Hawkes Architecture

What are you looking for?

House Trumps

A informative, educational, enlightening, light hearted and provocative game exploring the energy efficiency of some of the UKs most celebrated and award winning houses.

Play the game

Pit your wits comparing the energy performance of some of the UK’s most well known and celebrated homes. How do they stack up when it comes to energy performance? Shuffle the deck and find out. Volume 1 brings together award-winning residential projects, including RIBA House of the Year winners, Manser Medal recipients and other highly acclaimed homes spanning the last 15 years since Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) were introduced. Volume 2 expands the award winning offering, including a selection of RIBA and Manser Medal winning projects since 2012 Further extension volumes to follow, including Grand Design TV Houses Special Edition, Modernist classics Special edition and more.

Pit your wits comparing the energy performance of some of the UK’s most well known and celebrated homes. How do they stack up when it comes to energy performance? Shuffle the deck and find out. Volume 1 brings together award-winning residential projects, including RIBA House of the Year winners, Manser Medal recipients and other highly acclaimed homes spanning the last 15 years since Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) were introduced. Volume 2 expands the award winning offering, including a selection of RIBA and Manser Medal winning projects since 2012 Further extension volumes to follow, including Grand Design TV Houses Special Edition, Modernist classics Special edition and more.

how to play

Any number of people can play. The rules are simple and you don’t need to have any knowledge of the subject to win.

Any number of people can play. The rules are simple and you don’t need to have any knowledge of the subject to win.

Why are we doing it?

The origin of house trumps

One of the “tests” within the paragraph 84e policy requires any such scheme to, “reflect the highest standards in architecture”. Another test requires that a para84 scheme should, “help raise the standards of design more generally in rural areas”. It is frequently said that “design is subjective”. We don’t agree. We believe that a building’s technical performance is an integral part of good design and best practice.


We believe that every step in the design process can be looked at and assessed objectively.

Most of our work at HAWKES Architecture is focussed on designing new isolated homes in the English countryside, predominantly requiring permission under the National Planning Policy Framework exception policy “Paragraph 84(e)”.

We believe that Energy efficiency and building performance are important aspects in any assessment of design quality and, by virtue of such information being able to be expressed statistically, it is easier to more objectively measure and assess buildings using this data.

Most paragraph 84 schemes we are involved with are subjected to rigorous examination & scrutiny with most schemes being required to have been subjected to and endorsed by an independent Design Review Panel.

We have frequently found the “high bar” of paragraph 84 to vary significantly depending on the Local Planning Authority, its consultees and between Design Review Panels. Paragraph 84 is an aspirational planning policy set by the government to deliver exceptional homes if they can be found to meet the tests of this particular policy.

Paragraph 84e is a hurdle, designed to be jumped. Not a prison fence and not something only golden egg laying flying unicorns can scale.

House Trumps came about following our desire to address the “subjective” randomly calibrated “high bar” of paragraph 84 and look at projects which have won regional RIBA awards, the Manser Medal and those select few projects shortlisted for and winning the highly coveted RIBA House of the Year accolade.

House Trumps came from a question. This question led to a Tweet . . .

One of the “tests” within the paragraph 84e policy requires any such scheme to, “reflect the highest standards in architecture”. Another test requires that a para84 scheme should, “help raise the standards of design more generally in rural areas”. It is frequently said that “design is subjective”. We don’t agree. We believe that a building’s technical performance is an integral part of good design and best practice.


We believe that every step in the design process can be looked at and assessed objectively.

Most of our work at HAWKES Architecture is focussed on designing new isolated homes in the English countryside, predominantly requiring permission under the National Planning Policy Framework exception policy “Paragraph 84(e)”.

We believe that Energy efficiency and building performance are important aspects in any assessment of design quality and, by virtue of such information being able to be expressed statistically, it is easier to more objectively measure and assess buildings using this data.

Most paragraph 84 schemes we are involved with are subjected to rigorous examination & scrutiny with most schemes being required to have been subjected to and endorsed by an independent Design Review Panel.

We have frequently found the “high bar” of paragraph 84 to vary significantly depending on the Local Planning Authority, its consultees and between Design Review Panels. Paragraph 84 is an aspirational planning policy set by the government to deliver exceptional homes if they can be found to meet the tests of this particular policy.

Paragraph 84e is a hurdle, designed to be jumped. Not a prison fence and not something only golden egg laying flying unicorns can scale.

