Z E M C H 2 0 1 2 I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e
350
Another significant influence on the development of the pilot project, explained in several
comments, was experience on an earlier low carbon scheme that went significantly over
budget. This earlier scheme appears to have contributed to a desire not to deviate from
their typical approach in terms of building form and fabric. Thus, a micro-renewable led
design strategy was adopted to meet the pilot project's low carbon aspirations despite
there being some debate within the construction industry about the merits of this
approach (Energy Saving Trust 2010). Several respondents described the micro-
renewable led approach adopted for the pilot project; including the interviewee below:
“I think the way we approached it [was] a little like stepping into the unknown -
going from the BREEAM standard of Eco homes... we stuck with our traditional
140 stud so the fabric of the building and the general details didn't change too
much. What we looked upon was the eco-bling… to achieve code four taking our
standard unit and looking at… [adding] the PV system and an efficient gas
boiler ... I think we probably did the right thing I don't think we did anything wrong
we achieved the code in a cost effective way... maybe its not the way the
assembly would like us to approach it.’
The debate within the construction industry about the viability of a micro-renewables led
approach were reflected in the responses of the design team of the pilot project and
while some interviewees defended the approach (as above), others were more critical
explaining that if the PV failed it would undermine the environmental strategy of the
scheme, as explained below:
“But you think that it has achieved code four, it’s just with the bolt-ons, with all the
PV - it’s not really the right approach - is it? Because if the PV fails the house
doesn't perform with regard to code four and all the aspirations”
Legislation and budget appear to be less significant influences on the approach of the
eco-houses, at least when compared to the pilot project. This is evident in response to
the how the CfSH was rated as an influence. Members of the pilot project design team
all rated the CfSH as a significant influence (with a rating of five or more) (see Fig. 8);
however, the developer of the eco-house chose not to adopt a development approach
based on the CfSH, despite being a code assessor by profession. Through emails the
eco-houses’ designer/builder described his reasons for not adopting the CfSH, citing the
way in which he perceived that it favours large developers using standardised solutions:
“
The Code is set up to favour larger developers using standardised solutions and
actively penalises smaller developers and low-tech, low energy solutions... The
Green Guide gives rammed earth walls an A+ rating for having a low
environmental impact, but you can also get an A+ rating for a concrete block wall
built with cement mortar, despite the immense environmental cost of cement
production.”
