Flat earth
Finished Photos: Tom Manley / John Gilbert Architect
Chris Morgan Chris Morgan

Flat earth

What do you do when a building type is inefficient, common, hard to treat – and often used to house vulnerable people? Chris Morgan of leading passive house architects John Gilbert Architects tells the story of an extraordinary pilot project that may show the way to solve the stickiest of problems.

Click here for project specs and suppliers

Building type: Victorian sandstone tenement with eight one-bed flats – each circa 49 m2
Method: Mix of internal and external insulation, hygrothermal simulation, thermal bridging calculations, heat recovery ventilation, mix of air-to-water heat pump and gas boilers
Location: Niddrie Road, Glasgow
Standard: Near Enerphit
Space heating cost: Too soon to say definitively – monitoring is ongoing

Built around 1900, the building at 107 Niddrie Road is a stone tenement consisting of eight one-bedroom flats over four storeys, located in the inner south side of the city. Southside Housing Association (SHA) approached John Gilbert Architects (JGA) to look at refurbishing the building. Unusually, SHA owned all the flats in the close and, even more unusually, all flats were empty.

This presented an almost unique opportunity to undertake a much more comprehensive refurbishment than is normally possible.

The project was conceived before the Passive House Institute developed its Enerphit unit pilot project, which enables certification of individual flats within a building. To achieve the standard, the whole block would need to be upgraded. For this reason, JGA proposed an Enerphit level retrofit, along with two other, less rigorous options.

Initially, it was decided to pursue a relatively conventional retrofit. However, a consortium including SHA and JGA along with the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence (CaCHE) at the University of Glasgow, and Prof. Tim Sharpe at the University of Strathclyde Department of Architecture, were successful in bidding for a significant tranche of funding from the Scottish Funding Council to disseminate best practice in retrofit ahead of the 2021 COP Climate summit in Glasgow.

The project was upgraded to an Enerphit project and re-cast as an exemplar of what to do with the 75,000 iconic pre-1919 sandstone tenements across Glasgow. The age, built form, condition and multiple forms of ownership of these tenements constitute major challenges for the achievement of net zero emission targets across Scotland. To ensure wider lessons were learnt from the project, the project has been evaluated and monitored to assess the success of the strategies employed.

Although passive house and Enerphit tend to be considered as focussing primarily on energy efficiency and closing the performance gap, we were keen to demonstrate a range of wider potential benefits that include health and comfort improvements for occupants, as well as showing how such high performance requirements can be integrated with health, climate change adaptation and heritage considerations.

Flat earth 01

Retrofit measures

If the whole building is to be tested, the airtightness layer across the whole building should be accessible at the same time.

The diagram shows the basic measures that were put in place. Insulation and airtightness in the roof and beneath the floor were installed as normal, although of course much more effort was needed to close off the thermal bridges at the junctions with the walls. We opted to form an airtight layer on the inside of all external walls using lime plaster.

This allowed us to avoid potential thermal bypass and air leakage ‘at source’ and felt like a more suitable way of achieving the modern concept of airtightness with a traditional technique.

External wall insulation was proposed for the rear (South) elevation as well as the partially obscured gable elevation, as these were considered less important than the street elevation from a planning and conservation perspective. Although there was some initial resistance from the planning department, it was all eventually agreed. Because of the rigours of Enerphit and the relatively low levels of insulation on the street side, we had to increase the thickness of external insulation to 200 mm, with attendant issues for reveals, cills and fixings generally.

Window openings on the south side of the building were enlarged slightly (central stone mullions were removed) to increase solar gain. Planning insisted on a central timber mullion in all of these windows to visually ‘replace’ the mullion we had removed, which reduced the benefits of the new triple glazed windows somewhat, and we were also obliged to install ‘mock’ oversized cills to mimic the stone cills that were being covered up.

It was felt that even though the building is not in a conservation area, external insulation to the stone facade would not be appropriate, so an internal wall insulation solution was designed. Internal wall insulation is tricky though because it can cause increased risks associated with moisture, but we were also keen to trial the technique we had seen abroad where the insulation is installed directly against the masonry, relying not on air movement, but on the vapour permeability and hygroscopicity of the insulation to manage the moisture risk. Great care was taken and the whole element tested using WUFI hygrothermal calculations.

Flat earth 05

The WUFI calculations carried out by Greengauge demonstrated that all elements were safe, except the timbers in the internally- insulated wall facing the street and so it was decided to remove these. Removing joists increased costs but ensured that no future decay could come back to haunt the client. It also simplified the forming of the airtightness layer. Instead of being buried in the wall, a new perimeter beam was installed with insulation behind which also ensured that the otherwise tricky floor-to-wall detail was wholly thermal bridge-free.

