I haven't read the design analysis yet, so I don't know what they considered nor how well they judged those factors nor how important I personally think those factors are. The latter is a perennial problem with value judgements such as 'good design'. What I'm more interested in is how many schemes thought about the solar availability of various plots (which I believe is in current guidelines), how many went above the minimum requirements for insulation and suchlike.

I would imagine most were built with the main consideration being to make them as fast and cheap to build as possible.

It's the lack of maintanability that annoys me with modern houses. If you are going to be eco it's nice to have something that can be maintained past the 10 year guarantee. Some way to be able to fix the shoddy cheap work fron builders who don't understand that air gaps around insulation will stop it from working. Some way to fix the condensation problems that occur when that happens which cause the huge increase in asthma that have coincided with modern builds to building regs by muppets.

I like old houses. My huge 16th century pile costs less to heat than the little new build next door with it soaking wet insulation pushing salts out through it's cement bound bricks.

Posted By: djhhow many went above the minimum requirements for insulation

They looked at Energy Performance Certificates (as designed, rather than as built, it seems):

- 1% grade A
- 72% grade B
- 11% grade C
- 17% grade D or worse

So not good.

And, in connection with other energy use, many also failed to be pedestrian & cycle friendly, were inconvenient for public transport, local facilities & amenities, and were overly car-dependent.

Are those EPC’s as built or as performing, how many of them have far higher heating bills than expected, thermal bypass and horrendous draughts coming out from sockets and behind architraves?

Yes, thx

Peter,

you are spot on with the problem being a lack of oversight The laws and regulations are all there but those responsible for the oversight are absent.

I disagree about the leasehold situation being easy to solve as it would require the removal of the ownership from the current owners and this been given to the house owners.

Posted By: JontiI disagree about the leasehold situation being easy to solve as it would require the removal of the ownership from the current owners and this been given to the house owners.

Whilst I am not an expert in this area - the leasehold reform act gives the leaseholder the right to purchase the freehold at a reasonable sum providing time criteria are followed, modifications to this act to include all properties and to limit the charge could surely be made. Another option, given that a lot of the new leases are punitive a few years down the line, so much so that the properties are difficult to sell, is for the building societies / banks refuse to give mortgages on leasehold properties.

Posted By: tonyNot all houses are tested for air tightness and our so called robust details can give acceptable air tightness test results when the house is actually a colander and the occupants are actually living in a plasterboard tent!

The 10 year guarantee is for structure and even then owners have to battle to get redress.

Almost none of the houses on big construction sites under go control and tests. Usually there is one house that is checked at the beginning and then the assumption that all the rest will be built to the same standard.

Posted By: djh
- 1% grade A
- 72% grade B
- 11% grade C
- 17% grade D or worse

I know EPCs are junk - band B seems to cover everything from 'probably passive house' to 'just about meets building regs'. But I wouldn't have thought C and D would meet current regs?

Posted By: Simon Still

Posted By: djh
- 1% grade A
- 72% grade B
- 11% grade C
- 17% grade D or worse

I know EPCs are junk - band B seems to cover everything from 'probably passive house' to 'just about meets building regs'. But I wouldn't have thought C and D would meet current regs?

It is worse than that. I tried to translate the hopelessly inaccurate EPC to kWh/m2 per annum figures, and roughly arrived at the following picture. Current BR will put you in band B - but only just, and only assuming your airtightness is just as good as the property on which the blower door test was done. Which is hardly ever the case if your house is one of many of the same type.

Posted By: Peter_in_HungaryIt seems to me that there are several problems.

The report points to several issues (generally, not specifically in relation to energy):

- poorly designed schemes are almost ten times more likely to be built in the least affluent areas than in affluent areas. Conversely, well designed schemes are four times more likely to be built in affluent areas than in the least affluent ones. Very good schemes in poor areas are generally lead by local authorities or in public / private partnerships. [Builders building to match local affordability]

- a descending correlation is very obvious between house price and urban design quality [due to the %ages builders use to determine their spending, if the development value goes up, the funding available both to design (professional fees) and to deliver enhanced design outcomes (the external costs) rises]

- urban, higher density and brownfield schemes generally scored better [because the greater complexity of these sites meant that developers had to employ architects and urban designers in these situations?]

- Schemes that benefited from the use of site-specific design codes were almost five times more likely to appear in the ‘good’ or ‘very good’ categories than in the ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ ones, whilst schemes that benefited from the advice of a design review panel were approaching four times more likely. [Local Authorities taking a greater interest in what gets built]

Read the report for much more detail.