https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/w/index.php?feed=atom&target=Multiple_Author_Article&title=Special%3AContributions%2FMultiple_Author_Article 2026-06-10T07:31:49Z From Designing Buildings MediaWiki 1.17.4 https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Misconceptions 2019-01-15T12:46:07Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Introduction =<br /> <br /> The lack of available seats at the Sustainability lecture area at [https://www.londonbuildexpo.com/ London Build] (October 2018) is a testament to the fact that sustainability is no longer a niche subject for the nerdy few. But how well does the construction industry understand sustainability and some of its key mechanisms such as BREEAM?<br /> <br /> BREEAM APs and Assessors know that misconceptions abound, partly due to the fact that this is a complex subject. Busy construction professionals may have in-depth knowledge about specific strategies because of prior project experience, but still lack a wider perspective about how the pieces fit together. Larger contractors may have a better understanding of BREEAM and sustainability than smaller companies simply because they can afford to take on a specialist division.<br /> <br /> Commonly held misconceptions can derail the sustainability mission of a project, especially those related to cost. At the same time it is important to acknowledge when complaints about the processes required by BREEAM and other certifications (LEED, Passivhaus, etc) create genuine barriers to achieving sustainability. Weeding out the misconceptions and addressing them is therefore an important step towards understanding how to remove systemic sustainability barriers so we can see the kind of take up in this sector that will be necessary in the years to come.<br /> <br /> One thing that we can agree on is that not enough owners voluntarily put sustainability at the forefront of their projects. It is the job of enlightened practitioners to work together with our standards and certifications partners as well as our clients to keep pushing the industry forward so that sustainable certification becomes desirable and isn’t done just because it’s required.<br /> <br /> = Methodology =<br /> <br /> * A BREEAM Public Knowledge Sharing Workshop was held in December 2018 to determine the most common misconceptions.<br /> * Rather than address sustainability in general, the subject was narrowed to “Misconceptions about BREEAM” in order to create consensus and focus<br /> * Attendees were asked prepared questions in order to generate responses<br /> * Attendance included approximately 80 built environment professionals, mostly BREEAM Assessors or APs, along with some contractors, design team members and suppliers.<br /> * Replies were compiled from text chat, polling, [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Survey surveys] and Google co-creation [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Document documents].<br /> <br /> = Misconceptions about BREEAM =<br /> <br /> Participants in the workshop identified the following seven common misconceptions:<br /> <br /> == 1. The BREEAM Assessor/AP can be added after Concept stage ==<br /> <br /> The sustainability consultant is often appointed after other key consultant parties as an “add on”. However correctly defined sustainability objectives should be part of the project brief and often cannot be tagged on at a later stage.<br /> <br /> == 2. The stakeholder team will get on board with certification without a properly written set of Employer’s Requirements ==<br /> <br /> Employers set the agenda. Even when the driver is planning permission or distant corporate benchmarking, the employer should be clear about the sustainability goals to ensure that all parties are on board.<br /> <br /> == 3. Sustainability/BREEAM can be added to rather than embedded into the project ==<br /> <br /> Similar to the issue of adding the sustainability consultant late into the process, adding sustainability rather than designing it in from the start increases costs and reduces buy-in from all parties<br /> <br /> == 4. BREEAM is a box-ticking exercise ==<br /> <br /> Clients will often target a particular certification level, without providing guidance as to the key sustainability goals they want to achieve. This can lead to a points-driven exercise that undermines the chance to achieve real value for the project.<br /> <br /> Busy professionals jump straight to requirements and responsibilities and don’t take the time to understand the underlying values.<br /> <br /> == 5. Cost of sustainability is too high ==<br /> <br /> Some projects with particular issues may struggle with added costs, especially if the initial design and specification are far from achieving BREEAM goals, but BREEAM is meant to be a “best fit” concept which is why lower certification levels exist—sometimes it is simply a case of fitting the correct sustainability specification to the project and budget constraints.<br /> <br /> See points 1 and 3: starting certification late into the design process adds cost and stress, due to missed opportunities and easy wins early on. Good planning is fundamental to keeping costs reasonable, as in any aspect of budget control.<br /> <br /> BREEAM undeniably adds another process to the project balance sheet. However BREEAM professionals can usually advise on a value-driven pathway to sustainability and may save the owner money in helping to target a pathway that is best fit for the project goals.<br /> <br /> Key investments such as energy saving rely on greater up-front cost in order to create later benefits. However the industry has not historically linked project cost and operational cost and is struggling to do so even now. This is something the industry must address in order to see faster progress in the take up of sustainability certifications. We asked if many of the BREEAM professionals had been involved in a value assessment of the sustainability aspects of their projects and most replied in the negative. If the team don’t understand the positive financial impacts of sustainability investments in terms of future asset security, occupant health and operational savings, they may consider strategies only in terms of negative cost and complexity.<br /> <br /> BREEAM 2018 has set the goalposts higher, requiring more “suitably qualified” professionals to complete some of the credits. Some of the standards have also been raised in order to push the market now that a majority of BREEAM projects are achieving high certification levels. Certainly the first owners to take up the 2018 challenge may baulk at the extra costs and there is some indication that some are doing so; however creating more transparent standards can also help the industry normalize these goals.<br /> <br /> == 6. A “good” rating is nothing to be proud of—its “very good” or better or nothing ==<br /> <br /> While on the face of it, it should be welcomed that owners want to set their sights high, achieving a very high BREEAM rating can simply be unachievable under strict time and cost budgets, or for other reasons. Very high certification levels, it can be argued, should be achievable only for the top projects seeking certification. If this means that owners would rather skip the rating than risk a “good” result than perhaps there is a misunderstanding of the meaning of the rating, or perhaps BRE needs to rethink the naming of rating levels in order to respect the motivational drivers in the industry.<br /> <br /> == 7. Certification process is expected to be complete at handover ==<br /> <br /> This could be less misunderstood when certification becomes more common and more owners have experience; however it is probably also true that the certification industry needs to get better at informing owners clearly about the process, especially when it concerns owner’s key objectives and drivers.<br /> <br /> = Other comments =<br /> <br /> Participants also commented on some difficulties of the recently-released BREEAM UK New Construction 2018. In the update to BREEAM’s 2014 version, there is a greater emphasis on specialist consultants and on completion of specific activities during Concept phase, when some sustainability teams may not be on board yet. While the larger team may increase expertise, they noted it will also increase costs.<br /> <br /> Another issue is the amount of documentation required for certification. Though BRE has emphasized that most documentation should be a product of normal project administration, there is a greater reliance in the 2018 version on specially-prepared reports that some felt, fell short of providing value and utility for projects. There is a danger where BREEAM could be perceived to be more about process than outcomes.<br /> <br /> A smaller number felt that some flexibility has been lost in the current scheme, which may take some teams further from sustainable concepts and risk increasing the tendency to tick boxes.<br /> <br /> Finally the length of time to achieve certification is felt to have increased perhaps at a time when this process should become more streamlined to accommodate a wider market take-up. These insights will hopefully be shared with BRE to ensure that BREEAM continues to set the agenda for sustainability in the construction sector.<br /> <br /> Compiled and edited by [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/User:Melissa_Merryweather Melissa Merryweather]<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple_Author_Article|Multiple Author Article]] 12:35, 15 Jan 2019 (BST)<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Guarantee guarantee] the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Misconceptions 2019-01-15T12:44:20Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Introduction =<br /> <br /> The lack of available seats at the Sustainability lecture area at [https://www.londonbuildexpo.com/ London Build] (October 2018) is a testament to the fact that sustainability is no longer a niche subject for the nerdy few. But how well does the construction industry understand sustainability and some of its key mechanisms such as BREEAM?<br /> <br /> BREEAM APs and Assessors know that misconceptions abound, partly due to the fact that this is a complex subject. Busy construction professionals may have in-depth knowledge about specific strategies because of prior project experience, but still lack a wider perspective about how the pieces fit together. Larger contractors may have a better understanding of BREEAM and sustainability than smaller companies simply because they can afford to take on a specialist division.<br /> <br /> Commonly held misconceptions can derail the sustainability mission of a project, especially those related to cost. At the same time it is important to acknowledge when complaints about the processes required by BREEAM and other certifications (LEED, Passivhaus, etc) create genuine barriers to achieving sustainability. Weeding out the misconceptions and addressing them is therefore an important step towards understanding how to remove systemic sustainability barriers so we can see the kind of take up in this sector that will be necessary in the years to come.<br /> <br /> One thing that we can agree on is that not enough owners voluntarily put sustainability at the forefront of their projects. It is the job of enlightened practitioners to work together with our standards and certifications partners as well as our clients to keep pushing the industry forward so that sustainable certification becomes desirable and isn’t done just because it’s required.<br /> <br /> = Methodology =<br /> <br /> * A BREEAM Public Knowledge Sharing Workshop was held in December 2018 to determine the most common misconceptions.<br /> * Rather than address sustainability in general, the subject was narrowed to “Misconceptions about BREEAM” in order to create consensus and focus<br /> * Attendees were asked prepared questions in order to generate responses<br /> * Attendance included approximately 80 built environment professionals, mostly BREEAM Assessors or APs, along with some contractors, design team members and suppliers.<br /> * Replies were compiled from text chat, polling, [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Survey surveys] and Google co-creation [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Document documents].<br /> <br /> = Misconceptions about BREEAM =<br /> <br /> Participants in the workshop identified the following seven common misconceptions:<br /> <br /> === 1. The BREEAM Assessor/AP can be added after Concept stage ===<br /> <br /> The sustainability consultant is often appointed after other key consultant parties as an “add on”. However correctly defined sustainability objectives should be part of the project brief and often cannot be tagged on at a later stage.<br /> <br /> 2. The stakeholder team will get on board with certification without a properly written set of Employer’s Requirements<br /> <br /> * Employers set the agenda. Even when the driver is planning permission or distant corporate benchmarking, the employer should be clear about the sustainability goals to ensure that all parties are on board.<br /> <br /> 3. Sustainability/BREEAM can be added to rather than embedded into the project<br /> <br /> Similar to the issue of adding the sustainability consultant late into the process, adding sustainability rather than designing it in from the start increases costs and reduces buy-in from all parties<br /> <br /> 4. BREEAM is a box-ticking exercise<br /> <br /> Clients will often target a particular certification level, without providing guidance as to the key sustainability goals they want to achieve. This can lead to a points-driven exercise that undermines the chance to achieve real value for the project.<br /> <br /> Busy professionals jump straight to requirements and responsibilities and don’t take the time to understand the underlying values.<br /> <br /> 5. Cost of sustainability is too high<br /> <br /> Some projects with particular issues may struggle with added costs, especially if the initial design and specification are far from achieving BREEAM goals, but BREEAM is meant to be a “best fit” concept which is why lower certification levels exist—sometimes it is simply a case of fitting the correct sustainability specification to the project and budget constraints.<br /> <br /> See points 1 and 3: starting certification late into the design process adds cost and stress, due to missed opportunities and easy wins early on. Good planning is fundamental to keeping costs reasonable, as in any aspect of budget control.<br /> <br /> BREEAM undeniably adds another process to the project balance sheet. However BREEAM professionals can usually advise on a value-driven pathway to sustainability and may save the owner money in helping to target a pathway that is best fit for the project goals.<br /> <br /> Key investments such as energy saving rely on greater up-front cost in order to create later benefits. However the industry has not historically linked project cost and operational cost and is struggling to do so even now. This is something the industry must address in order to see faster progress in the take up of sustainability certifications. We asked if many of the BREEAM professionals had been involved in a value assessment of the sustainability aspects of their projects and most replied in the negative. If the team don’t understand the positive financial impacts of sustainability investments in terms of future asset security, occupant health and operational savings, they may consider strategies only in terms of negative cost and complexity.<br /> <br /> BREEAM 2018 has set the goalposts higher, requiring more “suitably qualified” professionals to complete some of the credits. Some of the standards have also been raised in order to push the market now that a majority of BREEAM projects are achieving high certification levels. Certainly the first owners to take up the 2018 challenge may baulk at the extra costs and there is some indication that some are doing so; however creating more transparent standards can also help the industry normalize these goals.<br /> <br /> 6. A “good” rating is nothing to be proud of—its “very good” or better or nothing<br /> <br /> While on the face of it, it should be welcomed that owners want to set their sights high, achieving a very high BREEAM rating can simply be unachievable under strict time and cost budgets, or for other reasons. Very high certification levels, it can be argued, should be achievable only for the top projects seeking certification. If this means that owners would rather skip the rating than risk a “good” result than perhaps there is a misunderstanding of the meaning of the rating, or perhaps BRE needs to rethink the naming of rating levels in order to respect the motivational drivers in the industry.