BREEAM Easy wins

[edit] BREEAM Easy wins

The following information was captured during a BREEAM Public Knowledge Sharing Workshop in December 2018 attended by 80 sustainability built environment professionals mostly BREEAM Assessors/APs but also some contractors, design team members, developers and supply chain.

[edit] Aim of this article

To demonstrate accessibility to many sustainable actions; stimulate further uptake; share lessons between professionals.

[edit] Process and content

We asked all participants to pick the top 10 ‘easy-win’ issues out of the 70 standard issue areas in New Construction and Refurbishment (RFO) schemes. For the ones with most votes we asked participants to say why they chose them as easy wins.

[edit] Applicability

At the time of creation the scheme versions most widely known that these results will be based on are UKNC2014, INTNC2016, UKRFO2014 and INTRFO2015. For newer versions such as UKNC2018 the following results may not apply.

[edit] Top 15 – all participants

Percent votes = the number of all voters who placed the issue in their top 10.

Int. Rank = The rank of those using International schemes

[edit] Top 15 - International only

It was noted by some that for International schemes there may well be differences, this was true in some cases.

[edit] Easy wins commentary

Below are the summaries of comments made for each of the top 10 ‘easy-wins’ overall

(+3) = 3 more people made this comment

[edit] Considerate Construction

[edit] Why relatively easy

Standard Practice

• It's usually standard practice for most contractors (+7)
• Mandatory requirement across all of our sites
• Considerate construction is an easy win as is put into contracts with ease and many (if not
• For the client it is "easy" in the sense that you can choose a ready "considerate construction" scheme participant contractor

Simple and flexible

• Flexible criteria
• Easy to understand criteria.
• Simple certification process for Contractors to achieve

• Post construction part can be finished early in the programme
• If necessary, contractors can amend their site activities after the first visit

[edit] Caveats

1 vs 2 credits:

• 1 credit is straightforward - the requirements are clear and, for the most part achievable. 2 credits can be a bit of a gamble
• Pretty standard for a Contractor to undertake but less so for them to achieve 2+ credits

UKNC2018

• Under 2018 it doesn't seem that CCS covers all requirements
• It doesn't look as straight forward under 2018

Contractor size

• At least where the Contractor is of a reasonable size (+1)
• To get 2 credits it costs a fair bit for smaller contractors and with the weighting being 0.54% per credit
• It is definitely the case for large schemes, but smaller contractors (often appointed on smaller jobs) sometimes have no experience.
• Larger contractors generally find it easy-ish to achieve 2 credits. Smaller contractors generally OK to achieve 1 credit
• Common practise between all larger General Contractors or those cooperating on BREEAM regularly

International views

• Not easy so easy in some countries (+3)
• Considerate construction isn't easy in France, especially when you want 2 credits with the A1 checklist
• In France, with the local certification, procedures are already set that allow us to get that credit easily
• Easy in France especially with general contractor

From a contractor:

• There is sometimes problem with this credit. Assessors can assume that 40+ is easy and you can just add extra things in to get the credits. We are at the mercy of understaffed CCS assessors here and often only have one site visit. Its extremely frustrating to receive a DS assessment at R 3/4 that assumes 2+ Exemplary credits are 'Easy'

[edit] Other aspects

Third party aspect

• Involves independent third party assessor
• The monitoring is by a third party - evidence that can’t be disputed
• It is reliant on an external CCS inspector so you can’t count on it

Taking action

• Contractors can take action to improve after first visit if needed
• 2 credits usually achieved quite easily and provides good feedback for contractors to work towards to improve their practices generally which is really useful feedback

[edit] Public transport Accessibility

Almost entirely dependent on location. Easy in a city, difficult or impossible in rural locations

[edit] Why relatively easy

Easy in a city:

• In cities it is easy to achieve a good score due to availability of public transport (+10)

Other

• Easy to calculate PTAL ratings - public knowledge from TFL
• Evidence doesn't rely on the design team
• The evidence collection isn’t too arduous
• Normally required for planning anyway

[edit] Caveats

Location dependent:

