Content uploaded by Alan Forster
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alan Forster on Jun 02, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
June/July 2020
rics.org/journals
20
This year’s model
Why it is time to prioritise
people and sustainable design
22
Digital detectives
Digital documentation can
enable better defect detection
26
Raising the roof
Why roof construction needs
to follow the relevant guidance
Built Environment
How dogs can tackle invasive weeds
25
Working
like a dog
Fixsafe allowed
safer rooight
replacement at
this warehouse
Monarch rooights:
the ideal daylight
solution for curved
roofs
GRP barrel vault
rooights – perfect for
curved roofs
Distribution Centre, Kent
Replacement rooights
to match any prole
Warehouse, Heathrow
Lightweight GRP
over-roong
Water company depot,
Yorkshire
Simpler, more
cost-eective roof
refurbishment
Industrial Unit, Wiltshire
Safer rooight
replacement with no
roof access
Factory, Middlesex
Roof refurbishment
and canopies
Byker Wall Estate,
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
Refurb & repair problems solved!
Call us to discuss your project
01543 687300
Filon Products Ltd, Unit 3 Ring Road,
Zone 2, Burntwood Business Park,
Burntwood, Stas WS7 3JQ
www.lon.co.uk
All these diverse, demanding
refurb challenges have one
thing in common: the solution
was a specically designed GRP
sheet or associated product
supplied by Filon Products –
the building envelope
refurbishment problem solver.
Our specialist subject is?
Party wall matters
and your professional
responsibilities
Register as a member and
benet from our experience
partywalls.org.uk
Register as a member to nd out more
about your professional responsibilities: partywalls.org.uk
Pyramus & Thisbe Club
Promoting Excellence in Party Wall Practice Since 1974
rics.org/ journals 3
Built environment
Contents
19
Third party documents
It is impor tant not to be seen as sitting
on the fence in cases where a client
wants and needs clear advice
20
This year’s model
It is time to put people and sustainable
design higher up the commercial agenda
when it comes to building performance
22
Digital detectives
Digital documentation and data
processing technologies can enable
conser vation professionals to detect
defects automatically and accurately
25
Working like a dog
Employing dogs as a means of tackling
invasive weeds is growing in popularity
26
Raising the roof
If roof construction does not follow
the relevant guidance then it could
lead to a number of problems
30
A rounded education
Whether working on projects or her
studies, one trainee building sur veyor
has seen success in a variety of
different areas, as the fifth article in
our series on apprenticeships explains
5
Briefing COVID-19
7
Getting it right
How to make technological
transformation projects succeed
8
Growth risk
As the market for cannabis continues
to grow, illegal production facilities
with their modified electrics and intense
lighting pose a serious fire hazard
10
Highly culpable
There will be harsh legal ramifications
if you neglect fire safety measures, with
one case providing a salutary reminder
of developers’ responsibilities
11
Check your electrics
Private landlords in England should be
ready ahead of the planned introduction
of new electrical safety standards
12
Cutting carbon
RICS’ Whole life carbon assessment
for the built environment professional
statement is the requisite guidance for
conducting an assessment and reducing
a building’s carbon footprint
16
Ill advised
Professionals seeking advice from
independent specialists when preparing
a survey or valuation should be mindful
that they themselves may have to answer
claims if that advice is wrong
Published by:
The Royal In stitution of Char tered Surveyor s,
Parliam ent Square, Londo n SW1P 3AD
T: + 44 (0)24 7686 8555 W: r ics.org
ISSN 2631-84 23 (print)
ISSN 2 631-8431 (on line)
Editorial & production manager: Toni Gill
Sub-editor: Matthew Griffiths
Advertising:
Will Nash T: +44 (0 )20 7871 5734
E: will@wearesunday.com
Design & production: We Are Sunday
Printer: Geoff Nea l Group
While ever y effort has be en made to ensure
the accur acy of all content in th e journal,
RICS will h ave no responsibili ty for any errors
or omiss ions in the c ontent. Th e views
express ed in the journal ar e not necessari ly
those of RI CS. RICS cannot ac cept any
liabili ty for any lo ss or damag e suffered by
any pers on as a result of the con tent and the
opinion s expressed in the j ournal, or b y any
person a cting or refrain ing to act as a re sult
of the mater ial included in th e journal. A ll
rights in t he journal, inclu ding full copyrigh t
or publis hing right, conte nt and desi gn, are
owned by RIC S, except where othe rwise
descri bed. Any dispute ar ising out of the
journa l is subjec t to the law and jurisdi ction
of Englan d and Wales. Crown copy right
materia l is reproduced un der the Open
Governm ent Licen ce v.3.0 for public sec tor
information: nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/
open-government-licence/version/3/
The Built Environment Journal is the journal
of the Build ing Control and Bui lding
Survey ing Profes sional Groups an d the
Building Conservation Forum
Editors: Barney Hatt (Building surveying
and Build ing control)
T: +44 (0)20 7695 1628 E: bh att@rics.org
Steph Fair bairn (Building c onservation)
T: +44 (0)20 7334 3726 E: s fairbai rn@rics.org
Advisory groups
Building conservation: John Edwards
(Edwards H art Consulta nts), Alan Forster
(Heriot-Watt University), Frank Keohane
(Paul Arnold Architects), John Klahn (RICS),
Craig Ro ss (RICS), G abriell a Smith
(Tose-S mith LLP)
Building control: Amy Allen ( Assent
Buildin g Control ), Diane Mar shall (NHBC),
John Mile s (Assent Buildi ng Control),
Michael Morgan (jhai), Craig Ross (RICS),
Richar d Scott (L ABC), Gordon Spe nce
(Aberdeen City Council)
Building surveying: Gary Blackman
(Lambe rt Smith Hampto n), Learie Go nsalves
(One Buil ding Solut ion), Brad Hook (Hoo k
and Sons), A ndrew Little (Ba ily Garne r), Mat
Lown (TF T), Jay Ridings ( TFT), Craig Ro ss
(RICS), Trevor Ru shton (Watts Gro up), Chris
Skinne r (Savills), Kevi n Thomas (Teessi de
Univers ity), Anthony Walker, Terr y Walker,
Nolan Wilkens (Hollis)
T: 01727 837271 E: enquiries@selectaglaze.co.uk W: www.selectaglaze.co.uk
@selectaglaze
Grade II Listed Fellowship & Star, Bellingham, London
TM
Secondary Glazing
WARMER
1.9 U-values with low-E glass or 1.27
with enhanced thermal sealed units
QUIETER
48dB reduction with traditional
primary windows or 56dB reduction
with modern high performance
primary windows
SAFER
Intruder resistance :
SBD & LPS 1175 SR1-SR3
Blast mitigation :
EXV15 - EXV45
Ballistic resistance to FB4
BUILT
ENVIRONMENT
B
E
READY
Flexible, affordable online BSc, MSc, MBA degrees
➜ Building Surveying
➜ Quantity Surveying
➜ Construction Management
➜ Real Estate
➜ Building Control
Get in touch:
0800 019 9697 | businessdevelopment@ucem.ac.uk
Apprenticeship route for the BSc and
MBA programmes also available -
Sept/Oct 2020 intake.
rics.org/ journals 5
Built environment
Briefing
Follow RICS on social media
RICS is regularly updating its social media channels
on its response to COVID-19. We encourage you to
follow RICS on your preferred social media channel.
• Facebook: @ricssurveyors
• LinkedIn: RICS
• Twitter: @RICSnews, plus various profiles specific
to regions.
Keep up to date on RICS’
COVID-19 response
During the COVID-19 outbreak, RICS is closely
monitoring developments and following official
advice to ensure we continue to support the
profession. We encourage all members and member
firms to visit and bookmark rics.org/coronavirus,
which RICS is updating regularly. The page includes:
• resources for candidates and professionals, with
online CPD free until July
• guidance on key concerns and risks, including
dispute resolution, inspections, personal indemnity
insurance, planning, support for SMEs, valuations
and more
• news and insight
• responses to frequently asked questions.
Any queries or concerns not dealt with on the site
should be directed to covid19@rics.org
COVID-19 related content
Because of long lead times, anything we publish about
the virus or its implications in the journal will likely be
out of date before it reaches you. If there’s any content
you would like to see that relates to the impact the
virus is having on our professions please let us know,
as we may be able to publish more reactive pieces on
the RICS website.
bhatt@rics.org
sfairbairn@rics.org
Take care of
your well-being
RICS is committed to
supporting the mental health
of its members and APC
candidates at this unsettling
time. The independent charity
for RICS professionals,
LionHeart, continues to
offer support, including
free and confidential advice,
financial support, professional
counselling and legal advice.
lionheart.org.uk
Guidance
offered for SMEs
RICS recognises that this may
be a particularly difficult time
for small businesses. We have
therefore dedicated a page
on the website to providing
guidance and suppor t for
owners of such businesses
and those working for them.
rics.org/supportforsmes
Navigating uncharted
territory
With the COVID -19 pandemic, we find
ourselves in unchar ted territory, and many
of us have faced significant disruption to
our work and home life. Discussions with
members, old colleagues and friends over
the past few months have exposed a range
of difficulties – but also highlighted how
innovation and adaptable approaches
to work have been used successfully
to overcome some of these hurdles.
RICS will continue to update members
with COVID-19 advice through the
dedicated webpage (see story on the left).
Please do keep an eye on this, as the
situation is fluid and our advice will
be updated appropriately.
Finally, following a successful beta
phase, our digital insight community has
now arrived with fortunate timing. This
forward-thinking initiative allows both
surveyors and the wider built environment
sector to share their insight and engage
with RICS directly in a two-way flow, and
it’s great to see technology being used for
effective communication with members
across the globe.
We have set up a community for
building surveying, building control and
conser vation topics on this plat form,
which will provide interesting and
important updates relevant to our
profession. I encourage you to use this
while we face these challenges together,
to share your observations, problems
and successes so we may all learn from
them. To join the community, please email
digicommunities@rics.org
I wish you all a safe transition to more
stable times, and if you would like to
contact me personally please do so.
