Delivering sustainable housing post-Code through alternatives to the volume model
Bartholomew Smith 110175108
Abstract
T
he Code for Sustainable Homes (Code) was a voluntary assessment, first introduced in 2007, that aimed to improve the sustainability of new homes in the UK in order to help meet its 2016 zero carbon new homes target. In 2014 the Government confirmed that the Code would be wound down, with some criteria becoming compulsory under Building Regulations and others abandoned. This study seeks to understand the role of the Code, and the decision to abandon it. It assesses the success of the Code and explores the nature of housebuilding in the UK today. The study focuses upon the issues surrounding sustainable housebuilding in the context of the UK’s dominant speculative developers of volume housebuilding and in light of the Code’s demise. Through an in-depth interview with director of Archihaus, Jonathan Hines, the study aims to understand an alternative sustainable approach to conventional housebuilding in the UK, not built under the Code. Archihaus is aiming to deliver sustainable houses, built to the Passivhaus standard, at no additional cost to buyers through an alternative approach based around prefabrication. It examines the appropriateness of such an approach to the volume housebuilding model and the applicability of its underlying principles. It also considers what needs to change to see more widespread adoption of sustainable construction across the country.
Many thanks to my tutor, Dr Lucy Jones, for her incredibly valuable support, advice and organisation. Also, to Jonathan Hines of Architype and Archihaus for donating his time to contribute to this study.
Contents 1. Introduction
6
2. Literature Review
7
2.1
To understand the role of the Code for Sustainable Homes 7
2.1.1 Why was the Code developed?
7
2.1.2 How did the Code work?
8
2.1.3 Why has the Code been scrapped?
8
2.2 To understand the extent to which volume housebuilders are building more sustainably 10 2.2.1 How successful was the Code in making volume housebuilders meet the target? 10 2.2.2 Why are developers/volume housebuilders unwilling to build more sustainably? 12
2.2.3
Is the current model suited to delivering sustainable homes?
14
3. Methodology
16
4. Data and analysis
17
4.1 To understand alternative architect-led solutions to volume-led housebuilding 17 4.1.1 What alternatives have architects proposed to traditional model of developer-led housebuilding? 17
4.1.2
How does Archihaus compare against the Code? 20
4.1.3
How does Archihaus differ from current practice?
21
4.1.4
How applicable are the principles that Archihaus use on a larger scale?
23
4.1.5
How can traditional housebuilding models adopt their principles?
24
5. Conclusion
26
6. Bibliography
28
7. Appendix
32
Table of figures Figure 1: Comparing the zero carbon definition with the Code (from NHBC Foundation)
7
Figure 2: Average energy efficiency of new homes
10
Figure 3: Levels of Code certification
10
Figure 4: Code for Sustainable Homes certification levels
11
Figure 5: Site plan of Archihaus’ Kingstone proposal
17
Figure 6: Plans, sections and elevations of a 4 bed house in Archihaus’ Kingstone scheme
18
Figure 7: Material study of terrace in Archihaus’ Kingstone development
18
Figure 8: Render of Archihaus’ Kingstone scheme
19
Figure 9: Table examining Archihaus’ approach to sustainability against the Code’s criteria
20
1.
Introduction
T
he Code for Sustainable Homes (Code) was a voluntary assessment that applied to new houses built within the UK. After the Government introduced an ambitious target that all new homes should be ‘zero carbon’ by 2016, the Code was developed in 2006, and introduced in 2007, to improve the sustainability of housebuilding in the UK and set the direction for future changes to Building Regulations. In March 2014 the Department of Communities and Local Government announced that the Code was to be scrapped, but the government maintained its commitment towards the 2016 target and assured that moves towards a more stringent approach to sustainable construction remained a priority. The aim of this thesis is to understand alternative architect-led solutions to volumeled housebuilding in light of the decision to scrap the Code. This was undertaken through three interlinked research objectives, to understand: Firstly, the role of the Code for Sustainable Homes. Secondly, the extent to which volume housebuilders are building more sustainably. Thirdly, alternative architect-led solutions to volume-led housebuilding. Section 2 is the Literature Review. In Section 2.1, Literature Review, the first objective is explored through three aims: to understand why the Code was developed, how it worked and why it has been scrapped. In Section 2.2, the second objective, to understand the extent to which volume housebuilders are building more sustainably, is studied by looking at three further aims. The first assessed how successful the Code was in making volume housebuilders meet the target. The second questions why developers/volume housebuilders are unwilling to build more sustainably. The third sought to investigate whether the current model is suited to delivering sustainable homes. Section 3 gives an overview of the methodology used in gathering data. Section 4, Data and analysis, covers the final objective – understanding alternative architect-led solutions to volume housebuilding through the study of Archihaus. This new development company formed as an offshoot of sustainable architecture practice, Architype. It examines how Archihaus compares against the Code, how it differs from current practice and how applicable its principles are on a larger scale. Finally it looks at how the traditional housebuilding model in the UK can adopt Archihaus’ principles. Section 5 summarises the key findings and offers suggestions as to the changes in policy needed to see more sustainable new homes in the UK.
6
2.
Literature Review
2.1
To understand the role of the Code for Sustainable Homes
2.1.1 Why was the Code developed?
T
he Code for Sustainable Homes (Code) was introduced in 2007 with the aim of setting a single national standard to improve the overall sustainability of new homes (Pearson, 2011). It was intended to address the overall context of new schemes holistically – with criteria including transport, the environmental impact of building materials and renewable energy generation – through a series of levels of certification of which 6 was the highest. It has a broader focus than other standards such as Passivhaus, which is fundamentally concerned with building fabric (Dunster, 2010). When proposed, it was envisaged that it would work alongside a progressive tightening of the energy requirements in the Building Regulations up to 2016 to provide the framework for attaining the zero carbon new homes target (NHBC Foundation, 2012).
2.1.2 How did the Code work?
T
he Code had a close relationship with the government’s aim for all new houses to be “zero carbon” by 2016. The ‘energy and CO2 emissions’ category of the Code tied in with the target – its level 5 is equivalent to the new definition of zero carbon – but they are not directly comparable. Whilst the Code required carbon emissions to be abated at a site or plot level, the zero carbon new homes policy has a mechanism known as ‘Allowable Solutions’ – a more flexible system that means a certain proportion of carbon can be addressed by off-site measures. The NHBC Foundation claims that “while the total CO2 abatement is the same, the two standards are achieved in very different ways and are likely to result in different development strategies and costs” (2012, p.14). As such there were calls for closer alignment of the two.
