Hello all, I'm about to begin writing an article for a local newsletter on the Code for Sustainable Homes paper released by the Government last Decemeber, and I was hoping someone could help me with this question I was asked to answer:

Are sustainable homes already achievable and if so why don’t we see many of them around?

Thanks
Dan

I think the very low level of self-build in this country is also a factor. If more people built their own houses (like on the continent) rather than having to accept what a developer dishes up the them, we would have many more sustainable homes already because the demand is there it just isn't being satisfied.

Thanks for the info,

Do you think there is a problem with the attanabilty of sustainable materials for construction? For instance do builders merchants stock a descent selection materials? and/or are enough materials actually being produced?

Dan

Hear hear! planners don't have an art & design education, so how can they decide what looks nice or not? estates of Vicwardian boxes arranged around the road system?

I intended building my first selfbuild in as sustainable a way as possible. Construction was to be 145mm stick-built timber frame, cedar clad with cedar shingle roof; all from certified sources. It was to sit about 30cm above the ground on a "mini pile" system which used no concrete. Insulation 140mm PU in wall and underfloor (not strictly speaking "sustainable" but in my view its performance is so far in excess of other insulants that over the lifetime of the building the energy and hence resources saved more than offsets the manufacture of the insulation), loft space 300mm of Warmcell. Interior walls were part timber clad part Fermacell.

There was no problem sourcing any of the materials and the whole idea was that once the piles were in place I could build the entire house myself in 4-5 months, at a total finished cost of £55k for a 120m2 excluding land (this was in 2000).

The problems started with planning permission, "not in keeping with the local vernacular". I believed I'd got around that one by giving examples of the local properties ranging from stone builts crofts, 70's two storey council houses, new 1 1/2 storey houses, a small business park of timber clad offices (some occupied by the council!); all showing that there wasn't an easily identifiable style. Next I was told that the construction would not stand up to the severe UK weather (why do many British people have the idea that our weather is harsh, it is actually incredibly temperate) despite a report from a structural engineer verifying the design to be sound. Add to these problems the limited number of lenders willing to give mortgages on timber houses and higher insurance premiums, and you arrive at why after a year of trying I opted for a block and render faced timber framed bungalow which cost £15k more but was approved in four weeks.

The only plus to come out of this was that I did manage to get permission for a 60m2 2 bedroomed cabin in the garden to rent out for holiday lets, built in the same way as my original plans it cost £29k and took 11 weeks from start to finish.

In many ways this experience put me off "sustainable building", my builds since then have been traditional timber frame/block and render, but very well insulated to reduce the house's long-term carbon footprint, and avoiding UPVC as much as possible.

In summary, in practical terms it would be straight forward and even quite economical to build from sustainable products (at least the sort of products I like!), the problem is the planning system and financial institutions who are intent on resisting change.