Craig Ross is associate director,
built environment at RICS
cross@rics.org
Events
All events are subject to
change during the COVID-19
pandemic. You are advised
to check the RICS website
regularly for updates.
We offer a nationwide service and it’s always
a pleasure to supply a free quotation.
We also offer nationwide planned gutter
emptying, commercial roof repairs
and coatings, roof light replacement/
repairs, asbestos roof repairs/coatings.
Leaking Gutters?
For our brochure or further information please ring 0203 975 7979
Email: info@blueskyguttering.co.uk
Website: blueskyguttermaintenance.co.uk
Approved contractors for:
Commercial gutter repairs and linings, with up to 25 year guarantee
Kemperol Liquid Waterproofing
KEMPER SYSTEM LTD
Tel: 01925 445532
enquiries@kempersystem.co.uk
www.kempersystem.co.uk
KEMPEROL® Liquid Roofing & Waterproofing
Long term protection for flat roofs, buildings and critical structures.
Warm roofs, inverted roofs, green roofs, podium decks, walkways,
balconies, terraces, car parks... Refurbishment or new build.
Whatever your requirements, we have a certified and proven solution
to meet your needs. Call us to discuss your requirements.
FINALIST
RICS Half Page Journals June 2019.indd 1 25/04/2019 10:12:54
rics.org/ journals 7
Built environment Technology
For the last three years of my built environment career I have been
involved with digital transformation in one form or another, and
I have seen first-hand what works, and more to the point, what
doesn’t. As an industry, we are poor at sharing our successes,
let alone where we have failed, so I want to share some of
my experiences in the hope that it improves your chance of
succeeding in whatever transformation project you undertake.
1. Don’t underestimate the power of leadership. I have seen
good, bad and a lack of leadership when it comes to transformation.
In my experience there are three mistakes that leaders generally
make when they are managing a transformation project. They either
don’t understand their teams and their abilities, they concentrate
too heavily on processes and pre-conceived philosophies, or they
invest too much in new systems without focusing on the impact
on organisational culture and their people. My biggest point about
leadership, however, is around the experiences of decision-makers.
A lot of the time, those in positions of authority aren’t as digitally
literate as you may hope. Therefore, having empathy is key when
explaining to leaders how their business needs to change. How
would it feel to be told you need to embrace a technology that
you don’t fully understand?
2. For successful technology transformation, don’t focus on
technology. I know this sounds odd but it’s a mistake made time
and time again; organisations fall into the trap of buying a product
without truly understanding why they need it and how it will be
used. Organisations generally know what they want the technology
to do, however, so they start with this and buy a product based on
its purported functionality, not how easily it can be used by those
expected to work with it or, more importantly, if it will improve
how employees deliver projects and do their jobs. This again
comes down to empathy. How will decisions made during the
transformation project affect those you are asking to change?
3. Put employee engagement first. At my previous company
I helped run a transformation project where staff were asked to
consider what innovation meant to them in a simple, approachable
way. We asked them what they are proud of and what they would
like to do, which then enabled us to gain a baseline of where the
business stood in terms of innovation and technology, while
also engaging employees with the work we were doing. Simple,
yet effective. In the past I’ve seen, and been involved with,
transformation projects that don’t have this approach and instead
look mainly at the bottom line. Ultimately, projects that don’t
adequately engage with staff and instead are obsessed by return
on investment may succeed for a short period but fail to stick
and truly transform the organisation.
4. You must change perceptions if we are truly going to
transform. If you are trying to do something new then you are
going to bring something alien to the organisation, which will
make everyday procedure difficult or even uncomfortable for a
while. This needs to be tackled head on and the way you do that
is by playing on the fact that things are developing by bringing
a new way of leading to the project.
Try and bring a brand identity to what you’re doing, ideally
something that is a little contrasting to the organisation.
Communicate differently and communicate a lot; report your
wins, losses, progress and what you do on a daily basis. More
than anything, have fun with it.
We take ourselves too seriously in the built environment
and bringing some fun to the transformation project will go
a long way to making the changes stick.
Rob Toon is founder at This is Change hello@thisischange.co.uk
Related competencies include: Business planning, Leadership
Further information: thisischange.co.uk
Getting
it right
Rob Toon
How to make technological transformation projects succeed
8 Journal June/July 202 0
Built environment Fire safety
In the UK, statistics from the Home Office
show that more than a third of a million
cannabis plants were seized in 2018. The
West Midlands alone saw 67,776 plants
confiscated, an increase of almost 40 per
cent on the year before. That same year
the Metropolitan Police revealed that one
cannabis farm was found every couple of
days in London.
While 2019 figures are awaited, the UK
emergency services have been attending
cannabis-related fires since at least the
1970s. But as cultivation increases, so
does the number of fires related to illegal
factories or farms.
Figures released by London Fire Brigade
show there were 12 cannabis factory fires
in the capital in the first four months of
2019 alone – approaching the total for the
whole of 2018. Many of these fires are in
residential premises, posing a serious threat
to those living nearby, but fires in cannabis
factories in commercial premises are also
becoming more prevalent. What’s behind
these increases?
First, the demand for cannabis itself
appears to be increasing. With a greater
focus on medicinal use, some well-known
high-street retailers are selling legal
products based on cannabis oil – in fact,
the UK is the world’s largest producer
and exporter of legally cultivated cannabis.
With demand on the rise, and coming from
a wider customer base than before, a ready
market has also been created for illicit
production and distribution.
Second, this market means large-scale
illegal cannabis production is big business
for those involved. There is good evidence
that many factories are part of established
criminal networks, with many thousands
of people involved in the supply chain of
this lucrative trade.
Third, much more information about
cultivation is now available, and the
equipment to start even a small factory
is quite easily obtained via the internet.
This means that some may begin
growing the drug in a back bedroom
purely for personal use, for example,
and not necessarily to sell on.
What’s clear is that the production
of cannabis in the UK is on the rise, and
in turn, we can probably expect related
insurance claims to continue heading in
the same direction. Although insurers do
not collect specific statistics on fire claims
related to cannabis production, there is
good evidence that they are currently seeing
more losses relating to these factories –
and that those claims are becoming larger.
The picture, above and below, shows
the aftermath of a large warehouse blaze in
Tottenham in May 2019, believed to have
started in one unit that was being used to
produce the drug.
The fire burnt for more than 24 hours
and took 100 firefighters to extinguish.
Zurich insures one of the neighbouring
units, with the resultant claim by the
innocent customer costing more than
£1m. The image gives a graphic picture
of the destruction these fires can cause.
Growth
risk
Paul Redington
As the market for cannabis continues to grow, illegal
production facilities with their modified electrics
and intense lighting pose a serious fire hazard
rics.org/ journals 9
And it’s not just fire that’s an issue with
cannabis factories: damage related to leaks
from irrigation systems is also prevalent, as
are problems resulting from condensation
in the building fabric caused by the humid
environment that a factory may create.
Holes are sometimes cut in ceilings to
provide ventilation or to enable access for
wiring, which in itself is often substandard.
Where a fire does occur, it is often due
to the temporary lighting and heating
equipment that has been rigged up in the
premises. High-powered industrial lamps
are often used, and they produce significant
heat – with all the associated risks. In turn,
any electrically-powered ventilation system
that may be required creates additional
hazard if not installed properly. Finally,
all this set-up requires considerable energy
and, in turn, cabling. Most of this is poorly
installed, and subject to potential short
circuits and resistive heating faults that
can easily cause wiring or any combustible
materials around it to ignite.
Insurers such as Zurich continue to work
with property-owning customers and their
advisers to guide them on steps that can
be taken to protect premises, and reduce
the chances of them being a victim of an
unscrupulous occupier. Reputable property
owners can easily fall victim to a tenant or
subtenant who decides to set up a cannabis
factory, meaning it is crucial that landlords
have a robust vetting system. Tell-tale signs
may be tenants who seek to pay rent in
large sums of cash or are unable to supply
proper references. Failing to conduct proper
checks on prospective tenants can even
mean a property owner is in breach of an
insurance policy condition.
Vacant premises are also an issue. In
some cases they have been broken into
and used as cannabis farms without the
knowledge of the owner. Once established,
the farms themselves are then left largely
unattended, meaning any fire that may
develop is not dealt with until it takes hold.
Fires are often only spotted by neighbours
or passers-by, increasing the level of
damage to the premises itself and the
threat to adjacent buildings.
It is therefore vital that empty premises
are properly secured and visited regularly,
with careful internal inspections where
possible, as external inspection alone may
give no indication as to what is going on
inside. Neighbours may see very little
coming or going either, so factories can
remain undetected for months – if not
for a longer period.
The risks associated with illicit cannabis
farms are clear, with fire being the most
obvious hazard. It is a problem that shows
no signs of abating. Those who own and
manage property need to take appropriate
steps to avoid becoming a victim of
something that is a growing issue for
both them and their insurers.
Gary Strong, RICS global building
standards director, comments: ‘Cannabis
farms and damage from fires and illegal
occupiers are issues RICS professionals
need to be very alert about, and regular
inspections of vacant property are essential.
If adjacent property is also observed to
be suspected of being used for a factory,
this should be reported to the police.’
Paul Redington is a regional property
major loss manager at Zurich Insurance
paul.redington@uk.zurich.com
Related competencies include:
Fire safety
IMAGES © LONDON FIRE BRIGADE
10 Journal June/July 2 020
Built environment Fire safety
The Grenfell Tower fire symbolises the woeful safety practices
prevalent throughout the construction industry before June 2017.
One would like to think that we are now all alert to the risks, and
that sloppy development and construction practices would no
longer be tolerated.
However, hindsight brings perfect vision; and although many
would appreciate the appalling consequences of a single avoidable
fatality, let alone 72, it is worth reflecting on the fact that
simply permitting the risk of injury can also have very serious
repercussions. Make no mistake, if you are guilty of placing the
lives of others at risk, you can expect to be treated harshly – you
can suddenly find yourself in the criminal justice system with
the attendant costs, stress and reputational damage that ensue.
