This summer should see the publication of the new London Plan, which will replace the 2015 version. This will bring to an end a process that began in autumn 2016 with Mayor Sadiq Khan’s A City for All Londoners, followed by a first draft coming just over a year later. The ‘intend to publish’ version became available in December of last year, and not without snags along the way as part of the consultation process, which has included 300 organisations and individuals. Therefore, this is a good time to give some thought to what the thinking is behind it, and what it comprises.
First things first: it’s a statutory document required by the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (the GLA Act, as it’s known). The Act provides a framework for the plan, which is the authority’s Spatial Development Strategy (SDS): how it should be drawn up, altered and replaced. The mayor is required to outline his policies regarding land and spatial development, and comment on how they fit in with other strategies, such as national policies. In its final form, it will be part of the statutory development plan for Greater London, and will have accompanying Supplementary Planning Guidance. It covers the period up to 2041, though there will undoubtedly be updated versions in the coming 21 years.
It functions as a framework, covering economic, environmental, transport and the social issues pertaining to those areas. The aim is good growth, and with that in mind, the mayor has announced six ‘Good Growth’ policies, which function as an add-on to the GLA Act. Good Growth is that which is socially and economically inclusive and environmentally sustainable:
- Policy GG1 Building strong and inclusive communities
- Policy GG2 Making the best use of land
- Policy GG3 Creating a healthy city
- Policy GG4 Delivering the homes Londoners need
- Policy GG5 Growing a good economy
- Policy GG6 Increasing efficiency and resilience
Chapter one tells us about the mayor’s vision for London and explains what the aforementioned Good Growth is. Following that, chapter two sets out the overall spatial development plan for the city. Chapters three to twelve then set out the specific and spatially-specific policies that are required to deliver the Good Growth, for example in housing, transport and social infrastructure.
In this context, what does it tell us in headline terms about future London in terms of the general environment, housing, transport, energy, well-being, carbon emissions, and sustainability?
As you’d expect, the environment is discussed rather a lot, both generally and specifically in terms of the built environment; moreover, it is the overarching thinking behind the discrete policies on transport, housing, and so on, so it makes sense to limit our remarks to the big picture level. In terms of that, the plan’s principal objective is to promote the improvement of London’s environment and the physical and mental health of its inhabitants. As the Plan says in this context:
“A failure to consider the wider implications of London’s growth has increased car dependency, leading to low levels of physical activity, significant congestion, poor air quality and other environmental problems”
Another aim is to deliver more than 50% green cover across the city, with a view to London becoming a National Park city.
In terms of housing, there are 10-year net housing completion targets for local authorities. To achieve this, boroughs need to develop delivery-focussed development plans, optimise the potential for housing delivery on all suitable brownfield sites, and establish ambitious and achievable build-out rates at the planning stage, which incentivise build-out milestones in order to help ensure that homes are built quickly and to reduce the likelihood of permissions being sought to sell land on at a higher value. Transport needs and mixed-use development are prioritised.
Minimum space standards are set out for homes. Also, they must be fit for purpose for a changing world in terms of climate; therefore, the Plan helps meet the challenges of a changing climate by ensuring homes are suitable for warmer summers and wetter winters. The nature of a high-density city means a focus on tall buildings will form part of a sustainable approach to future growth. The mayor has carried out a London-wide Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). The former has identified the need for 66,000 additional homes per year.
Many of the city’s neighbourhoods lie within the 20% most deprived areas in England, and are consequently designated Strategic Areas for Regeneration in the Plan. Development plans should aid in creating mixed and inclusive neighbourhoods – a phrase used extensively in the Plan – in which communities collaborate in the development of planning policies that affects them.
Regarding overall design, the focus is again on Good Growth. This requires area assessments and an understanding of the importance of both respecting character and accommodating change.
To move on to transport, plans developed by boroughs should support and facilitate the mayor’s strategic target of 80% of all trips in London by 2041 being made by foot, cycle or public transport. To that end, the Plan suggests that:
“All development should make the most effective use of land, reflecting its connectivity and accessibility by existing and future public transport, walking and cycling routes, and ensure that any impacts on London’s transport networks and supporting infrastructure are mitigated.”
This requires an integrated approach, which is essential to the healthy functioning city in the 21st century. Moreover, getting Londoners out of their cars is the only realistic solution to the road congestion challenges the city faces. To this end, the mayor will work with partners to minimise freight trips on the road as well. All this will require sustained investment.
Above are the changes required in transport mode share in central, inner and outer London to achieve this shift to 80% share for public transport, walking and cycling.
The Plan also provides 10 Healthy Streets indicators that are intended to facilitate this mode share change with a view to promoting health and reducing health inequalities. The context? Streets are 80% of the city’s public spaces. A part of this is reducing road danger by promoting what the Plan is calling Vision Zero which involves “designing and managing a street system that accommodates human error and ensures impact levels are not sufficient to cause fatal or serious injury”.