7
Figure 1: Comparing the zero carbon definition with the Code (from NHBC Foundation)
2.1.3 Why has the Code been scrapped?
I
n March 2014, the government confirmed that it would scrap the Code for Sustainable Homes. In its attempt to cut the number of regulations for housing by 90%, it was announced that the energy efficiency aspect of the Code would be incorporated into Part L of the Building Regulations, with other areas intended to be covered in amendments to existing legislation. (Mark, 2014). The Government argued that such a move was always the plan as part of the wider move towards zero carbon – as all new homes will have to meet the more stringent energy standards rather than elect to if desired under the optional Code. It also claimed that expertise and skills have been built up, and are now being mainstreamed in the industry, negating Code’s necessity. Whether this is the case is explored in section 2.2. It is clear that there was considerable pressure from some of the largest players in the industry to scrap the standard, as seen with the chief executive of the Federation of Master Builders’ claims that it has fulfilled its use already and questioning the necessity for higher standards (Berry, 2014).
8
A commissioned report by the Environmental Audit Committee (Code for Sustainable Homes and the Housing Standards Review, 2013) recommended that the Code should not be wound down. The Government’s response, however, was that “the plethora of standards needs to be rationalised” (p.8 Government response to the Environmental Audit Committee Report: Code for Sustainable Homes and the Housing Standards Review, 2014) and pressed ahead with plans to scrap it. Similarly, the Committee’s recommendation to maintain and develop the Code’s assessment standards on sustainable construction materials was rejected with the assertion that current European legislation was sufficient. It could be argued that it is a political ideology for reducing legislation that is the true driver for reining back the Code; the Government appears to have put its faith into the market to adapt as necessary without the perceived burden of legislation. Some have expressed concern that this could ultimately impact upon the sustainability of new homes; Professor Fionn Stevenson, Head of Sheffield School of Architecture, responded that “My main concern is that the government, in its haste to ‘simplify’ everything, does not throw the ecological baby out with the ‘red tape’ bathwater” (Mark, 2014). Others, have queried whether the consolidation of regulations is merely “an excuse to lower standards and ambitions” (Sofie Pelsmakers in Mark, 2014).
9
2.2
To understand the extent to which volume housebuilders are building more sustainably
2.2.1 How successful was the Code in making volume housebuilders meet the target?
Figure 2: Average energy efficiency of new homes
F
igure 2 illustrates that there was a fairly constant but slow increase in the average energy efficiency of new dwellings in the years since the Code for Sustainable Homes’ inception. However, the rate of improvement is sluggish, with an overall rise of less than 4 percentage points.
Figure 3: Levels of Code certification
10
Similarly, when studying the levels of high-performing Code development, a picture of only gradual improvement is seen. Figure 3 shows that since the introduction of the standard there was a large increase in the numbers of Level 3 certificates being awarded, becoming the most common rating by some margin. Although recent years have seen a downward trend in the number of level 3 certificates this is likely to be as a result of the later rise in Level 4 certification, which was likely to become the most prevalent.
Figure 4: Code for Sustainable Homes certification levels
Whilst this can be argued to show an industry that is adapting towards a more sustainable future, the positive trend is less clearly evident for the highest-performing homes under the Code. There is an increase in Level 5 and 6 certification, but uptake remained very low. Crucially, the proportion of homes meeting these highest levels oscillated significantly but displayed little in the way of an upward trend. Ultimately this shows that developers are not exhibiting the dramatic changes needed in meeting the 2016 zero carbon target. The Zero Carbon Hub, set up to monitor progress towards the 2016 target, shares this concern. Its traffic light system has been set at amber/red to alert policymakers and government about fears that the target is in serious doubt, and there are numerous hurdles to meeting it. (Pitt, 2013)
11
Another issue is that of designed versus built performance. The current standards and assessment procedures have been attacked for failing to address the gap between the predicted and actual energy efficiency of new builds. Studies have shown that, on average, a building has a heat loss 54% higher than predicted at the design stage, meaning that a theoretical meeting of the zero carbon standard may result in dwellings that fall significantly short of the desired level (Bell et al., 2010). Those within the industry remain sceptical about the likelihood of the 2016 target being met. The NHBC Foundation found that half of housebuilders think it will be achieved at some point between 2016 and 2020, with some questioning whether it would ever be met (NHBC Foundation, 2012).
2.2.2 Why are developers/volume housebuilders unwilling to build more sustainably?
T
he speculative volume housebuilding industry is, as with all business, primarily concerned with profit; decisions over whether to pursue a more sustainable approach to construction are dictated by whether this would make financial sense. When the development of low or zero carbon homes requires higher initial capital, the housebuilder has to believe that this will be transferred to the final selling price. The 2012 NHBC Foundation report, “Today’s attitudes to low and zero carbon homes: views of occupiers, house builders and housing associations” found the view of the industry was that a low proportion of buyers were willing to pay the extra cost of a better performing home (NHBC Foundation, 2012). Despite many individuals within the country claiming to like the principle of an enhanced house whose increased cost would be offset by better lifetime performance, market demand for such houses does appear to be lower within the UK, especially when compared with the continent. In “Lessons from Germany’s Passivhaus experience” for the NHBC Foundation, Neil Cutland argues that “the German population generally has a stronger interest in the environment, and a greater inclination to take action, compared with UK residents” and there is an appreciation and demand for higherspecification and quality products (Cutland, 2012). In the UK, the growth in demand is tied not only to increasing population but also increasing affluence. Recent decades have seen an upswing in the popularity of second homes, buying to let and the overall principle of home ownership, where the importance of energy efficiency is diminished (Williams, 2012). Thus, with limited – at least in perception – demand amongst future occupiers, housebuilders have not seen economic sense in taking upon the financial burden of building to low or zero carbon. Increased costs are in part a failing of policy, with industry grievances about the complexity of complying with a multitude of criteria a recurring issue for many years (Gardiner and Lane, 2010). Whilst there have been concerted efforts to restrict the breadth and unintended overlap of multiple standards, balancing simplification with a necessity for more stringent regulations has proved a challenge. However, in his examination of the success of sustainable housebuilding in Germany, Cutland highlights the advantages of strict but streamlined standards. He argues that the uptake of Passivhaus in the country can be attributed in part to the compliance
12
