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 question analyses responses to the consultation on the draft Strategy for Sustainable Construction. The aim of the consultation was to gather views to important questions covered in the draft. BuilderScrap.com have been publishing the respondents views over the past month to keep our subscribers informed about upcoming government initiatives. We’ve thought the process involved in creating a road map of this type from a public consultation is very interesting

Q: Are there any issues which have not been covered which you feel should be addressed? If so, what are they and what targets and milestones would you propose?

1. A fifth of responses felt Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) could make an important contribution to surface water management. Just over half of those that discussed SUDS explicitly supported consultation on the future development of SUDS. Smaller numbers (7%) raised issues regarding the long term payment and maintenance agreements required for SUDS to function correctly. A range of other points regarding SUDS were also made, including the suggestion that it should not be restricted to the urban context. 14% of respondents felt that there was inadequate reference to the need for adaptation planning with regard to flooding, especially in light of the flooding in the summer of 2007. Rain and grey water collection and processing systems were supported by 10% of respondents, some of whom favoured an explicit target for their adoption. 7% of respondents felt that Government should encourage the public to use water more efficiently. 5% of respondents favoured water metering, the introduction of reduced flow fittings and action to address leakages in the water distribution network. Other suggestions – from a small number of respondents – ranged from support for a national water grid to desalination plants.

BuilderScrap.com believes in making construction as sustainable as possible.  This article from the Building website looks at the government commitment to making new homes zero carbon after 2016. But, as the article discusses, a lot depends on how you define zero.

01 / redefining zero-carbon homes
You might think that it would be relatively straightforward to define a zero-carbon home, but the construction industry has spent the past 18 months tying itself in knots over the issue. The government’s recent consultation provides an insight into where the debate is going; this article provides an overview of some of the key issues.
• The current position: The government is committed to reducing UK CO2 emissions 80% by 2050. With housing representing about a quarter of those emissions and with 35% of our 2050 housing likely to be built after 2008, it is understandable that much policy emphasis has been placed on low and zero-carbon buildings.
It was back in December 2006, that the government made the first proposals that all new homes would be “zero carbon” after 2016. At the time, zero-carbon status required that over the course of a year, a development would emit no CO2 from its heating, hot water, lighting and appliances. All of the carbon reductions had to be achieved using local “off-site” technologies connected to the development by a direct physical connection (e.g. a private wire arrangement).
Analysis was undertaken to determine the costs of delivering this policy.  As might be expected, costs and benefits vary depending on the scale and location of development and the mix of housetypes. Analyses highlighted concerns regarding the deliverability of zero carbon using exclusively on-site solutions. These include:
• The impact on capital cost and project viability
• The technical feasibility of delivery
• The over-reliance on specific technologies, notably biomass and biomass combined heat and power.
In addition, recent proposals to revise the SAP assessment method by which domestic CO2 emissions are modelled (specifically, revisions of the emission factor for electrical generation on site) would reduce the amount of carbon reduction achieved through on-site generation by about 25%, further exacerbating concerns over deliverability and cost.
Consequently, the government recently consulted on alternative definitions of a zero-carbon home. These comprise minimum standards of energy efficiency, a defined level of carbon savings to be achieved on site and the reduction of residual emissions through a range of potential “allowable solutions”.

BuilderScrap allows builders and contractors to source and dispose of building materials in a more sustainable manner, and we believe that this could be of great benefit to the future of zero carbon home.

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.

This week at BuilderScrap, we have come across this interesting article about sustainable building materials on ehow.com.  Have a read, and let us know what you think.

In all of the phases of construction of a new house there are material decisions that are required. The materials for the foundation, the material for the super-structure of the house and so on. In choosing these materials home builders have more choices than ever to build using sustainable products. This article will discuss the major steps in the construction of a house and correlate those major phases to the applicable sustainable materials that can be used. In most instances the sustainable material choice has a higher “up front” cost compared to conventional materials but as many business cases have shown they have a pay back over the long run when considering the lower maintenance costs and the longevity of the materials. Another major factor to consider with sustainable materials is the instant “character” that is integrated into the construction of your new home.
According to the U.S. Green Building Council “A green home will have been constructed or renovated with healthy, non-toxic building materials and furnishings, like low- and zero-VOC (volatile organic compound) paints and sealants and non-toxic materials like strawboard for the sub-flooring. Wood-based features should come from rapidly renewable sources like bamboo, but if tropical hardwoods are used, they must be certified by the Forest Stewardship Council. A green home uses salvaged materials like kitchen tiles and materials with significant recycled content.”

Let us here at BuilderScrap know what you think!

More from BuilderScrap.com on the Draft Strategy for Sustainable Construction.  Todays question reflects on the targets and deliverables the draft proposed to deliver sustainability in the industry.

Q: If you agree that the proposed key actions and deliverables covered in the People Agenda reflect the main priority areas to deliver sustainability for the industry, what specific work streams and targets would help deliver these commitments?

1. Most respondents (including ConstructionSkills) agreed that the proposed key actions and targets reflected the main priority areas, but did not comment specifically on the targets. A few specifically affirmed their agreement; and a few others thought they were insufficiently challenging or expressed concern about target dates.

2. Responses were received from a wide range of organisations – ConstructionSkills, professional institutions, trade bodies, companies and colleges, as well as a mix of other organisations. Some respondents said they would like more details on proposed actions. Few common threads could be identified. A few respondents offered views about the scope of the People agenda and the importance of involving end users, wider communities and the public.

3. Some respondents said that the areas addressed by the People agenda were too focused on trade skills and could pay more attention to the needs of professionals and designers and to wider regeneration issues. The role of the professional institutions was considered important.