28
ROUND TABLE REVIEW
ROUND TABLE CHAIR James Parker, Managing Editor, Architects’ Datafi le
ATTENDEES Naomi Sadler, Director, SEES (Sadler Energy & Environmental Services) Tim Martel, Standards & Certifi cation Programme Manager, Association for Environmentally Conscious Building (AECB) Dr Marina Topouzi, Researcher, Energy programme, University of Oxford (Environmental Change Institute) Simon Storer, Chief Executive, Insulation Manufacturers Association (IMA) James Towt, Principal Energy and Carbon Consultant, Useful Simple Trust Tom Westwood, Programme Director, The Green Register Rob East, Associate Technical Director, Newland Homes Ness Scott, Head of Sustainability, Greencore Homes Paul Christmas, Insulated Render & Cladding Association and Head of Technical at EWIPRO
SPONSORS’ ATTENDEES Jon Ducker, Head of Regulatory Affairs, Kingspan Insulation Roly Ward, Head of Business Development, Medite Smartply Alan Collier, Business Development Manager, Don & Low Chris Pears-Ryding, Commercial Director, Blocks, Tarmac Group
solutions. Key recommendations for both industry and Government are collected at the end of this report.
Jonathan Ducker of Kingspan opened the discussion saying the target of cutting carbon emissions by ‘75% to 80%’ on 2013 Building Regulations under the Standard “isn’t actually that big a step.” He said it amounted to approximately a “30% to 35% improvement over 2021 regulations, depending on house type” – either reassuring or somewhat underwhelming, depending on your perspective.
On fabric specifi cally, he said that retaining the Fabric Energy
Effi ciency Standard (FEES) to nominally prioritise fabric in the FHS is welcome, as it is “what keeps the building honest. The fabric as a whole is the foundation that then allows for the building services and heating systems to perform in a coherent and appropriate way. And if you don’t get the fabric right to start with, then those systems may well underperform.” He was confi dent that fabric was embedded into compliance, thanks to FEES: “The requirements do seem to be structured so that you can’t leave the fabric behind and still get the building to pass anyway; you will struggle signifi cantly on FEES, you may even struggle on the dwelling emission rate and primary energy metrics; there is simply no longer the fl exibility that you might have had in the past.”
Consultant and SAP assessor Naomi Sadler said that she and many others were “disappointed that the baseline U-values weren’t lowered further [from the original SAP levels].” While there had
been a “jump” to make to the interim SAP 10.3, she said, it’s “very much pointing towards what HEM will be aimed at, looking closely at the small gains, such as secondary pipe insulation and products’ thermal conductivity.”
The burden of evidence
Sadler added that the new rigour of providing continuous BREL photo evidence on projects, “showing exactly what is put into that building and also precisely how it is built,” was the sector’s “biggest compliance challenge,” and a “massive cultural jump.” She said it was mandatory for “absolutely everything, especially thermal conductivity,” but celebrated that “cheap and poorly installed insulation will no longer be accepted.” She said digital apps that “support multiple authenticated users and preserve ongoing access,” were needed, avoiding issues such as site managers “frequently disabling location settings due to surveillance anxieties.” Simon Storer, representing insulation manufacturers, said a culture change had to happen: “We must stop building homes below current environmental standards. Excusing compliance failures because trades turn off geo-location settings is unacceptable.”
Ducker added that the new regime should bring more rigour, for example with redesigns being required if air-tightness scores “did not turn out as expected, or changes of specifi cation such as windows are done without full knowledge of energy assessors.” Rob East of Newland Homes described how all of the evidence gathering was “adding a layer of bureaucratic work,” but benefi tted from a SAP assessor with a dedicated software platform. He advised: “Holding pre-start site meetings across the entire structural supply chain – from groundworkers up – is essential. We warn site managers that failing to log photos at the moment of construction will jeopardise CML mortgage sign-off.” Jon Ducker said that the days of design teams “rarely communicating the importance of key thermal details to site installers, and design- stage compliance certifi cates simply fi led away” were now over. “Proactive communication is now vital,” he said, as “a single failure in a hidden detail will cause the building to fail its fi nal test.”
Industry’s fabric fi rst initiatives; from Building Passports to EPDs
Simon Storer said the Government should back a “defi nitive digital building passport” to collate architectural and material data from BREL photo evidence, to geo-located compliance data, and EPDs in a central hub, providing a “single source of truth” that would thereby drive quality. This would “record subsequent life-cycle modifi cations, manufacturing traceability, and structural quality,” including detailed product tracking provided to support circularity. Delegates agreed this would ensure data continuity across changes in ownership, and prevent loss of evidence due to subcontractor churn. Naomi Sadler emphasised the need to safeguard homeowners long-term against changes in the supply chain, such as people leaving job roles.
Simon Storer said the industry should be held to the same standards as automotive manufacturing, but while manufacturers in construction faced “intense quality control” such as Declarations of
WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK
ADF JUNE 2026
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
