code for sustainable homes cost analysis

8/9/2019 Code for Sustainable Homes Cost Analysis

1/42

Cost Analysis o The Code or Sustainable HomesFinal Report

www.communities.gov.ukcommunity, opportunity, prosperity


2/42


3/42

Cost Analysis o The Code or Sustainable HomesFinal Report

July 2008Department for Communities and Local Government


4/42

Communities and Local GovernmentEland House

Bressenden PlaceLondonSW1E 5DU

Telephone: 020 7944 4400Website: www.communities.gov.uk

Crown Copyright, 2008

Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown.

This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced ree o charge in any ormat or medium or research, private studyor or internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and notused in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title o thepublication specifed.

Any other use o the contents o this publication would require a copyright licence. Please apply or a Click-Use Licenceor core material at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/system/online/pLogin.asp, or by writing to the Oce oPublic Sector Inormation, Inormation Policy Team, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich, NR3 1BQ.Fax: 01603 723000 or email: [email protected]

I you require this publication in an alternative ormat please email [email protected]

Communities and Local Government PublicationsPO Box 236Wetherby

West YorkshireLS23 7NBTel: 08701 226 236

Fax: 08701 226 237Textphone: 08701 207 405Email: [email protected]

or online via the Communities and Local Government website: www.communities.gov.uk

75%

July 2008

Product Code: 07SB04958


5/42

Contents 3

Contents

Chapter 1 Introduction 5

1.1 Limitations o previous work 5

1.2 Aims 5

1.3 Structure o this report 6

1.4 Approach to cost estimation 6

Chapter 2 Revisions to previous cost estimates in light o nalisedtechnical guidance 10

2.1 Areas o change in the new technical guidance 10

2.2 Dwelling emission rate 11

2.3 Cycle storage 17

2.4 Internal potable water consumption 19

2.5 Flood risk 20

2.6 Environmental impact o materials 21

2.7 Sound 24

2.8 Summary o costs or Code credits 24

Chapter 3 Development scenarios against which costs havebeen considered 29

Chapter 4 Estimated costs 31

Chapter 5 Potential or cost reduction 34

Chapter 6 Conclusions 40


6/42


7/42

Chapter 1. Introduction 5

Chapter 1

Introduction

This report presents the ndings o research to update and enhance existing cost

benchmarks or achieving dierent perormance levels under the Code or Sustainable

Homes1 (the Code). This work builds on an initial cost analysis that was completed prior to

the publication o the Code technical guidance document (initially published in April 2007

and revised in September). As a result the initial cost estimates made assumptions about

the method or achieving some perormance standards based on the summary guidance

published in December 2006 and pre-existing Ecohomes standards.

This study was commissioned to rene the cost analysis o the Code in light o the

publication o the nalised technical guidance together with other supporting inormation

(e.g. the partial Green Guide to Specication).

1.1 Limitations o previous work

The cost analysis o the Code perormed early 2007 required updating because o the

changes to the detail o credit requirements arising rom the publication o the Code

technical guidance (with associated calculation tools) and the release o a revised Green

Guide to Specication2. The inclusion within the technical guidance o a ormal denition

o Zero Carbon housing also enables the costs associated with Code level 6 to be

estimated.

In addition, the initial cost estimates to not ully take into account the potential variation

in approaches to the Code and the associated costs in dierent orms o development

location (e.g. in areas o high food risk or with high, medium or low levels o ecological

value).

1.2 Aims

This research seeks to:

UpdatethecostanalysisundertakenbyCyrilSweettforEnglishPartnershipsandthe

Housing Corporation in light o the nalised technical guidance on the Code.

1 A cost review o the Code or Sustainable Homes, English Partnerships and the Housing Corporation, February 2007.2 Although some specication inormation, notably windows, is still outstanding.


8/42

6 Cost Analysis o The Code or Sustainable Homes

Providegreatercondenceintheanalysisofthecostimplicationsofachievingthe

energy standards in Code levels 4, 5 and 6.

ProvideanalysisoftheoverallcostimplicationsofachievingCodelevel6.

AssessthepotentialforreductionsinthecostofmeetingdifferentCodelevelsarising

rom increased uptake o the key technologies.

ProvideoverarchingcostinformationonachievingeachleveloftheCodetogether

with a semi-quantitative evaluation o likely trends in cost.

While a ew technical matters are still to be resolved, sucient data is now available to

allow robust cost analysis o each Code level or our dierent house types under dierent

development scenarios, thereby providing reasonable upper and lower bound estimates.

1.3 Structure o this report

The subsequent sections o this report set out:

RevisionstoCyrilSweettsinitialcostanalysisforspeciccreditsinlightofthenalised

technical guidance on the Code

Therangeofdevelopmentscenariosagainstwhichcostshavebeenconsidered

(because o the large number o potential development scenarios the analysis is based

on a selected number o scenarios believed to illustrate upper and lower cost ranges).

EstimatedcostsofcompliancewitheachoftheCodelevelsforeachhousetypeunder

the dierent development scenarios and the savings in terms o utility bills, carbon

emissions and consumption o potable water.

Analysisofthelikelypotentialforfuturecostreductionsarisingfromwidespread

uptake o the Code.

Whilst every eort has been made to develop accurate and representative cost analyses, it

is important to remember that these are cost estimates and are not denitive. The actualcosts incurred will depend on numerous actors including the developer, their supply chain

and circumstances o any specic site (e.g. location, housing mix, etc).

In addition, it is important to remember that there is currently very little established

technical or commercial inormation or some o the perormance standards required or

the higher Code levels.

1.4 Approach to cost estimation

The implications o meeting each Code level are presented in comparison to the costs

o a baseline home (e.g. a Building Regulations compliant home). Costs are presented


9/42


on a per dwelling and per m2 basis or our dierent house types across our generic

development scenarios. Baseline inormation on each housetype is shown in Table 1.1 and

the our development scenarios are described in Table 1.2. The development scenarios

represent a range o development sizes, housing mixes and densities, and are used to testthe applicability o dierent strategies or achieving Code credits (particularly or energy).

Other site variables are described in Section 3.

Table 1.1: Baseline inormation on the our house types considered

Parameter Detached End terrace/semi Mid terrace Flat

Internal foor area (m2) 102 76 76 60

Roo area (m2) 58 38 38 20

Construction cost ( m2

) 786 745 745 1342

Assumed occupancy(persons)

4 3 3 2

Regulated carbon emissions(t per year)

2.34 1.70 1.51 1.35

Unregulated carbonemissions (t per year)

1.38 1.20 1.20 1.00

U Values (W/m2/K)

Floor 0.22

Exposed walls 0.28

Roo 0.14

Windows 1.71

Hal glazed door 1.79

Fully glazed doors 1.71

Solid Doors 0.99

Thermal bridging 0.08

Ventilation Natural ventilation ans in kitchens and bathrooms

Airtightness 8

Heating

System Central heating with radiators

Gas condensing boilereciency

90.2%

Controls Delayed start thermostat, cylinder stat, programmer, TRVs

Hot water

Hot water storage volume 160

Hot water cylinder loss actor 0.015Lights 30% Low Energy

Cooking and Appliances Estimated using ormulae used in Code or Sustainable HomesTechnical Guide


10/42


Table 1.2: Summary o development scenarios

Scenario

Approximatepercentageo annualcompletions

Density(dwell/ha)

Site Area(ha)

DwellingTypes Nos.