• Public transport accessibility is either yes, or no depending on where you are
• Have no choice, it is just a calculation of what is accessible on site
• Agree that very site dependent (+6)

Rural location:

• Not so easy when you're in the middle of Scotland with one bus service
• Not easy if you're not central (+6)

Other

• On projects with long programmes we sometimes find the services have changed for the worse at post completion

[edit] Sustainability Champion

[edit] Why relatively easy

Appointment and Evidence:

• Easy for contractor to identify, takes early ownership
• Easy to appoint and evidence
• Easy for Design team to appoint AP and Sustainability Champion at start of design process
• Easy to appoint and easy to give evidence

Assessor/AP can lead

• Tends to just be a credit where you do your job as consultant/assessor and get a BREEAM credit for it (+6)
• Assessor usually in control of evidence
• Is normally part of the scope of our engagement as Environmental Consultants at Design Stage. Most Contractors then have their own person during construction

[edit] Caveats

Contractor role:

• This is only effective if there is understanding by the Contractor of their role too, and the role of on-site sustainability champion if under Contractor remit to provide

Cost

• Comparatively inexpensive, and doesn’t require Project Team action - other than for the appointment of the AP.
• As a minimum you should do 6 days on this for 1.64% typically
• Not very expensive, even though sometimes hard for client to understand why to pay both an AP and an assessor

International

• It is hard in Hungary, because there are not too many BREEAM APs

Timeline (early appointment)

• Only easy to achieve if appointment is made early (+4)
• Normally involves early appointment and use of a competent person who understands the BREEAM process
• Seems hard sometimes to get AP engagement early on, but once in, it’s not bad
• Where the project team invites the SC in at an appropriate time, the credits are easy-win by virtue of being controlled by the sustainability specialist.

[edit] Other Aspects

• An AP providing guidance to the contractor is necessary in my opinion, to guarantee qualitative evidence
• Assessors may provide the support but meeting attendances are significant

[edit] Proximity to Amenities

[edit] Why relatively easy

Assess-ability

• Easy to chart journey and location to amenities using google maps (+3)
• Evidence doesn't rely on the design team, can produce evidence myself (+2)

[edit] Caveats

Control

• Amenities can disappear between interim and post construction assessment
• This is not easy as relies upon factors which are potentially out of control of the site constraints. Like local shops etc
• Not easy to control
• Not something that we have any influence over
• Don’t like this as they are usually outside control of project

Site dependent

• Site dependent, really easy in big city or urban area (+15)
• This very dependent on the site location and therefore can only achieve credits if nearer to the amenities.
• On larger projects client can provide amenities as part of the project (+2)
• Difficult to influence for small standalone buildings

• Often difficult in rural areas, but easy to assess and evidence usually readily available (+2)

[edit] Other aspects

• If the amenities needs to include post boxes, these are a dying form of communication

[edit] Operational Waste

[edit] Why relatively easy

Assess-ability

• because if you don't have enough space to meet the BREEAM space requirements you just have to put a valid justification together
• Normally straightforward, justification for space provided if area is not big enough.

Standard practice

• Pretty standard nowadays but ensuring a water outlet for organic waste is not always assured in addition to additional space for catering facilities
• Separated waste now has become more common place

Other

• Easy to achieve when a good SWMP via SMARTWaste or similar is used.
• Easy if taken at the beginning of the project

[edit] Caveats

Space

• Usually this is very possible as long as there is space on the site.
• If there os adequate space on site, then it is not too onerous to get compliant facilities implemented.
• It is massively dependent on building type, location and available external space

Evidence

• Key is documentation - often the exercise to determine waste quantities is done but not formalised to meet BREEAM requirements
• Can be difficult to get the evidence of waste streams being discussed

Building type

• Easy especially for schools, education buildings
• Very difficult for student accommodation. No council provides food waste collection from commercial premises and students are not really willing to sort food waste.
• It's peculiar to me that this is a minimum standard for Excellent, and can be very tricky on Excellent Student Halls

International

• Easy in Norway to get the first two credits, requires a bit more planning for 3rd and exemplary
• Operational waste not always easy in France, especially in Shell & Core buildings

