It is tiny step, but on the other side of the country, our first project authored as HAT is currently having its foundations poured! Another milestone. Here in the studio, we are busy but today enjoying the lovely September sunshine over the fields that we overlook - seen here first thing in the morning.

My old friends at Worldchanging report on, and helpfully reproduce the graph from, a McKinsey report on the costs of reducing carbon emissions (so I'm hotlinking on to it below). It's quite an interesting one as we are always being asked by clients and friends what the best way is to save energy in buildings, often with a glint in the questioner's voice that suggests they are rather looking forward to installing some technologically-advanced wizardry that will make them feel 'innovative' and special. And always, we give a fairly unsexy answer that, well, super-insulation and really efficient heating systems will save you more energy than all the mini wind-turbines you could possibly cram on your roof.

This report also suggests this is true on a global scale. The most cost-effective way to reduce carbon emissions is through insulation. It is actually cost-negative - and the most cost-negative - as it saves money through reducing energy use. More efficient lighting, air conditioning and heating also score very highly - and are cost-negative - compared to many of the technologies that get a higher profile such as wind, or carbon capture. So globally, it is most economic to focus on improving building stock, before building wind farms.

This shouldn't be surprising, as the idea of using less energy first, before finding ways to make it 'sustainably' is common sense. But we still aren't seeing, in developed countries, let alone the less developed, widespread strategies that upgrade the efficiency of the building stock wholescale (existing and new-build). It's just a bit unsexy and means interfering in privately held property, which requires masses of monitoring and bureaucracy. It's also an area where it is more difficult to lever in private capital, unlike contracting a company to build a generating facility where they will be guaranteed a good market for all their product, all the time.

It is also something clearly that needs to be addressed across the globe, and particularly in the cities that are currently growing exponentially with formal and informal new-build, and not just in cold climates but in hot too (insulation keeps heat out as well as in, so can reduce the need for air conditioning). How are Indian or Chinese building regulations on insulation these days? Making buildings better may be cheap, but it is certainly complex to implement.

Forgive the awful pun. But the new BREEAM 2008 guidance has been published today and I've been reading Mel's handy summary of what it all means. We're currently considering whether to go BREEAM Bespoke on a project that we're working on, so it is all rather timely.

I think most architects and services engineers have mixed feelings the BRE. From its origins as a government-funded body, since going private it seems to try to squeeze money out of every angle, while effectively operating a monopoly on green accreditation in the UK. The new guidance only seems to reinforce this when you read that to achieve the highest level of Outstanding, in addition to an 85% score you must have the project written up as a case study by BRE Global - and I'm sure that doesn't come for free.

In the case of our project, as it doesn't fall into one of the pre-existing categories we would need bespoke criteria drawn up. One might think that the BRE might like to have the invitation to expand their research base, and get to road-test criteria for another building type - but no, it will cost around £2-3,000 to get the criteria drawn up, and that's before you even start paying for the assessment process. And if you look at the criteria and decide not to go forward, it's just money down the drain.

Our arts client is absolutely serious about wanting to do the most environmentally responsible building they can given the brief and site - and they would really like to have a recognised accreditation to prove it. But when it looks like a BREEAM assessment would cost more than the acoustics fees, one starts wondering whether it is really worth it. Any views out there?

From just being us and a cat (literally) we now number five in the studio. We have Thomas - modelmaker extraordinaire and workshop master (will post some examples of his bandsaw skills soon); Richard - who has bravely made the switch from Vectorworks to Microstation and is now busy fleshing out our ideas and making sure they actually fit on the site; and Jack, our student for the summer. Not sure where all the women are...but we would like to find a Part I/II to start in September so if there's anyone out there looking for a job, get in touch.

Well, six months into the new practice and we are proud to announce that we received planning permission for our first project. It's only tiny, but we think it is rather lovely and, in a rural conservation area, it sailed through planning with no hitches. Here's to a 100% record...

Oh my. It feels like this afternoon is the first little breathing space I've had for months. We've been busy here - putting in our first planning application (for a tiny, lovely, cottage extension), finishing up a feasibility study and small strategic masterplan down in Hastings, and responding to several potential new projects. We've done some fun things too - a visit to Orkney, most recently, where we visited both the new - the Pier Arts Centre - and the old - the magnificent St Magnus Cathedral and, even older, standing stones in beautiful fields.

This afternoon, I've got a report out of the door and have managed to start on a small research project into affordable housing that has come in - a pleasant, focused thing to do and a change from coordinating a complex mix of stakeholders and factors. Tom is still very busy, but also switching his focus to another project for a couple of weeks. And our childcare is starting to allow us less juggling and more good work time. So our apologies for the blog lapse, but we will try to get more regular as our office routine settles down.

Today brings claims by leading M&E contractors that Part L enforcement is "shambolic". HVCA President John Miller said "Contractors are not hearing or seeing anything about enforcement of Part L. Building Control Officers have responsibility for this, but many are turning a blind eye.”

We had a conversation about this only the other day, prompted by hearing of by a Building Regs non-enforcement situation that had resulted in problems, years later, with a project we know about. The plain fact of the matter is that very few BR issues seem to be enforced, particularly on smaller projects. The onus is generally on the developer or architect to do the work right and to get a completion certificate; if this isn't given, for whatever reason, there is very little chance of a statutory enforcement notice being issued unless the non-compliance is hugely dangerous to life and limb.

So a building can stand for years without a completion certificate, and then when it goes on the market...well, a prospective buyer is right to demand the certificate and the situation becomes tense. And even enforcement notices are often ignored; and as these come with a time limit beyond which they expire, illegal structures can exist for years, as happened with a roof extension on a building I used to live in.

Given that Part L is set to become increasingly tougher and more expensive to comply with, what's to say that a sort of mass disobedience might not occur - or a sub-market of properties, more affordable to buy, that simply don't come with completion certificates? Of course this is very unlikely to happen - and the claims by HVCA seem to suggest that BC officers are in fact issuing certificates despite having little evidence of Part L compliance.

BC is, as every architect knows, an area of local government where resources are stretched. There simply aren't enough man-hours funded to mean that every instance of non-compliance is issued with an enforcement notice so most BC departments prioritise 'dangerous' situations. But one of the problems in the project mentioned above was a minor fire door issue - is this not considered dangerous enough? when is a door dangerous enough to warrant enforcement? and where does Part L fall along this scale of priority?