Energy Efficient Housing Design: briefing

Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report

HOUSING PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
16 April 2003
ENERGY EFFICIENT HOUSING DESIGN: BRIEFING

Chairperson:
Ms ZA Kota, ANC

Documents Handed Out
Energy Efficient Housing Design Powerpoint Presentation

SUMMARY
The Committee was briefed on the promotion of energy efficient housing design principle to policy makers by Palmer Development Consulting and O'Brian. Issues discussed included housing policy, delivery developments and challenges since 1994 as background. The focus was on the benefits offered by energy efficient housing design to Government low-income housing, with emphasis on improving the quality of low income houses and inhabitants.

MINUTES
The presenting team consisted of Marlett Wentzel, Head of Energy and Erica Roberts (researcher) from Palmer Development Corporation (PDC), as well as Mxolisi Evan Tyana, MD from O'Brian Communications Agency.

The purpose of the presentation was to promote the energy efficient housing design (EEHD) principle to policy makers. The principle referred to all available designs to improve energy applications in housing, and included the Solar Passive Design Principles. The EEHD offered solutions to many housing related problems facing the poor, and national leadership could influence policies to resolve housing problems of their constituencies.

Since 1994, the Government had invested R19 billion to deliver 1,5 million homes, providing shelter and security to 6 million people. But the vision of the housing policy had only been partially met, and there was a backlog of two million houses. Delivery was fragmented by:
-a slow processing of land claims
-a lack of suitable land for residential houses located close to areas of employment
- delays in registering land for transfer; limited access to housing finance by the poor (banks are refusing to finance low cost housing)
-a poor quality of houses (since 1994, many of the houses built were substandard).

R13,5 billion was budgeted to build the lagging two million houses over the next three years. The EEHD presented a window of opportunity for the Government to improve the quality of these houses that were still to be built. These houses should be built properly.

From the pilot project in four houses in Lady Grey, it became clear that there were major benefits (financial, health, environmental, and comfort) that the poor could derive from the EEHD. A design could require both the cost and a no cost factor. A no cost factor implied the practical elements of positioning the house structure: rooms, windows, and curtains. For example, a house could be designed with bedrooms facing the sunny (northern) side as the kitchen would usually benefit from the stove heat. A person could also open the curtains for the sun heat, and close curtains to prevent heat on hot days. This way people could benefit from natural energy rather than use heaters or air conditioners and save money.

The cost factor would include the actual installation of insulation and other EEHD equipment. The use of energy efficient material such as specific bricks, a choice of paint colour, or the surroundings of the yard (whether it was cement or grass) could help improve or reduce sun energy reflection and amount of heat into the house. The poor would save as it was cheaper to integrate EEHD with the design than to implement it afterwards. The EEHD did not have the extra cost. It was for everyone: rich, poor, home owners, and office bearers. EEHD house plans were available free of charge, with free advice and information through Green Professionals Programme (IIEC), International Solar Energy Society (ISES) and PDC.

Health, environmental, and comfort benefits were clear. As the poor could not afford clean fuels for space heating, many use alternatives such as 'Mbaulas' or brazziers which had lethal levels of carbon monoxide. In winter they had to burn coal, paraffin, and wood to heat homes - which led to smoke inside and outside homes. The result was air pollution which had massive health hazards: pneumonia, bronchitis, sinusitis and aggravated allergies that costs Government billions to treat. Energy efficient housing design would reduce air pollution, with resulting environmental benefits. It would also reduce energy related illnesses, and save the Governments billions in health costs. It would improve people's lives by increasing comfort in their homes.

Recommendations for the Government:
-It should promote policy that moves away from the quantity and concentrate on the quality of houses.
-Subsidy increase should be used to fund energy efficiency options at the discretion of the home owner.
-No cost options (structural positioning of houses to energy efficient angles of the sun), and the designing of houses according to climatic conditions of different areas, should be made mandatory. They should be built within tenders.
-There should be an increased involvement by local Governments in housing delivery.

Discussion
Ms Vos (IFP) asked if the project had also been taken to the public structures and the people in the ground.

The presenting team indicated that the project was new and ongoing. They had prioritised the leadership structures because of their role in policy making. Starting with the national Government, they would proceed to provincial, and local Governments before speaking to individuals and communities.

Mr Gregg Schneemann (ANC) said that the committee would have expected a much broader pilot work area than just four houses in Lady Grey. The main issue was energy costs, and that many people claimed that solar power was expensive.. How would costs could be minimised while extending capacity of lighting outdoors?

Presenters said that costs would vary, ranging from a no cost method to low cost, middle cost, and high costs. The principle did not always have to cost money though, she said. Many benefits could be derived from just proper positioning of the rooms of the house. The bedrooms and windows might for example, face the sunny side so as to access heat from the sun. There were many other no cost options that could be ensured in a house design before cost alternatives are used. The whole package might cost up to R30,000.

Ms Marlett Wentzel, Head of Energy, Palmer Developing Consulting (PDC) emphasised the issue of appropriateness. EEHD might not be appropriate and should not to be prioritised where ordinary electrification was abundant and cheap. This principle should be promoted in rural areas where people would either have this project or no electricity at all.

Mr Skhosana (ANC) questioned why presenters made the choice of words: "since 1994…". He asked if they implied that it was better before 1994 or what exactly they meant. Did problems only lie with houses built by the Government, and not the privately built houses.

It was related that 1994 was not chosen to compare from other years. It indicated the period since which, they have looked. Other periods such as 1993 have not been looked at and were therefore unknown. Not enough information was available on the problems of privately built houses.

A DA member asked if the EEHD required ordinary cement foundations or something different, and where building material for EEHD designed houses was obtained. Was it imported? Clarity on costs were requested as solar was so expensive, bearing in mind that these were meant to be RDP houses.

The answer was an admission that subsidies were often too low and might not cover the costs, and an option of increasing subsidies should be considered.

Ms Wentzel said that there was no need for specific products that were not available locally. The presentation was not meant to push for specific suppliers, but all products were available locally. There was no need for importing anything. Regarding foundations, ordinary bricks and cement were used.

Mr Schneemann (ANC) asked if interactions with builders had been undertaken, and to what extent. Had efforts been made by presenters to educate the public?

Presenters said that they were still consolidating support from the official perspective before going to the public.

A DA member asked what exactly the presenters want the committee to do.

Presenters said that the committee should make specific EEHD requirements mandatory and part of the tender process, promote a public awareness programme, compel banks to lend to the lower income market, and be very specific to insist on cost saving design methods.

The NNP member commented that the EEHD might have a lot of hidden costs, and the committee should be very careful in taking any decision. A workshop would have to take place before any decision was made.

Chairperson confirmed with presenters that this was just a lobby group that sought to influence the decision making process. There were however, many other lobby groups whose inputs needed to be considered.

Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: