T w o A p p r o a c h e s t o D e v e l o p i n g L o w C a r b o n D w e l l i n g s
349
‘Yes - partly in that it’s an ongoing process… as I started construction I've been
experimenting and learning from it so its been a developing organic process
rather then the fixed one you'd expect.’
The specification of materials as a low carbon approach drew a mixed response from the
participants and this is significant because the comments highlighted it as one of the key
differences in approach between the eco-house designer/builder and the developers of
the pilot project. Comments by members of the pilot project development team explained
that they perceived cost as barrier in the specification of materials with low embodied
energy; as explained below:
‘If you’re building a house you're going to speak to Jewsons and they're going to
give you the most cost-effective price on a material and are you actually going to
ask the question of how much energy has it taken to produce that concrete
block? I don't think you would. If you did you would probably end up paying a bit
extra
.’
Responses, such as the one above, were in contrast to those from the eco-house
designer/builder who put the use of locally sourced, natural and recycled materials at the
core of his approach. When asked about the role of material specification in his
approach to the development of low carbon housing he gave the following reply:
‘Critical - It can make a huge difference to the fabric of a house. If you look at
straw build you've got something that's carbon sequestering - you are locking up
carbon for the lifetime of the building whereas you if you build in concrete or
cement although it carbonates to an extent you are still taking up to a massive
carbon footprint.’
These responses highlight that although there is a considerable level of overlap between
the two projects there are some significant differences. The influences on the
development of the low carbon approach that produced these differences are explored in
the next section.
What have been the significant influences on the two approaches adopted?
The second section of the questionnaire investigating key influences in the development
of the two schemes; responses to these questions described how the pilot project team
considered planning regulations, building regulations and the standards set by the CfSH
as major influences (see Fig. 8). However, the budget was highlighted by the pilot project
interviewees as the single most significant influence. Comments by pilot project
interviewees described how the restrictions of the social housing budget combined with
legislative requirements to considerably influence the approach PHA took to
development:
“Affordability is really at the forefront of thinking in most cases. We operate on
very tight margins - I mean our main source of income is obviously the rent which
is often bench marked… our grant funding comes conditioned with meeting DQR
and the code... budget is really something which we...[it] is a big issue.”