As part of the aim of reducing emissions, development proposals must refer to the mayor’s nationally recognised Whole Life-Cycle Carbon Assessment and contain demonstrable actions. Guidance to this effect was released in April and considered on this site recently. The Whole Life-Cycle Carbon approach ensures that operational carbon emissions reduce year-on-year, as targets become more stringent. It also allows the capture of unregulated emissions (such as those from cooking and small appliances) and of embodied emissions, which includes those associated with raw material extraction, manufacture and transport of building materials and construction.
Furthermore, the Plan makes clear that the mayor is committed to London becoming a zero-carbon city by 2050. The city’s homes and places of work produce 78% of its greenhouse gases, of which carbon dioxide is the most prominent, and all new development needs to meet the requirements of this policy.
Of course, reducing the use of traditional forms of energy is a significant part of this aim, and boroughs should ensure that all developments maximise opportunities for on-site electricity and heat production from solar technologies. This will support London’s energy resilience and encourage the growth of green jobs. To provide a clear approach, the mayor has produced Energy Planning Guidance, with the hope of providing certainty to developers and all relevant stakeholders. Comprehensive monitoring is also required for assurance purposes. All this is driven by the need to increase efficiency and resilience. With that in mind, the Plan use four pithy phrases to sum up its approach to minimising emissions: be lean; be clean; be green; be seen.
But energy isn’t just about emissions: it’s also about reducing lighting on tall buildings, prioritising renewables and new technology, air quality, minimising demand, building design, and the appropriate use of BREEAM ratings, among other things.
The Plan needs to be seen in the context of the government’s overall planning policy and guidance; while it’s the key document in terms of the capital city, London is not separate from the rest of the country, and their needs required a conjoined approach. Moreover, constituent parts of the city’s infrastructure have their own planning documents and local plans, which sit within or need to take account of the London Plan.
What does the Plan have to say about social well-being? It is its overarching aim; its raison d’être, if you like. All development plans need to assess their potential impact on the well-being of communities. Well-being strategies speak to health and social care in the document, in particular, with a view to identifying priorities for action. Health Impact Assessments provide a framework to undertake this. Social well-being also requires the conservation and enhancement of historical sites, heritage and culture, and an appropriate approach to the night-time economy, for all of which London is deservedly famous.
Sustainability is also woven throughout the Plan and needs to be demonstrated in the areas discussed in this article. It forms a key element of the capital’s transformation plans, and for local plans, which must consider their impact upon the capital overall. These Sustainability and Transformation Plans (STPs) were published in October 2016 and set out how health and care services will evolve and become financially sustainable over the 5-year period to 2020/21.
This short overview can only scratch the surface of what is a document of over 600 pages; the length gives an idea of the depth of ambition. Only time will tell if reality meets the ambition.
The London Plan will be with us soon. As part of that, the Greater London Authority (GLA) released Whole Life-Cycle Carbon (WLC) Assessments guidance in April, which will be consulted upon formally once the Plan is approved.
As you would expect, a wide range of stakeholders has been consulted, including developers, industry and technical experts. The draft sets out a requirement for developments to calculate and reduce WLC emissions.
The context is that Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, has declared a climate emergency and set the ambition of London being net zero-carbon.
What are WLC emissions?
They are the carbon emissions that result from the combination of the materials, construction and use of a building throughout its life and afterlife, effectively, as demolition and disposal form part of the cycle.
The approach considers operational (both regulated and unregulated) and embodied emissions in tandem over a project’s life cycle, and determines the best opportunities to reduce lifetime emissions.
This dual approach, which pays attention to the carbon intensity of the structure itself as well as to reducing its operational energy, is part of the relatively recent move away from simply focusing on operational emissions alone. The RICS guidance uses the following example to illustrate the potential pitfalls of focussing solely on the operational side:
“The embodied carbon burden of installing triple glazing rather than double can be greater than the operational benefit resulting from the additional pane.”
The integration of these two elements needs to be understood as part of the sustainability agenda and the imperative of working towards a low carbon future.
What’s in the guidance?
The document covers three principal areas:
- Aims, benefits and targets
- Process and methodology
- Assessment content
Let’s consider each of these in more detail.
Aims, benefits and targets
An overarching aim is the London Plan net-zero carbon target for all major developments, with the GLA supplying Energy Assessment Guidance on how to achieve this. Furthermore, major developments must be seen to be doing this through transparent monitoring and reporting. All referable planning applications must calculate and reduce WLC emissions.
There are manifold benefits listed in the guidance, including:
- Ensuring that the built environment contributes to achieving the net-zero carbon city
- Achieving resource efficiency and cost savings by encouraging the re-use of existing materials and the retrofit and retention of existing structures and fabric
- Identifying the carbon benefits of using recycled material and of designing for future reuse and recycling to reduce waste and support the circular economy
- Encouraging a ‘fabric first’ approach to building design thereby minimising mechanical plant and services in favour of natural ventilation
- Considering operational and embodied emissions simultaneously to identify the best solutions for the development over its lifetime
- Identifying the impact of maintenance, repair and replacement over a building’s life-cycle which improves life-time resource efficiency and reduces life-cycle costs, contributing to the future proofing of asset value
- Encouraging local sourcing of materials and short supply chains, with resulting carbon, social and economic benefits for the local economy
- Encouraging durable construction and flexible design to contribute to greater longevity, reduce obsolescence of buildings and avoid carbon emissions associated with demolition and new construction
Other documents submitted at planning may have an impact upon the WLC assessment, such as Environmental Impact Assessments, Design and Access Statements, Sustainability Statements and Resource Management Plans.
