36 INDUSTRY VIEWFINDER: STRATEGIES FOR MEETING THE FUTURE HOMES STANDARD
managed. When asked to select all that apply from a list of options, 72% of our respondents said the added cost will be passed on to customers.
he potentially even more concerning fi nding – certainly from the Government’s point of view – was that 15% said they would delay projects, and 13% said they would reduce the number of homes they aim to deliver – options that would hinder the country’s efforts to build the homes that are desperately needed, and specifi cally abours target of building . million homes in the net fi ve years.
CUSTOMERS
When we asked our cohort how important issues around reducing the carbon footprint of homes were to their customers, 71% said they were either ‘very important’ or ‘quite important,’ indicating there is strong demand for more sustainable homes. owever, despite this, a slightly contradictory fi nding was given when asked how challenging meeting fabric and renewables requirements of FHS against a set of variables. In terms of fabric improvements, 71% cited lack of customer demand for higher performing homes as either a ‘very challenging’ or ‘quite challenging’ factor, and 58% said it was similarly challenging from a renewables & heating perspective. Either there is a lack of certainty from developers on what their customers actually want, or it’s a case of the customer demand being present, but not the willingness to pay for it, thus there is still a conundrum for housebuilders.
PRODUCTS: MATERIALS & RENEWABLES As well as the need for proper guidance outlining the full requirements of the FHS, housebuilders also need assurance that products will be available in order to hit required targets. hen we asked if developers are struggling to fi nd materials to comply with the FHS, 87% said they were not. Among the 13% who said they were having issues, insulation was the overwhelming cause of concern. One said their challenge was “what is the best insulation to use at a price sensitive target.” However, 70% of respondents also selected insulation when asked which fabric measures they are already using to meet the FHS; this indicates that it’s not necessarily that insulation products are ‘lagging’ behind, but that developers have encountered more problems with it over other products as it’s the avenue they’ve explored the most. Following on from the issues developers are having with insulation, it’s not surprising that 67% of respondents ranked wall values as either very or uite challenging specifi cation areas to address, based on the FHS. However, wall U-value targets remain unchanged from those set out in Part L, so it’s concerning that so many are still fi nding the target challenging, though this could be a continuation of issues encountered surrounding the need to supply photographic evidence to support the Building Regulations England Part L (BREL) report. arbon emissions also ranked highly, with a total of rating this as challenging. 72% selected the Fabric Energy ffi ciency tandards – which sets performance levels for building fabric that aim to reduce the amount of energy required to heat the home – as challenging, and 69% selected Primary Energy, which is the type of fuel used for heating and hot water. These all form the key metrics for measuring building performance under the FHS, along with the Home Energy Model,
so the fact such a high percentage of our cohort rate them all as challenges is a concern.
The FHS heavily supports the use of heat pumps, which interestingly 67% of respondents said was challenging. Installing heat pumps can be expensive and with alternative options available such as electric and biomass boilers, perhaps the government needs to consider giving housebuilders more choice in order to better support them.
he arguably goes hand in hand with a fabric fi rst approach, and yet when asked if they have opted for a fabric fi rst strategy for compliance with the standard, over half (54%) said no. This suggests that rather than approaching the building as a whole, developers are choosing to focus on specifi c elements. The replacement of SAP with the Home Energy Model has had mixed reviews. Positivity has generally focused on the fact it replaces a method which hasn’t been updated for over 30 years, but negative criticism has been that the two options selected for the notional building were the two ‘weakest’ building fabric options from the Future Homes Hub ‘Ready for Zero’ report.
Option 1 includes the use of solar PV panels, decentralised mechanical ventilation (dMEV), waste water heat recovery (WWHR) and achieves an airtightness test score of 4, while Option 2 excludes solar PV and utilises natural ventilation with intermittent extractor fans, achieving an airtightness test result of 5. Both have been criticised for omitting embodied carbon and thermal bridging, and for failing to change U-value targets from Part L 2021.
Of the 28% who said they feel it could have gone further, we asked specifi cally where they felt it fell short. ne respondent commented that the consultation “seemed a bit watered down, especially the airtightness,” and another said “to eradicate carbon and energy usage this should be aligned with Passivhaus standard,” both seemingly in agreement that the two options are indeed weak. A third respondent also agreed, saying “there is more to be done in fabric effi ciency.
Are you prepared and ready for the Future Homes Standard if it comes into force in early 2025?
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
