Frits Meijer

Deregulation and Privatisation of European Building-Control Systems?

In this paper we describe the developments of European building regulatory systems and place them within the context of general trends in the regulatory sciences, particularly with reference to Europeanisation studies. Within the regulatory sciences there is broad consensus about the trend towards deregulation and privatisation in recent decades. Studies conducted under the rubric of ‘Europeanisation’ analyse the effects of European policies on the policy frameworks of the member states in more detail. Are the systems converging or diverging? Although the history of this kind of research is short, most authors agree that European policies have had a profound impact on the policies of the member states, but that this impact has not been uniform. In this paper, we analyse privatisation and deregulation trends within the building regulatory systems of eight European countries, and we consider whether the systems appear to be converging or diverging. We focus on three elements: the scope of the technical requirements, the building-permit procedures and the division of control and inspection responsibilities. The analyses reveal no evidence that the scope of technical requirements in European countries is diminishing. Through its directives, the European Union exercises a convergent influence on the contents, scope, and formulation of these technical requirements. In addition, all member countries are taking steps to streamline their administrative procedures. The importance of the role played by private organisations in checking and controlling regulations is increasing across the board. Although they differ in pace and emphasis, these administrative deregulation and privatisation trends exhibit a number of parallel developments.

Problems in enforcing Dutch building regulations

Purpose – The paper seeks to define the nature of the policy problems in Dutch building control.Design/methodology/approach – The authors use Dunns four‐phase methodology for public policy analysis, consisting of problem sensing, problem search, problem definition, and problem specification. Both a literature review and a field study into the operation of local building control authorities were undertaken. The field study incorporates characteristics of a survey, with methodology developed by Fowler.Findings – Dutch building control legislation has been subject to many changes over the 100 years or so that it has been in force as it has responded to societys changing priorities. Throughout this period building regulation has become more detailed and more uniform across the country. Nevertheless, almost no legal changes have been made to the enforcement system. Responsibility for building control still lies with the municipalities and implementation is still not established by national legislation or pol...

Improved governance for energy efficiency in housing

Current practices show that the goals of energy saving and CO2 reductions for creating an energy-neutral building stock can only be reached by strict and supportive governmental policies. In Europe the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) and the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED) are driving forces for member states to develop and strengthen energy performance regulations both for new buildings (via building approval procedures) and the existing building stock (via energy performance certificates or labels). The effectiveness of these current governance instruments and their impact on actual CO2 reductions are found to be inadequate for ensuring actual (not hypothecated) energy performance is achieved. To realize the very ambitious energy-saving goals a radical rethink of regulatory systems and instruments is necessary. Building performance and the behaviour of the occupants is not well understood by policy-makers. Alternative forms of governance are needed that have more impact on the actual outcomes. Supportive governance to stimulate near-zero renovations in combination with performance guarantees is a promising approach. Furthermore, engagement with occupant practices and behaviours is needed. To ensure accurate outcomes-based governance, a better understanding of building performance and behaviours of occupants must be incorporated.

Building control systems of European Union countries

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to compare the tasks and responsibilities of public and private parties in the building control systems of the 27 European Union (EU) countries.Design/methodology/approach – To gather the necessary information, a questionnaire on building regulatory systems was distributed to experts in each country, and the major legal documents in each jurisdiction were reviewed. The information was organized into thematic tables that describe all the countries studied. The themes within the tables are: regulatory framework, application, plan approval, site inspection, completion, and supervision.Findings – The paper finds that there are many similarities between the building control systems of the various EU countries. Public parties in all countries set the regulatory framework, check planning applications, issue building permits, conduct final inspections, grant completion certificates, and supervise the operation of the system. The main difference between them concerns the natu...

Quantitative risk analysis as a supporting tool for safety protocols at multi‐functional urban locations

Purpose – The aim of this paper is to provide insight into how to deal with safety issues during construction projects at multi‐functional urban locations.Design/methodology/approach – A case study comprising several construction projects for high‐rise buildings over a motorway in The Hague provided insight into the complexity of the safety management. A process model was designed of moments of influence of safety measures. This was combined with quantitative risk analyses of some alternative safety measures using failure mode and effect analysis and Bayesian networks.Findings – It is essential to put safety management on the agenda at a very early stage in the planning process for construction projects at multi‐functional urban locations. The erection of heavy structural elements when building activities are being carried out above a motorway is an important risk factor. Structural measures appear to be more cost‐effective than closing off the road.Research limitations/implications – The methods used to ...

