The first of this weeks posts from BuilderScrap.com on the Strategy for Sustainable Construction

Q: We propose new measures to stimulate action to improve resource efficiency, reduce waste and increase diversion from landfill (through more re-use, recycling and recovery). Are these measures achievable and sufficiently ambitious? What needs to be done and by whom to achieve these aims?

1. Of respondents who commented, most considered the measures achievable and ambitious. The proposal to include contractual requirements for measurement and improvement of material resource efficiency for projects over £1 million in value aroused neither great support or strong opposition. Some felt it added little to the introduction of Site Waste Management Plans and/or would increase the burden on industry for little gain.

2. On the proposal for waste-neutrality in major Government construction projects, there was interest in the concept but uncertainty about the methodology for calculating and meeting such a target. Several commented that Government should lead by example in public construction projects.

3. A number of respondents highlighted the importance of SWMPs (Site Waste Management Plans); a few others suggested tax incentives for systems to reduce waste at the site level, such as a take back or exchange scheme; and / or the mandatory use of WRAP processes.

Here at BuilderScrap we understand the increased pressures being placed on the construction industry to up their ‘enviornmental game’.  This article we have come across in Contract Journal discusses this in relation to London 2012.

Green technology and sustainability will be the big driver for construction in the next decade of the 21st Century.
Certainly there is a growing consensus of opinion that in the near future developers will have to parade their sustainability credentials and jump through hoops to win planning and financial backing.
And naturally contractors able to prove they can meet more stringent construction demands will win the big prizes when the recovery finally takes hold.
In a sense this is not particularly new thinking.
Perhaps a more pertinent question to ask: is how committed are we as an industry to creating a more sustainable built environment?  If it comes at a high upfront cost do clients really have an appetite among clients to pay for it?
The dilemma is partly exemplified by the 2012 Olympics. Targets to recycle 90% of all demolition arisings on the huge site looked ambitious to say the leased when first published. In fact the builders and contractors and engineers rose to the challenge and managed to deliver a gold medal winning performance of 98% reuse.
Likewise the job to wash and clean millions of cu m of heavily contaminated earth should be up there on the podium of excellence for generations to benchmark against.
An outstanding performance all round, but what of the Olympic Delivery Authority’s target to use 70 per cent recycled aggregates over primary aggregates.
This appears to be left behind in the starting blocks.
The background to this underlines some of the problems the industry faces. In fact supplier Aggregates Industries tempted the ODA into raising the target from 25 per cent, saying it could supply the sufficient quantities of recycled aggregates to deliver 70% use.
In practice this proved too ambitious for several reasons. One unforeseen complication was the delayed opening of Prescott Lock. This impacted badly on plans to ship aggregates by water.
More importantly contractors are understandably loath to use recycled aggregates because design risks magnify and ultimately the cost of concrete rises because more cement is required.
On paper reducing primary aggregate use to 30% looked an achievable target, in practice real cost implications and a performance concerns put it beyond reach.
The unfortunate outcome is that it appears the ODA and construction industry failed to hit a green target. In truth a lack of practical thought in the rush to deliver world-beating statistics created a problem that didn’t need to exist in the first place.
There is only one failure in this story and that was not getting everybody from the supply chain around the table in the first place to agree an achievable but challenging target.

More from the BuilderScrap.com on the sustainable construction draft.

Q: Do the targets, milestones and proposals for waste appear realistic, achievable and sufficiently ambitious over the time frames envisaged? If not, then please suggest alternatives and who should be responsible for their implementation.

1. Respondents offered a range of opinions on the feasibility of the targets and milestones proposed. A third considered them appropriate and achievable targets; very few considered them as unattainable. Two respondents considered them insufficiently ambitious.

2. However, levels of support differed across individual targets. For example, a significant number of respondents (25%) considered the 2020 zero waste to landfill target unrealistic, due to economic and/or regulatory constraints, even if they agreed with the principle of reducing volumes to landfill to minimum levels. Some suggested that that particular target contradicted the acknowledgement in the Waste Strategy for England 2007 that landfill might continue to have a place for disposal of some wastes, such as hazardous wastes. Some questioned whether achieving absolute zero would deliver environmental benefits if this meant the transport of waste for long distances.

3. Alternatives to the 2020 zero waste target were proposed, such as halving waste every five years; reassessing the longer-term target after 2012; or focusing on waste reduction rather than landfill avoidance.

4. There was a strong level of interest in the concept of zero net waste. Respondents suggested that further analysis was required to develop a workable definition and an achievable target. A couple of respondents questioned the appropriateness of an “offset” target; others commented that a more reliable supply of recycled content materials would be needed to make this target feasible. Some respondents suggested breaking the target down by sector.

5. Few respondents addressed the question of responsibility for implementation; those that did suggested Defra, CLG or the Environment Agency.

6. There were a number of suggestions about the measures to help reach these targets, e.g. a specific target for designers; the need for additional waste infrastructure capacity; incentives to industry to invest in technologies and processes used elsewhere.

The burning question that we at BuilderScrap.com want answered!

Q: Is it feasible to halve construction, demolition and excavation waste to landfill by 2012 from a baseline of 2005? Is the baseline appropriate, and what specifically has to be done, and by whom, to achieve this target?

1. Just over 50% of respondents to this question said they considered the target feasible and appropriate, while only four explicitly concluded that it was not feasible.

