{"id":648064,"date":"2021-12-17T08:18:26","date_gmt":"2021-12-17T08:18:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/?p=648064"},"modified":"2021-12-17T08:22:49","modified_gmt":"2021-12-17T08:22:49","slug":"architects-slam-extremely-disappointing-changes-to-energy-efficiency-regs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/architects-slam-extremely-disappointing-changes-to-energy-efficiency-regs","title":{"rendered":"Architects slam \u2018extremely disappointing\u2019 changes to energy efficiency regs"},"content":{"rendered":"

On Wednesday (15 December) the government updated Part L of the Building Regulations<\/a>, so that residential buildings will be required to produce 30 per cent fewer carbon emissions and non-residential buildings 27 per cent fewer, compared with current standards.<\/p>\n

The measures are an \u2018interim uplift\u2019 in energy efficiency expected in buildings, ahead of stricter rules \u2013 named the Future Homes Standard and Future Buildings Standard \u2013 being introduced in 2025. Under these tougher standards, new buildings must be capable of being net zero in terms of operational carbon when the grid decarbonises.<\/p>\n

The interim measures will apply to all projects after 15 June 2022, except where a building notice has been given or full plans have been submitted with local councils. However, the new regulations will apply to all projects regardless from 15 June 2023.<\/p>\n

Housing minister Eddie Hughes said the government was \u2018doing everything it can to deliver net zero\u2019, adding that \u2018changes will significantly improve the energy efficiency of the buildings where we live, work and spend our free time\u2019.<\/p>\n

But the amendments were met with disappointment by several architects and built environment professionals.<\/p>\n

Sunand Prasad, chair of the UK Green Building Council, said the new proposals \u2018fall short of what is needed to achieve UK\u2019s carbon reduction targets\u2019, adding he was disappointed that \u2018much of the consultation response was not incorporated\u2019.<\/p>\n

The government request for feedback on the Future Buildings Standard asked whether the uplift for energy efficiency in non-residential buildings should stay the same, reduce operational carbon emissions by an average of 22 or 27 per cent, or have a different value.<\/p>\n

Although the 27 per cent reduction option was chosen, just 18 per cent of people who responded opted for it \u2013 while a combined 3 per cent voted for less strict measures. A total of 78 per cent respondents called for an uplift in standards beyond these options.<\/p>\n

Clara Bagenal George, founder of the London Energy Transformation Initiative, said: \u2018Although the updated regulations do have an uplift in standards, industry has strongly reacted: given our climate crisis, this is a tiny step at a time when we need to be making a huge leap forward.<\/p>\n

\u2018From a first glance it may seem that the interim uplift is positive; on the face of it, it looks like buildings under the 2021 uplift will emit 30 per cent less carbon. Due to the methodologies behind the regulation this is more likely to translate into only a 5-10 per cent improvement in energy efficiency in practice.\u2019<\/p>\n

Other people to express concern or disappointment with the energy efficiency measures include Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios co-founder Peter Clegg, BakerBrown founder Duncan Baker-Brown as well as sustainability experts from other practices, councils and clients (see below<\/em>).<\/p>\n

On Wednesday the government also published a new\u00a0Part O\u00a0<\/a>to the Building Regulations relating to preventing overheating in new residential buildings, as well as updated\u00a0Part F<\/a>\u00a0to tighten ventilation standards in all buildings and published\u00a0guidance<\/a>\u00a0on\u00a0the installation of infrastructure relating to electric vehicle charging.<\/p>\n

RIBA president Simon Allford was less critical of the changes, saying: \u2018These uplifts will bring us one step closer to decarbonisation and we welcome that.<\/p>\n

\u2018The new minimum standards for fabric efficiency and new Part O signal real progress. But, without regulation of actual energy use, the built environment will not decarbonise at the rate required. Regulations must continue to tighten.<\/p>\n

\u2018I look forward to seeing the full document and working with the government to ensure the 2025 Future Homes and Buildings Standards address the urgency of the task at hand.\u2019<\/p>\n

\n

Responses to the government changes<\/h3>\n

\u2018Those of us who have been working in low energy design know from bitter experience that a \u201cperformance gap\u201d exists between design prediction based on regulations and actual building energy use. We need regulation to \u00a0require building performance disclosure, including appropriate methodologies for assessing and reporting performance, and a commitment to transparency so that performance data can be publicly accessed and analysed throughout the lifetime of larger institutional buildings. The proposed legislation goes nowhere near satisfying this demand that is coming not only from the design professions but from asset managers.\u2019<\/p>\n

Peter Clegg <\/strong>senior partner, Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios<\/p>\n

\u2018There was a glimpse of hope that things were moving in the right direction. In the regulations that were published for consultation earlier this year one of the few real positives of the proposals was energy forecasting for non-domestic buildings over 1000m\u00b2\u00a0using CIBSE TM54 methodology. The requirement was that an estimation of energy consumption must be provided by the building owner, which would help them have a more realistic indication of what their energy consumption could be, and how to operate their building. This was a clear step forward. This opened the door for some level of accountability, for providing a building that could meet the performance that it was intended. Even though 95 per cent of the consultation respondents supported this new step, it has been massively watered down in the regulations that were published yesterday. Allowing typical energy use benchmarks to be used rather than a bespoke prediction of energy consumptions is extremely disappointing, especially as the industry were clearly supporting this new amendment to regulations.\u2019<\/p>\n