House Trumps came about following our desire to address the “subjective” randomly calibrated “high bar” of paragraph 84 and look at projects which have won regional RIBA awards, the Manser Medal and those select few projects shortlisted for and winning the highly coveted RIBA House of the Year accolade.

House Trumps came from a question. This question led to a Tweet . . .

2021. It started with a tweet

House Trumps

In the Autumn of 2021, while the media was filled with news of Climate Emergency and the C.O.P. conference, Kevin McCloud and Grand Designs were showing us around some of the homes being shortlisted for the prestigious RIBA House of the Year award.


On the 30th November we posted a Tweet showing some data from the EPC certificates of all the projects being shortlisted for this coveted accolade. The Tweet simply posed the question whether this was good enough.

The public response was immediate, vociferous and unanimous. No ! The public were appalled that such a mediocre set of statistics would be reflecting the very highest standards of architectural design in an age where sustainability and energy efficiency were daily news and hot topics during a concerted effort to decarbonise the National Grid and reduce CO2 emissions globally and rapidly.

Many folk felt that an A rated EPC should be a minimum entry requirement. Some sought to conveniently hide behind the shortcomings of SAP and the way EPCs are measured but what was clear is that this struck a nerve.

If these award winning houses are frequently so mediocre in their CO2 emissions, airtightness, U-Values, SAP or EPC ratings, do they really represent, “The highest standards in Architecture”? or is the bar lower than some might (at least occasionally if it suits them) wish it to be ?

We were especially surprised by some of the comments received by the AJ from the RIBA, including Amin Taha, the RIBA House of the Year 2021 jury chair, who is quoted as saying, “Possibly in four or five years’ time we’ll get closer to a shortlist of structures that are carbon negative with fractional running costs to those completed today.”

Bear in mind that EPCs were introduced in 2008, one should have expected that during the subsequent 13 years things would have improved significantly.

More on that below !

The chair of the jury then went on to say,

“We have negative embodied carbon designs on [our own] drawing board, yet some main contractors have next to little interest, one telling us ‘I’ll leave the environment for my kids to sort out, today I need to make more money’, before attempting to substitute all timber and stone with concrete. The project manager waving it through because they have a relationship with said contractor and don’t want to rock the boat. All these forces will take sometime to bring round. Architects should, I hope, be the last to point the finger at.”

These poorly informed and outdated views are disappointing to hear from any 21st Century architect, let alone one representing the RIBA in a capacity which decides what the institute regard as excellence in design.

In the Autumn of 2021, while the media was filled with news of Climate Emergency and the C.O.P. conference, Kevin McCloud and Grand Designs were showing us around some of the homes being shortlisted for the prestigious RIBA House of the Year award.


On the 30th November we posted a Tweet showing some data from the EPC certificates of all the projects being shortlisted for this coveted accolade. The Tweet simply posed the question whether this was good enough.

The public response was immediate, vociferous and unanimous. No ! The public were appalled that such a mediocre set of statistics would be reflecting the very highest standards of architectural design in an age where sustainability and energy efficiency were daily news and hot topics during a concerted effort to decarbonise the National Grid and reduce CO2 emissions globally and rapidly.

Many folk felt that an A rated EPC should be a minimum entry requirement. Some sought to conveniently hide behind the shortcomings of SAP and the way EPCs are measured but what was clear is that this struck a nerve.

If these award winning houses are frequently so mediocre in their CO2 emissions, airtightness, U-Values, SAP or EPC ratings, do they really represent, “The highest standards in Architecture”? or is the bar lower than some might (at least occasionally if it suits them) wish it to be ?

We were especially surprised by some of the comments received by the AJ from the RIBA, including Amin Taha, the RIBA House of the Year 2021 jury chair, who is quoted as saying, “Possibly in four or five years’ time we’ll get closer to a shortlist of structures that are carbon negative with fractional running costs to those completed today.”

Bear in mind that EPCs were introduced in 2008, one should have expected that during the subsequent 13 years things would have improved significantly.

More on that below !

The chair of the jury then went on to say,

“We have negative embodied carbon designs on [our own] drawing board, yet some main contractors have next to little interest, one telling us ‘I’ll leave the environment for my kids to sort out, today I need to make more money’, before attempting to substitute all timber and stone with concrete. The project manager waving it through because they have a relationship with said contractor and don’t want to rock the boat. All these forces will take sometime to bring round. Architects should, I hope, be the last to point the finger at.”

