Why is there so much carping about level six of the Code for Sustainable Homes? I'll tell you what I think. When you hear a developer complaining about new regulations, it's a sure sign it has made minimal investment in RD in the past 10 years. While the good times roll, you churn out a standard product from the nineties, but when the market tightens and policy bites, those chickens come home to roost. You don't have to run ZEDfactory to back the case for moving to level six (that is, zero carbon) by 2016. It's a piece of conviction politics that recognises the dangerous reality of climate change. True, the policy is unencumbered by evidence or experience and true, it would be easier and cheaper to call a halt at level four, but sadly even this will not be enough to prevent greenhouse gases in the air from rising past 430 parts per million, somewhat to the detriment of our biosphere. What science makes clear is that code level six is required alongside all the other mitigation strategies. It's not a choice. We need to address both new build and the refurbishment of existing stock. Both/and. Not a little bit of each. It's also clear that sustainable places matter as much as sustainable products. Eco-towns, sustainable cities or eco-regions: these are about appreciation of strategic urban design as well as sustainable construction, and call for an understanding of how to address climate change at different spatial scales. You may have seen that Barratt unveiled its Green House prototype last week. This was the first level-six house to be built by a major homebuilder, and was nicely designed by Gaunt Francis Architects.
展开▼