Take for example the 2016 student development at Trinity Halls
on Woodhouse Street in Leeds, which comprised 94 bedrooms built
over four floors in a gated community. The building was due to
open on 19 September that year but was still incomplete, meaning
students had to be placed into temporary accommodation. It is not
difficult to imagine the pressures that this situation would have put
on all those involved.
However, four days later, 27 students were moved to the new
site. Residents found that they were entering a building site, with
works in progress on the upper floors. On dropping his daughter
off, the father of one student was so concerned by what he saw that
he would not let her stay there. He contacted the Yorkshire Fire
and Rescue Service, who served a prohibition notice and required
all occupants to move out. Chris Kemp from the fire service said
the conditions on site ‘were such that some of our senior officers
have not seen such blatant disregard for the law and the safety of
residents in 28 years’.
Legal action ensued, and the litany of defects heard by the
court included:
• a locked staircase to one of the two main fire escapes
• no fire escape signage
• self-closing devices missing from doors
• the upper floors of the building still being under construction,
with exposed timber
• parts of the staircase covered in bubble wrap, and floors separated
only by plywood
• the fire alarms not connected properly, only being
operable manually
• the alarms ringing with only limited noise, making it likely
they would not have been heard in the event of fire
• flammable material being stored in rooms on the ground floor
• the boiler room lacking appropriate fire protection.
The court also heard that some residents would have been 35m
from the nearest fire escape – almost double the recommended
18m distance.
According to Judge Robin Mairs, the conditions at the building
had the ‘potential for catastrophe’. He added that all the companies
had ‘high culpability’ and that ‘the risks were so obvious that a
member of the public spotted them – so they should have been
obvious to the companies involved’.
Developer Trinity Developments Ltd and property manager
Niche Homes Limited both pleaded guilty to four charges:
• failing to make a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment
• failing to take precautions to make sure the premises were safe
from risk of fire
• failing to provide an appropriate fire detection and alarm system
• failing to provide an adequate number of fire escape routes
and exits.
Trinity was fined £160,000 and Niche Homes £60,000. The
design and build contractor, APP Construction, pleaded guilty to
a charge of failing to provide an adequate number of fire escape
routes and exits and was fined £450,000. The amounts would
undoubtedly have been higher had the defendants not pleaded
guilty, but they nonetheless illustrate the likely order of costs
that will be imposed on those who ignore fire safety.
Gary Strong, RICS global building standards director, comments:
‘RICS reminds firms and members to pay particular attention to
sites under construction, and to agree the fire safety strategy at
an early stage with fire and rescue services if such a building will
be partially occupied.’
Trevor Rushton is a technical director at Watts
trevor.rushton@watts.co.uk
Related competencies include: Fire safety
Highly culpable
There will be harsh legal ramifications if you neglect fire safety measures,
with one case providing a salutary reminder of developers’ responsibilities
Trevor Rushton
Built environment Electrical safety
Check
your
electrics
Private landlords in England should be ready ahead of the
planned introduction of new electrical safety standards
The Electrical Safety Standards in the
Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations
2020 is due to come into force on 1 June.
This legislation will make electrical
installation condition reports (EICRs)
mandatory for all private rented dwellings
in England from 1 July for new tenancies,
and from 1 April 2021 for existing tenancies.
At the time of writing this is still draft
legislation and could change. However,
private landlords should make themselves
aware of the draft to ensure they comply
with the final requirements
(bit.ly/ESS-PRS-regs).
In brief, all dwellings will require a
suitable and satisfactory EICR at intervals
of no more than five years. An EICR is a
risk assessment of an installation. Where
non-compliant items are found, this results
in an un-satisfactory report. If the report
shows no non-compliances, then the report
is satisfactory. The landlord must provide
copies of the report to any tenant, though a
new one will not be required for a change of
tenant providing the existing report is still
in date and satisfactory. The landlord must
retain copies of the report to provide to
the next contractor undertaking an EICR
and, if requested, supply copies to the
local housing authority within seven days.
The legislation requires a qualified person
to carry out the reports and defines them
as someone ‘competent to undertake the
inspection and testing required and any
further investigative or remedial work
in accordance with the electrical safety
standards’. Landlords should ensure that
any contractor they use to undertake the
EICR is suitably skilled and knowledgeable
in that area or work, with a list of suitable
contractors available at eca.co.uk. Failure to
comply will be costly. The local authority
can impose fines of up to £30,000 on a
landlord in breach of the legislation. It also
has the power, once a remedial notice has
been served and the tenant has consented,
to enter the premises, undertake the work
related to the remedial notice and recover
the costs from the landlord.
Buildings will be assessed against BS
7671: 2018 Requirements for Electrical
Installations. IET Wiring Regulations.
This does not mean all properties will
immediately require rewiring to fulfil the
requirements of the modern standard
completely; just that the building has no
electrical safety issues that are dangerous
or potentially dangerous, or that require
further investigation without delay. Any
items found that are dangerous, potentially
so, or in need of investigation will result in
an unsatisfactory report, and will require
rectifying within 28 days.
Landlords should check whether their
electrical installation is in good order by
ensuring they have a suitable contractor
undertake an EICR. Not all electrical
contractors can do such work, so it is
always worth asking whether a potential
contractor is skilled and experienced in
this field. The landlord should also protect
themselves against rogue contractors who
claim they can undertake an EICR in an
unfeasibly short time.
It is difficult to estimate the time a
reasonable report would take to compile,
as this depends on the number of circuits,
access and space and how many people
are on site. However, anyone offering to
undertake an EICR in a property with ten
circuits in less than an hour for a nominal
fee should certainly raise suspicions.
Gary Strong, RICS global building
standards director, comments: ‘RICS will
update members if the draft legislation
changes from that at the time of writing.’
Gary Parker is technical manager at Electrical
Contractors’ Association
technical@eca.co.uk
Related competencies include:
Health and safety,
Legal/regulatory compliance
The local authority can impose
fines of up to £30,000 on a landlord
in breach of the legislation
Gary Parker
rics.org/ journals 11
rics.org/journals 13
Sustainability
Cutting carbon
Simon Sturgis
A whole life carbon assessment is the most comprehensive way to gauge and
ultimately reduce a building’s carbon footprint – and RICS’ Whole life carbon
assessment for the built environment professional statement is the requisite guidance
The reduction of carbon emissions in the UK has become
increasingly important since the government’s net-zero 2050
target was announced. The built environment is responsible for
almost 40 per cent of the UK’s carbon emissions and is therefore
one of the key sectors required to reduce emissions.
A whole life carbon (WLC) assessment – an assessment of
the sum total of all building-related emissions over a building’s
entire life – is the most comprehensive approach to achieving
these reductions. WLC includes operational carbon emissions
from day-to-day energy use and embodied carbon emissions,
including material sourcing, fabrication of components, transport,
construction, maintenance, repair and replacement, demolition,
dismantling and disposal. The objective of a WLC assessment
is to ensure the minimum overall lifetime carbon emissions and
the maximum lifetime resource efficiency.
The structure of a WLC assessment is defined by British
Standard BS EN 15978:2011. The standard breaks down the
life cycle of a building into life cycle modules, but it is not
sufficiently precise or informative about how a WLC assessment
should be undertaken. In 2015, a group that I led – and included
representatives from RICS – received funding from Innovate UK
to provide a detailed methodology for a WLC assessment. As a
result, RICS published the Whole life carbon assessment for the
built environment professional statement in 2017 and it became
mandatory and regulated by RICS in May 2018.
The professional statement gives guidance on a range of issues
involved in a WLC assessment including spatial boundaries, units
of measurement and carbon sequestration. It also explains how to
assess each of the following life cycle modules:
• A1–A3: Product stage
• A4 and A5: Construction process stage: transport to site and
construction installation process
• B1: Use
• B2: Maintenance
• B3 and B4: Repair and replacement
• B5: Refurbishment
• B6: Operational energy use
• B7: Operational water use
• C1: Deconstruction and demolition process
• C2: Transport
• C3: Waste processing for reuse, recovery or recycling
• C4: Disposal
• D: Benefits and loads beyond the system boundary.
For an assessment at the RIBA Plan of Work stages two or three,
actual materials and systems will not be known with any precision,
and therefore the professional statement offers default figures to
be replaced by project related figures as the project progresses.
A life cycle assessment (LCA) – a future projection of the
carbon cost of anticipated day-to-day energy use, maintenance
cycles, repair and replacement cycles and final demolition – is
inherent in a WLC assessment and is usually presented as a graph
showing annual carbon emissions over 60 years. The objective
is to understand, at the design stages, the overall future carbon
emissions performance of a building over its entire life, and
therefore what can be done to decrease emissions. In addition to
the mapping of anticipated future carbon emissions, it is possible
to add a cashflow to the LCA to give a building owner a combined
construction and ‘In-use’ cost, that is, a total cost of ownership.
The alignment of carbon cost and financial cost is not surprising
as their reductions both rely on an efficient use of resources.
Typically, for the ‘Upfront’ carbon costs – those embodied
emissions up to practical completion covered in modules
A1–A5 – the better carbon options also have lower costs.
The alignment of carbon and
financial cost is not surprising
as their reductions both rely on
the efficient use of resources
Built environment
14 Journal June/July 202 0
My company, Targeting Zero, reviewed tender returns from an
embodied carbon perspective for a global technology company’s
new headquarters and found that the lowest carbon and lowest
financial cost aligned in every case. Several major London-based
developers now see ‘Upfront’ embodied carbon assessments as
part of value engineering and, therefore, contributing to reduced
construction costs.
By also considering ‘In-use’ carbon costs – modules B1–B7 –
it is possible to examine the carbon cost of fabric improvements
against the carbon benefits of improved energy performance. This
is important as it shows that operational energy use should not
be viewed independently from embodied emissions: to optimise
overall emissions, both operational and embodied emissions need
to be considered together.