DwellingMix

Percentageo Socialhousing

Small scale 15% 30 0.3 Detached 4 45% 20%

Terrace 3 33%

End-t/semi 2 22%

Flat 0 0%

Total 9 100%

City inll 3% 180 0.1 Detached 0 0% 20%

Terrace 0 0%

End-t/semi 0 0%

Flat 18 100%

Total 18 100%

Markettown

72% 50 2 Detached 25 25% 20%

Terrace 27 27%

End-t/semi 21 21%

Flat 27 27%

Total 100 100%

UrbanRegeneration

10% 160 4.7 Detached 30 4% 20%

Terrace 15 2%

End-t/semi 8 1%

Flat 697 93%

Total 750 100%

The analysis represents an estimate o the total costs to a contractor, including materials,

plant and labour, preliminaries, overheads, contingencies, prot, and design ees.

The models relate to the construction o the dwellings only. They thereore make no

specic allowance or items which would by their nature be site specic, such as:

Substructure(otherthangroundoorslab)

Belowgroundandsitedrainage

Siteworks

Siteandcommoninfrastructure.


11/42


It should be noted that compliance with higher levels o the Code may require the

introduction or re-specication o common inrastructure, such as use o Combined Heat

and Power (CHP) systems and/or sustainable drainage. In these instances, the assessment

identies the estimated net increase in cost on a cost per dwelling basis. The base dwellingcosts themselves, however, do not include allowance or inrastructure beyond the demise

o the property.

The costings also exclude the ollowing:

Siteacquisitioncosts

Professionalfees,otherthandesignfeesincurredbythecontractor

Partywallawardsandanyworkinconnectiontherewith

BuildingControlandplanningfees

AnypaymentswhichmayberequiredunderSection106oftheTownandCountry

Planning Act

Remediationofsitecontamination

Surveyworks

Legalfees

Financecosts

Loosefurnitureandttings,suchascurtains,blinds,shelving,furnitureandkitchen

appliances

Highwaysworks

ValueAddedTax.

The costings are based on Q4 2007 price levels or homes built by a housing developer

with a trading turnover o around 5,000 to 10,000 dwellings per annum. It is appreciated

that individual building contracts may vary in size rom developments o small sites (around

12 units) to much larger sites accommodating 100 units or more. The estimated costs inthis report are assumed to apply equally to these dierent scenarios on the basis that the

type o contractor used would be similar, as would the design and specication o the

individual dwellings.

Wherever possible, the costs in this report have been based upon quotations received rom

contractors and suppliers, with an adjustment made to refect bulk purchase arrangements

that might be applicable or projects o the sizes described. The size and nature o bulk

purchase discounts were estimated ollowing discussions with contractors and suppliers.


12/42


Chapter 2

Revisions to previous cost estimates inlight o nalised technical guidance

Cyril Sweetts initial cost analysis o each Code credit area is detailed in A cost review o the

Code or Sustainable Homes3 and the basis o these costs is not repeated here in detail.

Rather, key areas where the detail o published technical guidance document suggests that

the initial costing is no longer appropriate are discussed together with proposed updated

cost gures. This revised analysis is based on the guidance published in September 2007.

2.1 Areas o change in the new technical guidance

The nalised technical guidance on the Code includes several areas o change rom

the approaches proposed previously (or those inerred rom EcoHomes where detailed

inormation was not available). The most signicant overall change between the Code

and EcoHomes is that many o the standards in the Code are now applicable to each

dwelling in isolation instead o being based on the minimum or average perormance o

the development as a whole. This impacts compliance costs both positively and negatively.

In some instances it means that houses with higher perormance standards (e.g. better

daylight levels) are not disadvantaged by the poor perormance o other homes on a

development. However, it also requires each individual home to adopt a measure that i it

is to achieve the associated credit. This prevents a developer rom providing enhancements

(e.g. cycle storage) only to those homes where it is easiest or most cost eective.

Some changes to the technical guidance have only minor cost impacts (or where these are

dicult to quantiy) which depend either on the sites housing mix (e.g. building oot print:

foor area ratio) or the sites location (presence o a Local Authority kerbside recyclablescollection scheme). The key changes in the updated technical guidance are detailed in

Table 2.1, changes which are considered to have signicant and quantiable cost impact

have been highlighted and are analysed in urther detail in the remainder o this section.

3 English Partnerships and the Housing Corporation, February 2007.


13/42

Chapter 2. Revisions to previous cost estimates in light o nalised technical guidance 11

Table 2.1: Credit areas where the Code Technical Guide may have a cost impact (relativeto previous estimates pre April 2007)

Area ochange Details o change

Potentialimpact onprevious cost

analysis?

DwellingEmission Rate

Each individual dwelling must achieve the required improvement on2006 building regulations Part L1a. A denition o the requirementsor a Zero Carbon homes has been included in the technicalguidance thereby enabling analysis o Code Level 6.

Cycle storage Change to the number o cycles to be stored. Credits are nowallocated on the number o cycle storage spaces per dwelling

Internal Water New Water credit calculation tool with revised calculation method

Flood risk Technical Guidance has changed to allow the allocation o creditsor food resilient construction

Environmentalimpact omaterials

Changes to BRE Green Guide to Housing specication and BREcredit calculator tool

Householdwaste

Credits are no longer allocated when a site is located within a localauthority kerbside recycling area

Sound Recognition o the Robust Details scheme and increase in soundperormance or higher credit score

Lietime homes Updated cost inormation is being made available by the HousingCorporation

Security Credits are now allocated when advice is sough rom anArchitectural Liaison Ocer or Crime Prevention Design Advisor.A Secure by Design Credit is no longer required and credits are notawarded or the use o LPS or PAS standard products

Buildingootprint

Measurement o dwelling density has changed rom total externalbuilding ootprint to Net internal ground foor area

In addition to changes to the technical standards shown in Table 2.1, the nalised technical

guidance includes slightly dierent weighting actors or the credit categories, this may

have some minor impact on the costs associated with meeting individual perormance

standards (because achieving the same perormance standards results in a dierent

weighted value being achieved), although this is not believed to be a signicant infuence

on overall costs o achieving each Code level. The analysis presented in Section 4 o this

report utilises the weighting actors published in the September 2007 technical guidance.

2.2 Dwelling emission rate

Cyril Sweetts initial cost analysis ocused on the development o cost eective solutions

to Code level 3 and (to a lesser extent Code level 4). Although options or achieving

Code level 5 were identied these did not necessarily represent an optimal combination

o measures (or example the analysis did not include the use o biomass CHP or other


14/42


emerging technologies). In addition, at the time o the initial analysis no denition o a

Zero Carbon home was available and as a result it was not possible to assess the dierent

approaches to achieving Code level 6 or energy.

