Memorandum by George Wimpey UK
1. INTRODUCTION
George Wimpey UK [GWUK] received a panel of
possible questions and a "Call for Evidence" to the
House of Lords Select Committee inquiry into Energy Efficiency
on Thursday 11 November and has elected to give a written response
to the "Call for Evidence" (and where also relevant
offer opinion on the panel questions on policy).
Each "Call for Evidence" question
is answered under it's own heading, although cross reference to
other answers is made in several of the answers. The panel of
possible questions as received are answered where indicated.
The "Call for Evidence" questions
received were as follows:
— The most appropriate measure of energy
efficiency, and the relationship between improvements in energy
efficiency and overall energy use and carbon emissions.
— The behavioural aspects of energy
efficiency schemes—the quantity and quality of information
available on energy efficiency, and whether the public is sufficiently
knowledgeable and motivated to achieve energy savings.
— The scope and incentives for improving
energy efficiency and reducing waste, across the economy, in both
private and public sectors.
— The potential for technological improvements
to the energy efficiency of new and existing buildings, and how
these should be implemented.
— The development and promotion of
energy efficient consumer goods.
— Innovative schemes to use district
heating or combined heat and power in order to reduce overall
energy demand.
— The funding and co-ordination of
research into energy efficiency measures in the domestic and industrial
sectors, and how well research is transferred into applications.
The panel questions were as follows :
Question 1: How have you replied to the consultation
on proposed changes to Part L of the Building Regulations? Do
you think the eventual changes will lead to a major step change
in energy use?
Question 2: What are
your thoughts about the proposed Code for Sustainable Buildings,
that came from the recent report by the Sustainable Buildings
Task Group?
Question 3: What Work do your companies undertake,
or Fund, to Find ways of reducing energy demand in Buildings?
Question 4: What are
the barriers to constructing buildings with greater energy efficiency,
and how can they be overcome?
Question 5: Are the skills in the construction
industry available to design and construct buildings to higher
energy efficiency standards? What is being done to address any
skills shortages, and is it enough?
Question 6: How well
informed is the public about the full life-cycle energy cost of
their homes, and how can they be encouraged to use this information
when considering a purchase?
Question 7: What demand do you see for buildings
with relatively high standards of energy efficiency? What is the
prospect of "EcoHome" pilot projects becoming the norm
for new build in the United Kingdom?
Question 8: Do you
think that district heating schemes could be used more widely
in the United Kingdom? What barriers are there to implementing
district heating into new developments?
Question 9: Climate change may result in a
warmer climate for the United Kingdom in the future. Have you
considered how the potential demand on energy from cooling could
be reduced? Given the long lifetimes we expect of our buildings,
should features be incorporated now in anticipation?
2. THE MOST
APPROPRIATE MEASURE
OF ENERGY
EFFICIENCY, AND
THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN IMPROVEMENTS
IN ENERGY
EFFICIENCY AND
OVERALL ENERGY
USE AND
CARBON EMISSIONS
We are answering as to the most appropriate
measure of energy efficiency for new housing, as it is beyond
the remit of our business to answer for other products. Part L
of the Building Regulations (Part L1 Conservation of fuel and
power in dwellings), which may be viewed as a "how to manual",
largely dictates the standards to which the industry in general
must adhere, which results in a large degree of standardisation.
We answered the consultation for Part L through
the House Builders Federation [HBF], as we believe in a co-ordinated
and unified industry voice in such matters.
We believe, as do the HBF that the changes to
Part L, if fully implemented will result in a significant step
change, particularly for some of the smaller builders and we would
agree with them that the skill level needed to fully implement
all of the recent changes to the building regulations (not just
Part L) may not be universally available due to a shortage in
experienced site based labour. Changes in government policy to
encourage more people to choose construction and other trades
as a career with equal value as a university education would help
in this area.
At present the SAP (Standard Assessment Protocol)
rating is used to calculate energy efficiency for new dwellings.
Whilst we are able to calculate this for our design and build
we are concerned that the scheme, scaled as it is on a 1 to 120
scale is neither well known or understood by the general public
(in the way say the alphabetic rating for Eco Labelling of appliances
is) nor easily applied for the purposes of comparison to existing
housing stock. SAP is a useful tool, but we feel that it is a
component tool rather than representing the definitive energy
efficiency of a property.
