SUSTAINABLE LIVING

By Dr. Claire Holman
cholman@pba.co.uk

A truly sustainable development puts as much emphasis on creating social cohesion, an important indicator of health and wellbeing, as saving the planet. Zero carbon homes (or even homes that generate excess energy for the grid) are not sustainable if everyone lives in their box isolated, or should I say insulated, from their neighbours.

There is a growing literature showing the importance of social interaction for good health, and that local social networks are eroded by long distance commuting. The logic is that the more people work locally the more time they have to invest in the community, creating a virtuous circle. Social networks in residential areas are improved where traffic is calmed or removed altogether. Working locally means that walking and cycling become real commuter options for a large number of people, improving health at the same time and creating another virtuous circle for improving health.

The main indicators of sustainable development today are the Code for Sustainable Homes (CfSH) and the revamped BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) rating for other buildings types (to be introduced from August 2008). The belief is that if you get a high ranking the development is automatically a sustainable development. Because they are largely focused on buildings rather than the wider development in which they sit, two out of the three pillars of sustainable development – society and economy - are almost completely ignored.

There is nothing in the CfSH or BREEAM on economic development. The ability to attract inward investment to a new development and therefore ensure that it thrives and survives economically at a local level is not covered at all. Having a job is good for health, having a local one even better. Just 14% of CfSH credits are available for health and wellbeing, awarded for daylight/sunlight, noise, private space and lifetime homes. Although important, these indicators do not address the main determinants of health or wellbeing.

The various regional sustainable development checklists aim to look at the development –wide issues but are less appealing as they do not award a straightforward rating. A Code for Sustainable Development may rank a development in a similar way as the CfSH, but it would be immensely complex. We have already seen three CfSH technical guidance documents issued in a year, as shortcomings become highlighted. Perhaps we need to rely on old fashioned technical expertise, but using the latest techniques such as Health Impact Assessment, to come up with better solutions. Somehow we need to find a way of putting people in the central position alongside protection of the planet.

If you have any queries on the CfSH or would like to discuss how health and wellbeing applies to your projects, we would be very happy to come and talk to you in more detail. Please contact Dr Claire Holman on 0117 928 1560 or email her at cholman@pba.co.uk.

RENEWABLE ENERGY: THE BEST LAID PLANS...

by Dr Claire Holman
cholman@pba.co.uk

Director of Environment and Sustainability for PBA, and newly-appointed core commissioner to the pioneering Olympics sustainability watchdog: Commission for a Sustainable London 2012.

The latest supplement to PPS1, Planning and Climate Change, builds on the ‘Merton rule’, in that it requires planning authorities to develop targets for renewable and low-carbon energy - with the caveat of where it is “feasible or viable”. It encourages planning authorities to require on-site or near-site renewable or low-carbon energy generation through the planning system.

While the supplement is well intentioned on the issue of energy, we favour of a more flexible approach in the interest of achieving longer-term sustainability.

Specifically, we have identified potential difficulties with on/near site generation, particularly for small sites seeking viable renewable alternatives. Small sites often generate insufficient demand for many of the sustainable energy alternatives to be viable. Biomass is often identified as being one economically achievable way of meeting renewables targets, but using biomass for combined heat and power on small residential schemes can cause problems because the heat generated by the plant cannot be used. It can even mean that a swimming pool is designed into the scheme to take the excess heat generated. In this case, it would be more logical to combine sites of different uses over a wider area, so that the energy and heat requirements can be better balanced, and more sustainable solutions identified, but this is often very challenging to achieve.

We are also beginning to see a number of developments integrating both biomass and gas boilers, so that the gas alternative can be used when biomass is not an efficient option. However, experience tells us that the relative convenience of gas is likely to result in the so-called better option being sidelined. What’s more, there is evidence of an emerging backlash against biomass boilers in London, due to air quality concerns. The drive to promote biomass solutions is also leading to transport and ecological issues and the depletion of other valuable natural resources worldwide as we try to grow biomass economically. For example, a recently commissioned biomass plant in South Wales is to use fuel from North America.

There is also a risk that having to plan now to meet the energy targets based on today’s technology will lead to the wrong long-term solution. A phased approach to delivering new energy technology may be more appropriate.

In parallel, the Department of Communities and Local Government believes that economic development – including more housing – is compatible with reducing carbon emissions and ensuring new developments are protected from the effects of climate change. We hope they are right. However, we suspect that while renewable energy remains expensive (for the near future), development costs will rise, impacting on the pace and quality of regeneration.

Quite simply, achieving the best sustainable solutions requires a flexible and varied approach that reflects local conditions. In our opinion, the guidance will force planning authorities to take energy issues more seriously, but compliance should not be pursued at the expense of the most appropriate long-term solution.

If you want to hear more about the way in which PPS1 applies to your own sites, we would be very happy to come and talk to you in more detail. Please contact Dr Claire Holman on 0117 928 1560 or email her at cholman@pba.co.uk to arrange an appointment.

View our Technical Notes on PPS1

CONTRACT JOURNAL- RANT

by Tim Allen, Partner
informbriefing@pba.co.uk

Why is the government so reluctant to commit time and money to professional skills training? There is an obvious skills shortage in our industry at present. This is evident in the Thames Gateway, for example, where development targets are threatening to slip back as the shortfall in skilled designers and builders becomes apparent.

The government’s unwillingness to recognise the level of skills training required is causing problems in all stages of development – and this is only going to get worse unless policy is quickly adjusted. For consultants, it is proving increasingly difficult to recruit those with the skill sets required to work on large-scale projects, and the procurement process is taking longer, as existing resources are stretched to the limit.

In project delivery meanwhile, there are simply not enough skilled contractors on the market. Those with the desired skills and experience are charging a premium for their wares, because they know supply is unable to meet demand. As a result, developments are proving more costly than estimated, and those developers who can’t afford to pay premium wages are being forced to delay delivery targets.

It is already evident that major housing projects in the Thames Gateway will struggle to meet delivery targets, especially as the Olympics, and its immoveable opening ceremony begins to take precedence. The Olympic project simply cannot slip its programme, so those in the Gateway suffer, as the industry pulls out all the stops and diverts resources to the Lea Valley to ensure 2012 is a success.

If the public sector continues to push its aggressive policies of complicated, time-consuming tender processes, we will see a situation whereby both consultants and contractors - those that house the skilled labour force - simply don’t want to waste time bidding for a project they may not win. The private sector will therefore continue to attract the skilled labour and public sector projects will struggle to get off the ground.

Unless government changes it policies and begins to commit time and resources to construction skills training, we will continue to battle against a resource shortage in all stages of developments. Large-scale regeneration, such as that planned for the Thames Gateway, will inevitably suffer as a result.