procedure, as the PHPP software can fulfil the requirements of Germany’s building regulations; such integration is absent within the UK and some would argue that the additional time, effort and cost of meeting Building Regulations separately effectively penalises anybody wishing to build to Passivhaus (Cutland, 2012). However, there is also the argument that whilst there are undoubtedly increased costs associated with building to low or zero carbon, the differences are smaller than may be perceived by many in the industry. Some have highlighted the prevalence of misconceptions and a lack of knowledge amongst the major volume housebuilders. The NHBC Foundation concluded that housebuilders’ estimates of the costs of building to zero carbon “vary widely and differ from existing published figures” and that there was widespread scepticism and confusion in the industry; the majority of volume housebuilders interviewed believed that building to the 2016 standard would have a “negative effect upon profitability” (NHBC Foundation, 2012). As the prevalence of zero carbon homes has increased there has been a steady decline in the additional expenditure required – approximately halving between 2011 and 2014 (Mactavish and O’Connor, 2014) (Sweett Group, 2014) – but such developments have been hailed as “unexpected” by the Home Builders Federation (Pitt, 2014). It is clear that there is underlying uncertainty veering upon cynicism within parts of the industry about the financial burden of more sustainable construction. Others have claimed that building to higher level of sustainability can be done at equivalent expense to the current norm. In “Planning and Design Strategies for Sustainability and Profit”, Adrian Pitts postulates that it is even possible to deliver better performing dwellings at a lower cost, when factors such as simplified and reduced services, lower maintenance requirements and more efficient utilisation are considered. However, he accepts that traditional means of costing rarely takes such benefits into account; Pitts advocates “sustainable accounting”, where a broader picture that integrates information and finance at a variety of scales is addressed. The economic case for building to low or zero carbon thereby becomes significantly more attractive (Pitts, 2004). The main issue with this is how large volume housebuilders operate; by speculatively mass-producing a house as a commodity there is significant disconnect between the builder and the eventual occupier, and a distinct lack of the mutual benefits from building more sustainably. The additional capital costs are borne by the developer and the longer term savings in areas such as energy bills are gained by the homeowners. This can be seen in part a result of the short-term view housebuilders take; there is a desire to profit from the sale of the product as rapidly as possible and any development of expertise in the longer term operation of a house is shunned due to the additional expense (Williams, 2012). As such speculative housebuilders avoid involvement in the ongoing maintenance of their properties (Williams, 2008). There have been calls for a clarification and publication of the relationship between the initial investment and medium to long term returns. In “Today’s attitudes to low and zero carbon homes”, the NHBC Foundation called for the industry to publicise the lower running costs of sustainable homes “over and above climate change” and urged for a factoring in of longer term savings into valuations (NHBC Foundation, 2012). It is likely that a more integrated approach with housebuilders in the development, selling and habitation of new homes would result in a greater degree of clarity about how best to transfer the initial costs into profit.
13
Another barrier to the more widespread adoption of zero and low carbon construction amongst the volume housebuilders is their “inherently conservative and risk-adverse business model” (Payne, 2012). The sometimes challenging business environment in which they operate has been negotiated by negating risk to provide financial certainty, stability and survival; indeed, by managing and limiting their exposure to risk, these large organisations have continued to dominate. In her discussion about the future of the volume housebuilding industry, Payne claims that their reliance upon “tried and tested business strategies” means that any changes are met with suspicion and opposition. Williams argues that the housebuilding industry within the UK can be viewed as a regime, defined as “a set of practices, rules and shared assumptions which dominates a system of actors” (Rotmans, Kemp and Asselt, 2001 in Williams, 2012)”. Resources are spent upon optimisation over innovation, honing existing housing models to generate higher profit margins instead of developing new, more energy efficient dwellings. This is due a multitude of factors – including habit, prevailing norms, past investment amongst others – causing patterns of behaviour to become fixed and the formation of path dependencies (Smith et al, 2005; Geels, 2005 in Williams, 2012). The “internal industrial inertia” exhibited by the industry can stifle creativity and hold back the changes necessary for attaining zero carbon (Williams, 2012). As such, it is no wonder that the significant changes required for delivering more sustainable homes have not been enthusiastically embraced by the traditional big players in housing provision.
2.2.3 Is the current model suited to delivering sustainable homes?
I
f it is the case that currently speculative volume housebuilders are not delivering sustainable new homes at sufficient speed or quantity, it would be reasonable to consider the validity and future of such a model in the coming years, especially in light of the Code’s demise. Some have argued about the appropriateness of such a “regime” in providing the low and zero carbon homes of the future (Williams, 2012). The main advantage of the dominant speculative housebuilding firms within the UK is their capability to deliver housing units in sufficient quantity across the country; as their name suggests, they are well suited and practised in developing housing in large volumes, and such capacity is important for meeting the high, and growing, demands for housing. The success of the large players in the industry can partially be attributed to the breadth and scope of their operations, which has given them resilience and been instrumental in their avoidance and appropriation of risk. Although there is an appreciation of the greater innovation of smaller to medium sized housebuilders in constructing cutting edge, energy efficient homes, it is questionable about whether they can deliver at the necessary scale and speed to meet the zero carbon target. However volume housebuilders are better equipped financially, organisationally and geographically to address the scope of construction (Payne, 2012).
14
The increased resource base of larger volume housebuilders could also be argued to more readily facilitate innovation. They can afford to trial new technologies and construction techniques through model developments and their increased economies of scale offer a further advantage. The larger scale of procurement means that supply chains are more stable, which can help to nurture emerging companies which offer low and zero carbon technologies. It may be that volume housebuilders’ resources will make it easier for the necessary design expertise for building to zero carbon to be fostered (Williams, 2012). Conversely however, there is the argument that the nature of speculative volume development results in a disjuncture between those who pay for higher energy efficiency and those who benefit from it. The disconnected nature of production of a house as a commodity, built for an unknown client and standardised nationally, may not easily lend itself to building more sustainably. Similarly the size of organisation involved may prove to be a barrier. The increased complexity and number of individuals working in developing houses can result in a less established feedback loop; larger companies are likely to have more subcontractors and less control (Williams, 2012). The increased technical challenges of building a home to a low or zero carbon standard requires significant feedback and improvement – many of the most successful schemes have resulted from closely following and applying the lessons learnt from earlier projects (Bell et al., 2010). However the geographical and hierarchical distances between those making significant decisions and those designing and constructing dwellings in the volume model could be seen to hamper improvement. With feedback limited, innovation may be stifled as control is established through maintenance of a recurring regularity. There is generally overall resistance to deviation from the status quo within the industry (Payne, 2012). Companies who have maintained profitability by streamlining a largely unchanged model are wary of taking on the changes needed to build to zero carbon. However, with a fundamental shift needed in housebuilding (Bell et al., 2010), there is unease amongst many of the major firms who have expressed their discomfort in meeting targets (NHBC Foundation, 2008). Williams argues that the conservative culture of volume housebuilders limit the industry’s ability for transformation (Williams, 2012). But if a transformation is needed, who can deliver it?
15
3.