Since completion o the initial cost analysis, urther research and modelling o options

or achieving the energy requirements o Code levels 3, 4, 5 and 6 has been undertaken

based on the most current technical guidance and a broader range o carbon saving

technologies. Full detail o the modelling process, data and analysis is contained within the

separate publication4 and only the key ndings are presented here.

Analysis was carried out on the carbon savings achieved through application o dierent

carbon saving technologies (Table 2.2) to our dierent dwelling types built in one o

our development scenarios (see Section 3). For each dwelling type a suitable mix otechnologies was selected to achieve the required reduction in carbon emissions on a Part L

2006 compliant baseline. The technology options and associated costs associated with

Code levels 3, 4, 5 and 6 are shown in Table 2.3 or each o the our house types assessed in

the study.

Table 2.2: Carbon Saving Technologies

Technologyoption Scale (i applicable)

/unit(minimum)

/unit(maximum) Unit

Solar WaterHeating

Generally 2.8m o fat panel collector perdwelling

850 850 m

PV Scaled rom 0.25kWp to 4kWp per dwelling 4,200 4,800 kWe

BiomassHeating

Scaled on biomass boiler capacities rom 25kWto 1,000kW

200 600 kWth

Ground SourceHeat Pumps

Scaled on GSHP capacities rom 250kW to500kW

800 2,750 kWth

Biomass CHP Scaled or biomass CHP capacities (large sites) 3,500 3,500 kWe

Scaled or biomass CHP capacities (small CityInll sites)

16,000 16,000 kWe

Gas Fired CHP Scaled on CHP capacities rom 8kWe to 40kWe 1,200 3,400 kWe

Scaled on CHP capacities over 400kWe 650 1,200 kWe

Micro Wind Generally based on 1.5kW unit per dwelling 2,500 2,500 kWe

Medium Wind Scaled on basis o units o size 150kW to600kW

1,250 1,500 kWe

Large Wind Scaled on basis o units o size 600kW to1,200kW

900 1,250 kWe

4 Communities and Local Government, 2007. Research to Assess the Costs and Benets o the Governments Proposals to Reduce theCarbon Footprint o New Housing Development


15/42


Table2.

3:Achievingminimumenergy

requirementsorCodelevels1

to6(assumingthatnowindpowercanbeused)

Code

level

Car

bon

Sav

ing

(%)

Developmentscenario

Small

CityInfll

Markettown

UrbanRegen

Technology

Cumm

capital

cost

C

umm

c

ode

c

redits

Technology

Cumm

capital

cost

Cumm

code

credits

Technology

Cumm

capital

cost

Cumm

code

credits

Technology

Cumm

capital

cost

Cumm

code

credits

DetachedH

ouse

1

10

Improvedcontrols

275

1

N/A

N/A

N/A

Improvedcontrols

275

1

Improvedcontrols

275

1

2

18

Improvedair

tightnessand

insulationlevels

1,648

4

N/A

N/A

N/A

Improvedair

tightnessand

insulationlevels

1,648

4

Improvedair

tightnessand

insulationlevels

1,648

4

3

25

4m2fatpanelSHW

3,916

7

N/A

N/A

N/A

4m2fatpanelSHW

3,916

7

PV

5,536

7

4

44

Bestpracticeenergy

eciencyandPV

10,914

1

1

N/A

N/A

N/A

Biomassheating

9,868

10

Biomassheating

8,223

10

5

100

Biomassheating

andPV

22,367

1

7

N/A

N/A

N/A

BiomassCHP

17,132

16

BiomassCHP

14,25

4

16

6

Zero

Car

bon

Advancepractice

energyeciency,PV

andbiomassheating

40,228

1

9

N/A

N/A

N/A

Advancepractice

energyeciency,PV

andbiomassCHP

32,752

19

Advancepractice

energyeciency,PV

andbiomassCHP

31,12

5

19

EndTerrace

d

1

10

Improvedcontrols

275

1

N/A

N/A

N/A

Improvedcontrols

275

1

Improvedcontrols

275

1

2

18

Improvedair

tightnessand

insulationlevels

1,648

4

N/A

N/A

N/A

Improvedair

tightnessand

insulationlevels

1,648

4

Improvedair

tightnessand

insulationlevels

1,778

4

3

25

4m2fatpanelSHW

3,916

7

N/A

N/A

N/A

4m2fatpanelSHW

3,692

7

PV

4,020

7

4

44

Biomassheating

5,880

1

1

N/A

N/A

N/A

Biomassheating

7,115

10

Biomassheating

5,930

10

5

100

Biomassheating

andPV

13,292

1

7

N/A

N/A

N/A

BiomassCHP

12,353

16

BiomassCHP

10,27

8

16

6

Zero

Car

bon

Advancepractice

energyeciency,PV

andbiomassheating

29,393

1

9

N/A

N/A

N/A

Advancepractice

energyeciency,PV

andbiomassCHP

24,822

19

Advancepractice

energyeciency,PV

andbiomassCHP

23,63

1

19


16/42


Table2.

3:Achievingminimumenergy

requirementsorCodelevels1

to6(assumingthatnowindpowercanbeused)

Code

level

Car

bon

Sav

ing

(%)

Developmentscenario

Small

CityInfll

Markettown

UrbanRegen

Technology

Cumm

capital

cost

C

umm

c

ode

c

redits

Technology

Cumm

capital

cost

Cumm

code

credits

Technology

Cumm

capital

cost

Cumm

code

credits

Technology

Cumm

capital

cost

Cumm

code

credits

MidTerrace

d

1

10

Improvedcontrols

275

1

N/A

N/A

N/A

Improvedcontrols

275

1

Improvedcontrols

275

1

2

18

Improvedair

tightnessand

insulationlevels

1,648

4

N/A

N/A

N/A

Improvedair

tightnessand

insulationlevels

1,648

4

Improvedair

tightnessand

insulationlevels

1,778

4

3

25

4m2fatpanelSHW

3,916

7

N/A

N/A

N/A

4m2fatpanelSHW

3,692

7

PV

3,581

7

4

44

Biomassheating

5,133

1

1

N/A

N/A

N/A

Biomassheating

6,187

10

Biomassheating

5,156

10

5

100

Biomassheating

andPV

11,933

1

7

N/A

N/A

N/A

BiomassCHP

10,742

16

BiomassCHP

8,938

16

6

Zero

Car

bon

Advancepractice

energyeciency,PV

andbiomassheating

29,172

1

9

N/A

N/A

N/A

Advancepractice

energyeciency,PV

andbiomassCHP

24,696

19

Advancepractice

energyeciency,PV

andbiomassCHP

23,56

9

19

Flat

1

10

N/A

N/A

N

/A

Improvedcontrols

460

1

Improvedcontrols

275

1

Improvedcontrols

460

1

2

18

N/A

N/A

N

/A

Improvedair

tightnessand

insulationlevels

1,648

4

Improvedair

tightnessand

insulationlevels

1,648

4

Improvedair

tightnessand

insulationlevels

1,648

4

3

25

N/A

N/A

N

/A

PVandBestPractice

energyeciency

2,622

7

PVandBestPractice

energyeciency

2,622

8

PVandBestPractice

energyeciency

2,622

7

4

44

N/A

N/A

N

/A

PVandBestPractice

energyeciency

5,054

11

Biomassheating

5,054

10

Biomassheating

4,782

10

5

100

N/A

N/A

N

/A

Bestpracticeenergy

eciencyand

Biomass

12,055

17

BiomassCHP

9,962

16

BiomassCHP

8,289

16

6

Zero

Carbon

N/A

N/A

N

/A

Advancepractice

energyeciency,PV

andbiomassCHP

18,430

19

Advancepractice

energyeciency,PV

andbiomassCHP

18,996

19

Advancepractice

energyeciency,PV

andbiomassCHP

16,77

5

19


17/42


The costs associated with achieving the Zero Carbon standard are disproportionately

