Innovation vs. Auditing: The "Right to Innovate" Under the Building Act

Helping YOU find good heating engineers. We share case studies from engineers in the Guild of Master Heat Engineers to help people find top installers, help gas and oil engineers increase their knowledge around heat pumps, and provide a solution for third-sector professionals to understand the industry better.

Overview

TL;DR: While the Building Act 1984 allows for technical deviation, a combination of manufacturer-led guidance, contractual "soft laws," and a lack of technical competency in Building Control has created a bureaucratic deadlock.

Plus: BetaTeach is helping the marketing & PR people in the heating sector with a special training event at the Nesta offices. Sign up if this is you.

The Legal Reality: Section 7 and the Building Act 1984

At the heart of our oversight system is the Building Act 1984. While the Secretary of State (The Rt Hon Steve Reed OBE MP) issues Approved Documents (like Part L) to provide "practical guidance," these are not the law.

Section 7 of the Building Act is explicit: failure to follow an Approved Document does not, in itself, render a person liable to proceedings. The actual law, the Building Regulations 2010, mandates outcomes (functional requirements), such as "effective controls," rather than prescribing specific components.

Mandatory Law vs. Advisory Guidance

To understand the "Right to Innovate," one must look at the specific language used in regulatory writing:

​The Law (Building Regulations): Uses mandatory terms like "must" or "shall." For example, Regulation 40 must be complied with to ensure a building is energy efficient.

The Guidance (Approved Documents): Uses the advisory term "should." These documents are not a set of instructions you must follow; they are simply one way you should be able to meet the law.
​The law requires "effective control" of a heating system. It does not mandate that you use a specific number of zones to achieve it.

The UKAS and ISO 17065 "Soft Law" Trap

This legal right is often bypassed by the contracts within Competent Person Schemes (CPS). To self-certify, installers sign agreements with Certification Bodies (CBs) like OFTEC, NAPIT, APHC, or NICEIC.

To maintain their own accreditation, these CBs are audited by UKAS against ISO 17065. Because UKAS requires a repeatable yardstick, CBs often adopt the Approved Documents as their rigid audit checklist. This creates a "soft law" environment: while a technical innovation—like a high-performance open-loop system—is legal under the Act, it can be treated as a breach of contract during a CB audit.

The Competency Gap: Local Authorities vs. Specialist Engineers

When a CB auditor encounters a deviation, they often suggest the engineer obtain a "letter of confirmation" from the Local Authority (LA). This is a bureaucratic "catch-22."
Local Authority Building Control officers are typically generalists. While they are experts in fire safety and structural integrity, they rarely possess the specialist heat science knowledge required to adjudicate on complex hydronics. Asking a generalist inspector to overrule national guidance is a move designed to shift liability, not to ensure quality. It ignores the fact that the specialist engineer on the ground is often the most technically competent person in the chain.

Who Writes the Rules?

Historically, the committees drafting the "shoulds" in Part L have been dominated by manufacturers who benefit from the sale of the very valves, actuators, and zoning controllers the guidance recommends.

Experienced engineers have been historically excluded from these rooms. While manufacturer-led committees focus on product-based solutions, it is the engineers who understand the relationship between system volume, flow, and heat pump longevity. This lack of installer representation is why guidance often promotes complex setups that can actually hinder real-world performance.

Evidence Over Tradition: The 150m² Case

The guidance suggesting homes over 150m² "should" be multi-zoned is a primary point of friction. The evidence for an engineer-led, open-loop approach is now undeniable:

• BetaTeach Case Studies: Evidence on BetaTeach.co.uk shows master engineers achieving 400%+ efficiency by "stripping back" complexity in favour of open-loop simplicity, even in Grade II listed buildings.

• Academic Support: The landmark paper "Bridging the Efficiency Divide" (Rosenow, Lea, & Boni, 2026) confirms that high-performing systems avoid the efficiency-killing "bursts" caused by excessive cycling and high flow temperatures.

• Real-World Data: Platforms like Open Energy Monitor (HeatPumpMonitor.org) show that simplified, open-loop systems consistently dominate the performance leaderboards.

Stifled by the System: A Call for Collaboration

​Currently, our most talented engineers are being stifled. They are encountering significant issues with their Certification Bodies over the 150m² issue, where elite, data-proven designs are being flagged as "non-compliant" simply because they don't follow a manufacturer-led suggestion. This administrative friction doesn't just frustrate the engineer; it actively lowers the efficiency of the UK's housing stock.

​How can we help our Certification Bodies and Local Authorities? We must move toward a model where empirical data and specialist engineering competency are recognised as valid paths to compliance. Furthermore, we must support manufacturer marketing teams in communicating these technical truths rather than just selling more "boxes."

​I am hosting a special in-person training event designed specifically to help marketing teams bridge this gap and align their messaging with the reality of modern heat science.

​Heating Science for Heating Marketers: Get Your Tickets Here

The Guild of Master Heat Engineers is supported by our Patrons.

Learn more about our Patrons here.

Have a great week… Nathan

Subscribe to get more newsletters like this, if you haven’t already.