<br /> <br /> 7. Certification process is expected to be complete at handover<br /> <br /> This could be less misunderstood when certification becomes more common and more owners have experience; however it is probably also true that the certification industry needs to get better at informing owners clearly about the process, especially when it concerns owner’s key objectives and drivers.<br /> <br /> Other comments<br /> <br /> Participants also commented on some difficulties of the recently-released BREEAM UK New Construction 2018. In the update to BREEAM’s 2014 version, there is a greater emphasis on specialist consultants and on completion of specific activities during Concept phase, when some sustainability teams may not be on board yet. While the larger team may increase expertise, they noted it will also increase costs.<br /> <br /> Another issue is the amount of documentation required for certification. Though BRE has emphasized that most documentation should be a product of normal project administration, there is a greater reliance in the 2018 version on specially-prepared reports that some felt, fell short of providing value and utility for projects. There is a danger where BREEAM could be perceived to be more about process than outcomes.<br /> <br /> A smaller number felt that some flexibility has been lost in the current scheme, which may take some teams further from sustainable concepts and risk increasing the tendency to tick boxes.<br /> <br /> Finally the length of time to achieve certification is felt to have increased perhaps at a time when this process should become more streamlined to accommodate a wider market take-up. These insights will hopefully be shared with BRE to ensure that BREEAM continues to set the agenda for sustainability in the construction sector.<br /> <br /> Compiled and edited by [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/User:Melissa_Merryweather Melissa Merryweather]<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple_Author_Article|Multiple Author Article]] 12:35, 15 Jan 2019 (BST)<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Guarantee guarantee] the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Misconceptions 2019-01-15T12:43:20Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Introduction =<br /> <br /> The lack of available seats at the Sustainability lecture area at [https://www.londonbuildexpo.com/ London Build] (October 2018) is a testament to the fact that sustainability is no longer a niche subject for the nerdy few. But how well does the construction industry understand sustainability and some of its key mechanisms such as BREEAM?<br /> <br /> BREEAM APs and Assessors know that misconceptions abound, partly due to the fact that this is a complex subject. Busy construction professionals may have in-depth knowledge about specific strategies because of prior project experience, but still lack a wider perspective about how the pieces fit together. Larger contractors may have a better understanding of BREEAM and sustainability than smaller companies simply because they can afford to take on a specialist division.<br /> <br /> Commonly held misconceptions can derail the sustainability mission of a project, especially those related to cost. At the same time it is important to acknowledge when complaints about the processes required by BREEAM and other certifications (LEED, Passivhaus, etc) create genuine barriers to achieving sustainability. Weeding out the misconceptions and addressing them is therefore an important step towards understanding how to remove systemic sustainability barriers so we can see the kind of take up in this sector that will be necessary in the years to come.<br /> <br /> One thing that we can agree on is that not enough owners voluntarily put sustainability at the forefront of their projects. It is the job of enlightened practitioners to work together with our standards and certifications partners as well as our clients to keep pushing the industry forward so that sustainable certification becomes desirable and isn’t done just because it’s required.<br /> <br /> = Methodology =<br /> <br /> * A BREEAM Public Knowledge Sharing Workshop was held in December 2018 to determine the most common misconceptions.<br /> * Rather than address sustainability in general, the subject was narrowed to “Misconceptions about BREEAM” in order to create consensus and focus<br /> * Attendees were asked prepared questions in order to generate responses<br /> * Attendance included approximately 80 built environment professionals, mostly BREEAM Assessors or APs, along with some contractors, design team members and suppliers.<br /> * Replies were compiled from text chat, polling, [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Survey surveys] and Google co-creation [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Document documents].<br /> <br /> = Misconceptions about BREEAM =<br /> <br /> Participants in the workshop identified the following seven common misconceptions:<br /> <br /> == 1. The BREEAM Assessor/AP can be added after Concept stage ==<br /> <br /> The sustainability consultant is often appointed after other key consultant parties as an “add on”. However correctly defined sustainability objectives should be part of the project brief and often cannot be tagged on at a later stage.<br /> <br /> 2. The stakeholder team will get on board with certification without a properly written set of Employer’s Requirements<br /> <br /> * Employers set the agenda. Even when the driver is planning permission or distant corporate benchmarking, the employer should be clear about the sustainability goals to ensure that all parties are on board.<br /> <br /> 3. Sustainability/BREEAM can be added to rather than embedded into the project<br /> <br /> Similar to the issue of adding the sustainability consultant late into the process, adding sustainability rather than designing it in from the start increases costs and reduces buy-in from all parties<br /> <br /> 4. BREEAM is a box-ticking exercise<br /> <br /> Clients will often target a particular certification level, without providing guidance as to the key sustainability goals they want to achieve. This can lead to a points-driven exercise that undermines the chance to achieve real value for the project.<br /> <br /> Busy professionals jump straight to requirements and responsibilities and don’t take the time to understand the underlying values.<br /> <br /> 5. Cost of sustainability is too high<br /> <br /> Some projects with particular issues may struggle with added costs, especially if the initial design and specification are far from achieving BREEAM goals, but BREEAM is meant to be a “best fit” concept which is why lower certification levels exist—sometimes it is simply a case of fitting the correct sustainability specification to the project and budget constraints.<br /> <br /> See points 1 and 3: starting certification late into the design process adds cost and stress, due to missed opportunities and easy wins early on. Good planning is fundamental to keeping costs reasonable, as in any aspect of budget control.<br /> <br /> BREEAM undeniably adds another process to the project balance sheet. However BREEAM professionals can usually advise on a value-driven pathway to sustainability and may save the owner money in helping to target a pathway that is best fit for the project goals.<br /> <br /> Key investments such as energy saving rely on greater up-front cost in order to create later benefits. However the industry has not historically linked project cost and operational cost and is struggling to do so even now. This is something the industry must address in order to see faster progress in the take up of sustainability certifications. We asked if many of the BREEAM professionals had been involved in a value assessment of the sustainability aspects of their projects and most replied in the negative. If the team don’t understand the positive financial impacts of sustainability investments in terms of future asset security, occupant health and operational savings, they may consider strategies only in terms of negative cost and complexity.<br /> <br /> BREEAM 2018 has set the goalposts higher, requiring more “suitably qualified” professionals to complete some of the credits. Some of the standards have also been raised in order to push the market now that a majority of BREEAM projects are achieving high certification levels. Certainly the first owners to take up the 2018 challenge may baulk at the extra costs and there is some indication that some are doing so; however creating more transparent standards can also help the industry normalize these goals.<br /> <br /> 6. A “good” rating is nothing to be proud of—its “very good” or better or nothing<br /> <br /> While on the face of it, it should be welcomed that owners want to set their sights high, achieving a very high BREEAM rating can simply be unachievable under strict time and cost budgets, or for other reasons. Very high certification levels, it can be argued, should be achievable only for the top projects seeking certification. If this means that owners would rather skip the rating than risk a “good” result than perhaps there is a misunderstanding of the meaning of the rating, or perhaps BRE needs to rethink the naming of rating levels in order to respect the motivational drivers in the industry.<br /> <br /> 7. Certification process is expected to be complete at handover<br /> <br /> This could be less misunderstood when certification becomes more common and more owners have experience; however it is probably also true that the certification industry needs to get better at informing owners clearly about the process, especially when it concerns owner’s key objectives and drivers.<br /> <br /> Other comments<br /> <br /> Participants also commented on some difficulties of the recently-released BREEAM UK New Construction 2018. In the update to BREEAM’s 2014 version, there is a greater emphasis on specialist consultants and on completion of specific activities during Concept phase, when some sustainability teams may not be on board yet. While the larger team may increase expertise, they noted it will also increase costs.<br /> <br /> Another issue is the amount of documentation required for certification. Though BRE has emphasized that most documentation should be a product of normal project administration, there is a greater reliance in the 2018 version on specially-prepared reports that some felt, fell short of providing value and utility for projects. There is a danger where BREEAM could be perceived to be more about process than outcomes.<br /> <br /> A smaller number felt that some flexibility has been lost in the current scheme, which may take some teams further from sustainable concepts and risk increasing the tendency to tick boxes.<br /> <br /> Finally the length of time to achieve certification is felt to have increased perhaps at a time when this process should become more streamlined to accommodate a wider market take-up. These insights will hopefully be shared with BRE to ensure that BREEAM continues to set the agenda for sustainability in the construction sector.<br /> <br /> Compiled and edited by [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/User:Melissa_Merryweather Melissa Merryweather]<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple_Author_Article|Multiple Author Article]] 12:35, 15 Jan 2019 (BST)<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Guarantee guarantee] the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Misconceptions 2019-01-15T12:42:51Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Introduction =<br /> <br /> The lack of available seats at the Sustainability lecture area at [https://www.londonbuildexpo.com/ London Build] (October 2018) is a testament to the fact that sustainability is no longer a niche subject for the nerdy few. But how well does the construction industry understand sustainability and some of its key mechanisms such as BREEAM?<br /> <br /> BREEAM APs and Assessors know that misconceptions abound, partly due to the fact that this is a complex subject. Busy construction professionals may have in-depth knowledge about specific strategies because of prior project experience, but still lack a wider perspective about how the pieces fit together. Larger contractors may have a better understanding of BREEAM and sustainability than smaller companies simply because they can afford to take on a specialist division.<br /> <br /> Commonly held misconceptions can derail the sustainability mission of a project, especially those related to cost. At the same time it is important to acknowledge when complaints about the processes required by BREEAM and other certifications (LEED, Passivhaus, etc) create genuine barriers to achieving sustainability. Weeding out the misconceptions and addressing them is therefore an important step towards understanding how to remove systemic sustainability barriers so we can see the kind of take up in this sector that will be necessary in the years to come.<br /> <br /> One thing that we can agree on is that not enough owners voluntarily put sustainability at the forefront of their projects. It is the job of enlightened practitioners to work together with our standards and certifications partners as well as our clients to keep pushing the industry forward so that sustainable certification becomes desirable and isn’t done just because it’s required.<br /> <br /> = Methodology =<br /> <br /> * A BREEAM Public Knowledge Sharing Workshop was held in December 2018 to determine the most common misconceptions.<br /> * Rather than address sustainability in general, the subject was narrowed to “Misconceptions about BREEAM” in order to create consensus and focus<br /> * Attendees were asked prepared questions in order to generate responses<br /> * Attendance included approximately 80 built environment professionals, mostly BREEAM Assessors or APs, along with some contractors, design team members and suppliers.<br /> * Replies were compiled from text chat, polling, [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Survey surveys] and Google co-creation [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Document documents].<br /> <br /> = Misconceptions about BREEAM =<br /> <br /> Participants in the workshop identified the following seven common misconceptions:<br /> <br /> 1. The BREEAM Assessor/AP can be added after Concept stage<br /> <br /> The sustainability consultant is often appointed after other key consultant parties as an “add on”. However correctly defined sustainability objectives should be part of the project brief and often cannot be tagged on at a later stage.<br /> <br /> 2. The stakeholder team will get on board with certification without a properly written set of Employer’s Requirements<br /> <br /> * Employers set the agenda. Even when the driver is planning permission or distant corporate benchmarking, the employer should be clear about the sustainability goals to ensure that all parties are on board.<br /> <br /> 3. Sustainability/BREEAM can be added to rather than embedded into the project<br /> <br /> Similar to the issue of adding the sustainability consultant late into the process, adding sustainability rather than designing it in from the start increases costs and reduces buy-in from all parties<br /> <br /> 4. BREEAM is a box-ticking exercise<br /> <br /> Clients will often target a particular certification level, without providing guidance as to the key sustainability goals they want to achieve. This can lead to a points-driven exercise that undermines the chance to achieve real value for the project.<br /> <br /> Busy professionals jump straight to requirements and responsibilities and don’t take the time to understand the underlying values.<br /> <br /> 5. Cost of sustainability is too high<br /> <br /> Some projects with particular issues may struggle with added costs, especially if the initial design and specification are far from achieving BREEAM goals, but BREEAM is meant to be a “best fit” concept which is why lower certification levels exist—sometimes it is simply a case of fitting the correct sustainability specification to the project and budget constraints.<br /> <br /> See points 1 and 3: starting certification late into the design process adds cost and stress, due to missed opportunities and easy wins early on. Good planning is fundamental to keeping costs reasonable, as in any aspect of budget control.