Methodology
D
ata collection took the form of a semi-structured and in-depth interview with the director of architecture practice Architype and developer Archihaus, Jonathan Hines on 3rd March, 2014. It was ensured that this was approved under the Sheffield School of Architecture Research Ethics. The initial questions sent in advance, that were covered in the conversation, were: How is Archihaus different from conventional house building organisations? Why did you see it necessary to create Archihaus? What has been your experience of developer-led house-building? Do you believe that the principle of Archihaus can work on a much larger scale? How applicable are the principles on which it is based to larger developers? Do you see your development, and other architect-led development, as a means to replace the current model or educate and change it? How can you see sustainable house building becoming more economically viable for larger developers? What roles do you as an architect fulfil within it (for instance project management)? Do you think architects should diversify into development and other sectors? Is the term architect limiting? To what extent do you think co-housing can help to address the issues of supply for sustainable house-building? Are there any other schemes or organisations whose approach to house building you admire? What is your opinion of the Code for Sustainable Homes and the decision to scrap it? Do you think that more or less legislation is the answer to meet the UK’s zero carbon homes target? Do you think Passivhaus compliance could and should replace the Code and/ or be incorporated into the Building Regulations?
The interview allowed for a detailed exploration of the work of a developer taking an alternative approach to developing housing within the UK, as well as providing insight from an individual currently straddling the worlds of architecture and housebuilding. The willingness of Hines to be identified in the research contrasts with the anonymity of some surveys of others in the profession, so there is potentially a lack of openness about any negatives of the organisation he represents. The obvious limitation of this approach was an absence of a corresponding viewpoint. However, critical alternatives were considered through the examination of relevant literature. 16
4.
Data and analysis
4.1
To understand alternative architect-led solutions to volume-led housebuilding
4.1.1 What alternatives have architects proposed to traditional model of developer-led housebuilding?
A
rchihaus is a company formed by director of Architype, Jonathan Hines, and Swedish businessman, Lars Carlsson. Architype is UK-based architectural practice with offices in London and Herefordshire that specialises in sustainable and Passivhaus projects. Archihaus can be seen as the development arm of Architype, set up to finance housebuilding projects that match the practice’s ethos and ambitions. Archihaus has planning permission to build a 150 home scheme in Kingstone, South West Herefordshire, including 21 units for an existing local co-housing group; as of April 2014 is at the detailed design stage. It aims to deliver them at the same price as standard volume housebuilding organisations, whilst meeting the Passivhaus energy standard; it will be the largest Passivhaus development in the UK and hopes to “transform both the quality and sustainability of developer housing in the UK” (Mark, 2013) (Archihaus, 2014).
Figure 5: Site plan of Archihaus’ Kingstone proposal
17
Figure 6: Plans, sections and elevations of a 4 bed house in Archihaus’ Kingstone scheme
Figure 7: Material study of terrace in Archihaus’ Kingstone development
18
Figure 8: Render of Archihaus’ Kingstone scheme
19
4.1.2 How does Archihaus compare against the Code?
A
rchihaus’ Herefordshire scheme was not designed to meet the criteria of the Code, but is intended to be a highly sustainable development. Figure 9 compares Archihaus’ approach to environmental sustainability against the criteria of the Code, and shows that there is significant overlap. (It is worth noting that Archihaus is aiming for more than the environmental performance covered by the Code, and also aims for a scheme that is also socially and economically sustainable, areas not covered by the Code).
Categories Energy and CO2 emissions
Code for Sustainable Homes
Archihaus
Dwelling emission rate
High fabric efficiency (Passivhaus)
Fabric energy efficiency Energy display devices
Solar thermal for hot water and PV panels for electricity generation
Drying space
Electric car charging points
Energy labelled white goods
Every house has cycle store
External lighting
On site employment – shop units, live-work units and home offices
Low and zero carbon technologies Cycle storage Home office Water
Indoor water use External water use
Materials
Environmental impact of materials Responsible sourcing of materials – basic building elements
Surface water run-off
AECB best practice water conservation standard Materials specified on strict sustainability criteria, e.g. locally sourced timber Natural materials/finishes
Responsible sourcing of materials – finishing elements
Recycled newspaper for insulation
Management of surface water run-off from developments
Sustainable drainage system of swales and ditches reduces rainwater runoff
Flood risk Waste
Storage of non-recyclable waste and recyclable household waste
Bin stores integrated into porches of houses
Construction site waste management Composting Pollution
Global warming potential (GWP) of insulants NOx emissions
Health & wellbeing
Daylighting
Shallow plan for good daylighting
Sound insulation
Outdoor fitness equipment and new community facilities
Private space Management
Home user guide Considerate Constructors Scheme
On site exhibition point will provide public educational and technical information
Construction site impacts Security Ecology
Ecological value of site Ecological enhancement Protection of ecological features Change in ecological value of site
Landscape designed to increase biodiversity, with traditional Herefordshire hedgerows and native species Provision of allotments and community orchards
Building footprint
Figure 9: Table examining Archihaus’ approach to sustainability against the Code’s criteria
20
T
here have been concerns raised – such as those of Sofie Pelsmakers – that the loss of the Code will mean that some of the issues it addressed, such as material considerations and ecology, will no longer be covered by legislation or other assessments (Mark, 2014). Therefore, in a post-Code environment, it is likely that for housing to have a broad, holistic approach to sustainability, it will be down to the developer’s ideology; Archihaus might well aim to deliver impressively sustainable homes, but this is a result of the ambition of those behind it rather than any regulatory steering.