These poorly informed and outdated views are disappointing to hear from any 21st Century architect, let alone one representing the RIBA in a capacity which decides what the institute regard as excellence in design.

2023. AJ Article

House Trumps

In November 2023 the AJ featured an article written by our Director, Richard Hawkes, which discussed how EPC certificates had transformed the design and efficiency of domestic appliances and looked at award winning houses to see if a similar trend could be seen in the energy ratings of houses since EPCs were introduced.


In 1992 energy ratings much like Energy Performance Certificates kickstarted a transformation in the way we design our domestic white goods.

Over more than 25 years, the A-G colour coded ratings with which we have become familiar were extended to include A+, A++ and A+++ as appliances increasingly improved their energy efficiency. This congestion at the top of the ratings was making it difficult for the consumer to understand.

In response to the efficiency revolution the ratings were recalibrated in 2021. So, a fridge which achieved an A+ rating pre-2021 is now an ‘F’ under the new ratings.

This doesn’t, all of a sudden, make the fridge bad. But it demonstrates how far we’ve come in the way we design the appliances we so depend upon.

I couldn’t help but wonder whether we’re seeing the same trend in the way we build, recognise and reward energy efficiency in the design of new houses.

In 2008 Energy Performance Certificates were introduced as part of a EU initiative to drive improvements in the energy efficiency of our homes. Around the same time, the Code for Sustainable Homes (CfSH) was introduced. It charted a roadmap that would have led to all homes being delivered to ‘zero carbon’ standards by 2016.

In 2014 the Building Regulations, particularly AD Part L, were updated. The low bar set by these regulations would remain in place until a much-needed and long overdue update in 2021.

In 2015 the government withdrew the CfSH, setting back the Road to Zero.

As an architectural practice specialising in the design of houses of exceptional quality in the countryside, otherwise known as Paragraph 80 houses (‘the Country House Clause’), our work is often measured against a higher bar. This unique planning policy exception in the NPPF requires proposals to be ‘truly outstanding and reflecting the highest standards in architecture’.

In 2021, in an effort to somehow ‘objectify’ what ‘the highest standards in architecture’ means, we published the EPC certificates of the houses which had been longlisted for the RIBA House of the Year, which had been elevated to a prime-time TV series just after the COP26 climate conference.

The results were surprising. Only one of the 16 longlisted houses had achieved an ‘A’ rating and the winning project that year did not even have an up-to-date EPC certificate. The average was a surprisingly low ‘C’ rating. The national average house has a ‘D’ rating.

Is this representative of ‘the highest standards in architecture’? And does it seem consistent with the ‘climate-conscious trajectory’ enshrined in the targets set within the RIBA 2030 Challenge?

Some lazy justification by the chair of judges in an AJ article in December 2021 on the subject was revealing. Subsequent interest in the relationship between award-winning projects and their energy efficiency led to a more extensive look back to see whether any upward trend could be seen in projects judged to be able to sit at the top table.

Our research looked back to all RIBA House of the Year shortlisted projects since 2011 – a three-year ‘grace period’ after EPCs had been introduced.

Disappointingly, the average EPC and Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) scores of shortlisted projects between 2011 and 2021 remained at a less-than-inspiring ‘C’ rating.

A slight improvement in 2022 edged the average into a low ‘B’ rating, but the winning project achieving a lacklustre ‘C’-rated EPC.

This year’s House of the Year showed promise in having five ‘A’-rated houses on the 2023 longlist. Sadly, only one of those has made it onto this year’s shortlist of six projects, which still includes two projects which don’t have an EPC certificate and another ‘C’-rated scheme. The average shows no progress from 2022.

On a positive note, at least with publicly visible tools which illustrate operational energy, EPCs and the SAP are enabling a discussion to be had. Measuring the embodied carbon, especially on smaller projects such as individual houses is important, but difficult to do accurately.

So do the EPC ratings of the House of the Year 2023 shortlist really reflect the climate conscious trajectory set by the RIBA in its 2030 Climate Challenge?

Are these six homes truly representing ‘the highest standards in architecture’ in a climate-aware 2023? Or, unlike the transformation in the way we build fridges, is the House of the Year award and the homes it champions still frozen in time?

In November 2023 the AJ featured an article written by our Director, Richard Hawkes, which discussed how EPC certificates had transformed the design and efficiency of domestic appliances and looked at award winning houses to see if a similar trend could be seen in the energy ratings of houses since EPCs were introduced.


