The room rejected compulsory air conditioning even after its strongest argument warned that “Climate adaption is just as vital as mitigation”. No won by 216 votes to 163, a result shaped less by disbelief that summers are changing than by resistance to making one mechanical answer universal.
Yes voters argued for prevention rather than retrofit. The floor’s highest-rated Yes case called for “low-carbon heating in winter and cooling in summer”, while another voice pointed to heat-related deaths and concluded simply: “the heat will only get worse.”
No had the larger body of arguments, and its case was more practical than ideological. Voters objected to “Yet another overbearing regulation”, worried that building costs would rise, and repeatedly proposed passive design instead: “Build better designed buildings.” Others stressed that air conditioning would be a “massive power drain”, expensive to run and difficult to justify for homes that need it only intermittently.
That left the two sides talking past each other. Yes treated cooling as climate adaptation that should be designed in now; No accepted that homes may need to cope with hotter weather but preferred shading, ventilation, heat-pump systems or better building standards, with one voter insisting that “air conditioning should be optional”. A small, poorly respected strand rejected the climate premise altogether, but it was not the argument that carried the debate.
The wider question is therefore not whether new homes should handle heat, but who should decide how: a national mandate for mechanical cooling, or standards that leave room for design and local judgment. The vote’s sharpest finding is that the chamber resisted the prescription more than the problem.
21 Opinions
Build better designed buildings. The energy demands of AC in every new home would be astronomical
Might be better to look at the way we build, and design. Buildings that keep warm in the cold months, and cool in the hot months, would be better. There has to be building materials that can do this, we are already insulating better. Design, if you have openings in the roof, openings on the ground floor, it pulls the heat up and out through the roof. We can't plug all the gaps up either, ventilation is important, helps prevent mold and damp.
No. Whilst air conditioning is gradually going to become more of a necessity with increasing temperatures, new build companies already have enough regulation/ standards they have to follow without adding even more.
Bloo dy hell !! Is Ed Milliband in the house!!!
It’s a big power drain and incredibly expensive to run. However, there should be other ways, whether in the building methods or otherwise, to help keep buildings cool. Various studies have shown that trees on streets is one of the best ways to shade and protect an area (concrete paving, tarmac roads, open grass etc).
It's still not necessary for 90% of the year, and less need in 70% of the UK. Maybe look at regulations around new build flats first, where it is harder to retrofit if needed in the future.
House building regulation is bad enough as it is without any needless extras
More hares set running by our bought narrative driven media. No Climate Crisis. We are coming out of an Ice Age so axiomatic that planet will warm. Not CO2 - the Sun - big yellow thing. UK housing stock is designed for cold weather, aircon should be optional but plain stupid making ut mandatory. The Grid is in crisis cannot even cope with current demand to electrify our energy base. Require despatchable energy Oil Gas Coal & Nuclear. Renewables a costly cynical scam.
It is possible to design homes to be cool in summer/ warm in winter by adopting Pasivehaus design principles developed in the 1920's. Installing mechanical/ electric air conditioning without heat pump symbiosis is wasteful.
YES Along with solar panels, smaller windows & anything else that'll help keep us cooler as the climate warms up.. Anyone who thinks the current trend is a blip, is sadly at best deluded!