Tue, 09 Jun 2026 12:24:59 +0100 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/ Lussumo Vanilla 1.0.3 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36303#Comment_36303 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36303#Comment_36303 Fri, 24 Oct 2008 12:03:56 +0100 fostertom http://www.bdonline.co.uk/sustain_story.asp?storycode=3102359

"the thermal saving of a level 5 home amounts to about 50kWh per person per year more than a level 4 home ... the saving represents ... 0.2% ... (to) 0.1% of a person’s carbon emissions ... the saving per person per year is £5 and £2 respectively ... the pay back will take 250-625 years"

One year on, is the Code for Sustainable Homes working? http://www.bdonline.co.uk/sustain_story.asp?storycode=3109333
Industry pragmatist Andy von Bradsky 'Yes' - "The UK leads the field in zero-carbon futures. Breeam and the code are more adaptable than their US counterpart, Leed".
Radical (but practical) publicist Mark Brinkley 'No' - "a graveyard of good intentions”.

The Code is not enough - sustainability thinking part one http://www.bdonline.co.uk/sustain_story.asp?storycode=3112138 - the first in a series of articles.

Industry taskforce to develop green code http://www.bdonline.co.uk/sustain_story.asp?storycode=3123043
"Although residential projects are already covered by the Code for Sustainable Homes, the UK Green Buildings Council hopes the new code will set an industry-wide standard for all new builds"..]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36320#Comment_36320 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36320#Comment_36320 Fri, 24 Oct 2008 14:59:32 +0100 sipman
THE HOUSE]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36323#Comment_36323 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36323#Comment_36323 Fri, 24 Oct 2008 15:05:21 +0100 sipman
U value 0.2, air leakage i would estimate 2 m3/hr/m2 at 50 Pa, where's the sense, quick and simple to build without costing the Earth

THE HEATING]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36325#Comment_36325 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36325#Comment_36325 Fri, 24 Oct 2008 15:42:34 +0100 jon
On an economic basis, I'm inclined to agree with Mark. I think the S3 Green Guide for example is littered with good intentions that, on analysis, achieve the opposite of the intention (therefore making it ethically unsound): Not sure that HMG should have subbed this out.]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36327#Comment_36327 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36327#Comment_36327 Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:19:23 +0100 sipman https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36335#Comment_36335 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36335#Comment_36335 Fri, 24 Oct 2008 18:28:33 +0100 jon
It's a fault in the technical documents in the background paper to the CSH: I wrote to the authors (again) about it yesterday. The fault is to your advantage commercially Sipman as it makes SIPs frames appear to be more environmentally friendly than they are. At this point I've got to ask if you really want it explained in detail?

]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36345#Comment_36345 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36345#Comment_36345 Fri, 24 Oct 2008 19:18:23 +0100 sipman
The simple point I'm making is that it is not difficult to build a home that requires minimal space heating. To be honest I have limited interest in the CSH and commercially at the moment we are seeing no benefit. Our day will come when some simple form of testing is developed to compare the "u" values that are achieved on site compared to the values entered into the SAP


And I'am aware that using petrochemicals for insulation is not exactly "green" but if we must use them we may as well use the insulation effectively.

who's Mark ?]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36350#Comment_36350 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36350#Comment_36350 Fri, 24 Oct 2008 20:09:52 +0100 jon
That's a relatively minor problem and I agree that we should be using them. If you want to know the ethical dilemma that may cause SIPs frames a problem in CAT3 then get the Green Building Bible latest edition volume 2 somewhere about page 200

Mark is ...

http://web.mac.com/markbrinkley/Mark_Brinkley.net/Home.html]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36351#Comment_36351 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36351#Comment_36351 Fri, 24 Oct 2008 20:09:53 +0100 Timber https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36490#Comment_36490 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36490#Comment_36490 Sun, 26 Oct 2008 20:04:09 +0000 Chris Wardle
So you could build a superinsulated virtually zero heat house out of straw bales or hemp & lime and still only reach code 4 because you like to take the occasional bath and you're more than 5ft tall. Apparently it will cost you £2-4K for the priviledge as well. A load of old b*ll*cks if you ask me. Why don't they just change the building regs to PH standard and have done with it.]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36507#Comment_36507 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36507#Comment_36507 Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:12:44 +0000 tony https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36515#Comment_36515 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36515#Comment_36515 Sun, 26 Oct 2008 22:10:25 +0000 ali.gill Since may '08 developments funded by WAG have needed to achieve CfSH and Breeam standards.
http://www.wired-gov.net/wg/wg-news-1.nsf/0/FDB856BEFC4026C98025747C004E9CF8?OpenDocument]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36518#Comment_36518 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36518#Comment_36518 Sun, 26 Oct 2008 23:07:45 +0000 jon
Yes it does. Via the Green Guide and the background papers:

http://www.bre.co.uk/greenguide/page.jsp?sid=435
refer to section A1.3 of the methodology to find the phrases that introduce positive discounting in carbon

The Green Guide discriminates positively against low lifetime carbon buildings in favour of low embodied content buildings such as "superinsulated virtually zero heat house out of straw bales or hemp & lime". This commercial advantage is carried through to timber frame buildings.