In 1992 energy ratings much like Energy Performance Certificates kickstarted a transformation in the way we design our domestic white goods.

Over more than 25 years, the A-G colour coded ratings with which we have become familiar were extended to include A+, A++ and A+++ as appliances increasingly improved their energy efficiency. This congestion at the top of the ratings was making it difficult for the consumer to understand.

In response to the efficiency revolution the ratings were recalibrated in 2021. So, a fridge which achieved an A+ rating pre-2021 is now an ‘F’ under the new ratings.

This doesn’t, all of a sudden, make the fridge bad. But it demonstrates how far we’ve come in the way we design the appliances we so depend upon.

I couldn’t help but wonder whether we’re seeing the same trend in the way we build, recognise and reward energy efficiency in the design of new houses.

In 2008 Energy Performance Certificates were introduced as part of a EU initiative to drive improvements in the energy efficiency of our homes. Around the same time, the Code for Sustainable Homes (CfSH) was introduced. It charted a roadmap that would have led to all homes being delivered to ‘zero carbon’ standards by 2016.

In 2014 the Building Regulations, particularly AD Part L, were updated. The low bar set by these regulations would remain in place until a much-needed and long overdue update in 2021.

In 2015 the government withdrew the CfSH, setting back the Road to Zero.

As an architectural practice specialising in the design of houses of exceptional quality in the countryside, otherwise known as Paragraph 80 houses (‘the Country House Clause’), our work is often measured against a higher bar. This unique planning policy exception in the NPPF requires proposals to be ‘truly outstanding and reflecting the highest standards in architecture’.

In 2021, in an effort to somehow ‘objectify’ what ‘the highest standards in architecture’ means, we published the EPC certificates of the houses which had been longlisted for the RIBA House of the Year, which had been elevated to a prime-time TV series just after the COP26 climate conference.

The results were surprising. Only one of the 16 longlisted houses had achieved an ‘A’ rating and the winning project that year did not even have an up-to-date EPC certificate. The average was a surprisingly low ‘C’ rating. The national average house has a ‘D’ rating.

Is this representative of ‘the highest standards in architecture’? And does it seem consistent with the ‘climate-conscious trajectory’ enshrined in the targets set within the RIBA 2030 Challenge?

Some lazy justification by the chair of judges in an AJ article in December 2021 on the subject was revealing. Subsequent interest in the relationship between award-winning projects and their energy efficiency led to a more extensive look back to see whether any upward trend could be seen in projects judged to be able to sit at the top table.

Our research looked back to all RIBA House of the Year shortlisted projects since 2011 – a three-year ‘grace period’ after EPCs had been introduced.

Disappointingly, the average EPC and Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) scores of shortlisted projects between 2011 and 2021 remained at a less-than-inspiring ‘C’ rating.

A slight improvement in 2022 edged the average into a low ‘B’ rating, but the winning project achieving a lacklustre ‘C’-rated EPC.

This year’s House of the Year showed promise in having five ‘A’-rated houses on the 2023 longlist. Sadly, only one of those has made it onto this year’s shortlist of six projects, which still includes two projects which don’t have an EPC certificate and another ‘C’-rated scheme. The average shows no progress from 2022.

On a positive note, at least with publicly visible tools which illustrate operational energy, EPCs and the SAP are enabling a discussion to be had. Measuring the embodied carbon, especially on smaller projects such as individual houses is important, but difficult to do accurately.

So do the EPC ratings of the House of the Year 2023 shortlist really reflect the climate conscious trajectory set by the RIBA in its 2030 Climate Challenge?

Are these six homes truly representing ‘the highest standards in architecture’ in a climate-aware 2023? Or, unlike the transformation in the way we build fridges, is the House of the Year award and the homes it champions still frozen in time?

grow the game

Fancy adding your own house or project to see how it stacks up against the best in class ? Are there any other houses you think we should add to the next volume ? Scan the QR code (included in each pack) to contact us and you’ll help to extend the game to further volumes.

Fancy adding your own house or project to see how it stacks up against the best in class ? Are there any other houses you think we should add to the next volume ? Scan the QR code (included in each pack) to contact us and you’ll help to extend the game to further volumes.

Data Sourcing

Data shown on the cards has been gathered from official Energy Performance Certificates (EPC).

EPCs are publicly available on a UK Government website. Click the link below and search by postcode to find any house you’re looking for.