Gwynne Anthony 2020

ART506 Dissertation 2019. Anthony Gwynne . 51 To clarify this statement, the Approved Documents (see Par 3.3.1 (iii) above) does allow for certain exemptions of historic and traditional buildings. Special considerations apply to traditional construction with permeable fabric that both absorbs and readily allows the evaporation of moisture. This allows building control to require special considerations. In support of these special considerations, section 35 of the Building Act (see Par 3.3.1 (i) above) states ‘breaches of the Building Regulations are a criminal offence’ and section 36 of said Act allows building control to require’ the alteration or removal of offending work’ within 12 months from the date of the completion of the works in question. From the authors own experience, building control are reluctant to enforce the use of vapour permeable solutions to vapour permeable buildings. This is because there is insufficient guidance, research or training for the use of vapour permeable solutions which if incorrectly specified by a designer and incorrectly applied by a builder could manifest as mould growth and affect the occupant’s health. There is current case law that building control can be sued for actual damage to the occupant health but not for economic loss (deterioration of the building) caused by negligent actions (see par 3.3.1 (i) above). It is therefore understandable that building control is reluctant to accept vapour permeable solutions that can lead to and cause mould growth. They would prefer the use of modern impervious solutions contained in the Approved Documents that will prevent mould growth at the expense of deterioration of the building fabric that is affectively masked- possible years after the event. There is evidence that designers (and builders) do the same- they are concerned about claims on their Professional indemnity insurance (see section 6 below).