Process and methodology
WLC Assessments are required at three stages: pre-application; stage 1 submission (RIBA stage 2/3) and post-construction (RIBA stage 6). They must be carried out using a nationally recognised assessment methodology. Actions to reduce emissions must be demonstrated.
The assessment needs to cover operational, embodied and post ‘end of life’ benefits. All this must be done under the appropriate framework BS EN 15978 and be underpinned by the RICS Professional Statement: Whole Life Carbon assessment, which functions as the methodology here.
Both BS EN 15978 and the RICS PS set out for four stages in the life of a project, which are known as life-cycle modules, and which must be presented discretely, based on a period of 60 years:
- Product sourcing and construction: to reduce carbon emissions both at this stage and the subsequent ones. Processes in fabricating products and methods of construction are important.
- Use: to understand how the building will perform, to minimise future emissions from maintenance, repair and replacement, and to minimise operational energy use via due consideration of the building’s overall resource efficiency
- End of life: to capture the emissions from deconstruction and demolition, transport, waste processing for reuse, recovery or recycling and disposal, until the site is cleared, level and ready for further use
- Benefits and loads beyond the system boundary: to develop scenarios regarding what will happen to a building after it has been demolished or dismantled in order to facilitate future reuse, recycling or recovery. This and the previous module together form the circular economy module
Materials, products and grid carbonisation are considered in the remainder of this section.
A WLC assessment template has been constructed, which gives applicants all the required information for submission at each of the three stages. Throughout this section, and indeed the whole document, user-friendly diagrams and tables are employed to aid applicants during the process.
For example, the Principles for reducing WLC emissions lists sixteen areas to be considered, with each having a separate list of relevant modules to which it pertains. They form a one stop shop for emission reduction.
Furthermore, headline information is given in this section, as is a note regarding software tools, which are listed in one of the three appendices. The three stages are explained in easy to follow steps.
As applicants will want to understand the process, transparency is assured via a list of what will be scrutinised in the assessments.
This assessment is an important step in emission reduction. For context, the World Green Building Council estimates that globally construction is responsible for 11% of carbon emissions.
London, as one of the world’s great cities, clearly has an important role to play in recusing carbon emissions and moving in the direction of the required environmental targets. Transparent and rigorous guidance like this can only push the city and the rest of the UK in the right direction.
With the construction sector given the government go-ahead to recommence this week, now is a good time to have a look at what effect Covid-19 has had so far on building and sustainability.
The Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA) has produced new guidance, BREEAM has made changes to its assessment requirements, surveys have been undertaken, and occupier expectations in professional environments are changing rapidly.
In terms of building work during the pandemic, at the start of May, based on a survey with an admittedly low sample, a quarter of businesses were fully operational, with 58% operating in a limited fashion. Moreover, 83% are still tendering for new projects. This suggests some optimism in the sector regarding work starting up once more, and that has been proven well-founded after Boris Johnson’s speech to the nation on May 10th.
However, with the vast majority of analysts predicting a major downturn, and with the UK economy posting a 2% contraction this week, its biggest quarterly fall since 2008, reality may not meet the expectation of the companies bidding for tender, especially as construction tends to function as one of the most predictive parts of the economy: when it’s up, we’re booming; when we’re not, it reduces dramatically.
To return to the IEMA, it’s worth a closer look at what’s going on there. It is the largest professional body for environmental practitioners in the world, and has put this on its website:
“Environment and Sustainability professionals face many challenges during the current health crisis ranging from the immediate term issues of performing daily roles and progressing the environment and sustainability goals within the organisation; to the long term future of the profession as business, society and the economy start to rebuild in the wake of the global impact of COVID-19”.
What is of most interest to us for the purposes of this article is ‘progressing the environment and sustainability goals within the organisation’. Why? Because it speaks clearly to the world in which we operate, and its long term future. Daily roles in administration can of course be done from home, and Sunday’s announcement from the prime minister means assessments and other work streams can begin again in earnest. However, as we start to come out of lockdown, changes to the way that business and society at large operate will create many challenges for the sector. The IEMA suggests these will come in the following areas, which I am listing, followed by some brief examples:
- Impact assessment
– how monitoring and surveys should proceed
– how statutory timeframes can be met
– how applications might be considered by planning authorities
- Environmental Management and Environmental Auditing
– sharing experiences and approaches to remote auditing
– what are the compliance obligations
– what are the implications for waste, resource management and packaging
- Corporate sustainability
– What are the strategies that will maintain commitments for environmental and sustainability work?