<br /> <br /> BREEAM undeniably adds another process to the project balance sheet. However BREEAM professionals can usually advise on a value-driven pathway to sustainability and may save the owner money in helping to target a pathway that is best fit for the project goals.<br /> <br /> Key investments such as energy saving rely on greater up-front cost in order to create later benefits. However the industry has not historically linked project cost and operational cost and is struggling to do so even now. This is something the industry must address in order to see faster progress in the take up of sustainability certifications. We asked if many of the BREEAM professionals had been involved in a value assessment of the sustainability aspects of their projects and most replied in the negative. If the team don’t understand the positive financial impacts of sustainability investments in terms of future asset security, occupant health and operational savings, they may consider strategies only in terms of negative cost and complexity.<br /> <br /> BREEAM 2018 has set the goalposts higher, requiring more “suitably qualified” professionals to complete some of the credits. Some of the standards have also been raised in order to push the market now that a majority of BREEAM projects are achieving high certification levels. Certainly the first owners to take up the 2018 challenge may baulk at the extra costs and there is some indication that some are doing so; however creating more transparent standards can also help the industry normalize these goals.<br /> <br /> 6. A “good” rating is nothing to be proud of—its “very good” or better or nothing<br /> <br /> While on the face of it, it should be welcomed that owners want to set their sights high, achieving a very high BREEAM rating can simply be unachievable under strict time and cost budgets, or for other reasons. Very high certification levels, it can be argued, should be achievable only for the top projects seeking certification. If this means that owners would rather skip the rating than risk a “good” result than perhaps there is a misunderstanding of the meaning of the rating, or perhaps BRE needs to rethink the naming of rating levels in order to respect the motivational drivers in the industry.<br /> <br /> 7. Certification process is expected to be complete at handover<br /> <br /> This could be less misunderstood when certification becomes more common and more owners have experience; however it is probably also true that the certification industry needs to get better at informing owners clearly about the process, especially when it concerns owner’s key objectives and drivers.<br /> <br /> Other comments<br /> <br /> Participants also commented on some difficulties of the recently-released BREEAM UK New Construction 2018. In the update to BREEAM’s 2014 version, there is a greater emphasis on specialist consultants and on completion of specific activities during Concept phase, when some sustainability teams may not be on board yet. While the larger team may increase expertise, they noted it will also increase costs.<br /> <br /> Another issue is the amount of documentation required for certification. Though BRE has emphasized that most documentation should be a product of normal project administration, there is a greater reliance in the 2018 version on specially-prepared reports that some felt, fell short of providing value and utility for projects. There is a danger where BREEAM could be perceived to be more about process than outcomes.<br /> <br /> A smaller number felt that some flexibility has been lost in the current scheme, which may take some teams further from sustainable concepts and risk increasing the tendency to tick boxes.<br /> <br /> Finally the length of time to achieve certification is felt to have increased perhaps at a time when this process should become more streamlined to accommodate a wider market take-up. These insights will hopefully be shared with BRE to ensure that BREEAM continues to set the agenda for sustainability in the construction sector.<br /> <br /> Compiled and edited by [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/User:Melissa_Merryweather Melissa Merryweather]<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple_Author_Article|Multiple Author Article]] 12:35, 15 Jan 2019 (BST)<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Guarantee guarantee] the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Misconceptions 2019-01-15T12:41:53Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Introduction =<br /> <br /> The lack of available seats at the Sustainability lecture area at [https://www.londonbuildexpo.com/ London Build] (October 2018) is a testament to the fact that sustainability is no longer a niche subject for the nerdy few. But how well does the construction industry understand sustainability and some of its key mechanisms such as BREEAM?<br /> <br /> BREEAM APs and Assessors know that misconceptions abound, partly due to the fact that this is a complex subject. Busy construction professionals may have in-depth knowledge about specific strategies because of prior project experience, but still lack a wider perspective about how the pieces fit together. Larger contractors may have a better understanding of BREEAM and sustainability than smaller companies simply because they can afford to take on a specialist division.<br /> <br /> Commonly held misconceptions can derail the sustainability mission of a project, especially those related to cost. At the same time it is important to acknowledge when complaints about the processes required by BREEAM and other certifications (LEED, Passivhaus, etc) create genuine barriers to achieving sustainability. Weeding out the misconceptions and addressing them is therefore an important step towards understanding how to remove systemic sustainability barriers so we can see the kind of take up in this sector that will be necessary in the years to come.<br /> <br /> One thing that we can agree on is that not enough owners voluntarily put sustainability at the forefront of their projects. It is the job of enlightened practitioners to work together with our standards and certifications partners as well as our clients to keep pushing the industry forward so that sustainable certification becomes desirable and isn’t done just because it’s required.<br /> <br /> = Methodology =<br /> <br /> * A BREEAM Public Knowledge Sharing Workshop was held in December 2018 to determine the most common misconceptions.<br /> * Rather than address sustainability in general, the subject was narrowed to “Misconceptions about BREEAM” in order to create consensus and focus<br /> * Attendees were asked prepared questions in order to generate responses<br /> * Attendance included approximately 80 built environment professionals, mostly BREEAM Assessors or APs, along with some contractors, design team members and suppliers.<br /> * Replies were compiled from text chat, polling, [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Survey surveys] and Google co-creation [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Document documents].<br /> <br /> = Misconceptions about BREEAM =<br /> <br /> Participants in the workshop identified the following seven common misconceptions:<br /> <br /> == 1. The BREEAM Assessor/AP can be added after Concept stage ==<br /> <br /> The sustainability consultant is often appointed after other key consultant parties as an “add on”. However correctly defined sustainability objectives should be part of the project brief and often cannot be tagged on at a later stage.<br /> <br /> == 2. The stakeholder team will get on board with certification without a properly written set of Employer’s Requirements ==<br /> <br /> * Employers set the agenda. Even when the driver is planning permission or distant corporate benchmarking, the employer should be clear about the sustainability goals to ensure that all parties are on board.<br /> <br /> == 3. Sustainability/BREEAM can be added to rather than embedded into the project ==<br /> <br /> Similar to the issue of adding the sustainability consultant late into the process, adding sustainability rather than designing it in from the start increases costs and reduces buy-in from all parties<br /> <br /> == 4. BREEAM is a box-ticking exercise ==<br /> <br /> Clients will often target a particular certification level, without providing guidance as to the key sustainability goals they want to achieve. This can lead to a points-driven exercise that undermines the chance to achieve real value for the project.<br /> <br /> Busy professionals jump straight to requirements and responsibilities and don’t take the time to understand the underlying values.<br /> <br /> == 5. Cost of sustainability is too high ==<br /> <br /> Some projects with particular issues may struggle with added costs, especially if the initial design and specification are far from achieving BREEAM goals, but BREEAM is meant to be a “best fit” concept which is why lower certification levels exist—sometimes it is simply a case of fitting the correct sustainability specification to the project and budget constraints.<br /> <br /> See points 1 and 3: starting certification late into the design process adds cost and stress, due to missed opportunities and easy wins early on. Good planning is fundamental to keeping costs reasonable, as in any aspect of budget control.<br /> <br /> BREEAM undeniably adds another process to the project balance sheet. However BREEAM professionals can usually advise on a value-driven pathway to sustainability and may save the owner money in helping to target a pathway that is best fit for the project goals.<br /> <br /> Key investments such as energy saving rely on greater up-front cost in order to create later benefits. However the industry has not historically linked project cost and operational cost and is struggling to do so even now. This is something the industry must address in order to see faster progress in the take up of sustainability certifications. We asked if many of the BREEAM professionals had been involved in a value assessment of the sustainability aspects of their projects and most replied in the negative. If the team don’t understand the positive financial impacts of sustainability investments in terms of future asset security, occupant health and operational savings, they may consider strategies only in terms of negative cost and complexity.<br /> <br /> BREEAM 2018 has set the goalposts higher, requiring more “suitably qualified” professionals to complete some of the credits. Some of the standards have also been raised in order to push the market now that a majority of BREEAM projects are achieving high certification levels. Certainly the first owners to take up the 2018 challenge may baulk at the extra costs and there is some indication that some are doing so; however creating more transparent standards can also help the industry normalize these goals.<br /> <br /> == 6. A “good” rating is nothing to be proud of—its “very good” or better or nothing ==<br /> <br /> While on the face of it, it should be welcomed that owners want to set their sights high, achieving a very high BREEAM rating can simply be unachievable under strict time and cost budgets, or for other reasons. Very high certification levels, it can be argued, should be achievable only for the top projects seeking certification. If this means that owners would rather skip the rating than risk a “good” result than perhaps there is a misunderstanding of the meaning of the rating, or perhaps BRE needs to rethink the naming of rating levels in order to respect the motivational drivers in the industry.<br /> <br /> == 7. Certification process is expected to be complete at handover ==<br /> <br /> This could be less misunderstood when certification becomes more common and more owners have experience; however it is probably also true that the certification industry needs to get better at informing owners clearly about the process, especially when it concerns owner’s key objectives and drivers.<br /> <br /> = Other comments =<br /> <br /> Participants also commented on some difficulties of the recently-released BREEAM UK New Construction 2018. In the update to BREEAM’s 2014 version, there is a greater emphasis on specialist consultants and on completion of specific activities during Concept phase, when some sustainability teams may not be on board yet. While the larger team may increase expertise, they noted it will also increase costs.<br /> <br /> Another issue is the amount of documentation required for certification. Though BRE has emphasized that most documentation should be a product of normal project administration, there is a greater reliance in the 2018 version on specially-prepared reports that some felt, fell short of providing value and utility for projects. There is a danger where BREEAM could be perceived to be more about process than outcomes.<br /> <br /> A smaller number felt that some flexibility has been lost in the current scheme, which may take some teams further from sustainable concepts and risk increasing the tendency to tick boxes.<br /> <br /> Finally the length of time to achieve certification is felt to have increased perhaps at a time when this process should become more streamlined to accommodate a wider market take-up. These insights will hopefully be shared with BRE to ensure that BREEAM continues to set the agenda for sustainability in the construction sector.<br /> <br /> Compiled and edited by [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/User:Melissa_Merryweather Melissa Merryweather]<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple_Author_Article|Multiple Author Article]] 12:35, 15 Jan 2019 (BST)<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Guarantee guarantee] the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Misconceptions 2019-01-15T12:38:45Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Introduction =<br /> <br /> The lack of available seats at the Sustainability lecture area at [https://www.londonbuildexpo.com/ London Build] (October 2018) is a testament to the fact that sustainability is no longer a niche subject for the nerdy few. But how well does the construction industry understand sustainability and some of its key mechanisms such as BREEAM?<br /> <br /> BREEAM APs and Assessors know that misconceptions abound, partly due to the fact that this is a complex subject. Busy construction professionals may have in-depth knowledge about specific strategies because of prior project experience, but still lack a wider perspective about how the pieces fit together. Larger contractors may have a better understanding of BREEAM and sustainability than smaller companies simply because they can afford to take on a specialist division.<br /> <br /> Commonly held misconceptions can derail the sustainability mission of a project, especially those related to cost. At the same time it is important to acknowledge when complaints about the processes required by BREEAM and other certifications (LEED, Passivhaus, etc) create genuine barriers to achieving sustainability. Weeding out the misconceptions and addressing them is therefore an important step towards understanding how to remove systemic sustainability barriers so we can see the kind of take up in this sector that will be necessary in the years to come.<br /> <br /> One thing that we can agree on is that not enough owners voluntarily put sustainability at the forefront of their projects. It is the job of enlightened practitioners to work together with our standards and certifications partners as well as our clients to keep pushing the industry forward so that sustainable certification becomes desirable and isn’t done just because it’s required.<br /> <br /> = Methodology =<br /> <br /> * A BREEAM Public Knowledge Sharing Workshop was held in December 2018 to determine the most common misconceptions.<br /> * Rather than address sustainability in general, the subject was narrowed to “Misconceptions about BREEAM” in order to create consensus and focus<br /> * Attendees were asked prepared questions in order to generate responses<br /> * Attendance included approximately 80 built environment professionals, mostly BREEAM Assessors or APs, along with some contractors, design team members and suppliers.<br /> * Replies were compiled from text chat, polling, [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Survey surveys] and Google co-creation [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Document documents].