Ministers warned over Part L plans amid media backlash
But so-called “tax on conservatories” doesn’t apply to the majority of conservatories
The Federation of Master Builders has issued a fresh warning to the government that its plans to make it compulsory for homeowners extending their homes to make energy efficiency improvements won’t work.
The warning comes amid a growing media storm over the plans, which were first published in January, but have not hit the headlines until this week.
The changes to Part L of the building regulations would mean homeowners making home improvements would likely have to spend an additional 10% on measures, such as insulation, to improve the energy efficiency of the rest of their house.
The FMB today re-issued survey results from last month, which revealed that 70% of builders felt the changes were not feasible and would push consumers towards cowboy operators.
This week, the Daily Mail, the Telegraph and the Times all branded the changes a “tax on conservatories”.
But as sustainability expert David Strong, noted in his column for Building in February, conservatories are conspicuous in their absence from the revised regulations.
Currently Part L only applies to conservatories over 30 sqm, which excludes the majority of conservatories. The revised regulations do not change this provision.
Conservative MP Tim Yeo, chair of the energy and climate change committee, said that the changes were wrong: “You’ve got to find ways of making the public more enthusiastic and I think compelling people who have applied for planning consent to make some alteration to their home isn’t necessarily going to help,” he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.
The government defended the plans against criticism, saying it the changes will drive take-up of its Green Deal and won’t cost householders anything up-front. It has said the move will also drive much needed increases in the energy efficiency of the building stock.
But as Building reported in February there has been little research by the Department for Communities and Local Government into whether the requirement actually works in commercial buildings, where such a requirement has existed for years.
Plus, a number of holes in the plans were identified by the construction industry at the outset of the consultation, including the ease with which householders can avoid meeting the requirements if they choose.
Related Articles
- Green measurement systems inadequate to meet targets
3 May 2012
- Why all the outrage over the 'conservatory tax'?
20 April 2012
- PM’s u-turn undermines Green Deal roll-out
19 April 2012
- Part L proposals under threat from Tory backlash
16 April 2012
- Does Part L 2013 spell death for renewables?
8 March 2012
- What about conservatories in the Part L consultation?
23 February 2012
- 30 things you might not know about Part L
10 February 2012
- 'Shocking' lack of research on Green Deal claims
9 February 2012
- Part L changes will fail to boost Green Deal
2 February 2012
- Government poised to backtrack on Part L
16 December 2011
Have your say
Sign in to make a comment on this story.
Sign InDesktop Site | Mobile Site
Readers' comments (3)
The lib dems promised us less government yet her we have more nanny state interference.
To the average consumer, it's not about the co2 emissions, it's the cost of energy.
The record needs changing....
Change the message.
Surely this is a backward step? At present, unless the property is listed or in conservation area, you do not require planning permission to replace doors and windows.But these are an improvement, and would it then be necessary to apply for planning permission, (overloading the local planning department) and also be told what else you have to do, when probably windows and doors are possibly all that can be afforded at that time! I agree with Tim Yeo, to make it work people need to be enthused about an issue, and I really do not see how the cost of these "extras" will be funded by energy savings, it just puts people further into debt which is partly what was the problem at the start of the economic crisis.
No Mandy, this is the big misunderstanding about the proposals, first of all it's about Building Regs not Planning. Second confusion lies in the word "improvements" being bandied about in the media, the building regs specifically limits the proposals to certaing improvents & they are already in place for non-domestic buildings over 1000sqm floor area. The affected works are building extensions & a first installation of new energy plant or increased capacity of existing plant (so installing air con for the first time or increasing the size of a heating system for example), there's probably a couple of others but these are the key ones. If you are doing these then you have to carry out "consequential improvements" to the existing building to 10% of the project cost, but there is an economic test so if measures take too long to pay back you don't have to do them & of course you only have to implement measures that are possible for your building. The things we typically do in my organisation are loft & cavity wall insulation or new heating controls. Sometimes new boiler plant is required anyway & this can count as a consequential improvement & we have on occasion inlcuded lighting improvements.
My understanding is this was planned to be extended to domestic buildings next where it would have been even simpler as it would mostly have only applied to extensions & given the generic nature of domestic buildings the consequential improvements would have been limited to things like loft & cavity wall insulation & new boilers and/or new heating controls, many of which people would include in an extension project anyway. Solid walled insulation would probably fail the economic test in the regs as would most if not all renewable energy technologies. Where is the controversy in all this? A good builder would recommend most of these measures anyway.
New windows & doors are already covered by Building Regs & must comply with Part L so you can't for example install single-glazed windows anymore (unless you have an exemption for planning reasons). You don't need planning permission but if you don't use a FENSA registered installer for new window you will need to get approval from your local Building Control dept. Of course if you decided to replace windows & doors as part of your project they could count as consequential improvements too.