8/7/2019 Adams, John. the Building Regulations and Historic Building Requirements

1/3

The Building Regulations

and Historic BuildingRequirements: Resolving

ConflictsJohn Adams

Early in 1997 I read a report on the future of a major historic building where difficulty in finding auser is being blamed on the location of a staircase. It is claimed that satisfactory means of

escape cannot be provided and that historic building legislation will not allow the stair to berelocated. On the face of it an impasse has been reached. It is a situation that everyprofessional involved in work to historic buildings will recognise.

We always complain that the Building Regulations were drawn up with new construction in mindand that when applied to historic buildings they can result in unacceptable loss or alteration. Inorder to test the need for further guidance or legislation specific to the needs of historicbuildings, the DoE recently commissioned an exploratory study which involved wideconsultation with conservation officers, building control officers, architects, owners and otherprofessionals. The results indicate that although there are several areas of conflict, the failure toovercome them is often due to poor understanding of the issues by all parties and poorcommunication. Building control officers (BCOs) sometimes do not understand the principleswhich drive historic buildings legislation; and conservation officers sometimes lack adequate

knowledge about building construction and safety issues. Professionals may exhibit a lack ofknowledge on one or both subjects. Knowledge and understanding is crucial because what ismostly being sought is the acceptable compromise.

Since the Building Regulations' requirements are written as a statement of performance ratherthan prescriptive solutions, conflict does not usually occur at this level. It is in the application ofthe Approved Documents (Parts A to L) that conflict sometimes creeps in. For instance,'reasonable standards of health and safety' are required by the Building Regulations. BCOs willusually accept that when work is being done to a historic building it should certainly not result ina less safe environment, but significant improvements may not be necessary. However, if thesolutions of the Approved Documents were applied, say on the height of stair and landinghandrails, the historical integrity of the building might be compromised.

There is a distinction to be made between issues which are potentially life-threatening and oneswhich are more concerned with comfort or psychological well-being. Fire protection is obviouslycritical and much work has been done to find ways of meeting the performance requirements ofPart B (Fire Safety) without compromising what we value in an historic building. However, theimprovement of fire separation in floor construction, for example, which so often results in thereplacement of traditional ceiling construction by plasterboard, makes sound transmissionbetween levels worse. Such a dilemma and the difficulty of sound reduction in existing buildingsis recognised in Part E (Resistance to the passage of sound) paragraph 0.14, which acceptsthat the prescribed sound reduction may not be achievable.

In fact the only part of the regulations which does specifically acknowledge the problems ofhistoric buildings is Part B (paragraphs 0.11 - 0.14).

8/7/2019 Adams, John. the Building Regulations and Historic Building Requirements

2/3

The promotion of an engineered approach to fire protection in relation to a thorough riskassessment for the building in question is one example of the change in the approach which hasbeen developed by designers and others towards the Regulations, as the Regulations havemoved away from prescribing solutions in favour of requiring performance standards. Forexample a door may not need to withstand a fire well beyond the time that it actually takes toevacuate the building, provided that the means of escape is reinforced by a reliable fire

detection and warning system.

Historic doors have provided a regular bone of contention, which is recognised by the amount ofresearch that the Building Research Establishment, English Heritage and others have carriedout on the subject. Our understanding of the ways in which doors (and their frames) fail in firehas now improved significantly. The English Heritage guidance note, 'Up-Grading of FireResistance of Panel Doors' (to be published this year) should promote better understanding andhelp to avoid damaging alterations without compromise to performance.

Other 'life-threatening' issues centre on structural safety.Here in particular, a solution which is acceptable to thebuilding control officer is often not acceptable to theconservation officer. For example, with the exception of

mills and warehouses, few historic buildings are capableof sustaining the massive design floor loadings foroffices suggested by BS 6399: part I: 1984 (General use= 2.5 kN/m2; Corridors = 4.0 kN/m2; File Rooms = 5.0kN/m2). In order to achieve maximum overall flexibility forthe user, the highest performance requirement invariablybecomes the norm. However a careful analysis of actualspace use requirements and loadings in relation topotential bearing capacity of historic floors can usuallyresult in the satisfactory location of the activities withouttoo much difficulty. Compare these with the designatedloading of 1.5 kN/m2 for new domestic dwellings.Calculations of stresses and deflections often appear toshow that historic timber floors are capable of carryingonly small weight loads. However, English Heritagerecommends that load tests and the past history of asatisfactory performance are an arguable test ofadequacy.

Questions of structural strength often relate to parts of the building such as floor structure whichare hidden and thus accorded less value, even though they are intrinsic and may be critical tothe special interest or character of the overall building. So-called 'cantilever' stairs are alsovirtually impossible to justify by calculation. I have seen fine examples shored up unnecessarilyon the recommendation of building control officers or engineers with professional indemnity inmind.

Questions of architectural character and appearance become particularly lively where externalelevations are threatened by alterations to windows and doors. Changes to windows that areoften generated by a perceived need to achieve a low U-value are often unacceptable in detailand appearance. Secondary glazing is rarely an answer where internal joinery (such as shutterboxes for example) are involved. The pressure to create hermetically sealed and well insulatedenvironments which is fostered by Part L (Conservation of Fuel and Power) does not respectthe fact that traditional construction needs to be well ventilated for its structure to breathe. Theissue is not life threatening and Part L recognises the need to leave room for a relaxation of therequirements where traditional construction is concerned (0.50.7) and the need to protecthistoric window joinery (1.50f).

Part M (Access and Facilities for disabled people) does not apply to existing buildings unless a

new extension at ground floor is planned, and provided that alterations do not worsen thesituation. However, the Disability Discrimination Act (1995) will soon begin to exert pressure on

Test loading the main staircase at Osborne House,Isle of Wight: if it had not been possible to prove thestrength of this fine 'cantilever' staircase in this way,its use would have been restricted under theBuilding Regulations.

8/7/2019 Adams, John. the Building Regulations and Historic Building Requirements

3/3

building owners and users to improve access to services and facilities for disabled people and itis likely that the guidance given in the Approved Documents will be used as the benchmark forcompliance by many professionals. This approach would not be appropriate for a listed building.English Heritage has publicised guidance entitled 'Easy Access to Historic Properties' whichpromotes a process for resolving potential conflict and better understanding of access andconservation needs that will result in acceptable solutions.

So far as the Building Regulations are concerned, the difference between new and oldconstruction is that the former can be designed to conform whereas each old building has to beconsidered on its own pre-existing merits. It would be wrong to assume that this is notappreciated by the Building Regulation Division of the DoE; hence their caution in producingmore Approved Documents or legislation. The study found that "the legislation is able to workwell where the necessary skills and will exist" and that "avoidable and exacerbated difficultieswere found to occur as a result of a lack of understanding and effective communication". Inother words, more training is needed. There were too many cases of confrontation rather thancollaboration and the requirements of conservation are often badly explained and not wellunderstood. Even if the interpretation and application of the Building Regulations is not as clearcut as some would like, the existing situation provides a flexible framework for discussion andcompromise in the right hands. If only all building control officers understood all about the aims,

values and techniques of conservation! If only all conservation officers and other professionalsmade more effective use of the existing legislation!

The good news is that the Institute of Building Control Officers and the Association ofConservation Officers are making overtures to one another in recognition of the need to improveunderstanding between the two disciplines.