18 ROUND TABLE REVIEW


needed to change They need to be prepared to let go of what they now, if it’s a new technology, you have to do so much wor to get any agreement.


LOOKING FORWARD TO THE FHS? The second session of the discussion moved onto a glimpse of the nottoo distant future  the ump in performance that will be reuired in  to produce net zero ready’ homes, and meet the uture omes tandard . avid lare of ystems candidly admitted that in the event that triple glazing was reuired, some of the firm’s current window systems would be obsolete. hris erry pointed out a further issue around triple glazing however, in that it significantly adds to a proect’s embodied carbon. lare added that with budgets normally under pressure in oneoff house proects, it was difficult to persuade homeowners to specify windows that were futureproofed’ against the incoming , rather than ones which ust meet current egs t’s very difficult when it’s something they’re not necessarily going to immediately see the benefit of. owever, one area where the  would lead to real beneficial change in specification, according to ill ayward, was that products would be treated as part of a system rather than individually. t the moment, you solve one problem, and create another one, he said. avid lare concurred, adding t’s counterproductive to ust aim for that value figure, because you may not be taing into account that if you went slightly better, you impact the whole fabric. The  has found that thermal bridging can cause up to  of heat losses, but there were design challenges in resolving them, said our panel. or example, hris erry cautioned that massive cavities can result in needing bespoe ties and other structures, thereby increasing a proect’s embodied carbon for one.


owever for suppliers there are obvious benefits to the ump in performance reuired avid lare said that what were currently potentially overly efficient products which have been on the shelf are now seeing the light of day in specifications.


hris arr said he was concerned that the indemand bungalow designs his firm produces are unliely to be achievable under the , but advocated bric slips in order to produce bigger cavities without losing floor area, as bric is decorative, and not load bearing. e continued however that achieving this was compromised by issues lie bric firms saying lintels were not ready for it, but asserted there was no reason we


WWW.HBDONLINE.CO.UK can’t do it now.


e added that the standard balcony designs he uses for homes were having to be redesigned, because there’s no way we can get them through the new egs, and definitely not through the uture omes tandards, and dormer windows will be unliely to be a feature post. They have been advised that balconies will need to be completely separate from the structure to avoid thermal bridging. e’s lobbying the epartment of ousing to push bac the  deadline by at least two years, due to concerns from s around obtaining materials in competition with volume housebuilders.


ir source heat pumps are liely to be the de facto space heating solution for the  in , as gas is phased out. hris arr said that his firm was looing at  and battery storage, plus electric heating on the ground floor of properties, and potentially infrared heating on the first, because ’m really worried about people being cold in these houses, and infrared can provide a boost. owever he did add that if you get the fabric and design right, it’s not going to tae a lot of heating, and his firm was going to  mm cavity insulation currently.


CHALLENGES OF THE FUTURE imon lacham reconed that the main issue for delivering the uture omes tandard was sills, but also identifying what net zero ready’ actually means. e also expressed concern that the progress to the standard was currently piecemeal, and beleaguered by the five year political cycle.


lacham exclaimed that zero bills’ houses are surely where we should be going, given the extent and danger posed by climate change globally. The round table showed there was still a long way to travel on this road before the industry is ready to deliver this.


ill ayward, echoing his arr’s remars, suggested that maybe the answer is to reduce what we are trying to achieve maybe we need to brea it down into smaller parts. ne final moment of consensus around the table was that thans to the overnment not having made its mind up on the way forward, our panel believed the uture omes tandard will not be implemented in , although it is technically achievable.


hris arr revisited the overnment’s build beautiful’ idea finally, but said that to meet the new regulations, it would be a case of build practical, and try to mae it as beautiful as possible.


We would like to thank our round table sponsors IDSystems, Schock and Recticel for supporting Building Insights LIVE


“PLANNERS AREN’T INTERESTED IN HOW IT PHYSICALLY WORKS – YOU HAVE TO EDUCATE THEM ON WHY WE ARE DOING CERTAIN THINGS THAT


AFFECT THE LOOK” CHRIS CARR, CARR AND CARR BUILDERS


ROUND TABLE RECOMMENDATIONS


Our attendees provided recommendations to both help the industry towards Part L compliance, and to tackle the upcoming Future Homes Standard.


Chris Carr: Planners need to work together with Building Control officers, and we need exemplars to share good practice of design and delivery. We also need to delay the Future Homes Standard by two years minimum, due to materials issues.


Shikha Bhardwaj: It’s looking at net zero carbon as a bigger challenge than just focusing on compliance, and instead using compliance as a layer of it, not the entire solution. Also, we need to focus on user comfort.


Chris Perry: The early stages of the designs are now even more important, and you need to have everyone on board to create something that works in a holistic way, and so you don’t hit problems later.


Simon Blackham: There’s a need for clarity; it’s not beholden on manufacturers to approve something which we haven’t designed to be used in a certain way.


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  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92