For example, when selecting insulation, the decision should
be based on both the U-value, or thermal transmittance, and the
carbon dioxide equivalent emitted per square metre – KgCO2e/m2
– to make the material. This material and product-related carbon
footprint information can be obtained from Environmental Product
Declarations (EPDs) – there are now over 7,000 EPDs available for
individual products.
A further benefit of understanding ‘In-use’ emissions is that
future performance can be determined in relation to different
factors, such as lease cycles or climate change. The more durable
and resilient the design, the lower the post-completion carbon
impact will be.
Actions to take
Following an initial WLC assessment, there are several actions
that can be taken to help reduce the WLC footprint of a building.
• Retrofit. The retrofit or reuse of an existing building – as a whole
or in part – is preferable to a new building as it is typically the
lowest carbon option. A retrofit has a significant embodied carbon
benefit due to the existing structure and materials already on site.
• Using recycled materials and content. Using recycled materials
as opposed to newly-sourced raw materials typically reduces the
carbon emissions from constructing a new building. Many currently
available standard products already include a degree of recycled
content, and therefore the supply chain should be encouraged to
provide the project team with this carbon footprint information.
• Material selection. The sourcing of materials and the fabrication
of products is the single largest contributor to embodied carbon
emissions over the life of a building. It is important to note that the
overall lifetime carbon footprint of a product can be as much down
to its durability as to what it is made of. For example, bricks may
have a high carbon cost to make but they have an exceptionally long
and durable life expectancy.
• Operational emissions from day-to-day energy use.
A fabric-first approach where the building’s envelope is designed
to minimise heating and cooling requirements can have long-term
carbon emissions benefits. A naturally ventilated scheme avoids
the initial carbon costs of new plant and distribution, as well as
the repeat carbon costs of equipment replacement.
• Reuse of a building’s components at end of life. Designing for
future ease of dismantling, rather than normal demolition, means
that materials and products can be reused for the same purpose
as originally intended. A simple example is to use lime mortar
with brickwork rather that cement. The former can be cleaned
off allowing the brick to be used as a brick, whereas the use of
cement mortar means the bricks end up as landfill. The choice of
recycled materials in combination with designing for future reuse
contributes to the circular economy.
• Wall to floor ratio. Also known as the heat loss form factor, wall
to floor ratio has embodied as well as operational consequences;
compact and efficient buildings perform better for these reasons.
• Durability and future flexibility. Considering these at the
outset of design reduces maintenance and other life cycle costs and
facilitates future retrofit, therefore reducing the likelihood of future
obsolescence. Every project brief should have a building design life
specified, with a requirement for method statements for future
repair and replacement as part of the procurement documentation.
• Embodied and operational emissions. Optimising the
relationship between the two types of emissions is important to
ensuring whole life carbon reduction efficiency. The objective is
to understand, over a building’s life, the carbon cost as well as
the carbon benefit of any action to improve its performance. For
example, the use of insulation has a clear carbon benefit, whereas
its fabrication has a carbon cost. This means that it is important to
look not only at the U-value of insulation, but also the carbon cost
of the manufacture and installation of different product options.
• Local sourcing. This reduces transport distances and therefore
supply chain lengths. It also has associated social benefits
including, for example, local employment.
• Waste minimisation. This is a key feature of low carbon
design and procurement through all life cycle stages and means
understanding how materials and systems are sourced and
fabricated. Building designers must understand how products
are assembled on site to ensure minimum waste.
Sustainability
An aerial view of a constructi on site in Can ary Wh arf, London. At the time
of writing the Greater London Authority’s London Plan is being updated to
tighten up all existing building and planning regulations
Built environment
rics.org/ journals 15
• Efficient fabrication. Construction techniques such as using
modular systems, precision manufacturing and modern methods
of construction can contribute to a reduced construction carbon
footprint due to more efficient fabrication, and reduced snagging
and early replacement.
Many of the above principles require actions – by developers
and project teams – that may be seen as of limited benefit to the
developer in the immediate future. There are three key arguments
that can be used to convince developers of the benefits of investing
in a low carbon approach.
First, most of the principles listed above don’t necessarily add
to construction costs – and many will actually reduce the total
cost of ownership. Second, it is very possible that if the valuation
of buildings starts to include climatic resilience and performance
and an LCA as part of due diligence carried out then these actions
will become essential. Finally, being ahead of future regulation
change will reduce building obsolescence and therefore benefit
developers in the long term.
Impact of the professional statement
Since the publication of the professional statement in 2017
numerous organisations – including British Land, Landsec,
Derwent, Grosvenor, the Portman Estate, Warwick University
and Quintain – have embedded its guidance in their practices.
It is also being used on HS2 and the latest Heathrow expansion
to mitigate carbon impacts.
Other documents such as RIBA’s Embodied and whole life carbon
for architects, the UKGBC’s Net zero carbon buildings: a framework
definition and London Energy Transformation Initiative’s Climate
emergency design guide all make direct reference to the professional
statement. The Mayor of London also explicitly referenced the
professional statement in the London Environment Strategy,
released in May 2018.
At the time of writing, the Greater London Authority’s London
Plan is being updated and will require all referable schemes
– including developments of 150 or more residential units,
developments of more than 30 metres high outside the City of
London and developments on green belts or metropolitan open land
– to carry out a detailed WLC assessment in accordance with the
RICS professional statement and BS EN 15978:2011. These will be
required both on submission of the scheme and post-completion.
The detailed guidance in the London Plan also suggests that WLC
assessments will soon be a requirement on all submissions in the
near future. Other UK local authorities are likely to follow the
example of the London Plan and tighten up all existing building
and planning regulations.
For those buildings currently on the drawing board, sticking
to the current regulations may be a bigger risk than future
proofing the asset value of your building with a WLC assessment
and resulting actions to reduce its whole life carbon footprint.
The fact that the London Plan guidance is about assessing the
entire life cycle of a building will help clients better understand
overall lifetime performance in both carbon terms and cost terms.
This will affect how buildings are valued, with a WLC assessment
becoming a fundamental part of due diligence in assessing future
asset performance and value.
Further, climate change is increasingly becoming a consideration
from the perspective of investment and insurance risks, and the
likely impact it may have on occupier sentiment. Buildings that are
not climate friendly, or low carbon, are likely to be at a disadvantage
in the future. There are several international organisations, such
as the World Business Council for Sustainable Development
(WBCSD) and the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI),
that are advising both investors and insurers on the implications
of climate change.
The PRI states: ‘As part of wider efforts to implement the Paris
Agreement, every real estate asset owner, investor and stakeholder
must now recognise they have a clear fiduciary duty to understand
and actively manage ESG [environmental, social and governance]
and climate-related risks as a routine component of their business
thinking, practices and management processes.’
The next steps for WLC assessment and reporting will be to
gather more building-related data – the London Plan requirements
will greatly assist in this. Further measures are required to ensure
consistency of reporting, and these need to feed into the available
assessment software that currently produces different answers
from different types of inputs.
It’s important to remember that the environmental landscape
when the Whole life carbon assessment for the built environment
professional statement was launched was very different to how it is
today. However, it is encouraging that, although further work needs
to be done, the importance and necessity of WLC assessments has
become far more widely understood over these past three years.
Simon Sturgis is the founder of Targeting Zero and co-author of the
RICS Whole life carbon assessment for the built environment
professional statement
simon.sturgis@targetingzero.co.uk @simonsturgis
Related competencies include: Construction technology and
environmental services, Sustainability
Further information: The RICS Building Carbon Database can
help users identif y where carbon emission reductions can be
made throughout a building’s life cycle. You can submit your data
at rics.org/carbondatabase.
The more durable and resilient
the design, the lower the
post-completion carbon
impact of the building will be
16 Journal June/July 2 020
Built environment Legal
What risks does a surveyor face when they take advice from
a third party, and bases their survey or valuation on that advice?
The point has become particularly topical in recent months, with
a new arrangement for the valuation of high-rise buildings agreed
jointly by RICS, the Building Societies Association and UK Finance,
and the publication of the EWS1 form, due to be covered in detail
in a later article (rics.org/highrisevaluation).
In the meantime, this article will provide guidance as to when
a surveyor may face a claim where they have relied on the advice
of a third party, and what they can do to reduce or eliminate that
risk. The default position for any professional is that, in performing
the service they have agreed to provide to the client, they will be
liable not only for their own negligence but also for that of anyone
to whom they delegate the provision of those services. If a client
believes that there has been an error in the survey, or that the
property has been overvalued, the starting point will always be
to pursue a claim against the surveyor.
However, in circumstances where independent third parties
are instructed to undertake specialist tasks on behalf of the
professional providing the services – for example, where the
surveyor conducting a survey seeks specialist advice from a
structural engineer or an asbestos consultant – then if the task to
be delegated is outside the professional’s normal area of expertise
they can argue that they should not have any liability to the client
in the event that the advice provided by the specialist is wrong.
The leading case on this is Co-operative Group Limited v
John Allen Associates Limited [2010] EWHC 2300 (TCC) (bit.ly/
CoopVJallen), which concerned an engineer who relied on specialist
advice when proposing the feasibility of using a method of
construction involving densely compacted stone columns for
a floor in a Co-op store.
The Co-op argued that the engineer could not discharge its
duty of care by relying on that specialist advice, which it said
constituted a delegation of duty. The judge disagreed, and found
that John Allen Associates was able to discharge its duty by relying
on the specialist because it had acted reasonably in doing so.
Ill advised
Professionals seeking advice from independent
specialists when preparing a survey or valuation
should be mindful that they themselves may have
to answer claims when that advice is wrong
Alexandra Anderson
rics.org/ journals 17
A surveyor can discharge their
duty by relying on a specialist
professional, so long as
they have acted reasonably
in accepting and adopting
that advice in preparing the
survey or valuation
In light of this finding, a surveyor can discharge their duty by
relying on a specialist professional, so long as they have acted
reasonably in accepting and adopting that advice in preparing
the survey or valuation. A surveyor who seeks assistance from
a structural engineer will be able to defend a claim for losses caused
in the event that the engineer’s advice is wrong so long as the
surveyor acted reasonably in accepting, and basing any conclusions
or recommendations set out in the survey on, the engineer’s advice.
