inefficiently heated properties.
The trouble is 2025 is a long way away – and the ‘cold war’ policy would only come into effect in 2027! Our politicians are very good at taking a long-term view if it means they can get away with a huge target that they will not have to account for themselves. They are less good at making long-term decisions on energy policy.
Zero carbon
The Prime Minister has also tailored his own headline grabber for readers of the Daily Mail by insisting that the 20% discount would be achieved by exempting house builders from certain property taxes and…the zero carbon homes standard.
The ‘greenest government ever’ really don’t get this low energy thing at all, do they? This is just the latest example of them dumping low carbon measures because they regard them as a tax burden on ‘business’ and ‘hard working families’.
Unlike the car industry where the manufacturers were challenged to develop new standards and met them, the house builder appears incapable of meeting this challenge and government accepts their arguments at face value. This is not an industry that is suffering. When did you last hear a housebuilder issue a profits warning?
Stimulate
The fact is that energy efficient buildings don’t just save energy – they are also built to better standards. Why not take the opportunity to stimulate the first time buyer market with high quality, low energy housing on a cost basis that can then be replicated right across our housing market? Then it would be up to the industry to deliver.
Finding an excuse to drop energy standards is all too easy for our government. Energy saving is not a tax – it is a benefit.

Calling time on the smart meter rip off

Margaret Hodge MP, who chairs the influential parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts, believes the British public is being ripped off by the £12.1bn smart meter programme.
The Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has instructed energy suppliers to install 53 million smart meters in 28 million homes and two million small businesses by 2020 at a cost of £215 per meter. The cost will, of course, be passed on to individual householders and businesses through their energy bills.
This was yet another of those ‘flagship’ green policies espoused by the government, but has turned out to be, in effect, simply a way of helping utility companies increase profits by helping them cut their operating costs.
Negligible
The impact on energy saving is now accepted to be almost negligible. Even DECC’s own figures suggest the use of smart meters will cut the average annual energy bill of £1,328 by just 2%. Not much of a return on investment – I suspect most householders would, given the choice, keep the £215.

Even this modest saving depends on consumers becoming more ‘energy savvy’ and changing their behaviour as a result of the additional information provided by the meter. That’s a huge assumption, as Ms Hodge’s committee were quick to point out, and they are clearly hard to ignore because the upshot is the second urgent parliamentary enquiry conducted by the Energy and Climate Change Committee into this issue in less than two years.
Interestingly, in the wording announcing this enquiry ‘energy efficiency’ does not figure. The Committee talks about ‘benefits to consumers, suppliers and the UK energy infrastructure’ by allowing energy suppliers to take remote gas and electricity readings and that overall ‘savings’ will be £18.8bn.
Competition
The figures are all over the place and nobody is quite sure where they are coming from. Hodge’s committee said DECC was depending ‘heavily’ on assumed competition in the energy industry to control costs and deliver benefits. ‘Relying on market forces to keep costs down may not be enough on its own to protect consumers,’ she said. ‘Energy suppliers are concerned that it may cost more to persuade reluctant customers to accept the new meters.’

Ms Hodge said DECC should require suppliers to provide ‘a clear breakdown for consumers of the cost of smart meters, their operational cost savings from stopping meter readings and whether consumers are achieving the expected reductions in energy consumption’.
There is also a very real danger that the Government is backing an obsolete technology that is actually not really ‘smart’ at all. It is already possible to control heating and cooling systems using apps on phones that are really ‘smart’ and via the Internet of Things. Consumers are also only looking for trends in energy consumption, these devices are accurate to @10% which makes them perfectly good enough for that function. The smart meter will only really reduce energy supplier costs through remote reading.
Why, therefore, is the government even consulting on the positively antiquated approach of a physical in-home display that is going to prove unpopular with consumers and logistically nightmarish to carry out? They should simply cancel the programme now and throw everything behind app-based energy information and control; invest in a huge public information programme that explains how consumers can access information and use it to save money – and save everyone £215.
With a General Election looming that would be the kind of nice little sleight of hand giveaway politicians love so much and might even convince us that the ‘greenest government ever’ has, finally, got to grips with at least one aspect of energy policy.