<br /> <br /> = Misconceptions about BREEAM =<br /> <br /> Participants in the workshop identified the following seven common misconceptions:<br /> <br /> == 1. The BREEAM Assessor/AP can be added after Concept stage ==<br /> <br /> The sustainability consultant is often appointed after other key consultant parties as an “add on”. However correctly defined sustainability objectives should be part of the project brief and often cannot be tagged on at a later stage.<br /> <br /> == 2. The stakeholder team will get on board with certification without a properly written set of Employer’s Requirements ==<br /> <br /> * Employers set the agenda. Even when the driver is planning permission or distant corporate benchmarking, the employer should be clear about the sustainability goals to ensure that all parties are on board.<br /> <br /> # Sustainability/BREEAM can be added to rather than embedded into the project<br /> #* Similar to the issue of adding the sustainability consultant late into the process, adding sustainability rather than designing it in from the start increases costs and reduces buy-in from all parties<br /> # BREEAM is a box-ticking exercise.<br /> #* Clients will often target a particular certification level, without providing guidance as to the key sustainability goals they want to achieve. This can lead to a points-driven exercise that undermines the chance to achieve real value for the project.<br /> #* Busy professionals jump straight to requirements and responsibilities and don’t take the time to understand the underlying values.<br /> # Cost of sustainability is too high<br /> #* Some projects with particular issues may struggle with added costs, especially if the initial design and specification are far from achieving BREEAM goals, but BREEAM is meant to be a “best fit” concept which is why lower certification levels exist—sometimes it is simply a case of fitting the correct sustainability specification to the project and budget constraints.<br /> #* See points 1 and 3: starting certification late into the design process adds cost and stress, due to missed opportunities and easy wins early on. Good planning is fundamental to keeping costs reasonable, as in any aspect of budget control.<br /> #* BREEAM undeniably adds another process to the project balance sheet. However BREEAM professionals can usually advise on a value-driven pathway to sustainability and may save the owner money in helping to target a pathway that is best fit for the project goals.<br /> #* Key investments such as energy saving rely on greater up-front cost in order to create later benefits. However the industry has not historically linked project cost and operational cost and is struggling to do so even now. This is something the industry must address in order to see faster progress in the take up of sustainability certifications. We asked if many of the BREEAM professionals had been involved in a value assessment of the sustainability aspects of their projects and most replied in the negative. If the team don’t understand the positive financial impacts of sustainability investments in terms of future asset security, occupant health and operational savings, they may consider strategies only in terms of negative cost and complexity.<br /> #* BREEAM 2018 has set the goalposts higher, requiring more “suitably qualified” professionals to complete some of the credits. Some of the standards have also been raised in order to push the market now that a majority of BREEAM projects are achieving high certification levels. Certainly the first owners to take up the 2018 challenge may baulk at the extra costs and there is some indication that some are doing so; however creating more transparent standards can also help the industry normalize these goals.<br /> # A “good” rating is nothing to be proud of—its “very good” or better or nothing<br /> #* While on the face of it, it should be welcomed that owners want to set their sights high, achieving a very high BREEAM rating can simply be unachievable under strict time and cost budgets, or for other reasons. Very high certification levels, it can be argued, should be achievable only for the top projects seeking certification. If this means that owners would rather skip the rating than risk a “good” result than perhaps there is a misunderstanding of the meaning of the rating, or perhaps BRE needs to rethink the naming of rating levels in order to respect the motivational drivers in the industry.<br /> # Certification process is expected to be complete at handover<br /> #* This could be less misunderstood when certification becomes more common and more owners have experience; however it is probably also true that the certification industry needs to get better at informing owners clearly about the process, especially when it concerns owner’s key objectives and drivers.<br /> <br /> = Other comments =<br /> <br /> Participants also commented on some difficulties of the recently-released BREEAM UK New Construction 2018. In the update to BREEAM’s 2014 version, there is a greater emphasis on specialist consultants and on completion of specific activities during Concept phase, when some sustainability teams may not be on board yet. While the larger team may increase expertise, they noted it will also increase costs.<br /> <br /> Another issue is the amount of documentation required for certification. Though BRE has emphasized that most documentation should be a product of normal project administration, there is a greater reliance in the 2018 version on specially-prepared reports that some felt, fell short of providing value and utility for projects. There is a danger where BREEAM could be perceived to be more about process than outcomes.<br /> <br /> A smaller number felt that some flexibility has been lost in the current scheme, which may take some teams further from sustainable concepts and risk increasing the tendency to tick boxes.<br /> <br /> Finally the length of time to achieve certification is felt to have increased perhaps at a time when this process should become more streamlined to accommodate a wider market take-up. These insights will hopefully be shared with BRE to ensure that BREEAM continues to set the agenda for sustainability in the construction sector.<br /> <br /> Compiled and edited by [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/User:Melissa_Merryweather Melissa Merryweather]<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple_Author_Article|Multiple Author Article]] 12:35, 15 Jan 2019 (BST)<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Guarantee guarantee] the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Misconceptions 2019-01-15T12:35:41Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: Created page with &quot;= Introduction = The lack of available seats at the Sustainability lecture area at [https://www.londonbuildexpo.com/ London Build] (October 2018) is a testament to the fact that...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>= Introduction =<br /> <br /> The lack of available seats at the Sustainability lecture area at [https://www.londonbuildexpo.com/ London Build] (October 2018) is a testament to the fact that sustainability is no longer a niche subject for the nerdy few. But how well does the construction industry understand sustainability and some of its key mechanisms such as BREEAM?<br /> <br /> BREEAM APs and Assessors know that misconceptions abound, partly due to the fact that this is a complex subject. Busy construction professionals may have in-depth knowledge about specific strategies because of prior project experience, but still lack a wider perspective about how the pieces fit together. Larger contractors may have a better understanding of BREEAM and sustainability than smaller companies simply because they can afford to take on a specialist division.<br /> <br /> Commonly held misconceptions can derail the sustainability mission of a project, especially those related to cost. At the same time it is important to acknowledge when complaints about the processes required by BREEAM and other certifications (LEED, Passivhaus, etc) create genuine barriers to achieving sustainability. Weeding out the misconceptions and addressing them is therefore an important step towards understanding how to remove systemic sustainability barriers so we can see the kind of take up in this sector that will be necessary in the years to come.<br /> <br /> One thing that we can agree on is that not enough owners voluntarily put sustainability at the forefront of their projects. It is the job of enlightened practitioners to work together with our standards and certifications partners as well as our clients to keep pushing the industry forward so that sustainable certification becomes desirable and isn’t done just because it’s required.<br /> <br /> = Methodology =<br /> <br /> * A BREEAM Public Knowledge Sharing Workshop was held in December 2018 to determine the most common misconceptions.<br /> * Rather than address sustainability in general, the subject was narrowed to “Misconceptions about BREEAM” in order to create consensus and focus<br /> * Attendees were asked prepared questions in order to generate responses<br /> * Attendance included approximately 80 built environment professionals, mostly BREEAM Assessors or APs, along with some contractors, design team members and suppliers.<br /> * Replies were compiled from text chat, polling, [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Survey surveys] and Google co-creation [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Document documents].<br /> <br /> = Misconceptions about BREEAM =<br /> <br /> Participants in the workshop identified the following seven common misconceptions:<br /> <br /> # The BREEAM Assessor/AP can be added after Concept stage<br /> #* The sustainability consultant is usually appointed after other key consultant parties as an “add on”. However correctly defined sustainability objectives should be part of the project brief and often cannot be tagged on at a later stage.<br /> # The stakeholder team will get on board with certification without a properly written set of Employer’s Requirements<br /> #* Employers set the agenda. Even when the driver is planning permission or distant corporate benchmarking, the employer should be clear about the sustainability goals to ensure that all parties are on board.<br /> # Sustainability/BREEAM can be added to rather than embedded into the project<br /> #* Similar to the issue of adding the sustainability consultant late into the process, adding sustainability rather than designing it in from the start increases costs and reduces buy-in from all parties<br /> # BREEAM is a box-ticking exercise.<br /> #* Clients will often target a particular certification level, without providing guidance as to the key sustainability goals they want to achieve. This can lead to a points-driven exercise that undermines the chance to achieve real value for the project.<br /> #* Busy professionals jump straight to requirements and responsibilities and don’t take the time to understand the underlying values.<br /> # Cost of sustainability is too high<br /> #* Some projects with particular issues may struggle with added costs, especially if the initial design and specification are far from achieving BREEAM goals, but BREEAM is meant to be a “best fit” concept which is why lower certification levels exist—sometimes it is simply a case of fitting the correct sustainability specification to the project and budget constraints.<br /> #* See points 1 and 3: starting certification late into the design process adds cost and stress, due to missed opportunities and easy wins early on. Good planning is fundamental to keeping costs reasonable, as in any aspect of budget control.<br /> #* BREEAM undeniably adds another process to the project balance sheet. However BREEAM professionals can usually advise on a value-driven pathway to sustainability and may save the owner money in helping to target a pathway that is best fit for the project goals.<br /> #* Key investments such as energy saving rely on greater up-front cost in order to create later benefits. However the industry has not historically linked project cost and operational cost and is struggling to do so even now. This is something the industry must address in order to see faster progress in the take up of sustainability certifications. We asked if many of the BREEAM professionals had been involved in a value assessment of the sustainability aspects of their projects and most replied in the negative. If the team don’t understand the positive financial impacts of sustainability investments in terms of future asset security, occupant health and operational savings, they may consider strategies only in terms of negative cost and complexity.<br /> #* BREEAM 2018 has set the goalposts higher, requiring more “suitably qualified” professionals to complete some of the credits. Some of the standards have also been raised in order to push the market now that a majority of BREEAM projects are achieving high certification levels. Certainly the first owners to take up the 2018 challenge may baulk at the extra costs and there is some indication that some are doing so; however creating more transparent standards can also help the industry normalize these goals.<br /> # A “good” rating is nothing to be proud of—its “very good” or better or nothing<br /> #* While on the face of it, it should be welcomed that owners want to set their sights high, achieving a very high BREEAM rating can simply be unachievable under strict time and cost budgets, or for other reasons. Very high certification levels, it can be argued, should be achievable only for the top projects seeking certification. If this means that owners would rather skip the rating than risk a “good” result than perhaps there is a misunderstanding of the meaning of the rating, or perhaps BRE needs to rethink the naming of rating levels in order to respect the motivational drivers in the industry.<br /> # Certification process is expected to be complete at handover<br /> #* This could be less misunderstood when certification becomes more common and more owners have experience; however it is probably also true that the certification industry needs to get better at informing owners clearly about the process, especially when it concerns owner’s key objectives and drivers.<br /> <br /> = Other comments =<br /> <br /> Participants also commented on some difficulties of the recently-released BREEAM UK New Construction 2018. In the update to BREEAM’s 2014 version, there is a greater emphasis on specialist consultants and on completion of specific activities during Concept phase, when some sustainability teams may not be on board yet. While the larger team may increase expertise, they noted it will also increase costs.<br /> <br /> Another issue is the amount of documentation required for certification. Though BRE has emphasized that most documentation should be a product of normal project administration, there is a greater reliance in the 2018 version on specially-prepared reports that some felt, fell short of providing value and utility for projects. There is a danger where BREEAM could be perceived to be more about process than outcomes.<br /> <br /> A smaller number felt that some flexibility has been lost in the current scheme, which may take some teams further from sustainable concepts and risk increasing the tendency to tick boxes.<br /> <br /> Finally the length of time to achieve certification is felt to have increased perhaps at a time when this process should become more streamlined to accommodate a wider market take-up. These insights will hopefully be shared with BRE to ensure that BREEAM continues to set the agenda for sustainability in the construction sector.<br /> <br /> Compiled and edited by [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/User:Melissa_Merryweather Melissa Merryweather]<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple Author Article|Multiple Author Article]] 12:35, 15 Jan 2019 (BST)<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Guarantee guarantee] the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Easy_wins 2018-12-18T13:21:30Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= BREEAM Easy wins =<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> === Aim of this article ===<br /> <br /> To demonstrate accessibility to many sustainable actions; stimulate further uptake; share lessons between professionals.<br /> <br /> === Process and content ===<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> === Applicability ===<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> == Top 15 – all participants ==<br /> <br /> Percent votes = the number of all voters who placed the issue in their top 10.