CE300

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield

Executive summary

The Energy Saving Trust was interested to work with Osborne and Raven Housing Trust on the Mid Street scheme to assess the challenges of achieving higher levels of the Code for Sustainable Homes in practice. We also wanted to see how occupants in the social rented sector adapted to living with a house with innovative energy efficient features. The Code for Sustainable Homes had only just been introduced (April 2007) when the Energy Saving Trust, Osborne and Raven Housing Trust first met to discuss how to get the schemes development target from the originally approved Code level 3 standard up to a Code level 5 standard. This was to be done under the Energy Saving Trusts Outreach service, which helps developers to reach higher standards of energy performance in developments. With this service, the Energy Saving Trust provides tailored technical expertise and also spreads the lessons learned to the housebuilding industry. This practical guidance helps developers prepare for the challenging UK target of reaching a zero carbon standard for newbuild homes by 2016. The Energy Saving Trust was keen to assist with the delivery of one of the first schemes of its kind - not a prototype or demonstration project, but the first Code 5 homes to be occupied. This was a perfect opportunity to explore, together with Raven Housing Trust, the cost and practicalities of new technologies, particularly in relation to small rural sites, before introducing them into its mainstream development programme. It was also the ideal chance to show that houses can be highly energy efficient and aesthetically in tune with the surrounding area, in this case, the red-brick Victorian architecture of the village. This appeals to the mainstream market by showing that low carbon homes can look conventional. The proposed construction method was of interest to the Energy Saving Trust because it would test the effectiveness of some of the advanced, emerging products on the market for delivering low carbon homes. Specifically this involved the use of structurally insulated panels which contribute to a more thermally efficient building envelope. The Energy Saving Trusts advice on the move from Code level 3 to 5 focused on the outline specification, heating system and appropriate renewable energy technologies at the feasibility stage. This involved detailed modelling as well as providing design feedback on key aspects such as construction details and the location of mechanical ventilation and heat recovery system (MVHR) ducting. The initial and final design tables in the case study show the comparison. In the end the project specification was robust and achieved Code 5 without much difficulty. We also provided assistance during the pressure-testing process, focussing on the construction targets and the approach to identifying and minimising air leakage paths in order to achieve the airtightness compliance level. We also advised on commissioning the MVHR system. There were some difficulties with the supply chain. Whilst these maisonettes are traditional in appearance they used very high performance MVHR and triple-glazed windows. When the products were purchased, the cost of fitting was not included and this created some difficulty with the quality of installation. Modern methods of construction don't necessarily guarantee airtight construction that is free from thermal bridging and the additional cost for both units was higher than expected. Often developers and designers look at the Code too late in the process - the layout and arrangement of the units at Mid Street would have benefited from adjustment pre-planning. The tenants moved in during April 2008 and the Energy Saving Trust saw this project as an opportunity to monitor the energy and water usage on site for two years. This would allow a comparison of design performance against as-built performance and an assessment of the extent to which fuel bills are reduced for the occupants. There are also plans to assess how the occupants experience of living in a Code level 5 compares with that of a conventional home and to look at how this can affect the actual versus the designed energy performance. This is an important area of focus if we are to achieve real CO2 savings in line with government targets.

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

Contents

Executive summary 1. 2. 3. Introduction Case study background Design and brief concept 3.1 Initial specification 3.2 Heating and hot water 3.3 Renewables 3.4 Thermal bridging 3.5 Final design Final design 4.1 Construction 4.2 Other sustainable features Home user guide and training Funding and construction costs Closing comments Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E

2 4 4 5 7 7 8 9 10 11 14 24 25 25 26 28 29 31 33 37

4.

5. 6. 7.

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

Building the first Code 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield

1. Introduction Home energy use is responsible for over a quarter of UK carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions which contribute to climate change. To help mitigate the effects of climate change, the Energy Saving Trust has a range of technical solutions to help UK housing professionals build to higher levels of energy efficiency. To achieve overall energy efficiency, our housing guidance promotes high levels of insulation and airtightness in new dwellings as part of an integrated approach to housing design embracing the building fabric, heating and hot water systems, ventilation and lighting. All our information is available from www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/housing 2. Case study background The traditional looking ground and first floor flats in the village of South Nutfield were initially approved under planning to be constructed to level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes.

However, the two units constructed for Raven Housing Trust by Osborne are the first to achieve Code level 5. Osborne has previous experience in developing housing to high levels of sustainability based upon their experience with the EcoHomes Excellent demonstration project completed on the Building Research Establishments (BRE) Innovation park, which achieved a 40% improvement over Part L1A of the Building Regulations 2006 when it was completed in 2006. Their approach to the Mid Street development builds on their experience gained on this exemplar project. This project was an opportunity for the Raven Housing Trust to explore the cost and practicalities of new technologies, particularly in relation to small, rural sites before introducing it into their mainstream development programme. These new flats were completed in April 2008 for affordable rent under the Housing Corporations 2006-08 National Housing Programme. Code level 5 headline requirements The development at Mid Street had to achieve a total of at least 84 percentage points to be awarded Code level 5. The following mandatory requirements were achieved: CO2 emissions: 100% reduction over Part L1A 2006. Potable water use: less than 80 litres, per person, per day. Waste: adequate space was provided for household waste storage and a site waste management plan (SWMP) was also used. Materials: three of the five key building elements achieved a Green Guide 2007 rating of A+ to D. Surface water run-off: the peak run-off rates and annual run off volumes did not exceed the conditions for the site prior to development. The mandatory items listed above achieve only 25 percentage points. Therefore to be awarded Code level 5, extra percentage points were achieved by Osborne in the other nine categories of the CSH. The Mid Street scheme was assessed under the April 2007 Code for Sustainable Homes technical guidance. For further information and details please visit www.communities.gov.uk/thecode

Figure 1: Site and location plan

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

Building the first Code 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield

3. Design and brief concept An initial meeting to discuss the aims of the project was held between Raven Housing Trust, Osborne and the Energy Saving Trust in July 2007. Code level 3 is the minimum requirement for social housing schemes. In order that Code level 5 could be delivered, Osborne, Raven Housing Trust and other funding partners put in additional financial contributions. At this time the PassivHaus standard was also targeted as an additional aim for the project. The existing supply chain, and experience which Osborne has in constructing low energy buildings, meant that some of the main build products and specifications were already defined, e.g. the use of a Structural Insulated Panel System (SIPS) and beam and block flooring.

