30 NET ZERO READY HOMES: DELIVERING THE FUTURE HOMES STANDARD ROUND TABLE REVIEW


challenge some areas are pulling in opposite directions e added ts how we wor the ecosystem to mae sure that manufacturers are giving developers the right information, and that were developing the right inds of solutions


ARE HOUSEBUILDERS READY? The delegates looed at whether housebuilders are ready to not only implement the changes, but also the impacts, for eample the lower profi t margins that may result from smaller numbers of units delivered per site, due to the increased footprint needed for added insulation but maintaining fl oor space This is alongside the general increases in upfront costs necessitated by uture omes tandard compliance, from better fabric, more insulation and low carbon technologies such as heat pumps and s


ulie odefroy ased our arratt


edrow and ellway delegates directly  when you are buying land, do you assume  compliance in the cost of  Chair ames arer pointed out that most of our  audience research responses put estimated cost increases at - per unit, but  reconed that the uplift could be over , which would severely dent their margins amie ursnell of ellway said that this was a further area where there was a whole lot of uncertainty e eplained that the housebuilder had been buying plots for four years which we will transition to the uture omes tandard, and said he and his commercial team are in the unenviable position of having to mae a provision for what we thin the  will cost e continued ltimately, youre looing at the residual land value model youve got to mae sure you position it correctly it becomes etremely diffi cult for us


Danielle ichalsa-orris said that housebuilders looing to obtain development land were woring in the dar in the absence of a  model or the full standard  we have had to mae an assumption of what the timeline for implementation and transition of the future homes standard will be, but we dont now what the fabric energy effi ciency or primary energy will be


he said the business was having to give caveats on costs based on epectations, such as we dont now how -values for windows are going to be calculated if we specify a  -value double glaed unit and they change the methodology, we might have to go to a triple glaed unit just to achieve that ichalsa-orris added iven the uncertainty, were unable to allocate the


WWW.HBDONLINE.CO.UK


BROAD AGREEMENT The round table included Barratt Redrow, UKGBC and expert consultants including McBains, Cundalls and Savills, with a broad range of knowledge and a degree of consensus on the challenges of the Future Homes Standard


cost within our build assumptions and budget assessments, as doing so could result in an overestimation that impacts a sites overall viability


odefroy responded on the cost issue, saying that the impact assessment was probably the poorest part of the consultation last year you had no idea where the fi gures came from he continued They looed really weird as a result, but there was no justifi cation esley Treacy of  builder Dandara said the industry was having to move and be proactive, but there was a lac of clarity and consistency from government around timelines he said, if we new early enough, we could wor to that, and we incorporate it into land values


THE RETROFIT DIMENSION  uestion raised by hybrid  housebuilderarchitect en clister was how the  interacts with retrofi t, including the ey innovation of redeveloping micro-sites such as with urban infi ll, as well as signifi cant eisting home renovations and etensions e wondered whether the  would reuire such projects to be on a par with new build, with art  being triggered in many cases ar tevens of Trustmar which oversees the  retrofi t standard said the challenge he saw was that in retrofi t there are different standards and different ways of assessing them ingspans on Ducer asserted ew build is easy by comparison with retrofi t clister also echoed concerns epressed by the volume housebuilders around estimating the costs of upgrades currently, as well as that on small sites, they are going to be disproportionately amplifi ed e added that with many small urban sites being the ideal, well-connected scenarios for new domestic development, there was a ris


the  could be starting to turn people off when there are already so many planning hurdles imon yatt of Cundall said there were lots of local authorities who have recently done smaller, micro sites with housing associations including to assivhaus, and a number of those published their cost data e added that they have taen a different approach, meaning theyre able to progress schemes on a cost-neutral basis


PV VIEWS


There was consensus that a version of ption  of the current  consultation including  was to be preferred, but this meant that there would need to be a further consultation on the reuired area of  for new homes, according to delegates


rofessor ubo anovic of alford niversity said ere not going to get to ero carbon with the available amount of surface area on the roofs theres always a reuirement for more  than whats available o  thin somewhere in the euation for developments, we need to allow enough space for additional  as otherwise were not going to get there owever, amie ursnell pointed out that there was a crucial need for developers to not to see the uture omes tandard provisions as a maimum target, but a minimum to eceed, particularly with regard to  t the same time, there were issues around  arrays ecess electricity being eported to the grid, and that a roof full of  would give no latitude to trade off, he said ursnell asserted that the  formula was fundamentally fl awed, as it assumes you can fi t  of your ground fl oor area onto your roof, and that your panels can morph into any shape they want to be


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