Everyone in Aotearoa deserves to live in a warm, dry, well ventilated home that provides the necessary levels of comfort for people and for planet earth, for whanau and for whenua.
Our homes need to look after us at every stage and circumstance of life; from new-born babies to grandparents / Kaumatua; when we are well and when we are sick. Home is our safe haven.
The 2021 amendments to H1 indicated that we were heading down a path of change; slowly, but in the right direction. The changes proposed seem to be taking us backwards into the past.
The solution is stay the course and go further and faster, building on the good work already done. Part of that is treating the building as a whole system, and adjusting other Acceptable Solutions and Verification Methods to match the current changes in H1; ventilation for example.
Plus providing solutions where there currently are none; airtightness and overheating.
The following section looks at the global context to these changes and asks pertinent questions as to whether the changes proposed, provide the correct approach to the energy efficiency of New Zealand’s new, collective housing stock.
Solutions will be suggested under the specific consultation headings.
1. Global Context
1.1. Preface
The preface of the consultation document has a statement;
“At MBIE, we aim for a balance between setting minimum performance requirements where necessary to ensure buildings are safe, healthy and durable. MBIE encourage higher standards of performance where this will impact positively on health and resilience outcomes for the country.”
Question: What is being balanced here?
…we aim for a balance between xyz and what?
1.2. The Building Act
The Building Act (2004) provides the mandatory framework for the building control system to be followed when undertaking building work in New Zealand. Its stated purpose is covered in section 3 of the Act:
(a) to provide for the regulation of building work, to ensure that:
(i) people who use buildings can do so safely and without endangering their health;
(ii) buildings have attributes that contribute appropriately to the health, physical independence and well-being of the people who use them;
(iii) people can escape from the building if it is on fire; and
(iv) buildings are designed, constructed and able to be used in ways that promote sustainable development:
(b) to promote the accountability of owners, designers, builders and building consent authorities who have responsibilities for ensuring that building work complies with the building code.
Question: Do the proposed changes meet the purpose of the Act?
1.3. The “lock-in effect”
A house built in 2025 will be around well past 2075 (B2.3.1 (a) the life of the building, being not less than 50 years, if …)
Therefore any changes must be considered with longevity in mind. That is, any short term decision making, must consider the long term implications of said decisions.
The decisions made now will be structurally locked in for the next fifty plus years.
Question: Do the proposed changes consider their long-term consequences?
1.4. Building For Climate Change
The MBIE’s document Transforming Operational Efficiency; Building for climate change programme issued in August 2020, provides this vision;
Our vision is by 2035, New Zealand’s new buildings are using as little energy and water as possible. They are warmer, drier and better ventilated, and provide a healthier place for us all to work and live. The wellbeing of New Zealanders has improved, they’re leading healthier lives, and respiratory illnesses from cold and damp houses are uncommon. People also have more money in their pockets due to lower energy bills.
The Building and Construction Sector can confidently and successfully design and construct energy and water-efficient buildings with low operational carbon emissions. Energy efficiency, water use and operational carbon emissions are core considerations for the Sector and new buildings now meet an emissions cap as well as other regulatory requirements.
Our infrastructure finds it easier to respond to demand for water, due to our lower use. This means we cope better with water shortages than we ever have before.The efficiencies from the Sector have made it easier for the grid to become more renewable meaning fewer emissions for the energy we do use.As a result, carbon emissions from building operations will have been significantly reduced compared with 2020 levels, and are making an important contribution to New Zealand’s trajectory towards achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
This document sets out absolute energy demand targets as shown below with a targeted time frame of reaching a final cap by 2035.
Question: How do the proposed changes help to transition to this path?
1.5. Te Whata Ora
Te Whata Ora produced a report on the 29th November 2024; Healthy Homes Initiative. Five-year outcomes evaluation. https://www.tewhatuora.govt.nz/publications/healthy-homes-initiative-five-year-outcomes-evaluation
One of the key findings was the benefits of the HHI exceed the cost to Health NZ after one year with a five-year return on investment of 507%, that for every one dollar spent by Health NZ, there was $5.07 in health savings over the following five years.