– Managing risks, dependencies and vulnerability
– Rejuvenating the case for sustainability when it might be a lower priority during a time of crisis
- Climate change and energy
– Links with the climate risk and adaptation agenda
– Maintaining momentum and planning for post-covid climate action
– Mandatory energy schemes and any adjustments
This is not an exhaustive list and there is much more to be said, but it’s clear that even this abridged version suggests that the sector is going to continue to experience upheaval. While it is certainly the case that companies are continuing to sign up to sustainability initiatives and are attempting to fulfil their corporate responsibilities, it is the case that a slow-down in uptake is likely to occur, as companies focus on the here and now: Return on Investment (ROI); cash flow; in short, survival strategies. Companies that have already embedded sustainability – in the supply chain, or in corporate decision-making – are more likely to keep to the required agenda than perhaps those only starting to take their first tentative steps in that direction.
BREEAM, as might be expected, have responded well in practical terms. Showing understanding of the difficulties caused by the situation, a bulletin has been released aiming to assist “assessors, and our wider stakeholders, with continuing to conduct assessments in a robust manner whilst also taking a practical view in light of the COVID-19 global crisis and its impacts on many territories”.
They have provided guidance in four areas, which again are listed, with examples drawn from the bulletin:
- Submitting assessments and certification
– Provide an account of the particular circumstances of the place and nature of the assessment within the report
- Gathering evidence for site assessments
– Where an assessor cannot personally visit or gain access to the site, they can appoint a suitable individual, for example a main contractor or asset manager, to undertake a formal site assessment on their behalf
– In such cases, the report should contain photos and/or a virtual tour, but where this is not possible – such as when a site is closed – built drawings and written confirmation from the design team and main contractors that the requirements have been met will be acceptable
- In use re-certification
– When site assessment is not possible, either by the assessor or a nominated individual, desk-based evidence will be accepted where:
– Evidence demonstrates that the criteria are being met as far as possible without a site assessment
– There is a firm commitment for a follow-up site inspection to be carried out when it is safe to do so, in line with local government guidance on Covid-19
- Timing of workshops, testing and other subsidiary evidence submissions
– In respect of workshops, the key consideration is that they take place at a time when they have a meaningful impact and achieve the aim of the criteria
– In respect of indoor air quality testing, where possible, the construction programme should allow time for the indoor air quality testing to be undertaken post-construction/pre-occupancy, in line with the BREEAM criteria. However, where it can be demonstrated that this is not possible, due to restrictions relating to COVID-19, it is permissible to undertake the indoor air quality testing post-occupancy.
Examples of when this will be the case are given.
– In respect of subsidiary, third party assessments such as ecological site inspections or audits, desktop surveys based on available information (e.g. planning surveys, agents’ reports, photographs, Google Earth), can be used as an alternative provided there is enough material for a confident recommendation and/or outcome to be achieved
What this tells us is that there has been a sensible approach to assessment in its various forms. BREEAM clearly understand the new imperatives of the new normal, and have adjusted their methods accordingly. It will be interesting to what extent any of these new approaches continue once we are out the other side of Covid-19.
Finally, how to create safe office spaces is of course very much on the agenda. This concerns not just the organisation of already-existing spaces, but the design of new ones, which is already changing. The British Council for Offices (BCO) has released a briefing note outlining what we are more likely to see more and less of in the next period. In the latter category, unsurprisingly, is hot desking; in the former, apps to remind people of various hygiene methods. Here is an indicative list from the briefing:
- The introduction of screens to protect receptionists
- The replacement of gendered communal toilets with pod-based ‘superloos’ that feature touchless doors, taps and soap dispensers
- An increase in bike storage, in the context of workers being likely to avoid public transport
- Limits on the number of people that can occupy a space, use a meeting room or share a lift at any one time
- An end to communal cutlery, coffee pots and water bottles
- The adoption of ventilation and humidification systems which create environments that make transmission tough for viruses
These are all sensible measures, though of course they have a cost, and may well need to be underpinned by legislation. What is the case is this: unless a vaccine is found, it’s extremely unlikely that office work will go back to the way it was before.
Considering the extent to which the Covid-19 outbreak is connected to environmental damage, it may well be that the sustainability agenda is in the long term given a new lease of life by the crisis. Certainly, short term signs are good. The noises coming from CEOs are the right ones. For example, a recent interview for GreenBiz, Mariano Lozano, CEO of Danone North America said this: “ultimately, we believe that this challenging moment can be used as a catalyst to help others recognize that the health of our people and of the planet are all interconnected.” The challenge for all of us working in the sector will be to make sure that thought stay at the forefront of people’s minds once we’re through the worst of this.
It was a long, but routine, training ride. In the calendar for this year was La Marmotte for a second time, and Liège-Bastogne-Liège aka ‘The Old Lady’. The winter bike had been put to good use in its first season, and he was raring to go.
Had those hours busting a gut on the Wattbike paid off?
