Posts

Millions in UK at higher risk of illness due to damp in homes

  • Respiratory illnesses cost European Governments 82 billion Euros per year according to new German research
  • Velux Group calls for healthier homes across UK and Europe

84 million Europeans live in homes that are too damp, causing respiratory illnesses such as asthma and COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), according to new research from the German institute Fraunhofer IBP.

European governments’ expenditures on asthma and COPD in terms of hospitalisation, loss of productivity and medical treatment amounts to 82 billion Euros each year, according to the research.

In light of the findings, the VELUX Group is calling for healthier homes to be a central consideration for the new European framework for national building legislations, which will affect UK house builders once implemented.

The research from FraunhoferIBP, reveals the socio-economic costs of asthma and COPD, which are proven effects also of living in damp and unhealthy buildings. The costs are 82 billion Euros annually, covering European governments’ direct expenses on medical treatment and additional care for patients in- and outside of hospitals, as well as indirect costs due to loss of productivity.

The study also reveals that close to 84 million Europeans live in damp or mouldy dwellings, which increases their risk of having respiratory diseases and life-long allergies by 40%. This proves the number of people living in unhealthy buildings remains an issue, despite recent awareness of the correlation between indoor environment and human health.

“We are convinced that the development of respiratory illnesses as a result of damp buildings can be reduced, and it is now clearer than ever that the legal framework for buildings needs to support healthy indoor climates in new and existing buildings. This way, human lives could be improved, and it is also good for the economy too,” says Grant Sneddon, Product Manager, VELUX® GBI.

Sneddon points to the upcoming revision of Energy Performance of Buildings Directives, EPBD, under the Energy Union, where the framework for national building legislations will be set.

“It is a big concern to see that very many people spend their everyday lives in damp and unhealthy homes. What is more, the new research reveals for the first time that 2.2 million citizens have asthma directly because they live in unhealthy buildings,” says Prof. Dr. Gunnar Grün, head of department for energy efficiency and indoor climate at Fraunhofer IBP.

Fraunhofer’s research, based on a cross-sectional study, questionnaires and in-depth case studies across 32 European countries, estimates that the number of Europeans living in damp and unhealthy dwellings could be reduced by 50% by 2050, which could reduce the number of people with associated respiratory diseases by 25%. In the case of asthma, this could lead to a reduction of 550,000 people.

How to prevent dampness in homes

According to the Fraunhofer institute dampness is one of the main defects in buildings across Europe, primarily caused by inadequate building structures and home owners’ lack of attention to ventilate sufficiently. As a consequence, mould is likely to grow, however the risk of this can be reduced significantly by choosing the right building fabrics during renovations.

In April 2016 the VELUX Group completed the RenovActive project in Belgium, a home renovation based on Active House principles focusing on the building’s architectural quality, human health, comfort and well-being, energy efficiency, and environmental benefits.

A key element in the modernization is the prevention of indoor dampness and mould, which is ensured by a natural and continuous airflow in the house. Read more about RenovActive by clicking here.

The Fraunhofer IBP white paper, ‘Towards an identification of European indoor environments’ impact on health and performance,’ is now available here.
/0 Comments/by

Actively seeking designs for low-energy homes of the future

In construction, bringing a scientific approach to the design of a building that commits to an energy standard is not the easiest of things to achieve. When Passive House caught the imagination of those seeking answers to achieving an energy standard capable of dealing with today’s environmental problems, it seemed it would become the template for future buildings. However, the problem with science is there is always another answer and similar to politics, depending on how you define the question, the answer can lead elsewhere.

Active House, although not sitting directly opposite Passive House, is being proposed as a new option to the current issues. With the European target for all buildings to be near zero-energy by 2021, Active House design looks to achieve a neutral CO² balance without the rigorous Passive House standards that restrict many opportunities.

The principle behind the Active House approach is to consider both the passive and active components of a building, minimising the operational energy of a building as well as the emissions of each building and the embodied energy during construction whilst allowing architects more freedom.

Where passive design lays out ridged rules on heat demand regardless of size or function of a building thus creating a limit on design parameters, Active House states it takes a softer approach to heating requirements as part of the overall design which permits more flexibility to the architectural design of a building.

But which approach is right? Passive House has been around for 20 years-plus. It has a proven track record – although in a niche market in the UK – but many of its principles have become standard building practice such as air tightness, an awareness of thermal issues and solar-gain through fenestration.

The problem for architects lies in the limitations on a design that has to achieve a calculated heat demand which is the foundation stone of Passive House construction. I know from experience that trying to achieve a Passive House standard whilst working with an architect who is focused on design-first and an energy consultant who is constantly challenging his design, makes for uncomfortable construction.

Could Active House make life easier for architects and builders? Not an easy one to answer as with any type of construction the truth is in the detail and whilst passive may be difficult to build its issues and problems are known and we have answers to most of them. With Active House the idea requires a rethink on a new building energy standard that requires a balanced approach to each individual building and this could pose more than a few issues at the design stage.

So if you take the Active House design and for example a standard three-bedroom house that over a period of say 40 years will see several lifestyle changes and technological advances, how this will impact on the original design is very hard to say. But if you look back over the last 40 years the house we live in today is a different animal from the original design, and if we had designed it then based on a commitment to an Active House would it still stand the test of time?

One thing is for sure, there is no perfect answer to Europe’s drive towards reducing energy commitments and that will undoubtedly create long and protracted discussions across borders.

But without doubt delivering a one-type of design to suit all will be the hardest argument of all especially for builders.

By Martin Peat, Director, Richardson & Peat
/0 Comments/by