Opinion
Fit for purpose?
Architects can shake off their reputation for ignoring
retrofits by taking a lead on this key contribution to
sustainability in buildings, says Greg Slater
U
pgrading existing housing stock is and UK Renewable Energy Strategy, both published
essential in the UK, and PRP welcomes on 15 July.
the Technology Strategy Board’s funding PRP will do this as part of the Existing Homes
competition aimed at enabling building Alliance, a coalition of organisations calling for
and renovation companies to retrofit social housing urgent action to transform the UK’s existing housing
stock (Journal news, August, page 10). stock and make it fit for the 21st century. We also
The Stern Report on the economics of climate responded to the consultation initiatives, directly
change showed us that not tackling climate change setting out PRP’s views.
now will cost us a great deal more later. The dangers We have developed a series of
of environmental neglect, coupled with a shrinking exemplar schemes for properties
Architects are
economy, have highlighted inefficiencies in the ranging from solid walled
existing housing stock, and the link to a rapid growth Victorian terraces through to
in pole
in fuel poverty. a grade II listed concrete high-
position to help drive the
But in the pursuit of zero carbon in new housing, rise. The BRE Stableblock
we tend to overlook the energy saving potential of in Watford, for example,
changes needed –
the UK’s existing housing stock. To meet our targets comprises three different flat
and making sure that
we must retrofit 500,000 homes a year for the next types, while Balfron Tower in
40 years. Tower Hamlets has 146 units.
all upgrade
Architects can play a pivotal role in planning and All these suggest that emission
activity is for
delivering ‘strategic retrofitting’. They offer balanced reductions in excess of 80 per
professional leadership, technical specification cent are achievable, even in the
the long term.
knowledge that can fulfil sustainability requirements most difficult circumstances.
and aesthetically pleasing design solutions. Architects are in pole position to help drive the
The government has concluded three linked changes needed. From option appraisal and technical
consultation initiatives that set the framework for a specification to statutory compliance and resident
‘Great British Refurb’. The first two build on existing consultation, architects must be employed as a key
measures-based activity (insulating cavities and lofts, professional resource to ensure all upgrade activity
etc) through an extension of CERT funding from is designed for long-term gain.
energy suppliers, and aim to generate a further Our profession stands accused of ignoring
£350m in funding from this source via a Community refurbishment in favour of the new and modern;
Energy Saving Programme. This is to upgrade whole now is the time to redress this and ensure the work
houses for 90,000 vulnerable households, offering we carry out has lasting impact, in both economical
an opportunity to upscale the prototypes from the and sustainable terms.
retrofit competition. Society must change; the way in which we design
The third, the Heat and Energy Saving Strategy and build must change, too; and the retrofit sector
consultation, sets the framework for a national provides an opportunity to maximise sustainable
delivery programme beyond 2012 and challenges output while making social and financial profit. It’s
us to achieve near zero carbon housing by 2050, not too late. In fact, it’s happening now. But if we’re
offsetting more tricky economic sectors. It also going to meet targets, deliver long-term solutions
projects 1.2m retrofits per year by 2020. and reduce fuel poverty, we need to get moving. l
These consultations are welcome but we must act
now and challenge the government’s commitment to
Greg Slater is associate director at architectural firm PRP. A
delivery through the UK Low Carbon Transition Plan
version of this article first appeared in RIBA Journal
18 CIBSE Journal September 2009 www.cibsejournal.com
CIBSEsep09 pp18 opinion slater.indd 18 21/8/09 14:27:28
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72