30
ROUND TABLE REVIEW
competence” than to “hand out training certifi cates.” He added: “I have seen certifi ed coordinators take photos blindly – simply because they were told to gather evidence, without understanding the underlying building physics.”
Session Two: Suppliers’ Question Time In the second session of the debate, the sponsors got to ask a series of pertinent questions from their perspectives, bringing a further real-world practicality to the discussion. First, Roly Ward of Medite Smartply raised the issue of the ‘double-whammy’ of achieving lower embodied carbon plus the rigorous performance requirements of the Future Homes Standard for designers of residential buildings. He questioned why less than 15% of homes in England were now built using timber frame, and asked delegates what Government-led initiatives needed to be enforced to enable resi developers to increase uptake. He affi rmed how timber was already ahead of the game on EPDs, as they were increasingly “on systems not just on products,” but that selling offsite processes required a whole-life carbon calculation attached.” However, much more Government engagement in driving those approaches. Jon Ducker from Kingspan Insulation then asked: “Given that
Wales and Scotland are maintaining stronger fabric standards, what would encourage developers to go beyond the English notional specifi cation to deliver low-energy homes?” Tim Martel of the Association for Environment Conscious Building said full Passivhaus design only adds around 4% to 8% cost premium but “drastically slashes lifetime running costs.” He said the AECB’s standard was a “pragmatic” new-build space heating target of 40 kWh/m2
SHARING THEIR SKILLS
Our delegates brought their skills to the fore, including around the skills crisis and how offsite methods could point to a solution
per year, compared to the Passivhaus target of 15 kWh/m2 .
Roly Ward held that a target of 40 was “well within the grasp of standard builders, and that we “must be entirely pragmatic about volume supply to reduce national carbon emissions rapidly.” Ducker was followed by Alan Collier, from Don & Low, who focused on membranes for creating airtight constructions, asking “how confi dent are housebuilders that onsite installation quality of membranes and airtightness detailing matches the performance assumed at design stage, and what needs to change in order to close that gap?”
Ness Scott of Greencore Homes commented that they have
a “strong level of confi dence” based on their robust onsite QA practices, including a QA manager picking up any issues “very early on.” However, she said she hoped FHS compliance wouldn’t be a case of “suddenly introducing a new quality assurance process.” Then, Chris Pears-Ryding, Tarmac Group changed the focus onto embodied carbon, asking: “With the Future Homes Standard currently driving the majority of focus to reducing operational carbon, how can we ensure that the potential benefi ts of reducing embodied carbon get the right level of attention from regulators and housebuilders alike?”
Delegates agreed that reporting or limiting embodied carbon was a glaring omission in the Future Homes Standard, and Simon Storer for one believed that evaluating whole-life carbon must become the priority, “not just upfront embodied.” However Ness from Greencore Homes gave a possible explanation for the short-term focus, that whole-life carbon models such as over a 60-year cycle
“rely on highly speculative assumptions, while upfront embodied carbon can be accurately and verifi ably assessed today.” Questions were also submitted by Eurocell and Keystone Lintels on the ramifi cations of the Standard when it came to windows and openings, and these were tackled during the debate despite the absence of company representatives. Eurocell wondered if, without further government support, the “escalating costs and regulatory complexity associated with achieving net zero would limit the growth of UK housebuilding,” and Keystone Lintels posed the issue of whether an overt focus on walls and insulation values could ignore how thermal bridging at openings can “quietly undermine performance,” and whether its impact was underestimated. Several delegates commented on the importance of detailing including junctions and openings, such as Naomi Sadler, who said that this threw SAP Assessors’ shortcomings into sharp relief. Sadler said this challenge also affected the overall envelope
design: “Most SAP assessors lack practical site experience and do not understand physical construction. So when structural engineers alter block specifi cations for loading or foundation depth without consulting the energy assessor, the thermal implications on sills and lintels junctions are ignored.” Naomi came back to the issue of default U-values, saying that assessors typically apply generic values; in reality, large structural window openings require custom lintels, and this causes late-stage compliance failures.” She also commented on issues around window specifi cation from the new Standard: with architectural trends specifying large areas of glazing with slim frames, consequential structural steel posts “disrupt thermal junctions.” She added: “Most site teams cannot defi ne a Y-value, and uncalculated changes in block conductivity can completely destroy the validity of the SAP calculation. Delegates also looked at the realities of triple-glazing’s performance and structural ramifi cations, as well as impacts on G-values, and therefore solar gain.
Conclusion
One of the most interesting takeaways was when several delegates backed the idea of bringing back the long-lost Clerk of Works
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