<br /> <br /> Int. Rank = The rank of those using International schemes<br /> <br /> {|<br /> | Tot Rank<br /> | Issue<br /> | Category<br /> | Percent Votes<br /> | Int. Rank<br /> |-<br /> | 1<br /> | Considerate construction<br /> | Management<br /> | 50%<br /> | 8<br /> |-<br /> | 2<br /> | Public transport accessibility<br /> | Transport<br /> | 37%<br /> | 1<br /> |-<br /> | 3<br /> | Sustainability champion<br /> | Management<br /> | 36%<br /> | 5<br /> |-<br /> | 4<br /> | Proximity to amenities<br /> | Transport<br /> | 36%<br /> | 3<br /> |-<br /> | 5<br /> | Operational waste<br /> | Waste<br /> | 36%<br /> | 2<br /> |-<br /> | 6<br /> | Monitoring of construction site impacts<br /> | Management<br /> | 34%<br /> | 18<br /> |-<br /> | 7<br /> | External lighting<br /> | Energy<br /> | 33%<br /> | 12<br /> |-<br /> | 8<br /> | Indoor air quality plan<br /> | Health and Wellbeing<br /> | 30%<br /> | 9<br /> |-<br /> | 9<br /> | Travel plan<br /> | Transport<br /> | 30%<br /> | 15<br /> |-<br /> | 10<br /> | Water consumption<br /> | Water<br /> | 27%<br /> | 7<br /> |-<br /> | 11<br /> | Water monitoring<br /> | Water<br /> | 27%<br /> | 22<br /> |-<br /> | 12<br /> | Internal and external lighting<br /> | Health and Wellbeing<br /> | 26%<br /> | 19<br /> |-<br /> | 13<br /> | Energy monitoring<br /> | Energy<br /> | 26%<br /> | 11<br /> |-<br /> | 14<br /> | Cyclist facilities<br /> | Transport<br /> | 26%<br /> | 13<br /> |-<br /> | 15<br /> | Reduction of night time light pollution<br /> | Pollution<br /> | 23%<br /> | 29<br /> |}<br /> <br /> == Top 15 - International only ==<br /> <br /> It was noted by some that for International schemes there may well be differences, this was true in some cases.<br /> <br /> {|<br /> | Int. Rank<br /> | Issue<br /> | Category<br /> | Int. % votes<br /> | Notes taken<br /> |-<br /> | 1<br /> | Public transport accessibility<br /> | Transport<br /> | 57%<br /> | 1<br /> |-<br /> | 2<br /> | Operational waste<br /> | Waste<br /> | 52%<br /> | 1<br /> |-<br /> | 3<br /> | Proximity to amenities<br /> | Transport<br /> | 48%<br /> | 1<br /> |-<br /> | 4<br /> | Glare control<br /> | Health and Wellbeing<br /> | 43%<br /> |<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | 5<br /> | Sustainability champion<br /> | Management<br /> | 38%<br /> | 1<br /> |-<br /> | 6<br /> | View out<br /> | Health and Wellbeing<br /> | 38%<br /> |<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | 7<br /> | Water consumption<br /> | Water<br /> | 38%<br /> | 1<br /> |-<br /> | 8<br /> | Considerate construction<br /> | Management<br /> | 33%<br /> | 1<br /> |-<br /> | 9<br /> | Indoor air quality plan<br /> | Health and Wellbeing<br /> | 33%<br /> | 1<br /> |-<br /> | 10<br /> | Inclusive and accessible design<br /> | Management<br /> | 29%<br /> |<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | 11<br /> | Energy monitoring<br /> | Energy<br /> | 29%<br /> |<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | 12<br /> | External lighting<br /> | Energy<br /> | 29%<br /> | 1<br /> |-<br /> | 13<br /> | Cyclist facilities<br /> | Transport<br /> | 29%<br /> |<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | 14<br /> | Alternative modes of transport<br /> | Transport<br /> | 29%<br /> |<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | 15<br /> | Travel plan<br /> | Transport<br /> | 29%<br /> | 1<br /> |}<br /> <br /> = Easy wins commentary =<br /> <br /> Below are the summaries of comments made for each of the top 10 ‘easy-wins’ overall<br /> <br /> (+3) = 3 more people made this comment<br /> <br /> = Considerate Construction =<br /> <br /> == Why relatively easy ==<br /> <br /> Standard Practice<br /> <br /> * It's usually standard practice for most contractors (+7)<br /> * Mandatory requirement across all of our sites<br /> * Considerate construction is an easy win as is put into contracts with ease and many (if not<br /> * For the client it is &amp;quot;easy&amp;quot; in the sense that you can choose a ready &amp;quot;considerate construction&amp;quot; scheme participant contractor<br /> <br /> Simple and flexible<br /> <br /> * Flexible criteria<br /> * Easy to understand criteria.<br /> * Simple certification process for Contractors to achieve<br /> <br /> * Post construction part can be finished early in the programme<br /> * If necessary, contractors can amend their site activities after the first visit<br /> <br /> == Caveats ==<br /> <br /> 1 vs 2 credits:<br /> <br /> * 1 credit is straightforward - the requirements are clear and, for the most part achievable. 2 credits can be a bit of a gamble<br /> * Pretty standard for a Contractor to undertake but less so for them to achieve 2+ credits<br /> <br /> UKNC2018<br /> <br /> * Under 2018 it doesn't seem that CCS covers all requirements<br /> * It doesn't look as straight forward under 2018<br /> <br /> Contractor size<br /> <br /> * At least where the Contractor is of a reasonable size (+1)<br /> * To get 2 credits it costs a fair bit for smaller contractors and with the weighting being 0.54% per credit<br /> * It is definitely the case for large schemes, but smaller contractors (often appointed on smaller jobs) sometimes have no experience.<br /> * Larger contractors generally find it easy-ish to achieve 2 credits. Smaller contractors generally OK to achieve 1 credit<br /> * Common practise between all larger General Contractors or those cooperating on BREEAM regularly<br /> <br /> International views<br /> <br /> * Not easy so easy in some countries (+3)<br /> * Considerate construction isn't easy in France, especially when you want 2 credits with the A1 checklist<br /> * In France, with the local certification, procedures are already set that allow us to get that credit easily<br /> * Easy in France especially with general contractor<br /> <br /> From a contractor:<br /> <br /> * 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'<br /> <br /> == Other aspects ==<br /> <br /> Third party aspect<br /> <br /> * Involves independent third party assessor<br /> * The monitoring is by a third party - evidence that can’t be disputed<br /> * It is reliant on an external CCS inspector so you can’t count on it<br /> <br /> Taking action<br /> <br /> * Contractors can take action to improve after first visit if needed<br /> * 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<br /> <br /> = Public transport Accessibility =<br /> <br /> Almost entirely dependent on location. Easy in a city, difficult or impossible in rural locations<br /> <br /> == Why relatively easy ==<br /> <br /> Easy in a city:<br /> <br /> * In cities it is easy to achieve a good score due to availability of public transport (+10)<br /> <br /> Other<br /> <br /> * Easy to calculate PTAL ratings - public knowledge from TFL<br /> * Evidence doesn't rely on the design team<br /> * The evidence collection isn’t too arduous<br /> * Normally required for planning anyway<br /> <br /> == Caveats ==<br /> <br /> Location dependent:<br /> <br /> * Public transport accessibility is either yes, or no depending on where you are<br /> * Have no choice, it is just a calculation of what is accessible on site<br /> * Agree that very site dependent (+6)<br /> <br /> Rural location:<br /> <br /> * Not so easy when you're in the middle of Scotland with one bus service<br /> * Not easy if you're not central (+6)<br /> <br /> Other<br /> <br /> * On projects with long programmes we sometimes find the services have changed for the worse at post completion<br /> <br /> = Sustainability Champion =<br /> <br /> == Why relatively easy ==<br /> <br /> Appointment and Evidence:<br /> <br /> * Easy for contractor to identify, takes early ownership<br /> * Easy to appoint and evidence<br /> * Easy for Design team to appoint AP and Sustainability Champion at start of design process<br /> * Easy to appoint and easy to give evidence<br /> <br /> Assessor/AP can lead<br /> <br /> * Tends to just be a credit where you do your job as consultant/assessor and get a BREEAM credit for it (+6)<br /> * Assessor usually in control of evidence<br /> * Is normally part of the scope of our engagement as Environmental Consultants at Design Stage. Most Contractors then have their own person during construction<br /> <br /> == Caveats ==<br /> <br /> Contractor role:<br /> <br /> * 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<br /> <br /> Cost<br /> <br /> * Comparatively inexpensive, and doesn’t require Project Team action - other than for the appointment of the AP.<br /> * As a minimum you should do 6 days on this for 1.64% typically<br /> * Not very expensive, even though sometimes hard for client to understand why to pay both an AP and an assessor<br /> <br /> International<br /> <br /> * It is hard in Hungary, because there are not too many BREEAM APs<br /> <br /> Timeline (early appointment)<br /> <br /> * Only easy to achieve if appointment is made early (+4)<br /> * Normally involves early appointment and use of a competent person who understands the BREEAM process<br /> * Seems hard sometimes to get AP engagement early on, but once in, it’s not bad<br /> * 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.<br /> <br /> == Other Aspects ==<br /> <br /> * An AP providing guidance to the contractor is necessary in my opinion, to guarantee qualitative evidence<br /> * Assessors may provide the support but meeting attendances are significant<br /> <br /> = Proximity to Amenities =<br /> <br /> == Why relatively easy ==<br /> <br /> Assess-ability<br /> <br /> * Easy to chart journey and location to amenities using google maps (+3)<br /> * Evidence doesn't rely on the design team, can produce evidence myself (+2)<br /> <br /> == Caveats ==<br /> <br /> Control<br /> <br /> * Amenities can disappear between interim and post construction assessment<br /> * This is not easy as relies upon factors which are potentially out of control of the site constraints. Like local shops etc<br /> * Not easy to control<br /> * Not something that we have any influence over<br /> * Don’t like this as they are usually outside control of project<br /> <br /> Site dependent<br /> <br /> * Site dependent, really easy in big city or urban area (+15)<br /> * This very dependent on the site location and therefore can only achieve credits if nearer to the amenities.<br /> * On larger projects client can provide amenities as part of the project (+2)<br /> * Difficult to influence for small standalone buildings<br /> <br /> * Often difficult in rural areas, but easy to assess and evidence usually readily available (+2)<br /> <br /> == Other aspects ==<br /> <br /> * If the amenities needs to include post boxes, these are a dying form of communication<br /> <br /> = Operational Waste =<br /> <br /> == Why relatively easy ==<br /> <br /> Assess-ability<br /> <br /> * because if you don't have enough space to meet the BREEAM space requirements you just have to put a valid justification together<br /> * Normally straightforward, justification for space provided if area is not big enough.<br /> <br /> Standard practice<br /> <br /> * Pretty standard nowadays but ensuring a water outlet for organic waste is not always assured in addition to additional space for catering facilities<br /> * Separated waste now has become more common place<br /> <br /> Other<br /> <br /> * Easy to achieve when a good SWMP via SMARTWaste or similar is used.<br /> * Easy if taken at the beginning of the project<br /> <br /> == Caveats ==<br /> <br /> Space<br /> <br /> * Usually this is very possible as long as there is space on the site.<br /> * If there os adequate space on site, then it is not too onerous to get compliant facilities implemented.<br /> * It is massively dependent on building type, location and available external space<br /> <br /> Evidence<br /> <br /> * Key is documentation - often the exercise to determine waste quantities is done but not formalised to meet BREEAM requirements<br /> * Can be difficult to get the evidence of waste streams being discussed<br /> <br /> Building type<br /> <br /> * Easy especially for schools, education buildings<br /> * Very difficult for student accommodation. No council provides food waste collection from commercial premises and students are not really willing to sort food waste.<br /> * It's peculiar to me that this is a minimum standard for Excellent, and can be very tricky on Excellent Student Halls<br /> <br /> International<br /> <br /> * Easy in Norway to get the first two credits, requires a bit more planning for 3rd and exemplary<br /> * Operational waste not always easy in France, especially in Shell &amp;amp; Core buildings<br /> <br /> Other<br /> <br /> * Often conflicts with waste management strategies<br /> * Not easy if operational waste contractor is not known<br /> * The tap for compost waste can be surprisingly expensive<br /> * The tap for composting can easily get left out<br /> * It could also be difficult when it comes with kitchen/ food waste as a separate item<br /> * Labels sometimes forgotten<br /> <br /> = Monitoring of Construction Site Impacts =<br /> <br /> == Why relatively easy ==<br /> <br /> Standard practice:<br /> <br /> * Often energy and water are monitored for ISO 14001 certification and billing anyway<br /> * Standard practice for pretty much every contractor and site with an EMS (+8)<br /> * Regular procedures in France when the building is HQE certified<br /> <br /> Evidence/targets<br /> <br /> * Easy paper trail on site?<br /> * Onsite information easy to have<br /> * Easy to monitor and log, except transport<br /> * Can set own targets so not really stringent criteria<br /> <br /> == Caveats ==<br /> <br /> Transport<br /> <br /> * The transport impacts aren't standard practice (+3)<br /> * Transport is almost always dropped by Post Construction<br /> * All reasonably straightforward except transport - particularly for smaller projects without permanent gatekeepers<br /> <br /> Other:<br /> <br /> * It is very tedious and Hungarian contractors are not used to this kind of monitoring<br /> * 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.<br /> * Time consuming sometimes to get the contractor put together all the evidence in the correct units and fully compliant<br /> * Not easy for some building type e.g. shopping centre<br /> <br /> == Other aspects: ==<br /> <br /> * Only worth 0.54% or so<br /> * 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<br /> <br /> = External Lighting =<br /> <br /> == Why relatively easy ==<br /> <br /> Use of LEDs<br /> <br /> * With LED technology this is now very straightforward.<br /> * Easy for lighting consultant to meet CIBSE external lighting criteria with LED<br /> * It’s easy to achieve with technology like LED and so on<br /> * Technology improving all the time<br /> <br /> Standard practice<br /> <br /> * External lighting control is typically part of standard design and the lighting industry has information on efficacies quite available<br /> * Luminaire schedule and manufacturer's details are standard in O&amp;amp;Ms anyway<br /> <br /> General<br /> <br /> * Easy to close out with Assessor's site report<br /> * Average efficacy has improved this<br /> * Very easy to attend the lm/W<br /> <br /> == Caveats ==<br /> <br /> Miscellaneous lighting<br /> <br /> * As long as there isn’t too much pretty architectural lighting<br /> * Where illuminated signage applicable this can be difficult to achieve as manufacturer's suppliers tend not to provide suitable evidence<br /> * Sometimes difficult to prove if architects forget to show us the specification of external lighting. They tend to like &amp;quot;decorative lights&amp;quot; which are not always compliant<br /> <br /> Evidence<br /> <br /> * Not easy to get evidence at Post Construction (illuminance studies)<br /> <br /> General<br /> <br /> * 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.<br /> * CIBSE guidelines, but sometimes too bright, but at least there is a baseline to work to<br /> <br /> = Indoor Air Quality Plan =<br /> <br /> == Why relatively easy ==<br /> <br /> Standard Practice<br /> <br /> * Indoor quality plan is easy to write and add to the contract, now it's good practice<br /> * Always done for big project<br /> * Pretty simple and just puts pen to paper on what is already known within the Mechanical Strategy<br /> * Now it is a requirement for Shell and Core projects under BREEAM 2018, so it adds another task to the team<br /> * As part of the design it is not hard to have a plan<br /> * Preparation is quite simple, depends on design team but often completed as part of M&amp;amp;E scope of works<br /> * Topics the design team must consider anyway, just formalising the documentation<br /> <br /> Consultant led<br /> <br /> * Indoor air quality plan is normally prepared by a specialist and therefore can easily meet the criteria through early design approach<br /> * Indoor air quality is popular subject at the moment, but also it’s simple to appoint a consultant to do<br /> <br /> General<br /> <br /> * The client usually loves the idea of IAQ management on site<br /> * 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<br /> * Additional consultant fee is often value engineered out<br /> * Easy to draft indoor air quality plan<br /> * Equally easy because there's no post construction requirements<br /> <br /> == Caveats ==<br /> <br /> Guidance Note (GN22)<br /> <br /> * IAQ Plan: through GN, the content is set- good example what should be addressed<br /> * GN22 can be hard to follow<br /> <br /> General<br /> <br /> * 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<br /> * IAQ was straightforward in 2014 - and worth a full credit- but value is less in 2018<br /> * 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.