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
355
‘I think that the other issue is that because the tenants don’t pay for this
equipment to go on their building they're not that interested in it. If you were
putting this on your house you would research it a little bit to see what benefits
you're going to get from it, you would be keen to see that the system is set up to
run in the most efficient way possible but because they have no financial
commitment to it to be honest they're not that bothered with it.’
These two sets of responses highlight the important role that the building users can play
in the development of approaches to low carbon dwellings. The fact that designer/builder
of the eco-house had some control over the tenancy has provided a degree of freedom
to develop a more ‘sensitive’ design while PHA tenant’s meant that they were often
limited to systems that require minimal engagement with the users, such as PV.
CONCLUSION
From the structured interviews it was apparent that by their respective aims both of these
projects had been a success: the pilot project team successfully delivered a CfSH level
four house within the social housing budget and the straw-bale eco-house was
successful in achieving a low-impact home that was cheap to build. A detailed analysis
of the embodied energy and cost of both projects is necessary to compare the
effectiveness of specification of materials for reducing carbon emissions and either
monitoring or dynamic thermal modelling analysis will be required to compare the
operational energy of the two schemes.
This study suggests that the developer of the eco-house was able to use a degree of
legislative freedom, at least when compared to PHA, to explore a holistic design that
reflected his concerns about appropriateness of a CfSH based approach for small
developers using low tech solutions. His concerns, and those of the some members of
pilot project design team about the use of PV to raise the code rating of the scheme,
raise questions about the appropriateness of the CfSH based approach adopted by the
Welsh Government and echo unease among some sustainability consultants (including
the eco-house designer/builder) that the CfSH favours standardised high tech solutions
(Climate Works 2011). Questions about obstacles to the pilot project highlighted the
problems associated with developing low carbon schemes on a social housing budget
and suggest that even on exemplar schemes that affordability is the primary concern
reflecting evidence that budget will be a significant factor in the development of low
carbon dwellings in England and Wales (Osmani M and O'Reilly A 2009).
Regarding the development of a best practice model for affordable, low carbon housing
in rural areas of Wales this study indicates that significant savings in capital cost could
be achieved though the use of local materials and the adoption of a more compact form,
as on the eco-house. It is questionable whether it would be appropriate for a social
housing developer, such as PHA to replicate this strawbale approach due to sensitivity of
the material to maltreatment by tenants and issues surrounding sourcing materials.
However, this study indicates that the financial barriers, perceived by some members of
the pilot project design team, to reducing the embodied energy in social housing can be
overcome by a departure from the standardised approaches to construction used on the
pilot project. However, this study also indicates that questions remain about whether the
present legislative context, both at local and national level in Wales, provides suitable
incentives and flexibility for developers to adopt non-standard low carbon building
solutions within the social housing framework.
