ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
​
2
Future Buildings Consultation
3
4
Can you help by doing some modeling?
Sign up on the next tab
5
LETI have had feedback from MHCLG that the way to have the most influence over the consultation is to create a strong and robust evidence base. LETI needs your help with this. Please see the list of tasks below, please sign up on the mext tab to say that you will help with this task, so that we can keep tabs on who is helping us. Please send us your infomation by the 6th of April. Please do sign up, so the lead for each of these tasks can get in touch with you. (They may even oranise a online sesion to go through questions). Email FBSconsultation@leti.london if you have any questions.
6
7
8
9
10
Why: To influence the direction of regulation
11
Who: You!- Sign up on the next page ( Ideally by the 29th of March)
12
When: Tasks compleated by the 6th of April
13
What: See tasks below
14
15
Task 1: SBEM modeling
16
Task 1A:
At LETI we currently believe that the proposals for the 2021 regulations do not sufficiently incentivise low carbon heat, we would like to gather an evidence base that shows for various typologies what we believe the outcomes of the Part L 2021 regulations will be, what it will incentivise if design teams use compliance with the regulations, or a 35% reduction from regulations (as may be the case in London) to drive decision making.


Task 1B:
At LETI currently we believe that the district heating proposals provide a ‘get our clause’. This approach does not incentive DH networks to decarbonise, and also if the network has a lower carbon factor than the notional building network, building fabric and efficiency systems will not be protected. We would like modelling to show the fabric that the actual building could have, if they are connecting to a well performing DH system.
17
18
19
20
Output: Send FBSconsultation@leti.london your results please title the email Task 1 results
21
22
Task 2: Primary Energy (Resi and non resi)
23
 At LETI currently we believe that Primary Energy is not a useful metric. We would like to gather an evidence base that shows for various typologies the impact of switching from carbon emissions to primary energy as key metric (with carbon emissions as secondary metrics, and also FEES for dwellings . MHCLG believes that it will protect from poorer fabric efficiency and direct electric heating, we would like to test: 1) whether this is the case, 2) whether the same goals could be achieved in other ways that would create better links to consumers and end-use monitoring e.g. energy use instead of primary energy and 3) whether it will have detrimental consequences, such as incentivising gas.
24
25
26
Task 3: Space heating demand (non resi)
27
Task description:

LETI is asking for the "non-domestic modelling community" to provide the space heating demand outputs from BRUKL documents. The purpose of this is to demonstrate the NCM considerably underestimates the space heating demand for non-domestic buildings. The evidence you provide will help demonstrate that the NCM needs to be updated to more accurately reflect space heating demand in non-domestic buildings.

Please go to the "Task 3 space-heating demand" tab, and complete a row of information. IT WILL ONLY TAKE ONE MINUTE WE PROMISE!

If you have any questions email FBSconsultation@leti.london
28
29
30
31
32
Output: Enter your results on Task 3 space heating demand tab
33
Task 4: Overheating (Resi)
34
LETI are gathering evidence from anyone who has explored the implications of the proposed simplified method, compared the outcome against TM59 results for any home designs or done any analysis to test variations to the simplified method that might be more robust. If you have done any modelling/analysis in this space that you would be willing to share the findings of then please contact susie@inklingllp.com
35
36
37
38
output: Send susie@inklingllp.com your results please title the email Task 4 results
39
40
Task 5: Airtightness and MVHR (Resi and non resi)
41
 In MHCLG's definition of the notional buildings (both resi and non-resi) MHCLG are assuming poor levels of airtightness: 5 m3/h/m2 at 50 Pa for homes, and between 3 and 5 m3/h/m2 at 50 Pa for non-domestic buildings. This is indicating a lack of ambition in terms of energy efficiency which is a missed opportunity. If you have evidence of how lower energy use and carbon emissions can be achieved with successful, pragmatic and cost effective an energy efficiency strategy , please send it to us.

Also, if you have any energy modelling results showing the difference they make, it would be very useful.
42
43
44
45
output: Send FBSconsultation@leti.london your results please title the email Task 5 results
46
47
48
Task 6: Homes - What does FEES for 2021 really mean? - SAP modelling
49

Test various fabric specifications (in the latest version of SAP we have access to) to achieve the notional building FEES, and the 15% uplift.
For Example: With an airtightness of 3, what u-values could someone get away with?


We are also interested in example of large recent developments OUTSIDE OF LONDON that have achieved better FEES / used better specs.
50
51
52
53
output: Send FBSconsultation@leti.london your results please title the email Task 6 results
54
55
Task 7: Many new homes have the wrong shape or orientation (Lowest Priority)
56
The approach based on the notional building does not reward building designs which made the effort to achieve a better form factor. MHCLG have indicated that it may not be a problem as most new homes have a very efficient form factor. Any evidence showing that average housing design does not lead to energy efficient forms, facade articulation, or orientation, may be useful.
57
58
59
60
output: Send FBSconsultation@leti.london your results please title the email Task 7 results
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100