<br /> * 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<br /> * Easy in France but not deeply followed in reality<br /> <br /> = Travel plan =<br /> <br /> == Why relatively easy ==<br /> <br /> Standard Practice<br /> <br /> * Travel Plans are pretty standard<br /> * Travel plan usually is being required for planning purposes, so always available on early stage (+2)<br /> * Easy where the travel plan is required by others or an organisation already has the document.<br /> * Easy format report for Travel plans<br /> * Easy if you have a good transport survey<br /> <br /> == Caveats ==<br /> <br /> Hard in some situations<br /> <br /> * Travel plan can be difficult, sometimes the tenant doesn't want to sign it, especially where car sharing is proposed<br /> * Can be difficult sometimes with the quite specific BREEAM requirements for what needs to be considered.<br /> * Can be very difficult in some cases of remote location<br /> * 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.<br /> <br /> International<br /> <br /> * Not required in Hungary, so it is not so easy!<br /> * Quite easy in France normally. But for areas with no existing users, it's difficult to evaluate the needs<br /> * Site dependent, in main cities is France, this is just a matter of paperwork<br /> <br /> == Other aspects ==<br /> <br /> Tips: Pay attention to details, templates useful<br /> <br /> * 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<br /> * Ensuring the Assessment covers the relevant material can require several revisions<br /> * Travel plan would be easier with a template to fill in as depending on the consultant it can be very good or the opposite<br /> * Travel plans are good but some consultants don’t cover the compliance criteria<br /> * Lots of travel plans don't cover all the BREEAM criteria.<br /> * Often the last thing we get in from the end user<br /> <br /> = Water Consumption =<br /> <br /> == Why relatively easy ==<br /> <br /> Standard Practice<br /> <br /> * Water saving appliances are becoming standards, no problem to get it in Central Europe<br /> * The choice of low water consumption fittings has increased for specification.<br /> * Flow restrictors etc. are typically fitted as standard<br /> * Normal standard to have water efficient fittings<br /> <br /> General<br /> <br /> * 3 credits are readily achievable given the products with low flow rates on the market<br /> * Price difference for low consuming fixtures is not a big challenge usually, so easy to convince to target this credit<br /> * Evidence: Most sanitary suppliers will calculate water consumption for their water fittings<br /> * 3 credits easy in France<br /> <br /> == Caveats ==<br /> <br /> 3+ credits:<br /> <br /> * Easy to get 1-3 credits but higher levels raise concerns on hygiene due to low flush/waterless devices<br /> * 3 credits is easily achievable with low flow rates however it becomes complicated when needing to install rainwater harvesting or greywater recycling (+2)<br /> <br /> Accuracy<br /> <br /> * Beware of creative use of flow restrictors<br /> * M&amp;amp;E sub contractors will frequently put in a variable flow restrictor and tell you whatever flow rate you want to hear, which makes it &amp;quot;easy&amp;quot; for BREEAM, if totally factually inaccurate<br /> <br /> Flow rates<br /> <br /> * 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<br /> <br /> * As long as client is happy with the flow rate restrictions<br /> * Evidence: Can be difficult to get suitable evidence to confirm flow rates/ consumption<br /> * Evidence: Constant monitoring / reminding contractors can be tedious<br /> <br /> Timeline<br /> <br /> * 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<br /> * Constructor's don't take care of it usually<br /> * 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)<br /> <br /> Building Type<br /> <br /> * This is really hard in certain situations. Like sports facilities where the water use on &amp;quot;other buildings&amp;quot; for sports is crazy high for showers<br /> * Usually 3 credits for multi-residential buildings are achievable<br /> * 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<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple Author Article|Multiple Author Article]] 13:21, 18 Dec 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Early_BREEAM_stakeholder_engagement 2018-05-15T14:18:25Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Introduction =<br /> <br /> Ask any BREEAM Assessor or AP what makes the biggest single difference on a BREEAM project, the answer will often be ‘get in early’. This article comprises of comments from industry stakeholders familiar with BREEAM projects on what helps in engaging early with stakeholders.<br /> <br /> Video: [https://vimeo.com/128236513 The number one tip in BREEAM]<br /> <br /> = The Challenges =<br /> <br /> == BREEAM often considered too late ==<br /> <br /> * It’s all about early engagement<br /> * On most of our current projects, appointment has been late stage 2 or nearly stage 3<br /> * Unfortunately we are usually appointed after Stage 2 as well<br /> * Often we are brought on board later in the design process and opportunities to achieve credits linked to early stakeholder engagement have already been missed.<br /> * Always depends on how well the client is prepared to engage with BREEAM and sometimes BREEAM gets bolted on at the end of a multi-disciplinary project<br /> * Awareness amongst clients/developers is key. If we're not appointed/already in discussions early on we can’t advise<br /> <br /> == Who is the project lead? ==<br /> <br /> * All depends on who is running the project - if an Architect lead then generally assessors/APs get appointed early - if Contractor led it can be a late appointment<br /> * Contractor appointments in D&amp;amp;B contacts are usually too late for the early BREEAM credits.<br /> * If Contractor led - can be late appointment - this scenario generally only happens because the Client’s team delays making a decision on where to shift the BREEAM Assessor appointment on to<br /> * Clients rely on their design teams and consultants but do not speak to / involve contractors early enough to discuss buildability<br /> * It often falls on us contactor side assessors to 'fix' where other assessor organisations/DTs have dropped the ball often including unrealistic, contractor heavy targets which are often linked to costly retainers.<br /> * BREEAM sometimes just gets pushed back, forgotten about<br /> <br /> = Suggested solutions =<br /> <br /> == Pre assessment and early meetings ==<br /> <br /> * Complete a tailored pre assessment and arrange a start-up meeting<br /> * Hold a BREEAM pre-assessment workshop<br /> * Always hold a pre-assessment workshop as early as you can so each item is in the mind of the designers<br /> * Always try and get in a pre-assessment workshop as early as possible -<br /> * Early as possible kick off meeting and run through a pre-assessment highlighting key items, mandatory credits, those with RIBA requirements, pitfalls to watch out for, quick and early wins, evidence examples, time frames, deadlines etc.<br /> * Discussing about the topic with the Client team from day one. Setting high aspirations and sharing the project's visions with them. This enables them to get on board with some of the key/high-level concepts that the design team is envisioning to implement in the project.<br /> * Explaining the benefits of early consultations and developing a robust brief can help.<br /> * We all assume engagement means two way conversation. I often find that early 'engagement' is very one way and because of that try to manage the processes instead of waiting for things to happen.<br /> * I think it is the BREEAM Professional’s responsibility to drive the BREEAM process and engage the team. We allow for quite few meeting in our fees.<br /> <br /> == Timeline focus ==<br /> <br /> * Talking about early stage credits that are so important to get the score higher means they like support earlier on<br /> <br /> == RIBA plan of work ==<br /> <br /> * A meeting with the Project Manager to discuss the RIBA Stage Plan of Work is useful, as this document clearly shows the process that should be adopted on projects.<br /> * Meeting with PMs to discuss deliverables for each RIBA Stage<br /> * Design teams typically accept that something is important if it come from a non BREEAM (independent) perspective so using RIBA Plan of Work document helps.<br /> * Provide scenarios with credits/opportunities being lost as RIBA stages progress, during pre-assessment workshop, in line with the RIBA timeline<br /> * Quantify the percentage of credits that can be secured or missed before RIBA stage 2 (for example). Helps focus team on cost of later substitution<br /> <br /> == RIBA plan of work - nuances ==<br /> <br /> * For international projects, it is sometimes difficult to &amp;quot;translate&amp;quot; RIBA stages into a specific country stage<br /> * The RIBA process for consultation can be difficult to adopt on projects where there are repeat projects and where there is an established developer specification. Here is it helpful to have a file note that explains how changes have been developed for a specific site.<br /> * RIBA process doesn't work well at all with large schemes<br /> * RIBA also doesn’t work with NHS &amp;amp; other Framework agreements<br /> <br /> == Have a BREEAM AP on the project ==<br /> <br /> * Project Brief (RIBA 1) might not include BREEAM objectives, but by Concept Design the BREEAM AP should have made BREEAM a key objective for the project team.<br /> * Have a BREEAM AP Stage 1 meeting<br /> * You can't rely on in-house developer APs being on all projects, but we're a pretty good way of making sure clients reach out to engage assessors at the appropriate time.<br /> <br /> == Value – making a case ==<br /> <br /> * Feedback on previous performance relating to BREEAM works well on persuading them to engage early.<br /> <br /> == Local planning guidelines ==<br /> <br /> * If BREEAM is a planning condition we normally get brought in at the start of the project as a pre assessment is required for planning<br /> * Planning Authorities stipulating BREEAM in their conditions need to make applicants more aware of the need for early engagement, but I'm not sure how much the BRE really do to make planning departments understand their scheme, or perhaps the planners just don't listen.<br /> * Agree that if planning conditions in relation to BREEAM were consistent and advised centrally, then there would be a lot less confusion amongst authorities.<br /> * By the time something goes into planning you're not early stage enough anyway, and it's not planning's responsibility to drive a project.<br /> <br /> == Embed in client procurement guidance ==<br /> <br /> * Embed in Client's own procurement guidance and procedures<br /> * Be able to convince the client that for his next project he would save money by engaging the assessor sooner (higher efficiency of the BREEAM measures to be taken to get the rating)<br /> * It is down to educating project teams which I suspect will only happen by experience. i.e. they fail to get credits on an assessment and it goes as a lessons learnt item onto the next project.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple Author Article|Multiple Author Article]] 15:18, 15 May 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Early_BREEAM_stakeholder_engagement 2018-05-15T13:35:23Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Introduction =<br /> <br /> Ask any BREEAM Assessor or AP what makes the biggest single difference on a BREEAM project, the answer will often be ‘get in early’. This article comprises of comments from industry stakeholders familiar with BREEAM projects on what helps in engaging early with stakeholders.<br /> <br /> Video: [https://vimeo.com/128236513 The number one tip in BREEAM]<br /> <br /> = The Challenges =<br /> <br /> == BREEAM often considered too late ==<br /> <br /> * It’s all about early engagement<br /> * On most of our current projects, appointment has been late stage 2 or nearly stage 3<br /> * Unfortunately we are usually appointed after Stage 2 as well<br /> * Often we are brought on board later in the design process and opportunities to achieve credits linked to early stakeholder engagement have already been missed.<br /> * Always depends on how well the client is prepared to engage with BREEAM and sometimes BREEAM gets bolted on at the end of a multi-disciplinary project<br /> * Awareness amongst clients/developers is key. If we're not appointed/already in discussions early on we can’t advise<br /> <br /> == Who is the project lead? ==<br /> <br /> * All depends on who is running the project - if an Architect lead then generally assessors/APs get appointed early - if Contractor led it can be a late appointment<br /> * Contractor appointments in D&amp;amp;B contacts are usually too late for the early BREEAM credits.<br /> * If Contractor led - can be late appointment - this scenario generally only happens because the Client’s team delays making a decision on where to shift the BREEAM Assessor appointment on to<br /> * Clients rely on their design teams and consultants but do not speak to / involve contractors early enough to discuss buildability<br /> * It often falls on us contactor side assessors to 'fix' where other assessor organisations/DTs have dropped the ball often including unrealistic, contractor heavy targets which are often linked to costly retainers.<br /> * BREEAM sometimes just gets pushed back, forgotten about<br /> <br /> = Suggested solutions =<br /> <br /> == Pre assessment and early meetings ==<br /> <br /> * Complete a tailored pre assessment and arrange a start-up meeting<br /> * Hold a BREEAM pre-assessment workshop<br /> * Always hold a pre-assessment workshop as early as you can so each item is in the mind of the designers<br /> * Always try and get in a pre-assessment workshop as early as possible -<br /> * Early as possible kick off meeting and run through a pre-assessment highlighting key items, mandatory credits, those with RIBA requirements, pitfalls to watch out for, quick and early wins, evidence examples, time frames, deadlines etc.<br /> * Discussing about the topic with the Client team from day one. Setting high aspirations and sharing the project's visions with them. This enables them to get on board with some of the key/high-level concepts that the design team is envisioning to implement in the project.<br /> * Explaining the benefits of early consultations and developing a robust brief can help.<br /> * We all assume engagement means two way conversation. I often find that early 'engagement' is very one way and because of that try to manage the processes instead of waiting for things to happen.<br /> * I think it is the BREEAM Professional’s responsibility to drive the BREEAM process and engage the team. We allow for quite few meeting in our fees.<br /> <br /> == Timeline focus ==<br /> <br /> * Talking about early stage credits that are so important to get the score higher means they like support earlier on<br /> <br /> == RIBA plan of work ==<br /> <br /> * A meeting with the Project Manager to discuss the RIBA Stage Plan of Work is useful, as this document clearly shows the process that should be adopted on projects.<br /> * Meeting with PMs to discuss deliverables for each RIBA Stage<br /> * Design teams typically accept that something is important if it come from a non BREEAM (independent) perspective so using RIBA Plan of Work document helps.