Question: Do the proposed changes take into consideration the wider context of the impact of warmer, more energy efficient housing on society, now and into the future?
1.6. BRANZ
MBIE commissioned and funded BRANZ to carry out a technical analysis of New Zealand Building Code Energy Efficiency clause H1 settings for residential buildings.
The outcome of the Economics of changing the H1 R-value settings was
Our analysis suggests that the current H1 5th edition R-value settings do not need changing. The highest ratio of benefits to costs was obtained for constructions that comply with the current H1 5th edition R-value settings.
Question: Why is this advice being ignored?
1.7. BRANZ
The BRANZ webinar “Thermal Bridging in timber-framed walls” in 2021 https://www.branz.co.nz/shop/catalogue/webinar-thermal-bridging-in-timber-framed-walls_979/ drew conclusions that included
• If floor-slab edge is effectively insulated, walls achieve a 30-40% increase in insulation.
• Many parts of the wall are well below R1.5. This does not satisfy the requirement stated in E3/AS1- Paragraph 1.1.1.
• If we are to build healthy, energy efficient houses, actual whole wall construction R-values must be considerably higher than what we found in this research (>R3.0?)
Question: Why is this advice being ignored?
1.8. BRANZ
BRANZ Study Report SR495 Household Energy End Use Project 2, https://www.branz.co.nz/pubs/research-reports/sr495/ stated that 44% of New Zealanders would like to be warmer, 41% of HEEP2 respondents reported never heating their bedroom, 1 in 20 (5%) said they had gone without heating at some time in the last year because they felt unable to pay for it.
Question: Whether consideration has been given to the HEEP studies and how people are finding actually living in their homes?
1.9. Cost-Optimal Insulation levels for Australian and New Zealand Homes
This report was prepared for Knauf Insulation in July in 2016.
The key finding of this study is that for most owners of typical homes in Australia and New Zealand, insulation levels above the minimum code requirements are cost effective. Topping up ceiling insulation to existing dwellings that have relatively low levels of insulation is extremely cost effective, as is adding floor insulation to dwellings in cool climates which have none. It should be noted that if energy prices increase above the forecast prices used in this study, additional insulation would become even more cost effective, shortening its payback period.
This study from nine years ago, has been reinforced and confirmed by the BRANZ study and previous BRANZ studies.
Question: Faced with significant evidence that increased insulation is cost effective over a long period of time, why would MBIE consider reducing insulation requirements?
1.10. The future upgrade of buildings to meet building for Climate Change requirements
At some point in our future as we approach 2050, the thorny problem of upgrading the existing building stock to meet building for climate change requirements. This has not been discussed in any formal documents I’ve seen, as it appears to be filed in the too hard basket. When considering these changes, has a long-term view been taken on the cost of not being bold enough with decision making now?
Question: What analysis has been done to look at the cost to NZ Inc to upgrade the building stock, built under these H1 changes to meet the final cap targets noted above?
1.11. Energy Usage
In 2023, around 13.73 thousand gigawatt hours of electricity were consumed for residential use in New Zealand. This marked an increase in electricity consumed for residential use in the country compared to the previous year. https://www.statista.com/statistics/717221/new-zealand-residential-electricity-consumption/
Around a third of New Zealand’s electricity demand is from households.
https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natural-resources/energy-statistics-and-modelling/energy-statistics/electricity-statistics
As our population increases, more load is put on the grid and the grid needs to expand to cope. This comes at a cost to NZ Inc.
What consideration has been given to the effect on the overall power network, and future load requirements, in proposing these changes?
Are we using our resources responsibly?
