Summary
• The government’s Plan for Growth sees benefits in standardisation.
• It also calls for 20% cost cutting.
• There is a need for government to bring innovators, standard-makers and technical bodies together.
• Different regulations for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland create problems.

The government’s Plan for Growth, which was announced in March, heralds a construction procurement review, calls for 20% cost-cutting and sees benefits in “standardisation rather than bespoke design”.

Yet it still asks companies to come forward with “innovative solutions”. How are timber industry leaders responding to the Plan’s outline for construction growth, and what changes would they make?

Stewart Milne Timber Systems’ managing director, Ron Easton, thinks the Plan’s initial targets are laudable, but without clear and pragmatic plans in place to deliver the objectives, there’s a danger of being hasty in the desire to achieve them.

“Government could play a role in bringing together all the innovators, standard-makers and technical bodies to make a step change in future construction,” he said. “Many of us are working in silos: it would make economic sense to bring all the science together.

“Timber frame can already meet Code level 6 [of the Code for Sustainable Homes] with ease,” he continued. “Further innovation will come through a thousand small changes – such as the small alterations to our jointing procedures which have massively increased building airtightness performance. In addition to our in-house team, we work with many seed technology companies on R&D. We’re working with alternative sheet materials that improve thermal performance, on improving utilisation of UK-grown timber, and working with a range of suppliers on improving the environmental impact of materials.”

On the procurement process, Mr Easton feels practices need to be improved if costs are to be cut. “So many ‘interests’ must be satisfied, from providing a level playing field between materials and between companies, to obtaining value for money for the public purse,” he said. “In an OJEU [Official Journal of the EU]-compliant procurement process, it can be three to four years before work actually starts on site.”

Increasing complexity

At Kingspan-Potton, technical director Paul Newman thinks complexity in obtaining ‘best value’ in construction procurement will increase further as building performance standards rise. “As a business, we need to know from regulators the direction and speed of travel, and where we’re likely to arrive, and thus to have confidence to invest for the future,” he said.

“We need as much foresight as possible. We’re hoping for this with the review of the Building Regulations’ Part L, now kicking off towards a 2013 deadline. Regulators need to acknowledge and understand the intertwined nature of various standards, especially those relating to timber, and in particular the inter-relationship between thermal, structural, fire and acoustic standards.

“It’s inevitable that life cycle analysis methods will be introduced, but before we get to that stage harmonisation of life cycle analysis calculation methods across all construction materials is essential,” he said.

Brian Robertson, general manager at James Jones & Sons Ltd, believes the Plan’s review of construction standards is long overdue. “Government needs to look at the way building standards are organised in the UK,” he said. “Different regulations for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland currently create problems.”

Ross Brown, the company’s engineering manager, agrees. “Additional requirements such as the Code for Sustainable Homes and Lifetime Homes in England should be brought into the Building Regulations,” he said. “In our design processes, particularly on more complex projects, a multitude of documents from organisations with differing agendas must be consulted, and often provide conflicting advice.”

Fixing the goalposts

“It would help if goalposts were more firmly fixed,” added Brian Robertson. “There’s an aura of mistrust and ambiguity surrounding life cycle analysis of materials. Timber’s environmental and carbon sequestration credentials should be recognised in the context of other materials, allowing builders and specifiers to meet the demands of the low carbon economy in a simple and cost-effective manner.”

Translating the potential ‘good news’ of the Plan’s proposed ‘Green Deal’ retrofit scheme into benefits to householders, work for local builders, and thus to business opportunities for the timber sector, concerns members of the Federation of Master Builders. “If small builders are excluded from Green Deal financing options, then retrofit opportunities will be lost when clients are having non-Green Deal work done on their properties,” said Brian Berry, director of external affairs.

“SMEs need to be able to draw down Green Deal finance, otherwise the drive towards a low carbon environment will be further delayed by fewer clients embarking on such work in the first place.”

Whether the Plan for Growth’s many strands can be brought together in time for the 2012 Budget remains to be seen. However, these players all foresee commercial benefits in reducing complexity and moving towards standardisation in the assessment of buildings’ and materials’ performance.