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.

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..

Time now for the next part of the Draft on sustainable construction brought to you by Builderscrap.com. Today we reflect on the previous posts and scrutinise the time frames given.

Q: Do the targets and milestones 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. Around 75% of respondents who answered this question agreed that the proposed targets were realistic and achievable. A smaller proportion (15%) favoured more challenging targets.

2. The only comment on the first target (All new homes built with English Partnerships or Housing Corporation funding to meet Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes (105 litres per person per day) from April 2008) was that there should be a link to the higher levels of the Code for Sustainable Homes.

3. A small number of respondents to the second target felt that the target level of litres per head/ per day set in the Building Regulations in 2008 should be 100 litres/head/day and not, as proposed, 125 litres/head/day.

4. Some respondents felt that the fourth target (reduction in water consumption by 25% on office and non-office estate by 2020 relative to 2004/05 levels) needed greater clarity.

Yet again we find ourselves here at BuilderScrap.com delving deeper into the draft for sustainable construction. Today’s question focuses on the construction industries reaction to climate change, and the respondents varying opinions.

Q: Are there other actions that the Government should be taking to help the construction industry rise to the challenge of climate change?

1. Although a wide variety of suggestions were offered by respondents to this question, the vast majority (about 75%) were concentrated around just 10 themes.

2. Many respondents said that the existing stock of buildings (mostly domestic, but there were also some references to non-domestic buildings) needed to be improved, though there were few suggestions as to how this should be accomplished. The focus was on improving energy efficient performance of these buildings, rather than on adaptation.

3. Approximately 7% of responses urged the establishment of climate change adaptation targets.

4. Respondents urged the promotion of specific technologies, e.g. the generation of energy from renewable sources; use of particular products, sometimes with higher thermal mass; or innovations to make building more adaptable to future climate change.

5. Some respondents thought more information should be provided by Government on these issues. A number sought clearer definitions by Government, e.g. on Zero Carbon and carbon neutrality. Some suggested fiscal incentives.

6. Some responses urged improvements in compliance software; improvements in tools such as BREEAM; and recommended defining a standard for carbon counting.

7. Other areas which attracted comments were: a need to address embodied energy in carbon footprints; a need to focus on non-domestic buildings; tightening the planning system; sponsoring more research; and infrastructure considerations.

More from the BuilderScrap.com office, this post focuses on the legislation that hinders sustainability in business operations.

Q: We would be grateful for information from you on specific pieces of legislation which are impeding your ability to be more sustainable in your business operations.

1. Many respondents favoured better and simpler regulation. A number of respondents highlighted the importance of more effective planning and Building Control (and enforcement) system to help to deliver change, achieve clarity, ensure compliance and lead to improved standards.

2. A number of respondents considered the UK waste regime to be too complex (particularly for SMEs) and that there needed to be greater clarity in the definition of waste and current licensing, recycling and reuse issues.

3. Some respondents felt there was a positive role for regulation to frame and drive up standards, while creating a period of certainty during which industry could adapt its processes and products to the new standards. Some said that regulation should be complemented by other initiatives such as financial incentives to encourage innovation.

4. Some respondents said the Strategy was an opportunity to develop mechanisms to change things for the better. Many contributors from the industry, institutions and trade bodies were committed to this change. They looked to Government leadership to set a framework for change to which individuals and businesses could commit.

More from Draft Strategy for Sustainable Construction. At BuilderScrap.com we continue to publish extracts from this draft not only because it aligns with our goals but also the nature of feedback given is important to us.  Let us know what you think!

Q: Which of the proposed actions for business do you consider to be a priority? Why? What are the barriers to implementing this action and how might they be overcome? Who should take the lead in implementing this action?

1. Some respondents felt it wrong to focus on priorities since action was required across a broad front. Others suggested a single action. Some discussed the difficulty of appraising design quality.

2. The three top priorities identified by respondents were: early supply chain engagement or integration; greater demand for Design Quality Indicators (DQIs) and BREEAM; and for clients to drive the process. There was little comment on how contractors might promote the adoption of DQIs more effectively when this was primarily an issue for the client. There was an
important role for the public sector as client and scope for using better regulation to promote the uptake of BREEAM standards.

3. A number of respondents felt that more attention should be paid to the supply chain and the role of integrated teams rather than the client / designer relationship.

4. The continuing focus on initial cost rather than whole life value was seen as key. In the public sector, the distinction between capital expenditure and operational budgets characterised the issue. Lack of knowledge sharing between professions could result in “partial” advice and guidance.

More feedback the BuilderScrap team has found on Sustainable construction.  We’ve been analysing data in the past 5 posts from both clients and the construction industry in relation to this draft strategy.

Q.What in your view are the major costs and benefits of this Strategy for industry, clients, Government and the public at large?

1. In general, responses to this question did not provide significant quantitative data on costs and benefits.

2. The benefits highlighted by respondents included reduced environmental impacts (noted by 20% of respondents); reduction in long-term running costs (almost 20%); the potential for exporting environmental knowledge (10%); improved image (10%); and improvements in health, safety, crime, flooding, fuel poverty and local employment (also about 10%).

3. Other suggested benefits included improving skills; benefits to business including greater clarity and streamlining of initiatives; better long term security of investment; and improved efficiency and cost management.

4. Most respondents believed there would also be costs in implementing this Strategy, though reduced running costs could mitigate some or all of these over time. Almost 40% of respondents highlighted increased capital costs; almost 20% increased training costs; 15% time and management costs; and 10% research costs.

5. Some respondents estimated the additional costs of attaining level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes at around £3k – £5k per house.

6. Some respondents suggested that more stringent environmental regulations could influence company decisions on whether to locate manufacturing facilities in the UK.