Our response to Dyfrigs blog, re performance gap.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again; The biggest reason for the performance gap is a total lack of policing or education on building sites.
BCOs a complete waste of space for policing.
Time and time again I have done assessments only to find that the house doesn’t comply, (though the build is finished) so I advise the builder to speak to BCO only for them to come back and say the BCO only wants the EPC, ie not bothered about the compliance report. They get the EPC, box ticked, irrespective of whether or not Part L is passed.
And part of the problem was meant to have been addressed with the last changes in 2010, the requirement to get SAP calcs at design stage. So many builders, especially those building >3 houses per time, don’t have a clue about Part L. Mention ACDs for example, and many just don’t know what you are talking about. Fair enough, they are builders by trade, not SAP assessors/ architects, etc. But if there was some way of ensuring that the developer DOES get a SAP done at design, we, in our roles, could educate them as to what is required. That doesn’t happen though, again, lack of policing. It appears they get given consent without a design stage calc and off they go. 12 months later the house doesn’t comply and all the BCO is interested in is getting the EPC to put in his file.
Until they can properly address the issue of policing and controlling what actually happens on building sites, there is no point in increasing the demands through SAP, all that does is put more pressure on the OCDEA and leading to corners being cut, such as accepting evidence though you suspect the evidence is just the builder saying what you want to hear.
Sadly in these days of economic pressures I can’t see Govt putting any pressure on LAs to do anything with BCOs, so many in the industry will carry on seeing a SAP assessment as nothing more than a minor inconvenience.