Home  5  Books  5  GBEzine  5  News  5  HelpDesk  5  Register  5  GreenBuilding.co.uk
Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories

GBEzine

Get a whole year of cutting-edge eco-building news and project reports for just £20.00 p.a. + VAT*

1 year Green Building Ezine

Built upon 30 years of experience, this fabulous new medium will feature inspiring and in-depth articles on eco-building projects from across the spectrum and from all over the UK, most of which are written by the very people that designed or built them.

Perfect for architects, builders, developers, self builders and anyone interested in keeping right up-to-date with green building trends and friends.

Price: £20.00

Discount books are also available with your first year subscription:



*VAT will only be charged to customers with a UK address.

For institutional access
please go here



Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.




    • CommentAuthorEd Davies
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2017
     
    Posted By: mw116Surely it would be better to base it on kWh/occupant…
    ideally, yes, but it's difficult to determine what occupancy will happen in practice so finished-floor area is used as a proxy.
    • CommentAuthoranth.payne
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2017 edited
     
    Surely the argument here should have nothing to do with PH, but simply to tighten up BR to demand better insulated homes, that will reduce the buildings demand on resources and the environment...

    At the end of the day PH is just a voluntary additional layer of BR.
    • CommentAuthorgravelld
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2017 edited
     
    Posted By: anth.payneSurely the argument here should have nothing to do with PH, but simply to tighten up BR to demand better insulated homes, that will reduce the buildings demand on resources and the environment...

    At the end of the day PH is just a voluntary additional layer of BR.
    I'm not sure I agree with that. It's a completely different level of rigour and QA to BRs, a different approach to measurement and a different relationship between assessor and assessed, and probably more things I can't think of right now.
    • CommentAuthorgravelld
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2017
     
    Posted By: barneyOK, so terrible by what metric ?
    It's a good point - some measurement would be handy to see how bad the problems are. But who would do them? The nationwide organisations are already embedded in the current market dynamic, and don't want to rock the boat. Anybody I haven't thought of?

    But I can turn it around:

    Posted By: barneyA Part L, Part F compliant house built today at a reasonable cost is still a reasonably well performing building as an entity - greening the grid makes it more so (as would excess electricity to gas production)
    Compliant by which metric? Do you have proof these buildings are compliant?
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2017 edited
     
    Posted By: gravellda completely different level of rigour and QA to BRs, a different approach to measurement
    Not just that, but the most readily available, best developed, most reliable methodology to be sure that high levels of insulation and airtightness don't cause mould, rot within the wall/roof structures and mould, poor air quality and overheating in the interior. All of these are well-reported risks, with simply
    Posted By: anth.paynedemand[ing] better insulated homes
    Some serious technical hoops have to jumped through and for the time being PHPP is by far the most accessible, reliable best to assess result - even though there are other approaches than PH, which may in fact supercede PH one day.
    • CommentAuthorbarney
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2017
     
    Compliant by which metric? Do you have proof these buildings are compliant?

    Well, two different things

    The current metric is basically derived from the EU metrics in the EPBD via SAP and SBEM - ie no more fuel and power than considered reasonable

    Proof that the buildings are compliant - none at all, and I suspect many perform far worse than predicted - certainly many of the commercial buildings don't ever perform as predicted. Remember that snake and mongoose issue I mentioned - at design we can massage all sorts of thinks via Level 5 Dynamic simulation - even to the point of reducing air tightness to address overheating risks

    However, generally, in the housing sector, that's an enforcement issue rather a need to adopt a new set of requirements

    Regards

    Barney
    • CommentAuthorbarney
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2017
     
    To clarify reasonable - I guess see Tom's post above

    Just adding insulation isn't always a reasonable thing to do as it brings along some risks that may well be too difficult to overcome within a particular price envelope - which takes us back to planning issues actually - what is a house buyer actually buying - it's not just 4 walls and a roof, that's for sure

    Personally speaking, if we hit 50,00 homes per annum compliant with a minor tweaked Part L and built to meet those standards, they would be pretty efficient homes that will stand for a reasonable lifespan

    Regards

    Barney
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeApr 12th 2017
     
    Ang on, have I mentally merged PHPP and WUFI, saying that PHPP indicates mould/rot etc? (I've managed without PHPP so far in my career, looking forward to the time when I simply have to use it in full).
    • CommentAuthorgravelld
    • CommentTimeApr 13th 2017 edited
     
    Posted By: barneyHowever, generally, in the housing sector, that's an enforcement issue rather a need to adopt a new set of requirements
    But surely this is partly enforcement? If you don't get your Ph certification, and you won't if there's a performance gap, no pass and you can't sell the house.

    Currently if you're a volume house builder all you have to do is type up a design SAP send it to a box checker and you're done. If you're unlucky you get a proper inspection. 1/4 (or is it a 1/3 now?) of houses get an air tightness test, in which case just send whoever seems idle on site to tape and mastic up a few gaps to meet the appalling requirements, then get rid of the tape later when the carpet fitters arrive.

