New houses should not have to meet high BER requirements

[Steven Barrett]

A mate of mine is a builder and he said the cost of meeting BER requirements adds a massive cost to the price of building houses. He thinks that they should be allowed to build houses with a lower BER rating that is more affordable for people, but they obviously have higher ongoing heating costs. Having it on a tiered basis allows people to get the house that they can afford.

BER is EU wide and part of their plan to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, so I can't see his plan being adopted.

 

[VonHohenzollern]

A mate of mine is a builder and he said the cost of meeting BER requirements adds a massive cost to the price of building houses. He thinks that they should be allowed to build houses with a lower BER rating that is more affordable for people, but they obviously have higher ongoing heating costs. Having it on a tiered basis allows people to get the house that they can afford.

So your house would be intially cheaper to purchase but more expensive to heat?

Sounds like a builder trying to offload his costs onto the buyer. I wouldn't be too keen to be buying from them.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

As a home owner with an old house I can get grants to make my house energy efficient. And there is no obligation on me to make it energy efficient.

Yet a First Time Buyer is obliged to make it efficient and has to pay for it themselves.

Something wrong somewhere.

 

[Leo]

And there is no obligation on me to make it energy efficient.

There is if you want to carry out significant renovations.

 

[Leo]

A mate of mine is a builder and he said the cost of meeting BER requirements adds a massive cost to the price of building houses.

I presume he's still using decades old building methods?

 

[Protocol]

Vested interests want the size / quality of the house to be cut.

They never seem to suggest cutting the following:

(1) land costs
(2) finance costs
(3) 15% profit margins / 66,000 per house

 

[T McGibney]

Vested interests want the size / quality of the house to be cut.

Down with cheaper and affordable housing!

I have no vested interest whatsoever but I still think it ridiculous that it would be illegal to build today the large, cosy and warm house we built circa 22 years ago for not much more than €100k.

 

[The Horseman]

Vested interests want the size / quality of the house to be cut.

They never seem to suggest cutting the following:

(1) land costs
(2) finance costs
(3) 15% profit margins / 66,000 per house

Property building is a business out to make a profit. Why do people find this concept so hard to understand.

The State is only to happy to blame the developer for the issues with the housing crisis. Ironically if the State actually took some difficult decisions we would not be where we are today. The housing crisis would still be around but not as bad as it currently is.

 

[VonHohenzollern]

As a home owner with an old house I can get grants to make my house energy efficient. And there is no obligation on me to make it energy efficient.

Yet a First Time Buyer is obliged to make it efficient and has to pay for it themselves.

Something wrong somewhere.

As demonstrated with Mica and the new report on Apartments in Dublin, letting standards slip is not a solution, it just foists the expense on the next generation. Employing a whole tranche of workers who are needed for the repairs rather than new builds, while the original builders make out without liability.

High standards day 1 prevent having to subsidise more expensive renovations in the future. People are paying more than the price of a mortgage, clearly the problem is with supply and while lowering standards is solution; its one with an expensive future cost. Unfortunately, the government needs to get more people into building houses. The profit is there, the skilled labour is not.

 

[The Horseman]

Down with cheaper and affordable housing!

I have no vested interest whatsoever but I still think it ridiculous that it would be illegal to build today the large, cosy and warm house we built circa 22 years ago for not much more than €100k.

I don't have any vested interest either (I am involved in two rented properties both at well below market rent and I have no intention of selling for at least another 20 yrs or so).

the cost of materials & labour is going up along with development levies etc. So who should fund these and stay within the €100k

 

[T McGibney]

As demonstrated with Mica and the new report on Apartments in Dublin, letting standards slip is not a solution, it just foists the expense on the next generation. Employing a whole tranche of workers who are needed for the repairs rather than new builds, while the original builders make out without liability.

High standards day 1 prevent having to subsidise more expensive renovations in the future. People are paying more than the price of a mortgage, clearly the problem is with supply and while lowering standards is solution; its one with an expensive future cost. Unfortunately, the government needs to get more people into building houses. The profit is there, the skilled labour is not.

Lower energy efficiency standards have nothing to do with repairs - for mica or anything else.

 

[T McGibney]

I don't have any vested interest either (I am involved in two rented properties both at well below market rent and I have no intention of selling for at least another 20 yrs or so).

the cost of materials & labour is going up along with development levies etc. So who should fund these and stay within the €100k

Nobody mentioned staying within 100k or any figure.

