Draft Part L and its Requirements

Mellor

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has release the Draft part L building regulation and technical guidence document for public consulation. The documents were released on the 21st of september.
Both documents may be review here: http://www.environ.ie/en/Development...Consultations/

The draft regulations have included a number of area that were lacking in previous editions. Area such as average u-values, enery efficient lighting and (low carbon and renewable) building systems.

This thread will be a discussion of the changes made and the requirements needed to comply with the regs. The draft part L has been mention in a number of other threads, any worthy or relevant posts will be moved here,




Note: The final date for submissions on the draft part l is friday the 28th of october,
The after consultation, the new part L will come into affect on the 1st of july 2008



post edited to put introduction in first post

ardara1

Mellor wrote:

A value alot of opinions here, and I was wondering if I could get opinions from anybody (the more the better) on domestic lighting. Nothing too deap, but along the lines of CFLs and their use in irish homes, pros and cons verses traditional incandesant bulbs, and (if you've read it) the proposal of efficient lighting included in the new draft part L, 21/09/07


Thanks in advance

Hi Mell - I think the draft Part L is asking for 1 EE Light FITTING (not bulbs) for every 25m2 of floor area - luminous efficacy greater than 40 lumens per circuit-Watt - what would fall into this category?


7/10/2007 Edit by muffler: This post has been moved from this thread as it is more appropriate here

Mellor

That range pretty much rules out incandescent bulbs. Including the commercial halogen and quartz types (these are better than standard incandescent but not over 40). CFLs would be in the 40-110 range. It should be noted here that efficacy and efficiency are two different things. They are of course linked as efficacy is the best way to evaluate the efficiency of a light, but there is no direct relation.

The is good progress. But there is a major flaw in it imo. Most domestic light fittings are suitable for both traditional incandescant and EE lamps. So even if a large development is fully fitted with EE fittings, then is no reason to believe it would remain that way. In our current society traditional lamps are more available, and over a few years I suspect that most of the EE lights would be replaced my traditional fittings.
There is no reason we shouldn't ban bulbs below outright. Im am hoping to find the time to write on article on the subject and try to get it published.


7/10/2007 Edit by muffler: This post has been moved from this thread as it is more appropriate here

ardara1

Mellor wrote:

That range pretty much rules out incandescent bulbs. Including the commercial halogen and quartz types (these are better than standard incandescent but not over 40). CFLs would be in the 40-110 range. It should be noted here that efficacy and efficiency are two different things. They are of course linked as efficacy is the best way to evaluate the efficiency of a light, but there is no direct relation.

The is good progress. But there is a major flaw in it imo. Most domestic light fittings are suitable for both traditional incandescant and EE lamps. So even if a large development is fully fitted with EE fittings, then is no reason to believe it would remain that way. In our current society traditional lamps are more available, and over a few years I suspect that most of the EE lights would be replaced my traditional fittings.
There is no reason we shouldn't ban bulbs below outright. Im am hoping to find the time to write on article on the subject and try to get it published.

Hi Mellor - the regs do specift FITTINGS rather than bulbs - and most BER ratings that I have seen have 100% EE lighting on the imput - which I think is impossible - the fitting aren't that easy to find in merchants even!
The other down side is that once you reduce the out put (Heat) from the light fittings that heat needs to be compensated for by the conventional heat producing appliances - swings and roundabouts. Even better glazing performance = reduced natuaral light = more bulbs required - it's a balance that need to be understood.
If you get round top writting the article, an 'identifier' with pics would be handy for BER assessors


7/10/2007 Edit by muffler: This post has been moved from this thread as it is more appropriate here

Mellor

Its probably best to clear this up for anyone reading who may not understand the terms and differences.

TGD Part L has specified Energy efficient light fittings to be used in new builds. These fittings will only take energy fitting bulbs, they take a different type of bulb. The pinned connection one. In these fittings the ballast is contained in the fitting as opposed to the bulb. These are harder to source.

Strictly speaking this is a suggestion by TGD part L. And this is where the difference between TGD and Reg really shows. Only the builiding regulation is a requirement,

Draft Part L Building Regulation wrote:

providing energy efficient artificial lighting systems and adequate control of these systems;

So a standard fitting with Energy efficient lamps/bulbs install is adequate in terms of compliance. This is a route that will likely be used alot. This is less likely to be maintained.

The other downside is the fact that regs only apply to new builds. It will take time to have a majority effect.

The TGD method calls for at leat one fitting per 25sq.m, this will mostly likely be one per room and the fitting will be most likely the main fitting, secondary fittings (such as lamps wall lights etc) are then free to remain as traditional bulbs, Because of this 100% EE fittings is not possible. But 100% EE bulbs is possible.

An outright ban on traditional bulbs is much better as:

• It ensures that Light fitting and bulbs will be energy efficient and remain that way
• It affects new builds AND existing housing stock
• Secondary lighting will also be energy efficient

Thoughts?


7/10/2007 Edit by muffler: This post has been moved from this thread as it is more appropriate here

maniac101

Mellor wrote:

An outright ban on traditional bulbs is much better as:

• It ensures that Light fitting and bulbs will be energy efficient and remain that way
• It affects new builds AND existing housing stock
• Secondary lighting will also be energy efficient

Thoughts?

I agree with you. Companies selling light fittings appear to have no interest at the moment in offering fittings that are compatible with energy efficient bulbs. A ban on traditional bulbs would change this.

Last week I looked for a switched light fitting to go above a bathroom mirror. I couldn't find anything in Cork with IP44 rating that would take a conventional CFL bulb. Eventually I had to settle for a fitting that takes two smaller screw-in candle type bulbs. The two CFL bulbs in this candle format cost me a whopping EUR33. Ouch!

I believe there was due to be a tax on traditional bulbs by the end of this year?

Mellor

maniac101 wrote:

I agree with you. Companies selling light fittings appear to have no interest at the moment in offering fittings that are compatible with energy efficient bulbs. A ban on traditional bulbs would change this.

Last week I looked for a switched light fitting to go above a bathroom mirror. I couldn't find anything in Cork with IP44 rating that would take a conventional CFL bulb. Eventually I had to settle for a fitting that takes two smaller screw-in candle type bulbs. The two CFL bulbs in this candle format cost me a whopping EUR33. Ouch!

If traditional bulbs are banned, companys can continue to sell traditional fittings and consumer switch completely to CFLs with Bayonette or edison caps.
Ideally there are better lighting arrangements, but this way the whole housing stock is affected. I have decided to go ahead with the article, I hope to include a energy and cost saving for the country, possibly also in layformat units, such as cars off the road for a year


and 33 euro, ouch indeed