An outline design agreed prior to the involvement of the energy consultant was presented at the meeting. It is particularly difficult to achieve the PassivHaus standard in smaller dwellings such as maisonettes and flats. In this case it would have been necessary to significantly amend the design in terms of its exposed fabric area, glazing area and building orientation to make this a possibility. This level of change was not feasible as the planning constraints were quite onerous (e.g. site in a conservation area). However the dwelling specifications adopted by Osborne to achieve Code level 5 were very similar in terms of headline elemental performance to PassivHaus.

Harrington Design and Bloomfield Architects

Figure 2: Elevations and floor plans

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

Building the first Code 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield

Table 1: Initial specification

Fabric specification (exposed elements) Walls (0.14 W/m2K) An external brick faced 150mm SIP panel supplemented with 50mm external EPS (expanded polystyrene) insulation. Internally the SIP panel was battened to create a service void to most areas and then finished with plasterboard. Roof (0.13 W/m2K) 250mm mineral wool insulation between joists. Ground Floor (0.14 W/m2K) Beam and block floor (150mm beams with 75mm insulation infill) + 75mm of insulation above + 75mm screed. Windows (0.80 W/m2K) Reversible UPVC triple glazed windows, thermally broken with multi-chamber profile (profile was uninsulated). Doors Composite insulated door, partially glazed with 4/14/4 Low-E glazing. Ventilation and air-leakage Airtightness Design air permeability target not greater than 1.0 m3/m2/h @ 50 Pa. The airtightness strategy was decided to be dependant upon the use of an internal polythene vapour barrier. Ventilation unit Whole House Mechanical Ventilation with Heat Recovery (MVHR). Lighting Internal 100% dedicated low energy lighting. External 100% dedicated low energy lighting with photoelectric cell (PEC) unit and/or timers.

Within these initial construction details it is possible to visually identify clear areas of thermal-bridging (where the insulation is not continuous). The most significant junction with thermal-bridging is the window sill detail. These details, whilst of a reasonably high quality, were improved in subsequent designs.

Figure 3: Initial construction details

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

Building the first Code 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield

3.1 Initial specification Whilst the overall design of the flats was fixed, the initial specification was of a good standard and complemented the energy efficiency target aimed for within the Code for Sustainable Homes. It was apparent at this stage (as with many projects that aim to achieve higher levels of the Code) that the strategy and specification for the following items was not sufficiently mature to enable Code level 5 to be achieved. Heating and hot water Several systems were under consideration for the project, including one innovative unit which provides solar heated hot water, solar air-heating, home ventilation and air-cooling as part of a complete system package. This unit and other heating system types were modelled in SAP to find the best scenario in terms of expenditure, operation, maintenance and CO2 emissions. Renewable energy Due to the site location and planning restrictions, the use of small scale wind was not possible. Therefore solar hot water (SHW) and photovoltaics (PV) where seen as the only applicable technologies. SAP modelling was undertaken to see what benefit and quantity would be required depending upon the heating system choice. Ventilation MVHR was the preferred ventilation system because of the energy benefit these systems can provide when matched with a dwelling with extremely good level of airtightness. MVHR was also selected as a route to comply with Part F of the building regulations, helping to ensure healthy living conditions. At this early stage the exact system type, its location and ductwork type had not been considered these aspects have a major impact on the benefit of the unit and were subsequently discussed. Thermal bridging Some 1:20 scale construction details were provided for the initial design meeting (as in figure 3 on page 6). Most demonstrate the removal of non-repeating thermal bridging, but some required further work.

Of the above items the heating and renewable energy strategy being adopted were the most important aspects to specify in achieving Code level 5. The ventilation and thermal bridging aspects were of lesser importance, but improving these aspects did offer the potential of gaining extra credits for the thermal performance of the building (Heat Loss Parameter, Ene2 credit) and reducing the amount of renewable technologies needed. It was felt by Osborne that the additional cost in improving these aspects would be in the extra time required to choose the correct ventilation system and improving construction junction design, so these items where pursued. Based around this initial specification, a follow on meeting was arranged to discuss the heating, hot water and renewables strategy. 3.2 Heating and hot water Based on the initial specification and using default values elsewhere (until a detailed specification was worked up later) the eight heating system types in the table below where considered viable for this scheme. Table 2: Eight heating system types
System Improvement over Part L1A 2006

Gas A-rated regular boiler (base case) Electric Integrated storage/direct acting Air-to-air heat pump Water-to-water heat pump Ground-to-water heat pump Ground-to-air heat pump Biomass Wood pellet stove Independent auto-feed wood pellet boiler

40%

32% 56% 58% 60% 64%

27% 77%

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

Building the first Code 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield

Of the scenarios modelled, a heat pump or independent wood pellet boiler was preferred the rural nature of the project also supported this choice. Other options such as oil and solid fuels were also considered. The CO2 emissions relating to these systems were much higher, resulting in a lower percentage improvement over building regulations. The developer was initially interested in a solar air heating unit, but this could not be modelled in SAP and was the primary reason for not pursuing this system. There was also a lack of supporting evidence for this innovative technology to gauge the level of risk and suitability for this project. This influenced the decision and the system was not considered past initial discussions. A major constraining factor for this development was the amount of available south-west facing roof space for PV and SHW. The only available southwest facing roof space was 32m2, and was the only available space to host these technologies for both the ground and first floor flats. Integrating the renewable technologies on the walls of the building or on a frame close by was considered, but deemed neither practical or cost effective. A heat pump was also initially favoured as there would have been no requirement for onsite storage of wood pellets and potentially less maintenance. However because the predicted CO2 emissions for the best case heat pump system were 13% higher than the independent wood boiler system, this would have meant there was not enough physical room on the roof for the required PV and SHW to achieve Code level 5. Because of these reasons the only viable solution determined was the independent wood pellet boiler.

