The housing authority backs down on ventilation requirements – Fastighetstidningen

New rules for ventilation risk increasing costs for housing construction, according to Allmännyttan. But now the Housing Authority is sending out an extra referral to clarify what is actually meant to be a misunderstanding.

In connection with the international conference Roomvent, a study carried out by Sweden’s Allmännytta and Lund University of Technology will be presented on Wednesday. According to the report, the Housing Authority’s proposed changes to the building regulations, especially regarding ventilation, could lead to large cost increases and a higher climate burden for housing construction.

Based on a survey of industry experts, more than 70 percent of respondents support this conclusion.

According to the calculations presented in the study, construction costs could increase by approximately SEK 11,165 per home, corresponding to an increase of 26 percent. In addition, it is believed that there is a potential reduction in the living space in the design, which would lead to a loss of revenue of approximately SEK 10,000 per home.

When Fastighetstidningen gets hold of the Norwegian Housing Authority’s expert Peter Brander, he says that the whole thing is actually a misconception. But above all, the whole thing is probably exaggerated with the extra referral that the Housing Agency is sending out at the time of writing.

– It is precisely about an adjustment of this rule. There are a lot of misconceptions about how it has been formulated. But at the same time, we have simply listened too poorly to the concerns expressed from several quarters, and realized that we simply need to formulate this, says Peter Brander.

Peter Brander believes that the new regulations for ventilation would not lead to more expensive construction at all.

– But I can understand why they think what they think. It can appear that way if you put the wording directly against how it is written in the BBR. But it will be like comparing apples and pears, says Peter Brander.

How, then, could such misconceptions have arisen. Here, it is not entirely easy for a layman to keep up – obviously not for the expertise either.

But Peter Brander explains that the writing in the original proposal is intended to cover greater needs than what is included in the BBR.

– Over time, it has become increasingly mechanical systems that do not have opportunities for extra ventilation via windows. Then you must be able to solve the need for forced ventilation via the existing system.

And this is where they missed each other in communication, says Peter Brander.

– This does not mean that you must run the system in a forced flow around the clock. That’s where the misconception lies between how we at the Housing Authority tried to formulate ourselves and how it has since been perceived, says Peter Brander.

But in the extra referral that is now out, the Swedish Housing Authority formulates it so that the wording is basically the same as the Public Health Agency’s, i.e. based on a flow requirement per person and a flow requirement per living area. The forcing rule on capacity for temporarily increased air exchange remains, but the new wording means a clearer division of purposes between minimum normal flows and the need for higher flows at higher pollution loads.

– I think you will recognize yourself better in how it was formulated before and how the Public Health Agency’s advice looks like. But the spirit is not really different from what we meant with the first referrals, says Peter Brander.