The training ride would go up and into the Goyt Valley before heading towards Hathersage, then back home via Mam Tor and Whaley Bridge: 165km with 3,000m of elevation.
Sadly, this is one training ride that will never be forgotten, for all the wrong reasons. Around mid-morning after coming out of the Goyt Valley, Ben was involved in a collision and was air lifted to Stoke for emergency care on a Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI).
He was in a coma.
What followed was a very long road to recovery that has been both exhausting. That being said, it is gratifying that rehabilitation is being provided and that he is at least on a ‘road’, however long.
It was 2 years before Ben got back on a bike. He struggled to find the motivation for his once-loved pastime. That was until a good friend called and very nervously asked if Ben wanted to do the Maratona dles Dolomites in Italy.
The relief of finally having a goal, was similar to the feeling he felt when getting on his bike for the first time in two years – a huge weight lifted off.
So, along with 5 close friends he is doing the Maratona on 05.07.20. They will all be raising money for the Air Ambulance, so critical for Ben and so many others in providing immediate emergency care in hard to reach places.
In the current situation, clearly mass participation events in high risk areas have been stopped in their tracks, which initially removed this key goal from Ben’s rehab.
That is until he was convinced by a couple of new online platforms, which are excellent at mimicking the real thing. With the right kit, and group of friends, the Maratona could actually be done in augmented reality, using ANT+ enabled training equipment.
We are offering you the opportunity to be part of it, to ride it, to sponsor it and follow it.
All proceeds will be going to Air Ambulance services across the UK. This vital public service, which covers 3850 square miles and remains a charity, needs your support as much as ever. Read more about it here.
Ben’s story is one of many that could be told. Please donate.
Fitwel (facility innovations toward wellness environment leadership) is a building ratings system designed to be used for both commercial interiors and housing. Its guidelines provide an operating model for healthier buildings. It’s not just for existing buildings, either – it can be used in the design of new buildings, too.
The thinking behind it? Supporting health and wellbeing.
Launched in 2017 by the United States’ Centres for Disease Control and Prevention and General Services Administration, it has been rolled out universally since then. Fitwel Champions are committed to implementing the Fitwel Standard across their built environment portfolio.
Fitwel asks a question that is key as we enter the third decade of the 21st century: what is the role buildings can play in encouraging healthy behaviour, and consequently healthy lifestyles? Back in the 19th century, in the context of cholera and other infectious diseases, the relationship between the environment and public health started to be understood, leading to an increase in the construction of public parks and healthier (for the time) buildings. Nowadays, more and more of us are on board with the idea that we need to eat well, and exercise, but in what sort of environment? That is a question to which Fitwel can provide an answer.
All the required information is readily accessible and free, so a case can be made that it’s a genuine attempt to make an intervention in health and wellbeing. Also, certification is facilitated by Fitwel’s interactive, digital interface that gives you direct access to details about project performance and the impact upon health. You can register, benchmark, and submit either a single project or a portfolio for Fitwel certification.
What comprises the Fitwel standard?
There are a number of different scorecards, depending on whether you’re thinking about whole sites or individual buildings. For the former, it’s just two:
- Community scorecard
- Commercial scorecard
For buildings, there are significantly more:
- Multi-tenant base building scorecard
- Multi-tenant whole building scorecard
- Single tenant building scorecard
- Commercial interior space scorecard
- Retail scorecard
- Multifamily residential building scorecard
Further information, including downloadable scorecards, case studies, fact sheets and pamphlets, can be found here. The scorecards have over 55 strategies for design and operation that are intended to improve buildings through focussing on an extensive range of both health behaviours and risks. Each action has discrete point allocations, pertaining to the strength of the associated evidence, and the impact on the health of the occupants that can be demonstrated. Obviously, a strategy that has greater number of multi-faceted impacts will gain more points.
Fitwel sees health holistically, with no dominant category or area of focus, and because of this, all the strategies are voluntary, and do not have individual prerequisites. This means that there should be significantly fewer barriers to using the system. There are 7 categories that strategies can address:
- Those pertaining to community health
- Those that reduce morbidity and absenteeism
- Those that supports social equity for vulnerable populations
- Those that instil feelings of wellbeing
- Those that improve access to healthy foods
- Those that promote occupant safety
- Those that increase physical activity
Becoming a Fitwel Champion means that a company can offer its clients an additional way to attain Green Building Certification, and one that is recognised under the Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark (GRESB). Furthermore, as each strategy is voluntary, there are also fewer initial barriers or costs prohibiting any project from attempting certification.
Mainer Associates are working with a number of clients to examine appropriate assessment methodologies in order to demonstrate sustainability in the built environment. Air quality and more generally, health and wellbeing are at the forefront of people’s minds – just as much as energy, or carbon emissions. Mainer have invested time and budget in to becoming Fitwel Champions, as our chosen methodology for assessing health and wellbeing in the built environment.
The RIBA Plan of Work is the definitive model for the design and construction process of buildings. To paraphrase their own statement, it is designed to organise the process of briefing, designing, delivering, maintaining, operating and using a building into eight stages. It is intended to be used as guidance for the preparation of professional services and building contracts.