4.1.3 How does Archihaus differ from current practice?
O
ne of the key differences that distinguishes Archihaus from other developments is the scale of Passivhaus building. There are relatively few Passivhaus buildings within the UK – a report by the NHBC Foundation found that as of July 2012, there were 20 000 Passivhaus units in Germany, compared to 165 buildings completed or under construction within the UK. The majority of UK buildings are one-off dwellings, often backed by enthusiastic and committed clients building homes for themselves (Cutland, 2012). There are also very few comparable non-Passivhaus schemes, with only a small number of isolated zero carbon developments of a similar or slightly larger scale to the Kingstone proposal – most still under construction and as exemplars partially funded by government schemes such as the Homes and Community Agency’s Carbon Challenge program (Morby, 2011). As Jonathan Hines stated, creating such a large scheme as the company’s first project was a statement of intent (“we could have started with 5 or 10 and then nobody would have noticed what we’re doing”). Although still very much a small, localised proposal compared to the multiple developments of the largest volume housebuilders in the country, the scale is undeniably ambitious. Archihaus also takes a radically different approach to design and construction from many of the traditional housebuilders in the country. Hines argues that to achieve the challenging aim of producing homes of a higher quality, at a better level of sustainability, and at the same price as other developers, all aspects had to be rethought. In order to avoid environmental principles being an afterthought, the aim was to integrate sustainability and Passivhaus from the start by rethinking both the design of the house and the design of the site – for example, houses are arranged in generously spaced east-west rows across the site to maximise solar gain from the south. The approach to design was also strongly influenced by the choice of prefabricated building techniques. By approaching housebuilding without the “baggage” that other clients and developers might have from their previous experience of housebuilding, Hines claims that such freedom allowed them to “rethink everything from the beginning”. This included the process of construction, where the increased potential efficiency of prefabricated building techniques offered an alternative to the more common modes of housebuilding in the UK, and the hope of meeting the ambitious
21
self-imposed agenda. The UK housing industry retains a high usage of loadbearing masonry, despite its unsuitability to meeting high energy efficient standards, in contrast to countries such as Germany, Sweden and the USA (Williams, 2012). Hines states that the positive experiences of construction of Archihaus’ other partner, Lars Carlsson, in his native Sweden have heavily influenced the choice of prefabrication. It could be argued, however, that this could almost be regarded as “baggage” of a similar kind to the entrenched views Hines sees in the UK industry – a case of choosing an option due to its familiarity. Some have claimed that architects have repeatedly erroneously seen prefabrication as a utopian solution to all manner of problems despite its failings in the past (Knapp, 2013). Another departure from convention exhibited by Archihaus is the role of the architect; Hines is both architect and client/developer. Although there is a separation between Architype and Archihaus, the two bodies work in partnership and there is an overlap in personnel with Hines as director of both. The practice of an architect working as their own client is not without precedent, but is extremely unusual at this scale, and Hines claims that it has allowed them to set their own agenda (in this instance, one of stringent energy efficiency), “liberated” from the current conventions of developer-led housebuilding. As an architect, the role of Hines and his associates is considerably wider-ranging than for the majority of projects, with an involvement and input into all aspects of the scheme, including design, construction and project management. Hines agrees that in many ways this has echoes to the traditional role of the architect, where they oversaw the entire delivery of a building, and was involved the entire construction process. Although the changing nature of procurement and increased specialisation of individuals within the industry has limited the role of the architect in recent decades, Hines argues that bucking this trend is important for regaining control; he argues that the architect should take back management where they believe they can do some things better. Despite this trend reversal contrasting with some predictions of the future role of architects (Jamieson, 2011), it is also the case that to deliver better performing dwellings the process of construction needs have increased feedback and an increased integration of individual contributors (Williams, 2012). Hines’ rejection of the “subcontractor culture” can be seen as a response to this need for better management; he claims that “we’re very much wanting to be in control of the process, in order that we can influence and control the quality of it” and emphasises the significance of this for a quality and performance standard as stringent as Passivhaus. There are also more subtle differences from conventional speculative housebuilding in the relationship between the developer and future homeowners. Although the sale of many of the houses will be “fairly conventional” – Archihaus will seek people to buy homes – efforts have been made to reduce the level of disconnect between developer and end user. By trying to bring future occupiers on board at an early stage there is the intention of allowing an increased level of customisation and personalisation, more readily facilitated by the use of prefabrication. Archihaus is also providing a portion of the scheme for a co-housing group, which has resulted in a very high level of interaction between the eventual homeowners and the developer: one corner of the site has been adapted and redesigned for their specific needs.
22
4.1.4 How applicable are the principles that Archihaus use on a larger scale?
O
ne of the underlying principles of Archihaus is its use of prefabrication as the main method of construction. The company aim to establish a local housebuilding factory to produce the components for the Herefordshire development, with Hines believing that such an approach was the best means of attaining the necessary quality and performance needed for Passivhaus compliance at a reasonable cost. The increased energy efficiency of such modern methods of construction (MMC) have been documented and are likely to be one of the most feasible routes for meeting sustainability targets (Ko and Fenner, 2007), but uptake in the UK has been limited. Some studies have shown an enthusiasm amongst housebuilders for prefabrication as a means of delivering more energy efficient dwellings, with the belief in the industry that the technical hurdles of building to low or zero carbon are a minor concern compared to other factors (Osmani and O’Reilly, 2009). However, others have shown that fears of skill gaps in the UK’s provision of MMC remain (Heffernan, Pan and Liang, 2012). Ultimately, the nature of prefabrication is very much suited to the volume model – a view echoed by Hines – due to the ability to mass-produce in a factory environment where conditions can be controlled (Williams, 2012). It has could be argued that it is merely over-exaggerated fears and inertia on the part of the industry that is preventing more widespread adoption. Possibly the key principle and biggest unknown regarding Archihaus is the economic viability of the scheme. If they manage to develop and sell the housing at, or even close to, the cost of conventional volume housing then it is could well provide the wake-up call to the rest of the industry that Hines anticipates. It is certainly the case that similar prefabricated sustainable housing on the continent has proven financially successful, although it is also true that there are variances in market demand, government support and industry skills base, that mean the economics of the scheme are hard to predict. However, Architype has proven in smaller projects that Passivhaus can be delivered at no extra expense in the right circumstances with careful and pragmatic design (Detail Green, 2012); the practice espouses the principle of “eco-minimalism”, avoiding complexity and integrating sustainability from the outset (Architype, 2014). One potential hurdle facing more widespread uptake of the Archihaus model is that of public demand. The Herefordshire development represents only a tiny fraction of the new homes around the country, and even if it is successful, it could be argued that it will be down to the attraction of the scheme to a certain group within the market. Even if delivered at equivalent price some homeowners may prefer the aesthetic of a more traditional masonry house (Davis and Harvey, 2008). On the other hand, the lower cost of running such an energy efficient home is a significant benefit, and research has shown that it is often the economic case of better performing homes that is most convincing to customers (Pitts, 2004) (NHBC Foundation, 2012). Hines highlights how his overarching role as architect, developer and client is an important factor in delivering homes to the exacting standards required. However, whether such an integrated approach is applicable on the scale of the largest housebuilders is questionable. Hines agrees that the smaller size of Archihaus has enabled greater involvement in the construction process – a view shared by Williams
23
when considering the importance of feedback in building high-performance housing (Williams, 2012). The challenge for volume housebuilders is how to maintain such integration at the increased scale. Archihaus also has a relationship with the co-housing movement, and it is one that may be at odds with speculative housebuilders. Hines says the principle of increased interaction between client, developer and architect is very much something that the practice supports, but the industry is often keen to maintain the separation between end user and deliverer. It may be that prefabrication offers an increased level of customisation for the customer with no loss of the speed and ease of construction, and economies of scale, that underpin much of the housebuilding industry. It may well be that scaling up the underpinning principles of Archihaus will result in increased efficiency and greater profit margins. Prefabrication may require an injection of capital to set up the infrastructure necessary, but it is suited to mass production (Ko and Fenner, 2007). Hines is adamant that Archihaus’ principles are applicable to developers, and it is simply a change of attitude needed to see greater adoption.
