WITH MUCH WAILING AND GNASHING OF TEETH THE CODE FOR SUSTAINABLE HOMES IS INCREASINGLY BECOMING A PART OF OUR EVERY DAY LIVES. AS FROM 1ST MAY 2008 ALL NEW PLANNING APPLICATIONS MUST EITHER OBTAIN AN ASSESSMENT OR APPLY FOR A ZERO RATING. THIS LATTER MUST THEN FORM PART OF THE HOME INFORMATION PACK – MAKING THE BUYER AWARE OF THE PROPERTY’S LOWLY STATUS. PLANS ARE IN PLACE TO RATCHET UP THE REQUIREMENT TO A MINIMUM CODE 3 IN 2010, CODE 4 IN 2012 AND CODE 6 FROM 2016. AND SOME OF THE MORE FORWARD THINKING DEVELOPERS ARE ALREADY LAUNCHING CODE 6 HOMES; LEARNING NOW WHAT THE REST OF THE MARKET WILL NEED TO LEARN IN COMING YEARS.
But is getting a rating necessarily a difficult and expensive exercise? The answer may be, not if you take the smart approach.
The Code is aimed at changing the way we think about designing and building houses. It doesn’t tell us how or what to build, but rather sets out a guide for building better houses, and leaving much to the decision of the developer. The Code’s 9 elements break down into 3 groups; those that are mandatory at all levels (energy and water), those that are mandatory at Code 1 level (materials, surface water run-off and waste) and those that are not mandatory at any level (pollution, health and well-being, management, ecology).
The decision on which rating to aim at will probably be based on a cost/benefit analysis. The English Partnership prepared an analysis that suggests the on-cost of Code 1 would be £765 or £7 per m² for the average 3 bedroom semi, and for Code 3 £5,025 or £43 per m². The reason for the difference in these figures is in meeting the increased energy requirements – nearly £4,000 is allocated to this element alone, and assumes that some form of renewable energy will be needed. The points are actually awarded for a 25% improvement on the 2006 Building Regs Target Emission Rate (TER), and there are other ways of doing this with no pre-requisite for renewable energy (although it may be needed under the Merton rule).
Careful thought, good design and some expenditure will be needed to meet these mandatory elements. But even at Code 3 they only account for 18% of the overall score. The remaining 82% is in the optional elements and that is the area with the greatest scope for creativity.
Take a couple of examples: within the Energy/CO2 element 1.2 points are awarded for installing renewable energy systems accounting for 10% of the property’s energy demand – a solar panel perhaps costing £2,500. The same 1.2 points can be obtained for providing internal clothes drying space, and that need be no more than a retractable drying rack mounted over the bath – cost maybe £25.
The Code is keen to see waste being properly dealt with. Implementing a plan to sort, reuse and recycle construction waste will gain 1.8 points. The same 1.8 points can be gained for installing 3 internal bins to each property for recyclable waste.
Under the Ecology section 2.4 points are available for a house with a floor area to footprint ratio of greater than 3.5 to 1 – which essentially means building on 3 storeys. The same points can be obtained under the Health & Well-being element’s Daylight section by ensuring that kitchens, living rooms and dining rooms all have decent windows.
The point is that even at Code 3, over 80% of the Code is optional. It allows the developer to decide what to do, how much to spend and where to spend it. It is fruitless to imagine that achieving the increasing minimum standards of the Code will cost nothing. Equally fruitless to ignore the Code in the hope it will go away. Careful consideration of the Code shows what can be most cost-effectively achieved and learning that lesson now could pay dividends as the standards ratchet up.