One of the aspects of the push towards energy efficient retrofit that concerns us as a practice is that both planning / conservation and cost pressures are driving many towards, in some cases, poorly conceived internal insulation solutions. We worry about the long term effects this will have on moisture and maintenance of these retrofitted buildings, as well as the possible knock-on effects on occupant health.

The whole face of the building on the street side was re-pointed in lime, and damaged stone was replaced with matching sandstone components and some Lithomex lime-based repair mortars. This was in part a conservation effort, but also ensures that the inside of the insulated walls are kept as dry as possible by ensuring that the outer face of the wall was in tip top condition.

North elevation: stone work was in a poor state of repair. All cement pointing raked out, and stones marked up for indents or Lithomex repair
North elevation: stone work was in a poor state of repair. All cement pointing raked out, and stones marked up for indents or Lithomex repair

It was originally proposed to retain the existing gas boilers, but the funders were keen to see a demonstration of renewable technologies. However, it was not possible to agree with the planning department a fully renewable solution, so a compromise was reached where air source heat pumps (ASHPs) were located on the adjacent ground. These heat pumps supply heat to the four lower flats, while gas boilers supply the upper flats.

In addition to recovering heat from the outgoing air, we also specified wastewater heat recovery (WWHR) technology to recover heat from the outgoing hot water.

Example of a Lithomex repair to one of the curved bay cill stones, new indented lintel stone below
Example of a Lithomex repair to one of the curved bay cill stones, new indented lintel stone below

With low space heating demand, the hot water would become the largest component of any future heating bills, and WWHR systems help to mitigate this risk.

The rooms themselves were re-configured to improve layout and meet modern space standards. Old wiring was entirely stripped out and large areas of poor plaster finishes were replaced. A number of structural repairs were made, and decayed timber was repaired.

While a conventional chemical company quoted around £20,000 to spray the timbers of the building with chemical fungicides and biocides, JGA opted instead to engage a building pathologist to advise. With John Durie from Heritage & Design Ltd, suitable specifications were agreed which meant none of those chemicals were needed while ensuring the long term durability of the timber, and the health of the occupants.

A number of measures were introduced to support the building, occupants and client in adapting to the incoming demands of climate change. Care was taken to reduce the risk of overheating to zero per cent in PHPP through minor tweaks in glazing and opening sizes, although the relatively small south-facing windows meant the risk was already low, while additional measures were introduced to protect the building in the long term from increased rainfall.

Process

From a design perspective, by far the biggest issues were encountered in achieving planning permission. This took over a year and involved a great deal of dialogue and compromise. By contrast the building control process was very simple.

Contractors CCG were engaged from the outset and provided cost feedback and practical input. There was no tender process, but costs were independently assessed by a quantity surveyor. Works commenced in the Spring of 2021 with the intention of completing by the time of COP26 in November of that year. In the event, construction was finished in the autumn of 2022.

Large areas of internal finishes needed to be replaced which prolonged the early process, but otherwise works progressed without undue hiccups. The only major issue was that, ultimately, the necessary airtightness level was not achieved meaning that the project could not be certified as an Enerphit. The project taught us an important lesson as architects going forward: agree in advance with clients that we can insist contractually on the process employed by contractors to deliver airtightness. If the whole building is to be tested, the airtightness layer across the whole building should be accessible at the same time. This process is necessary to enable simple assessment, and to ensure that the project is at the required level of airtightness before internal finishes start to get in the way.

Flat earth 04

This article was originally published in issue 49 of Passive House Plus magazine. Want immediate access to all back issues and exclusive extra content? Click here to subscribe for as little as €15, or click here to receive the next issue free of charge

Inputting the actual airtightness results into PHPP gave us a final figure of 25.9 kWh/m2/a which shows how agonisingly close we came given the almost tenfold reduction from pre-retrofit performance, but it was irrelevant as the airtightness result itself was a standalone requirement of Enerphit.

After the lengths we had gone to as architects it also caused some reflection on the merits of a pass / fail threshold over a more graduated system, as this ‘all or nothing’ approach may represent an unacceptable risk to development managers.

Monitoring and analysis of Niddrie Road being undertaken by Prof. Tim Sharpe and Dr Alejandro Moreno-Rangel at Strathclyde University is ongoing. Although it is too soon to give definitive figures, early indications are that in most cases, the annual space heating usage is aligned with the 25 kWh/ m2/yr threshold for Enerphit, although usage is higher in two cases.