1.12. Scotland
Other nations are increasing insulation standards. Scotland for example is moving towards developing an “equivalent” version of the German Passive House Standard. https://www.gov.scot/groups/energy-standards-review-scottish-passivhaus-equivalent-working-group/
1.13. Ireland
Many of Irelands leading house builders are already embracing the German Passive House standard. https://passivehouseplus.ie/news/design-approaches/group-of-irish-house-builders-turn-to-passive-house
Question: Given that the European climate is generally similar to ours, are these proposed changes keeping up with our peers?
https://www.buildmagazine.org.nz/articles/show/nz-vs-ireland-building-regs
1.14. Timing
I question whether a year is enough time to fully assess the implications of the original changes, given that for the first part of this year, houses were likely being built to the previous standards, having being consented under the previous regime. As an example, I’m was only starting to see insulated foundations being constructed in the last quarter of 2024 around central Christchurch.
Question: Are these proposed changes just a knee jerk reaction to current economic conditions, and a reluctance for the construction industry to accept change?
Are they really necessary and have they been properly thought through?
2. Addressing Clause H1 of the Building Code.
The Acceptable Solution H1/AS1 is charged with providing solutions to the energy efficiency provisions contained within the Building Code.
H1.3.1 The building envelope enclosing spaces where the temperature or humidity (or both) are modified must be constructed to –
(a) provide adequate thermal resistance; and
(b) limit uncontrollable airflow.
H1.3.3 Account must be taken of physical conditions likely to affect energy performance of buildings, including –
(c) the airtightness of the building envelope;
Airtightness is not mentioned once in the existing or proposed H1/AS1 document.
2.2 Airflow, does not address H1.3.1 (b), as it talks about allowing a significant movement of air, rather than limiting or controlling airflow.
Question: Isn’t it time that the ministry addressed the issue of airtightness to improve thermal performance, thereby providing an acceptable solution that addresses all of H1?
A house is a whole system and the acceptable solution proposed does not address all of H1.
2.1. Cultural Inertia and General Industry Laziness
I understand that the schedule method is being removed because it supposedly adds cost. It is used as a default because designers can’t be bothered to learn to use the calculation or modelling methods.
It seems the decision to increase the the timber content of timber frames and reduce the insulation requirement, is because frame and truss suppliers sell timber by the linear metre, and make more money this way, plus the average builder hasn’t bothered to read NZS3604 8.5.4 Lateral support of studs.
Providing Table E1.1.1 to give default R-values, without considering the effect window sizes have on performance, because designers can’t be bothered working out R-values for each window and window suppliers don’t know how the click the box in their quoting software to provide this information for free.
Or is it because WGANZ know that the current mass market thermally broken aluminium joinery hasn’t a hope in hell of meeting the required Schedule Method R-values in Zone 5 or 6?
The issue with dumbing down our energy efficiency standards is that we are not progressing forward and meeting the stated objectives of the Act. We’re looking at providing a “Building for Dummies” document, without looking at the pitfalls of oversimplification on performance.\
Question: Are the proposed changes more about pandering to shear laziness combined with the cultural inertia of the building industry’s old boys’ network?
Shouldn’t MBIE and the Building Industry provide the necessary training to upskill the workforce, instead? This would be a much more progressive approach, with lasting long term lasting benefits for all of us in Aotearoa.
3. Previous Submissions
3.1. 2021 Consultation
This update was made following a consultation that received more than 700 submissions. In that consultation, we heard changes for insulation requirements were long overdue as New Zealand lagged behind other countries.
In the 2021 consultation 98% of respondents supported the proposal to increase minimum insulation requirements in the acceptable solution and verification method documents used to comply with H1. The feedback was summarised as telling us to “go as far and fast as possible, without breaking anything”
I’m still unconvinced that the last sentence was the outcome of the consultation. The outcome did not significantly close the gap with other countries. Countries like Ireland have since improved insulation values further. MBIE originally looked at outdated standards for Ireland.
3.2. 2022 Extension
This extension of time was driven by three building organisations, based on a misinformation campaign and a desire to fight changes rather than educate their members.