The Carbon Index Method can and often is also
used, but this is poorly understood by the public, though it can
be used to calculate carbon emissions. We feel that one of the
most important things to be sought for any measure of energy efficiency
is consistency and communicability. Not only should one be able
to consistently measure the energy efficiency of any dwelling
both new as built and existing houses but we need to be able to
do so in a fashion consistent with the rest of the industry and
with other sectors.
GWUK recently commissioned an internal report
from the board on this issue and has established that of all the
tools on the market available to us at present, the BRE EcoHomes
assessment criteria, which we have used on several developments,
is favoured by planning authorities as the most visible and viable
method of assessing and demonstrating our sustainability credentials
as a business. There is a significant cost implication attached
to this however and we are conducting further research into the
commercial and practical viability of the standard.
EcoHomes has the additional advantage of covering
social as well as environmental issues. It considers the lifetime
energy use of a property and has specific calculations for energy
efficient appliances so considers the home as part of a community
(which SAP as a unit measure cannot). The difficulties generally
with EcoHomes are that it can sometimes be over simplistic with
subjective pre-defined weightings; though specific to our business
the lack of national uptake of the scheme and availability of
trained assessors is also of concern.
3. THE BEHAVIOURAL
ASPECTS OF
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
SCHEMES—THE
QUANTITY AND
QUALITY OF
INFORMATION AVAILABLE
ON ENERGY
EFFICIENCY, AND
WHETHER THE
PUBLIC IS
SUFFICIENTLY KNOWLEDGEABLE
AND MOTIVATED
TO ACHIEVE
ENERGY SAVINGS
Although resources such as the Energy Saving
Trust and the Community Renewable Initiative are available to
the general public and local authorities there is a comparatively
low level of awareness of measurements of energy efficiency (such
as SAP) amongst the general public. We would refer to our earlier
answer and suggest that an energy efficiency indicator that informs
the public of the pounds, shillings and pence cost of energy efficiency
would be the most appropriate motivator to drive public consideration
of these issues.
As a volume house builder we want to meet the
Baker Report Targets for volume growth and affordability. The
measures required to be emplaced to increase the EcoHomes and
SAP rating of a house or to add Lifetime Homes features add additional
costs which the general public is typically reluctant to pay as
they add a significant premium to the cost of a new home when
compared to less efficient existing housing stock. Anecdotal evidence
from our developments indicates that the public in practice are
unwilling to pay a premium for measures such as grey water recycling
and solar panels and in fact there is a general negative association
with the maintenance issues that attend them by the public and
the Highways Authorities.
It has been acknowledged by the Government that
it is not the new, energy saving housing stock, which is most
problematic, but rather the majority of existing housing stock,
which is largely responsible for the wasted energy. Houses with
no loft insulation, old draughty windows, inefficient electric
fires etc. will account for this biggest element of such wastage.
We would suggest it is Best Available Technology Not Entailing
Excessive Cost [BATNEEC] to improve existing housing stock than
to load new homes with even more targets, which will achieve minimal
gain at significant cost loads, which is not compatible with the
Baker Report.
The public will only be genuinely interested
in energy efficiently if it can see `pounds' savings, or improvements,
on its own investments. As many improvements to efficiency are
expensive to implement, a system is needed to subsidise such improvements.
Better information, and a wider dissemination of knowledge would
greatly help this. We would suggest using energy companies to
pass the message with their bills. We already include energy efficiency
information packs with our houses on many developments and we
have found this to be quite effective.
4. THE SCOPE
AND INCENTIVES
FOR IMPROVING
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
AND REDUCING
WASTE, ACROSS
THE ECONOMY,
IN BOTH
PRIVATE AND
PUBLIC SECTORS
Many technologies exist to improve efficiency.
Their use in existing, inefficient buildings would have a far
more beneficial effect than only having them in new ones which
are already very well insulated (for reasons we have previously
discussed).
We would comment that the conflicting guidance
and standards set by various government and regional policies
does not aid the reduction of waste or increase in energy efficiency.
Conflicts in production volumes demanded by
government; drives towards developing brown field land; achieving
densities; different standards of build and conflicts within the
Building Regulations and Lifetime Homes standards have led to
industry confusion and an un level playing field.