And development levies are part of the problem. New homeowners shouldn't be financing councils to run festivals and events.

 

[VonHohenzollern]

Lower energy efficiency standards have nothing to do with repairs - for mica or anything else.

Does have something to do with the expensive cost of renovation.

 

[T McGibney]

Does have something to do with the expensive cost of renovation.

That's the point, a scaling back of energy efficiency standards, say to early Celtic Tiger era levels, would mean lower renovation costs.

 

[The Horseman]

Nobody mentioned staying within 100k or any figure.

And development levies are part of the problem. New homeowners shouldn't be financing councils to run festivals and events.

You did in post 7 above. New home owners are required to pay development levies for the supply of public lighting etc. This is the council "taking the development in hand".

 

[T McGibney]

You did in post 7 above.

No I didn't. Read again what I said. I made no suggestion that the cost 22 years ago is achievable today. But the fact remains that my house is large, cosy and warm even if built (competently) for a relative pittance 22 years ago.

New home owners are required to pay development levies for the supply of public lighting etc.

They charge development levies even when there is no prospect of public lighting etc ever being provided.

 

[Early Riser]

Whatever about energy efficiency (and how accurate BER is as a measurement) building/planning standards certainly need to be revised:

"Just how outdated are our planning standards? They are a legacy of moral values originally intended to protect the modesty of Edwardian women. Their origins date from 1902 when planners Raymond Unwin and Barry Parker walked apart in a field until they could no longer see each other’s nipples through their shirts. They determined that the 70ft between them was an appropriate separation distance to achieve privacy in housing layouts........
...Subsequently, these guidelines were adopted throughout the English-speaking world. Unwin later made recommendations to cater for the motor car, which led to the typical form of suburban housing, based on low densities and significant car ownership, which became the dominant form of residential development of the 20th century. Incredibly, 120 years later, our development plans are still being influenced by these outmoded and restrictive standards."
Tony Reddy, IT, 13 Aug, 2022.

 

[PGF2016]

A mate of mine is a builder and he said the cost of meeting BER requirements adds a massive cost to the price of building houses. He thinks that they should be allowed to build houses with a lower BER rating that is more affordable for people, but they obviously have higher ongoing heating costs. Having it on a tiered basis allows people to get the house that they can afford.

BER is EU wide and part of their plan to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, so I can't see his plan being adopted.

Is this not just kicking the (climate change) can down the road? Is there nothing we can do in Ireland with a long term view?

 

[noproblem]

I've been in an A2 rated home and also C1 rated home. I stayed for some nights in both during cold and mild weather, they were roughly the same size. I can honestly say the C1 rated house was more comfortable for me, not too hot/clammy, not cold by any means, was reasonable to heat and produce hot water, the A2 house was indeed cheaper to heat and produce hot water. On the other hand the A 2 rated home was wonderful to enter on a very cold night but became too warm after a short time. Both were on the outskirts of a big town and price difference in this case was aprox €50k. I wonder if an extension or renovation to the A rated house was needed, would it be more difficult with all the stuff installed to get it to the A standard, to me it seems that to renovate or extend the C rated house would be a lot more straight forward and possibly cheaper? In any case it seems that all new house are going to be very highly insulated here in the future. That's fine, but with our climate who came up with the system we in Ireland use to get to A rating, as against what they might use in Finland and colder countries to get an A rated dwelling?

 

[odyssey06]

I've been in an A2 rated home and also C1 rated home. I stayed for some nights in both during cold and mild weather, they were roughly the same size. I can honestly say the C1 rated house was more comfortable for me, not too hot/clammy, not cold by any means, was reasonable to heat and produce hot water, the A2 house was indeed cheaper to heat and produce hot water. On the other hand the A 2 rated home was wonderful to enter on a very cold night but became too warm after a short time. Both were on the outskirts of a big town and price difference in this case was aprox €50k. I wonder if an extension or renovation to the A rated house was needed, would it be more difficult with all the stuff installed to get it to the A standard, to me it seems that to renovate or extend the C rated house would be a lot more straight forward and possibly cheaper? In any case it seems that all new house are going to be very highly insulated here in the future. That's fine, but with our climate who came up with the system we in Ireland use to get to A rating, as against what they might use in Finland and colder countries to get an A rated dwelling?

If you extensively renovate the C1 house you are supposed to get it up to B2 standard which is a deterrent to upgrading older houses. It would seem more reasonable to insist that you go up X levels.