Structural assessment of roofs for PV - Building control approval

[rt1200]

Please see attached pdf guidance note relating to the structural assessment of roofs prior to fitting PV arrays and the requirement for Building Control Appproval, if you are not registered as a competent person/body in the CPS scheme. MSC is not CPS. I hope you will find this useful as it is fact and not just someones opinion!

In summary many if not most PV arrays will require a structural assessment of the existing roof, or the proposed new roof to ascertain that if it can safely take the loadings. Many local building control officers are struggling to come to terms with what this means and its implications. They are not competent themselves and will/should ask for a structural engineers report. Some appear to be confused and talk only of the electrical installation. Nevertheless, as you will see in the attachment, it does relate to structural stability. Under the CPS scheme a competent person would virtually have to be a structural engineer to properly assess.

The bottom line is that a structural engineer is required whether you are CPS or apply for Building control approval via a building notice. Incidentally, the cost of the LA approval is related to the work itself. NOT ALL the work - just that related to strengthening the roof, so in most circumstances it shouldnt be hundreds of pounds. View attachment 6798View attachment 6798

 

[TedM]

I note that the document was written on 6th May 2011. I wonder where it's been hiding for the past 2.5 months.

It also seems less than totally definitive - still allowing an assessment to be made as to whether the 15% limit is exceeded or not. 15% itself is only a rule of thumb, as are all the 'guidelines' in the Building Regs.

And leaving some doubt as to which CPS does cover Part A or not seems inadequate. Part P schemes are a CPS without any doubt even if the double-talk around MCS accreditation says that they are not. Are there any PV installers who are not also in a Part P scheme?

The part that it does seem to clarify is that a Part A application is only required when strengthening work is carried out to a roof and that work is based on an engineers report that is only required if the 15% limit is exceeded - and that any BR fee is based only on the cost of the strengthening work and not the total job cost. That, at least, is useful.

 

[BruceB]

I note that the document was written on 6th May 2011. I wonder where it's been hiding for the past 2.5 months.

It has been in the hands of all the Building Control Bodies and the registration bodies since then and is what was informing the views of the BCBs. I was slipped a copy in early Jun, but my registration body did not want to be seen to be publically releasing it as it was not theirs to release. It does irritate me when quasi public bodies that effectively we as the public have funded do not place stuff like this in the public domain.

But at least some BCBs are behaving properly now. I finally received in the post yesterday a cheque for £273 from my local council as a refund of a Building Notice fee from March that I should not have been required to submit, because they have acknowledged I can self certify . Sadly, I am passing it onto my client although I did the work in recovering it.

Regards
Bruce

 

[rt1200]

I note that the document was written on 6th May 2011. I wonder where it's been hiding for the past 2.5 months.

It also seems less than totally definitive - still allowing an assessment to be made as to whether the 15% limit is exceeded or not. 15% itself is only a rule of thumb, as are all the 'guidelines' in the Building Regs.

And leaving some doubt as to which CPS does cover Part A or not seems inadequate. Part P schemes are a CPS without any doubt even if the double-talk around MCS accreditation says that they are not. Are there any PV installers who are not also in a Part P scheme?

The part that it does seem to clarify is that a Part A application is only required when strengthening work is carried out to a roof and that work is based on an engineers report that is only required if the 15% limit is exceeded - and that any BR fee is based only on the cost of the strengthening work and not the total job cost. That, at least, is useful.

To be fair its been out there. Its just knowing there may be an implication and knowing where to look for guidance, which I guess is where the competence comes in. Please dont take that the wrong way -Im trying to be helpful.
I would forget all about minimum standards here and whether its 1% either side of 15% or not. We all know that Building regs are minimum requirements and many of us exceed them out of choice. The bottom line is this, the installer is responsible for ensuring the structure will take the loadings. If you install a PV array and the roof subsequently fails you may well find yourself liable for rectification works, which can be very expensive and potentially damaging to your good name. I believe the statute of limitations for contracts not under seal is 6 years?
Regards,

 

[Fitstart]

Is there something similar for Scotland?

I ask as a potential buyer of a Solar PV system, as I am getting conflicting information on Building Control requirements and whether the cost is related to the total cost of the installation or only the fittings for the panels.

 

[dansk]

That document has been in the members download area on NAPIT for a wee while.

 

[rt1200]

I note that the document was written on 6th May 2011. I wonder where it's been hiding for the past 2.5 months.

It also seems less than totally definitive - still allowing an assessment to be made as to whether the 15% limit is exceeded or not. 15% itself is only a rule of thumb, as are all the 'guidelines' in the Building Regs.

