Code for Sustainable Homes

Reassessing a legacy standard as one year closes and another begins.

Every so often, (usually around year end), the Code for Sustainable Homes seems to pop back up in conversation. Not because we’re particularly nostalgic for it. More because it’s still sitting there, quietly embedded in old planning conditions, employer’s requirements, or long-running frameworks. It’s not making a loud racket; it just refuses to disappear completely, which raises the question, “If the Code was withdrawn years ago (2015!), why does it still bubble up?”

A quick reminder, what the Code actually was

The Code for Sustainable Homes, or CSH, was meant to do something ambitious – it pushed housing beyond basic Building Regulations by scoring homes across a number of categories such as energy and CO₂, water, materials, surface water run‑off, waste, pollution, health and well‑being (including internal environment), management and ecology.

Star ratings made it easy to understand. The Code used 1 to 6 “stars” mapped to Code Levels 1-6, with zero‑carbon at Level 6. At the time, that clarity mattered. It gave planners, designers, and clients a shared language and metric around sustainability, which was powerful.

Why it went away (and what replaced it)

CSH was officially withdrawn in 2015 and government policy moved toward nationally consistent technical standards rather than layered local schemes. The idea was to have simpler rules, fewer overlaps, and less confusion…in theory.

In practice, sustainability didn’t disappear, it just changed shape. Building Regulations tightened and local planning policies evolved. BREEAM, Home Quality Mark, energy modelling, overheating analysis, and carbon reporting became key areas of focus.

The awkward bit is that planning conditions don’t always age gracefully. A scheme approved under CSH won’t magically update itself. So, here we are, years later, still dealing with “legacy” CSH cases where extant permissions retain Code conditions.

What the Code got right (and still does)

It’s easy to dismiss CSH as outdated, but also a bit unfair.

The Code encouraged teams to think holistically. Energy didn’t sit on its own, water and materials mattered. Internal environment mattered. Evidence mattered. All of which stimulated integrated thinking across fabric efficiency, resource use, occupant health and site ecology.

That mindset still holds up – in fact, it feels more relevant now than ever, as clients need to anwer even harder questions about performance, comfort, and long-term impact, (not just achieve compliance on paper).

In that sense, the Code’s legacy has been one of “culture” shift rather than “technical” capability.

Where it now shows its age

The honest bit, however, is that looking back, some CSH methodologies just feel clunky now. Assumptions have shifted. Expectations around overheating, carbon, and real-world performance have moved on quickly, with policy focus shifted towards Future Homes and Building Regulations uplifts, and modern overheating, energy and carbon standards now far more demanding than the original CSH baselines.

Relying solely on legacy CSH targets can create blind spots. You can technically “pass” while missing risks that current, modern assessments would flag immediately. No one’s fault, but it is a problem and is where frustration can creep in. Teams can feel like they’re meeting an old rule while failing a new one.

A sensible way to handle legacy CSH conditions

The key here is not to fight the condition, but not to treat it as gospel either.

Re-read the planning wording carefully. What is actually required? That is the starting point. From there, map those requirements to today’s evidence. Energy modelling. Part L compliance. Overheating analysis. Water calculations. Carbon assessments etc.

In many cases, modern assessments don’t contradict the Code, they actually strengthen it. They provide clearer, more current proof that the original intent is being met and is an approach that can keep planners comfortable and projects moving, without pretending it’s still 2010.

How enevo can help you bridge the gap

Like many things in life, having the right joined-up support can make life easier.

enevo works with client teams dealing with exactly this kind of overlap. Supporting Home Quality Mark and BREEAM assessments that reflect current expectations. Providing SAP and SBEM calculations that align with Part L. Carrying out overheating assessments, whole life carbon, and embodied carbon studies that address today’s risks.

We can help you respect legacy requirements, while delivering evidence that stands up now, and, importantly, won’t feel obsolete again next year.

Looking forward, not backwards

The Code for Sustainable Homes isn’t coming back. What remains however is the intent behind it, better homes, clearer evidence, and accountability for performance.

So as another year closes and a new one begins, the question isn’t whether CSH still applies, it’s whether the way you demonstrate sustainability still makes sense.

If you need support to get that right, get in touch and speak enevo’s team of Building Compliance experts, we’re here to help.