higher than or Code 5 (100 per cent improvement on TER) because o the need to achieve

a heat loss parameter o 0.8 W/m2 K or less. This has the impact o adding additional

cost to achieve the improved thermal perormance o the building envelope, whilesimultaneously reducing the scale o carbon savings that could be achieved through a CHP

system (because o the reduced overall heat demand).

These costs assume that it is not possible to use wind turbines (micro, medium or large

scale) on any o the developments. It is reasonable to assume that at least some o the

houses on Small Scale rural developments would be able to utilise micro wind technology,

and that on some o the Market Town developments it would be realistic to use medium or

large scale wind turbines (either onsite or directly linked). Where wind technologies can be

used eectively costs are reduced markedly, as shown in Table 2.4.

Table 2.4: Technology mix and costs or Small Scale and Market Town developmentswhere wind energy can be utilised

Code

level

Carbon

Saving

(%)

Development scenario

Small Market Town

Technology

Cumm

capital

cost

Cumm

code

credits Technology

Cumm

capital

cost

Cumm

code

credits

Detached House

1 10 Improved controls 275 1 Improved controls 275 1

2 18 Improved air tightness andinsulation levels

1,648 4 Wind turbine 1,127 4

3 25 Micro wind 3,407 7 Wind turbine 1,566 7

4 44 PV and micro wind 7,458 11 Wind turbine 2,600 10

5 100 PV, Biomass heating and

micro wind

18,722 17 Wind turbine 3,053 16

6 Zero

Carbon

Advanced practice energy

eciency, PV, biomass

heating and micro wind

36,583 19 Advanced practice energy

eciency and wind turbine

13,065 19

End Terraced


2 18 Improved air tightness and

insulation levels

1,778 4 Wind turbine 818 4


4 44 Best practice energy

eciency and micro wind

5,586 10 Wind turbine 2,001 10

5 100 Best Practice Energy

Eciency, Biomass heating

and micro wind

10,687 17 Wind turbine 2,600 16

6 Zero

Carbon






8,771 19


18/42


Table 2.4: Technology mix and costs or Small Scale and Market Town developmentswhere wind energy can be utilised

Code

level

Carbon

Saving

(%)

Development scenario

Small Market Town

Technology

Cumm

capital

cost

Cumm

code

credits Technology

Cumm

capital

cost

Cumm

code

credits

Mid Terraced


2 18 Improved air tightness and

insulation levels

1,778 4 Wind turbine 729 4


4 44 Best practice energy

eciency and micro wind

5,500 10 Wind turbine 1,782 10

5 100 Biomass heating and microwind

8,539 17 Wind turbine 2,600 16

6 Zero

Carbon






8,950 19

Flat

1 10 N/A N/A N/A Improved controls 275 1

2 18 N/A N/A N/A Wind turbine 720 4

3 25 N/A N/A N/A Wind turbine 1,000 7



6 Zero

Carbon

N/A N/A N/A Advanced practice energy


8,685 19

In addition to assessing the current costs o each carbon saving technology, the potential

change in these costs over time was also considered, using learning rates. Learning rates

are a measure o the extent to which costs are likely to change in proportion to the amount

o experience (measured by the growth in installed capacity o a technology) gained by

producers and installers. Learning rates are typically presented as a percentage change in

cost that occurs or each doubling o the market or a particular technology. Using industry

predictions or the growth o each o the carbon savings technologies, globally and

within the UK, the possible uture costs o each technology (in todays prices) have beenestimated. Notwithstanding the inevitable uncertainty associated with such analysis, Table

2.5 shows the potential change (reduction) in the costs o achieving Code levels 4, 5 and 6

over time or homes built in a Market Town development.


19/42


Table 2.5: Change in energy compliance costs over time or Market Town development

YearDetachedHouse End Terrace Mid Terrace Flat

Percentage reductionon 2008 base

Code Level 4

2008 5,880 5,133 5,054 2,600

2010 5,551 4,845 4,371 2,530 3%

2013 5,392 4,707 3,761 2,445 6%

2016 4,883 4,350 3,355 2,371 10%

2025 3,533 3,147 2,670 2,193 19%

Code Level 5

2008 17,132 12,353 10,742 9,962 2010 16,621 11,985 10,422 9,665 3%

2013 15,960 11,508 10,008 9,202 8%

2016 15,274 11,083 9,637 8,530 14%

2025 12,699 9,973 8,672 7,271 27%

Code Level 6

2008 32,752 24,850 24,742 18,996

2010 27,701 21,059 20,900 16,183 15%

2013 25,284 19,072 18,920 14,968 21%2016 23,560 17,651 17,509 14,100 26%

2025 20,223 14,919 14,807 12,386 35%

Further more detailed inormation on the carbon savings model used to estimate the costs

o meeting the carbon standards in the Code is presented in separate research5.

2.3 Cycle storage

In the cost report produced or English Partnerships, the cycle storage requirement under

the Code was assessed on the same criteria as the existing EcoHomes 2006 guidance.

The requirement was based on the percentage o homes on a development that

provided sucient cycle storage; 1 credit where 50 per cent o homes on a site meet the

requirement and 2 credits where 95 per cent o homes meet the requirement.

5 Communities and Local Government, 2007. Research to Assess the Costs and Benets o the Governments Proposals to Reduce theCarbon Footprint o New Housing Development


20/42


The credit allocation system in the Code technical guidance is subtly dierent in that credits

are only awarded to those homes that meet the required standard (irrespective o the other

homes in the development) and the number o credits awarded depends on the number o

spaces provided. Where either individual or communal cycle storage is provided (inline withguidance) 1 or 2 credits are allocated depending on the number o cycle storage spaces per

dwelling (see Table 2.6).

Table 2.6: Credits available or each house type or provision o cycle storage

Number o Cycle storage spaces

1 credit 2 credits

Studio or 1 bedroom dwelling(only applicable to communal storage)

N/A 1 space

2 and 3 bedroom dwellings 1 space 2 spaces

4 bedrooms and above 2 spaces 4 spaces

Table 2.7 shows the change in cycle storage provision, and the cost change, that results

rom the new code guidance.

