64 INDUSTRY VIEWFINDER: APPROACH TO WATER EFFICIENCY IN NEW HOMES
he main changes were • he optional requirement for tighter water effi ciency egulation .
• ntroduction of a fi ttings-based approach as an alternative to using the water effi ciency calculator
• nclusion of the water effi ciency calculator methodology, plus minor alterations from uropean effi ciency labelling and amendments resulting from removal of references to the ode for ustainable omes
• nnex listing the relevant competent person self- certifi cation schemes has been deleted.
here was a further amendment to art in , which requires a water effi ciency calculation to be completed for new dwellings where a shower will not be provided. owever the fi ttings-based approach remains as an alternative to this method. s part of the optional’ requirement within art , a fi xed factor’ of water for outdoor use of litres was introduced, which aligns with the old ode for ustainable omes requirement of litres per person per day for internal use. ur survey found a mixed picture in terms of awareness of the new’ provisions within art , and whether it should have gone further in order to create a lower mandatory limit for water use per person. said they were aware of the provisions, meaning a substantial weren’t, possibly suggesting a large amount of specifi cation of water-saving products wasn’t always carried out by them as developers but by subcontractors. eassuringly, of our respondents believed that achieving the required litres per person was easily achievable without substantial extra investment,’ but thought that it would be diffi cult to achieve without substantial extra investment.’ nd a small but fairly revealing minority even believed that achieving that mandatory level of water usage was diffi cult, even with substantial extra investment, suggesting that the slight changes in lifestyle required would be problematic for some buyers.
his was borne out in another fi nding in the survey, where said they were specifying showers, s, baths, and sink and basin taps. owever in terms of showers, for example, were specifi ed by an architect, by a plumber and by an engineer. hen it came to control valves, fi gures for internal and external specifi cations were similar, with of developers saying they were specifying internal control valves, that an architect was, an installer, and engineer. or external control values, it was developer, architect, installer, engineer. e asked our survey respondents whether art should have introduced a tougher framework on water usage, such as a mandatory litres per person limit rather than an optional one for local authorities. verall, they agreed that the overnment should have gone further to limit water use said they completely agreed, and slightly agreed. owever, said they completely disagreed with this notion. nd a higher percentage versus said that the optional standard should have been made a mandatory maximum’ in art .
he audience was split on whether the art targets as they stand can be achieved by installing water controls alone on developments, without homeowners also committing to signifi cant water savings too in their lifestyles. he survey
PRODUCED IN ASSOCIATION WITH
found that supported this notion, while thought that customers would also have to be on board with a change in approach.
CUSTOMER ATTITUDES
he shift in water usage requires a shift in customer expectations in terms of what their appliances will deliver. owever, the installation of water meters across the has already helped customers to understand the positive impact of such methods on their household bills, and increased engagement with their water use. his was borne out by our survey, which asked builders and developers ave water meters increased customers’ engagement with water saving tech’ conclusive said that they had. owever, water meters are only thought to be installed in of households, so if this is the key to customers accepting appliances with a lower fl ow rate, this needs to be dramatically increased in future. t has been rumoured that water companies supplying areas with a serious risk of water shortage are looking at forcing customers to install meters.
espite the challenges, our surveyed readers reckoned that customers would generally readily accept’ the new performance levels in appliances which result from the litres per person mandatory requirement. he fi gures were yes, no for s, yes and no for baths, and slightly lower positives for showers yes and no, washing machines yes, no, and dishwashers yes, no, but there were higher don’t know’ fi gures in the washer categories. espondents seemed fairly optimistic their customers would even accept the tighter litres per day performance, particularly with basin taps , sink taps , with s, washing machines, baths and dishwashers not far behind, with all four ranging from to of the votes. he slight difference perhaps refl ects the arguably greater practical impact of s and washing machines on the daily lives of families, a key target market for developers.
relatively small number of respondents versus said they were exploring alternative ways of designing homes, specifi cally for reducing water use, such as smaller baths and communal washing facilities.
Can the Part G targets in new builds be achieved by developers installing water controls alone (without users committing to signifi cant water saving too)?
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 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100