In all cases temperature, relative humidity and CO2 measurements remained within desired ranges and the properties did not appear to be adversely affected by one particularly warm period. The dwellings remained below 1,000 ppm CO2 for the whole period of monitoring thus far and there was no evidence of ventilation systems being turned off or disconnected. Ongoing measurements of interstitial condensation risk have indicated no concerns. Occupant feedback has been positive in relation to comfort and air quality, but with some concerns raised about equipment issues, particularly the heat pumps, a couple of which had early teething problems.

In addition a project-wide review was undertaken by CaCHE and others which returned a broadly positive review while acknowledging some of the challenges which had been faced.

Interestingly a mainstream cost benefit analysis (CBA) was also undertaken which took a 30-year view and included an assessment of carbon. This analysis assessed the Enerphit approach against two counterfactuals and ran several sensitivity analyses against different assumptions, including a standard retrofit and a demolish and re-build alternative. It showed that the retrofit options were always better than the new-build option, while the long-term performance of the two retrofit approaches was comparable in purely cost terms.

However, it was noted that only the Enerphit approach got close to a net zero future, and that the comparability of the costs depended on whose money was being counted. In the standard retrofit, money was saved through a lower capital cost, but it was balanced in the long term by higher fuel bills.

This saved money for whoever funded the build but meant the occupants – all on social rent (and potentially housing benefit) were paying much more. Conversely, the savings made in the Enerphit model were all by those who have arguably most need. In the conversation about a just transition, the case for low energy buildings remains strong.

Occupant feedback

By Prof. Tim Sharpe and Dr Alejandro Moreno- Rangel, Department of Architecture, University of Strathclyde.

Occupants’ feedback on the indoor environment, energy use and overall satisfaction was collected on the first visit to each flat. Occupants reported overall satisfaction with all the aspects of the home, particularly the low energy bills.

Several of the occupants reported not having to pay for electricity during the period of the energy rebate from the government between October 2022 and March 2023. From a fuel poverty and affordability perspective, this was very positive for occupants as this suggests that the monthly energy bills were below £66 even with particularly high energy prices, and that some of this credit may have even rolled out to the further months. Some quotations from the interviews are:

“I wish all the homes were like this one. I have been very happy since I moved in and I don’t need to worry about the energy bills”

“The house was too warm during winter, but after a visit from the engineers to look out to my boiler everything was good. I haven’t had any problems since then. My house is comfortable and cheap to heat.”

Flat earth 06

Selected project details

Client: Southside Housing Association

Architect: John Gilbert Architects (JGA)

Civil / structural engineer: Design Engineering Works

Energy consultant: JGA + Passivhaus Associates

Project management: John Gilbert Architects (JGA)

Main contractor: CCG (Scotland)

Quantity surveyors: NBM Cost Consultants

Airtightness tester/consultant: JGA + Thermal Image UK

Passive house certifier: WARM

Wall insulation: EWI - K Systems

Thermal breaks: Foamglas

Airtightness products: Pro Clima, from Ecological Building Systems

Windows and doors: Green Building Store (now 21 Degrees)

Drainage / paving: Rainwater Goods - Alumasc

Heat pump: Mitsubishi Ecodan

Gas boilers: Vaillant

MVHR: Zehnder, via Paul Heat Recovery

Water conserving fittings: Recoup Waste Water Heat Recovery

Project overview

Holistic and ultra-low energy retrofit of a traditional Scottish sandstone tenement in Glasgow.

Building type: Sandstone built, four-storey tenement, built around 1900. Eight one-bedroom flats either side of central stair. Flats are around 47 m2 each. Traditionally built: solid sandstone walls, timber roof and floors with slate roof.

Site type & location: Urban site, Niddrie Road, Southside, Glasgow

Budget: Initial pre-start price was c. £700k which was c. £88k per flat, of which c. £36k per flat (43 per cent) was for energy upgrades, the rest for planned maintenance and repair works. Significant additional strip-out was required meaning the ultimate cost of the project was just over £1m. All of this additional cost related to repair and maintenance work except for the replacement of four gas boilers with ASHPs as required by funding bodies. Costs exclude building purchase (already owned) and fees

Completion date: Site start: July 2020

Completion: June 2022

Passive house certification: Not sought. Certifiers WARM were involved all the way through

Space heating demand: Before: 235 kWh/m2/yr (using SAP and as an average over several flats).