Table 2.7: Cost implications o Code approach to cycle storage

Dwelling type EcoHomes Code

Change

rompreviousestimate

No.obedrooms

Requirement

or 1credit(50% osite)

or 2credits(95% osite)

1 credit 2 credits

1Codecredit

2Codecredits

Requirement

Requirement

Detached house 4 4 500 1000 2 850 4 1000 350 0

Mid/End Terraced

house

3 2 500 1000 1 850 2 850 350 150

Flat 2 1 150 300 1 150 2 300 0 0

The most signicant impact o the revised application o this credit is that it a large

proportion o the xed costs o cycle storage apply even i only one credit is sought. The

marginal cost o the second credit is thereore relatively low at 150. Thereore, it would be

expected that most developers would seek both credits or cycle storage at a cost o 1000

rather than just one at a cost o 850.


21/42


2.4 Internal potable water consumption

Previous analysis o the methods required to achieve the minimum water consumption

standards in the Code was based on guidance provided by BRE (in the absence o a

published Code water consumption calculator). The water consumption calculator is

now available and it is possible to assess the dierent approaches to achieving each

perormance level.

The approach to achieving each water standard has thereore been rened in line with the

ormat o the water consumption calculator. Testing o the specications used previously

indicates that with a ew slight amendments (see Table 2.8) the Code requirements can

be achieved using the same technologies as those previously specied and that as a result

there is no change to previous cost estimates.

The September 2007 Code Technical Guide sets out the basis or calculating water

consumption rom homes.

Table 2.8: Revised specication and cost o water appliances

Code

level

Estimatedwaterusage(l/person/

day) Initial Specication Revised specication

Code

Credits Cost

Changeromprevious

estimate1 and 2 120 2 x 6/4 litre fush toilets

4 x taps with fow regulators

1 x shower 6 to 9 litres/min1 x standard bath (80 litresper use)

1 x standard washingmachine*1 x standard dishwasher*

2 x 6/4 litre fush toilets4 x taps with fow

regulators (2.5 l/m)1 x shower 6 litres/min1 x standard bath (90 litres

per use)1 x standard washingmachine*1 x standard dishwasher*

1.5 0 0

3 and 4 105 As above, except:2x4/2.5 litre fush toilets1x 8 l/min shower

1x smaller shaped bath

As above, except:

2x4/2.5 litre fush toilets1x smaller shaped bath

4.5 125 0

5 and 6 80 HousesAs above, except:add grey water recycling or

rainwater harvesting system(30% reuse)

Houses

either:

As level 3 and 4,except:

Rainwaterharvesting2 x 6/4 litre fush

toilets

7.5 2,650 0

ApartmentsAs above, except:add communal grey water

recycling or rainwaterharvesting system (30%

reuse) Apartments

either:

As level 3 and 4,except:Rainwater

harvesting2 x 6/4 litre fush

toilets

7.5 800 0

Notes: *Additional cost o washing machine and dishwasher is assumed to be zero as these ttings are standard industry

perormance. Thereore, i they are typically installed by house builder there would be no additional cost over their current

specications.


22/42


2.5 Flood risk

2.5.1 Flood risk credit criteria

Previously the Code credits relating to food risk were assessed on the same criteria as

those within the existing EcoHomes 2006 guidance and with the assumption that most

developments would be in areas at low risk rom fooding.

This update considers the method set out in the Code technical guidance, and also assesses

how Code credits would be achieved or sites where the food risk is medium to high, on

the basis that a substantial proportion o uture development be in food plains and subject

to risk o fooding.

Under EcoHomes 2006 credits could only be awarded where either:

adevelopmentislocatedinazonedenedashavingalowannualprobabilityof

fooding

thenishedoorlevelandaccessroutesare600mmabovethe(mediumrisk)design

food level.

The Code technical guidance allows the allocation o two credits where:

thedevelopmentislocatedinazonedenedashavingalowannualprobabilityoffooding

wherethegroundlevelofalldwellingsandaccessroutesaredesignedtobeatleast

600mm above the design food level o the food zone in which the development is

located

oodresilientconstructionmethodshavebeenimplementedinadwellingsdesign

ooddefencesorothernon-structuralmeasuresareusedtocontroltheoodrisktoa

development.

One-third o the Governments designated new development sites are located within an

area o medium food risk (as designated by the Code guidance and Environment Agency),

urther more it is estimated that around 10,000 planned new properties in growth areas

may be built in areas o signicant food risk (a probability greater than 1.3 per cent or 1 in

75 years)6.

6 Association o British Insurers, Making Communities Sustainable: Managing food risks in the Governments growth areas, Finaltechnical report (Volume 2), February 2005.


23/42


The cost analysis or this credit has been revised in line with the new technical guidance

to assess the implications or housing in medium and high food risk zones, which could

comprise a substantial proportion o overall development in some parts o England (costs

and credits or developments in low risk zones are unchanged). The use o non structuralmeasures to reduce a sites food risk is too site specic to allocate a per dwelling cost7

thereore the approach taken has been to consider either design or a ground foor that

would not be impacted by fooding (i.e. car parking) or the use o food resilient materials at

ground foor level.

A recent study or the Association o British Insurers provides useul benchmark costs or

incorporating food resilience into housing as shown in Table 2.9.

Table 2.9: Cost benchmarks or food resilience measures

Resilience measureSemi-detached

2 bed MidTerrace houseCost

2 bed fat ina 3-storeyapartment block

2 bed fat in a4-storeyapartment block

Use o food resilientmaterials on groundfoor*

16,635 5,545** 4,159***

*based on the use o treated timber foorboards, solid concrete foor, water resistant gypsum plaster, water resistant

windows and doors, wall mounted boiler, washing machine installed on rst foor, raised ovens, high level electrics

and service meters and non-chipboard kitchen and bathroom units.

** estimated on the basis that one third o the costs would apply to an individual fat in a three storey block.

*** estimated on the basis that one quarter o the costs would apply to an individual fat in our storey block.

Source: Association o British Insurers, Making Communities Sustainable: Managing food risks in the Governments

growth areas, Final technical report (Volume 2), February 2005.

Given the estimated cost level, it is quite unlikely that this credit would be sought

by developers building in high food risk areas (unless part o a separate planning

requirement).

2.6 Environmental impact o materials

Since the initial cost analysis was undertaken BRE have released a new set o interim Green

Guide specications (+A to E rather than A to C) and a new credit calculation method.

Using this method it is possible to score between 0.25 and 3 credits per building element

depending on whether the proposed specication achieves a D to A+ standard. Up to 3

credits are available or each o the ollowing building elements:

7 Although or strategic development areas it would be expected that food deences would be designed to provide protection ornew housing.


24/42


Externalwalls

Internalwalls

Groundandupperoors

Roof

Windows.

A total o 15 credits are thereore available with each credit being valued at 0.3 per cent o

the overall score.

A baseline analysis o the standard house type specications against the new Green Guide

to Specication8 has been carried out as shown in Table 2.10.

The majority o the base specications used or both houses and fats achieve either B or

A ratings and it is not necessary to make amendments to these standard specications to

achieve the majority o the available credits. The only exception being windows, where it

is assumed that timber rather than PVC windows would be required to achieve an A or A+

rating (although this is not ormally stated in the guidance).

