INDUSTRY VIEWFINDER: STRATEGIES FOR MEETING THE FUTURE HOMES STANDARD 33
STRATEGIES FOR MEETING THE FUTURE HOMES STANDARD
How well do you understand the requirements of the Future Homes Standard?
INTRODUCTION T
he currently consultation on the Future Homes Standard (FHS) was published in December 2023, with the aim of building upon the changes already set out by the
updated Parts L and F, as well as making provisions for fabric improvements and renewable technologies. We staged a series of surveys of housebuilders in order to gauge their readiness, and most recently, their practical approaches to the Standard. The original 2021 consultation proposed increases in required U-values from those set out in Part L – requiring walls to achieve a minimum of 0.15 W/m2
K (rather than 0.18 W/m2 and windows tightened from 1.2 to 0.8 W/m2 K in Part L), K. However, that
was dropped in 2023, much to the dismay of many industry bodies. As a result, FHS provisions currently are unchanged on U-values from those in Part L. The standard also includes so- called ‘backstop values,’ meaning individual products can have lower U-values than those set by the notional building, so long as the overall average U-value meets the target. Other key changes include a preference for inclusion of heat
pumps, and the scrapping of the Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) – unchanged in the last 30 years – to be replaced by the Home Energy Model. The HEM sees the calculation methodology and ecosystem modifi ed, allowing assessors to determine a design’s compliance with the FHS and also issue new energy performance certifi cate ratings. As part of this, there are two ‘notional’ building options which will be used to compare designs’ performance with, known as Option 1 and Option 2. Option 1 utilises solar PV panels, decentralised mechanical ventilation (dMEV) and achieves an airtightness test score of 4. The simpler Option 2 includes no solar PV, natural ventilation with intermittent extractor fans, and an airtightness test result of 5, presented as “the minimal approach to achieve ‘zero-carbon ready’ homes.” It’s estimated that on a three bed semi-detached house, Option 1 would cost around £6,000 more than current regulations, with Option 2 presenting only a £1,000 increase. Despite this, the overwhelming consensus within the industry is that Option 1 is preferred. It would mean lower running
PRODUCED IN ASSOCIATION WITH
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