And leaving some doubt as to which CPS does cover Part A or not seems inadequate. Part P schemes are a CPS without any doubt even if the double-talk around MCS accreditation says that they are not. Are there any PV installers who are not also in a Part P scheme?

The part that it does seem to clarify is that a Part A application is only required when strengthening work is carried out to a roof and that work is based on an engineers report that is only required if the 15% limit is exceeded - and that any BR fee is based only on the cost of the strengthening work and not the total job cost. That, at least, is useful.

Ted I just read your reply again, (this time properly!), and would like to clarify something, mainly for others, please. Part A applies if you plan to increase the loading on a roof by 15% or more. I believe this is over the area of coverage per M2 and not total roof loading. Once the regs apply BC will ask for an engineers report. If he/she confirms the roof is ok, with calcs, to accept the additional load - OK. If it doesnt the work to upgrade the roof, once approved, may be inspected for conformity by BC. However, as the document alludes to, the roof and its constituent materials may not be of the best quality and it may have been altered in the past, or suffered decay, thus reducing it strength. Indeed, many roofs have already seen an increase such as a change in roof coverings E.G. from slate to concrete interlocking tiles. I see many roofs which are displaying subtle or even major signs of stress and this is before an Array is added. Therefore 15% or more and you MUST have the structure checked BUT, it would seem sensible to have the roof inspected if it is very close to 15% or if there are any concerns whatsover. For me concerns would include but not be limited to: any evidence of decay or infestation, any previous structural alterations such as dormers, loft conversions, removal of chimneys, replacement or removal of significant members, changes in roof coverings, signs of stress to either the roof itself or the building generally. I strongly believe that the persons undertaking site surveys on behalf of PV companies should be qualified, experienced, (in the building type), engineers or surveyors. I know many roofers who are excellent roofers but, with the greatest respect, they are not engineers or surveyors. I hope this is of some help to persons reading my original post with queries.
Regards

 

[rt1200]

Is there something similar for Scotland?

I ask as a potential buyer of a Solar PV system, as I am getting conflicting information on Building Control requirements and whether the cost is related to the total cost of the installation or only the fittings for the panels.

The regs in Scotland may be different. Quite often they are more demanding. Best ask your area building control officer. Regarding fees, again there might be a slight difference in Scotland but down here its based on the cost of the work - the roof structural upgrading work. It should be much less if its just to issue a cert saying the array conforms following an inspection. Most of their costs will be in looking at plans or specifications and site visits.

 

[Fitstart]

Many thanks, I am told it varies from region to region as well. In Fife they are trying to charge about £350! (For ticking a box). Money making exercise. (You still have to pay for a structural report on top of that).

 

[rt1200]

Many thanks, I am told it varies from region to region as well. In Fife they are trying to charge about £350! (For ticking a box). Money making exercise. (You still have to pay for a structural report on top of that).

Just because they say its this much doesnt mean you have to accept it as gospel. As long as your polite, you can challenge it. They should all be working to a fee structure and should be able to explain how they arrive at their fees. As I said before, BC are confused about this. They are NOT certifying the whole installation so the fees should not be based on the total cost - only a part.
Not sure if its the same up there but down here there are private companies undertaking the building control function too and it might be worthwhile calling them?
regards,

 

[Fitstart]

Thanks again. So far one potential installer has said I don't need a building warrant, another says I do and it will be £350 based on total cost, and a third says it will be less because it is just the part that supports the panels that it should be costed on. It is totally confusing to the consumer and BC.

 

[SRE]

Please see attached pdf guidance note relating to the structural assessment of roofs prior to fitting PV arrays and the requirement for Building Control Appproval, if you are not registered as a competent person/body in the CPS scheme. MSC is not CPS. I hope you will find this useful as it is fact and not just someones opinion!

In summary many if not most PV arrays will require a structural assessment of the existing roof, or the proposed new roof to ascertain that if it can safely take the loadings. Many local building control officers are struggling to come to terms with what this means and its implications. They are not competent themselves and will/should ask for a structural engineers report. Some appear to be confused and talk only of the electrical installation. Nevertheless, as you will see in the attachment, it does relate to structural stability. Under the CPS scheme a competent person would virtually have to be a structural engineer to properly assess.

The bottom line is that a structural engineer is required whether you are CPS or apply for Building control approval via a building notice. Incidentally, the cost of the LA approval is related to the work itself. NOT ALL the work - just that related to strengthening the roof, so in most circumstances it shouldnt be hundreds of pounds. View attachment 6798View attachment 6798

This has been on the forum a couple of times and the attached document is flawed - it's been pointed out to LABC who issued it but they've ignored the inaccuracies. CLG, LABC and the CPS operators met on July 11th and agreed that CPS does cover Part A, C where appropriate and of course P. Our BC officers are now refunding all the householders that they have charged for BC inlcuding the LA that kicked all of this off a couple of months ago. That's not a matter of opinion but a result of a meeting of all relevant parties a fortnight ago.

