Let’s call it what it
now is – the Zero Changes to Homes policy
As
the government revealed its most recent changes to the building regulations on energy
efficiency that were breath-taking for their lack of ambition, industry
professionals are left wondering what’s happened to the inspirational goal of
zero carbon construction.
The
solarblogger caught up with an architect friend, Marcus Nelson of MEPK, over coffee at a construction
trade show earlier in the year. He was
reflecting on the spirit of innovation that the government’s policy to achieve
Zero Carbon Homes (ZCH) within ten years had sparked in the years immediately
after its announcement in December 2006.
“There
was a sense that we were all striving to achieve something worthwhile, that it
was an ambitious challenge but one that we could achieve by coming together as
an industry.”
Where
had that feeling gone, we wondered.
Not Quite Zero
The
first sign that this challenging aspiration might be watered down was the decision
over what should be included in the definition of zero carbon.
The
initial announcement of the policy ‘Building a Greener Future’ in 2006 proposed
a common sense definition:
“For a new home to be genuinely zero carbon
it will need to deliver zero carbon (net over the year) for all energy use in
the home – cooking, washing and electronic entertainment appliances as well as
space heating, cooling, ventilation, lighting and hot water.”
However,
government announced in 2011 that to qualify as a ZCH, only so-called
‘regulated emissions’ would need to be reduced to zero. Regulated emissions are those that come from
heating the home, providing hot water for bathing, and electricity for
lighting, pumps and fans.
So-called
‘unregulated emissions’ would not be included in the definition of ZCH. These include for example emissions from electricity
used to run appliances such as fridge, freezer, vacuum cleaner and washing
machine, as well as electronic devices such as television, playstation and
charging your phone.
Housebuilders
had argued that they shouldn’t be held responsible for the electrical equipment
that people use in the homes they build, and the government had accepted that
argument.
Why
stop there? Why not argue that
housebuilders cannot be held responsible for how often people choose to take a shower,
or the fact that they want to heat their homes to a temperature higher than outdoors. The precedent of taking an average for
domestic hot water use and internal temperature is well established, and there
is no reason why we couldn’t take an average electricity use for appliances and
gadgets too.
A
common sense, “man in the street” definition of a ZCH would include the carbon
emissions from running such essentials of modern day life as fridge and
freezer. Instead, fully one third of the
emissions from a 2006 home have been ignored and will not be addressed by the ZCH
policy.
As the chart shows, for a three bedroom end of terrace home of 85 square metres floor area with the average 2.55 occupants, this means that zero now means 15 kgCO2/m2.
One
is left with the suspicion that the definition was chosen simply because it made
the goal easier to achieve, and in the hope that no one would notice that zero
doesn’t really mean zero any more.
Do as I say
As
well as announcing the goal of all new homes being zero carbon by 2016,
government also set out to use public procurement to drive the required innovation
in construction products and techniques.
From April 1 2008, all new social housing built with public funding had
to achieve Code for Sustainable homes level 3, a level of CO2 emissions 25%
lower than the building regulations at the time.
The
concept was that as the building regulations tightened up towards zero carbon
by 2016, social housing would pave the way.
Always one step ahead of commercial building, helping to develop skills
and knowledge in the industry, providing a scale market to drive down costs of
new technologies and providing a set of ready-made solutions for the commercial
developers.
In 2011,
as social housebuilders were getting ready for the move to meet Code for
Sustainable homes level four (a 44% reduction in carbon emissions from 2006
regulations), the government quietly dropped this requirement. From then on, developers of social housing need
only build to the same environmental standards as commercial builders.
Some
social landlords have held the line and moved to Code 4 anyway, but with tightening
allocations of central funding, most have not. As the chart shows, the environmental sustainability of social housing will have remained almost static for the eight years. By 2016 social housing should have already been building to true zero carbon for three years, demonstrating techniques and technologies ready for commercial construction to follow.
The Building Regulations that Never Came
In
August 2013, around one year later than expected the government finally
announced changes to the building regulations that would come into force from
April 2014. Instead of requiring a further
tightening of the energy efficiency of new homes to a point half way to zero
carbon, an improvement of only 6% was made.
As
the chart shows, the ZCH programme is now well off target even for the watered
down definition.
You
can almost write the script for what comes next:
2016 building regulations impose only a small carbon reduction
2019 promised for ‘zero’
Zero Carbon Homes was visionary and challenging, a kind of 'Apollo' programme for the construction industry. Unfortunately instead of JFK, we got Eric Pickles...
--------
See also: 'A Million Missing Low Energy Homes', comment on the Building Standards Review Consultation, also from DCLG.
--------
Government
issues a consultation on the 2016 building regulations
Housebuilders
lobby that the drop to ‘zero’ is too fast2016 building regulations impose only a small carbon reduction
2019 promised for ‘zero’
Zero Carbon Homes was visionary and challenging, a kind of 'Apollo' programme for the construction industry. Unfortunately instead of JFK, we got Eric Pickles...
“But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? . . . Why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? . . . We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills . . .”
JF
Kennedy
Eric Pickles 2013
"For years badly-placed wheelie bins and the proliferation of multiple bins have created a blot on the landscape. By ensuring that developers create appropriate waste storage areas when designing new homes, we can tackle the ghastly gauntlet of bin blighted streets and driveways."
Eric Pickles 2013
--------
See also: 'A Million Missing Low Energy Homes', comment on the Building Standards Review Consultation, also from DCLG.
--------