<br /> * Provide scenarios with credits/opportunities being lost as RIBA stages progress, during pre-assessment workshop, in line with the RIBA timeline<br /> * Quantify the percentage of credits that can be secured or missed before RIBA stage 2 (for example). Helps focus team on cost of later substitution<br /> <br /> == RIBA plan of work - nuances ==<br /> <br /> * For international projects, it is sometimes difficult to &amp;quot;translate&amp;quot; RIBA stages into a specific country stage<br /> * The RIBA process for consultation can be difficult to adopt on projects where there are repeat projects and where there is an established developer specification. Here is it helpful to have a file note that explains how changes have been developed for a specific site.<br /> * RIBA process doesn't work well at all with large schemes<br /> * RIBA also doesn’t work with NHS &amp;amp; other Framework agreements<br /> <br /> == Have a BREEAM AP on the project ==<br /> <br /> * Project Brief (RIBA 1) might not include BREEAM objectives, but by Concept Design the BREEAM AP should have made BREEAM a key objective for the project team.<br /> * Have a BREEAM AP Stage 1 meeting<br /> * You can't rely on in-house developer APs being on all projects, but we're a pretty good way of making sure clients reach out to engage assessors at the appropriate time.<br /> <br /> == Value – making a case ==<br /> <br /> * Feedback on previous performance relating to BREEAM works well on persuading them to engage early.<br /> <br /> == Local planning guidelines ==<br /> <br /> * If BREEAM is a planning condition we normally get brought in at the start of the project as a pre assessment is required for planning<br /> * Planning Authorities stipulating BREEAM in their conditions need to make applicants more aware of the need for early engagement, but I'm not sure how much the BRE really do to make planning departments understand their scheme, or perhaps the planners just don't listen.<br /> * Agree that if planning conditions in relation to BREEAM were consistent and advised centrally, then there would be a lot less confusion amongst authorities.<br /> * By the time something goes into planning you're not early stage enough anyway, and it's not planning's responsibility to drive a project.<br /> <br /> == Embed in client procurement guidance ==<br /> <br /> * Embed in Client's own procurement guidance and procedures<br /> * Be able to convince the client that for his next project he would save money by engaging the assessor sooner (higher efficiency of the BREEAM measures to be taken to get the rating)<br /> * It is down to educating project teams which I suspect will only happen by experience. i.e. they fail to get credits on an assessment and it goes as a lessons learnt item onto the next project.<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Early_BREEAM_stakeholder_engagement 2018-05-15T13:33:52Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Introduction =<br /> <br /> Ask any BREEAM Assessor or AP what makes the biggest single difference on a BREEAM project, the answer will often be ‘get in early’. This article comprises of comments from industry stakeholders familiar with BREEAM projects on what helps in engaging early with stakeholders.<br /> <br /> Video: [https://vimeo.com/128236513 https://vimeo.com/128236513]<br /> <br /> = The Challenges =<br /> <br /> == BREEAM often considered too late ==<br /> <br /> * It’s all about early engagement<br /> * On most of our current projects, appointment has been late stage 2 or nearly stage 3<br /> * Unfortunately we are usually appointed after Stage 2 as well<br /> * Often we are brought on board later in the design process and opportunities to achieve credits linked to early stakeholder engagement have already been missed.<br /> * Always depends on how well the client is prepared to engage with BREEAM and sometimes BREEAM gets bolted on at the end of a multi-disciplinary project<br /> * Awareness amongst clients/developers is key. If we're not appointed/already in discussions early on we can’t advise<br /> <br /> == Who is the project lead? ==<br /> <br /> * All depends on who is running the project - if an Architect lead then generally assessors/APs get appointed early - if Contractor led it can be a late appointment<br /> * Contractor appointments in D&amp;amp;B contacts are usually too late for the early BREEAM credits.<br /> * If Contractor led - can be late appointment - this scenario generally only happens because the Client’s team delays making a decision on where to shift the BREEAM Assessor appointment on to<br /> * Clients rely on their design teams and consultants but do not speak to / involve contractors early enough to discuss buildability<br /> * It often falls on us contactor side assessors to 'fix' where other assessor organisations/DTs have dropped the ball often including unrealistic, contractor heavy targets which are often linked to costly retainers.<br /> * BREEAM sometimes just gets pushed back, forgotten about<br /> <br /> = Suggested solutions =<br /> <br /> == Pre assessment and early meetings ==<br /> <br /> * Complete a tailored pre assessment and arrange a start-up meeting<br /> * Hold a BREEAM pre-assessment workshop<br /> * Always hold a pre-assessment workshop as early as you can so each item is in the mind of the designers<br /> * Always try and get in a pre-assessment workshop as early as possible -<br /> * Early as possible kick off meeting and run through a pre-assessment highlighting key items, mandatory credits, those with RIBA requirements, pitfalls to watch out for, quick and early wins, evidence examples, time frames, deadlines etc.<br /> * Discussing about the topic with the Client team from day one. Setting high aspirations and sharing the project's visions with them. This enables them to get on board with some of the key/high-level concepts that the design team is envisioning to implement in the project.<br /> * Explaining the benefits of early consultations and developing a robust brief can help.<br /> * We all assume engagement means two way conversation. I often find that early 'engagement' is very one way and because of that try to manage the processes instead of waiting for things to happen.<br /> * I think it is the BREEAM Professional’s responsibility to drive the BREEAM process and engage the team. We allow for quite few meeting in our fees.<br /> <br /> == Timeline focus ==<br /> <br /> * Talking about early stage credits that are so important to get the score higher means they like support earlier on<br /> <br /> == RIBA plan of work ==<br /> <br /> * A meeting with the Project Manager to discuss the RIBA Stage Plan of Work is useful, as this document clearly shows the process that should be adopted on projects.<br /> * Meeting with PMs to discuss deliverables for each RIBA Stage<br /> * Design teams typically accept that something is important if it come from a non BREEAM (independent) perspective so using RIBA Plan of Work document helps.<br /> * Provide scenarios with credits/opportunities being lost as RIBA stages progress, during pre-assessment workshop, in line with the RIBA timeline<br /> * Quantify the percentage of credits that can be secured or missed before RIBA stage 2 (for example). Helps focus team on cost of later substitution<br /> <br /> == RIBA plan of work - nuances ==<br /> <br /> * For international projects, it is sometimes difficult to &amp;quot;translate&amp;quot; RIBA stages into a specific country stage<br /> * The RIBA process for consultation can be difficult to adopt on projects where there are repeat projects and where there is an established developer specification. Here is it helpful to have a file note that explains how changes have been developed for a specific site.<br /> * RIBA process doesn't work well at all with large schemes<br /> * RIBA also doesn’t work with NHS &amp;amp; other Framework agreements<br /> <br /> == Have a BREEAM AP on the project ==<br /> <br /> * Project Brief (RIBA 1) might not include BREEAM objectives, but by Concept Design the BREEAM AP should have made BREEAM a key objective for the project team.<br /> * Have a BREEAM AP Stage 1 meeting<br /> * You can't rely on in-house developer APs being on all projects, but we're a pretty good way of making sure clients reach out to engage assessors at the appropriate time.<br /> <br /> == Value – making a case ==<br /> <br /> * Feedback on previous performance relating to BREEAM works well on persuading them to engage early.<br /> <br /> == Local planning guidelines ==<br /> <br /> * If BREEAM is a planning condition we normally get brought in at the start of the project as a pre assessment is required for planning<br /> * Planning Authorities stipulating BREEAM in their conditions need to make applicants more aware of the need for early engagement, but I'm not sure how much the BRE really do to make planning departments understand their scheme, or perhaps the planners just don't listen.<br /> * Agree that if planning conditions in relation to BREEAM were consistent and advised centrally, then there would be a lot less confusion amongst authorities.<br /> * By the time something goes into planning you're not early stage enough anyway, and it's not planning's responsibility to drive a project.<br /> <br /> == Embed in client procurement guidance ==<br /> <br /> * Embed in Client's own procurement guidance and procedures<br /> * Be able to convince the client that for his next project he would save money by engaging the assessor sooner (higher efficiency of the BREEAM measures to be taken to get the rating)<br /> * It is down to educating project teams which I suspect will only happen by experience. i.e. they fail to get credits on an assessment and it goes as a lessons learnt item onto the next project.<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Early_BREEAM_stakeholder_engagement 2018-05-15T13:33:12Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: Created page with &quot;= Introduction = Ask any BREEAM Assessor or AP what makes the biggest single difference on a BREEAM project, the answer will often be ‘get in early’. This article comprises ...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>= Introduction =<br /> <br /> Ask any BREEAM Assessor or AP what makes the biggest single difference on a BREEAM project, the answer will often be ‘get in early’. This article comprises of comments from industry stakeholders familiar with BREEAM projects on what helps in engaging early with stakeholders.<br /> <br /> Video: [https://vimeo.com/128236513 https://vimeo.com/128236513]<br /> <br /> = The Challenges =<br /> <br /> == BREEAM often considered too late ==<br /> <br /> * It’s all about early engagement<br /> * On most of our current projects, appointment has been late stage 2 or nearly stage 3<br /> * Unfortunately we are usually appointed after Stage 2 as well<br /> * Often we are brought on board later in the design process and opportunities to achieve credits linked to early stakeholder engagement have already been missed.<br /> * Always depends on how well the client is prepared to engage with BREEAM and sometimes BREEAM gets bolted on at the end of a multi-disciplinary project<br /> * Awareness amongst clients/developers is key. If we're not appointed/already in discussions early on we can’t advise<br /> <br /> == Who is the project lead? ==<br /> <br /> * All depends on who is running the project - if an Architect lead then generally assessors/APs get appointed early - if Contractor led it can be a late appointment<br /> * Contractor appointments in D&amp;amp;B contacts are usually too late for the early BREEAM credits.<br /> * If Contractor led - can be late appointment - this scenario generally only happens because the Client’s team delays making a decision on where to shift the BREEAM Assessor appointment on to<br /> * Clients rely on their design teams and consultants but do not speak to / involve contractors early enough to discuss buildability<br /> * It often falls on us contactor side assessors to 'fix' where other assessor organisations/DTs have dropped the ball often including unrealistic, contractor heavy targets which are often linked to costly retainers.<br /> * BREEAM sometimes just gets pushed back, forgotten about<br /> <br /> = WHAT WORKS =<br /> <br /> == Pre assessment and early meetings ==<br /> <br /> * Complete a tailored pre assessment and arrange a start-up meeting<br /> * Hold a BREEAM pre-assessment workshop<br /> * Always hold a pre-assessment workshop as early as you can so each item is in the mind of the designers<br /> * Always try and get in a pre-assessment workshop as early as possible -<br /> * Early as possible kick off meeting and run through a pre-assessment highlighting key items, mandatory credits, those with RIBA requirements, pitfalls to watch out for, quick and early wins, evidence examples, time frames, deadlines etc.<br /> * Discussing about the topic with the Client team from day one. Setting high aspirations and sharing the project's visions with them. This enables them to get on board with some of the key/high-level concepts that the design team is envisioning to implement in the project.<br /> * Explaining the benefits of early consultations and developing a robust brief can help.<br /> * We all assume engagement means two way conversation. I often find that early 'engagement' is very one way and because of that try to manage the processes instead of waiting for things to happen.<br /> * I think it is the BREEAM Professional’s responsibility to drive the BREEAM process and engage the team. We allow for quite few meeting in our fees.<br /> <br /> == Timeline focus ==<br /> <br /> * Talking about early stage credits that are so important to get the score higher means they like support earlier on<br /> <br /> == RIBA plan of work ==<br /> <br /> * A meeting with the Project Manager to discuss the RIBA Stage Plan of Work is useful, as this document clearly shows the process that should be adopted on projects.<br /> * Meeting with PMs to discuss deliverables for each RIBA Stage<br /> * Design teams typically accept that something is important if it come from a non BREEAM (independent) perspective so using RIBA Plan of Work document helps.<br /> * Provide scenarios with credits/opportunities being lost as RIBA stages progress, during pre-assessment workshop, in line with the RIBA timeline<br /> * Quantify the percentage of credits that can be secured or missed before RIBA stage 2 (for example). Helps focus team on cost of later substitution<br /> <br /> == RIBA plan of work - nuances ==<br /> <br /> * For international projects, it is sometimes difficult to &amp;quot;translate&amp;quot; RIBA stages into a specific country stage<br /> * The RIBA process for consultation can be difficult to adopt on projects where there are repeat projects and where there is an established developer specification. Here is it helpful to have a file note that explains how changes have been developed for a specific site.<br /> * RIBA process doesn't work well at all with large schemes<br /> * RIBA also doesn’t work with NHS &amp;amp; other Framework agreements<br /> <br /> == Have a BREEAM AP on the project ==<br /> <br /> * Project Brief (RIBA 1) might not include BREEAM objectives, but by Concept Design the BREEAM AP should have made BREEAM a key objective for the project team.<br /> * Have a BREEAM AP Stage 1 meeting<br /> * You can't rely on in-house developer APs being on all projects, but we're a pretty good way of making sure clients reach out to engage assessors at the appropriate time.<br /> <br /> == Value – making a case ==<br /> <br /> * Feedback on previous performance relating to BREEAM works well on persuading them to engage early.<br /> <br /> == Local planning guidelines ==<br /> <br /> * If BREEAM is a planning condition we normally get brought in at the start of the project as a pre assessment is required for planning<br /> * Planning Authorities stipulating BREEAM in their conditions need to make applicants more aware of the need for early engagement, but I'm not sure how much the BRE really do to make planning departments understand their scheme, or perhaps the planners just don't listen.<br /> * Agree that if planning conditions in relation to BREEAM were consistent and advised centrally, then there would be a lot less confusion amongst authorities.<br /> * By the time something goes into planning you're not early stage enough anyway, and it's not planning's responsibility to drive a project.<br /> <br /> == Embed in client procurement guidance ==<br /> <br /> * Embed in Client's own procurement guidance and procedures<br /> * Be able to convince the client that for his next project he would save money by engaging the assessor sooner (higher efficiency of the BREEAM measures to be taken to get the rating)<br /> * It is down to educating project teams which I suspect will only happen by experience. i.e. they fail to get credits on an assessment and it goes as a lessons learnt item onto the next project.