Context 166 - November 2020

Editor Rob Cowan Editorial Coordinator Michael Taylor, ihbceditorialboard@gmail.com Editorial Board Tom Copp Nigel Crowe Peter de Figueiredo (book reviews) Rebecca Madgin Andrew McClelland Fiona Newton Louise Priestman Gordon Sorensen Jonathan Taylor Michael Taylor (chair) Cartoons by Rob Cowan Context is distributed to all members of the Institute of Historic Building Conservation. © Institute of Historic Building Conservation 2020 ISSN 0958-2746 Publisher Cathedral Communications Limited, High Street, Tisbury,Wiltshire, England SP3 6HA 01747 871717 context@cathcomm.co.uk www.buildingconservation.com Non-member subscriptions to Context Context is available to corporate bodies at an annual subscription rate, including postage, of: United Kingdom £60.00 Elsewhere £90.00 Context on-line archive Past issues of Context can be viewed on the IHBC website. The archive provides a searchable database and reference for key articles. See www.ihbc.org.uk/page55/ context_archive. The views expressed in Context are not necessarily held by the IHBC or the publisher. Neither the publisher nor the IHBC shall be under any liability whatsoever in respect of contributed articles. We gratefully acknowledge the support of firms whose advertisements appear throughout this publication.While every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained in this issue of Context is current and correct, neither the IHBC nor the publisher can be held responsible for any errors or omissions which may occur. Context themes and copy deadlines Context Context will be published four times in 2021, in March, June, September and December. The next three themes and copy deadlines are: Urban Design , March, issue 167 (08 January) Digital Technology and its Applications , June, issue 168 (9 April) Amenity Societies , September, issue 169 (9 July) Please contact Michael Taylor at ihbceditorialboard@gmail.com to discuss any editorial submissions or for information about the Context editorial board. 2 C O N T E X T 1 6 6 : N O V E M B E R 2 0 2 0 Briefing Climate change update John Preston writes: The Citizens’ Climate Assembly’s report, commissioned by six select committees, is at www. climateassembly.uk/report/.Well received, and with radical and wide-ranging recommendations, it awaits the government’s response. For buildings, it proposes deep rather than staged retrofit; there is no mention of traditional buildings. The report is a salutary reference for wider public feeling. Context readers may find more encouragement in some of the published submissions to the Environmental Audit Committee’s Inquiry into Energy Efficiency of Existing Homes: see https:// committees.parliament.uk/work/309/ energy-efficiency-of-existing- homes/publications/written- evidence/. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) submitted a very complacent response (EEH 0024), and there has been no response from the MHCLG. There is a very wide range of succinct submissions, including CLA, National Trust, Historic England, IHBC, STBA, CIOB, RIBA, RICS, AJ, FMB and Architects Climate Action Network). The RIBA and the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, among others, highlight the issues of energy performance certificates. My own hasty submission is at EEH 0104.We wait to see whether the committee takes notice of the issues raised, but the submissions collectively provide potentially invaluable references. The first written evidence from the committee’s parallel Inquiry into Greening the post-Covid Recovery is published at https:// committees.parliament.uk/work/306/ greening-the-postcovid-recovery/ publications/written-evidence. The committee asked about issues with joined-up government. The topicality of this question was promptly demonstrated by the new Green Homes Grants, introduced as a supposedly ‘green’ post-Covid recovery measure, with all work to be completed by 31 March. The available government advice is very limited – see www. simpleenergyadvice.org.uk/pages/ what-can-i-do-to-refurbish-an- old-house. It seems that the BEIS queried the ludicrously short timescale, but the Treasury would not budge. Trustmark’s guidance for Green Homes Grant installers shows that PAS 2035 will apply only if the building is ‘protected’, but not for unprotected traditional buildings. This scheme disregards the severe industry capacity and skills issues in relation to traditional buildings. It is based on individual measures rather than the whole house approach required under PAS 2035, and its timescale requires works to be completed at the wettest time of the year: all fraught with entirely predictable risks of unintended consequences. Please can anyone involved in Green Homes Grant application/s for traditional buildings share their experience of this process? Concurrently the MHCLG introduced, without consultation or reference to the 2018 EPC call for evidence, a revised format for the domestic EPC, which downgrades the environmental impact rating (EIR), the key carbon emissions metric, and is contrary to PAS 2035. The Sustainable Traditional Buildings Alliance (STBA) made an additional submission to the committee highlighting the failings of both the Green