In some cases an A+ rating is not achievable without completely changing the structure o

the building (e.g. by switching to a timber panel construction method). The revised ratings

also result in the blockwork housetypes assessed in this study scoring slightly (around 4

credits or 1.2 per cent) less well than they would have done using an EcoHomes based

assessment method. However, the relatively small dierence in overall credits achieved or

a standard masonry specication and a timber/steel based specication means that this

is unlikely to have a major infuence on material selections until Code levels 5 and 6 are

sought.

Table 2.10: Ratings o standard specications under the Green Guide to Specication

Element Specication Rating Upgrades or to improve rating Rating

Masonry house specication

Windows &Glazed Doors

Double glazed (6-12-6), argonlled cavity, low e coating on innerpane U PVC

Unknown(assumedto be E

rating)

Assumed that a sotwood timberramed window would achieve thehighest possible rating as previously

Unknown(A+ and3 creditsassumed)

Roo Pitched roo, 100mm mineral woollaid between joists with urther

200mm over joists Concrete tiles

A(2 credits)

Same structure but withinterlocking concrete tiles or

reclaimed slates/clay tiles

A+(3 credits)

ExternalWalls

Brick, cavity, Durox Supabloc,

45mm partial cavity ll,plasterboard

A

(2 credits)

Rendered aircrete blockwork cavity

wall

A+

(3 credits)

Party Wall Aerated blockwork cavity wall,with 2 layers o plasterboard

B (1 credit) Not possible to determine a

higher rated blockwork based

specication

N/A

8 No inormation on the rating o windows specications was available at the time o writing.


25/42


Table 2.10: Ratings o standard specications under the Green Guide to Specication

Element Specication Rating Upgrades or to improve rating Rating

Internal (load

bearing)

Aerated blockwork, plasterboard,

paint

A

(2 credits)

Not possible to determine a

higher rated blockwork basedspecication

N/A

Internal (non-load bearing)

Timber/steel stud, plasterboard,paint

A(2 credits)

Fairaced wood, plywood orglazing would achieve A+ ratingsare unlikely to be widely adopted

N/A

Ground Floor Beam and insulation foor withscreed nish

B (1 credit) Chipboard decking on timberbattens with insulation on beam

and aerated block fooring

A+(3 credits)

Chipboard decking on timber

battens with insulation on beamand lightweight block fooring

Upper Floors Engineered I beam joists with Chip

board decking and plaster board

A+

(3 credits)

No change required No change

required

Masonry apartment specication

Windows &Glazed Doors

double glazed (6-12-6), argon lledcavity, low e coating on inner

pane U PVC (as in old Guide)

Unknown(assume D

rating)

Assumed that a sotwood timberramed window would achieve the

highest possible rating as previously

Unknown(assume

A+ and3 credits)

Roo Pitched roo, 100mm mineral woollaid between joists with urther200mm over joists Concrete tiles

A

(2 credits)

Interlocking concrete tiles or

reclaimed slates/clay tiles

A+

(3 credits)

ExternalWalls

Brick, cavity, Durox Supabloc,45mm partial cavity ll,plasterboard

A(2 credits)

Not possible to determine ahigher rated blockwork basedspecication

N/A

Internal (loadbearing)

Aerated blockwork, plasterboard,paint

A(2 credits)

Not possible to determine ahigher rated blockwork based

specication

N/A

Internal (non-load bearing)

Timber/steel stud, plasterboard,paint

A(2 credits)

N/A (either airaced wood,plywood or glazing)

N/A

Ground Floor Beam and aerated block foor withscreed nish

B (1 credit) Chipboard decking on timberbattens with insulation on beam

and aerated block fooring

A+(3 credits)

Chipboard decking on timber

battens with insulation on beamand lightweight block fooring

A+

(3 credits)

Upper Floors Concrete planks125mm Mineralwool quilt, Jet Floor Super 2A

C(0.5 credit)

Chipboard decking on timber Ijoists and plasterboard ceiling

A+(3 credits)

Chipboard decking on timber joists

and plasterboard ceiling

A+

(3 credits)

OSB decking on timber I joists and

plasterboard ceiling

A+

(3 credits)

OSB decking on timber joists and

plasterboard ceiling

A+

(3 credits)


26/42


2.7 Sound

Following consultations with developers, manuacturers and independent sound

consultants it is clear that urther work is needed to ascertain whether the standard

house types (with minor modication) will be able to achieve the highest levels o sound

insulation required to score maximum credits or credit category Hea2 Sound Insulation.

Research has shown that, currently, there is little experience o designing construction

specications to meet the requirements or 3 or 4 credits within the Code (i.e. 5dB or

8dB improvements on Part E o Building Regulations). Manuacturers o construction

systems are currently trying to produce and test products that will consistently meet these

standards.

Thereore while a detached house type would achieve all our Sound credits by deault

(as it has no separating walls to consider) the perormance o terraced houses and fats is

more dicult to determine. It has been assumed that improvements o up to 5dB beyond

Part E could be achieved through closer attention to workmanship and improved sealing

o separating walls and foors (this is linked to the need or higher levels o airtightness

to achieve Code energy standards) although this would need verication through sound

testing (as it is not currently possible to guarantee these perormance levels through the

use o Robust Standard Details alone).

There may be some additional cost associated with achieving these improvements,

however in the absence o specic specications these have been estimated at the cost

o conducting the sound testing required to veriy perormance. The cost o undertaking

sound testing varies rom site to site (based on the number o units and separating walls/

foors) but is typically between 100 and 150 per unit.

At present it is not clear what specications would be required to achieve the 8dB

improvement on Part E and as such it has been assumed that most developers would not

seek this ourth credit.

A urther consideration when assessing the potential costs associated with improving

sound insulation beyond the requirements o Part E is the cost o remediation i the target

perormance is not achieved. This presents a risk o urther costs where condence in site

practices or construction details are low.

2.8 Summary o costs or Code credits

The predicted costs associated with the minimum perormance standards or energy and

water are shown in Table 2.3 and 2.8. Table 2.11 below, provides a consolidated list oupdated cost estimates based on previous estimates and the revisions described previously.


27/42


Table2.

11:SummaryocostestimatesorCodecredits(excludingminimumstandardsorenergyandwater)

Category

CreditName

Perormance

Credits

available

Value

oone

credit

Cred

itsachieved

Costperunit

Hou

se

Flat

House

Flat

Comments

Energy

Lowenergylighting

>40%

1

1.26

1

1

10

10

Allowanceoradditionalcostolowenerg

ylight

ttings.

Energy

Lowenergylighting

>75%

1

1.26

1

1

40

30

Allowanceoradditionalcostolowenerg

ylight

ttings.

Energy

DryingSpace

Providing

1

1.26

1

1

20

20

Costallowanceorinternalclothesdryingttingsin

bathroom

Energy

EcolabelledWhite

Goods

Inormationo

rA+rated

ridgesandreezers

1

1.26

1

1

0

0

Nocostorprovisionoinormationonthe

segoods.

Energy

EcolabelledWhite

Goods

Washingmac

hinesand

dishwashers

1

1.26

1

1

540

540

Costoprovidingenergyandwaterecientwashing

machineanddishwasher(providingtheseappliances

alsoresultsinabenetoroverallwaterco

nsumption

calculations,seeSection4).