fixed bypass. A bathroom towel rail is also heated by a separate circuit off the thermal store, allowing it to be used in the summer months. Using an independent wood pellet boiler reduced the renewable technology specification costs, with the additional benefit of being able to share the high heating and hot water output between the two maisonettes. The independent wood boiler used in this project has a manufacturers specified output of between 14-28kW, which is oversized for the energy requirements of these dwellings, but the control scheme detailed above minimises the production of waste heat. 3.3 Renewables Choosing an independent wood pellet boiler provided Osborne with another construction cost advantage. Because sustainable sourced wood pellets have very low (almost zero) CO2 emissions, the benefit for adopting SHW was almost nonexistent and did not provide a benefit in achieving Code level 5. However, the price of wood pellets is typically higher per kWh than mains gas or electricity, so a SHW unit would have reduced the running costs for the occupants. In this case, the predicted difference in hot water running costs (a saving of 30 per year) was deemed not to warrant the extra expenditure. Because the use of micro-wind had also been discounted due to site locality and planning constraints, PV remained the only technology available to offset the remaining CO2 emissions.

4145 support rail

4145 support rail 4045 o/all array 8X SHARP 180W MODULES

As the flats are provided under Raven Housing Trusts affordable rent scheme, Osborne decided to share one independent wood pellet boiler between the two units. It was installed in an outside boiler house next to a large wood pellet store. A hot water feed is provided to a high performance thermal store in each dwelling (210 litres with 80mm insulation), with a heating loop being taken off each thermal store. Underfloor heating was to be used in most rooms because of the compatibility with the thermal store, and the ability to run the biomass boiler more efficiently by avoiding constant cycling. A radiator installed in the hallway of each flat functions as a

8X SHARP 180W MODULES

4045 o/all array

Elevation showing extent of array on Roof Roof Area to be confirmed (TBC) as sufficient to accommodate arrays as shown

Figure 4: PV installation

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

Building the first Code 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield

Based upon the initial fabric specification, an estimated PV array of 1.81kWp per flat would have been necessary. High output PV modules were initially selected for this scheme (0.215 Watts peak per module) due to the lack of available roof space. This resulted in an array of 8 PV modules per unit. Now that the heating, hot water and renewables strategy had been defined, further work was undertaken on the ventilation strategy and thermal bridging. The aim was to further improve the CO2 emissions and potentially reduce the amount of PV initially predicted. 3.4 Thermal bridging The final construction details on pages 9 and 10 are an improvement on the original drawings and are easily implemented onsite. No changes were necessary to the intermediate floor-to-wall junction as thermal bridging was not present, but the following changes were made:

information on the airtightness layer. However, there is further potential for improvement - by pulling the window in further, so that it is inline with the insulation, thermal bridging will be reduced. This would also create an overhang which would reduce solar gains and the potential risk of overheating.
External wall construction: 102.5mm face brickwork. 50mm clear cavity (116mm below ground, because of 50mm insulation). 50mm Jablo insulation on Jabslip 150 panel (174mm o/a) with Frameshield breather paper externally. 12.5mm Aquadeck boarding. Vapour control layer/air leakage layer 500 gauge polythene. 25x50mm battens service zone. 15mm plasterboard plank (Megadecko) taped and jointed. Cavity tray fitted over telescopic ventilator Telescopic duct to underfloor void at max 2000mm centres and max 450mm from corners Gravel infill at perimeter of building around land drain to consulting engineers design and recommendation with particular care taken where floor level is below neighbouring ground levels Weep vents/open perpends to enable cavity to drain Lean mix concrete infill in cavity below ground level to min 225mm below dpc. top surface to drain outwards

Sub-floor vents to be positioned to avoid point loads from precast concrete floor beams, if unavoidable provide pc lintel over vent

IG lintel with arched former to structural engineers specification Sealant to top of window frame externally and internally

SIPS wall panel has been fabricated slightly taller to allow an overlap to occur with the insulation installed over the beam-and-block floor.
Sealant to head and jamb of window frame and plasterboard dry lining internally

Figure 6: Floor-to-wall junction

IG secured by design composite to PAS 24 or similar entrance door, 4/14/4 Low E, air cavity. (U value 0.8)

Window construction: Reversible UPVC frames and cill, triple glazed to BS7950 from Internorm Dimension + range 100x75mm treated sw batten Single cut cant special brick DPC bedded on wet mortar and dressed up behind brick cant cill into window sill. Finish flush with wall face

Threshold and weather guard strip as per manufacturers spec.

Window board to clients specification Sealant to u/s of window board and plasterboard dry lining

Part M compliant level mobility access platform and ramps Hepworth or similar proprietary threshold drainage channel set at front face of building to connect to stormwater drainage as per consulting engs spec Drainage bend to suit Edge block with insulation infill by floor manufacturer - beam and block floor to be installed in accordance with manufacturers latest specifications and details

Figure 5: Window-to-wall junction

The windows used were sourced from Europe and open inwards. This detail is easy to implement and allows a window sill to be maintained. The drawings also provide the constructor with

This is a difficult junction to completely eliminate thermal bridging as a level access is required for Lifetime Homes. The door threshold has been sunk into the screed to bring it inline with the insulation installed over the beam and block floor. Also 25mm of vertical insulation has been wrapped around the internal surface of the threshold.