The delay meant that around 25,000 homes were built to a lesser standard, ultimately condemning NZ Inc to subsidising the upgrade of these houses in the future. This is a burden the taxpayer will have to bear, and is an example of not using resources responsibly along with short term thinking.
3.3. 2024 Concerns Raised
The concerns raised to the Minister by a group of “Tauranga builders”, have been shown to be primarily due to a lack of education and understanding of basic building science.
This is not surprising as builders are not taught building science during their apprenticeships.
Shouldn’t MBIE and the Building Industry provide the necessary training to upskill the workforce, instead? This would be a much more progressive approach with lasting long term lasting benefits for all of us in Aotearoa.
4. This Consultation
In recent meetings, key building and construction sector stakeholders told us that they generally supported the current H1 settings and expressed the following views:
• Using the calculation or modelling compliance methods usually results in better outcomes compared to the schedule method (see subsection 2.1.12.1.1 below for explanations of the different compliance methods).
• Any changes should be based on evidence. Assessment of costs and benefits should consider both upfront costs and long-term benefits. This includes energy efficiency improvements, and the health and wellbeing benefits of warmer and drier buildings.
• Industry has made significant investments to meet the current H1 settings. Reversing them is unlikely to reduce upfront costs due to the sunk costs of these investments.
• Insulation does not cause overheating. Overheating is caused by poor design. It would be advantageous for the sector to collectively put more effort into providing education for designers to avoid overheating and internal moisture issues.
• MBIE should also consider updating the Building Code to help to address overheating and internal moisture risks.
I consider that long term benefits need to be looked at in the context of the full operational life of the building, along with the benefits to societal systems as a whole in providing warmer, healthier homes for people and planet.
My concern is that short term drivers based on profit margins are being used to reduce the long-term benefit to society as a whole; climate change, hospital loads, power generation, productivity.
We are not looking at utilising today’s resources effectively for the benefit of tomorrow. This is what needs to happen, along with looking at a building as a whole connected system, that needs to be upgraded together.
5. Optimising insulation to better balance upfront building costs and longer-term benefits
5.1. Topic 1: The schedule method may lead to higher upfront costs and less cost-effective construction than the more flexible calculation and modelling methods
The BRANZ research concludes;
It should be noted that modelled energy efficiency was similar across all buildings. However, using the calculation and modelling methods, you can comply using significantly cheaper constructions than the schedule method – at least as long as the WWR is significantly below 30%. Using the calculation and modelling methods to achieve compliance with less insulation than the schedule method will result in higher energy use. The energy savings people report as a result of upgrading from H1/AS1 4th edition to the H1/AS1 5th edition schedule method insulation levels will be reduced in such situations.
Removing the schedule method will result in higher energy use. This is not the direction we should be taking, given the winter power price increases we’ve just experienced.
Perhaps the question shouldn’t be whether to just ditch the schedule method, but whether to ditch the modelling method and the reference building approach too?
BRANZ states that it should be noted there is a high degree of uncertainty in these results and the cost-effectiveness or net present value (NPV) – the value of all future cash flows (positive and negative) over the entire life of an investment discounted to the present – of different constructions may overlap significantly.
Further, to this, economic models don’t factor in the comfort levels of the occupants within the buildings.
The stated purpose of the Building Act includes the requirement;
“buildings have attributes that contribute appropriately to the health, physical independence and well-being of the people who use them;”
MBIE appears to be taking a backward step with the changes, not considering the purpose of the Act, when we need to move forward, faster.
6. My Information
My name is Damien McGill. My email address is damien@healthyhome.kiwi.
MBIE can contact me if they have any questions around my submission.
I’m submitting this as a private individual, but also as an engineer and Director of the Healthy Home Cooperation Limited.