2. Around 40% of respondents commented on the importance of a clear definition and methodology in setting and monitoring performance against this target. Opinions were divided over the use of 2005 as the baseline year; some thought more information was needed before a judgement could be made. Around 25% of respondents thought the industry needed a better understanding of the breakdown of Construction, Demolition and Excavation waste and measurement techniques.

3. Many respondents underlined the importance of an integrated approach to reducing waste. 10% questioned whether and how the target might be broken down for different sectors and companies. These respondents generally felt that it would be easier to deliver specific targets (e.g. on design, manufacturing etc.) rather than a single overarching target.

4. Some 20% of respondents highlighted the importance of the procurement and design stages in waste minimisation.

5. Respondents described a range of measures to help meet this target. The two most popular were Site Waste Management Plans; and WRAP (Waste Resource Action Program) processes, use of which might be more vigorously promoted or mandated. A smaller number of respondents highlighted the importance of strong fiscal and regulatory measures (e.g. landfill tax, aggregates levy).

6. There were also suggestions for greater training and education across the supply chain, the development of national or local waste markets/exchanges, improved supply chain co-ordination and greater investment in and better access to waste treatment centres.

This weeks first instalment of the BuilderScrap sustainable construction draft responses…Enjoy!

Q: One aim of the proposal would be to create an integrated approach to maintain and where possible enhance biodiversity as a result of construction sector activity. Please say what you think would be helpful to companies in the construction sector to support the aims of maintaining and enhancing biodiversity.

1. One third of those who responded to this question cited the important role of the planning system in ensuring that biodiversity was taken into account in new developments. Better use might be made of the Planning Gain Supplement – or of Supplementary Planning Guidance – in implementing green infrastructure initiatives.

2. Just over a quarter of respondents identified the need for raising awareness of biodiversity issues and the role of training throughout the supply chain to improve understanding of how individual projects could contribute to biodiversity and the creation of public green space.

3. Just under a quarter of respondents cited the need for a simple guide, widely available, on biodiversity and for a list of quick wins on how to improve and protect biodiversity on projects. Many commented that there were already several relevant regulatory and good practice measures and requirements (e.g. Environmental Assessments, such as BREEAM and Biodiversity Action Plans) which might be included in the Strategy.

4. Some suggested that environmental assessment methodologies, such as BREEAM, could serve to enhance and measure biodiversity on sites. These tools could also be developed to provide credit for site-wide ecological enhancement. Environmental Management Plans such as BREEAM and Biodiversity Action Plans were existing mechanisms for helping the construction industry engage more effectively with conservation and biodiversity issues.

5. Some respondents suggested the Strategy should acknowledge the importance of a green infrastructure in delivering a range of social, environmental and economic benefits. Attenuating storm water run-off through the use of green roofs and green space was, for instance, seen as an important component of sustainable communities. To realise its full potential, considerations about the green infrastructure needed to be taken into account in development proposals from the outset.

6. Many respondents welcomed the proposal to convene a construction and building materials industry workshop. A result of this workshop might be a Draft Strategy for Sustainable Construction Chapter Title: Biodiversity set of guidance papers for the industry developed in partnership with a range of organisations such as local water authorities, Natural England, the Environment Agency, wildlife Trusts, NGOs (Non-Governmental Organisations), the Town and Country Planning Association, CIRIA (Construction Industry Research and Information Association), BSRIA, the Building Research Establishment, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and English Heritage.

7. Some respondents favoured a stronger emphasis on the natural environment in the targets for sustainable construction. Possible targets could be impacts on biodiversity which were neutral or enhancing (e.g. in terms of species and habitats), which could be measured through BREEAM or CEEQUAL (Civil Engineering Environmental Quality and Assessment Scheme).

8. Other suggested possibilities included:

The creation of habitat maps for particular species or wildlife in the area around a site;

Encouraging consultants and developers to increase habitat links in the area as a means of enhancing the biodiversity of the site;

Options to contribute to biodiversity projects offsite; and

The development of Site Biodiversity Action Plans for projects over a certain value (say £1m).

Respondents also pointed out that initial site surveys of biodiversity could be time-sensitive (subject to seasonal variations) and delay development considerably..

This article we have come across on the Building website, discusses the proposed improvements to the sustainability of new home construction.  We believe that BuilderScrap can help by providing a sustainable method of passing on surplus building materials.

Housing minister John Healey has proposed changes to Part L of Building Regulations which will introduce a 25% improvement on current standards of energy efficiency of both homes and commercial buildings from October 2010.

The new housing minister launched a consultation at the RTPI planning conference on changes to the building regs that would require new buildings to have much better insulation and lower-energy lighting and heating. The 25% improvement in domestic performance was widely expected as it is already contained in the Code for Sustainable Homes, however the plan to expected non-domestic buildings to achieve the same improvements will come as a surprise to the industry.

Healey said such a move could save families £100 a year on their heating and electricity bills.  He said: “We must build our homes to a better, greener standard. We are leading the way globally, with our ambitions for zero-carbon homes and buildings. Today I have announced the next step towards zero carbon – a 25% improvement on current standards for new homes or buildings from 2010.”

Robert Upton, secretary-general of the RTPI, said: “To adopt this 25% improvement in 2010 will be tough but this is a bold decision which we welcome and fully support. If we are to achieve our targeted reduction of carbon emissions of 20% by 2020 as the minister indicated, we have to act now… It’s time for planners, architects and developers to step up to the mark and respond to this challenge.”