Figure 7: Door-to-floor junction

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

Building the first Code 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield

Proprietary eaves vent duct nailed to each rafter - all to roofing specialist installation spec

Interlocking concrete roof tiles on battens and felt on timber roof trusses. A-frame trusses with stub end at eaves, at 600mm centres, by Timberframe supplier, with air leakage membrane (500 gauge) and 15mm plasterboard ceiling finish. Insulated with 400mm insulation quilt all to roofing specialist installation spec Roof membrane laid horizontally over rafters and lapped over eaves Proprietary 10mm continuous strip ventilator securely fixed to fascia - all to roofing specialist installation spec All UPVC rainwater goods, fascias and sofits to clients reccomendation and spec 150mm vertical dim. code 4 lead flashing dressed over vertical cladding External clad wall construction: External finish vertical tile hanging as shown on elevatonal drawings fixed to treated 50x38mm horizontal sw battens tile manufacturers reccomendation fixed back to 50x50mm vertical battens within 50mm Jablo insulation on Jabslip 150 panel (174mm o/a) with Frameshield breather paper externally. 12.5mm Aquadeck boarding. Vapour control layer/air leakage layer - 500 gauge polythene. 25x50mm battens - service zone. 15mm plasterboard plank (Megadecko) taped and jointed

The above specification also meant the amount of PV required could be reduced from the initially planned 1.81kWp to a 1.59kWp array per flat. All other specifications remain as per the initial concept. The following items were not well defined at this time and would affect the final as built SAP rating and Code compliance:

Technical details of the thermal store beyond headline specification (measured loss). Ventilation outlets where noted on the plans, but the installation routes for the ductwork were not defined at this stage. Technical specification and model for the 1.59kWp PV array was not defined. The initial airtightness strategy would require further work. It was decided that the internal vapour barrier would be used as the airtightness layer. An internal service void was also to be implemented in the majority of areas (space constraints means that some walls do not have this feature). Overheating assessment had not yet been carried out.

Insulation is shown abutting the eves vent and thermal bridging is removed at the timber edges of the SIP panels due to the incorporation of external insulation.

Figure 8: Wall-to-roof junction 3.5 Final design At this stage the following amendments were made to the design (see overleaf) and specification before construction commenced: Roof U-value was improved to 0.11 W/m2K (requiring 400mm loft insulation). Insulated door was sourced which achieved a U-value of 1.2 W/m2K. Benefit for adopting Energy Saving Trust Enhanced Construction Details could be awarded within the SAP calculations due to the improved construction detailing. Independent auto-feed wood pellet boiler with a manufacturers specified output of between 1428kW. 210 litre thermal store with 80mm of factory applied insulation. SAP Appendix Q Energy Saving Recommended Whole House Heat Recovery Ventilation System. A target airtightness of 3 m3/m2/hr @ 50Pa was adopted this was relaxed from the initial target of 1 m3/m2/h @ 50Pa because a wood pellet boiler and central heating system was now being used.

10

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

Building the first Code 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield

4.

Final design

Figure 9: Final design

The final design is very similar to the initial concept. Some key differences to note: Increased glazing area to the south and west faades to reduce space heating requirements. External location and storage for the independent wood pellet boiler. Inclusion of secure cycle storage. Improved layout of bathroom (for aesthetic/ergonomic reasons).

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

11

Building the first Code 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield

Figure 10: Dwelling elevations

Figure 11: Dwelling floor plan

12

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

Building the first Code 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield

The following design specification was agreed prior to construction commencing.

Table 3: Final design specification

Component Walls Roof (first floor flat only) Floor (ground floor flat only) Doors Windows Thermal bridging Airtightness Specification 0.14 W/m2K Innovare SIPS system + additional 50mm external insulation. 0.11 W/m2K 400mm of mineral wool insulation. 0.13 W/m2K Tetris beam and block floor + 75mm of additional insulation. 1.2 W/m2K IG Weather beater insulated core door. 0.8 W/m2K Internorm dimension PVCu (uninsulated frame). Energy Saving Trust Enhanced Construction Details Y = 0.040 Design target of 3 m3/m2/h @ 50 Pa Vapour membrane to be the main airtightness barrier. Tapes and top hats to be used on all service penetrations. SAP Appendix Q MVHR System Xpelair Xcell 270 DC. Test efficiency: 91%. Specific Fan Power: 0.99. Ductwork: rigid, insulated. Main heating system Mescoli independent wood pellet boiler to be shared between the two flats feeding a thermal store which drives underfloor and radiator heating. Heating controls Programmer, room thermostat and bypass. Hot water from main system 210 litre thermal store provided to each dwelling with 80mm of factory applied spray foam insulation. No secondary heating (electric assumed for DER calculation). Renewable technologies Lights and appliances Photovoltaics 1.59kWp per unit. Low-energy lighting 100% dedicated low-energy outlets (30% assumed for DER calculation). Appliances An A rated or Energy Saving Recommended in line with Code requirements.

Ventilation

Heating system

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

13

Building the first Code 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield

4.1

Construction

February 2008

November 2007 The first site visit was made during ground work preparations in November 2007. Whilst there was little to report in terms of the construction quality, it allowed time to meet the site manager and discuss some of the construction targets being aimed for and how to approach any problems. For this project particular reference to the construction detailing, and implementation of the construction detailing necessary to achieve the design airtightness, were key. This meeting also provided the opportunity to follow up on items which hadnt yet been defined, e.g. the location and routing of the MVHR system to each dwelling and dates for the airtightness tests where also scheduled.

Figure 13: Construction

The first airtightness test was undertaken in February 2008. Unfortunately the first floor flat was not sufficiently completed to test.

Figure 12: Groundwork preparations

Figure 14: First floor flat ceiling not yet installed therefore it was not possible to carry out a pressure test.

14

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

Building the first Code 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield

It was possible to run the pressure testing equipment on the ground floor flat, but the roofing over the bay window to the living room had not yet been installed. Whilst it was not possible to gather test results, the ground floor flat could only be made sufficiently airtight to allow a qualitative audit of existing air leakage pathways early on in the construction.