It has come a long way from its first iteration in 1963, when it came in the form of a fold-out sheet that simply explained participants’ roles via a basic matrix. As projects increased in complexity, and the regulatory environment changed, so did the Plan of Work, with the current structure of eight numerical stages being adopted in 2013. Specifically, Stage 0 was introduced that year, in order to create a pre-commencement point so that a decision could be made regarding if a building project was the optimum way for the client’s needs to be met, as was Stage 7, which provided a method for acknowledging a building’s life when in use until such time as Stage 0 recommences. Now, after seven years of gathering feedback, the new version has been released.
What is the context?
In June 2019 the UK Government committed to be net zero carbon by 2050, and the RIBA, along with much of the construction industry, are of the view that to meet this target new projects and refurbishments must be designed and constructed that will not require retrofitting again before 2050. A deadline of 2030has been set to achieve this. The RIBA believes that if this is to be successful, it needs to start now.
What is new this time?
The work stages have been renamed and reordered:
0 – Strategic definition
1 – Preparation and briefing
2 – Concept design
3 – Spatial coordination
4 – Technical design
5 – Manufacturing and construction
6 – Handover
7 – Use
There are extensive sections on how each stage works and a larger glossary detailing how each of the topics underpinning the plan are important to the success of a project. Furthermore, project strategies are fully explicated in order to show how a legion of topics will need to be addressed as a project moves through each stage.
The plan has been increasingly affected by the need to centre sustainability. The RIBA Sustainable Futures Group had a role in developing the relevant project strategy section, which emphasises the value of aftercare activities at Stage 6. This has replaced the Green Overlay.
In terms of BIM, where there has been changes as well, the overlay in question has been replaced by a new section, with a view towards addressing the challenges of using next generation digital deliverables, in the context of ever-increasing intricacy of information requirements. There will be greater emphasis on keeping models live, and using embedded data to push evidence-based design and to aid asset and facilities management.
A principal change has come with the change to Stage 3, which was in the previous version entitled ‘Developed Design’. The 2020 version suggests that the spatial coordination stage
“is fundamentally about testing and validating the Architectural Concept, to make sure that the architectural and engineering information prepared at Stage 2 is Spatially Coordinated before the detailed information required to manufacture and construct the building is produced at Stage 4… Stage 3 is not about adjusting the Architectural Concept, which should remain substantially unaltered, although detailed design or engineering tasks may require adjustments to make sure that the building is Spatially Coordinated.”
This has been changed and firmed up to address the issue of information being sought outside the main stage gateways, as it is not always possible for both deliverables and what tasks underpin them to be clear, and every stakeholder’s outputs may not have been taken into account. In short, the RIBA Plan of Work 2020 has been designed to prevent stages being split in two, as feedback suggested had been happening.
The other principal change has been to increase clarity between Stages 2 and 3. The concept should be got right at Stage 2, and should be fully signed off before Stage 3 begins. It shouldn’t be changed at that point. Rather, Stage 3 should comprise design studies for specific portions of the building, and detailed engineering analysis. The cost plan must be got right. Most importantly, the focus ought to be on the lead designer managing this information until Stage 3 is completed and 4 ready to begin.
The RIBA hopes that the Plan of Work 2020 “brings into focus the trends and innovations that are changing the construction industry and provides space for these to thrive on our projects while ensuring a simple and robust framework remains in place”.
It is a worthy ambition. In tandem with their Climate Change 2030 initiative, the RIBA is most definitely doing its part in the global fight for sustainability via the developing and implementing of transparent, measurable and achievable goals in the construction industry.
For our response to the new Plan of Work, see the Mainer RIBA Table.
As stakeholders ponder the different ways to achieve the aims of the 2016 Paris Climate Agreement, an innovative approach has been taken by the Dutch Green Building Council (DGBC) in the Netherlands. The goal? The creation of a Paris Proof built environment by 2040.
What does Paris Proof mean? A two thirds reduction of energy consumption in comparison to the current average. This is significantly more than what was required in 2016, which was a reduction of one fifth, and therefore represents one of the more ambitious nationally determined contributions (NDCs) from any country.
This multi-year sustainability programme requires an array of route maps across a range of sectors, which will sit under the umbrella of the Delta Plan for Sustainable Renovation. It will require a range of approaches, dependent on the size of the sector in question. For the six largest ones (healthcare, offices, retails, housing, logistics and education), the DGBC has partnered with working groups to push the best sustainability model. This involves, not surprisingly, buildings being tested for their current consumption levels. That’s the first step of the Delta Plan.
How will this work in practice for an organisation? There are six steps along the road:
- A portfolio inventory
- An analysis
- A sustainability plan
- Financing the operation
- Realising it
- Monitoring it
What are the targets? An office building must only use 50 kWh per square meter per year. By 2050, a care building with overnight accommodation will be allowed 80 kWh per square meter. For supermarkets, the number is larger: 150 kWh per square meter per year will still be available by that time. This will hit the two-thirds reduction target.
