Design stage: use SAP to make decisions
Design-stage SAP calculations model each plot against Part L targets using the intended fabric, glazing, heating, ventilation and any renewables. The mistake most developments make is treating this as a compliance certificate to obtain once drawings are frozen. Run early, the same calculation is a design tool: it shows whether tightening the fabric, changing a glazing ratio, upgrading a heating system or adding photovoltaics is the cheapest route to compliance on that specific plot type. Changes made at this stage cost drawing time; the same changes made after the frame is up cost money and programme.
- Model each plot type rather than assuming one calculation covers the site
- Compare compliance routes on cost, not just on whether they pass
- Fix glazing ratios, fabric build-ups and services strategy while they are still on paper
- Flag plots that only just comply — they are the ones that fail after a site substitution
Specification decisions that move the numbers
A handful of inputs dominate the result: wall, roof and floor U-values, window and door performance including frame factors, thermal bridging detailing, airtightness target, heating system efficiency and controls, ventilation strategy, hot water provision and any on-site generation. Thermal bridging is the one most often left at default values, which is a quiet penalty: using accredited construction details where they genuinely apply can recover meaningful margin. Likewise an ambitious airtightness figure assumed at design stage becomes a liability if the build cannot achieve it, because the as-built calculation must use the tested figure.
- U-values, glazing performance and thermal bridging are the biggest fabric levers
- Heating efficiency, controls and hot water strategy dominate the services side
- Assume only the airtightness figure the build can realistically achieve and test
- Renewables should be a considered choice, not a rescue measure late in the programme