Victoria<\/strong>\u00a0Herring<\/strong>, director for sustainability, Grosvenor Britain & Ireland<\/p>\n

\u2018This is disappointing and lacks ambition. Industry experts, investors, and citizens have shared with the government what is possible and what they want to see. They have given examples of where development is delivering better building far beyond this proposal. Showing the benefits to the industry, investors, and building occupiers. However, their views, expertise, and experiences, have been disregarded for a lower standard. What happened to Global Britain? Where is the global leadership in building a better zero carbon future?<\/p>\n

Joe Baker, <\/strong>head of carbon management, Haringey Council (Twitter comment)<\/p>\n

\u2018There was an unprecedented response from industry to the consultation on these standards, demonstrating the appetite of both professionals and client bodies for more ambitious regulation that properly represents a built environment that meets the challenge of the climate emergency. Evidence was submitted to government that has showed what is possible \u2013 but has not been reflected.\u2019<\/p>\n

Louisa Bowles<\/strong>, sustainability lead, Hawkins\\Brown<\/p>\n

We\u2019re failing before we\u2019ve even started<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u2018We understand that this interim uplift is just a stop-gap until the Future Homes Standard (regulations for homes) and the Future Buildings Standard (regulation for buildings other than homes) come into force in 2025. But can we rely on these regulations to be any better? The vast majority of respondents to the most recent consultation have said that the proposed Future Buildings Standard does not go nearly far enough in decarbonising the construction industry. We\u2019re failing before we\u2019ve even started.\u2019<\/p>\n

Andrew Waugh<\/strong>, founding director, Waugh Thistleton Architects<\/p>\n

\u2018As an industry it feels like our hands have been shackled. We have the skills, the tools and the supply chain to construct low-energy buildings that align with our climate targets, but this is not being supported at the highest level.\u2019\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Simon Ebbatson<\/strong>, principal and lead technical advisor, Elementa Consulting<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2018This is extremely disappointing. These latest updates to the building regulations dealing with operational energy of buildings appear to completely ignore the fact that we are in a climate and ecological emergency; that our government has enshrined in law that we need to be net zero carbon by 2050, let alone that 90 per cent of UK local authorities have committed to being net zero carbon by 2030.<\/p>\n

\u2018These latest updates leave our sector completely unregulated as far as energy and carbon emissions of buildings are concerned. We have the technology and knowledge to design buildings that have very low carbon emissions and operational energy use. Our building regulations should enforce this vital good practice, not put it off until the end of the decade, when it will be too late to deal with the problem of high carbon emissions.\u2019<\/p>\n

Duncan Baker-Brown<\/strong>, founder, BakerBrown<\/p>\n

\u2018The watering-down of proposals to mandate operational performance modelling (using the CIBSE TM54 methodology) for larger non-domestic projects is a significant own-goal for regulators. Leading customers and project developers, such as Grosvenor and other members of the Better Buildings Partnership, who see the importance of immediate climate change action, might choose to take the right route here in any case. It is disappointing that the opportunity has been missed to accelerate progress towards net zero in line with the government\u2019s stated ambitions at COP26.\u2019<\/p>\n

Alasdair Donn<\/strong>, head of building performance, Willmott Dixon<\/p>\n

\u2018CIBSE had many concerns about the consultation proposals, including performance metrics, the treatment of heat networks and the lack of ambition to retrofit the existing stock. Some of these concerns have been partially addressed and in some cases, government has adopted the most ambitious option from the consultation. However, the uplift is a significant missed opportunity to provide a meaningful step towards the Future Homes and Buildings Standards, and it risks adding to the legacy of buildings and networks which will need future retrofit. New buildings are the easiest part of decarbonising the built environment, so we must get it right, and there is huge industry support for net zero, which government must build on.\u2019<\/p>\n

Julie Godefroy<\/strong>, head of sustainability, CIBSE<\/p>\n

\u2018At a local authority level, in order to achieve net zero carbon homes, we needed government to be listening to experts and pushing forward with standards that will lead us towards this goal \u2013 and sooner rather than later. Industry experts have shared with the government what is possible, but they have not been listened to.\u2019<\/p>\n