How the CPS operators assess installers is a different question, watch out those of you who have looked at a roof and given it the ok without having the calcs done or an assessment by a structural engineer - on surveillance visits I reckon they are going to be asking for proof going back several months.

 

[rt1200]

This has been on the forum a couple of times and the attached document is flawed - it's been pointed out to LABC who issued it but they've ignored the inaccuracies. CLG, LABC and the CPS operators met on July 11th and agreed that CPS does cover Part A, C where appropriate and of course P. Our BC officers are now refunding all the householders that they have charged for BC inlcuding the LA that kicked all of this off a couple of months ago. That's not a matter of opinion but a result of a meeting of all relevant parties a fortnight ago.

How the CPS operators assess installers is a different question, watch out those of you who have looked at a roof and given it the ok without having the calcs done or an assessment by a structural engineer - on surveillance visits I reckon they are going to be asking for proof going back several months.

SRE I would respectfully suggest that you may have confused the issue. (I did emphasise that individual BCO's are confused about this themselves also about when, if and how much to charge). Im not saying your wrong but its not the document that's the issue but its interpretation - what we are saying in summary seems to be virtually the same.

Please let me clarify further. The document clearly states that "CPS membership allows installers to assess whether compliance with Part A will be achieved". It also states, quite rightly that "not all CPS scheme operators encompass Part A issues". additionally it correctly quotes from Approved Document A which "gives guidance on achieving compliance with this aspect and suggests that additional loading to a roof structure would constitute a material alteration if the loading to the roof is increased by 15% or more". This is correct.

My point was that the vast majority of roofers and electricians are unlikely to be competent to assess the structural integrity of roofs and the effects of dead and imposed loading. This is the competence of a qualified structural engineer who's professional indemnity insurance covers them for such caculations and the provision of related advice. With this in mind I would repeat my previous advice, (the essence of the point I was trying to make), with which you appear to agree: "The bottom line is that a structural engineer is required".

Incidentally, if there is a structural failure as a result of additional loadings, and it can be shown that negligence occured because a proper assessment was not undertaken and a reasonable assessment would have been expected to have foreseen the likely consequences, its quite probable that the installer will be sued for damages. Furthermore, if a roofer or electrician, or structural engineer for that matter, assesses a roof for increased loadings and the roof subsequently fails they too are likely to be sued. The difference is that the structural engineer will/should have insurance to cover the liability. Lastly, forget surveillance visits for several months - your legal liability for damages remains for a minimum of 6 years. If others reading this are still unsure about these issues, dont ask your LABC, ask a solicitor.
Regards,

 

[rt1200]

It has been in the hands of all the Building Control Bodies and the registration bodies since then and is what was informing the views of the BCBs. I was slipped a copy in early Jun, but my registration body did not want to be seen to be publically releasing it as it was not theirs to release. It does irritate me when quasi public bodies that effectively we as the public have funded do not place stuff like this in the public domain.

But at least some BCBs are behaving properly now. I finally received in the post yesterday a cheque for £273 from my local council as a refund of a Building Notice fee from March that I should not have been required to submit, because they have acknowledged I can self certify . Sadly, I am passing it onto my client although I did the work in recovering it.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce
out of interest was the self certification you refer to for the electrical installation? Im assuming it is. Some of them really are confused! Asking for fees when they are not entitled and forgetting to advise when they should be. E.G Part A.
Regards,

 

[rt1200]

It has been in the hands of all the Building Control Bodies and the registration bodies since then and is what was informing the views of the BCBs. I was slipped a copy in early Jun, but my registration body did not want to be seen to be publically releasing it as it was not theirs to release. It does irritate me when quasi public bodies that effectively we as the public have funded do not place stuff like this in the public domain. <br>
<br>
But at least some BCBs are behaving properly now. I finally received in the post yesterday a cheque for £273 from my local council as a refund of a Building Notice fee from March that I should not have been required to submit, because they have acknowledged I can self certify . Sadly, I am passing it onto my client although I did the work in recovering it.<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
Bruce

<br><br>Bruce<br> out of interest was the self certification you refer to for the electrical installation? Im assuming it is. Some of them really are confused! Asking for fees when they are not entitled and forgetting to advise when they should be. E.G Part A. <br>Regards,<br>