The Portuguese building regulation system: A critical review

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical review of the building regulations and the building control system in Portugal. The organisation, content, and authorities responsible for building regulations are described and an overview is provided of the main stages of the building permit procedure.Design/methodology/approach – The paper reviews the relevant legal and regulatory provisions and discusses these in the context of commentary published by the various professional associations.Findings – The Portuguese building regulation system has undergone significant changes in the last 20 years. Almost all building regulations currently in force are approved during that period. Some of these are resulted from the implementation of European Directives. Others are changed due to advances in scientific knowledge. Changes in the building control system have mainly been driven by the changing demands of present‐day practice, in particular, the absence of sufficient municipal technicians, and the ...

Quality control of constructions : European trends and developments

Purpose: This paper aims to evaluate the quality control systems for constructions in seven countries in Europe with the purpose to trace innovative approaches and best practices that can serve as examples for other countries. Design/methodology/approach: The paper is based on a series of research projects carried out over a number of years. The research results were updated in 2016 with a desktop research project in seven European countries. The results from this latest project form the heart of this paper. The information is organised into tables that describe and analyse the main features of the quality control systems of the countries (e.g. scope, focus and main characteristics of the procedures and quality demands on building professionals). Findings: Several similar trends can be recognised in the quality control systems of the various European Union (EU) countries. Quality control is getting more and more privatised and the control framework is setting checks and balances throughout the construction process. Other findings are that scope and focus of the statutory control is unbalanced. Within the control processes emphasis is put on the safety aspects of complex constructions. Far fewer demands are made on the quality of the builders. Re-orientation of the building regulatory framework seems to be needed. Research limitations/implications: The paper only focusses on European countries where private quality control is established and on selected topics. The findings are based on desktop research and not on the practical experiences of the stakeholders involved in the countries studied. Practical implications: The paper draws some important recommendations for policymakers in the building regulatory field. It suggests both an enhancement of the effectiveness of the quality control procedure as well as the commitment of builders to comply with the regulations. Social implications: The quality of constructions is essential for the wellbeing and safety of its users, its occupants or its visitors. This applies to the whole range of quality aspects: structural- and fire safety, health, sustainability and usability aspects. The analyses and recommendations of this paper aim to contribute to an improvement of the overall construction quality. Originality/value: The paper makes an original contribution to the (limited) literature that is available in this field. The results can be used to situate the quality control systems of each member state within the EU, to assess the main trends, and it can be used as a guide to develop strategic choices on possible improvements in each country.

Sarah Blandy, Ann Dupuis and Jennifer Dixon (eds): Multi-owned housing: law, power and practice

Multi-Owned Housing: Law, Power and Practice explores the issues of private governance and management with respect to multi-owned housing. The foundations of the book were laid in 2005 with a conference paper in which the editors analysed multi-owned developments in England and New Zealand. The aim of this book is to provide a thorough conceptual basis on which the governance and management of housing with multiple owners can be examined across different jurisdictions in various countries. The choice of countries was partly based on practical considerations. The editors opted for countries with a common law regime and English language tradition. These rather arbitrary criteria may explain a certain imbalance as regards the book’s contents: five of the twelve country chapters deal with New Zealand and Australia. The other seven refer to England & Wales, Scotland, the United States, Israel, Singapore, Hong Kong and China. Besides its international perspective, interdisciplinarity is a key aspect of this book. As the backgrounds of the contributors suggest, the subject is relevant to scholars from a range of scientific disciplines. The introductory chapter presents a short and pragmatic conceptual framework for studying multi-owned housing. Its key concepts are rights and obligations and its focus is on the way these are allocated to the stakeholders during the life span of a complex. This conceptual framework is not applied consistently throughout the book, however, which makes it difficult to draw comparisons between the countries studied. Nonetheless, the book is informative and the case studies provide good insight in the issues the various countries encounter with regard to multi-owned housing. The book kicks off with England & Wales (Blandy). Following the conceptual framework, Blandy explores a wide range of statutory rules that apply to multi-owned residential projects and their owners’ experiences. Irrespective of the legal framework, individual owners find themselves in a far weaker position than the developers involved. Although this power imbalance has been reduced slightly by legislative reforms, further improvements seem necessary. Besides statutory changes, Blandy advocates initiatives that