4.1.5 How can traditional housebuilding models adopt their principles?
I
n modelling the transition of the housebuilding industry towards more sustainable construction, Bergman et al suggest that it is possible for the “regime” of the industry to be transformed by actions at the micro level due to the formation of “empowered niches” of which Archihaus would be an example (most closely identifying with Niche 1 and 3) (Bergman, Whitmarsh and Köhler, 2008). If the larger-scale landscape is conducive, such bottom-up, “grass roots” schemes are capable of educating or dramatically altering the overall industry (Williams, 2012). That is certainly the hope of Hines, who is of the opinion that they can “make a difference across the country, starting small”. Interestingly, in the simulations of Bergman et al, the most commonly recurring scenarios showed a collapse of the current housebuilding regime as the need for CO2 reductions increased. If Archihaus does prove economically successful, it is possible to envisage larger companies following their lead and making more ambitious forays into prefabrication and, perhaps to a lesser extent, Passivhaus. It is easier to see MMC fitting into the volume housebuilding model due to its speed and consistency – such characteristics are more commonly emphasised in the UK than the continent where its appropriateness for energy efficient design has greater focus (Ko and Fenner, 2007). Whether the stringent standards of Passivhaus are adopted by the large housebuilders is less likely, due to the increased time and skills needed to satisfy the rigorous compliance criteria; despite success in Germany, the NHBC Foundation has raised queries as to its viability for the UK housing market (Cutland, 2012). It is clear that even if Archihaus achieves its aims of matching the volume market for price, large housebuilders are likely to be unwilling to deviate from their own equally
24
profitable models. As such, many have argued that it is legislation that is key to making such firms build more energy efficient dwellings (Williams, 2012) (Heffernan, Pan and Liang, 2012) (Osmani and O’Reilly, 2009). Hines is a similar opinion, saying that “the only thing that will change the industry completely, ultimately, is legislation”, regardless of the impact of Archihaus. In some instances, housebuilders have identified legislation as not only the key driver for change, but also the current major barrier to it (Osmani and O’Reilly, 2009). What form these necessary legislative changes take is still up for debate (Fulcher, 2013) (Woodman, 2013). There have been moves towards simplification – possibly as a result of prevailing political ideology towards de-regulation – with the majority of volume housebuilders expressing the view that there are too many different and conflicting standards (Osmani and O’Reilly, 2009), and that this is stifling development (Gardiner and Lane, 2010). Hines is critical of the Code for Sustainable Homes, dismissing it as a “box-ticking exercise” due to its aims to cover so many aspects of sustainability. Archihaus’ development has not been assessed under the Code, and although Hines believes it would score highly due to the use of renewable materials, sustainable drainage and other techniques being employed alongside the high fabric performance, studies have highlighted the significant disparity between the Code and Passivhaus (Building, 2009). He and others (Jefferson, 2013) argue that Passivhaus “could and should” replace the Code – to be a stringent energy standard whose built performance is far more closely aligned to its designed. Hines shares the view of the NHBC Foundation report, “Lessons from Germany’s Passivhaus experience” (Cutland, 2012), that Passivhaus compliance should deem to satisfy the Building Regulations, and additionally expresses the wish that gradual staging would eventually enable adoption of the standard as the compulsory. It is hard to envisage anything other than legislation leading to take up of the standard to a total national degree. It is interesting to speculate as to whether the multi-faceted role of Hines in Archihaus will be seen on a larger scale; Hines calls for the diversification of the function of the architect, although this contrasts with the prevailing view in industry of architects’ marginalisation continuing (Jamieson, 2011). There would no doubt be opposition amongst volume housebuilders to granting greater control to a single group of professionals, when their business model relies heavily on managing risk (Payne, 2012), in part by spreading responsibility across a multitude of subcontractors (Williams, 2012). Overall however, it seems that much of what is holding back the volume housebuilding industry from adopting the principles of Archihaus are entrenched attitudes. Those within the industry have identified its nature and culture as a barrier to change (Heffernan, Pan and Liang, 2012), which is repeatedly identified as conservative and risk-adverse (Payne, 2012) (Williams, 2012). Hines is adamant that a change of attitude is the only significant hurdle in more widespread application of Archihaus’ approach. At the same time, it is likely that even if Archihaus provides a successful template for the industry to follow, further legislation likely to be the only means to force them to follow it.
25
5.
Conclusion
T
he aim of this thesis was to understand alternative architect-led solutions to volume-led housebuilding in light of the decision to scrap the Code for Sustainable Homes. This was undertaken through three interlinked research objectives: The first objective is to understand the role of the Code for Sustainable Homes. The second objective is to understand the extent to which volume housebuilders are building more sustainably. The third research objective is to understand alternative architect-led solutions to volume-led housebuilding. The preceding section analysed the collected data and demonstrated that the aim and objectives had been met, whereas this conclusion will present the key findings, evaluate the methodological approach, provide recommendations to policy and practice, and identify areas for future research. There are three key findings which relate to the three research objectives respectively which are: The volume housebuilding industry is struggling to adapt to the necessity to build more sustainably. Legislation, possibly a replacement for the Code for Sustainable Homes, is likely to be necessary to drive the changes needed in the industry. Alternatives approaches, such as that of Archihaus, may be better suited to delivering more sustainable homes, and their principles are applicable to the wider industry. The use of interview as a method of data collection meant there could be a deep but not broad focus to the study – with a detailed examination of just one example and viewpoint in the broader landscape. However, this was considered in context through studying relevant literature and assessing alternative opinions. The lack of anonymity involved meant that opinions were possibly also less frank. Also, the current progress of Archihaus’ scheme meant that there could be no assessment of its final success or whether it would deliver on its aims. It seems clear that significant challenges in reshaping the UK’s housing industry to delivering more sustainable housing remain. Furthermore, it is apparent that it is unlikely that the industry will change at sufficient pace, if at all, without changes in policy. In scrapping the Code, it seems the government believes the industry has the capability to deliver its 2016 zero carbon target, when reality appears to indicate that entrenched views and practices, along with underdeveloped skills, could seriously hamper this. In part, the Government’s political ideology that the market will deliver
26
the necessary changes without the need for legislation appears to be driving policy rather than a consideration of the reality of the situation – one of little adaption and unchanging approaches. Archihaus may well showcase an alternative, but it is unlikely that many others will be driven by the same level of ambition and commitment to sustainable design. Therefore, additional and more stringent legislation is likely to be necessary. The Archihaus model presents an interesting alternative to the current trends in the role of an architect. It is possible that the delivery of sustainable, high-performing homes is only achievable with the close control and overseeing by individuals at all stages of the development, design, and construction processes. Could it be architects filling this role? Future areas of study may return to assess the success of Archihaus’ Herefordshire scheme to examine whether it has delivered on its ambitious aims. If so, investigating whether such an achievement did stimulate change across the wider industry, would also be an important consideration. Other topics touched upon in this study that merit further examination are the role of prefabrication in sustainable design and within the UK’s housing market, as well as the role of policy in delivering change in the industry. Overall, it seems that in order to deliver more sustainable homes in a post-Code landscape, volume developers are likely to have to make significant changes. It may well be that the Archihaus model, and other alternatives to the conventional approach, offer a guide to this delivery. With the principles seemingly transferable, the industry may be reliant upon the successor to the Code for Sustainable Homes to push them in this direction.