Of course, there is a bigger picture here than how much energy a given building must be using by 2050. That is the amount of energy that will be available by then. The Netherlands is committed to producing all energy sustainably – by wind, or solar power, for example – by that year, with the result that there will be less energy available; in short, one third of the current amount, with none of it producing CO₂ emissions. Therefore, the overall amount of energy that will be available perfectly aligns with the target for reduction. The detailed figures can be found here.
Paris Proof will allow organisations to hit targets 10 years earlier, at a point where the amount of energy available will still be more than the required use under the model. This will obviously aid in future proofing the Netherlands for the new world of 2050.
How was this plan realised? An important step was the Paris Proof working conference that took place in The Hague on June 13th 2019 comprising DGBC participants, members of the Paris Proof working groups and any other stakeholders. This half-day event saw the DGBC present their road maps, with the idea of encouraging businesses to make their own personal versions that are pertinent to their buildings and organisation.
In order to push their plan and encourage its take-up in other countries, the DGBC is hosting the Paris Proof Congress on May 28th this year. Let us hope it’s well attended, encouraging other countries to push aspirational NDCs. This will a huge help in giving the Paris Climate Agreement the best chance of success.
I bet you didn’t think your leftover breakfast could be recycled into something you enjoy in the evening, and with such snappy monikers, too? Well, Seven Bro7hers, a family-run brewery (the clue’s in the name) based in Salford, has gone into partnership with Kellogg’s to make it happen, producing three distinct beers:
- Throw Away IPA: made with Corn Flakes
- Cast off Pale Ale: made with Rice Krispies
- Sling it out Stout: made with Coco Pops
Here’s how it works.
Some cornflakes, rice crispies and coco pops don’t make the cut; perhaps because they’re a little overdone or the wrong size or colour. However, they’re obviously edible, taste fine and still have value. These ones formed the basis for Seven Bro7hers’ beer-making experiment. Handily, after they’d been playing around with this idea, Kellogg’s moved their HQ to Media City in Salford, and were approached by the brothers.
It turned out that Kellogg’s were sending over 500 tonnes a year of unused Corn Flakes to be used as animal feed. Kellogg’s as a company are very keen to push a sustainability agenda and are investing in it, so the idea of turning waste into beer sat very well with them, as you’d imagine. They now send a percentage of their unused cereal to Seven Bro7hers.
The first of the beers to be born was Throw Away IPA in November 2018, available on draught or in cans. The brothers discovered that if they replaced 80kg of the malted barley in their already existing stout and pale ale with Coco Pops and Rice Krispies respectively, they had two more cereal beers, giving them a mini-range. It was a case of getting right the ratio of cereal to the existing grain mix; once that was achieved, the brothers say that it’s much the same as making any other beer. It is, but other beers, either those made in small craft breweries or by the giants of the industry, aren’t doing their bit for sustainability.
As a New York Times article from this July suggests, this is not just a commercial venture: it’s a genuine attempt to contribute to arresting food waste, which as we know plays such a role in climate change. Why? Because a third of the world’s food lies unused, or is wasted or lost. It then goes to landfills, where it decomposes, and releases methane gas into the atmosphere.
Next time you have a drink, think about this, and consider a pint (or can) of one of these beers, particularly if you love the taste of cereal (and don’t we all?) It’s nice to think that every glass you sink is contributing in a small way to the fight against climate change, isn’t it?
In advance of a 3 year strategy to be announced in early 2020, BREEAM has written to all its assessors to inform them of a new Customer Service Charter and Code of Practice. The message is that there have been improvements in timescales and services but clients should be assured of their ongoing commitment to enhancement, with a particular focus on improving turnaround times for resubmitted assessments as well as assessments requiring translation. Included within the Charter is a set of newly defined Quality Assurance Principles, which describe the themes and behaviours by which their auditors will be guided when conducting technical reviews of assessments. There are three areas:
Communication: To work in partnership with assessors to deliver effectively for them and their client
Trust in Assessors: To recognise the professional competence, reputation and quality of assessors and their work
Confidence in QA: To inspire assessor and end-client confidence in BREEAM, their schemes and certification
Furthermore, the Charter commits BREEAM to delivering outstanding customer service through the motivation of their people to serve customers’ needs in a professional manner. They recognise that their role is to support assessors and their clients via transparent, quality-assured standards, procedures and outcomes that provide value and confidence.
To that end, they have published service level standards for QA audits and new guidance for certification application requests that provide a transparent timeline for audit, feedback and certification. At the assessor’s request, this information can be sent directly to a client. New guidance for registration and licence applications is also in the Charter, with attendant timescales. Guidance for Green Specification ratings is included, with a Green Guide Calculator to enable assessors to quickly and efficiently generate Green Guide ratings.
