SUSTAINABILITY
this article, but elements can be considered at project level – such as travel impact, purchase of goods and services, waste, and our supply chains.
The real world
Our targets do need to be affordable and realisable, and there are some key pressure points which can derail our best efforts – firstly, setting a capital spend budget based on ‘business as usual’ buildings. It is unrealistic to expect a zero carbon building to cost the same as a Building Regulation ‘just’ compliant building. If a budget is set based on previous budgets on a cost/m2
Table 1: Is the site suitable for a new-build?
n A low-rise, substantially naturally ventilated solution is possible. n The site is not in close proximity to a noisy environment, or – if it will be a source of noise – it will not cause a potential nuisance to adjacent buildings, particularly residential.
basis, as is
so often the case at very early planning stages, there will be an inevitable uplift once the implications of more challenging targets work their way through the design process. It is better to add in a realistic on- cost from the earliest stage.
Disconnect between capital and revenue budgets Secondly, the thorny issue of the disconnect between capital and revenue budgets must be addressed. A carbon- efficient building should have a lower whole-life cost, and this should be recognised by increased capital funding to achieve this. Whole-life cost is the best measure of value for money.
How then?
Making our targets realisable takes a fundamental change in the way we plan and procure a project, and the remainder of this article considers how this change can come about, and what is required to achieve it. We have considered the vision of the organisation, and the key decision- makers and leaders within it need to uphold this vision, while of course managing the key clinical and operational outcomes of the project. This should now be translated into a set of measurable targets and budgets which support the targets. The next step is to define responsibilities, so that there is a clear chain of reporting and support for the vision and targets.
n The site is not unduly shaded, and good daylight will be possible. n The site is free from protected species and valuable ecological habitat. n The site is close to public transport networks and local amenities. n The brief accommodation fits the site well. n The site is not in a flood plain or in an area subject to flooding. n The site is suitable for SUDS or similar mitigation measures to reduce run-off. n The ground characteristics allow a simple, low carbon sub-structure. n There is potential for novel and/or low carbon energy sources. n The site is ‘brownfield’, or previously developed in some respect.
n There are no other major constraints which would limit the ability of the building to deliver a low carbon outcome (e.g. planning constraints).
From the top
At the earliest stage, there are usually directors and project managers involved within the organisation. They will be undertaking business plans and deciding on the scale, site, and scope of the project. This is probably the most critical stage of the process to achieve a low or zero carbon outcome. Do we need to build at all, or could existing accommodation be repurposed? Some studies show it can take 20-30 years for savings in energy and emissions from a new building to outpace the embodied energy. Our existing building stock is often inefficient, and budget spent improving it will often decrease the carbon impact of the estate to a much greater degree than a costly zero carbon new build. Is it better to have one exemplar building or 20-30 good retrofits? Do we need to build as much, or could we make better use of shared spaces? For example, it can be costly in carbon terms to locate a lot of office or ancillary accommodation within a highly serviced clinical building, when it could be located in a low carbon, naturally ventilated building. Open plan offices are much more efficient than cellular spaces.
Remember, the bigger the building, the more carbon it will consume. The analogy is a fridge with an ecolabel. Both a larger and a smaller fridge (Fig 3) may be A+++ rated, but the large one will take more resources to manufacture and use much more energy than the small one, and if the small one will fulfil our brief, then clearly it is much better to purchase the small one. Likewise with buildings, and this is where targets can be misleading, as the metric is energy/m2
. Where to build?
Next, is the site we select going to help or hinder our zero carbon aspirations? Table 1 is a checklist which should be considered before a site is selected. So often the site is a ‘given’ for a professional team, who then have an uphill struggle to meet zero carbon requirements.
The team
The next stage will be appointing external professional advisers such as architects, project managers, engineers, and cost consultants. Appointments may take place under frameworks such as ProCure22, where a main contractor team
July 2021 Health Estate Journal 19
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