After: 25.9 kWh/m2/yr using PHPP and factoring in 1.65 air leakage

Heat load: Before: Not calculated.

After: 18.7 W/m2 using PhPP

Primary energy non-renewable (PHPP):

Before: Not calculated. After: 140 kWh/m2/yr

Primary energy renewable (PHPP):

Before: Not calculated. After: 87 kWh/m2/yr

Heat loss form factor: 2.08, using PHPP

Overheating: 0 per cent of year above 250C, using PHPP

Environmental assessment method: RdSAP / SAP PHPP

Embodied carbon: Not calculated

Energy performance certificate (EPC):

Before: Range from E54 - D57.

After: Range from B81 - B85

Monitored energy use:

Before: Not monitored - building was empty.

After: Monitoring – which does not include metres on heating appliances – is ongoing, so it is too soon to give definitive results. Thermal bridging: All significant thermal bridges were calculated in THERM by WARM as a separate contract to the certification process. Important adjustments made to otherwise standard detailing included at the eaves on both front and rear, as well as around the ground floor perimeter. We also carried out WUFI hygrothermal calculations which led us to adjust the mid-floor details as well, and this had knock-on benefits on the thermal bridging as well as avoiding moisture risk.

Airtightness (at 50 Pascals):

Before: Not tested.

After: 1.6 ACH

Ground floor:

Before: e.g. Uninsulated timber suspended floor: 1.9 W/m2K.

After: 325 mm mineral wool insulation between and below floor joists, airtightness membrane over original boards and breather membrane below. U-Value: 0.11 W/m2K

North (street facing) walls:

Before: Solid sandstone with mix of original lath and plaster or modern plasterboard internal lining over c.50 mm cavity. U-value: 1.4 W/m2K

After: External face of stone repaired / lime pointed. Internal linings removed, lime parge directly onto masonry (windtightness), 120 mm wood fibre boards and lime plaster skim (airtightness) with mineral paint decoration. U-value: 0.38 W/m2K

South + west (rear facing + gable) walls:

Before: Solid sandstone with mix of original lath and plaster or modern plasterboard internal lining over c.50 mm cavity. U-value: 1.5 W/m2K.

After: 200 mm mineral wool external insulation boards over masonry with silicone render. Lime parge coat internally for airtightness. U-value: 0.18 W/m2K

Roof:

Before: Open vented attic with uninsulated ceiling, lath and plaster ceiling. U-value: 1.9 W/m2K.

After: 490 mm mineral wool laid between joists and over with wind-tightness breather membrane over. Plaster ceiling skimmed for airtightness. U-value: 0.07 W/m2K

Windows & doors:

Before: Mix of single and double glazed PVCu windows. Overall approximate U-value: 3.00 W/m2K.

After: New triple glazed windows from Green Building Store (21 Degrees). PHI certified Ultra tilt + turn triple glazed insulated timber with 2x argon fill, 98 profile. FSC Certification, Secure by Design, Class 4 Airtightness. Overall whole window U-value of 0.68 W/m2K (to BS EN 14351)

Heating system 1:

Before: c. 15-yr old gas boilers + radiators.

After: Mitsubishi Ecodan FTC6 Packaged Cylinder with Ecodan R32 Monobloc External Unit. 200 litre storage. New radiators throughout

Heating system 2:

Before: c. 15-yr old gas boilers + radiators.

After: Valiant ecoTEC pro combi boilers. New radiators throughout

Ventilation:

Before: Openable windows. Some flats had intermittent extract fans in kitchens or bathrooms or both

After: Zehnder ComfoAir 160 installed in bathroom ceilings with semi-rigid ducting in hallway lowered ceilings to all rooms. PHI certified @ 89 per cent HR efficiency

Water: Recoup Easyfit+ wastewater heat recovery system. Installed in six upper flats but not two ground floor flats

Electricity: No renewable electricity generation or storage

Sustainable materials: Woodfibre used for internal insulation. Lime mortar used in preference to plastic membranes for airtightness. No chemicals used for timber treatment / certification provided by consultant rather than treatment company. Lime pointing, lithomex, stone repair and Keim mineral paint to external face of internally insulated walls. Triple glazing was timber frame. Internal paint was mineral based.

Image gallery

Marketplace + companies featured in this article

Paul Heat Recovery

Heat recovery ventilation and indoor climate solutions

Greengauge

Greengauge is a building & engineering consultancy specialising in sustainable, low energy design.

Ecological Building Systems

Our ethos at Ecological Building Systems is to achieve 'Better Building' by adopting a 'Fabric First' approach to design.