I have a public role as Canterbury Chapter Lead for the Passive House Institute of New Zealand. I have previously published my submission online under my name, so I am happy for it to be shared. It will also be on www.healthyhome.kiwi
Questions for the Consultation
6.1. Topic 2: The calculation method contains restrictions to the flexibility of roof, wall and floor R-values that can lead to unnecessarily costly and complex construction in some buildings
6.1. Topic 3: Where underfloor heating is only used in bathrooms, the minimum R-values for heated floors may cause unreasonable upfront costs
6.2. Additional questions for topics 1 to 3
SQ1. What impacts from the proposals for topics 1 to 3 do you expect?
These may be economic/financial, environmental, health and wellbeing, or other areas.
The proposed changes above will do nothing to reduce build prices in reality. However, as BRANZ points out,given the continual increase in power prices and the cost-of-living crisis, the additional heating costs these changes will inflict, plus the reduction in comfort, will only make an expensive situation worse over time.
We should be utilising our resources responsibily. The solution is to stay the course and provide a legally enforceable road map towards 2035.
SQ2. Is there any support that you or your business would need to implement the proposed changes ifintroduced?
Nil. Our houses are energy modelled in PHPP and insulated and ventilated to a much higher standard that what is being proposed here. The standard of construction is insufficient and these changes don’t improve things significantly, if at all.
The reduction has the ability to affect the growth of this business, by indicating to people that better buildings are not needed.
This is a disaster for all of us in Aotearoa, as we’ll lock in the performance gap potentially into the next century.
SQ3. If there are other issues MBIE should consider to better balance upfront building costs and longer term benefits of insulation in housing and small buildings, please tell us.
Yes. Thanks for asking. Please refer to my questions under 1. Global Context.
I’d like a direct response to my questions, please.
7. Consistency and certainty of compliance and consenting
7.1. Topic 4: The modelling method includes requirements that are unclear or outdated
7.1. Topic 5: Thermal bridging from framing in walls is not adequately considered
Linkedin Link, In The Pursuit of Warmer, Healthier Homes...
Which Wall Works...
7.1. Topic 6: How the areas of roofs, walls and floors should be measured is unclear
Sustainable Engineering link...
8. Topic 7: NZS 4214 includes ambiguous instructions for determining the R-values of roofs, walls and some floors
9. Topic 8: For some mixed-use buildings it is unclear whether H1/AS1 and H1/VM1 can be used, or H1/AS2 and H1/VM2
10. Topic 9: The look-up tables with R-values for slab-on-ground floors do not cater for some common situations.
11. Topic 10: The look-up table with R-values for vertical windows and doors in housing misses some common glazing types
Linkedin Link...
Youtube Link...
12. Topic 11: Acceptable Solution H1/AS1 and Verification Method H1/VM1 include obsolete provisions and definitions, and outdated references to documents and tools
12.1. Additional questions for topics 4 to 11
SQ4. What impacts from the proposals for topics 4 to 11 do you expect?
These may be economic/financial, environmental, health and wellbeing, or other areas.
The problem is that the changes look to dumb down building standards, without consideration of the consequences, rather than providing badly needed industry training.
I expect that while the changes look to clarify and reflect industry practice, this will result in no building cost savings and no improvement to building standards. This is not a progressive step in the right direction for all of us in Aotearoa.
The solution is to stay the course and increase insulation standards so that we meet the 2035 ambitions, while looking to upgrade other areas such as ventilation and airtightness, with a system centric approach to building standards.
SQ5. Is there any support that you or your business would need to implement the proposed changes for topics 4 to 11 if introduced?
No support needed. We are already working to significantly higher standards.
The changes may have a negative effect on our business, by affecting the growth of this business, due to the government indicating to people that better buildings are not needed.
This is a disaster for all of us in Aotearoa, as we’ll lock in the performance gap potentially into the next century.
SQ6. If there are other issues MBIE should consider to better support consistency and certainty of compliance and consenting for insulation in housing and small buildings, please tell us.
There is a missed opportunity to sort out the timber fraction in walls once and for all, by clarifying that dwangs and nogs are not needed in most situations, using current standards; NZS3604:2011. The use of rigid air barriers and structural battens, means that nogs are not needed, except for fixing of fittings.
