Tag Archives: housing

Straw homes are a cheap and green fix for the housing crisis Updated for 2026





The UK construction sector must reduce its energy consumption by 50% and its carbon emissions by 80% by 2050.

So radical changes are needed to the way we approach building houses. Straw could be a critical part of the transition towards a low-carbon future.

The thermal insulation value of a typical straw bale wall meets the requirements of even the most demanding performance specifications.

Recent research led by the BRE Centre for Innovative Construction Materials at the University of Bath has shown that straw bale buildings reduce energy bills by 90% compared to conventional housing stock.

The manufacture of cement, used in concrete, is responsible alone for up to 8% of all industrially produced greenhouse gas emissions. Using natural materials such as straw, often directly from the field and with little further processing, significantly reduces this impact.

Traditionally, the environmental impact of construction materials has been significantly less than the impact of occupation (heating, cooling and so on) over the lifespan of the building. However, in modern energy efficient buildings the proportion attributable to that ’embodied’ in the fabric of the building is expected to increase to at least 90%.

Measures to reduce the impact of the embodied energy and carbon will deliver even more environmentally friendly buildings.

A natural building material

Straw is just the dried stalks of plants stripped of their grain. You don’t really ‘make straw’ – it’s a co-product of grain production, an established and essential agricultural process. So using straw doesn’t displace land required for essential food production.

In the UK more than 7m tonnes of straw remains after the production of wheat, and up to half this amount is effectively discarded due to its low value – simply chopped up and returned to the soil.

As an average three-bedroom house needs 7.2 tonnes of straw, the ‘leftover’ could be used to build more than 500,000 new homes – a city the size of Birmingham could be built each year using discarded straw.

Straw is also a low-cost material. But more importantly, as a plant it captures and stores atmospheric carbon dioxide during photosynthesis. By using more and more straw in buildings we are creating a natural carbon storage bank.

Though the bible references using straw for bricks – and thatched roofs – have been common for centuries, modern straw construction was developed when mechanical baling machines were first used in late 19th-century Nebraska.

Stacked like large bricks, straw bales can be used for modest loadbearing as well as non-loadbearing walls. The oldest surviving straw bale building is around 100 years old.

But straw has never caught on as an alternative to bricks, concrete or timber. There are concerns about its poor durability, fire resistance, the way it attracts mice and rats and, as one of the three little pigs found out the hard way, its lack of structural integrity.

The answer – high precision pre-fabricated ‘bales’

Straw bales aren’t currently made to the same levels of tolerance and specification as bricks or cement. The fact they’re generally slightly different sizes combined with the need to keep bales dry during construction has meant most builders would not, until recently, consider straw bales a viable solution for anything. Other than perhaps for enthusiastic self-builders.

However, the development of prefabricated wall panels using straw bale for insulation has now provided the opportunity to market straw to the mainstream construction industry.

Prefabrication, or off-site manufacture, means that wall panels can be made to a very high specification in a factory, protected from variable weather conditions that would otherwise inhibit on-site building with straw.

A prefabricated product can be certified as fit for use by industry bodies, making it much more acceptable to builders, financiers and insurers. It also radically reduces site construction times, with houses able to be erected in ten weeks instead of around 16 weeks for more conventional buildings. It seems the time has arrived for straw bale construction.

For the past ten years the University of Bath has been working with a local company, ModCell, to develop prefabricated straw bales. We started out looking at straw as a low-carbon cladding solution and soon moved on to developing panels that could bear heavy loads. Now, we are able to make low-energy prefabricated straw bale houses.

 

Bath’s own straw house. The panels from 00:09 onwards are all prefab straw and lime plaster.

Officially approved for the formal construction sector

The panels have been subjected to fire tests, thermal transmittance tests, accelerated weathering tests, acoustic tests, simulated flooding and impact testing. We’ve even tested the structures in a simulated hurricane force wind, in what has been termed the ‘big bad wolf’ test: the panels and prototype BaleHaus passed with flying colours.

These panels have now been granted certification. This in turn means insurers will cover straw houses and home-buyers will be able to obtain mortgages.

Hayesfield School in Bath, EcoDepot in York and the School of Architecture at the University of the West of England have all made use of these panels. Certification means the housing market can now use straw too, with LILAC in Leeds completed in 2013 and now a new development in Bristol due for completion later this year, with proposals for larger schemes already in planning.

Modern prefabricated straw bale houses are affordable, deliver excellent levels of energy efficiency in use for the home-owner or occupier and provide a genuine sustainable solution by using a cheap and widely available agricultural co-product.

Other similar prefabricated systems using straw bale construction have been developed in Australia, Belgium and Canada. Entire communities, towns or even cities built from straw bales. And why not?

 


 

Pete Walker is Director, BRE Centre for Innovative Construction Materials at the University of Bath.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




390068

Housing against nightingales – no way! Updated for 2026





Bad news I am afraid. The RSPB has been campaigning to stop a development of 5,000 houses on Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSI.