The pressure testing equipment was set up once all the preparation work had been carried out to the dwelling (measuring the volume of the dwelling and sealing off any purpose provided ventilation i.e. closing windows and masking ventilation inlets/extracts, etc). A smoke pencil was used to carry out the audit.

Figure 17: Airtightness testing Air leakage occurred at the following locations:

Figure 15: Bay window area with roofing

Figure 16: The entire bay window area was sealed using polythene so that an audit of air leakage routes could be carried out.

Figure 18: A major air leakage pathway was present underneath stairwell where plasterboard had not yet been put in place. This needed to be finished and then lapped and sealed.

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

15

Building the first Code 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield

Figure 21: Air leakage occurred at almost every wall-to-ceiling junction and was inter-dwelling air leakage in so much that the pressurised air was moving from the ground floor flat to the upper floor flat. This air leakage pathway should be eliminated once the first floor flat is completed and the plasterboard ceilings/walls installed.

Figure 19: Air leakage was present around the floor perimeter. This is usually caused where the dampproof course has not been installed correctly or has been damaged during construction.

Figure 22: The above image shows that a black polythene membrane has been correctly installed around the intermediate floor cassette, thus eliminating the risk of air leakage through this route.

Figure 20: One excellent feature is a service void which was created behind the plasterboard. This allows power outlets to be kept within the airtightness barrier. No air leakage around the power outlets was encountered during this project.

16

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

Building the first Code 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield

Figure 23: Air leakage occurred where the vapour membrane on internal surface of SIPs panels had not yet been secured/continued. This air leakage pathway should be removed as further work is completed.

Figure 24: Major air leakage pathways occurred at the corners of windows. Tape had been used to try and create a continuous seal between the windows and the internal vapour barrier, but the joints were not continuously taped, with the length of tape applied being cut off at each corner. This could be remediated/tidied up with a little work onsite. The window units themselves displayed no air leakage and only the window-to-wall junctions were of concern.

Figure 25: Some air leakage also occurred around the service entries (MVHR ductwork routes and soil pipes)

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

17

Building the first Code 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield

The ground floor flat had air leakage problems at this stage. Whilst some of the air leakage pathways would be remedied as part of the ongoing construction works, there were some aspects which needed immediate attention: The wall-to-floor perimeter and service entries needed sealing. A concrete slurry could have been applied to the perimeter and around any soil pipes quite quickly and cheaply. The window taping and airtightness joints needed to be improved.

The building fabric was now essentially complete which allowed an airtightness test and result to be provided for both the ground floor and first floor flats. In addition, the PV panels had also been installed along with some of the building services.

In addition to the airtightness audit, a visual inspection of the continuity of insulation was undertaken. This was exemplary with no detectable flaws in the installation quality.

Figure 28: Installation of one of the two PV arrays

The PV panels had been installed as specified at the design stage, and the MVHR was also in the process of being installed in the loft space for the first floor maisonette. Initial work on the ductwork for the MVHR unit for the ground floor flat had been started, but the MVHR unit had not yet been installed.

Figure 26: Ground floor flat

March 2008

Figure 29: MVHR unit installed in the loft space The MVHR unit is installed in the loft space, on top of the joists, and insulation was to be installed at the joist level. This meant the ductwork had to be insulated to avoid excessive heat loss (insulated reflective ducting with 25mm of mineral wool is used in this case). The optimal solution was for the MVHR unit to be installed within the thermal envelope of the building. This is something that Osborne could consider for future developments.

Figure 27: Last stages of construction

18

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

Building the first Code 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield

The MVHR unit is a SAP Appendix Q model and to achieve benefit within the SAP energy rating calculations, the unit also has to be installed in accordance with the MVHR Installation and Building Control checklist available from www.sap-appendixq.org.uk. A copy of this checklist was provided during the first site visit. The installation was provided by a building services consultant sub-contracted to Osborne. In general, the installation is in line with the SAP Appendix Q installer guidance. 125mm circular diameter ducting was used for the bulk of the installation with flexible ductwork used for some connections (e.g. initial connections from MVHR unit and connection to outlets/extracts). The flexible ductwork to and from the MVHR unit could benefit from ducting supports, because the bend in the exhaust air duct has a tighter radius than is optimal (see diagram below).

System balancing and calibration of the MVHR unit was carried out prior to the occupants moving in. After the inspection of the MVHR unit, pressure tests were undertaken on the ground floor and first floor flats, which were now in an adequate stage of completion, to gather results. In the ground floor flat a pressure test Q50 result of 8.56 m3/m2/h @ 50Pa was achieved. The result for the first floor flat was 12.92 m3/m2/h @ 50Pa. The results were a disappointment to the pressure testing team as the dwelling had sufficiently progressed and should have achieved a result nearer the design target. The results indicated that significant works might be necessary to achieve the design target as remedial work is not as effective as getting the structure airtight on the first attempt. The two flats exhibited a very typical trend in air leakage pathways encountered there was no one major air leakage pathway; instead a multitude of smaller air leakage pathways were present. This situation is common in new build housing and difficult to cure. Contrary to the pressure testers take on the results, the site manager, who had experience in delivering housing to best practice levels of airtightness, seemed confident that further planned works to the dwellings would remedy this situation and bring the units within the 3 m3/m2/h @ 50Pa target.

Flexible ducting supports Maximum length of flexible ducting

Grille discharge opening

Discharge grilles

Airflow
Minimum radius = the diameter of flexible ducting used

Room terminal/extract grille Airflow

Figure 30: Guidance on duct installation is available in the SAP Appendix Q Installation checklist (sourced from Part F of the building regulations)

The layout of the MVHR ductwork was governed partly by the original design. This limited the ability to minimise duct lengths, which would have improved efficiency and reduced potential noise from the unit. Further work during the early design phase would have assisted with these aspects.

Figure 31: Air leakage was still present around the corner junctions of the windows, indicating that remedial work recommended during the first audit had not been carried out.

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

19

Building the first Code 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield

Figure 32: The bay window was another significant source of air leakage. Multiple small air leakage pathways existed at the junctions between the windows and the bay window structure. It was possible to seal these using a bead of mastic.