Controls emerge from the shadows

At the launch of a new qualification for building controls engineers,  Building Controls Industry Association (BCIA) President Steve Harrison told a story about the time 15 years ago when his company was struggling to attract the right calibre of new staff.
They had plenty of interest in two posts for controls engineers, but were rebuffed by a number of potential recruits because there was no appropriate professional qualification on offer at the end of the training period.
‘The best we could give them was qualified electrician status,’ he told guests during the high profile launch event held in The Shard. ‘We knew it wasn’t really appropriate for the skill level involved in the job, but there was nothing else.’
So it was with some delight that he was able to unveil the Building Controls Professional Assessment (BCPA) last month.  This has been developed to give apprentices, and existing industry operatives, a professional qualification at the end of their vocational training – a badge that will be recognised across the industry and by all the sector’s employers.
Stepping stone
The BCPA is a stepping stone to full engineering status for the controls profession and can be used as a launch pad for suitably qualified operatives to move onto a fully-fledged engineering degree and, eventually, chartered engineer.
This is a huge leap forward for the controls industry.  It offers the trappings of ‘professional’ status for an industry that has long struggled to emerge from the shadows despite its vital role in making buildings work properly.
More HVAC equipment is supplied with controls already on-board these days putting even more emphasis on the integration strategy to make multiple ‘intelligent’ system components interoperate – particularly as buildings become more complex.
Challenge
Integration, more generally, is rapidly becoming the most critical aspect of building services engineering. Adding renewables to existing buildings and trying to make them work in tandem with conventional heating and cooling systems is a huge challenge – successes are still depressingly rare.  With experience this will get easier, but without a proper integration strategy there is no chance. Contractors have to crack this problem because we cannot afford to be continually returning to sites to put things right – there is no profit in spending precious time firefighting.
That is why we at B&ES see the launch of this new qualification as extremely important and timely. We are also delighted to be working more closely with the controls industry via the BCIA as we seek to bring our professions closer together to deliver buildings that do not disappoint their owners.
This is something the two associations will be focusing on heavily during the rest of this year culminating in a major conference at the Barbican on November 27 – find full details of the Building Services Summit here.

Just because the market's heating up, there's no reason new homes should too

In his latest installment of his diary of a new house purchase, David Frise finds it hard to keep his cool

In the coming months the problem is certainly not under-heating but significant overheating. Temperatures in the third floor apartments regularly topped 34oC last summer. As you’ll know from my previous blogs, this is just one of a series of problems with the new build flat purchased froma major listed builder.Now that spring is here and the sun is visible through the smog, we have turned the heating off in our flat. It is as warm as toast and was very cosy for those long winter nights. In the spring the heating is rarely necessary as the building retains the heat very well. 

The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers’ Environmental Design guide defines overheating as “conditions when the comfortable internal temperature threshold of 28oC is surpassed for over 1% of the time.” In my flat block temperatures exceed these comfort levels, as the flats are almost fully glazed south facing with no solar shading, not even a tree. Exposed as they are to the sun from about 11.00 to 19.00, they bake.

One certainty in the world is that the sun will rise and traverse the sky across an entirely predictable path. The ancient builders of Stonehenge knew this, but apparently the modern housebuilder does not

As reported in Building last month, a recent Good Homes Alliance report highlighted this issue but the House Builders Association said Part L of Building Regulations was to blame for specifying levels of airtightness that were too high, causing them to overheat. This may be true, but I don’t think the Building Regulations require you to build south facing, full height glazing with no solar shading.

The SAP calculation sheet describes “Thames Valley overheating risk: negligible”. But one certainty in the construction world is that the sun will rise and set and traverse the sky across an entirely predictable path. The resultant solar gain in our buildings is therefore, likewise, entirely predictable. The ancient builders of Stonehenge knew this, but apparently the modern housebuilder does not. Our builder has said they will “investigate”, which, like the Private Eye  EUphemisms cartoon says, means “ignore it”.

The problem is not helped by windows that cannot be fixed open, so that a gust of wind causes them to blow either open or shut with considerable force - a danger to little fingers. Not a safety issue in the view of the developer though, as a window that can be fixed open is not a requirement of the Building Regulations. We wedge ours open with an old copy of Building, which seems appropriate.

Then there are the corridors, sealed passages that rarely drop below 28oC summer and winter. The SAP calculation claims that pre-insulated pipework has been installed. If they had installed the extra thickness would probably have meant we’d have to stoop in the corridors. But it makes it easier to get a pass on the SAP calculation if you say it’s there, and who is going to check?