The Code of Practice aims to promote:
- the best standards of practice and professional behaviour by Assessors
- confidence in the integrity of the Scheme, Assessors, Assessment Services and Certification
Assessors must ensure that they understand and comply with this Code and any accompanying guidance. They must adhere to the Code of Practice and meet its requirements in the following areas:
- Personal and professional standards
- Skills and ability
- Conflicts of interest
- Information for the client
The Code of Practice will be rolled-out as part of assessors’ annual licence renewal over the next 12 months (or as part of any new licence application from 2nd January 2020).
In terms of energy efficiency in UK buildings, a performance gap exists between what was intended at the design stage and what actually happens at the use stage. Better Buildings Partnership’s (BBP) Design for Performance (DfP) initiative has been designed to fix this.
This new approach being pushed by the BBP is predicated upon measurable performance outcomes and is based upon a 3-year review of the National Australian Built Environment Rating System (NABERS) Energy Rating & Commitment Agreement. Sarah Ratcliffe, chair of the DfP executive board, and programme director at the BBP, explained the proposed change of approach like this:
The UK property industry desperately needs verification and disclosure of performance in use because, without these, the market cannot drive improvements in performance.
The problems pertaining to the current system are well-known:
- Failing regulations
- Current voluntary schemes check design intent, but seldom inspect whether this translates into better performing buildings
- Operational data is hard to get
- Operational performance is not reported upon and is therefore invisible to investors, occupiers and the market in general
A picture has formed of a market that is operating blind, with no reliable way of ascertaining which buildings are performing well and which are not. In Australia, on the other hand, operational ratings are required, rather than the theoretical ones that form the basis of Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs), which were introduced into the UK following a European Union directive in 2007. A recent article about EPCs for ScienceDirect outlines a further aspect of the problem:
The performance gap, i.e. the difference between estimated and actual energy performance…, may be preventing adoption of bottom-up energy efficiency measures.
This intimates that EPCs may be not only doing the job they were created to do, but that 12 years on from their introduction, may actually be part of the problem. In that context, moving away from the current design-for-compliance model to one that can insert measurable performance outcomes at the brief stage makes sense.
What testing has taken place and is the plan achievable?
The DfP team and the BBP have run pilots and feasibility studies throughout the last 7 years. Initial findings clarified that NABERS could not be used accurately on existing schemes, as heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) energy use could not be considered discretely from tenants’ other energy uses. Therefore, DfP decided to concentrate on developing the scheme solely for new buildings. Following this, a 2015 feasibility study in conjunction with Australian experts and pilots undertaken in the last 2 years tested the scheme in actual office developments. This has convinced the DfP that a national scheme equivalent to NABERS has legs in the UK. Moreover, the myriad failings of the current design-for-compliance process were writ large in the pilot studies, as Robert Cohen, technical lead at DfP, states:
The current system of applying energy efficiency requirements based on a theoretical model – the results of which are never, and can never be, verified by measurements – is so fundamentally flawed it is remarkable it’s continued for so long.
Of course, the success of this project will not just be based on its technical capacity to measure accurately and deliver the required ratings: it will also need industry buy-in, upskilling, engagement, training and a recognised accreditation scheme. Furthermore, it is important to leave scope for future transformation, as alluded to by one expert in the sector: “developers need to be mindful not to lock in the energy profile of a building, as the future may bring new efficiency measures and a rise or fall in energy demands.”
How will the benefits be obtained?
The aim is to achieve total market transformation. A key part of that is advanced modelling, which is standard in Australia and not part of the thinking in the UK. Virtual running of buildings before construction utilising software common in Australia will enable this to be done quite easily. Advanced simulation requires HVAC modelling and gives a much greater level of precision, with defined control systems that are written into the draft operations and then used by the engineers when designing the controls. This means the real building ends up being controlled in much the same way as its virtual version did at the modelling stage.
NABERS began as a voluntary scheme, and became mandatory throughout the market via the size of asset requiring disclosure slowly shrinking over time. The DfP believes this can be achieved in the UK in a much shorter period of time; as well as clearly making sense for creating environmentally sounder buildings, it adds a layer to the engineers’ jobs that make them more exciting. This can be used by firms to attract the best people and increase their retention once they’re on board. A win-win, then, for assets, the environment and engineering? Here are some headline statistics from Australia:
- 870 million dollars in energy bills saved by users since 1999
- 6 million tonnes of CO2 emissions saved – enough to power 93,430 homes for 1 year (based on Office Energy ratings only)
- 78 percent of Australia’s office space is rated with NABERS
There is a difference worth pointing out, though: NABERS is a government programme and as such has state backing and buy-in. The BBP, on the other hand, is an umbrella for a number of companies from the private sector, who all have very good reasons, both commercial and environmental, to push the adoption in the UK of an equivalent scheme to NABERS. What remains to be seen is whether it can obtain the necessary government buy-in to roll this out across the sector. Will the move from voluntary to mandatory be more difficult in the UK? Only time will tell.
Mainer Associates can assist with a variety of services aimed at closing the performance gap including, occupation phase energy modelling (TM54), soft landings procedures, Post Occupancy Evaluation, energy monitoring strategies and BREEAM In-Use. Please contact us at email@example.com