Energy

ExternalLighting

Spacelighting

1

1.26

1

1

0

0

Costsorprovisionospacelightinginclud

edinbase

construction(additionalcostisorenergyecient

ttings).

Energy

ExternalLighting

Securitylighting

2

1.26

2

2

0

0

Inosecuritylightingisttedthenpointsa

reawarded

bydeault(andilightingisprovidedtheadditionalcost

oCodecompliantspecicationsisnegligible).

Energy

Cyclestorage

Provisionorullcycle

requirement

2

1.26

2

2

1,000

300

Costsbasedonprovisionoullrequirement(see

Section2.3)

Energy

Homeoce

Providing

1

1.26

1

1

210

210

Costallowanceorprovisionotelephone/datapoints

insecondbedroom(costincludespointsandwiring

work).

Potablewater

Externalpotablewater

consumption

Rainwaterbu

tt

1

1.50

1

1

200

30

Costsbasedonprovisiono1waterbuttorhousing

andcommunalbuttsorapartments.Cost

sinclude,

butt,ootings,downpipesandoverfow.A

ctualcosts

orapartmentswilldependonstoreynumberand

layout.

Suracewater

runo

Reductioninsurace

waterruno

Hardsuraces

1

0.55

1

1

0

0

Useopermeablesuracing.

Suracewater

runo

Reductioninsurace

waterruno

Roos

1

0.55

1

1

450

300

Costooneswaleorevery2dwellings.


28/42


Table2.


Category

CreditName

Perormance

Credits

available

Value

oone

credit

Cred

itsachieved

Costperunit

Hou

se

Flat

House

Flat

Comments

Suracewater

runo

Floodrisk

Lowrisk

2

0.55

2

2

0

0

Nocost(provideddevelopmentisinlowfoodrisk

area).

Suracewater

runo

Floodrisk

Medium/high

risk

1

0.55

1

1

16,635

4,159

Costsbasedonuseofoodresilientmaterialsonthe

groundfoor,costsorfatbasedona4sto

reyblock

(i.e.costsareaquarterothoseorhousing).Sources

detailedinreport

Materials

Environmentalimpact

omaterials

3points(roo

)

3

0.30

3

3

0

0

StandardspecicationsachieveanArating(notA+)

inthedratGGS,anA+ratedspecication

canbe

achievedatnocostbytheuseointerlockingconcrete

tiles.

Materials

Environmentalimpact

omaterials

6points(exte

rnalwalls)

3

0.30

2

2

0

0

StandardspecicationsachieveanArating

(notA+)in

thedratGGS,

Materials

Environmentalimpact

omaterials

9points(internalwalls)

3

0.30

2

2

0

0

StandardspecicationsachieveanArating

(notA+)in

thedratGGS,

Materials

Environmentalimpact

omaterials

12points(foors)

3

0.30

2

0.25

0

0

Ratingsorfoorsbasedon50%o

housin

gfoors

beingA+(upperfoors)and50%beingB(ground

foors),orfatsitisassumedthatbothupp

erandlower

foorswouldaverageD.Thereisnocostup

litasthese

arestandardspecications.

Materials

Environmentalimpact

omaterials

15points(windows)

3

0.30

3

3

140

140

NoGreenGuideinormationisavailableonwindow

specicationshoweveritisassumedthata

sotwood

timberwindowwouldstillachievethehighest(A+)

rating.

Materials

Responsiblesourcingo

basicmaterials

2points

2

0.30

2

2

0

0

Noadditionalcost,shouldbereadilyachievablewith

someanalysisosupplychain,couldrequiresignicant

internal/consultanttimeinproductanalysis.

Materials


basicmaterials

3points

1

0.30

1

1

0

0

Asabove.

Materials


basicmaterials

4points

1

0.30

1

1

300

300

Additionalcostassociatedwithachievinghighersupply

chainperormance(notionalvaluebasedo

npotential

restrictionsonsupplychain


29/42


Table2.


Category

CreditName

Perormance

Credits

available

Value

oone

credit

Cred

itsachieved

Costperunit

Hou

se

Flat

House

Flat

Comments

Materials


basicmaterials

6points

2

0.30

2

2

300

300



npotential


Materials


nishingelements

1point

1

0.30

1

1

0

0

Noadditionalcost.Shouldbereadilyachie

vablewith

someanalysisosupplychain;couldrequiresignicant

internal/consultanttimeinproductanalysis.

Materials


nishingelements

2points

1

0.30

1

1

0

0

Asabove

Materials


nishingelements

3points

1

0.30

1

1

300

300



npotential


Waste

ConstructionWaste

Monitor,sort

andrecycle

constructionwaste

2

0.91

2

2

100

100

Nocost,routinelyimplementedbyseveral

large

housebuilders.

Waste

HouseholdRecycling

Facilities

2points

2

0.91

2

2

160

160

Costallowanceorprovisionointernalbins

Waste

HouseholdRecycling

Facilities

4points

2

0.91

2

2

0

0

Assumedthatlocalauthoritywillprovidek

erbside

collectionservice.

Waste

Compostingacilities

homecompo

sting

acilities

1

0.91

1

1

30

30

Costbasedon220lcomposter

Healthand

wellbeing

Daylighting

Kitchen

1

1.17

1

1

140

140

Costallowanceoradditionalglazing(basedonneeds

otypicalhouse);costsorspecichouseswillvary

accordingtodesignandsizeoglazedarea.

Healthand

wellbeing

Daylighting

Livingroom

1

1.17

1

1

150

150

Costallowanceoradditionalglazing(basedonneeds

otypicalhouse);costsorspecichouseswillvary

accordingtodesignandsizeoglazedarea.

Healthand

wellbeing

Daylighting

Viewosky

1

1.17

1

1

0

0

Noadditionalcost,althoughachievingaviewothe

skyromallhomesrequirescareullayout.

Healthand

wellbeing

Soundinsulation

3dB

1

1.17

1

1

0

330

Nocostordetachedproperties,costsorterraced

propertiesandfatsbasedoncostsotestingactivities.

Healthand

wellbeing

Soundinsulation

5dB

2

1.17

2

2

0(160

orterraced

properties)

330

Nocostordetachedproperties,costsorterraced

propertiesandfatsbasedoncostsotestingactivities.


30/42


Table2.


Category

CreditName

Perormance

Credits

available

Value

oone

credit

Cred

itsachieved

Costperunit

Hou

se

Flat

House

Flat

Comments

Healthand

wellbeing

Soundinsulation

8dB

1

1.17

1

0

0

0

Nocostordetachedproperties,atpresentitisnot

clearhowthisperormancestandardwillb

eachieved

(andiitcanbeachievedwiththeconstruc

tion

methodsusedhere.

Healthand

wellbeing

Privatespace

Provide

1

1.17

1

1

0

0

Housinghasprivatespace,canbedesignedinto

apartmentblocks.