Other

• Often conflicts with waste management strategies
• Not easy if operational waste contractor is not known
• The tap for compost waste can be surprisingly expensive
• The tap for composting can easily get left out
• It could also be difficult when it comes with kitchen/ food waste as a separate item
• Labels sometimes forgotten

[edit] Monitoring of Construction Site Impacts

[edit] Why relatively easy

Standard practice:

• Often energy and water are monitored for ISO 14001 certification and billing anyway
• Standard practice for pretty much every contractor and site with an EMS (+8)
• Regular procedures in France when the building is HQE certified

Evidence/targets

• Easy paper trail on site?
• Onsite information easy to have
• Easy to monitor and log, except transport
• Can set own targets so not really stringent criteria

[edit] Caveats

Transport

• The transport impacts aren't standard practice (+3)
• Transport is almost always dropped by Post Construction
• All reasonably straightforward except transport - particularly for smaller projects without permanent gatekeepers

Other:

• It is very tedious and Hungarian contractors are not used to this kind of monitoring
• My experience of small to medium size contractors is that they say it is achievable but then don't do anything during construction and try to put it all together at the end so can be problematic.
• Time consuming sometimes to get the contractor put together all the evidence in the correct units and fully compliant
• Not easy for some building type e.g. shopping centre

[edit] Other aspects:

• Only worth 0.54% or so
• Contractor view: Fine in non-traditional or with CDPs but we have no budget and no say when we get to stage 4 and this hasn’t been factored in by the early team

[edit] External Lighting

[edit] Why relatively easy

Use of LEDs

• With LED technology this is now very straightforward.
• Easy for lighting consultant to meet CIBSE external lighting criteria with LED
• It’s easy to achieve with technology like LED and so on
• Technology improving all the time

Standard practice

• External lighting control is typically part of standard design and the lighting industry has information on efficacies quite available
• Luminaire schedule and manufacturer's details are standard in O&Ms anyway

General

• Easy to close out with Assessor's site report
• Average efficacy has improved this
• Very easy to attend the lm/W

[edit] Caveats

Miscellaneous lighting

• As long as there isn’t too much pretty architectural lighting
• Where illuminated signage applicable this can be difficult to achieve as manufacturer's suppliers tend not to provide suitable evidence
• Sometimes difficult to prove if architects forget to show us the specification of external lighting. They tend to like "decorative lights" which are not always compliant

Evidence

• Not easy to get evidence at Post Construction (illuminance studies)

General

• Just need to be careful on the ll/cw. Can be caught out with some products claiming to be energy efficient but actually isn't.
• CIBSE guidelines, but sometimes too bright, but at least there is a baseline to work to

[edit] Indoor Air Quality Plan

[edit] Why relatively easy

Standard Practice

• Indoor quality plan is easy to write and add to the contract, now it's good practice
• Always done for big project
• Pretty simple and just puts pen to paper on what is already known within the Mechanical Strategy
• Now it is a requirement for Shell and Core projects under BREEAM 2018, so it adds another task to the team
• As part of the design it is not hard to have a plan
• Preparation is quite simple, depends on design team but often completed as part of M&E scope of works
• Topics the design team must consider anyway, just formalising the documentation

Consultant led

• Indoor air quality plan is normally prepared by a specialist and therefore can easily meet the criteria through early design approach
• Indoor air quality is popular subject at the moment, but also it’s simple to appoint a consultant to do

General

• The client usually loves the idea of IAQ management on site
• Most BREEAM assessors provide a template for IAQP (I think there might even be one on the wiki) so it’s just a case of fill in the site specifics
• Additional consultant fee is often value engineered out
• Easy to draft indoor air quality plan
• Equally easy because there's no post construction requirements

[edit] Caveats

Guidance Note (GN22)

• IAQ Plan: through GN, the content is set- good example what should be addressed
• GN22 can be hard to follow

