BUILDING PERFORMANCE 2 SCHOOLS
Stockport Academy, Greater Manchester, was one of three academies in the study
Schools appear to be a dominant building
type in the BPE programme. This could be because so many new schools have been built in the past decade, but it could also be argued that plenty of offices, retail parks and other buildings have also sprung up across the UK. What sets schools apart is the scrutiny they have had to undergo in terms of energy performance, which makes them an ideal candidate for the BPE programme. All buildings funded by Partnership for
Schools (PfS) had to gain a BREEAM Very Good or Excellent rating, which would require significant improvements to building fabric and system efficiency compared with Building Regulations minimum requirements. In addition, all education buildings are required by law to obtain and put on show a Display Energy Certificate (DEC), which mandates the annual reporting of operational energy use in the public domain. Aedas, an architectural practice, was
successful in securing two separate BPE bids covering the detailed comparative analysis of five educational institutions – three academies and two schools. These are: Petchey Academy
40 CIBSE Journal March 2012
in North London; Stockport Academy, Greater Manchester; Academy 360, Sunderland; Brine Leas School, Nantwich, Cheshire; and Loxford School of Science and Technology, Ilford, Essex. Four of the five are large secondary schools
more than 15,000 sq m; the fifth, Brine Leas, a sixth-form centre, is just under 3,000 sq m. Aside from Stockport Academy, which was procured under a traditional JCT contract, all the buildings were constructed under a design-and-build contract. Petchey Academy was the only institution
that was procured before BREEAM assessment became mandatory in 2004. Loxford School, the only naturally ventilated building, was BREEAM Excellent, while the rest achieved BREEAM Very Good. When the study commenced, all the buildings apart from Petchey Academy were in their first year of occupation.
Background These projects have provided an opportunity to review pertinent industry questions about low carbon design. Given the seemingly
www.cibsejournal.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84