Healthand

wellbeing

LietimeHomes

alleatures

4

1.17

4

4

550

75

Allowanceoradditionalsupports/xingpointswithin

partitionsanddrainagepointinrstfoort

oilets.

Managemen

t

Homeuserguide

Provideorho

me

2

1.11

2

2

20

10

Assumingthathousingisrelativelystandard.

Managemen

t

Homeuserguide

Provideorsu

rroundings

1

1.11

1

1

80

40

Costestimateorcommissioningconsultanttoprovide

necessarylocationinormation(costslowe

rorlarger

sites).

Managemen

t

Considerate

constructors

1point

1

1.11

1

1

0

0

Nocostorcompliance(otherthannominalsite

registrationee).

Managemen

t

Considerate

constructors

2points

1

1.11

1

1

0

0

Nocostorcompliance(otherthannominalsite

registrationee).

Managemen

t

Constructionsite

impacts

1point

1

1.11

1

1

0

0

Nocostorcompliance,alreadyimplementedby

severallargehousebuilders.

Managemen

t

Constructionsite

impacts

2points

1

1.11

1

1

100

75

Estimatedcostormonitoring.

Managemen

t

Security

SecurebyDesign

2

1.11

2

2

0

0

Nocost(althoughtheremaybeanimpact

onsite

layout).

Pollution

InsulantGWP

Use

1

0.70

1

1

0

0

Nocost,mineralwool,airblownandseveraltypeso

rigidinsulationcomply.

Pollution

NOxemissions

40%

1

10

0

Energy

Lowenergylighting

>75%

1

40

0

Energy

DryingSpace

Providing

1

20

20

Energy

EcolabelledWhite

Goods

Inormation

orA+ratedridges

andreezers

1

0

Nochange

0

Energy

EcolabelledWhite

Goods

Washingmachinesand

dishwashers

1

540

540

Energy

ExternalLighting

Spacelighting

1

0

Nochange

0

Energy

ExternalLighting

Securityligh

ting

2

0

Nochange

0

Energy

Cyclestorage

Provisionorullcycle

requirement

2

1,000

1,000

Energy

Homeoce

Providing

1

210

210

Potablewa

ter

Externalpotable

waterconsumption

Rainwaterb

utt

1

200

200

Suracewa

ter

runo

Reductioninsurace

waterruno

Hardsuraces

1

0

Nochange

0

Suracewa

ter

runo

Reductioninsurace

waterruno

Roos

1

450

450

Suracewa

ter

runo

Floodrisk

Lowrisk

2

0

Nochange

0

Suracewa

ter

runo

Floodrisk

Medium/hig

hrisk

1

16,635

16,635

Materials

Environmental

impactomaterials

3points(roo

)

3

0

Nochange

0

Materials

Environmental

impactomaterials

6points(externalwalls)

3

0

Nochange

0

Materials

Environmental

impactomaterials

9points(internalwalls)

3

0

Nochange

0


38/42


Table5.

1:Potentialorreductioninco

storspecicCodecreditsby2016

Category

CreditName

Perorman

ce

Credits

available

Costperhousein

2008

Potentialorcost

reductionby2016

Costperho

usein

2016

Materials

Environmental

impactomaterials

12points(foors)

3

0

Nochange

0

Materials

Environmental

impactomaterials

15points(w

indows)

3

140

Nopredictablechan

ge(althoughiwidely

adoptedasameansomeetingCodeor

planningrequireme

ntscostscouldreduceby

2016.

140

Materials

Responsiblesourcing

obasicmaterials

2points

2

0

Nochange

0

Materials

Responsiblesourcing

obasicmaterials

3points

1

0

Nochange

0

Materials

Responsiblesourcing

obasicmaterials

4points

1

300

Itisexpectedthatby2016sustainedsupply

chainandinvestorp

ressurewouldresultin

mostproductsuppliersbeingabletoachieve

Coderequirements

atnocost

0

Materials

Responsiblesourcing

obasicmaterials

6points

2

300

0

Materials

Responsiblesourcing

onishingelements

1point

1

0

Nochange

0

Materials

Responsiblesourcing

onishingelements

2points

1

0

Nochange

0

Materials

Responsiblesourcing

onishingelements

3points

1

300

Itisexpectedthatby2016sustainedsupply

chainandinvestorp

ressurewouldresultin

mostproductsuppliersbeingabletoachieve

Coderequirements

atnocost

300

Waste

ConstructionWaste

Monitor,sortandrecycle

constructionwaste

2

100

Itisexpectedthatth

isinitiativewouldorm

partoroutineprojectactivitiesandwould

thereorenotbeide

ntiedasadiscrete

additionalcost

0

Waste

HouseholdRecycling

Facilities

2points

2

160

Nopredictablechan

ge(althoughiwidely

adoptedasameansomeetingCodeor

planningrequireme

ntscostscouldreduceby

2016.

160


39/42

Chapter 5. Potential or cost reduction 37

Table5.



Category

CreditName

Perorman

ce

Credits

available

Costperhousein

2008

Potentialorcost

reductionby2016

Costperho

usein

2016

Waste

HouseholdRecycling

Facilities

4points

2

0

Nochange

0

Waste

Compostingacilities

homecomp

ostingacilities

1

30

Nochange

30

Healthand

wellbeing

Daylighting

Kitchen

1

140

Nochange

140

Healthand

wellbeing

Daylighting

Livingroom

1

150

Nochange

150

Healthand

wellbeing

Daylighting

Viewosky

1

0

Nochange

0

Healthand

wellbeing

Soundinsulation

3dB

1

0

Nochange

0

Healthand

wellbeing

Soundinsulation

5dB

2

0(160orterraced

pro

perties)

Itisexpectedthata

broaderrangeorobust

standarddetailswo

uldbeinusetoavoidthe

needorsoundinsu

lationtestinginmost

circumstances

0

Healthand

wellbeing

Soundinsulation

8dB

1

0

Itisexpectedthata

broaderrangeorobust

standarddetailswo

uldbeinusetoavoidthe

needorsoundinsu

lationtestinginmost

circumstances

0

Healthand

wellbeing

Privatespace

Provide

1

0

Nochange

0

Healthand

wellbeing

LietimeHomes

alleatures

4

550

Nochange

550

Management

Homeuserguide

Provideorh

ome

2

20

Nochange

20

Management

Homeuserguide

Provideors

urroundings

1

80

Nochange

80

Management

Considerate

constructors

1point

1

0

Nochange

0

Management

Considerate

constructors

2points

1

0

Nochange

0


40/42


Table5.



Category

CreditName

Perorman

ce

Credits

available

Costperhousein

2008

Potentialorcost

reductionby2016

Costperho

usein

2016

Management

Constructionsite

impacts

1point

1

0

Nochange

0

Management

Constructionsite

impacts

2points

1

100

Itisexpectedthatth

eseinitiativeswould

ormpartoroutine

projectactivitiesand

wouldthereoreno

tbeidentiedasadiscrete

additionalcost

0

Management

Security

SecurebyDesign

2

0

Nochange

0

Pollution

InsulantGWP

Use

1

0

Nochange

0

Pollution

NOxemissions

code for sustainable homes cost analysis

Documents