@ djh,
I can answer your question.....
No, the only change to the design was the Air permeability;
10m3/m2h as a ADL1A max (altho' I could have used 15m3/m2h but that would not be a fair comparison)
and
0.6m3/m2h
It is academic, but serves to indicate the improvement that air permeability can make to a design?
However, as has been said above, spec built dwellings cannot reach anywhere near PH-levels of air-tightness without serious education and attitude-adjustment in UK....

How can you foresee that Tony? The regulatory regime seems to be designed by including home builders; a clear conflict of interest, although not unusual given similar setups in other markets and industries.

In light of this and the continual disinterest of home buyers I can't see how that will happen.

Hope so.

illuminating and funny

Aha.

*That* Peter Bonfield. The one on the bike cycling to the meeting 20 miles away.

http://www.building.co.uk/peter-bonfield-the-bres-speed-merchant/3110639.article

Posted By: SteamyTeaMaybe the real problem is not housing, or 'lack of building' but really regional wage variation.

That is a BIG issue that is not that hard to improve, just look at the benefits from moving the BBC to Manchester. What if most of the court system for example was moved out of London.....

Did the BBC not move back into the old building though (may be for other reasons), or at least not close it totally.

I think that some of the problem was that there were some terrible schemes inn the 1980's and 90's to get companies to move area.
When I was looking for new premises in 1989, I could have gone to South Wales and got a place rent and rates free for two years, as long as I employed 2 people. I did not take the offer up as most of my customers where local to me (except one in South Wales).
There were larger companies than me that did take up these offers, moved in for two years and then moved out again, sometimes to another area with a similar scheme.
I also think that Siemens took large grants to move to Scotland (or was it the NE, or Humber, can't remember) to build wind turbines, then pulled out of the UK market, so closed the factory (they may have talked of closing it, can't remember). Not sure if they paid the money back, think they may have.

The details don't really matter, the main point is that if you encourage a company to move, it should stay, and I am not sure how you do that in practice. Maybe a special tax on the product or service leaving the factory.

Posted By: SteamyTeaDid the BBC not move back into the old building though (may be for other reasons), or at least not close it totally.

I think they did, but then sold a lot of smaller buildings round London they were using.

However the key is that by the BBC moving a small number of staff, lots of support companies moved to Manchester at no cost to the tax payer, and lots of new support companies have started up in Manchester. Then C4 etc opened in Manchester due to having the support companies there.

They why I gave the High Court as an example, as if it is moved out of London at our expense, lots of legal companies will slowly do the same at no cost to the tax payer. Patten office would be another good option.

Likewise with lots of research, if the research funding bodies would not fund any new professors for universities where the cost of living is above average the jobs would start to be spread out. However in that case, different areas of research should be clustered in different parts of the UK. (To start with make the grant for PHd students in London lower than the rest of the UK, so the best students don’t go to London.).

It needs a long term effort to move most of the high paying government controlled jobs out of London. The problem in the past is that it was always the low paying jobs getting moved.

@ST,
Do those figures include homes knocked down / demolished etc...
Look at the Olympic Park in Stratford East. I lived in one of those crap tower blocks for a while, and they have all disappeared, perhaps 1000 homes?

L8....?

Steamy are you looking to be the next Hans Rosling or something!

Posted By: SteamyTeaLocal level is a totally different issue as we all want to live in the country side or a coastal location but earn London wages. Maybe the real problem is not housing, or 'lack of building' but really regional wage variation.

I think that what most people are saying is that they cannot find a home or plot, in the area they want to live and at a price they can afford.

This is almost entirely the issue, AIUI from the people who are in a "frenzy".

It's not just regional wage variation but wealth and asset price variation. Workers in London get paid a bit more than elsewhere (depending on your job) but the ability to afford to purchase a house is an entirely different matter and depends on the asset prices in the locality.

Your second paragraph is true, the question becomes at what point that is unacceptable and economically damaging to the country as a whole (because it forces bad choices, low productivity etc etc).

Posted By: SteamyTea…we may be expelling some EU citizens…

But if there's a tit-for-tat on that we'll get more UK citizens back from the rest of the EU.

The news this evening had film of private rental houses in Leeds that were totally unacceptable, and the tenant that was interviewed saying she feared being back on the street again. So it isn't simply a question of the people/jobs/houses being in the wrong place, although I entirely agree that something needs to be done to make other places as attractive as London.

+1