For example though the changes to Part L have
been published there is general agreement within the industry
that some need a great deal more thought and clarification before
they can be implemented. There was also concern that the Government
is expecting industry to do much of the development without supplying
the resources and funding needed to achieve this, or that the
requirements of each section of the Regulations has not been cross
referenced with the others, or with the Lifetime Homes Standards.
For example Part L requires that window size on south facing windows
be minimized, however the Lifetime Homes Standard specifies larger
size windows (though the sill height may be taken to contravene
Fire Regulations). Extra thermal efficiency in the fabric of the
building itself will also mean that once it has heated up it will
be harder to cool down again. Large windows allowing maximum through
ventilation is the only way if electric means are not to be employed,
but again this flies in the face of the new Part L.
We would suggest that there would be greater
scope for these issues, were a "How to" manual similar
to the Building Regulations produced as definitive government
minimum standard to level the playing field, but where all sections
cross referenced the Building Regulations and Government Policies
such as sustainable communities and lifetime homes.
5. THE POTENTIAL
FOR TECHNOLOGICAL
IMPROVEMENTS TO
THE ENERGY
EFFICIENCY OF
NEW AND
EXISTING BUILDINGS
AND HOW
THESE SHOULD
BE IMPLEMENTED
We feel this has already been answered by previous
questions.
6. THE DEVELOPMENT
AND PROMOTION
OF ENERGY
EFFICIENT CONSUMER
GOODS
This question is largely answered in sections
2 to 4 of this response. We would like to make a few additional
comments however.
GWUK has recently expanded its core business
to customer option centres to mirror the groups long standing
practice in America. As part of these option centres we provide
a choice of energy efficient appliances for customers, on several
of our developments we have committed to providing `A' rated goods
packages as an option or providing only washing machines with
an `A' and `B' rating. At present consumers tend to be limited
by their budget as to their choice of appliance. It is anticipated
that as the technologies progress they will become more affordable.
Use of solar panels and grey water recycling
are largely being held in abeyance by consumer preference and
the reluctance of local and water authorities to adopt SUDS due
to concerns over long-term maintenance. As previously mentioned
we believe that consumer education, as to the monetary value of
energy saving technology, combined with consistent regulations
which provide uniform minimum standards for old and new build
will be the most effective way to promote adoption of energy efficient
consumer goods.
We would also consider our homes to be an energy
efficient consumer good, although the energy efficiency of a home
is rarely seen as a selling point for our customers, and evidence
from our research indicates a general lack of awareness of the
relative energy inefficiency of existing compared with new housing
stock. We build structures with low lifetime embodied energy,
features such as Western Red Cedar and recycled and secondary
aggregate have been incorporated into designs and we have commissioned
an internal Waste Minimisation working group who consider issues
such as minimising the number of lorry movements required on developments
and lifetime waste from our products.
We elaborate further on our research and development
initiatives in the answer to question 8.
7. INNOVATIVE
SCHEMES TO
USE DISTRICT
HEATING OR
COMBINED HEAT
AND POWER
IN ORDER
TO REDUCE
OVERALL ENERGY
DEMAND
The technology behind district heating and combined
heat and power (CHP) has improved significantly over the last
40 years. CHP plant are however still a long term payback, capital
intensive project, and require considerable amounts of long term
capital funding and specific skills to install. There is generally
low awareness amongst the public about CHP and district heating
and where awareness exists it tends to be associated with poorly
designed or maintained social housing projects from the 1970s.
As such negative public perception of the technology and the mental
association with "tenement tower blocks" is a considerable
barrier.
From a developers point of view, initialization
of CHP and district heating are only viable on large, dense schemes
where the local authority or a private contractor is prepared
to absorb a significant part of the considerable capital costs
associated with establishing and maintaining these plant; or on
smaller schemes where there is an existing district heating or
CHP network to connect up to. A further barrier is that the concept
of district heating is much simpler on developments like social
housing where an RSL (registered social landlord) can be the "name"
on the energy company bill as the logistics of making many individual
householders pay their share of a large, wider, bill are very
difficult and initial feedback indicates public resistance to
this concept as the wider public do not wish to be held responsible
for "others" who do not pay their share of a district
bill.
It is generally acknowledged that CHP and district
heating work best in very dense housing: high or low rise apartments.
When calculating SAP ratings for a dwelling there is a considerable
bias in favour of apartments and terraces for insulation calculations.