If MBIE is unwilling to address this issue head on, would MBIE be willing to add a Comment box, suggesting that improvements to thermal performance can be made by being more circumspect with the use of dwangs / nogs?
There is a significant monetary saving, by ditching dwangs and this is not limited to the frame price, there is also a time saving in cutting insulation to fit snugly.
However, over the life of the building, the largest saving will be in energy use, so no nogs is a win-win all around!
Also, a note about the need for insulating to be tightly fitting and fill all gaps, such as between external corner studs, or internal wall junctions, would be useful. See BRANZ Thermal Bridging webinar from 2021 for weak and blind spots.
https://www.branz.co.nz/shop/catalogue/webinar-thermal-bridging-in-timber-framed-walls_979/
It is time to require the use of external dimensions for energy modelling and removing the reference building to produce better results that better align with the not too distant transition to Building for Climate Change requirements.
It’s simply madness not to insulate under concrete floor slabs, when long term thinking is applied to the cost benefit equation. I quote Sustainable Engineering, because I can’t say it better myself; “(Concrete slabs are the default foundation for New Zealand homes. Not insulating them? That’s the dumbest thing imaginable, in almost every climate zone. You literally cannot fix an uninsulated slab. Even though retrofitting insulation above the slab is theoretically possible, the cost and the list of consequences is so massive it is practically impossible.)”
Please refer to the BRANZ Thermal Bridging webinar to review the below slide, showing the benefits of slab edge insulation on whole wall as built R-values. A 30-40% improvement was found.
Having realised the timber fraction in walls was incorrect, it is time to realise the R-values of windows in table E1.1.1 are also wildly incorrect.
There is also the missed opportunity of recessing windows to line up with the thermal envelope. This is a simple amendment to improve thermal performance that takes full advantage of the thermal break now required for aluminium joinery.
Finally, we need to holistically consider our collective future with a systems thinking approach. Better performing homes lead to improved health and productivity outcomes, which is better for NZ Inc in the long run.
The sooner the transition, the quicker we all get there.
12.2. Transition period for residential and small buildings H1/AS1 & H1/VM1
SQ7. Do you agree with the proposed transition time of 12 months for the proposed changes to take effect?
☐ Yes, it is about right
☐ No, it should be longer (24 months or more)
☐ No, it should be shorter (6 months or less)
☐ Not sure/no preference
Please explain your views.
No, it should be longer.
Given that most of these changes do nothing to improve thermal performance over the status quo, the longer it takes to implement them the better.
However, I suspect that unlike the first transition where certain building groups kicked and screamed until they got a delay, these changes will be accept much more quickly.
13. Managing overheating and internal moisture in homes
SQ8. If you think MBIE should support building designers with designing homes that safeguard building occupants from high indoor temperatures in summer (overheating) and other potential internal moisture risks, what approach should MBIE take?
We have building regulations that in the main consider the house as a whole system. However, when we look to upgrade one set of Acceptable Solutions, we need to also upgrade the rest of the system at the same time.
The impact of not doing so, is the risk of creating perverse results, like moisture causing mould, as increased ventilation is needed with improved insulation.
The Building Code considers overheating as follows;
H1.3.3 Account must be taken of physical conditions likely to affect energy performance of buildings, including –
(e) the local climate; and
(f) heat gains from solar radiation.
Overheating causes additional expense to cool the house, this affects the energy performance of the building.
Different climates respond differently.
MBIE need to provide an Acceptable Solution for addressing these two requirements above.
Energy modelling can help with reducing overheating by taking the house for a test drive before it’s built. This is why the energy modelling method is a much more powerful tool than the calculation method.
It’s time to phase out not just the Schedule Method, but also the Calculation Method and the reference building to better reflect what is happening without buildings.
Buildings should be designed to fixed energy targets, with comfort criteria such as defining maximum overheating percentages.
