Building Control Approval for Solar PV Installations

[SRE]

I have been onto elecsa today , and explained the situation that some LABC are not accepting Nic's MCS accreditation for self certification of Part A (i think) Structural.
The Guy i spoke to assured me that we will be able to fully sign off the installs and they will inform building control on for us as they look to see if you have complied with Part A, Part C and Part P fully.

I'm interested to see hear if anyone has had any problems with building control and elecsa ( Hope Not ).

From now on i think we will use a structural engineer on all our installs as it is a minor cost compared to what the customer is outlying, and i'm sure they will appreciate the extra effort that out company goes to.

V

LABC National Technical Policy Manager - NICEIC and ELECSA not competent!!!!!!!!! Have it in an email today from him.

 

[TedM]

Hmmm. As far as I can see any Building Notice required under Part A would be for notifying that strengthening works are to be or have been carried out on a roof - as a result of a structural survey.

There is no need to notify LABC that a roof is simply being assessed as to its suitability to carry a higher load or that a higher load is being imposed - with no need to strengthen it.

And I agree with Bruce that any building work that is associated with Part P work (which is what a PV install is as far as the Building Regs are concerned) is automatically covered by the Part P CPS self-certification - irrespective of what NICEIC, NAPIT or anyone else says. This is written into the Building Regs legislation and has been since day 1 of Part P.

As far as the legislation is concerned, if you are competent to self-certify for the Part P work then you are also considered competent for all the other work carried out at the same time and, as far as the LABC should be concerned, is covered by the same self-certification.

 

[VMan]

LABC National Technical Policy Manager - NICEIC and ELECSA not competent!!!!!!!!! Have it in an email today from him.

hmmm, how annoying, any chance you could forward me the e-mail if i pm you my email address?

 

[SRE]

Yep, no problem.

 

[LABCman]

Thanks for the lesson in B Regs BruceB - I am familiar with the requirements of Regulation 20 and its associated Schedule 3. Unfortunately the MCS industry does not appear to be so well informed. As I stated above the inspecting bodies are not helpful, for instance NICEIC recommend that installers contact building control to see what their requirements are rather than just saying get on with the work as CS schemes cover all associated building works (less constructing a chimney). We receive frequent applications from national companies installing PV systems even though they are covered by MCS scheme membership. It would appear that they are nervous of the structural implications of applying point loads to roof structures not meant to take them.

I would advise all installers to make absolutely sure that their insurance covers the structural failure of a roof either through their scheme or directly

 

[SRE]

Thanks for the lesson in B Regs BruceB

I'm not sure the sarcasm is helpful LABCman???

What puzzles me is how Building Control Officers without the required qualifications to assess the impact on roof structures can oversee structural engineer's calculations? I'm not point scoring or trying to be provocative -but it's a bit like me overseeing Jamie Oliver when he makes a meal - I understand the principles but don't have the qualifications, experience or insurance to deliver the goods. I think Jamie Olivers customers would be sorely disappointed with my offerings

Speaking personally - all I want is parity and fairness and I'm sure that most BC Officers want the same.

 

[BruceB]

Thanks for the lesson in B Regs BruceB - I am familiar with the requirements of Regulation 20 and its associated Schedule 3.....................

I am sure you are familiar with it or you would not have raised your head above the parapet here. I am glad we have someone from your side of the house here. It seems fairly clear from the dealings I have had with more than one BCB that they either were not aware of the Oct 10 legislation or had not understood it or had decided they would not apply it for some reason. I have read much legislation over the years and it seems unequivocal to me. My question was a genuine one - what legislative authority do BCBs think they have for ignoring it? Until recently many have been. As I stated elsewhere, one BCB locally has agreed to cancel a building notice they wrongly advised me to submit and refund the fee.

Regards
Bruce

 

[LABCman]

........................ As I stated elsewhere, one BCB locally has agreed to cancel a building notice they wrongly advised me to submit and refund the fee..........

Any member of a relevent competent persons scheme should decline requests from a building control body requesting an application for works under Schedule 3. If the Local Authority decides to prosecute then the CP body can assist the installer in pointing out the error of their ways.

That said even today NICEIC (MCS scheme technical dept 9.05 this morning) is advising installers to contact building control, why do they not advise installers to get on with the job and ignore building control - perhaps they are worried that their testing procedure for judging the competence of installers to assess the structural stability of a roof is inadequate (I am not party to their test regime so I don't know I am just thinking out loud)

 

[SRE]

Any member of a relevent competent persons scheme should decline requests from a building control body requesting an application for works under Schedule 3. If the Local Authority decides to prosecute then the CP body can assist the installer in pointing out the error of their ways.

(I am not party to their test regime so I don't know I am just thinking out loud)

I am - and it's the same if not more rigorous than Napit!

 

[BruceB]

Any member of a relevent competent persons scheme should decline requests from a building control body requesting an application for works under Schedule 3. If the Local Authority decides to prosecute then the CP body can assist the installer in pointing out the error of their ways.

Whilst I agree with that sentiment, I suggest the reality with most tradesmen is that it simply will not happen. They have not got the time nor experience to go to source legislation and understand it well enough to win any argument with BC. As far as they are concerned BC are gods in their realm with the power to cripple a business. A tradesman simply will not take the risk of going against what BC say. They will just say to their customer BC says x and it will cost £y. The customer believes it and pays up. Job sorted - move onto the next one. No come back on the trademan. And the confusion continues.

I think LABC should be putting out clear guidance to BCBs and to the public. The FAQ here is outrageous in my opinion:
LABC - Frequently asked questions
In particular where it says," ..........generally I would have to say that strict interpretation would require approval under the Building Regulations."

Regards
Bruce

Just to add I am not NICEIC registered and cannot explain why they are doing what they are. I have said before I think they shot themselves in the foot. Sadly, they seem to have the rifle on automatic and have not let go of the trigger.

 

[LABCman]

Bruce,

All I can say is what is the CP scheme for? surely they should be making it clear to their members exactly where they stand in relation to BC. As for the LABC guidance in their FAQ you should be aware that it makes the point about CP schemes clear

At present some Competent Persons Schemes administrators do require their members to address all relevant aspects of Building Regulations if they are to take advantage of the Competent Persons Scheme (CPS). However LABC is aware that many CPS do not encompass resolution of roof structural issues. In which case an application would need to be made for Building Regulations approval for the structural issues with the electrical part being covered by the Competent Persons Scheme.

which is why they give the advice they do. The CP schemes need to get their act together

 

[BruceB]

Well I think we can agree the CP shchemes need to get their act together, although I have no complaint about my own in this regard. I know the MD of Napit Certification Limited has been working for months on this with LABC and others.
Regards
Bruce

 

[SRE]

At the risk of repeating myself I don't think LABCman has answered the following:

"What puzzles me is how Building Control Officers without the required qualifications to assess the impact on roof structures can oversee structural engineer's calculations?"

 

[SRE]

Latest update:

Meeting yesterday in London including LABC, CLG and a number of CPS operators confirmed that CPS operators do cover all areas related to the installation of renewables.

 

[VMan]

Excellent news!!