This favours densification, as do PPG 3 and the drive towards
remediation of brown field sites (where remedial targets for an
apartment building with hard standing may be considerably more
achievable than those for residential with gardens). The difficulty
faced by developers is that there is a traditional preference
and aspiration in the UK for detached or semi-detached living.
We have consulted with the HBF on this matter and this would appear
to be a consensus opinion of HBF members.
However we consider it likely that a knock on
effect of the landfill directive will be an increased need for
municipal incinerators, and it is likely that Local Authorities
may prefer the choice of Energy from Waste (EFW) plants, which
may also be used to provide district heating. For this reason
and for reasons of general government policy we anticipate that
more Local Authorities will be looking to incorporate some form
of CHP or District Heating in their Local Plans, which leads us
to anticipate that CHP or District Heating schemes may become
integral in the pre-qualification processes in future for larger
land parcels.
On a purely practical issue there can be issues
with the heating company laying their distribution pipes under
adoptable footways as they may not be/are not, statutory undertakers
and therefore do not have the rights to so do. This could be a
significant barrier.
8. THE FUNDING
AND CO-ORDINATION
OF RESEARCH
INTO ENERGY
EFFICIENCY MEASURES
IN THE
DOMESTIC AND
INDUSTRIAL SECTORS,
AND HOW
WELL RESEARCH
IS TRANSFERRED
INTO APPLICATIONS
George Wimpey UK has traditionally funded research
internally (through funding research interests of our staff and
through our Group R&D Manager) and from specialist consultants
for particular applications, such as prototype modular housing,
the results of which have been commercially sensitive. In the
public domain we work closely with the HBF and BRE to push best
practice in this area.
A degree of natural evolution in sustainable
design/modern construction techniques has taken place at a local
business level (eg the "Staiths", GW North East/the
"Metro", GW West London) but it was decided that a more
formal commitment to R&D was necessary, with the impetus coming
all the way from Board Level.
On Group review of recent R&D research we
established two things; firstly that there wasn't much going on
that we weren't already aware of in terms of innovative build
techniques, and secondly that experimentation with such techniques
was risky and potentially very costly.
In order to minimise duplication of effort and
the risk element we decided to promote group R&D through partnering
with leading universities. We started a process of assessing the
competencies of various Universities with a view to establishing
a relationship; however the initial approach for the relationship
we are now developing came from Professor Saffa Riffat (head of
the "School of the Built Environment" at Nottingham
University). It quickly became apparent that Nottingham stood
head and shoulders above the vast majority of other universities
in the UK in this area.
They are ranked no.1 in the UK for the study
of Architecture and Building Technology, offering courses on Sustainable
Development, Planning, Environmental Design, and Renewable Energy
and Architecture. The School receives around 18 applicants per
undergraduate place and has a student body of c700, including
50 research students and 43 MA students. Regional Directors and
representatives of the UK Board visited the school on a couple
of occasions and were impressed with the facilities and the quality
of the research that is taking place there. They already have
strong links with companies in the UK and overseas, including
Pilkington, Baxi and others.
It was agreed that a sensible first step in
a relationship with the University would be the sponsorship of
a Lecturing post; having the benefit to George Wimpey UK of being
a relatively safe/controllable and identifiable cost. It is a
longer-term commitment to the University than a one-off project
would be and is definitely viewed as the first step in an ongoing
relationship. For example the school are keen for George Wimpey
UK to be involved in the construction of a number of "Creative
Energy Dwellings" on the University campus which would act
as a working/living laboratory for the latest research.
To date, we have committed to the sponsorship
of a Lectureship at the University for a minimum of two years.
This will give us access to the pool of knowledge and cutting
edge research. It will enable GWUK to contribute to the direction
of the research and offers a potentially valuable conduit for
new products into the market place, increasing their commercial
viability.
From GWUK's point of view key areas of research
will be sustainable and renewable energy technologies as well
as modern construction methods, innovative design etc.
Aside from this initiative at present we have
internal working groups and commissioned external work in progress
reviewing such diverse areas as the application of the EcoHomes
standard to our build; and the feasibility of using solar panels
on various developments. We have annual house type reviews that
examine the components and whole of each house type for energy
efficiency and review the SAP rating. Internally we share knowledge
on our intranet and through specialists meetings.
18 November 2004
| 
