I was talking to a local BC officer a couple of years back , his view was "give it a couple of years and all these various restriction on planning and energy efficiency standards will be thrown out the window as the building industry will be on it's knees due to recession."
Seems like we've seen the first of this with the recent moves to relax permitted developement . Also things afoot to force through larger projects without need for public enquiry etc. Getting rid of red tape they claim.

Posted By: jamesingramthe building industry will be on it's knees due to recession

I thought the Bank of England and 'a major retailer' have just announced that 'the worst is over'.

Anyone seen 'Melancholia'? Great film (recent)!

2016 zero carbon stuff comes in

Have you seen the Fabric Energy Efficiency targets that have been set by the Zero Carbon Hub for 2016?

39 kWhr/M2/year for a mid terrace or flat and 46 kWhr/M2/year for an end, semi or detached house.

What do you lot recon that to that then?

And it only applies to new build

and it seems very high to me presuming it is for heating only? -- not what I would consider anywhere near zero carbon but then that is not defined either.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: jamesingram</cite>"give it a couple of years and all these various restriction on planning and energy efficiency standards will be thrown out the window as the building industry will be on it's knees due to recession."
Seems like we've seen the first of this with the recent moves to relax permitted developement . Also things afoot to force through larger projects without need for public enquiry etc. Getting rid of red tape they claim.</blockquote>

I've been predicting this for a couple of years now - I sat in a meeting once where it was rumoured that the incoming coalition bods were considering scrapping the requirement for schools to meet building regs part B and M (fire and access) so that it would be cheaper to adapt existing buildings to Free Schools. Given what's already happening to any 'obstacles' to development (i.e. mandatory affordable homes targets scrapped) nothing would surprise me..!

Realistically though, given the levels of homebuilding we have at the moment surely it would be better to concentrate on consequential improvements targets for existing stock (I suppose that got scrapped as a conservatory tax?) and on giving BCO's more training in new technologies and 'teeth' to enforce penalties for non-compliance?

I reckon that it is for heating only?

Posted By: Doubting_Thomasgiven the levels of homebuilding we have at the moment surely it would be better to concentrate on consequential improvements targets for existing stock

This. Tighter standards are a move in the right direction, but the rate of replacement of housing stock is too low for it to have much of an effect. The vast majority of the housing stock we'll have in 2050 is already built, so I wouldn't get too depressed about whether or not the new build stuff is aligning with the targets.

Heating and cooling, Tony, yes.

It is a nice step to see them introduce FEEs (Fabric Energy Efficiency standard), but the levels just look tooo high. But, AFAIK these figures ARE the zero carbon 2016 targets, so really quite poor.

? why is my post in italic ?

Posted By: jamesingramAs to the kwm2/y figure they seem good to me, not zero co2, but still an achievable realistic target
which is low energy consumption housing

But "low energy consumption housing" isn't their goal. Zero carbon is. And achieving a realistic target that doesn't achieve the strategic goal is pointless.

Some famous soldier must have said something memorable about winning battles and losing wars

Posted By: djhSome famous soldier must have said something memorable about winning battles and losing wars

Dylan did.
"I ran into the fortune-teller who said beware of lightning that might strike
I haven't known peace and quit for so long I can't remember what it's like
There's a lone soldier on the cross smoke pouring out of a boxcar door
You didn't know it you didn't think it could be done in the final end he won the wars
After losing every battle."

Posted By: SeretNot as pointless as setting a goal you can't achieve. The point of setting a goal is to motivate people to push beyond what they're comfortable doing, but if it isn't realistic it won't be taken seriously and will achieve little or no action at all.

2016 is way too soon for a zero carbon target, that point would need to be reached gradually by setting progressively lower but achievable targets in the interim.

That's a different argument. That's about setting policy. But once having set a policy, you need to set a target designed to achieve the policy. You should be, and are, criticising the policy, but you shouldn't be defending the target.

IMHO, both are wrong. The target as set doesn't try to achieve the policy goal. And the policy goal as set is unachievable. Where did I read recently that none of the board at DECC are scientifically or engineering qualified?

Posted By: fostertomit wasn't when the 2016 date was first mooted - back in 2008 I believe. Then seemed miles away. Trouble is, little progress meantime.

Hmm. I admit I don't know the building industry well, but we're talking about radical change in methods and materials. Deep change in big organisations is a long process. One of the critical early prerequisites is building a consensus. Unfortunately when you're talking about a whole industry this can often mean generational time scales. The old guard have to retire and the new young talent with different skills and ideas come through. Given that there's still a healthy market for current building methods there's little immediate incentive to adopt new ones, so any attempt to force them through will be resisted. So there goes your consensus. To get rapid change it would have to be in response to customer demand. Pushing things through via legislation is always going to be slow.