DELIVERING COST-EFFECTIVE PASSIVHAUS PROJECTS AT SCALE IN RESIDENTIAL & DOMESTIC SECTORS 41
BUILDING ON INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE Although only 1% of new homes are Passivhaus Certifi ed, our group contained leading names including Barratt London and Willmott Dixon who were now building at scale
metre, and Goldsmith Street was even lower, coming in at a modest 1,875/m2
. This was a crucial learning to communicate, given that
industry’s costs had infl ated by 91% since 2012. The event chair James Parker framed the opening discussion by saying that Passivhaus at scale was an incredible opportunity to achieve a raft of energy and carbon savings “in one hit,” but it did mean that the industry would need to discard the prevalent “that’ll do” approach to construction. Passivhaus meant “embracing surgical precision and a painstaking focus on the details,” whether this was tackling thermal bridges or taping all junctions, he said. The round table tackled several of the assumptions commonly made around Passivhaus, such as it being prohibitively expensive or diffi cult. But, as co-sponsor Hugh Franklin from Aeroseal UK put it, delivering certifi ed buildings required a much higher level of ambition than the “do the minimum” approach that he asserted was common in project meetings: ”Passivhaus is asking us to be brave and bold – that’s a wild change for people.”
But one of the key learnings from the round table was that high-density Passivhaus could provide the cost savings on other, lower density options that might help it become a more mainstream proposition. At the same time, the industry needed to share approaches and understanding more, particularly given the unlikelihood of specifi c Government levers coming into being. Answering the chair’s question of whether Passivhaus should be mandated by Government in England (as it is soon to be, at least for an ‘equivalent’ standard, in Scotland), Franklin said that the industry should be looking to Ireland, where there had been a “market-led drive” to Passivhaus at scale in residential, citing one major builder “committed to improving the fabric of low rise housing” using Passivhaus. He added that in Ireland, “It’s Government encouraged. It’s not mandated. It’s all moving that way.” We looked at how to drive industry culture, training, but also standardisation in the hope of helping grow Passivhaus (without killing innovation), but also critically how it was one of the few tools available to provide a clear, unambiguous benchmark on quality against the current major drivers to improve standards.
Anne-Marie Fallon gave a strong case that Passivhaus was the answer for serving the dual drivers of the incoming Single Construction Regulator (mooted for 2028 and covering building safety, product regulation, and contractor licensing), alongside the “consumer protection reform that is coming through DESNZ.” She said Passivhaus stood as a ready-made solution to the “fundamental issue of not understanding what quality is or what it looks like.” Fallon added that in this respect Passivhaus was a “framework to hang all of that building regulation on… it’s about building quality, accountability, transparency…we already have Homes England identifying that Passive House is one of the only methodologies that can give you a healthy home.”
Other participants agreed that Passivhaus was a proven but
under-adopted framework for quality and comfort, and one, Dr Joel Callow of Beyond Carbon, held that energy use in properties “was the problem, not carbon, and Passivhaus hits that bullseye directly.”
Mandates versus incentives
The group had mixed views on whether the Government should be mandating Passivhaus for new builds in the commercial and residential sectors, in the way Scotland has done (albeit in a ‘Passivhaus equivalent’ model for Scottish homes). Ann-Marie Fallon said that current Government policy “prioritises clean heat over effi ciency, which is backwards.” Attzaz Rashid of Barratt London, who have committed to building all its new homes as Passivhaus Certifi ed, warned about policy confl icts (for example “mandated heat networks” in London) making Passivhaus-type ambition unviable: “This kind of mandated de facto position in London just kills any ambition of anyone doing anything like Passivhaus…we’re defi nitely trying to break down those barriers.”
Joel Callow on the other hand had scepticism around adding to the “smorgasbord of contradictory regulation” already present, adding that Part L is “actively opposing Passivhaus by not showing the benefi ts that it actually brings.” Most delegates agreed that, rather than Government mandates for Passivhaus, what was needed was incentives for clients and developers to pursue the method, but also
WWW.HBDONLINE.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
