Call for ban on south-facing homes

Having lived in Northern Alberta in Canada with winter temperatures down to minus 45 at times,and summer temps of plus 35 degrees C, we had a new house built with double glazing with natural gas fired air heating. The inside temp. was set for plus 20 degrees C and that was great to live in. No need for sweaters inside, or electric blankets. Note that unlike NZ houses, the outside face of the framing was completely clad with half inch exterior plywood. Fibre-glass insulation was three and a half inch thick. There is absolutely no justification for requiring triple glazing in Dunedin with its balmy climate! Double glazing - maybe, but there is a lot more to insulating a home effectively then only double glazing the windows. Please don't reinvent the wheel. Have a look at the City of Edmonton housing insulation regulations.

It is always easier to be a critic then it is to be creative.

I work for a solar power company and you I guess are just a consumer of energy, complaining about how you get your drug.

The reason that our building code requires double glazing in the South Island is that it's enough for our environment. Thermally broken frames may also be required depending upon the situation, which is logical.

Triple glazing is used in places like Scandinavia or Russia, where it regularly gets below minus 20 or even 30. Double glazing is perfectly adequate for our environment, but if you want more, there is nothing stopping you from getting it.

What is wrong with allowing people to make their own decisions within reasonable guidelines?

Double glazing is of course a minimum requirement as per the NZ building code. But why not triple glazing like in some parts of Europe, and why not framing with a thermal break rather than the aluminium frames which are still permitted in NZ?

Why does NZ deliberately lag so far behind when it comes to protecting its citizens?

It's already a requirement for new homes and alterations in the South Island, as is insulation to a standard. This is all contained in the H1 Compliance section of the Building Code, and anybody designing buildings in NZ will be familiar with it. 

I haven't lived in Dunedin for 16 years, but I do remember how bitterly cold the south-easters could be. Houses in Dunedin are typically fairly poorly insulated.  Something, I agree, should be done.   

Okay, so rather than demand that everyone should line up and salute north why not make double-glazing mandatory, along with insulation to some agreed standard, particularly in the ceilings?   

Here in Britain houses are typically a lot warmer than those in Dunedin despite much colder winters, and those two ingredients are the reason why.   Well, that and double-brick construction, but I'm not advocating that in an earthquake-prone area.

Not all of our DCC councillors are like Fliss Butcher. The trouble is that the remaining other councillors seem to lack a strong enough combination of common sense and courage to oppose these loopy ideas. Fliss' outburst should have been strongly ridiculed so as to not cause further damage to the council's reputation. However the responses from the other councillors seemed to be aimed at not hurting her feelings. I expect that most councils have a lunatic fringe; the way to deal with them is to ensure that their influence on decisions is minimised.

The most horrifying aspect of this episode is described in the last paragraph where we read that Cr Butcher's unpopular idea was going to be discussed directly with the City Development Manager with some unknown degree of influence on the spatial plan. I am sure that it is these type of un-official, back-door liaisons between staff and some councillors that have caused some of the poor decision-making that we have seen here in recent times. Instructions to staff should always represent the majority opinion and should always be the result of a vote.

[Abridged]

When a new house is designed, it must meet the BCA H1 requirements for Energy Efficiency. The calculations involved are an arduous exercise (trust me, they are) but the result is that houses are actually already designed to take their orientation into account.

Perhaps, as a rule, anybody wanting to build should be made to go straight to Councillor Butcher and get her advice on how they should live.

She could then advise them on the merits of having your entire house facing north. She could avoid topics such as glare, fading, reflection, privacy, road-noise, neighbours, access, views, practicality, buildability, Council boundary restrictions etc etc etc (or even just a general desire not to face north).

[Abridged]

What about the council getting the street trees sorted first? In Surrey St they block the sun from houses, fill the street gutters and the roof ones with leaves, and crack the footpath and driveways. Replace them if you must with smaller types that don't cause all this damage and let the sun onto the front of the houses.

South facing houses in Dunedin are one of my pet peeves.

I mean seriously...  My wife and I went out of our way to try and find a nice north-facing home of brick construction (for what I hope should be fairly obvious reasons), and I'm glad we persevered.

Sunshine. You made my point well. We are not Australia or Europe. Property owners should have the right to build where they wish.

This has nothing to do with renters vs. the rich. Thank you for helping me understand your true intentions here. Building a home is not an egalitarian endeavour.

Why stop with south facing homes Fliss? I want to buy a car that will use more petrol than the average motor...Stop me...Please. 

Or perhaps the DCC could bring in a policy about energy-efficent light bulbs?... Hang on, just got hit with deja vu.

Cr Butcher has suggested an entirely modern requirement for north facing homes. What a surprise hearing that in Dunedin.

Australia and Europe of course already legislate adequate insulation and design features.

Mention of a Nanny state is nonsense, more like the same rights for the renter as for the rich.

... looking after our welfare like that.  Where would we be without Fliss to keep us on the straight and narrow.

I for one will be sad to see her go.  She is clearly the most entertaining councillor we have, with the possible exception of Lee Vandervis.

I don't agree with a ban on building south facing homes, but surely we should have building regulations that vary depending on the location of the house. As anyone who's lived here knows, in Dunedin crossing the street can take you from heat exhaustion to hypothermia in a few steps, yet the insulation requirements are the same wherever the house is built. If a south facing home is built, it should be better insulated. Problem solved.

How can this work: " ...a home's sunshine hours made available to prospective buyers or tenants, through individual properties' land information memorandums, or as part of a city-wide star-rating system for flats..." when there is nothing to stop one's sunny house and garden losing winter sun or indeed all sun because of neighbours' permitted actions?  Nothing stops them planting trees that in a few short years steal the warmth and comfort of one's property. 

Nothing prevents a new building next door or some way away doing the same thing, turning a warm sunny garden into a dark chilly area where plants struggle to grow, and the windows might as well be covered with blackout curtain for all the sun the rooms receive.  As for investing in solar panels!  A person would have to br crazy when their investment can turn to pure loss thanks to the actions of others.

The nanny state mentality is alive and well in the DCC. Maybe the council can find some really important  topics in which to spend ratepayers' money instead of this rubbish.