Uncovering Code Myths
While the CfSH prescribes the standards that must be attained, it does not provide specific details of the type of material and construction required to deliver these targets. This has led to initial industry questions as well as uncertainty.
There are also a number of mistruths relating to the CfSH which the Tarmac Homes project aims to dispel. These include:
CfSH myths uncovered
back to top
Green Guide misuse
Specifying only A + rated products from the Green Guide, the BRE’s online selection tool which provides points towards the CfSH will not deliver energy efficient buildings. According to BRE, this could lead to homes that use vast amounts of energy and it has stated that materials or products not getting A or A+ ratings in the Green Guide can still be, and already are, part of buildings achieving high levels of the CfSH.
Timber frame construction is not the only route to deliver the higher levels of the CfSH. Independent research by Arup Research + Development shows that that conventional masonry houses that take advantage of their inherent thermal mass can save a significant amount of energy over their lifetime compared to lightweight timber frame housing. It provides strong evidence that lightweight timber homes may not be as sustainable in the long-term as heavyweight masonry construction.
See more information on Arup Research and Development’s report on thermal mass.
Beyond carbon reduction
A property cannot attain a particular level of the CfSH based solely on the CO2 emissions reduction. The dwelling should only be described as achieving a certain Code level when it is related to the Code in its entirety.