General

• Checklist A1 - some issues, like access of handicap/hearing/visually impaired persons + gender specific toilets/showers/changing rooms, are mostly not making sense for the contractors
• IAQ was straightforward in 2014 - and worth a full credit- but value is less in 2018
• This one is only easy if you have someone on the design team to take control of the document. The design team often see little benefit in this.
• An Air Quality Plan need not be a complicated document; the only challenge is that some clients/contractors feel challenged by the pre-occupation testing aspect
• Easy in France but not deeply followed in reality

[edit] Travel plan

[edit] Why relatively easy

Standard Practice

• Travel Plans are pretty standard
• Travel plan usually is being required for planning purposes, so always available on early stage (+2)
• Easy where the travel plan is required by others or an organisation already has the document.
• Easy format report for Travel plans
• Easy if you have a good transport survey

[edit] Caveats

Hard in some situations

• Travel plan can be difficult, sometimes the tenant doesn't want to sign it, especially where car sharing is proposed
• Can be difficult sometimes with the quite specific BREEAM requirements for what needs to be considered.
• Can be very difficult in some cases of remote location
• Public transport is not always easy, depending on the site and where it is, and whether the project is large enough to evoke section 75 and other legislation to work with public transport. Small projects can be hard, and remote locations / sites, as architect/consultant AP don't really get to choose the site.

International

• Not required in Hungary, so it is not so easy!
• Quite easy in France normally. But for areas with no existing users, it's difficult to evaluate the needs
• Site dependent, in main cities is France, this is just a matter of paperwork

[edit] Other aspects

Tips: Pay attention to details, templates useful

• Assessors just need to make sure that the BREEAM requirements are covered when analyses are commissioned so that they are not asking the client to commission extra sets of reports
• Ensuring the Assessment covers the relevant material can require several revisions
• Travel plan would be easier with a template to fill in as depending on the consultant it can be very good or the opposite
• Travel plans are good but some consultants don’t cover the compliance criteria
• Lots of travel plans don't cover all the BREEAM criteria.
• Often the last thing we get in from the end user

[edit] Water Consumption

[edit] Why relatively easy

Standard Practice

• Water saving appliances are becoming standards, no problem to get it in Central Europe
• The choice of low water consumption fittings has increased for specification.
• Flow restrictors etc. are typically fitted as standard
• Normal standard to have water efficient fittings

General

• 3 credits are readily achievable given the products with low flow rates on the market
• Price difference for low consuming fixtures is not a big challenge usually, so easy to convince to target this credit
• Evidence: Most sanitary suppliers will calculate water consumption for their water fittings
• 3 credits easy in France

[edit] Caveats

3+ credits:

• Easy to get 1-3 credits but higher levels raise concerns on hygiene due to low flush/waterless devices
• 3 credits is easily achievable with low flow rates however it becomes complicated when needing to install rainwater harvesting or greywater recycling (+2)

Accuracy

• Beware of creative use of flow restrictors
• M&E sub contractors will frequently put in a variable flow restrictor and tell you whatever flow rate you want to hear, which makes it "easy" for BREEAM, if totally factually inaccurate

Flow rates

• Sometimes can be tricky. PH engineer doesn’t want low flush toilets as the BS standard is not designed for such low flushes and risks leading to blockage. Although many install the very low flushes anyway

• As long as client is happy with the flow rate restrictions
• Evidence: Can be difficult to get suitable evidence to confirm flow rates/ consumption
• Evidence: Constant monitoring / reminding contractors can be tedious

Timeline

• Water consumption is easy if factored in by DT early, if left to contractor post DS and done on whimsical commitments it can prove very difficult and troublesome
• Constructor's don't take care of it usually
• Only easy if the architect takes on board the requirements in their specification, difficult to rectify at post construction when things are done incorrectly! (+1)

Building Type

• This is really hard in certain situations. Like sports facilities where the water use on "other buildings" for sports is crazy high for showers
• Usually 3 credits for multi-residential buildings are achievable
• Retail clients have operational issues with very low flush toilets for example. Customers flush allsorts down so operational/fixing costs can be high or customers use several flushes

--Multiple Author Article 13:21, 18 Dec 2018 (BST)