The Council for British Archaeology is an educational charity working throughout the UK to involve people in archaeology and to promote appreciation and care of the historic environment for the benefit of present and future generations. CBA has a statutory role as one of the national amenity societies consulted on listed building proposals. We have a membership of 620 heritage organisations and c.10,000 directly subscribing individuals of all ages. Our institutional members represent national, regional and local bodies encompassing state, local government, professional, academic, museum and voluntary sectors.
The Council for British Archaeology welcomes the Committee's initiative to consider the contribution which the existing housing stock makes to UK carbon emission, given the very significant proportion of emissions that originate from domestic properties. As an environmental organisation, we are very conscious of the carbon footprint of our own offices, a listed Victorian town house in York, and have introduced measures to improve its energy efficiency. Given our wider role as a national amenity society, we are also acutely aware of the specific challenges that climate change presents in terms of introducing effective measures for adapting pre-war housing in general and historic buildings of special architectural or historical interest in particular. After our conference at the British Academy in July on 'foresight for climate change', we have now launched our web pages on climate change and the historic environment (see http://www.britarch.ac.uk/conserve/climatehome.html)to bring together information for our members and the thousands of interested people who access our website
CBA believes a substantial reduction in carbon emissions is crucial to slowing down the pace of global warming but also that it is important not to lose sight of the fact the historic housing stock of the pre-war period represents significant environmental capital in its own right. One of the biggest potential risks, in our view, may be the rush to try and reduce the carbon footprint of older buildings, particularly the large proportion of Victorian terraced housing that makes up the core of many of our nineteenth century and earlier historic towns, without a solid evidence-base about the construction and performance of older buildings.
The Government's Review of Sustainability of Buildings in 2006 uses an assessment formula (the SAP or Standard Assessment Procedure) which is based on the fuel efficiency of heating systems and thermal efficiency of building fabric. According to this measure, older buildings apparently have poor energy efficiency. A formulaic approach which takes into account only a limited number of aspects could encourage a perception that 'old' buildings are in need of radical alteration or even demolition while in reality the SAP rating is misleading and these buildings offer many additional environmental benefits. They contribute an enormous quality in visual context, distinctive local style and layout to a community's identity and sense of place and are particularly valued by people for this reason. They can be improved in sympathetic and sustainable ways and should not be regarded as a 'problem' legacy.
We would like to encourage a 360 degree approach to looking at our existing building stock and research into the real value of older houses for sustainable living. This would take into account the energy already invested in the construction and manufacture of the fabric of these buildings, the impacts of demolition and renewal including pollution, landfill, and transport. Better understanding is also needed of the performance of traditional building types, such as high density terraced housing, and the lessons we can learn from historic building techniques and materials (for a variety of vernacular materials such as flint, cob, thatch and timber, as well as brick, masonry and concrete). Perhaps most urgently, we need to promote effective and sympathetic ways to improve energy efficiency in older properties. For example, the environmental impacts of production of uPVC replacement windows, as opposed to timber casements produced from sustainably managed woodland, are not widely appreciated; nor indeed the environmental consequences of disposing of uPVC units when they fail, commonly after 30 - 40 years, unlike timber casements which if maintained will last far longer. Yet the choice of uPVC double glazing is an immediate response from many house owners to the need to improve insulation.
We welcome the guidance being produced on this and related topics by English Heritage and others to encourage responsible alterations and improvements in historic buildings to make them more energy efficient. Communicating strong messages about good environmental practice to citizens is a critical part of the action on climate change from national and local government in the UK. We would like to see encouragement for local authorities to adopt guidance on adaptation for older properties which is well-informed and backed by a sound evidence-base for good practice. There is an urgent need for research to underpin this, through bodies such as the Building Research Establishment and English Heritage, in the research establishments of our universities, and through the construction industry itself.
Council for British Archaeology 24 September 2007
|