The question that then arises is what ‘acting reasonably’ means.
In Co-operative Group, the court set out four factors to be weighed
in the balance when considering whether it is reasonable for
a professional person (for our purposes, a surveyor) to rely on
the advice of the third party expert.
• Is assistance taken from an appropriate third-party expert?
Has the surveyor considered the qualifications or expertise needed
to advise on the specific point, to ensure that the third party
from whom they are seeking the advice is competent to give it?
This would not require the surveyor to do a significant amount
of due diligence on the expert, but they would be expected to
check that the expert had the appropriate qualification to advise
on the relevant point.
• Is there any information that should lead the surveyor to
warn about the reliability of the expert’s advice? Again, this
would not require the surveyor to second-guess the advice received
from the expert, but they would have to sense-check the report
and consider, for example, whether it is based on all the relevant
information and a proper inspection of the property.
• Does the client have a remedy for any losses caused if the
expert advice turns out to be wrong? If so, to what extent?
A court will always want to protect an innocent client who has
agreed to purchase a property, or has made a loan secured against
a property, relying on incorrect advice. Much will turn on whether
the client has a direct route of redress against the expert: either
for breach of contract, because the client has a direct contractual
relationship with the expert; or for breach of duty of care in tort,
because the client can argue that the expert provided their advice
knowing that it would form part of a survey or valuation on which
the client would be relying, and that if the advice were wrong, the
client would suffer a loss.
• Should the surveyor advise the client to seek advice
elsewhere? Or should they themselves take professional advice
under a separate retainer? Applying these criteria to the situation
where, for example, a surveyor instructs a structural engineer to
advise on the likely cause of, and appropriate remediation for,
a crack in the wall of a property, then any claim from the client
concerning any errors in the survey or valuation that can be
demonstrated to arise from errors in the expert’s advice should
fail, so long as the surveyor can show that:
• it was necessary to take advice from the engineer
• the advice received appeared to be reliable
• the client has the option to bring a claim against the engineer
• it was reasonable to instruct the expert, rather than leaving it
for the client to do so.
In order to reduce the risk of a client attempting to bring such a
claim against a surveyor in this situation, the following steps
are recommended.
First, surveyors should seek to include a disclaimer formally
stating that they are relying on the advice of the third party, and
to disclaim liability for any losses arising from the information
contained in that advice. Before providing the survey or valuation,
the surveyor should agree with the client that, if the surveyor seeks
specialist advice on a particular point and then relies on that advice
when preparing the survey or valuation, no claim shall be made
against them if the advice from the expert turns out to be wrong
and that error then causes the client a loss.
Second, the surveyor should always include a copy of the expert’s
advice with the survey or valuation, so it is clear on what basis the
relevant sections of the report are prepared.
Third, it would always be preferable for the surveyor to ensure
that the client appoints the expert direct, or that the expert
provides some form of warranty to the client, so that, in the event
it turns out that the advice provided by the expert is wrong, the
client can take action against them directly without having to
involve the surveyor. Even if that isn’t possible, the surveyor should
ensure that the expert knows who the client is and why their advice
is sought, so that, even if the client cannot bring a claim for breach
of contract, they can provide the necessary evidence for a claim in
tort, to avoid the court finding that the only means of redress is
through the surveyor.
Alexandra Anderson is a partner at Reynolds Porter Chamberlain
alexandra.anderson@rpic.co.uk
Related competencies include: Client care,
Legal/regulatory compliance
RICS Recruit
Supporting you through
your career journey
Secure your dream job in surveying. As the official RICS job
board, RICS Recruit caters solely to surveyors in land, property
and construction sectors worldwide.
At RICS Recruit we offer a range of opportunities from junior to senior
positions. Whether you are starting out your career or looking to take your
career to the next level, RICS Recruit connects you to the latest surveying
vacancies in your sector.
How RICS Recruit can support you:
• Develop your career – RICS Recruit gives you access
to a wide range of jobs
• High calibre jobs – leading firms choose RICS Recruit
to advertise, giving you the opportunity to access and
apply to the top jobs
• Speed of access – get the best specialist jobs
at your fingertips
• Career support – RICS Recruit supports you by providing content on
how to improve your job hunting experience. Advice on improving your
CV, as well as interview techniques, to ensure you get the job you want.
Find your future job today. Get the RICS Recruit App. Ricsrecruit.com
Recruiters - to recruit the best applicants and to take advantage
of the RICS members package please call Sam or George on
0207 101 2779 or email ricsrecruit@wearesunday.com
rics.org/ journals 19
Building surveying Comment
In construction legal cases over the years,
I have reviewed documents put forward by
parties in support of their representations.
A common feature I have seen is informally
scribbled annotations that, clearly, the
writers did not envisage would be disclosed
in future legal proceedings: some of these
comments contradicted the claims and
undermined the very cases that the litigants
were trying to prove.
With fewer paper documents and
increased digital working, this sort of error
may not be so frequent now. However there
are still situations – although not always
in an identical context – where you should
think carefully about whether and how to
comment on documents.
A case in point is where you as a
surveyor have been asked to comment on
or approve documents. The implications
of approving documents may not be fully
understood, especially by less-experienced
professionals. As a general rule you should
avoid such approvals, as these may make
you liable where liability would otherwise
remain solely with the authors of the
documents. Furthermore, documents
produced by others may simply not
cover aspects of work with which you
are contracted to deal. In such cases you
would need to restrict comments to
matters that affect or impinge on your
input and areas of work.
There is also the question of whether
you have the competence to comment on
the particular subject matter. The default
position should be to avoid commenting
or approving unless there is a clear reason
to do so. At the same time, it is important
not to be seen as fence-sitting in cases
where the client wants and needs some
clear advice: not commenting could,
first, be seen as unhelpful and, second,
be in breach of a contractual obligation
to use reasonable skill and care if there is
something that warrants comment. There
will be circumstances in which you need
to highlight matters that require review
or development whether or not you are
instructed specifically and explicitly to
do so, as this is in the client’s interest.
It is important to keep the following
points in mind.
• If your instructions require you to
comment on or approve documents then
do so, using reasonable skill and care, but
only when it is within your capability. If
necessary, consult with colleagues and try
to reach a collective view.
• Do not be casual with wording: do not
‘approve’ a document unless a client’s
instructions require you specifically to
approve them.
• When you comment on a document,
keep the comment as brief and to the
point as possible, and try to avoid giving
specific instructions on what to change.
Limit comments to, for example, pointing
out where the document falls short of
complying with guidance, legislation or
a contract.
• Once the document has been reviewed,
developed further and reissued to you,
you should comment again as necessary.
Revised documents may not take account
of some of your initial comments and you
should not be shy about repeating them.
When you have no further comments –
and this may involve a number of iterations
– you can explicitly state that you have
‘No further comment’.
• A good general approach is to provide
advice where you can and not to hide
behind professional indemnity insurance
restrictions if at all possible, but at the
same time not to ignore such restrictions.
Ensure that you bring a positive attitude to
your instructions, and think carefully about
wording and express meanings accurately
– these are good general principles in any
professional dealings.
Of course, this is general guidance in
relation to all professional services, and any
particular approach or response will need
to be service-specific. To conclude, be clear
about what you are doing and why, and keep
in mind at all times the possibility that you
could be called on to justify your comments
in a court of law.
Jeffrey Tribich is the founder of Tribich
Consultancy jeffrey.tribich@gmail.com
Related competencies include: Client
care, Inspection
Further information: Thanks are due
to Alex Brown, partner at Hollis, for
contributions and comment for this article.
‘It is important not to be
seen as fence-sitting in
cases where the client
wants and needs some
clear advice’
Legal
Jeffrey Tribich
Hollis
RICS Recruit
Supporting you through
your career journey
Secure your dream job in surveying. As the official RICS job
board, RICS Recruit caters solely to surveyors in land, property
and construction sectors worldwide.
At RICS Recruit we offer a range of opportunities from junior to senior
positions. Whether you are starting out your career or looking to take your
career to the next level, RICS Recruit connects you to the latest surveying
vacancies in your sector.
How RICS Recruit can support you:
• Develop your career – RICS Recruit gives you access
to a wide range of jobs
• High calibre jobs – leading firms choose RICS Recruit
to advertise, giving you the opportunity to access and
apply to the top jobs
• Speed of access – get the best specialist jobs
at your fingertips
• Career support – RICS Recruit supports you by providing content on
how to improve your job hunting experience. Advice on improving your
CV, as well as interview techniques, to ensure you get the job you want.
Find your future job today. Get the RICS Recruit App. Ricsrecruit.com
Recruiters - to recruit the best applicants and to take advantage
of the RICS members package please call Sam or George on
0207 101 2779 or email ricsrecruit@wearesunday.com
20 Journal June/July 2 020
Building surveying Building performance
The efficient, effective and sustainable
operation and maintenance of building
engineering systems ranks among the
biggest costs in real-estate management.
Getting these right is critical to improving
building performance, reducing costs,
and providing a safe and comfortable
environment for building occupants.
But the development of the occupier
market – with social, technological and
economic shifts – demands a reappraisal
of what performance means. There is
an increasing expectation that modern
buildings, whether new-build or existing,
should maximise long-term social value
and customer experience while minimising
environmental impact. This is a challenge
for investors, owners, occupiers and the
communities around them.
Consultancy services for operational
buildings historically focus on technical
advice about the performance of building
materials and services. This advice was
previously limited to building managers, but
those who are involved in the acquisition,
management, occupation and disposal of
assets need to also consider performance in
the terms of their markets, encompassing
occupant well-being, sustainability and
user experience. The market is driving this,
and the advice and discipline of specialists
needs to evolve accordingly.
Whatever their specialism, surveyors
understand the complexity of buildings and
the array of technological, environmental
and social systems that interact with
them across their life cycles. But a new
model of building performance must more
explicitly consider user experience and
workplace well-being alongside established
sustainability metrics and technical due
diligence (TDD). The result should be that
buildings become more people-focused,
predictable and effective in operation,
making them fit for the future.