Figure 34: Pipework, to and from the thermal store in the ground floor flat, was also an air leakage pathway.

Figure 35: Air leakage was still present at the wall to floor junction

Figure 33: All of the MVHR ductwork inlets/extracts in the dwelling had quite significant air leakage pathways. The reason behind this was not immediately apparent because no external penetration for the MVHR unit had been created yet. The air leakage pathway was also not through the ductwork, but instead the smoke was leaking into the ceiling void. It was therefore likely that this air leakage pathway was related to the wall-to-ceiling air leakage route which was identified in the earlier pressure test audit carried out in February 2008 (air leakage around this junction was still present during this test). The only way to identify the route of this problem would have been to carry out a full smoke air leakage audit (filling the entire volume of the maisonette with smoke using a hand held generator). This was not possible on the day as the equipment was not available and filling the whole house with smoke can prompt residents to phone the fire brigade, hence requiring advanced notice.

Figure 36: Air leakage around soil pipes and service entries was present although it should be noted that they had not been finished/made good yet (the ends of the soil pipes etc, were taped off during the test).

20

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

Building the first Code 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield

Figure 37: Air leakage was still present in the cupboard underneath the stairwell, but the plaster skim (to be added) should remove this problem. April 2008 Further pressure tests were carried out in April. The ground floor flat achieved a pressure test of 4.36 m3/m2/h @ 50Pa and the first floor flat achieved a slightly worse result of 5.53 m3/m2/h @ 50Pa. Whilst the air leakage results were much improved, the air leakage pathways identified during the pressure test carried out in March were still present:

Figure 38: No air leakage occurred around the wall sockets, soil pipes or service entries (around the sinks, baths, toilets, etc) in the dwelling, indicating that the internal vapour barrier was working effectively as an airtightness barrier, and that top hat details, care and attention had been applied to the sealing of service pipe penetrations through the building fabric.

Around window junctions. Underneath the skirting boards around most of the floor perimeter. Into the ceiling void around MVHR ductwork.

Air leakage around the wall-to-ceiling junction had now been finished with plaster and coving, thus removing this air leakage pathway. The flats were now undergoing final fixtures and fittings and the team still had concerns that the Ene1 requirements of Code level 5 might be missed.

Figure 39: The MVHR installation in the ground floor apartment. Air leakage can be clearly seen (smoke going into void). Also note that the ductwork isnt optimally installed.

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

21

Building the first Code 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield

Due to the timescales involved, and the launch date for this project, Osborne made the decision to commission a further pressure test after the launch of the flats. It was hoped that final finishing touches around the windows and carpeting would provide a final boost to the ratings achieved. May 2008 The construction took 32 weeks with the flat being completed in April 2008. The final pressure test and site visit was conducted in May.

Figure 40: The finished dwelling

Figure 43: Kitchen with dedicated low energy lighting (which was used throughout the dwelling) and low energy appliances.

Figure 41: Living room

Figure 44: There were still some observed problems with the ductwork installation during the last visit. Osborne later returned to the site to install fixing brackets to remove the peaks and troughs in exhaust air ductwork. In addition to this, the mineral wool insulation (as pictured) was also unfinished. A further 200mm of insulation was added before occupation. Figure 42: The independent screw feed wood pellet boiler was installed in an outbuilding which incorporates a large 3.5m3 wood pellet store. The boiler is also self de-ashing, so this should minimise the amount of attention required by the tenants and Raven Housing Trust. Final pressure tests achieved were 4.93 m3/m2/h @ 50Pa for the ground floor flat (which was slightly poorer than the pressure test undertaken in April) and 5.05 m3/m2/h @ 50Pa for the first floor flat.

22

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

Building the first Code 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield

Pressure test results were not expected to have significantly changed since the last test as there was no real change to the finished status of the flats. This was a concern with regards to compliance with Ene1 requirements of Code level 5 as there was no margin of comfort in the design specification. The flats were designed to achieve precisely a 100% improvement over the Target Emission Rate (TER). However when the SAP assessor accounted for this poorer level of airtightness, the final as built percentage improvement over the TER remained relatively unchanged. This occurred because the heating fuel was wood, and because wood is treated as having very low CO2 emissions within SAP, it meant that even if the heating requirement is increased the associated CO2 emissions do not follow suit.

Osborne would have liked to have achieved the target airtightness value (and indeed is strongly committed to do so for future projects). However, this was a valuable learning lesson. If other fuels were used for the space heating, a larger comfort margin could be built within the SAP calculations (perhaps one more PV panel) to allow for any problems encountered onsite with aspects such as airtightness. One additional observation in the completed dwelling was that the internal heat gains from the fixed bypass radiator, thermal store and associated pipework (all correctly installed and insulated) added noticeably to the local temperatures. In retrospect, this should be expected within such a well insulated building. This should be considered in terms of its location in future projects as it could cause localised discomfort in summer.

Figure 45: Completed bathroom, with a heated towel rail, and water saving features such as an 8 litres per minute shower and 105 litre capacity bath. The thermal store is insulated with 80mm of spray foam and all of the primary pipe work to the wood boiler is insulated.

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

23

Building the first Code 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield

4.2 Other sustainable features Whilst this case study focuses on the operational energy efficiency of the maisonettes as a part of achieving Code level 5, Osborne also incorporated the following features: Water A rain water harvesting system was installed, and all the sanitary appliances have water saving devices, e.g. shallow bath, low flush WC and restricted flow basin taps and shower. Figure 47: Data system in-situ

The site comprised of a steep sided ditch, semiimproved neutral grassland with tall herb, boundary hedges, scattered trees and a small area of scrub vegetation on its western boundary. Some of the trees on the site have the potential for bat roosts. The tall ruderal and scrub also provide a potential habit for small reptiles. The scrub, nearby planted shrubbery, hedgerows and ivy-clad trees all provided potential nesting sites for breeding birds. These features were considered during the development of the site. A list of recommended plants produced by the ecologist were also considered within the landscaping. Good horticultural practice was adopted in the landscaping scheme, including the use of peat-free composts, mulches and soil conditioners. The final ecological value of the site after the development was unchanged (neutral).