Sustainable Engineering recommends the use of TM59 to design for overheating.
https://www.cibse.org/knowledge-research/knowledge-portal/technical-memorandum-59-design-methodologyfor-the-assessment-of-overheating-risk-in-homes
https://sustainableengineering.co.nz/tm59-design-method-for-preventing-homesoverheating/?vgo_ee=02xPw5dIN3MBspQGX97Z8Jeqk8vVSjRrHl7SxXGp%2Fw81rMZfIw0i%3AY1cFBfhixuqvbFDlVVnwy5VbLjZnN%2BEy
14. Conclusions
What has happened to MBIE’s 2035 vision? The timeframe is now less than ten years away!
The Minister has already indicated to the media that decisions have been made, so this consultation process is really only an exercise in PR. Still, we must play the game, despite how energy inefficient this is.
While the proposed changes may be considered “gutsy” by some, they are really only an attempt to appease a political system by trying to thread a moving needle, without addressing any of the big issues that we are already aware are facing us in the fast-approaching medium term.
We can’t keep continuing to turn a blind eye to what is happening in the world around us, both onshore and offshore.
These changes are about facilitating the continuing laziness of the building industry and the cultural inertial of change resistance. They do not benefit the occupants of the houses being built.
These changes, instigated by a select, well connected few in the building industry, look to put profit before performance and profit before people. The result is short term thinking, based on up front prices to builders, rather than long term costs to people and planet.
The Minister’s aim of cheaper build prices will not come to fruition.
The cost to all of us taxpayers in New Zealand will be felt for generations, due to the need to upgrade energy infrastructure and houses built to this proposed standard in the future.
It is not an efficient long term use of finite resources to provide underperforming buildings across Aotearoa
15. H1 Recommendations
1. Ditch the Calculation Method.
2. Ditch the reference building concept.
3. Adopt absolute energy targets with comfort criteria in line with MBIE’s document Transforming Operational Efficiency; Building for climate change programme issued in August 2020, post haste.
4. Finally address H1.3.1 (b), by providing airtightness targets. BRANZ recommends 3 air changes per hour at 50 Pascals of pressure (3ach n50) to start with.
5. Address ventilation, by realising that mechanical ventilation is the only way forward.
6. Follow Scotland and adopt the Passive House standard. Don’t over complicate things by coming up with our own version; “Passive Whare”. The native version has been proven to work very well all around the world.
16. Final Word
The final word goes to BRANZ
Changes to the schedule method or reference model R-values should be approached with caution. If designers get used to using the calculation or modelling methods to support lower insulation levels, insulation could fall much further than intended.
It should be noted that it is already, for example, entirely possible to make houses with less insulation than that used under the H1 4th edition comply with the modelling method as it currently stands.
This is fundamentally at odds with MBIE’s own vision
Our vision is by 2035, New Zealand’s new buildings are using as little energy and water as possible. They are warmer, drier and better ventilated, and provide a healthier place for us all to work and live. The wellbeing of New Zealanders has improved, they’re leading healthier lives, and respiratory illnesses from cold and damp houses are uncommon. People also have more money in their pockets due to lower energy bills.
This is also fundamentally at odds with the stated purpose of the Building Act as laid out in section 3.
(a) to provide for the regulation of building work, to ensure that:
(i) people who use buildings can do so safely and without endangering their health;
(ii) buildings have attributes that contribute appropriately to the health, physical independence and well-being of the people who use them;
(iii) people can escape from the building if it is on fire; and
(iv) buildings are designed, constructed and able to be used in ways that promote sustainable development:
(b) to promote the accountability of owners, designers, builders and building consent authorities who have responsibilities for ensuring that building work complies with the building code.
Kia pai to ra (Have a nice day!)
Damien McGill
NZCE(Civil) MEngNZ
Certified Passive House Consultant
027 348 1110
damien@healthyhome.kiwi
HEALTHY HOME COOPERATION
Healthy Homes for all Kiwis. Housing is about people. People working together in cooperation to provide Healthy Homes for people to live in.
Damien McGill: Engineering Happy Healthy Homes for People & Planet