Much has been written about the
behaviour of building users and what it
means to design places for people. We also
know more than ever about the urgency of
addressing climate change, and the role of
buildings in mitigating and preparing for its
impact. So a better approach to appraising
buildings would need to consider a broader
set of outcomes than technical outputs
alone, to make these into fundamental
performance indicators.
Building design and performance is
historically rated by outputs more than
outcomes with success judged by, for
instance, the right energy performance
This
year’s
model
It is time to put people and
sustainable design higher up
the commercial agenda when it
comes to building performance
Austen Bates
rics.org/ journals 21
To form an holistic view, building owners
must begin by considering broader
objectives for buildings than simple
compliance and certification
certification or BREEAM rating. Judging
outcomes, by contrast, means asking
whether a building will be more resilient
to future climate change impacts, whether
an office will help improve local air quality
or create more local job opportunities,
or whether occupants will be happier
at leisure in one location and more
productive at work in another. These
may not be quantified by a straightforward
certification, but they do have a direct
impact on the future success of a building.
Such questions inform a growing
proportion of TFT’s work with investors
and developers, because of a commercial
agenda linked to market expectations. But
a skills gap across real-estate management
could prevent it answering those questions.
Consultants, engineers, surveyors and
other professions understand the building
fabric and systems, as well as the physical
infrastructure it contains. But they may
lack the soft skills needed to engage with
the people using the building, who rely
on and interact with the physical structure
to make the whole building system work as
it should. Demand is there but the skill set
needs to change.
Holistic performance
Part of our response should be to formalise
these expectations by augmenting a
traditional model of building performance
with new components. An holistic view
of building performance, for example,
puts people-centred and sustainable design
higher up the commercial agenda. It will
also provide engineers with a better basis
for shaping different commercial outcomes
for owners and investors across the life
cycle of a building.
Surveyors and engineers are well aware of
the need for TDD as part of the acquisition,
occupation and disposal of commercial
property. The process provides a means
of informing transactional decisions and
safeguarding investments by focusing on
the building structure, fabric and services.
From a building services perspective,
this will often include a mechanical and
electrical engineer assessing the mechanical,
electrical and vertical transportation
installations and providing a professional
opinion. These surveys are a fundamental
piece of the building puzzle, but can no
longer be separated from the following:
• Environmental sustainability: the aim
should be to ensure that buildings consume
less in the way of non-renewable resources
during operation, and not simply be deemed
to do so by compliance or design alone, as
is typical in building certification today.
• Workplace and well-being: the occupier
market, and therefore the real-estate sector,
is increasingly aware of the relationship
between buildings designed for well-
being and the enhanced performance of
the people and organisations who use
them. In addition, an increase in policy
that promotes well-being, the adoption of
relevant certification by some owners, and
ongoing marketing trends will move the
issue from growing trend to fundamental
building criterion.
• User experience: this and the level of
service in a building are critical to support
its function as well. Sectors are blurring,
and many kinds of business occupier are
being influenced by business areas such as
hospitality, which lives or dies according
to the level of experience it provides. This
approach appears intuitive but is newly
important in a commercial climate of short
leases and fierce competition based on
experience offering. Elevating customer
experience to become part of a building’s
wider performance rather than window
dressing alone can offer a sustainable
commercial advantage.
These three elements are interconnected;
together they drive a realistic, commercially
effective picture of building performance
oriented to long-term occupant and social
benefit. To form an holistic view, building
owners must begin by considering broader
objectives for buildings than simple
compliance and certification. Without this
ground on which to base a strategy, asset
owners and managers will find it impossible
to assess the true and relevant performance
of the building.
Engagement with the building owner,
operator and users will help to shape this.
From there, a more holistic approach can
help carry out the studies to understand
and implement the strategy.
As transactional value is increasingly
driven by market preference for
buildings that offer economic, social
and environmental value, so building
performance value becomes more diverse
than design certification or services
operation. In addition, social media
encourages users to share their experiences
widely and to influence decisions based on
actual experience against a perceived quality
of design.
This will not affect just one transaction,
but represents a sustained trajectory
in rental income, occupancy and yield,
building a picture of properties’ value
when they go to market. Falling short
of these expectations, especially in a
maturing market with competition to
provide what customers want, will mean
underperforming assets face obsolescence.
We need to stop doing what we have
always done or we run the risk that our
existing or new-build assets will not be
fit for purpose in future. With a rapidly
evolving market and occupier base, that
future is getting nearer all the time.
Austen Bates is an associate at TFT
abates@tftconsultants.com
Related competencies include:
Sustainability
1. Stages of the methodology for collecting data for defect analysis
22 Journal June/July 20 20
Building conservation Defects
Historic Digital Survey (HDS) is a research
project that is looking into the ways digital
documentation and data processing can
benefit the maintenance and repair of the
traditional built environment. The project,
conducted by the University of Edinburgh
and Heriot-Watt University in collaboration
with Historic Environment Scotland, aims
to make use of point-cloud data to enable
better monitoring, diagnosis, maintenance
and repair.
Traditional visual approaches to
condition surveys are time-consuming
and still often include incorrect labelling,
misdiagnosis and omission of defects.
This is caused because surveyors differ
in the way they report which is linked
to their experience – or sometimes
inexperience – and the compressed time
frames for completing surveys. Providing
accurate surveys is vitally important,
though, as incorrect identification
and diagnosis of defects can result in
inappropriate interventions that ultimately
undermine the fundamental conservation
objectives they mean to support.
In this context, progressive
implementation of digital documentation
and subsequent application of innovative
data processing tools such as machine
learning (ML) algorithms could transform
surveying, repair and maintenance.
Digital documentation in the form
of laser scanning and photogrammetry
along with bespoke, supervised ML
algorithms could, for instance, benefit
ashlar masonry defect detection. Masonry
constitutes a significant proportion of the
international historic built environment.
In 2018, Historic Environment Scotland
estimated there are 500,000 pre-1919
traditional – or historic – buildings
in Scotland, ostensibly constructed in
masonry and lime-based materials. Repair
and maintenance expenditure for such a
vast amount of buildings is therefore high.
Although there are many forms of
masonry, ashlar is one of the most
prominent around the world, associated
with high-status architecture reflecting
the time and cost associated with its
construction. It is characterised as regular,
square masonry with tight mortar joints of
around 3mm and fine-tooled or polished
visible faces.
Surveying historic ashlar walls
effectively and efficiently is very time-
consuming, given the number of individual
masonry units and the need to label
their individual condition manually.
Furthermore, these surveys are prone to
error as the identification and labelling
of condition and decay mechanism can
be complex, reflecting the variability in
materials, exposure and build quality.
Case study: Stirling Castle chapel
As part of the HDS project, a digital
approach was tested on the main facade
of the Chapel Royal at Stirling Castle. The
castle typifies ashlar masonry construction
and experiences many of the defects
most commonly encountered in natural
stone by surveyors, such as erosion and
discolouration due to salts or moisture.
The chapel, maintained by Historic
Environment Scotland, was built in
1594. It is a category A listed building
and a scheduled ancient monument. The
architectural fenestration of the facade is
characterised by a central doorway, flanked
by coupled columns, and three Romanesque
arched mullioned windows to either side of
the entrance.
The first stage of the survey used digital
documentation technologies to acquire
Digital
detectives
The survey of a historic ashlar wall at Stirling Castle
shows that digital documentation and data processing
technologies can enable conservation professionals
to detect defects automatically and accurately
Alan Forster, Enrique Valero, Frédéric Bosché,
Ewan Hys lop, Lyn W ilson and Aur élie Turm el
Spatial data capture Segmentation
Defect detection
Defect classification
Colour alteration
Material loss
Deposit
rics.org/ journals 23
data on the geometry and colour of the
chapel facade (see Figure 1). Several laser
scans were taken at approximately 10m
from the wall, and a set of photographs
taken to produce a 3D point cloud of the
scene through structure-from-motion
photogrammetric techniques.
Both point clouds, obtained from
terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) and
photogrammetry, were registered in the
same coordinate system (see Figures 2 and
3). Colour information in the TLS cloud was
then automatically replaced with RGB data
from the photogrammetric cloud, as colour
from digital single-lens-reflex cameras
is of higher quality than that captured
by the TLS device.
As a result, the point cloud is
characterised by high-quality geometric
data from TLS and high-quality colour data
from photogrammetry. This point cloud
was then automatically segmented into the
individual ashlar units using a technique
based on the approach detailed on p.31 of
the May/June 2017 edition of the Building
Conservation Journal. The approach has been
implemented as free open-source software
available at bit.ly/CyberbuildLab.
In parallel with this activity, professionals
with expertise in stone defects carried
out a comprehensive survey. This was
reported in a context of stone deterioration
patterns in an attempt to attain a common
understanding of defects that were present.
The survey adopted terminology outlined in
ICOMOS-ISCS: Illustrated glossary on stone
deterioration patterns (bit.ly/Stonegloss).
During the surveying process, primary
masonry defects were identified, including
erosion, delamination, discoloration and
mechanical damage. In broad terms, these
defects reflect the identification of loss
and gain of material and colour change.
Some 500 masonry units were manually
identified and labelled on site, and 650
individual labelled defects were assigned
by means of a tailored graphic user
interface, as seen in Figures 4 and 5.
The labelled defective regions were used
as training data for the ML algorithm.
Critical to any supervised ML algorithm
is its reliance on such inputs, which are fed
in to yield meaningful and accurate labelled
outputs, which should correspond to the
surveyors’ observations. As training data is
only as good as the individual identifying
and creating the inputs, expert surveyors
were hired to collaborate on decisions.