27
6.
Bibliography Anon (2012) Passivhaus at no extra cost; Architects: Architype., Detail green, (2), p. 12. Anon (2009) Passivhaus shows up sustainable code failings, Building, [online] Available from: http://www.building.co.uk/news/passivhaus-shows-up-sustainablecode-failings/3132016.article (Accessed 5 March 2014). Anon (2008) Survey reveals housebuilders’ discomfort with 2016 target, Structural Survey, 26(4), [online] Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals. htm?articleid=1742203&show=html (Accessed 3 March 2014). Archihaus (2013) archihaus | Action to shape a sustainable future, [online] Available from: http://www.archihaus.co.uk/ (Accessed 5 March 2014). Architype (2014) Architype: Eco-minimalism, Architype, [online] Available from: http://www.architype.co.uk/eco_minimalism (Accessed 5 March 2014). Bell, M., Wingfield, J., Miles-Shenton, D. and Seavers, J. (2010) Low carbon housing: Lessons from Elm Tree Mews, Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Bergman, N., Whitmarsh, L. and Köhler, J. (2008) Transition to sustainable development in the UK housing sector: from case study to model implementation, UEA: Tyndall Centre Working Paper, [online] Available from: http://tyndall.ac.uk/ sites/default/files/wp120.pdf (Accessed 5 March 2014). Berry, B. (2014) Farewell to the Code for Sustainable Homes, Building. Cutland, N. (2012) NF 47: Lessons from Germany’s Passivhaus experience, IHS BRE Press on behalf of the NHBC Foundation. Davis, I. and Harvey, V. (2008) NF9: Zero carbon: what does it mean to homeowners and housebuilders?, IHS BRE Press on behalf of the NHBC Foundation. Fulcher, M. (2013) New housing standards will fail if not in the regs, say architects., Architects’ journal, 238(7), p. 9. Gardiner, J. and Lane, T. (2010) Row erupts over cost of new housing rules, Building, 275(8623 (13)), pp. 13–14. Heffernan, E., Pan, W. and Liang, X. (2012) Delivering zero carbon homes in the UK, In Procs 28th Annual ARCOM Conference, pp. 3–5. Jamieson, C. (2011) The future for architects, Building Futures. Jefferson, N. (2013) Is there a place for Passivhaus in the UK?, Building, 278(8763
28
(6)), p. 15. Knapp, C. (2013) The end of prefabrication | Australian Design Review, [online] Available from: http://www.australiandesignreview.com/features/35295-the-endof-prefabrication (Accessed 1 April 2014). Ko, J. and Fenner, R. (2007) Adoption of energy efficiency innovations in new UK housing, Proceedings of the ICE - Energy, 160(4), pp. 151–163. Mactavish, A. and O’Connor, N. (2014) Sustainability: zero carbon costs, Building, 279(8811 (5)), pp. 44–47. Mark, L. (2013) Architype scoops planning for UK’s largest Passivhaus development, [online] Available from: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/architype-scoopsplanning-for-uks-largest-passivhaus-development/8649092.article (Accessed 5 March 2014). Mark, L. (2014) It’s official: government to scrap Code for Sustainable Homes, Architects’ journal. Morby, A. (2011) Building to start on UK’s biggest zero carbon homes site Ι Construction Enquirer, [online] Available from: http://www.constructionenquirer. com/2011/02/09/building-to-start-on-uks-biggest-zero-carbon-homes-site/ (Accessed 5 March 2014). NHBC Foundation (2012) NF40: Today’s attitudes to low and zero carbon homes, IHS BRE Press on behalf of the NHBC Foundation. Osmani, M. and O’Reilly, A. (2009) Feasibility of zero carbon homes in England by 2016: A house builder’s perspective, Building and Environment, 44(9), pp. 1917– 1924. Payne, S. (2012) Can the volume housebuilding model survive?, Town & country planning, 81(12), pp. 546–550. Pearson, A. (2011) Is code level 6 pricing zero-carbon out of the market?, Building, 276(8664 (5)), pp. 57–60. Pitt, V. (2014) Extra cost of building zero-carbon homes halves, Building, 279(8811 (5)), p. 15. Pitts, A. C. (2004) Planning and design strategies for sustainability and profit: pragmatic sustainable design on building and urban scales, Amsterdam; Boston, Elsevier, Architectural Press.
29
Rotmans, J., Kemp, R. and Asselt, M. van (2001) More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy, foresight, 3(1), pp. 15–31. Sweett Group (2014) Cost analysis: meeting the zero carbon standard, Zero Carbon Hub. Williams, J. (2008) Green Houses for the Growth Region, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51(1), pp. 107–140. Williams, J. (2012) Zero-carbon homes a road-map, Abingdon, Oxon; New York, EarthScan. Woodman, E. (2013) The future of British housing hangs in the balance, Building Design, [online] Available from: http://www.bdonline.co.uk/comment/the-futureof-british-housing-hangs-in-the-balance/5066524.article (Accessed 19 February 2014).
30
7.