    Given the tester and the assessor work for you as the house builder there's a clear conflict of interest.

    Different level.
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeApr 14th 2017
     
    I won't be signing. I believe the Building Regulations should be tightened up while retaining the freedom to achieve the required targets in different ways.

    There is no way the Government will agree to making _all_ new houses meet the proprietary PassivHaus standard and I think it would be better to tighten up the building regs in general rather than require only a percentage of new houses to meet any particular tighter standard.
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeApr 14th 2017
     
    Posted By: CWattersno way the Government will agree to making _all_ new houses meet the proprietary PassivHaus standard
    Sure in this England but it's happening in parts of Eire 'or equivalent', and wouldn't be surprised in Wales and Scotland
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeApr 14th 2017
     
    Posted By: fostertom
    Posted By: CWattersno way the Government will agree to making _all_ new houses meet the proprietary PassivHaus standard
    Sure in this England but it's happening in parts of Eire 'or equivalent', and wouldn't be surprised in Wales and Scotland

    I have some sympathy with the 'proprietary' description but I think the reason the UK government won't adopt it, or even consider it as an alternative, is that it can equally well be described as 'independent' and in politically-correct terms as 'evidence-based'. The UK building regulations, strategy and tactics has been so thoroughly captured by vested interests that it is unthinkable. Other places are better. The one good feature of UK regulation is that it is requirements-based rather than codified like many continental systems, which allows a great deal of flexibility in some circumstances.
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeApr 14th 2017
     
    Last sentence v true - and grateful we are. But it's not 'UK government' in charge of this - Wales and Scotland (and N Ireland) can do different.
    •  
      CommentAuthordjh
    • CommentTimeApr 14th 2017 edited
     
    It is the UK government in charge of English regulations. Quite why Scottish and Welsh and Northern Irish MPs have a vote on them, I'm not sure.

    edit: oh and there are codified parts of the regs, like water regs GRR and ventilation guide GRR and ...
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeApr 14th 2017
     
    I love hearing 'English' making a comeback - more accurate than weasel-word 'British' which implied happy unity - how wrong the English (or the Westminster English) turned out to be!
    • CommentAuthorgravelld
    • CommentTimeApr 15th 2017
     
    Is it requirements based? The requirements currently are U values... This seems to me to be the means, not the goal. The requirement should be kWh/m2/time.

    I'm pretty shocked how many people seem too think BR++ are enough.

    Like many institutions here, it's the whole structure that's wrong.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeApr 15th 2017
     
    Why not a price per metre, that way the energy companies could be forced to keep control of their sales.
    • CommentAuthorEd Davies
    • CommentTimeApr 15th 2017 edited
     
    Posted By: gravelldIs it requirements based? The requirements currently are U values...
    There are U-value requirements for individual elements. However, the limiting factor is the overall house emissions as calculated by SAP - if you made all the floors, walls, roofs, windows, doors, etc, to the required U-values the house wouldn't pass. There's an awful lot wrong with the details (IMHO) but that basic approach seems sound to me.

    I'm pretty shocked how many people seem too think BR++ are enough.
    BRs wouldn't be too bad if they were enforced and if airtightness was a lot better. Just writing down lower U-values in BRs wouldn't solve anything. Similarly, saying things are “Passivhaus” if that's not checked properly wouldn't help much, either.
    • CommentAuthorDarylP
    • CommentTimeApr 15th 2017
     
    Ed, the values to which you refer are 'backstop' values, maximums allowed. NOT targets!
    If you build to the 'recipe' or reference values, you will pass.
    Cheers:smile:
    • CommentAuthorEd Davies
    • CommentTimeApr 15th 2017 edited
     
    Posted By: DarylPEd, the values to which you refer are 'backstop' values, maximums allowed. NOT targets!
    Agreed. How's that different from what I wrote?

    If you build to the 'recipe' or reference values, you will pass.
    Which recipe values do you mean? TER, etc? Not AD L1A Table 2 “Limiting Fabric Parameters”, I assume:

    Building Regs approved document L1A2.33 Table 2 sets out the limiting standards for the properties of the fabric elements of the building. Each stated value represents the area-weighted average for all elements of that type. In general, to achieve the TER and the TFEE rate, a significantly better fabric performance than that set out in Table 2 is likely to be required.
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeApr 16th 2017
     
    I'd be surprised if EU competition regs allowed governments to mandate a proprietary standard rather than their own equivalent.
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeApr 16th 2017
     
    Eire's close to mandating PH.
  1.  
    Posted By: CWattersI'd be surprised if EU competition regs allowed governments to mandate a proprietary standard rather than their own equivalent.

    And Brexit means that EU regs shortly won't apply
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeApr 16th 2017
     
    God help us then - totally at the mercy of City of London/Wall Street. So much for 'give our country back' - to who?
Add your comments

    Username Password
  • Format comments as
 
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press