The
regeneration of new large scale housing schemes appear to be
springing up around the country to meet the shortage of dwellings.
Many of the schemes, from a cursory point of view, appear to be
system timber panel type frames which are rendered or brick faced.
Many of these schemes are being built on sites with are known to
suffer from an increased flood risk.
It
is believed that the reasons for timber construction are: increased
speed of construction over traditional houses and a lower, more
affordable price. These lightweight timber systems are compact,
highly insulated and energy efficient in heating terms.
The
pre-finished panels which form many of the standard systems are
factory manufactured (MMC) and clipped together on site within a few
days.
Building
Regulations Standards dictate the fabric U values required and the
high levels of air tightness of the built form. Government policy has
dictated these changes to try to reduce carbon emissions.
It
should be remembered that thermally lightweight buildings heat up
very quickly, which is beneficial for buildings which have
intermittent use but would question the logic for every day housing.
The Government has funded many schemes to help homeowners of poorly
insulated old properties to reduce their heating bills. It should be
remembered that many of these properties are formed from traditional
construction and would generally benefit from being warm in winter
and cool in summer.
However,
Building Regulations Standards have, in one way, been instrumental in
increasing the energy consumption and carbon footprint of the built
form in the UK. The highest energy demand for the country now exists
in the summer period. The reason being is that it takes three times
as much energy to cool a building per degree centigrade than to heat
it. Therefore, with increasing mean global summer temperatures and
the trend of building thermally lightweight properties which overheat
rapidly in warm conditions, unless air conditioned, the dwellings
become hostile environments for humans to live in.
An
old, but well insulated traditional masonry and mortar type house, on
an annual basis, is much lower in energy use terms than the new
modern lightweight prefabricated ones. There are other limitations
with MMC houses which can be discussed with and argued by anyone
wanting to engage with this discussion on housing design: is there
anyone there?
The
question to ask: is the country invested in new housing which is
fundamentally flawed in its design? Are we building “White
Elephants” which will rapidly need to be replaced in the coming
decades? In times of limited resource availability, should we not
design and built houses with an expected service life of 120 years
and which also run passively needing very limited technical fixes to
make them serviceable?