Traditional visual approaches to
condition surveys are time-consuming
and still often include incorrect labelling,
misdiagnosis and omission of defects
2. Point cloud obtaine d from terrestrial laser
scanning
3. Point cloud coloured with photogrammetric
RGB values
4. Segmented ashla r point clo ud of 763 maso nry
units, which were the n proces sed and regions
containing potent ially defe ctive are as were
automatically retrieved and highlighted (Figure 5) 5. Defective areas labelled by s urveyor s
Colour legend
Crack
Delamination
Peeling
Mechanical damage
Deposit
Encrustation
Blistering
Disintegration
Alveolisation
Perfor ation
Discolouration
Biological colonisation
Bursting
Fragmentation
Erosion
Crust
Efflorescence
Combination
24 Journal June/July 20 20
Finally, the trained ML algorithm,
based on a logistic regression model,
was employed to survey the fabric, and
decayed areas affected by both colour-
or geometry-related deteriorations were
detected and automatically classified.
The major defect categories present in the
surveyed facade were erosion, mechanical
damage and discolouration (see Figures
6–8). The algorithm classified erosion
patterns in areas with high moisture load
– for example, at the base of walls – and
areas of high run-off where there are
defective rainwater goods and detailing.
In addition, discolouration was associated
with salts prevalent where the masonry
dries at the base of the wall. Interestingly,
the mechanical damage distribution was
associated with gunshots, because the
palace was at one time used as barracks.
The algorithm achieved an accuracy of 93
per cent in comparison to our meticulous
manual survey conducted by experts. Its
ability to identify specific areas of interest
or defect types helps our understanding of
defect distribution, and therefore diagnosis.
While the approach used at Stirling
offers promising results, we must
nonetheless highlight that the effective
application of statistical models remains
challenging, particularly because algorithms
have to perform well in a general sense and
not just in individual cases. It is clear that
more data is required to test the algorithm,
but that it will improve over time.
The repeatability of these digital surveys
could also herald a paradigm shift in our
capacity to monitor change in historic
building fabric in an interoperable manner.
In addition, the progressive use of data in
point clouds will be more pronounced
as historic BIM is used more widely.
The impact of artificial intelligence on
work, a 2018 survey by the Royal Society
and the British Academy, reflects a fear of
jobs losses; however, the aim of using digital
technologies in the built environment is not
to replace the surveyor but to redirect their
higher-order skills to add value to their
work. This will move surveyors away from
relatively mundane operations and redirect
funds from surveying towards fabric repair
and maintenance intervention.
Dr Alan Forster is associate professor in
building conservation, low-carbon materials
and construction technology in the School of
Energy, Geoscience, Infrastructure and Society
at Heriot-Watt University
a.m.forster@hw.ac.uk
Dr Enrique Valero is a research associate in the
Institute of Infrastructure and Environment
and Dr Frédéric Bosché is senior lecturer in
infrastructure programme management at
the University of Edinburgh
e.valero@ed.ac.uk f.bosche@ed.ac.uk
Dr Ewan Hyslop is head of technical
research and science, Lyn Wilson is a digital
documentation manager and Aurélie Turmel
is conservation science manager at Historic
Environment Scotland
ewan.hyslop@hw.ac.uk
lyn.wilson@hes.scot
aurelie.turmel@hes.scot
Related competencies include:
BIM management
Building conservation accreditation
competencies include:
Diagnosis of defects
Further information: Valero, E., Forster,
A., Bosché, F., Hyslop, E., Wilson, L.
and Turmel, A., 2019. Automated defect
detection and classification in ashlar
masonr y walls using machine learning.
Automation in Construction, 10 6, 10 28 46.
Valero, E., Bosché, F. and Forster, A.,
2018. Automatic segmentation of 3D
point clouds of rubble masonry walls,
and its application to building surveying,
repair and maintenance. Automation in
Construction, 96, pp.29-39.
Building conservation Defects
6. Areas c lassif ied as pote ntially affecte d by erosion
7. Areas classified as potentially affected by mechanical damage
8. Areas classified as potentially affected by discolouration; the lighter rectangles
correspond to more confidently labelled areas
rics.org/ journals 25
Building control Invasive weeds
Never before have invasive weeds cost the environment, economy
and taxpayer more. However, we have every reason to believe we
can manage them better if we follow the trailblazing New Zealand
government-funded model, where conservation dogs are the
number one tool in detecting invasive species. No other method is
nearly as fast, accurate, inexpensive and eco-friendly. The concept
of conservation dogs originates in New Zealand, where these dogs
are considered the primary tool in protecting biodiversity, closely
linked to conservation.
Dogs do not rely on sight to identify invasives as humans do: the
secret is in the snout. Conservation dogs are unsurpassed in finding
infestations early by scent alone. Not only are their noses between
ten and 100,000 times more sensitive than ours, they can work
year-round in Europe’s temperate climate – a big improvement
in efficiency from traditional methods that are season-dependent
for the most part and rely on visual cues.
To understand their potential, it may help to think of other
detection dogs, such as narcotics dogs working in airports. The
Pentagon even used dogs to detect explosives in Afghanistan
after first investing heavily in technologies, and the animals
and their handlers proved far more successful.
Meanwhile, cadaver detection dogs – which are generally part
of a different specialist search and rescue organisation, or charity
called upon by the police – are fastest at locating human remains,
and electronic sensors are still to be optimised to get even remotely
comparable results. We might also think of medical detection dogs,
sniffing out cancer at an early asymptomatic stage.
Nose to the ground
In Japan, knotweed is not invasive and grows in harmony with its
environment, controlled by local insects and fungi. In the mid-19th
century it was introduced into European gardens without its natural
enemies, however, and when left unaddressed is not only a serious
threat to ecosystems, crops, and structures such as bridges and
roads, but it can also have a major adverse impact on the value
of any affected property.
Of all European countries, the extent of the problem is best
understood in the UK. Early detection is key to limit the time,
money, resources and use of herbicide needed to get rid of it.
A study by Dan Jones, managing director of invasive plant species
consultancy, Advanced Invasive, carried out on behalf of Swansea
University, shows that managing Japanese knotweed costs more to
deal with than all other invasives added together (bit.ly/3aP7fnF).
But why is control such a problem? The main issue lies
underground with the rhizome, a tiny fragment of which can
quickly create a new colony. This commonly happens when
landowners or those working in construction move soil containing
traces off site.
In Ireland, conservation dogs are trained to detect small
fragments of Japanese knotweed – any part of the plant, in any
season, even when dormant before it breaks the surface – and
they can do so reliably down to a depth of 1m. Best for such field
work tend to be high-energy rescue dogs, such as mixed breeds like
labradorxbeagle, spanielxlabrador or an active dog that is considered
‘too much dog’ to be a pet. Other than searching sites, dogs in
Ireland are also trained to check truckloads of earth, equipment
and tyres for multiple scents. Dogs are a cost-effective, highly
sensitive and non-invasive way to detect any part of the weed.
They generally find targets up to 40 times faster than is possible
with any other method. Trials show that what five people cover in
eight hours, a dog does better in just one.
Dogs offer results instantly, with near-perfect accuracy. For
terrain that is hard to access or densely overgrown, they can even
work unleashed without a handler. Equipped with Bluetooth GPS
harnesses, they log their stop-and-stare alert, allowing weed
management teams to go in after with exact coordinates of the
infestations. Dogs’ precision therefore greatly reduces the need
for personnel, time and herbicide use.
Conservation dogs are ideal partners for the construction
industry, helping with surveys and site clearance. They complement
and speed up the work of surveyors, developers, ecologists and
researchers in a thorough and cost-effective way.
Helga Heylen is managing director at Conservation Dogs Ireland
helga@conservationdogsireland.ie
Related competencies include: Contaminated land
Working
like a dog
Helga Heylen
Employing dogs is growing in popularity
as a means of tackling invasive weeds
IMAGE © CONSERVATION DOGS IRELAND
26 Journal June/July 20 20
Building control Roofs
Raising
the roof
If roof construction does not follow
the relevant guidance then it can
lead to a number of problems
John Miles
rics.org/ journals 27
The roof is essential to any building: it separates the occupants
below from the elements above, dealing with all weather conditions.
A good roof will last more than a lifetime, and a bad roof can fail
within weeks on being installed. In the UK, pitched roofs are the
most common type because, with the climate, they are far more
effective at shedding water than others such as a flat roof. The
structure can vary depending on the location, material and building
type; however, pitched roof construction is most frequently used
for the main roof to domestic properties.
There are several kinds of pitched roof found in the UK.
• Lean-to or mono-pitch roof: this is the simple form of roof often
used for small extensions. It should only span a short distance due
to the thrust load imposed on the wall plate at the base of the roof.
• Purlin roof: this roof uses a purlin – a horizontal beam – to
support the rafters, and is common on terrace houses.
• King post and struts roof: the king post and the struts offer
additional support along with the purlins, and such a roof is often
used where a larger span is needed.
• Modern truss roofs: these comprise units that are prefabricated
in a factory, and are easy and efficient to install. They have become
the most common roof type in new house construction.
Simple roof design can be undertaken by a surveyor using easily
accessible resources, but complex designs need the support and
guidance of a structural engineer.
Simple roofs in England and Wales follow guidance in Approved
Document A and use Eurocode 5: span tables for solid timber members
in floors, ceilings and roofs for dwellings, fourth edition, published by
the Timber Research and Development Association (TRADA). All
the figures within the TRADA document are based on roofing tiles
or slates laid on timber laths over sarking felt. This guidance details
not only the size of the timber but also the bracing and strapping
for the wall plate and gables, and for various loadings allowed
according to geographical location.
Main defects
We can assess the most common forms of defect by monitoring
statistics from bodies such as the National House Building Council
(NHBC). Claims made to the body are dominated by two elements:
roofing and superstructure. More than 50 per cent of the former
relate to problems with mortar – an issue that NHBC has been
tackling since 2011, culminating in the most recent revisions to
the Code of Practice for Slating and Tiling (CP 142), now enshrined
in BS 5534: 2014 + A2: 2018 Slating and tiling for pitched roofs and
vertical cladding. Code of practice (bit.ly/BS5534-2014).
