INDUSTRY VIEWFINDER 27
INDUSTRY VIEWFINDER
Design approaches for Future Homes Standard and Future Buildings Standard compliance
Executive Summary
In January 2024 we surveyed architects on the changes to residential and non-residential building design required by the 2021 updates to Parts L, F and O of the Building Regulations. This year we wanted to discover if their views had changed, and also some of their practical approaches to achieving compliance with the Future Homes Standard (FHS) and the Future Homes Standard (FBS). In the event, with both standards still awaiting full introduction, the survey probably garnered more of the former than the latter. However, the fi ndings enabled us to see if the previous obstacles remained to the same degree, as well as discover insights on new aspects of compliance that have emerged. New questions for 2025 included preferences on the Notional Building ‘options’ in the Future Homes Standard consultation, preferences on U-value targets, and the potential of the standards to achieve their goals. We also discovered their views on the likely plusses and minuses of the Home Energy Model, the cost uplift of compliance, and the effect of changes they were required to make to existing designs. The results of this study, which was sponsored by Kingspan Insulation and Fakro, help contribute to the evidence base to demonstrate its readiness for the new standards, and highlight remaining issues for the Government to address. SAP has always had its share of critics as a robust method for calculating (and thereby driving) the performance specifi cation of new buildings. Flaws have been identifi ed such as around its assumptions in terms of buildings’ energy use, and the simplistic way that it assesses overheating. But whether the more sophisticated Home Energy Model (HEM) will be able to provide a dramatic improvement in the short term is still up for debate. This was refl ected in our survey results, where half of our respondents said that they were unsure as to whether HEM
was fi t for purpose as a replacement for SAP. And while some commentators have said that the assumptions which have been made in SAP around domestic water use (and potentially are being carried over into HEM), are misleadingly low, our fi ndings did not conclusively fi nd this unanimous view. However, 36% still said the assumptions were ‘underestimating’ consumption. We looked at the design changes architects have already had to implement, both in the Future Homes Standard and Future Buildings Standard, and enabled several key comparisons between 2024 and 2025 fi ndings. These included whether views had changed on if they believed the carbon reductions required were achievable short term, how important they thought third party testing of products were, and their preferences around the notional building options proposed in the consultation. We also looked again at potential issues getting the right data on performance and energy effi ciency of products, and some of the solutions being prioritised by designers to achieve compliance. The results, even where there are small differences, show some interesting fl uctuations among our survey samples, and some good news, for example on the relative acceptance levels of design changes required from planners and clients, although there remains a challenge around contractors’ acceptance levels.
Introduction Key changes for FHS & FBS
The Government consultation process with the industry on the Future Homes Standard and Future Buildings Standard, and its fundamental building assessment component, the Home Energy Model (HEM) began in 2023, and closed in March 2025. However, the Government’s offi cial response, announcing which of two options were chosen to take forward the Standard has not yet
ADF OCTOBER 2025
WWW.ARCHITECTSDATAFILE.CO.UK
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 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84