Appendix
Interview with Jonathan Hines, Director of Architype, 03/03/2014 (2010 words)
How is Archihaus different? How are we different? The reason we set up was because of our experience of developers. We don’t think there was any hope of persuading Barratt or [Taylor] Wimpey, or any of the big players to change how they do it because they’ve got their operation down to a tee, they know exactly what they want to do, they can do it cheaply, they can sell everything that they build and obviously they lobby the government against improved standards because they just want to keep doing it how they’ve always done it. And that really is why we felt it was necessary because we just had to get on and do it ourselves and do it differently. Do you intend to change the industry from the bottom up then? Well I guess that what we hope: is that by starting in a modest way where we’re based in Herefordshire, by showing that it can be done better and differently but at a competitive cost that we might actually begin to make a difference and ultimately change how the market is done. And so I think it will – we hope it will – scale up and become much bigger. I mean we’re starting with quite a large scheme, 150 houses, we could have started with 5 or 10 and then nobody would have noticed what we’re doing; because we’re doing 150 people already have noticed and are waking up to it and are showing interest. I think once we’ve built the first scheme then I can see it really taking off and so our ambition is big – to really make a difference across the country, starting small. And I think all the principles we’re talking about are totally applicable to developers, it just requires a change in attitude I think. There’s a focus towards prefabrication, do you think that’s the route the industry needs to go down? I do, because basically the whole strategy we’ve taken is that if we’re going to do something at better quality, high sustainability at the same price we have to rethink everything. So that really – to do that we rethought – went through a process of rethinking the design of the house, rethinking the design of the site, so that Passivhaus and environmental principles are built in from the start rather than seen as something you add on at the end. And alongside that we realised that we had to rethink the process of construction to make it more efficient. The other partner in Archihaus is a retired Swedish businessman who saw how the UK building industry operates and thought, this is mad, in Sweden and Germany people make houses efficiently to high quality in a factory – this is surely what we could be doing here. So the way we’re approaching the design of the house is very much from the beginning
32
is factory prefabricated. Do you think that starting off as a smaller company that’s more helpful for actually developing sustainable housing because you’re more involved in the actual construction? Yes, we very much see ourselves as involved. I think one of the other problems in the industry is subcontract culture – everything being passed on and the buck being passed all the way down the line and we’re very much wanting to be in control of the process, in order that we can influence and control the quality of it. And I think with Passivhaus that’s very important because you’re actually building to a higher quality, a higher standard, and we need to be sure we can deliver that, and that’s very much why doing it in the factory to a more finished level actually can deliver. What sort of roles do you fulfil [as an architect] within Archihaus? At one level, Archihaus is a separate company and Architype is the architects working for Archihaus in partnership. But it’s very much a collaborative thing, and obviously I’m a director of both companies. So in a sense what we’ve managed to do is become our own client, in that we set the agenda. Now obviously we set ourselves a tough agenda in terms of what we want to achieve, but we’re not burdened with all the baggage that other client developers would have from their previous experience of doing what they do. And actually we found that very liberating, and I think we’ve only come up with something this radical as we have because we’ve been liberated from that baggage, and that we’re able to rethink everything from the beginning. So I think we’ve taken a much wider role, and we will be more engaged not only in setting the agenda in the process of construction and the project management of what we’re doing. So I do think architect’s should diversify – in a sense we’ve done the opposite, we used to be more involved in everything, but then the project manager took over roles and now so much work is contractor led that we’re working at sub-contractors to big contractors, and losing even more control, and this is very much about taking control back because we think we can do some things better. So in some ways would you say that you are reverting back to a role of the architect being an overall overseer as opposed to doing the designs in isolation? Yes, I think so, very much so. Do you see the roles of architects currently as slightly limited? Yes, I think it has become more limited because of the way procurement has gone in the UK
33
Are you aware of other schemes taking a similar approach to you? Not really at the same scale and overall... delivering Passivhaus. I think there are other initiatives around the country; you mentioned co-housing which can help address issues of sustainable housebuilding – I think they’re great and they’re all doing their own bit but we’re wanting to do much more than that. What we want to do is not just a few small schemes, we want to actually change the market ultimately, so that’s why we’re developing and doing it in this way. Are you aware of other instances of the architect becoming their own client to this extent? I’m not, no. I mean, there are examples of architects doing smaller-scale stuff, but I’m not sure of anything at this scale, no. What would you say your relationship to the potential future homeowners is? At one level they’ll be fairly conventional, in that we’ll be seeking people to buy the houses. We will be seeking to do that early in the process so they can have some influence over some of the finishes and things. And in our scheme we’ve also got a co-housing group signed up more than a year ago so we were able to redesign part of the site to suit their approach to co-housing and the way they want to organise. So we’ve made efforts to make people more involved. What is the opinion of the Code for Sustainable Homes? I don’t like Code. Because it tries to cover everything you can imagine, it ends up being a tick-box exercise, and it forces you to quite often to do things that are quite frankly unsustainable or stupid for different sites. So I think it’s trying to do too much, too generally, and you end up – I always quote Oscar Wilde – “by trying to give a price to everything, you understand the value of nothing”, and I think that’s part of the problem with Code. And also, the other fundamental problem with Code is that at the heart of it is the zero carbon agenda – every house or group of houses being an isolated carbon neutral island – and it forces you therefore to add renewables and heat pumps and biomass and solar panels, whether or not they are a good idea. And so what I believe is that Passivhaus is a much more logical thing, because it is all about driving the design to reduce energy consumption and therefore carbon by just simply using less energy. So actually it’s about improving design and delivering quality of construction that actually delivers what it says on the can, i.e. reduce energy. And so I do ultimately believe that Passivhaus could and should certainly replace the Code, and could be an option on the Building Regulations. I mean in some countries they’re already adopting as their Building Regs, and I think ultimately that’s what I’d like to see here. Now, whether it can happen overnight – it’s probably got to be staged in – at the very least I’d quite like it to be deemed to satisfy already, so if you’re doing it you haven’t got to proof other things; by doing Passivhaus you’re exceeding Building Regs and it should be recognised as that, and ultimately I’d like to see it adopted as Building Regs, yes. So would you be in favour of the allowable solutions aspect of the Code as it allows more flexibility? Yes, basically I think that’s better than doing micros on every house but I still think we should be more strategic in our whole approach; we should require architects
34
and builders to design buildings which need hardly any energy and then I think renewables should be done at a larger scale, organised by a state to deliver efficiently. Buildings are good at saving energy and energy should be generated separately in the most appropriate way, and at the most appropriate scale in the right place, so I’d much prefer big wind farms in the North Sea and on Welsh hills than an allowable solution which happens to be at the end of a gable 100 yards from the site. I think we need to think bigger and more strategically really. Do you have an idea of where Archihaus’ development would sit within the Code ratings? Obviously Passivhaus would score well in terms of fabric efficiency but there are other aspects to it. To be honest, we’re not required to do Code and we don’t like Code – we haven’t given it any Code assessment because we think that’s a waste of time. I think we would score highly because we’re using renewable materials and sustainable drainage and lots of other things, as well as being energy efficient, so I think we’d score highly, but to be honest I don’t care what we would have scored because I don’t think it’s relevant! And what we are doing is delivering certified Passivhaus and the benefits that brings. What is the current status of the scheme? Well we got planning permission last summer and we’re currently working through our detailed design, hoping to be on site by the end of this year. Going back to policy, would you be in favour of more legislation in terms of making volume housebuilders build more sustainably? Yes, I think that the only thing that will change the industry completely, ultimately, is legislation. And so I would be in favour of tougher legislation in order to enforce higher environmental standards on buildings, yes. Could you talk a bit more about the co-housing group that you’re providing housing for? There was an existing housing group in Herefordshire who’d been looking at options to get a scheme off the ground and hadn’t managed it on their own, and they just approached us and asked if they could become part of our scheme. So they’ve opted to buy 21 houses out of our scheme of 150 and so we redesigned one corner of the site as a co-housing scheme with cars kept on the edge, and pedestrian gardens and access, with a common-house on the edge of their bit available for others in the community to use as well. It’s very much integrated into the scheme, as a positive community thing. Would you be in favour then of that increased level of interaction between the client and the architect and developer? Definitely, yes, we very much support that in principle. We’ve done that a lot in the past.
35