This has resulted in new and replacement roofs using dry
ridges and eaves as opposed to a mortar-bedded ridge. The
mechanical fixing prevents the ridge tiles becoming loose and
enabling water ingress or becoming dislodged. Although not
mandatory, compliance with BS 5534: 2014 is not only considered
best practice but also provides the strongest legal defence in
the event of failures or disputes, and would be covered by
Building Regulation 7 Materials and Workmanship.
Defects in pitched roofs are normally caused by three
main factors: poor design, damp penetration, and failure
of the roof covering. Other key issues include the following.
• Inadequately sized roof members: the TRADA tables give
guidance on roof member sizes and spacing, however, care needs
to be taken by designers and contractors to ensure the right size
has been selected. Building control surveyors should check the
size of the timbers on site and that structural timbers are marked,
stating the structural classification, which is either C16 (a lower
strength timber) or C24 (higher strength timber). Failure to select
the correct one may lead to roof member deflection once under
load. When undertaking re-roofing works, it is essential to check
the existing roof structure to ensure it can take the additional load
if a new type of covering is replacing it.
• Overloading of the roof: heavier roof coverings are often used
when a roof is replaced, a common example being when lighter
slate roofs are replaced with much heavier concrete tiles The
original roof may have been designed for slate and would not
be able to support the additional load without modifications
designed with the help of a structural engineer.
• Roof spread: this can occur when there is no lateral support
to the roof. Traditional roofs with inherent purlins and a ridge
beam have some lateral support as these elements are built into
the surrounding wall structure. In trussed roofs, this support
relies on galvanised steel restraint straps. It is essential these
are installed since they add strength to the roof and their
omission can cause the roof to move and the gable to
become unstable.
• Condensation or cold bridging: this is normally caused by
inadequate ventilation and insufficient insulation, and occurs
predominantly when a roof is altered to enable a loft conversion.
To prevent this, contractors must ensure that insulation is
placed with a sufficient air gap to allow the roof to ventilate
while remaining continuous around the occupied, conditioned
spaces. Sufficient ventilation should also be provided to
1. A poorly des igned roof structure juncti on
IMAGE © JOHN M ILES
28 Journal June/July 20 20
Building control Roofs
the soffit of the roof. (For guidance refer to BS 5250: 2011
Code of practice for control of condensation in buildings.)
• Inadequate pitch: this is a common occurrence on lean-to
extensions, as people wish to maximise the size of the extension
under permitted development rights. These limit the height of the
roof, which in turn limits the pitch; most modern roof tiles need
a pitch of 18°, and slate tiles need a pitch in excess of 20°. Any
roof covering needs to be installed according to its type and size,
the pitch, the size of the lap, and the site’s exposure rating; further
guidance should be sought from manufacturers and BS 5534: 2014.
One example of poor construction can be seen in picture 1 on
page 27, showing a roof that has a dormer formed. When the roof
was constructed it wasn’t set out correctly, which led to the wall
plate being positioned incorrectly and alterations needed to the
top course of masonry. It also shows that the junction of the roof
and the dormer was poorly set out. Remedial work was required, at
this stage this would be to remove and reset the timber work, or to
obtain a structural engineer’s assessment to ascertain that the roof
was structurally sound.
A second example (see picture 2 below) shows a poorly designed
dormer with insufficient batten trimming around the dormer
construction. This was picked up on site by the surveyor, and the
contractor was asked to provide an arrangement in accordance with
the requirements of the TRADA tables and the design made by the
structural engineer.
Competency evidence
The processes discussed above and the assessment of the design,
risks and remedial work count as evidence towards the following
competencies on the Building Control pathway of the APC.
• Building control inspections: if the work involves site
inspections to ensure that installations meet relevant performance
requirements, and also entails the ability to observe, assess and
take action against contraventions on site, then it would normally
demonstrate Level 2 of the competency. Where remedial works
are required and reasoned advice is provided, the candidate could
achieve Level 3.
• Building pathology: by understanding defects analysis and
explaining building fabric failure to identify potential risks, to
offer advice, and to highlight, for example, incorrect drainage
installations, drainage failure and its causes, as well as the remedial
works required, the candidate can demonstrate achievement of
Level 3.
• Construction technology and environmental services: work
can be used to show understanding of the design and construction
process and being aware of construction solutions to problems.
• Works progress and quality management: work can demonstrate
knowledge of construction technology techniques and their
relevance on site.
While roof construction can appear simple, defects can soon
occur if the design and construction is not properly considered.
Surveyors should understand timber loadings, spans and the pitch
requirements of various materials when designing roofs. They
should also take this knowledge to site to ensure that the specified
components are installed on site and any incorrect working
practices are identified.
John Miles MRICS is a technical and business development manager
at Assent Building Control johnmiles@assentbc.co.uk
Related competencies include:
Building control inspections, Building pathology, Construction
technology and environmental services
Simple roof design can be
undertaken by a surveyor using
easily accessible resources,
but complex designs need
the support and guidance
of a structural engineer
2. Structural deficiencies in a dormer construction
IMAGE © JOHN M ILES
30 Journal June/July 20 20
Building surveying Careers
A rounded
education
Jordanne Wilson
Whether working on projects or her studies, one trainee
building surveyor has seen success in a variety of different
areas, as the fifth in our series on apprenticeships explains
Recently, my workload and projects have
been immensely diverse. They have
ranged from reviewing the leases of 85
logistics properties, in order to ascertain
the landlord’s exact insuring obligation
and liability, to the early stages of a new
roofing project for a large multi-let office
facility. I have also been involved with
preparing multiple contract documents on
a number of projects, including a car park
refurbishment and landlord improvement
works to a retail park unit.
The project mentioned in my previous
article regarding a burst water main
underneath a high street retail unit has
also finally drawn to a close. It was
something of a learning curve given
the elusiveness of the leaks and the
perseverance sometimes required when
diagnosing defects. The project also
provided unforeseen opportunities for
collaboration with consultants and utilities
companies, allowing me to develop my
competency in building pathology as well.
I have continued to work on planned
maintenance programmes to improve my
experience and, in several instances, moved
on to review premises with property and
facilities managers. Doing so has enabled
me to view maintenance and repair work
from both a commercial and a landlord’s
perspective, and has given me an insight
into how I can improve the information
and reports I provide in future to fulfil
the client’s needs.
I have also identified licences for
alteration as an area in which I want to
gain more experience. As a result, I was
quickly able to get involved in a few
instructions, one being a retrospective
licence to install a mezzanine and another
for an incoming tenant’s fit-out works.
The latter conveniently tied in with
certifying the same tenant’s dilapidations
works for a previous unit, on which I also
prepared the schedule of dilapidations.
I have spent some time revising my
knowledge of measurement standards by
comparing and contrasting gross internal
area (GIA) as described in the RICS Code
of Measuring Practice sixth edition and
International Property Measurement
Standards (IPMS) 2: Retail, in order to
determine the differences between the two,
and how this relates to the measurement
methodology used for reinstatement
cost assessments. While the differences
between the two standards are minimal,
there are some stipulations made in the
IPMS that are not addressed in GIA and
vice versa, which are important to note
when undertaking measured surveys and
reinstatement cost assessments.
At the time of writing, I have also just
finished the first semester of the second
year of my degree with Birmingham City
University, which came and went far
too quickly. However, it culminated in
the successful submission of my Built
Environment Technology 1 assignment,
for which I was awarded a first – my
highest grade yet – scoring 89 out of
100, which I was thrilled about.
Perhaps even more exciting are my
final two modules for the year: Design
& Surveying Skills and Professional
Environmental and Materials Science.
The former has seen me pick up my pencils,
something I haven’t done since GCSE art,
to learn hand and orthogonal drawing skills
and observational measurement. I have
enjoyed this immensely and I feel it has
already influenced and improved the way I
record my site notes. The latter encourages
innovation and curiosity about materials
and technology and the way various design
aspects such as thermal comfort and light
affect a building and its occupiers. I am
especially looking forward to the showcase
at the end of the semester in which my
group and I will exhibit what we have learnt
in whatever imaginative way we choose.
A recent CPD event held by Eversheds,
which provided an update on case law in
2019, was another highlight and brought
some interesting modern cases to the fore,
including Fearn v The Board of Trustees of
the Tate Gallery [2019] EWHC 246 (Ch)
and Neocleous v Rees [2019] EWHC 2462
(Ch). I also had the privilege of sitting on a
round-table discussion for the March 2019
edition of Modus, which discussed whether
there was a disconnect between surveying
degree courses and the requirements of
the profession. I personally feel that this is
not the case, but I encourage people to read
the discussion online in full as many great
points were raised (rics.org/thegoodissue).
Jordanne Wilson is an apprentice building
surveyor at Savills
jordanne.wilson@savills.com
Icynene
the spray-foam
thermal blanket
A well-insulated building means a healthier,
quieter and more energy e icient environment
with better comfort levels, lower heating bills
and a reduced carbon footprint. And nothing
does a better job of insulation than Icynene –
the first name in spray foam insulation.
Icynene expands 100-fold when applied,
sealing all gaps, service holes and hard to
reach spaces, completely eliminating cold
bridging and helping reduce energy bills.
What’s more its open cell structure lets the
building breathe naturally.
Icynene. It’s the modern way to insulate
buildings, old and new.
For more information on the benefi ts of
Icynene visit icynene.co.uk
Certifi cate No
08/4598
CE Mark
Approval
ISO 9001 Accepted
LionHeart is here for the
ones you leave behind too
LionHeart is here for all RICS professionals
and their loved ones whatever issues they
face – whether that’s support through ill-health,
a bereavement, work or money worries.
LionHeart is an independent charity and
doesn’t receive any grant funding. We rely on
donations to continue helping people just like
you, when they need it most.
A gift to LionHeart in your will can make a real
di erence to the lives of future generations of
surveyors and their families.
Would you consider leaving 1% of your estate to
us in your will to help us make that di erence?
To fi nd out more, please get in
touch with our fundraiser Carolyn
McDonald on 0121 289 3300 or
email cmcdonald@lionheart.org.uk.
Registered Charity No 261245
Registered o ce: 55 Colmore Row,
Birmingham, B3 2AA