Is the Recession Jeopardizing the 2016 Zero Carbon Homes Agenda in England?

Abstract

It is widely acknowledged that the UK building sector is one of the key contributors to carbon emissions, as it is accountable for around 50% of carbon emissions, 27% of which are a product of domestic building construction and operation. As a result, the UK government announced that all new houses are to be zero carbon by 2016. However, the current recession has left the UK construction industry facing its toughest challenges for a generation with the housing sector among those to have sustained the worst damage. Indeed, recent figures reveal that housing orders in the UK were down 30%, amounting to an overall 18% yearly decrease. Hence, a quantitative methodology, consisting of a questionnaire survey sent to 100 UK architects specializing in residential design, was adopted in this research to investigate the effect of the current recession on zero carbon housing design practices in the UK. Results indicate that certain types of clients have been considerably affected more than others; with particular reference to large house builders, who appear to have suffered the most. Additionally, it appears that for many architectural practices, sustainability is no longer as important as making a profit; and for the majority of participants, the zero carbon housing agenda is not a design priority. However, a number of the problematic sustainable design issues identified during the course of the research were not exclusively as a result of the recession. Considerable difficulties had been experienced by the majority of architects concerning the lack of clarity and interpretation of the legislation surrounding low and zero carbon housing design. It is interesting to note, however, that the associated financial impact of zero carbon housing construction preceded the onset of the current recession; with particular challenges faced as a result of the legislative requirement to use onsite micro renewable energy solutions. The participating architects went further to argue that such strategies are generally considered to be too expensive, ineffective and under-developed to be the primary energy source for new housing developments.