SELFBUILDER SURVEY: DELIVERING HIGH PERFORMANCE HOMES


more clarifi cation is needed for self-builders as to whether or not achieving certifi cation can increase their home’s value, as it’s evidently a factor that’s important to them. ust behind this,  said their reason for not seeking


certifi cation was that site restrictionsconstraints mean full certifi cation would not be possible’. There are various factors that can play into this – if the building has to be oriented a certain way the necessary passive solar gain may not be possible, or heavy overshadowing from nearby trees or buildings can block sunlight. Certain ground conditions – such as steep sites or high water tables – can mean elements such as airtight foundations or the necessary continuous insulation levels can be risky or even impossible. t seems a legitimate frustration, therefore, that some self-builders are simply dictated by their site and cannot meet all the necessary, rigorous reuirements. The fi nal two options, both chosen by  of respondents,


were that not pursuing certifi cation enables more design fl exibility’ and that the certifi cation process is too complex’. t’s arguably reassuring that so few self-builders view the process as too complicated, however also not surprising that some are put off by the potential design constraints. elf-builders will often have strong ideas on what they want their house to look like, and will be unwilling to compromise on that. However, while Passivhaus means strict performance reuirements, the overall look and feel of a home is less impacted by this, suggesting this is perhaps a misguided belief that needs dispelling.


IMPEDING PASSIVHAUS PROGRESSION Having delved into the reasons self-builders were opting to apply Passivhaus principles and whether or not they were seeking full certifi cation we then sought to attain the same from those choosing not to, whether they had initially considered it or not. ite restraints are seemingly a bigger issue than they perhaps seemed from our previous uestion – of those who considered Passivhaus but decided against it,  of them said it was because it’s not suitable for their projectsite’. This could of course be accurate, or could potentially be down to a lack of understanding from self-builders on what they can or can’t do. However, with a highly convoluted planning process and notoriously diffi cult local authorities enforcing often unnecessary restrictions, it’s also highly plausible that many are left with no real option.


Unsurprisingly cost and budget restraints have also put self- builders off, with 0 of respondents reporting that this has contributed to them deciding against Passivhaus. 2 said they are making other sustainable choices e.g. heat pump, high insulation levels etc., indicating that while they may have dismissed the idea of aiming for the gold standard in energy effi ciency’, that’s not to say they’re not making sustainable choices in their project. Perhaps the idea of aiming for a full Passivhaus is simply too daunting for some self-builders. Our fi nal uestion was to those who said they had not considered Passivhaus at all. s might be expected, the most popular answer was that they’re not familiar with it enough to consider it’, selected by just over half of respondents. This can be a common problem among self-builders not just when it comes to Passivhaus but all aspects of a build, with many complete novices and not privy to the knowledge, education and experience that those who work in the industry have. The next two most popular reasons were once again not suitable for my projectsite’  and costbudget restraints’ 20. These are evidently proving to be two of the biggest


The construction industry has an opportunity – and perhaps a responsibility – to make Passivhaus less daunting


obstacles overall, having come up consistently in responses throughout our survey. Other options seemingly prove less of a hindrance which is encouraging. This includes too complicated’ , standards are too rigorous’ , lack of suitable designers, experts  installers’ , and lack of suitable productsmaterials’ . n particular, it’s reassuring that the latter two aren’t holding a high number of self-builders back, indicating that the necessary support from the industry – be that products or professionals – is there.


n a similar vein to the previous uestion, 0 said they are making other sustainable choices, such as heat pumps or high levels of insulation, and presumably therefore didn’t feel the need to push their project as far as a Passivhaus.


Conclusion


Passivhaus may be the gold standard’ for energy effi cient homes, but for most self-builders in the UK, it evidently remains some way from becoming the norm. hile our survey encouragingly indicates self-builders are increasingly interested in building better, it also shows they’re not necessarily ready to commit to the demands of full Passivhaus certifi cation. or those who are embracing it – whether that be full


certifi cation or more simply applying some of the principles – the attraction isn’t simply doing the right thing for the planet. ower energy bills, better building performance and futureproofi ng all rank highly, alongside improved comfort levels and an overall reduced environmental impact. or self-builders the appeal of a high performing home is not just environmental but personal – arguably more so. Those who aren’t pursuing it – having considered it initially or not – have varied reasons for ultimately rejecting it, but perhaps the biggest obstacle is knowledge. More than half of those who had never considered Passivhaus said they simply weren’t familiar enough with it. or those who had considered it but decided against it, site restraints andor a lack of project suitability were overwhelmingly cited as the reasons. This suggests the construction industry has an opportunity – and perhaps a responsibility – to make Passivhaus less daunting. Better education and a greater awareness of what is achievable could help self-builders distinguish between genuine limitations and perceived ones. Of course not every project will be able to achieve full


certifi cation, and not every self-builder will want to. But that doesn’t mean the principles have to be abandoned too. s energy effi ciency inevitably becomes more prevalent, applying Passivhaus standards – whether certifi ed or not – could provide self-builders a home that is cheaper to run, more comfortable to live in and better prepared for the future. The challenge for the industry is to make Passivhaus feel achievable rather than aspirational.


26


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