Vanessa Scott,<\/strong> climate change manager, West Oxfordshire District Council<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On Wednesday (15 December) the government updated Part L of the Building Regulations, so that residential buildings will be required to produce 30 per cent fewer carbon emissions and non-residential buildings 27 per cent fewer, compared with current standards. The measures are an \u2018interim uplift\u2019 in energy efficiency expected in buildings, ahead of stricter rules …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":72402,"featured_media":648080,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_oasis_is_in_workflow":0,"_oasis_original":0,"ep_exclude_from_search":false},"categories":[681],"tags":[2746,3210,78261,6313,5940],"yoast_head":"\nArchitects slam \u2018extremely disappointing\u2019 changes to energy efficiency regs<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Architects and engineers have criticised the government\u2019s amendments to energy efficiency regulations, describing them as \u2018a tiny step at a time when we need to be making a huge leap\u2019\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/architects-slam-extremely-disappointing-changes-to-energy-efficiency-regs\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Architects slam \u2018extremely disappointing\u2019 changes to energy efficiency regs\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Architects and engineers have criticised the government\u2019s amendments to energy efficiency regulations, describing them as \u2018a tiny step at a time when we need to be making a huge leap\u2019\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/architects-slam-extremely-disappointing-changes-to-energy-efficiency-regs\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"The Architects\u2019 Journal\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-12-17T08:18:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-12-17T08:22:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/cdn.rt.emap.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2021\/12\/16114916\/shutterstock_505040212-1024x683.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1024\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"683\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Will Ing\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Will Ing\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/architects-slam-extremely-disappointing-changes-to-energy-efficiency-regs\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/architects-slam-extremely-disappointing-changes-to-energy-efficiency-regs\",\"name\":\"Architects slam \u2018extremely disappointing\u2019 changes to energy efficiency regs\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-12-17T08:18:26+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-12-17T08:22:49+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#\/schema\/person\/9d8d3cda88b1866e99d8d17d9773cc1f\"},\"description\":\"Architects and engineers have criticised the government\u2019s amendments to energy efficiency regulations, describing them as \u2018a tiny step at a time when we need to be making a huge leap\u2019\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/architects-slam-extremely-disappointing-changes-to-energy-efficiency-regs#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/architects-slam-extremely-disappointing-changes-to-energy-efficiency-regs\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/architects-slam-extremely-disappointing-changes-to-energy-efficiency-regs#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Architects slam \u2018extremely disappointing\u2019 changes to energy efficiency regs\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/\",\"name\":\"The Architects\u2019 Journal\",\"description\":\"Architecture News & Buildings\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#\/schema\/person\/9d8d3cda88b1866e99d8d17d9773cc1f\",\"name\":\"Will Ing\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/381f6d26239590224cf48c9d16055b53\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4c5c2c6d83ec869645ecfc0998ec678d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4c5c2c6d83ec869645ecfc0998ec678d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Will Ing\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/author\/will-ing\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Architects slam \u2018extremely disappointing\u2019 changes to energy efficiency regs","description":"Architects and engineers have criticised the government\u2019s amendments to energy efficiency regulations, describing them as \u2018a tiny step at a time when we need to be making a huge leap\u2019","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/architects-slam-extremely-disappointing-changes-to-energy-efficiency-regs","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Architects slam \u2018extremely disappointing\u2019 changes to energy efficiency regs","og_description":"Architects and engineers have criticised the government\u2019s amendments to energy efficiency regulations, describing them as \u2018a tiny step at a time when we need to be making a huge leap\u2019","og_url":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/architects-slam-extremely-disappointing-changes-to-energy-efficiency-regs","og_site_name":"The Architects\u2019 Journal","article_published_time":"2021-12-17T08:18:26+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-12-17T08:22:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1024,"height":683,"url":"https:\/\/cdn.rt.emap.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/4\/2021\/12\/16114916\/shutterstock_505040212-1024x683.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Will Ing","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Will Ing","Estimated reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/architects-slam-extremely-disappointing-changes-to-energy-efficiency-regs","url":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/architects-slam-extremely-disappointing-changes-to-energy-efficiency-regs","name":"Architects slam \u2018extremely disappointing\u2019 changes to energy efficiency regs","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-12-17T08:18:26+00:00","dateModified":"2021-12-17T08:22:49+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#\/schema\/person\/9d8d3cda88b1866e99d8d17d9773cc1f"},"description":"Architects and engineers have criticised the government\u2019s amendments to energy efficiency regulations, describing them as \u2018a tiny step at a time when we need to be making a huge leap\u2019","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/architects-slam-extremely-disappointing-changes-to-energy-efficiency-regs#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/architects-slam-extremely-disappointing-changes-to-energy-efficiency-regs"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/news\/architects-slam-extremely-disappointing-changes-to-energy-efficiency-regs#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Architects slam \u2018extremely disappointing\u2019 changes to energy efficiency regs"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/","name":"The Architects\u2019 Journal","description":"Architecture News & Buildings","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#\/schema\/person\/9d8d3cda88b1866e99d8d17d9773cc1f","name":"Will Ing","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/381f6d26239590224cf48c9d16055b53","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4c5c2c6d83ec869645ecfc0998ec678d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4c5c2c6d83ec869645ecfc0998ec678d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Will Ing"},"url":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/author\/will-ing"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/648064"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/72402"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=648064"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/648064\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":648156,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/648064\/revisions\/648156"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/648080"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=648064"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=648064"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.architectsjournal.co.uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=648064"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}