Future Homes consultation 2023 - thoughts anyone?

[FelixtheHousecat]

The UK gov released their consultation into incrementally green building standards a couple of week ago - link here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/the-future-homes-and-buildings-standards-2023-consultation/the-future-homes-and-buildings-standards-2023-consultation#scope-of-consultation

 

I guess the main takeaways will be the probability of mandatory heat pumps and possibility of mandatory solar panels?

I can't claim to understand fully the changes to SAP calcs.

 

Just wondered what the feeling was around the proposals?

 

Missed opportunity?

Positive? 

Unambitious?

All you'd hoped for?

[nod]

The mandatary Heat pumps in all new builds was never achievable and has now been put back I suspect the same will happen once we draw closer to the revised deadline 

Much of this makes little sense while we are so reliant on Fossil fuels 

 

 

[IanR]

The final decision on hydrogen heating wasn't supposed to be until 2026, but looks like they've killed it early with dropping of the hydrogen ready boilers now. That's the right decision and allows manufacturers and installers to concentrate on electric alternatives.

 

Heat Pumps won't be mandatory, but Fossil fuel heating will be off the table.

 

The fossil fuel ban, for new builds has not been put back. 

[Ferdinand]

1 - The elephant in the room is existing buildings housing stock which are far bigger emitters and a far bigger question than newbuild.

 

The Govt have stopped improvement in its tracks by cancelling eg required improvements in EPCs in rented property, and are resiling from application of the same principle to owner occupied. I think purely because they believe that that will appeal politically to Mr & Mrs Nimby and Mr & Mrs Daily Mail Reader.

 

By comparison newbuilds are rearranging Titanic deckchairs.

 

2 - These proposals seem to include no improvement to newbuild wall / ceiling / floor U-values, because 'it is not cost effective'.

 

3 - Seem to be replacing SAP with a New Energy Model. This to me is problematic as we need to be in line with other European countries. 

 

4 - It relies heavily on decarbonisation of electricity supply, but does outline essentially no fossil fuel heat sources in the future.

 

5 - I see no prospect of this happening, bearing in mind the approaching General Election this year.

[nod]

54 minutes ago, IanR said:

The final decision on hydrogen heating wasn't supposed to be until 2026, but looks like they've killed it early with dropping of the hydrogen ready boilers now. That's the right decision and allows manufacturers and installers to concentrate on electric alternatives.

 

Heat Pumps won't be mandatory, but Fossil fuel heating will be off the table.

 

The fossil fuel ban, for new builds has not been put back. 

Thought it had been moved from 2025 to 2030?

[IanR]

32 minutes ago, nod said:

Thought it had been moved from 2025 to 2030?

 

Only replacement ff boilers for off-gas-grid properties were changed. They we're due to be banned 2026, now they've been pushed back to 2035 along with all ff replacement boilers in all residential properties. 

 

FF boilers for New builds are still intended to be outlawed in the Future Homes Building Regs to be introduced 2025.

Edited January 7 by IanR

[joth]

4 hours ago, Ferdinand said:

 

2 - These proposals seem to include no improvement to newbuild wall / ceiling / floor U-values, because 'it is not cost effective'.

 

It does have this positive word:

"""

We investigated including better walls, floors, roofs, triple glazing and improved thermal bridging. However, the only cost effective and practical improvement we found could be made to the standard was an improvement in airtightness. This improvement in airtightness is matched with the change to a decentralised mechanical extract ventilation system, in line with Approved Document F, Volume 1: Dwellings.

"""

 

Which is great.  However it's hard to see any real airtightness improvement in the doc. They have option 1 to move it to 4, or option 2 that is 5.

While this is a notional improvement vs the current L1A limit of 10, I understand most builds are already aiming for 5 per SAP anyway.

 

And either way it's not a very ambitious goal. The reason is clear:

"Option 1 is the most cost-effective option to maximise carbon savings, balanced against reducing energy bills for households. Although this option is cost-effective at reducing carbon overall, it comes with additional upfront costs for developers and may therefore affect overall housing supply."

 

 

 

[ProDave]

^^^

 

Agreed, why are they still suggesting such a poor air tight target, and not even making a mention of MVHR?  surely say air tightness less than 1.5 and MVHR would be reasonable?  Mind the mass market builders might have a learning curve to achieve that.

[FuerteStu]

4 minutes ago, ProDave said:

^^^

 

Agreed, why are they still suggesting such a poor air tight target, and not even making a mention of MVHR?  surely say air tightness less than 1.5 and MVHR would be reasonable?  Mind the mass market builders might have a learning curve to achieve that.

Because suggesting such high standards when the existing quality of builds are appalling, would grind the industry to a halt. 

 

Yes, in an ideal world you would have such quality, but in the current state of home building they couldn't dream of building the number of homes they have already sold. 

[Roger440]

54 minutes ago, FuerteStu said:

Because suggesting such high standards when the existing quality of builds are appalling, would grind the industry to a halt. 

 

Yes, in an ideal world you would have such quality, but in the current state of home building they couldn't dream of building the number of homes they have already sold. 

 

This ^^^^^^^

 

As i may have mentioned before (!), if we could actually achieve current regs, consistently, across the board, that would be a start.

 

More regs that no one abides by is going to have no practical effect.

 

I dont see any moves to tackle that. Though if you did, the end result would be the same, the flow of new houses would reduce to a trickle.

 

[Ferdinand]

17 minutes ago, Roger440 said:

 

This ^^^^^^^

 

As i may have mentioned before (!), if we could actually achieve current regs, consistently, across the board, that would be a start.

 

More regs that no one abides by is going to have no practical effect.

 

I dont see any moves to tackle that. Though if you did, the end result would be the same, the flow of new houses would reduce to a trickle.

 

 

That I think is very good comment.

 

Without any commitment to supporting a practical and rational level of regulation / enforcement, everything else - all of it - is mere weasel words.

[SteamyTea]

7 hours ago, Roger440 said:

I dont see any moves to tackle that

The Grenfell Tower inquiry may force legislation to be updated on who is really responsibly.

Be another decade before it changes anything, so may comes down to underwriters, who tend to react much faster and harder.

[Roger440]

15 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

The Grenfell Tower inquiry may force legislation to be updated on who is really responsibly.

Be another decade before it changes anything, so may comes down to underwriters, who tend to react much faster and harder.

 

Emphasis on "may".

 

Doubt it though. With the best will in the world, there isnt any "body" that can idependantly enforce standards. They would need many many thousands of inspectors. That would be decades in the making, even if you could find sufficently experienced people. Which you cant, because they simply dont exist.