This ex-MOD training ground is home to a nationally important population of nightingales – possibly the most important site in the UK for this iconic and declining species – as well as ancient woodland and rare grassland.

Last Friday, Medway Council made the decision to approve the application from Land Securities, MoD’s delivery partner.

The vote to approve the development goes against the advice of Natural England, the government’s own environmental advisors, as well as a raft of conservation organisations.

A shocking decision

If the development goes ahead it would destroy the SSSI including the home to more than 1% of our national nightingale population.

Worse – it would set the terrible precedent for future development. Under the terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (Clause 118), there is a presumption against building on SSSIs – our most important wildlife sites.

The public benefits from the development need to significantly outweigh the environmental damage. Houses which are important locally must not trump nationally important wildlife sites.

The Secretary of State, Eric Pickles, can ‘call in’ the application and make the decision himself with the national perspective it needs. In effect this would take the decision out of Medway’s hands, and allow it to be made through the rigorous process of a public inquiry.

We’ll be reminding him that if the development goes ahead, it will be one of the largest losses of SSSI land in the country – perhaps the biggest loss since the mid-1990s. This is not what we’d expect from ‘the greenest government ever’. Not only that, but it would be contrary to the Government’s own guidance on developing protected sites.

It is clear that Medway is in need of housing and employment, but these needs should be assessed through a thorough strategic review. Reliance on a single proposal at Lodge Hill is not the answer to providing a sustainable long-term solution.

The more I think about it, the angrier I get

Now, if Mr Pickles fails to call in the decision and fails to grant a public inquiry, then this would send a terrible signal to others looking to meet housing targets.

The Labour Party, for example, have said that by 2020 we should be building 200,000 new houses a year. If every block of 5,000 new houses happened to coincide with a SSSI, we could lose 40 SSSIs a year.

I know what you’re thinking – this is hyperbole, this cannot happen as not all new houses will be built on SSSIs. But, if the Lodge Hill development goes ahead then developers might just chance their arm and the consequences could be appalling for wildlife.

And, given that this is public land (Ministry of Defence), what happens to future public land of high environmental value? Can that also be sold off for development? I expect higher standards from the State.

And the Lodge Hill decision struck a discordant note after such a positive week. On Tuesday, we had been celebrating with Medway Council over the decision by The Davies Commission to rule out a Thames Estuary Airport.

And, on Wednesday, it had been a pleasure to hear positive commitments to restore nature from so many businesses, politicians and religious leaders at our Conference for Nature.

The original intention of the Today programme (which covered the Lodge Hill story on Saturday morning – see here at 7.32) had been to reflect on the juxtaposition of these events.

‘Back to the future’ on nature conservation?

But as I thought about possible responses, I felt the Lodge Hill decision was another reminder that the war continues. Fifteen years ago, we coined the phrase ‘stop the rot, protect the best and restore the rest’.

The optimists amongst us hoped that we would be spending more of our efforts recovering populations of threatened species and restoring wildlife at a landscape scale. We have done some of this (and need / want to do lots more) but the reality is we still have to fight hard to prevent even our finest wildlife sites from deteriation or destruction.

The verbal commitments made on Wednesday will ring hollow unless they are backed up by action. Our regional director in the south-east, Chris Corrigan, rightly said to me at the weekend:

“There is a housing need but if we are going to solve this by building on the 6% of our most precious land for wildlife we cannot possibly reverse the continuing erosion of nature and what kind of country we will leave for future generations.”

I am hopeful that the Labour Party will address the false conflict of housing and the environment through its Lyons review, to which the RSPB’s Head of Planning is contributing. Simon has some smart ideas which he is feeding in.

I’m also hopeful that Mark Reckless, the local Conservative MP who opposes the Lodge Hill development, will help persuade his colleague Eric Pickles to call Medway’s decision.

Time for a Nature Act – and you know who to vote for …

Decisions like Medway’s send us back to the mid-1990s when the environment movement climbed into the trees to oppose the expanding road network. We may have to do so again, but in 21st century England we deserve a different agenda.

This is why I am pleased we now have two political parties – the Liberal Democrats and, after their conference this weekend, the Green Party – promising a Nature Act after the next election. We should be investing our energies in restoring nature, rather than destroying it.

The good news is, as I found out at the ‘Vision for Nature’ conference on Friday, the next generation of environmentalists are more passionate, more determined and (from what I can tell) more impressive that the current crop.

They’ll need to be. We’re leaving our natural world in a mess and, if we carry on as we are, it will be for them to clean it up.

 


 

Martin Harper is Conservation Director of RSPB. He blogs on the RSPB website.

Please help us: tell Eric Pickles why this decision matters, and ask him to call it in.

Catch up with the whole history of the case on our Lodge Hill web pages.

This article is based on two blog posts by Martin Harper on the RSPB website.

 

 




383842