search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
28 NET ZERO READY HOMES: DELIVERING THE FUTURE HOMES STANDARD ROUND TABLE REVIEW


TACKLING THE PROBLEM AT SCALE This round table was the largest yet staged by Building Insights LIVE, with fi ve key sponsors, refl ecting the scale of the challenge


hat we do now is that this set of construction regulations will amount to a - reduction in carbon for new homes, is liely to reuire solar  plus fossil-fuel free heating, and will also cover signifi cant renovations to eisting homes owever, with the ption  -oriented model of the tandard now being taen forward, the round table aired some of the remaining issues which are still to be resolved, to assist housebuilders in delivering the standard as epected


THE DISCUSSION


oth ellway omes and arratt edrow gave us valuable on-the-ground insights into their preparations for achieving the tandard at scale, as well as concerns around the delays to the ome nergy odel replacing , and including via rofessor ubo anovich some learnings from their respective nergy ouse  ero carbon test bed research projects at the niversity of alford e also focused on the impact on smaller mainstream housebuilding such as from s encil and ric and Dandara iving e have staged round tables around the  updates to  arts , ,  and  of the uilding egulations, where epectations were clear that upgraded fabric and renewables effi ciency would become the norm in new developments et according to one recent estimate from lmhurst nergy, by ebruary  only  of new homes were actually being built to the new art  reuirements


WWW.HBDONLINE.CO.UK


t the other end of the spectrum, imon yatt of Cundall made the case that many eamples now eisting of assivhaus construction, and the uture omes tandard as currently formulated doesnt loo ambitious enough e asserted Design of a assivhaus isnt that much different to the design of  its the installation and the uality This meant granular detail on -value calculation, to mae sure you actually achieve what youre looing to do, addressing the performance gap hether or not it was undershooting on the ambition, the uestion still needed to be ased whether the tandard is deliverable as it stands  and our delegates were not convinced e collated recommendations from the attendees at the end of the event, for both industry and overnment, given that the former is waiting for the latter to announce clear details on the standard, as a matter of urgency


hile there were a host of issues and uncertainties around the , we also wanted to use the meeting as an opportunity to eplore the practical strategies for meeting the standard in real-world schemes This included enabling industry innovations from energy demand reduction to waste water heat recovery, to underfl oor heating, to heat pump controls n the absence of directives on solutions centrally, its left to the industry to share best practice at events such as this, and develop coherent and futureproof ways forward


The second half of the debate featured pertinent uestions from each of our fi ve sponsors to our informed panel, and we also referred to audience research by Housebuilder & Developer on how the industry is getting to grips with the tandards challenges  at least as far as they were aware of them ollowing the round table in une the overnment announced it would go for the more comprehensive solar -oriented ption  of the consulted standard, despite  of housebuilders in our  ndustry iewfi nder research saying they preferred ption  Danielle ichalsa-orris of arratt


edrow commented that the more epensive ption , in terms of capital cost to the developer, but offering lower bills for the customer was something we absolutely agree with, but we would


“INTRODUCING THE STANDARD WITHOUT A FULLY FUNCTIONING HEM TOOL IS GOING TO BE REALLY, REALLY DIFFICULT FOR DEVELOPERS”


JAMIE BURSNELL, BELLWAY HOMES


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