Category Archives: sustainability

site waste management plans event 12 Feb

Leave a reply

Irrespective of whether you are a client, contractor, developer, product supplier, facilities manager or consultant, the impact of the sustainability, carbon, energy and other performance targets being set for the industry will change the way you do business in a big way.

Lancashire Best Practice Construction club will be holding an early evening event on the 12 Feb looking at the targets and requirements being set for the built environment sector on its route 2 zero or low carbon.

The event will focus on Site Waste Management Plans which become compulsory in April 2008, with take away templates and guidance.

More details on the events page very soon. For advance information click here

Add to Technorati Favorites


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

meeting tomorrows needs?

Leave a reply

Alex Steffen over at Worldchanging posts an interesting comment on the future usability, flexibility and appropriateness of facilities designed by ego -starchitects.   Alex calls for : An open architecture, an architecture which asks a question of the future — how does our inspiration today serve your needs tomorrow?

(This question of inspirations today meeting the needs of tomorrow is being raised on many public PFI facilities at the moment, withing education and health for example. (Are we really building schools for the future)

A global, and virtual, open source architecture movement is gathering momentum within second life (wikitecture) and the open architecture network amongst other places.

And of course this all comes back to real integrated and collaborative working across the whole facilities and project players, stakeholders and end users. (see studio wikitecture concept for a nice approach to integration and collaboration)

construction sustainability strategy not tough enough ?

Leave a reply

Whilst the consultant process is closed and BERR deliberate on the comments from industry, Mike Willoughby at Sustainability Blog notes that the M and E sector has joined the chorus of organisations and individuals in calling for more stringent measures within the strategy.

As reported at emonline:

The ECA and HVCA have criticised the government for failing to go further with its draft strategy for sustainable construction. According to the associations, a lack of suitable incentives and enforcement measures means the draft falls short of requirements.

Whilst the strategy needs to be comprehensive and meaningful, its timing (expected later this year) does seem to be behind the cue ball of other strategies, requirements, targets and messages coming out from  other government departments and agencies.

Will the tail be able to wag the dog I wonder?

Free low carbon building event

Leave a reply

The North West Sustainability in Built Environment Education forum is holding a presentation and workshop on Low Carbon Buildings at UCLAN (University of Central Lancs – Preston) on Feb 1st.    Download details from the Events page.

The Sustainability in Built Environment Education forum is a mixture of industry and academics looking at improving the provision of sustainability in all levels of he built environment curriculum.

The forum is open to all interested in this important aspect with much activity taking place within a social network online and with four ‘events’ each year. Although there is a North West (England) focus the work and issues are much much wider. If you would like more information, attend this event or participate in the forum online please contact me or the forum secretary.

New coal fired power station gets go ahead

1 Reply

The news that Medway Council have given the green light to a coal fired power station at Kingsnorth in Kent seems at complete odds with the current informed thinking on energy, on coal and on the current ‘mood’ or zeitgeist towards sustainability. It also appears as a developing country decision – not one taken by a nation attempting to be a leader in sustainability and carbon targets.  Building Guardian

The decision can be seen in many ways as a damning comment on the built industry in not moving fast enough to address the energy issue within buildings and facilities.

76 % of the energy from this new power plant will be consumed by buildings. By reducing building energy use of new and renovated buildings by a minimum of 50%, we negate the need for new coal plants. (source)

How can the government and local authorities push forward with zero carbon homes to Code 6, zero carbon schools, zero carbon non-domestic buildings, insist on reductions through Merton Rule approaches, and demand organisations reduce their carbon emissions … when in one action we turn the carbon emissions clock back 30 years ( This will be the first plant to be built in 30 years)

And many of these targets come in to place before the new plant comes on stream.

Perhaps the Kent council and others should read the work from the excellent and influential Architecture 2030, who, in the USA are directly and indirectly influencing cities and states to cancel or shelve coal fire plants in favour of a green build approach .

Emissions from the new plant will blow the UK’s targets and commitments for carbon reductions out of the water.  The notion of cleaned coal is an oxymoron, with environmentalists and scientists diasgreeing over the viability of any capture / claeaning / sequestration technology. It will take years and seems a high gamble to rely on a technology in the future.

In a time when we need positive actions and messages to prevent green fatigue – this will send a dangerous message – that it is ok to invest in traditional planet threatening energy sources whilst playing lip service to renewables and alternatives investment.

A very ominous start to 2008.

Cost of carbon

Leave a reply

A good note to end the year on and a new perspective on the cost of carbon to start 2008 with was reported in the Guardian last Friday. (also picked up by fellow blogger Phil at Some Seasonal Cheer ). Effectively ministers will now have to include a cost for carbon emission on all projects, starting at £25.50 a carbon tonne for 2007, rising every year to reach £59.60 a tonne by 2050. (This seems lower than other figures suggested!)

It will be interesting to see how this plays out through construction and fm – what would the additional cost of PFI’s, and BSF, building schools for the future projects etc now be. Would these costs be predicted over the life of a building. Can they be offset by carbon reducing measures built in?

And the Code – suddenly the cost of zero carbon homes may well be less than business as usual carbon construction.

Will the costs be applied to construction process emissions as well – and if so will this be tracked back up stream to the cement industry for example.

Not sure who actually will pay for these costs – the developers?, the supply side? the clients? More questions than answers at the moment, more detail is still to announced, but as this is a Treasury initiative it will surely be forced into being rapidly and with teeth. A whole new carbon based currency is being created.

