INDUSTRY VIEWFINDER 29
What is your estimated cost uplift per home or building from the Future Homes Standard & Future Buildings Standard? No increase Under £1k £1k to £5k £5k to £10 £10k to £20 £20k to £30k Over £30k
to mitigate overheating, presumably caused by tighter performance and air standards from Part L’s 2021 upgrade, and meaning facade redesigns or re-orientation of dwellings. The need to redesign had dropped slightly from a 29% fi gure in 2024. Were respondents still fi nding problems obtaining performance and energy effi ciency data on materials and structures to achieve compliance? Although in 2024 we framed this around Part L, F and O, this year it had improved only slightly; 72% still saying this was ‘moderately or very’ challenging. On the specifi c material types which were providing diffi cult in terms of obtaining data, there was a similar pattern overall at the top across the two studies, with external envelope and cladding materials the most selected category (51% in 2024 rising to 63% however in 2025), followed by glazing (45% rising to 56%). Insulation dropped two spaces at 37% to be replaced by air source heat pumps now in third place in 2025 (44% picking it). This suggests that as air source heat pumps have become the default method of heating for many housebuilders approaching the new standards, obtaining performance data has become increasingly diffi cult, and something manufacturers need to grapple with. We recorded good news this year in terms of improved levels of acceptance of the design changes required from planners and clients, but less good news, perhaps unsurprisingly, from contractors. 30% of planners were ‘fully accepting’ of the changes needed (though this was down on the 52% from 2024). Clients were ‘fully accepting’ of the changes according to 21%, although this was also a drop from 30%. Lastly, contractors were only fully accepting for 9% of our survey – a big drop on 22% in 2024.
Design solutions Our survey cohort, somewhat surprisingly, did not give a defi nitive verdict on the question of whether they preferred the more comprehensive and energy-effi cient Option 1 in the Notional Building/HEM model currently proposed (including PV, and more expensive), or the more basic Option 2. For the Future Homes
Standard, it was split evenly between Option 1 and ‘don’t know’ – with 38% and 35% respectively, but a decent 27% picked Option 2 as their preferred option. For the Future Buildings Standard (non- domestic), Option 1 and ‘don’t know’ were identical, with 39% each, and Option 2 at 21%. A challenging fi nding which speaks to the veracity of whether data on architects’ choices was as informative as those of contractors, was that most of our respondents said that architects did not have enough say in specifying housebuilding projects. Our verbatim comments received to the question around whether or not architects needed a bigger say in order to make a ‘meaningful difference to specifi cations in order to reduce carbon emissions in volume housebuilding projects’ were revealing. One asserted that the “vast majority of schemes were designed by non-architects,” and another mentioned that all specifi cation decisions “were commercially driven.”
Others cited Design and Build contracts leading to a lack of control and that “new or good ideas are not easily accepted” as being a general rule in the sector. One respondent however said that, while fi nancial motives are paramount, “if there are incentives as well as statutory requirements that mean developers and clients can promote a sustainably superior product and get return for ‘capex’ and ‘opex,’ then architects will be able to have more say in how to achieve the targets alongside great architecture and design solutions.” In terms of the U-values being sought, and whether our respondents were looking to undershoot, meet or exceed the current Notional Building target U-values (which can be traded against each other as long as the overall Target Emission Rate is achieved.) According to our cohort, for homes and non-domestic properties there was a largely even four-way split between window, wall, roof and fl oor U-values for their picks on either below-target, on-target or above target. A slightly counterintuitive, and contrasting fi nding was around whether architect respondents had seen window sizes reduced
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
