Given that the Approved Document Part L 2013 will come into effect in April, I am not surprised that this most recent round of Building Regulations changes has been a popular topic of conversation in our industry. However, I am surprised about the focus of the conversation.
Most of the talk has been around the delay to the changes and the idea that they have been somewhat watered down, despite the Department for Communities and Local Government claiming that the changes will result in a saving of 6.4 million tonnes of CO2 a year.
The original expectation was that new residential dwellings would have to be 25% more energy efficient over the 2010 regulations. This became 8% and subsequently 6% more “carbon efficient” – as opposed to energy efficient. This, in addition to the fact that the changes were supposed to happen and become law in April 2013 means that as a country we are now effectively a year behind our 2016 target of building zero-carbon homes.
I don’t see this as being a big issue – after all, the UK’S 2016 target was imposed by a previous minister for housing and planning, Yvette Cooper, in December 2006. Since her announcement, the definition has in fact changed several times. Homes built after 2016 will not be “zero-carbon”. Instead, they will be very low-energy homes. Each new home built can also reach the goal via “allowable solutions”, which could mean housebuilders balance the carbon budget by investing in offsite renewable generation, or even paying into a fund that invests in abatement projects.
Meanwhile, other countries in Europe are working towards the EU’s Energy Performance of Buildings Directive. This has a target of 2020 and rather than focusing on zero-carbon it focuses on “nearly zero energy”, meaning a building that has a very high energy performance. Given the delay in the UK and the confusion in definition; wouldn’t it make more sense if the UK aligned itself with this legislation?
The 2016 target was set when the country and the construction industry were both flourishing and there is no denying that it does cost the economy when regulations are changed and made more rigorous as then it simply costs more to build.
Therefore, given the precarious balance in which we find our economy at present, I don’t believe we should be taking such an aggressive stance and should, for one, follow what the European Union is working towards. As George Osborne said at last year’s Conservative party conference “saving the planet shouldn’t cost the earth”.
Part L 2013 will not be the Building Regulations change that puts the UK within touching distance of our 2016 target, but that is not what matters in the grand scheme of things. What truly matters is that as a country we do not become fixated on zero carbon new build homes.
Rather, we should be focusing our attention and efforts towards how we use energy and the quantity of energy which we use and attempting to limit this where possible, through focusing on the actual building rather than the activities that go on inside the building.
After all, if you start with the fabric of the dwelling, ensuring that as much thermal insulation as is practically possible is built in at the outset, it will be there for the 150-year life of the building.
Mark Oliver is managing director of H&H, which manufactures blocks in the Celcon and Aircrete ranges