Lets hope there is not a cop out by allowing offsets to offset these costs, and that the costs are real contributions to tackling sustainability

Whatever the detail,  we will start 2008 with a new, more meaningful perspective of sustainable construction, and more debates and discussion.

Brilliant.

Green fatigue?

Leave a reply

The report in yesterdays Observer (Green Fatigue leads to fear over climate change backlash) highlights a growing concern over green issues and sustainability:

A backlash is now a real threat, said Phil Downing, head of environmental research for Ipsos Mori. ‘There’s cynicism because on the one hand we’re being told [the problem] is very serious and on the other hand we’re building runways, mining Alaskan oil; there’s a lot going on that appears to be heading in the opposite direction.’

Barbara Young, chief executive of the Environment Agency, agreed. The ‘vast majority’ of British businesses ‘are still not into sustainability and climate change’, she warned.

I notice the same in the built environment. There remains a lot of scepticism at all levels in our industry, the following being typical of those heard recently:

“why should we bother with sustainability at site level when the architect and client specify roofing from Germany, and when our head office appoints subcontractors from the Midlands or where-ever to install it…

“we have no control over our suppliers and subcontractors….

“we have to go through so many hurdles on environmental issues to win work, then the client only pays very minor lip service to sustainability – its a waste of time …

“why should we bother going green – we will only get criticised for not doing enough if we put our heads over the parapet …

“this governments not serious – they talk of codes for sustainability and zero construction – and yet plan to build more coal fired power stations and airport expansions …

“Its a joke to be expected to travel to London for a sustainability conference …

“its just more paper work -we cannot make any difference…

All leaders and those of influence in our industry need to address these concerns head on. By leaders and influencer’s I include the government, clients and customers, directors and owners, bloggers, event organisers, specifiers, designers et al.

2007 was the year of awakening on sustainability issues – we need to build on that momentum with clear, accountable actions and visibility on decisions, not let it be undermined by green fatigue and scepticism. Players in our industry need all the encouragement and reason to change the built environments lifestyle.

As they say … walk the talk

Postnote:  see also Phils post over at 2008 – is a backlash on the way

Whats wrong with Code level 6?

1 Reply

My post on Code level 6 has drawn a mixed reaction. Fellow blogger Mark over at House 2.0 makes an excellent response. In my opinion this is what blogs are for – to inform, debate and cut through the rhectoric and greenwash we see today.

My point on Code 6 remains the same – we have some 8 years to innovate, develop solutions and collaborate to acheive Level  6, so to claim we can acheive it today is just greenwash.  And if these claims were correct then the bar has been set too low.

Acheiving zero carbon, along with all the other requirements is one hell of a challenge lets not underestimate it.

Build into the challenge the need for a zero carbon footprint in design and construction without offsetting – then the first truck to arrive on site, the first brick to be manufactured, the first operative to drive to site … you get the picture. (I did see some claim that the construction process emissions account for some 11% of the buildings total carbon footprint – I will confirm and post that link asap)

Lets not claim zero anything, recognise the reductions and the progress being made, but also the challenge that lies ahead.

Is code level 6 enough?

1 Reply

Am I missing something here.

I was encouraged by the inclusion of what I took to be a stretch target – level 6 in the Sustainability Code. Yes a stretch target for 2016, one that would drive innovation and improvement in construction, design, micro generation, energy suppliers and all the other necessary components. And one that would drive the real collaboration of all these sectors. To deliver by 2016.
And yet here, some 8 years away from that date, we are already letting contracts for level 6 (Hanham Hall) saying we can deliver (Barratts). Even failed newspaper baron Eddie Shah is reportedly building low cost homes that meet level 5.

So maybe we need something more stretching that will make us rethink our approach to sustainability.

We also have a fair amount of doomsaying – that it is not feasible, not practical, not necessary or will cost far to much.  Isn’t this to be proven or dis-proven by working towards level 6?

I see a similar reaction to the Code as we did to Egan’s Rethinking Construction – we didn’t need it, we couldn’t do it – it will cost too much and then suddenly with a great coat of whitewash everyone was Egan compliant. (Strangely linked to funding!) And now looking back nearly 10 years after Egan we see what a significant catalyst that was.

So, a thought for the holiday period – Standing in the future of 2016, in a carbon zero built environment, what message would you send back to todays industry leaders, influencer’s and politicians. (A nice seasonal Dr Who link). Would it be strive for level 6, do something beyond level 6 – or give up on it all together?

Carbon off setting not permissable on zero carbon projects

1 Reply

Been looking at site that mention Hanham Hall – the first Zero Carbon Challenge project recently let to Barratts.  The local BBC Bristol  site contains these wonderful comments from English Partnerships:

Unlike carbon neutral developments, there can be no conscience-clearing carbon off-setting on a zero-carbon project. 

No carbon footprint must be left at the site whatsoever and other developers will watch the Hanham Hall winner hawkishly as from 2016 all new homes must be zero-carbon.

The South West Director of the agency, David Warbuton, said a new eco-friendly chapter was beginning in the history of housebuilding: 

“I think humankind has always evolved according to local and environmental conditions and, as slate replaced thatch 400 years ago, that’s all we’re talking about here.  We’re at the next stage of building and community evolution.

Now it starts to sound more like a challenge.  Making the construction process itself zero carbon would be challenge enough considering the high carbon emissions of transportation and cement products.  We will learn allot from this project