Figure 46: Low flush WC Smart metering An ACIS data system linked to public transport information was specified. The energy usage at Mid Street will be monitored by the Energy Saving Trust and records will be kept on how much energy, and money, is saved by the residents in utility bills over the next two years. This will include heating, water consumption and the amount of rain water harvested and the electricity generated from the photovoltaic roof panels. The monitoring is being carried out remotely using a wireless broadband link so as not to disturb the tenants. Ecology A full member of the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) was employed as the registered ecological consultant for this development.

24

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

Building the first Code 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield

5. Home user guide and training In addition to providing a home user guide, Osborne also provided one-to-one training with residents to demonstrate the operation of the various technologies in the flats and also explained how to maximise the benefits and efficiencies. This is a key consideration as occupants will not typically be familiar with the types of technologies specified in these Code level 5 flats. The mechanical ventilation, photovoltaic panels and biomass boiler all required demonstration for the occupant to be able to operate them correctly.

6. Funding and construction costs Tandridge District Council transferred the land to Raven Housing Trust at no cost to enable the scheme to achieve Code level 5. The construction cost for this project at Mid Street would be estimated by Osborne to be approximately 20% more than building to the minimum standards required for social housing (Code level 3), when applied on a larger scale. In this instance, because of the nature of the site and the smaller scale, the costs are significantly more. Osborne contract value to meet Code 3 260k

Table 4: For the two units at Mid Street Osborne quotes their extra over costs for achieving the Ene1 requirements of Code level 5 as follows:
Item Insulation Comment: cost of additional 50mm external insulation to SIP walls, 100mm extra to loft, 75mm extra to ground floor. Air Leakage Comment: the cost of physical measures such as sealing tape at all junctions, polythene vapour barrier, top hats to all service penetrations was probably lower than this quote value. However significant time was spent installing the airtightness measures which, if costed here, would likely exceed the figure provided. Windows and doors Comment: triple glazing was used and sourced from a European supplier, which added significantly to the cost. Also an additional 5m2 of windows were added to the south and west faade to assist in achieving Code level 5. The door was upgraded to an insulated model. Heat recovery system Comment: this is the extra cost of specifying a SAP Appendix Q MVHR system compared to using natural ventilation this figure excludes fitting, which is included in additional fees below. Biomass Boiler Comment: this is the extra over cost compared to a gas boiler. This includes the added cost of the external housing, hopper, flue and fuel transport system. Underfloor heating Photovoltaic Panels Comment: installation of 16 x 180W modules and associated invertors, controls and export meters. Thermal store Additional fees Comment: M&E design and SAP analysis. Total extra over cost Extra over cost
(total for both units)

Grants

12,800

1,000

7,000

3,600

11,000

1,900
(LCBP Phase 2)

6,100 19,000 6,500

(LCBP Phase 2)

2,000 13,000 70,100 (61,700 after grants)

In addition to the above items an additional extra over cost of 400 was incurred for sanitary ware and 6,500 for rainwater harvesting in achieving Code level 5. Final cost for 334k (2,610 m2)

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

25

Building the first Code 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield

7. Closing comments These flats at Mid Street are not demonstration homes, prototypes or concepts. They are real homes which will be lived in and their energy usage monitored. The core lesson to be learnt from this project is that it is necessary to spend extra time planning and designing a project. Success at these early stages allows the time and attention spent during construction to be similar to that expected on a normal construction project. Osborne also gained a better insight into how to achieve higher levels of the Code for Sustainable Homes under real circumstances and this has maximised their learning. The headline lessons can be summarised as follows (in no particular order):

output (such as the independent wood boiler specified here) can reduce expenditure and provide a more efficient solution when an appropriate heat distribution and control system is provided. Developers find it relatively easy to achieve good insulation standards no thermal faults could be visually ascertained with the building fabric at Mid Street. Construction details need to be produced early in the design process removing thermal bridging requires an iterative design process. Osborne worked with the architects at an early stage and this helped them attain an excellent level of fabric performance. Airtightness remedial work is not as effective as getting the structure airtight on the first attempt, particularly when a multitude of small, difficult-to-seal air leakage pathways are present. Any air leakage pathways identified early on in a project need to be dealt with immediately. Ventilation mechanical ventilation with heat recovery can offer significant advantages in reducing energy requirements if correctly specified and installed, but its performance is critical to these aspects being achieved. This requires extra vigilance during the design, construction and handover. Following the SAP Appendix Q checklist is a necessity and this needs to be provided to the installer and site manager. Innovative technologies some innovative technologies are particularly appealing to developers, but the lack of robust evidence for their performance and the ability to gain credits within the Code for Sustainable Homes is a barrier. Renewable energy PV panels are one of the most proven and robust ways of generating electricity locally. High efficiency modules (i.e. more expensive) may be required when roof space is limited. Solar hot water is another proven technology, but its benefit is negligible when biomass is the primary fuel source.

It is important to involve a Code consultant with experience in energy efficiency before drafting initial designs the build form and layout can make a big difference in terms of the ease and cost of achieving a certain Code level. Undertake a design review against the aspired Code target before submitting for planning. Local planning constraints may limit the available design options however these constraints are not insurmountable. Wood pellet boilers are an attractive option for small dwellings in rural locations when selecting the wood pellets for use in the biomass boiler, they should be of a Grade A specification1 to minimise the break up of pellets in to dust as they are transferred in to the storage facility (which can have an adverse effect on the operation of the boiler). Damp proofing the storage facility is also important in order to maintain the quality of the wood pellets for combustion in the boiler. Sharing heating systems can be a practical and cost effective solution sharing heating systems which have a high

1. CEN/TS 14961:2005 Solid biofuels - fuel specification and classes http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?_ pageid=77,19836&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

26

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

Building the first Code 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield

Greater involvement onsite a good relationship and understanding with the site manager is necessary for a design to be realised. A greater number of site visits and air leakage tests help to ensure this. Include a margin of comfort within the design should difficulties be encountered during construction slightly over specifying at the design stage will allow for a margin of comfort. Greater consideration of overheating comfortable indoor temperatures need to be provided during the summer. It is important that this is considered at the design stage. Home user guide and handover heating, ventilation and renewable energy systems specified in projects such as this need to be demonstrated to the occupants. Clear written guidance on their use also needs to be provided.