This is further exacerbated by the absence of controls to slow or turn off the pumps when there is no heat or hot water demand in the apartments, eg. at night. So the pumps keep pumping hot water through the building 24 hours a day seven days a week. As residents we have no access to the Building Management System BMS so we can’t get them turned off, and I’m still waiting for that commissioning report from the builder – the one that the Building Regulations require.

Does all this make the occupants “collateral damage” in the war against carbon? If that’s so, then how about a product recall – actually we got this wrong, how can we put it right?

So are those Building Regulations “for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men”, or are they just an excuse to absolve you of responsibility?

This relationship isn't working

In his latest blog exposing the reality of buying a new build home in the UK, David Frise looks at the tangled mess organisations he has to deal with to try and get things done

Living in a new purpose built 56-apartment block can be very confusing. There are so many people in this relationship but none of them want to commit. There’s the freeholder (there have been two in 18 months), leaseholders, tenants, a housing association, a managing agent for the leaseholders, a managing agent for the freeholder, and the developer.

Where do they all fit in? The developer was the first freeholder. his is very convenient for them because they can claim all defects in the communal areas are their own problem and therefore don’t need to be rectified. However, they then sold the freehold to a very large insurance provider, without bothering to inform the leaseholders. This is not supposed to happen given the first right of refusal under the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Now the new freeholder has insured the building, at leaseholders’ expense, with a well known national insurance company that just happens to share the same name as the freeholder. How convenient, I’m sure. But not very good for the poor leaseholders, as the premium would appear to be, shall we say, uncompetitive.

Now this is probably all above board but when I asked for an explanation of how the managing agent tested the market and how much commission was paid, I was told “any commercial arrangement we may or may not have with our brokers to receive a share of their income to contribute towards our own administration costs and expenses is confidential”. I bet it is.

There is no question of the housebuilder sorting out the defect and arguing with the water company afterwards: they don’t do customer care.

This just looks wrong, if there is nothing to hide you would be open about it wouldn’t you? It is, however, perfectly legal. There is no one we can turn to for help – I tried the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), Association of British Insurers (ABI) for a code of practice, the Information Commissioner (ICO) and the Leaseholder Advisory Service (LAS). None of whom could help, as from the FCA perspective, I wasn’t the holder of the insurance policy (just paying for it), the ABI referred me to the insurer, the ICO said the information was not about people, and the LAS agreed I did not have a right to this information. I can ask to see a copy of the invoice but that is unlikely to show the commission paid.

So the leaseholders are expected to stump up the premium on a building that the owner insures through itself, and have no right to know how the premium is calculated.

It is no wonder then that getting government policy implemented such as energy efficiency measures and community heating schemes, is so difficult. The default position is no change.

The insurance arm of the freeholder to our property, was recently quoted saying it was concerned at increasing losses from fire damage, which are now running at the highest level ever experienced.

However, at the same time their managing agent is telling us – their leaseholders – that the insurer/freeholder cannot get involved in fire safety issues within the building. The agent said: “Unfortunately matters pertaining to the actual fabric of the building is something that [the developer] will have to resolve with you, we cannot fix the problems directly”. Actually we weren’t asking them fix to the problems themselves, but simply how we could work with them to make the building they now own, safe to live in. That would, incidentally, also reduce the insurance risk.

There are other fractious relationships. The developer appointed the managing agent and signed a contract requiring six months notice be given to end the contract. Residents and tenants frequently wonder who the managing agent is actually representing. They have many contracts throughout the country with the same developer (a large national housebuilder) so appear keen not to rock the boat and seem unable to get the builder to fix anything.

For example the water meters have leaked and the residents are stuck in an argument between the water company and the developer about who is responsible. There is no question of the housebuilder sorting out the defect and arguing with the water company afterwards; they don’t do customer care. The managing agent doesn’t want to get involved as the water meters are demised to the individual properties. This means that each time a water meter fails the leaseholder has to report the fault themselves, despite damage being caused to communal areas.

That is inconvenient but far worse is that the communal heating system has not been properly commissioned. Getting that resolved is proving very difficult, because so many parties are involved and because while the heating system works, there is no compulsion on anyone to see that it works efficiently and according to design.

The complexity of property law and holdings and the opaque nature of who is entitled to what means that as a country we stick huge hurdles in the way of progress. How do you make landlords carry out energy efficiency improvements, or agree to community energy projects?

In London we are about to embark on large-scale residential tower developments along the River Thames, with centralised heating systems. Who will ensure that these highly efficient systems actually deliver on those low energy promises?