Using short cycling introduces positive discounting of carbon into design: Positive discounting is where future generations are assumed to be of less value than today's generation.

The explanation is that what you are describing is not happening. The opposite is happening.

Ethically, it is not possible to justify a discounting bias of this type.]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36539#Comment_36539 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36539#Comment_36539 Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:28:42 +0000 agu https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36542#Comment_36542 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36542#Comment_36542 Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:58:39 +0000 Timber
I think what they tried to do with it is good, i.e make your bog standard (large) builder take more care and consideration with the design and build of a project.

Things like home office, bike stores, composting, good daylight, good sound insulation, responsible sourcing of materials, provission for waste recycling and storage, having somewhere other than a tumble dryer to dry cloths to name but a few are all really good things to consider.

If they had just made the code about reducing C02 only, it could have lead to all sorts of impractical and undesireable houses being built.


Ali - I new about the WAG part of it!

Chris - Have to been on a CSH explained course or gone on the BRE one?

One thing that keeps poping up is the small eco house builders, eco self builders etc think that a lot of things in it are rubbish, stupid etc. I think that to a point, however i beileve that the CSH has been aimed squarely at the large house builders and has been written in such a way as to make sure livable workable houses are built.]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36617#Comment_36617 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36617#Comment_36617 Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:04:01 +0000 Anthony@Phlorum
Although your area may be awash (good pun) with water, it (freshwater) is a resource which is unsecure due to the changing climate. Also, energy is consumed in the sanitisation, delivery and HEATING which could be minimised. Further, it creates good practice. However, the cost is admittedly high, but this is in keeping with the rest of the CSH philosophy. The idea (with underlying methodology) that being 'green' can also be economic has escaped them.

Anthony
phlorum.com]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36620#Comment_36620 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36620#Comment_36620 Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:17:23 +0000 James Norton
J]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36625#Comment_36625 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36625#Comment_36625 Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:17:07 +0000 Chris Wardle
However, I think it has lost the plot a little bit. The overwhelming priority is to build new homes that do not require a dedicated central heating system to be comfortable (PH standard or equivalent) and to do so preferably with lower embodied materials and British made components, so as not to further bankrupt the nation, while not making is so expensive that nothing gets build. I don't think the code is properly focussed on the main issue and has become gold plated as most legislation/standards are almost inevitably appear to be in the UK. There is so much in there which gets points and yet immediately be changed by the first or subsequent occupants, e.g. compost bin removal (the buyers of by last house have replaced mine with a shed), designated home office space (i.e. this is an extra bedroom), provision of a washing line (what the ****???, who can't string a washing line up themselves?), AAA white goods (sold on Ebay and use the old ones), water efficient taps/showers/small baths (removed and replaced immediately), etc.

I feel that we are far too regulated as it is, but poorly so, and would favour making building control rigourously enforce PH type standards for new construction (insulation and airtightness) without added a whole new layer of code assessing inspectors who have to be paid and trained etc. This is just more non-productive activity in an economy which is already on life support. We should focus on the building fabric which once built can't be improved without massive upheaval. I can't see any excuse for building one more new house that doesn't reach PH standard.]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36628#Comment_36628 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36628#Comment_36628 Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:22:57 +0000 tony https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36669#Comment_36669 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36669#Comment_36669 Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:56:32 +0000 Timber
Some good points well made, and I generally agree with all that you stated.

Like you say, It was most likely a damn good idea that got a little lost in all the fluff!

BUT, if all the focus was on heating alone, then some very odd, and impractical houses could end up being made!

I personally think that (due to the size of current stock) we need to focus efforts (and cash) on clean and renable fuels, e.g. better wind/solar, fusion etc then the rest of the stock automatically becomes 'green!']]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36671#Comment_36671 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36671#Comment_36671 Tue, 28 Oct 2008 20:02:05 +0000 jon
I also completely agree with the last sentence.]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36672#Comment_36672 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36672#Comment_36672 Tue, 28 Oct 2008 20:10:51 +0000 Chris Wardle
I agree with your last comment. There must come a point when upgrading the energy efficiency of a building or in new build when the marginal investment required to eliminate the next kW of energy usage becomes more expensive than building some low carbon generation to generate that kW. You have to stop at that point or you are misallocating scarce resources as a society. This is why I'm very much a sceptic about zero carbon homes because they, apparently, will require onsite generation which we know is not economic compared to large scale wind and nuclear power. Ultra cheap PV would change that balance but for now it is step too far.]]> https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36726#Comment_36726 https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2803&Focus=36726#Comment_36726 Wed, 29 Oct 2008 20:43:33 +0000 Timber
Ultra cheep pv would be great! whole roofs made of pv instead of tiles would be cool!

Timber]]>