Appendix A tracks the comparison from initial modelling in August 2007 through to the as built performance in July 2008. Appendix B and C contain copies of the final Code for Sustainable Homes certificates issued to both flats. Appendix D and E contain copies of the Energy Performance certificates for both flats.

Credits The Energy Saving Trust would like to thank Osborne for their assistance in producing this case study. All architectural details within this case study are courtesy of Harrington design and Bloomfield architects. Details of the ecological consultancy was provided by the ecology consultancy ltd.

Since this project Osborne is now involved in other Code level 5 and 6 schemes. The housing designs for these schemes have been optimised further utilising the experience gained from Mid Street.

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

27

Appendix A

Table 5: Mid Street, South Nutfield. Raven Housing Trust newbuild construction by Osborne. August 2007 to July 2008 Comparison of proposed and selected options at various stages from design specification to results of as built performance.
Initial design meeting Date: August 2007 System Gas A rated regular boiler (base case). Electric Integrated storage/direct acting. Air-to-air heat pump. Water-to-water heat pump. Ground-to-water heat pump. Ground-to-air heat pump. Biomass Wood pellet stove. Independent auto-feed wood pellet boiler. The upper floor flat type was modelled (with solar hot water, but no PV) with the following improvements over building regulations being achieved dependant upon the heating system type modelled: SAP rating Total running costs (/Yr) 138 176 168 168 162 141 202 192 Improvement over Part L1A 2006 40% 32% 56% 58% 60% 64% 27% 77% Chosen due to % improvement over building regs.

89 (band B) 85 85 85 86 88 (band (band (band (band (band B) B) B) B) B)

82 (band B) 83 (band B)

Follow on meeting to discuss renewables strategy Date: November 2007 SAP rating Added 1.59 kWp of PV. Pressure test result relaxed to 3m3/m2/h @ 50Pa. Solar hot water panel removed from specification. Final design meeting Date: March 2008 SAP rating Roof U-value improved to 0.11 W/m2K (original calc in August was 0.14 W/m2K) and actual boiler efficiency modelled. As built performance Date: July 2008 SAP rating Actual PV array per flat of 1.44 kWp amended to SAP calculation. Airtightness test of 5.53 m3/m2/h @ 50Pa entered. Actual thermal store details entered (80mm spray foam insulation vs. 50mm). Final result PV Overshading changed from 'Modest' to 'None or very little'. 88 (band B) Total running costs (/Yr) 138 Improvement over Part L1A 2006 99.9% 89 (band B) Total running costs (/Yr) 129 Improvement over Part L1A 2006 101% 92 (band A) 91 (band B) Total running costs (/Yr) 102 106 Improvement over Part L1A 2006 100% 100% Difference in running costs was decided not to be significant - again improvement in CO2 emission was the driver.

85 (band B)

160

93.30%

87 (band B) 88 (band B)

143 137

99.9% 100%

89 (band B)

130

104%

SAP assessor kept this adjustment in place during the design phase so that some leeway was available should the dwelling not manage to achieve a 100% reduction over Part L1A.

28

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

Appendix B

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

29

30

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

Appendix C

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

31

32

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

Appendix D

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

33

34

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

35

36

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

Appendix E

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

37

38

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

39

40

Building the first Code level 5 homes: a case study of Mid Street, South Nutfield (2009 edition)

CE300

Further reading The Energy Saving Trust provides free technical guidance and solutions to help UK housing professionals design, build and refurbish to high levels of energy efficiency. These cover all aspects of energy efficiency in domestic new build and renovation. They are made available through the provision of training seminars, downloadable guides, online tools and a dedicated helpline. A complete list of guidance categorised by subject area can be found in our publications index Energy efficiency is best practice (CE279). To download this, and to browse all available Energy Saving Trust publications, please visit www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/housing

Guides Energy efficiency and the Code for Sustainable Homes Levels 3 (CE290) Energy efficiency and the Code for Sustainable Homes Levels 4 (CE291) Energy efficiency and the Code for Sustainable Homes Levels 5&6 (CE292) Enhanced construction details: introduction and use (CE297) Enhanced Construction Details: Thermal bridging and airtightness (CE302)

To obtain these publications or for more information, call 0845 120 7799, email bestpractice@est.org.uk or visit www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/housing

Energy Saving Trust, 21 Dartmouth Street, London SW1H 9BP Tel 0845 120 7799 Fax 0845 120 7789 bestpractice@est.org.uk www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/housing
CE300 Energy Saving Trust August 2009. E&OE The Energy Saving Trust Housing Programme is grant aided by the Department of Energy and Climate Change. This publication (including any drawings forming part of it) is intended for general guidance only and not as a substitute for the application of professional expertise. Any figures used are indicative only. The Energy Saving Trust gives no guarantee as to reduction of carbon emissions, energy savings or otherwise. Anyone using this publication (including any drawings forming part of it) must make their own assessment of the suitability of its content (whether for their own purposes or those of any client or customer), and the Energy Saving Trust cannot accept responsibility for any loss, damage or other liability resulting from such use. So far as the Energy Saving Trust is aware, the information presented in this publication was correct and current at the time of the last revision. To ensure you have the most up to date version, please visit our website: www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/housing The contents of this publication may be superseded by statutory requirements or technical advances which arise after the date of publication. It is your responsibility to check latest developments.