{"id":159379,"date":"2026-02-20T06:34:31","date_gmt":"2026-02-20T06:34:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.pbctoday.co.uk\/news\/?p=159379"},"modified":"2026-03-19T22:08:48","modified_gmt":"2026-03-19T22:08:48","slug":"the-environment-as-a-design-constraint-or-taking-responsibility-as-professionals","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.pbctoday.co.uk\/news\/energy-news\/the-environment-as-a-design-constraint-or-taking-responsibility-as-professionals\/159379\/","title":{"rendered":"The environment as a design constraint – or taking responsibility as professionals"},"content":{"rendered":"

Many of the causes of climate change are beyond the scope of building design but changing the way we procure, design and construct buildings shouldn\u2019t be \u2013 and the hard truth is the built environment has failed on embedding sustainability for too long, writes Chris Halligan MCIAT CEnv<\/h2>\n

The last three years has seen the average global temperature exceed 1.5C, which was the threshold governments promised to avoid under the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. A high emissions scenario is now far more likely and, if so, we will be lucky to keep the global temperature increase to under 4.5C by the end of the century. Such an increase actually threatens human survival.<\/p>\n

So after 20-odd years of our regulations supposedly driving us further towards sustainable outcomes, in reality we\u2019ve failed \u2013 and we are continuing to fail. Why?<\/p>\n

In pre-industrial times, buildings would be constructed largely from local materials and would have to exploit the available benefits of the local climate [See Image 1].<\/p>\n

\"\"
Image 1<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

This gave rise to a huge variety of building forms which would have to be capable of being used within their respective climates. However, with industrialisation, we seem to have arrived at solutions that differ little from each other, no matter which part of the world they are in.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, instead of the buildings themselves being designed to harmonise with the environment, we depend on engineers to condition their interiors by technological add-ons. These technological solutions are often assessed in isolation without taking into account sustainability as a whole.<\/p>\n

Our technological mindset drives us to seek \u201cmagic bullets\u201d such as electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel and artificial intelligence<\/a>, which we hope will solve the climate emergency but in many cases seem to make matters worse<\/a>.<\/p>\n

However, the natural environment is very complicated. There are no simple answers \u2013 especially if we choose to only address isolated elements of it. [See Image 2]<\/p>\n

\"\"
Image 2<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

I would contend that we aren\u2019t actually addressing the causes. Instead, we are trying to find \u201cworkarounds\u201d that don\u2019t interfere too much with our present social and economic activities. Even the concept of \u201cnet zero\u201d is only aimed one aspect of sustainability \u2013 operational carbon \u2013 when there are many other issues of equal importance impacting on the environment<\/a>.<\/p>\n

A short-sighted approach<\/h3>\n

If we look at a pyramid diagram, we see a path from inception to completion, which starts with looking at the site before any ideas of design are even considered [See Image 3].<\/p>\n

We can see how we move through the design process<\/a> to creating the fabric and performance in use. Then (and only then) should we introduce renewables to meet the resultant reduced load.<\/p>\n

But what we do at the moment is to effectively ignore the first three tiers and expect the last two to sort it all out.<\/p>\n

This rather short-sighted approach often leads to unforeseen consequences \u2013 such as internal overheating, which is becoming a noticeable issue in buildings<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The overheating of new housing is partially driven (ironically) by an attempt to be more sustainable. Recent planning legislation changes have demanded higher densities of site use, which has led to three- and four-storey dwellings becoming more common. This density impacts on the building\u2019s ability to dissipate heat.<\/p>\n

In addition, with the move towards \u201croom-in-the-roof\u201d designs, these top storeys will be more prone to overheating due to their thermally lightweight construction.<\/p>\n

\"\"
Image 3<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Even renewable energy solutions are presenting unforeseen problems. By 2050, it is estimated that there will be 60m tonnes of waste photovoltaic panels globally. These, like any composite material, aren\u2019t easily recycled, so will eventually be part of the problem rather than the solution<\/a>. Yet UK Building Regulations drive you toward PVs to comply with the minimum standard.<\/p>\n

Design principles ignored<\/h3>\n

There are fundamental principles of design which, if applied properly, can have a substantial impact on both the comfort and energy requirements of a building. These include:<\/p>\n