Sustainability


much of the solar impact as well as enhancing biodiversity and the visual aspect of the roof.


Long-term strategies to provide adaptation methods and increase resilience to overheating are needed within the care sector. Most urgently, however, the care sector needs a culture change to enable it to prioritise the health risks of excessive heat alongside those from the cold.


The benefits


The benefits of Passivhaus design in new buildings are unequivocal, but what about in older buildings? The answer lies in refurbishment or more specifically retrofit, which is the term used in the industry for energy efficiency upgrades to buildings. Retrofit typically involves adding insulation to walls, roofs and where possible floors, to eliminate heat loss alongside window upgrades and improvements to (or the replacement of) heating and ventilation plant. The challenge for care home operators is to undertake refurbishment that genuinely improves resident health and wellbeing, significantly reduces operational running costs and has a deep and lasting impact on carbon emissions, which may align with corporate social responsibility.


Retrofit needs to be designed holistically and implemented to a high standard. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently reported that: “Each building retrofitted in a sub- optimal way, locks us into a high climate- footprint future.”4


The message is


therefore to do it once and do it well or at the very least follow a strategy of retrofit stages that lead to a complete solution. The Passivhaus principal relies on the ability to optimise the form and orientation of a building in order to maximise performance, but obviously that is not possible with retrofit, so the standard is adapted slightly to reflect the challenges of refurbishment. The appropriate certification standard is EnerPHit.


The ideal retrofit scheme involves a complete overhaul of the building fabric, which might include wall insulation and cladding, air leakage reduction measures, window and door replacement and the introduction of heat recovery ventilation. Most of these works can be undertaken externally if the style of the building and planning constraints permit. For older properties of heritage value, these upgrades will have to be carried out internally, but advantageously this then allows upgrades to be completed on a


32


room-by-room basis, which may offer a manageable solution for care home operators.


Many specialist products and techniques have been developed in the retrofit field over recent years, such as high performance insulations that are pinned to the existing structure and can improve thermal performance to the same level as seen in new buildings. Typically, roof finishes are removed, insulation added and new roof finishes replaced.


Floors can be trickier, but in the worst case scenario an insulated ‘apron’ can be installed around the building perimeter to create a heat island underneath the existing structure. Improvements to air leakage levels are also a prerequisite for high performance and comfort so that even in retrofits, low rates can be achieved following analysis by an experienced retrofit designer. A new approach, involving prefabricated retrofit, is attracting interest. In this case, a new external skin is fabricated in its entirety under factory conditions (including linings, insulation, windows and cladding) and tailored specifically to correlate to an accurate laser survey of the existing building. The new roof and wall panels are assembled on the outside of the building with residents still in situ; the only intervention internally is the removal and re-lining of the old windows. Air leakage and heat recovery ventilation distribution can all be dealt with in the new outer skin.


The Future


Greater energy efficiency is undoubtedly the key to producing care home buildings that are more sustainable in terms of both financial viability and environmental impact. Heating and cooling plant and other services have an important role; efficient devices, whether in the form of lighting or medical equipment, not only save energy directly, but also reduce demand for cooling at the same time. However, the replacement or retrofit of building stock to the Passivhaus standard provides the greatest opportunity for truly radical savings in terms of running costs and greenhouse gas emissions. A healthier living environment is proven to be of benefit, having significantly reduced absenteeism in offices and schools where Passivhaus design has been introduced. The conditions for large scale energy efficiency measures are favourable and with the available technology, the demand can be reduced significantly in most areas. With our European cousins


Mark Elton


Mark Elton is a certified Passivhaus architect for Cowan Architects. Mark has been practising as an architect for 22 years and has considerable experience in low energy architecture and retrofit on a wide variety of award-winning projects. His interest in sustainable design stems from a combined architectural and engineering education at the University of Bath followed by a career in various London practices before joining Cowan Architects. He is an accredited European Passivhaus designer and is recognised for his work on social housing retrofit projects, including the Edward Woods estate which is highlighted in the LSE study ‘High Rise Hope’ and Wilmcote House, the UK’s largest EnerPHit refurbishment project.


www.thecarehomeenvironment.com • March 2020


poised to take full advantage of the benefits of Passivhaus design, it is time we followed their lead.


References 1. Holden J. Securing Health Returns – Sustainable Development Unit.NHS England. [www.sduhealth.org.uk].


2. Wingfield J, Bell M, Miles-Shenton D, South T, Lowe B. Lessons from Stamford Brook: Understanding the gap between designed and real performance. UCL Energy Institute, 2008.


3. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Climate Resilience in Health and Social Care Conference, 5th July 2016. Professor Rajat Gupta Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development, Oxford Brookes University. [www.jrf.org.uk].


4. Lucon O, Ürge-Vorsatz D et al. Buildings. In: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Mitigation of Climate Change, 2014.


TCHE


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