VIEW FROM THE TOP
James Page is head of engineering at Joju Solar
These proposals don’t go far enough James Page believes that the proposals for the Future Homes consultation do not go far enough and may even be a retrograde step. They could be seen as a steer to provide the bare minimum required
I
t is 20 years since I started to take an active interest in the idea of planning regulations requiring renewables in new buildings, as a means to reduce carbon emissions. The subsequent headway made by the London boroughs of Richmond, Merton, as well as the Greater London Authority and others, was at first promising. However, it only takes a glance at new housing rapidly being built across the country to see that the take up of solar panels is still woefully low. And where they are installed there are frequently a minimal two or three panels on a roof large enough for many more. Rather than an opportunity to add value to the house the developer sees the regulations as a steer to provide the minimum required. And if it is possible to avoid solar altogether by providing a green roof or heat pumps as alternatives, the developer will do so. If this approach were ever justified on the grounds of the cost of PV panels it is no longer, as the costs have plummeted. However, it is the regulator’s job to address the issue.
Page: 'I've come across large solar systems that have been switched off for years, or never turned on'
What is the Future Homes Standard consultation? In June last year the UK became the first major economy to pass a net zero emissions target into law. The 2050 target is an ambitious one and government are keen to reduce emissions quickly. Both new and existing homes account for approximately 20 per cent of UK carbon emissions and although much has already been done in this area to reduce emissions (introduction of the Clean Growth Strategy, Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards etc), it is evident that more is needed. The Future Homes Standard Consultation, released in October 2019, presents a proposal from government to introduce a new Future Homes Standard, and to make relevant changes to Approved Document Part L1a (Conservation of fuel and power in new dwellings) as well as Part F (Ventilation). The government proposes to simplify the guidance presented in both approved documents and also presents its ambition to tighten ‘transitional arrangements’ to ensure that all homes are built to new energy efficiency standards. The consultation outlines two options to uplift
energy efficiency standards and requirements for Part L of the Building Regulations in 2020: • Option 1 - Future Homes Fabric: 20 per cent reduction in carbon emissions delivered primarily through better building fabric; and • Option 2 - Fabric plus technology: 31 per cent reduction in carbon emissions delivered predominantly through carbon-saving technology and fabric improvements. The government prefers option 2 as their 2020 ‘stepping stone’ for the Future Homes Standard. This option delivers greater carbon savings and lower fuel bills, but would introduce higher build costs for developers. The government is proposing that the Future Homes Standard will be implemented fully by 2025, with an intermediate uplift to energy efficiency standards in mid/late 2020. It is anticipated that any new build homes constructed to this standard will produce 75-80 per cent less carbon dioxide emissions then one built to current standards/ requirements.
It’s true that adding renewables will add a small cost to the house price (it may cost a little more, but it does add to the value). In many parts of the country this will be almost negligible but the proportion of the cost will clearly vary in different regions. This is just one reason why the GLA should be allowed to continue to set standards above the national minimum (to say nothing of their democratic right). They also need the right to ensure the panels are actually working and continue working, at least for a reasonable period. I’ve come across large systems that have been switched off for years, or never been turned on. The developer has sold the property and the new owner has no interest in the solar. The Future Homes consultation proposals do not go far enough, and in some ways go back. This is not just to say that we need to do all we can reasonably do to reduce carbon emissions. The proposals appear to give developers the choice of triple glazing, heat pumps or solar PV (or perhaps other technologies, but these are all mentioned as options). The clear indication is that all three will often be perfectly feasible but the reduction targets will only require the most cost effective to be deployed (subject to tenant ‘affordability’ constraints). The document also implies that triple glazing and solar will not therefore normally be required to meet the 31 per cent reduction. If the 31 per cent was a figure determined by what is reasonably practical and economic, and solar is considered to be so (especially when installed at the outset while scaffolding is present etc) does having a ‘choice’ not imply that the 31 per cent is not ambitious enough? There may be a few buildings where solar doesn’t make sense at all, but not many. Especially if it is considered in the design stage. Moreover, the life-time of the panels will on average far exceed that of a heat pump - a factor that will often not be taken in to account by a developer looking for the lowest up front cost, and can only be addressed by regulation. MARCH 2020 | ENERGY IN BUILDINGS & INDUSTRY | 25
EIBI_0320_025(M).indd 1
03/03/2020 22:42