<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Issue_support_documents_index 2018-05-02T15:49:36Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>{|<br /> | [[File:Multi_coloured_team.png|50px|link=File:Multi_coloured_team.png]]<br /> | These are Multiple Author Articles - click on them and add to them today. It's easy.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> You can also add to General Multiple Author Articles [[BREEAM_Wiki_key_articles|here]]<br /> <br /> Issue support documents are written for named BREEAM Issues or sub-issues. [[BREEAM_Issue_support_document_guidelines|More info]]. (ac) = awaiting content<br /> <br /> === Management: ===<br /> <br /> * [[BREEAM_Sustainability_champion|BREEAM Sustainability champion]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Environmental_management|BREEAM Environmental management]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Considerate_Construction|BREEAM Considerate construction]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Monitoring_of_Construction_Site_Impacts|BREEAM Monitoring of construction site]] [[BREEAM_Monitoring_of_Construction_Site_Impacts|impacts]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Aftercare_support|BREEAM Aftercare support]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Seasonal_commissioning|BREEAM Seasonal commissioning]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Life_cycle_cost_and_service_life_planning|BREEAM Life cycle cost and service life planning]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Stakeholder_consultation|BREEAM]] [[BREEAM_Stakeholder_consultation|Stakeholder consultation]] (ac)<br /> * [[BREEAM_Commissioning|BREEAM Commissioning]] (ac)<br /> * [[BREEAM_Handover|BREEAM Handover]] (ac)<br /> * [[BREEAM_Inclusive_and_accessible_design|BREEAM Inclusive and accessible design]] (ac)<br /> * [[BREEAM_Post_occupancy_evaluation|BREEAM Post occupancy evaluation]] (ac)<br /> <br /> === Health and Wellbeing ===<br /> <br /> * [[BREEAM_Visual_comfort_Daylighting|BREEAM Visual comfort Daylighting]] (partly ac)<br /> * [[BREEAM_Visual_comfort_View_out|BREEAM Visual comfort View out]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Visual_comfort_Glare_control|BREEAM Visual comfort Glare control]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Indoor_air_quality_plan|BREEAM Indoor air quality plan]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Indoor_air_quality_Ventilation|BREEAM Indoor air quality Ventilation]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Thermal_comfort|BREEAM Thermal comfort]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Internal_and_external_lighting|BREEAM Internal and external lighting]] (ac)<br /> * [[BREEAM_Indoor_pollutants_VOCs|BREEAM Indoor pollutants VOCs]] (ac)<br /> * [[BREEAM_Potential_for_natural_ventilation|BREEAM Potential for natural ventilation]] (ac)<br /> * [[BREEAM_Safe_containment_in_laboratories|BREEAM Safe containment in laboratories]] (ac)<br /> * [[BREEAM_Acoustic_performance|BREEAM Acoustic performance]] (ac)<br /> * [[BREEAM_Safety_and_security|BREEAM Safety and security]] (ac)<br /> <br /> === Energy ===<br /> <br /> * [[BREEAM_Reduction_of_energy_use_and_carbon_emissions|BREEAM Reduction of energy use and carbon emissions]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Energy_monitoring|BREEAM Energy monitoring]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_External_lighting|BREEAM External lighting]] (ac)<br /> * [[BREEAM_Low_carbon_design|BREEAM Low carbon design]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Passive_design|BREEAM Passive design]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Free_Cooling|BREEAM Free cooling]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_LZC_technologies|BREEAM LZC technologies]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Energy_efficient_cold_storage|BREEAM Energy efficient cold storage]] (partly ac)<br /> * [[BREEAM_Energy_efficient_transportation_Systems|BREEAM Energy efficient transportation systems]] (ac)<br /> * [[BREEAM_Energy_efficient_laboratory_systems|BREEAM Energy efficient laboratory systems]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Energy_Efficient_Equipment|BREEAM Energy efficient equipment]] (partly ac)<br /> * [[BREEAM_Drying_space|BREEAM Drying space]]<br /> <br /> === Transport ===<br /> <br /> * [[BREEAM_Public_Transport_Accessibility|BREEAM Public transport accessibility]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Proximity_to_amenities|BREEAM Proximity to amenities]] (ac)<br /> * [[BREEAM_Cyclist_Facilities|BREEAM Cyclist facilities]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Alternative_modes_of_transport|BREEAM Alternative modes of transport]] (ac)<br /> * [[BREEAM_Maximum_car_parking_capacity|BREEAM Maximum car parking capacity]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Travel_Plan|BREEAM Travel plan]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Home_office|BREEAM Home office]] (ac)<br /> <br /> === Water ===<br /> <br /> * [[BREEAM_Water_consumption|BREEAM Water consumption]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Water_efficient_equipment|BREEAM Water efficient equipment]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Water_monitoring|BREEAM Water monitoring]] (ac)<br /> * [[BREEAM_Water_leak_detection|BREEAM Water leak detection]] (ac)<br /> <br /> === Materials ===<br /> <br /> * [[BREEAM_Hard_landscaping_and_boundary_protection|BREEAM Hard landscaping and boundary protection]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Responsible_Sourcing_of_Materials|BREEAM Responsible sourcing of materials]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Insulation|BREEAM Insulation]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Designing_for_durability_and_resilience|BREEAM Designing for durability and resilience]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Life_cycle_impacts|BREEAM Life cycle impacts]] (ac)<br /> * [[BREEAM_Material_efficiency|BREEAM Material efficiency]] (ac)<br /> <br /> === Waste ===<br /> <br /> * [[BREEAM_Construction_waste_management|BREEAM Construction waste management]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Recycled_aggregates|BREEAM Recycled aggregates]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Speculative_floor_%26_ceiling_finishes|BREEAM Speculative floor &amp;amp; ceiling finishes]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Adaptation_to_climate_change|BREEAM Adaptation to climate change]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Operational_waste|BREEAM Operational waste]] (ac)<br /> * [[BREEAM_Functional_adaptability|BREEAM Functional adaptability]] (ac)<br /> <br /> === Land Use and Ecology ===<br /> <br /> * [[BREEAM_Site_Selection|BREEAM Site Selection]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Ecological_value_of_site|BREEAM Ecological value of site]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Protection_of_ecological_features|BREEAM Protection of ecological features]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Minimising_impact_on_existing_site_ecology|BREEAM Minimising impact on existing site ecology]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Enhancing_site_ecology|BREEAM Enhancing site ecology]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Long_term_impact_on_biodiversity|BREEAM Long term impact on biodiversity]] (ac)<br /> <br /> === Pollution ===<br /> <br /> * [[BREEAM_Impact_of_refrigerants|BREEAM Impact of refrigerants]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_NOx_emissions|BREEAM NOx emissions]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Flood_risk_management|BREEAM Flood risk management]] (ac)<br /> * [[BREEAM_Surface_water_run-off|BREEAM Surface water run-off]] (ac)<br /> * [[BREEAM_Reduction_of_night_time_light_pollution|BREEAM Reduction of night time light pollution]] (partly ac)<br /> * [[BREEAM_Reduction_of_Noise_Pollution|BREEAM Reduction of noise pollution]]<br /> <br /> Once an ISD has been initially created the '(ac)' marker can be removed<br /> <br /> This particular index is based around the structure of the New Construction and RFO schemes.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Do_not_autolink]] [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Life_cycle_cost_and_service_life_planning 2018-05-02T14:56:44Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Aim and benefits =<br /> <br /> Deliver whole life value by orienting design and specification to a life cycle approach. Early stage understanding of the likely construction of the building and its servicing strategy, focuses the design team on likely requirements for service risers, ceiling void depth etc.especially for conditioned buildings requiring large amounts of plant - this can draw attention to the overall size requirements of the building and its projected costs, which may lead to alternative means of construction.<br /> <br /> = When to consider =<br /> <br /> At the earliest stage. Elemental level has to be completed before the end of RIBA Stage 2 and component level has to be completed before RIBA Stage 4.<br /> <br /> = Step by step guidance =<br /> <br /> Ensure all project team members are aware there is a time restriction on the achievement of this issue. Therefore, it is important to define RIBA stages at earliest opportunity and communicate them to all parties involved.<br /> <br /> = Questions to ask while seeking compliance =<br /> <br /> * Is a compliant ISO 15686 LCC study available?<br /> * Does the design team have any experience of undertaking a BREEAM compliant LCC on any previous projects, can their experiences be shared with the o/a project team?<br /> * Do they already have any templates that they can use?<br /> * Are there any particular construction processes that lend themselves to favourable life cycle outcomes?<br /> <br /> = Tools and resources =<br /> <br /> Guidance on a compliant LCC analysis can be found in PD 156865:2008 Standardized method of life cycle costing for construction procurement - a supplement to BS ISO 15686-2:2008 Buildings and constructed assets, service life planning - Part 5.<br /> <br /> PD 156865: 2008 is often quite a difficult document to get hold of? Ask the team if they have any extracts, search the Wiki for compliance details?<br /> <br /> = Tips and best practice =<br /> <br /> Collaboration in-between QS, architect and energy assessor at the early stage of the design development would allow to calibrate design for efficient and cost-effective solution.<br /> <br /> = Typical evidence =<br /> <br /> === Design stage ===<br /> <br /> * RIBA Stage 2 and RIBA Stage 4 reports from costing specialist<br /> * LCC Report.<br /> * File notes from [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Project_team project team] demonstrating how LCC [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Stud study] impacted design decisions etc<br /> <br /> === Post construction ===<br /> <br /> * Letter of confirmation from [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Developer developer]/[https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Contractor contractor] showing that the lowest LCC option (as selected at Design stage) has been implemented.<br /> <br /> = Applicable Schemes =<br /> <br /> The guidelines collated in this ISD aim to support sustainable best practice in the topic described. This issue may apply in multiple BREEAM schemes covering different stages in the life of a building, different building types and different year versions. Some content may be generic but scheme nuances should also be taken into account. Refer to the comments below and related articles to this one to understand these nuances. See [[BREEAM_Issue_support_document_template|this document]] for further guidelines.<br /> <br /> * UK New Construction 2014<br /> * UK RFO 2014 (just check that the requirements are slightly different to NC)<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not guarantee the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple_Author_Article|Multiple Author Article]] 16:21, 19 Apr 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Reduction_of_Noise_Pollution 2018-04-21T21:16:51Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Aim and benefits =<br /> <br /> To avoid any significant noise impact on other noise sensitive receptors near the building or development under consideration<br /> <br /> = When to consider =<br /> <br /> Ideally prior to any works starting on site, as background noise level must be measured and it is not always feasible to stop construction works on site so as to take &amp;quot;clean&amp;quot; measurements. Equally, it's high risk as plant will have been specified during RIBA Stages 3/4 which may not meet requirements, as the required noise ratings are unknown.<br /> <br /> You may find that this is considered much earlier in the project (Typically RIBA Stage 2) as frequently a noise impact assessment is required as part of the planning application.<br /> <br /> = Step by step guidance =<br /> <br /> == Pre-Assessment ==<br /> <br /> # Establish whether there are any noise sensitive receptors within 800m of the development.<br /> # Establish whether there's actually any plant that makes any noise going in. It may be possible for an acoustician to confirm there's no external plant and no significant noise sources and award the credit by default.<br /> # If there are plant and nearby noise sensitive receptors, ask whether a noise impact assessment has already been done (or will be done), eg. to satisfy planning.<br /> <br /> == Design Stage ==<br /> <br /> # Obtain the noise impact assessment, which must clearly states background noise levels. Make sure this clearly states acoustician's details.<br /> # Collect either a copy of calculations showing compliance, or details of recommended noise levels.<br /> # Collect confirmation or a copy of ERs stating that contractor must provide additional attenuation if required background noise levels are not met.<br /> <br /> == Post Construction Stage ==<br /> <br /> # If detailed calculations were done during design stage, make sure the specified plant has been installed (site inspection, schedule)<br /> # If not, get a copy of the testing report.<br /> <br /> = Questions to ask while seeking compliance =<br /> <br /> Are any noise sensitive properties within 800m of your building? If not, then the credit can be awarded.<br /> <br /> Is there a planning condition relating to noise pollution. If there is, does complying with it automatically meet the BREEAM requirement?<br /> <br /> What times will the plant run? Have background noise levels been measured during the quietest times when the plant will run (eg. at night)?<br /> <br /> = Tools and resources =<br /> <br /> [http://kb.breeam.com/section/new-construction/uk/2014-uk/pollution-breeam_uk_nc_2014/pol05/ UK New Construction 2014 Knowledge Base Articles]<br /> <br /> [http://www.breeam.com/BREEAMUK2014SchemeDocument/#12_pollution/pol05.htm%3FTocPath%3D12.0%2520Pollution%7C_____5 BREEAM UK New Construction 2014 SD5076 – Issue: 5.0 - POL 05]<br /> <br /> = Tips and best practice =<br /> <br /> == BS7445 / BS4142 ==<br /> <br /> Many acoustic reports will state that the noise impact assessment has been done in accordance to BS4142 rather than BS7445. Please note, this is also acceptable, with confirmation of best practice testing from 7445, as per the knowledge base article:<br /> <br /> [http://kb.breeam.com/knowledgebase/nc14-pol-05-bs-7445-defines-the-testing-methodology-for-noise-attenuation-but-gives-no-noise-level-requirements-which-are-covered-in-bs-4142-can-bs-4142-be-used-to-comply-with-this-issue/ http://kb.breeam.com/knowledgebase/nc14-pol-05-bs-7445-defines-the-testing-methodology-for-noise-attenuation-but-gives-no-noise-level-requirements-which-are-covered-in-bs-4142-can-bs-4142-be-used-to-comply-with-this-issue/]<br /> <br /> == Accurate Modelling at Design Stage ==<br /> <br /> Please note there's a compliance note that states if accurate modelling is completed at design stage (and there are no changes to the specification), no post construction testing is required.<br /> <br /> [http://kb.breeam.com/knowledgebase/nc14-pol-05-do-noise-levels-need-to-be-measured-post-construction-once-the-plant-specified-has-been-installed/ http://kb.breeam.com/knowledgebase/nc14-pol-05-do-noise-levels-need-to-be-measured-post-construction-once-the-plant-specified-has-been-installed/]<br /> <br /> = Typical evidence =<br /> <br /> == Design Stage ==<br /> <br /> Typically you will receive a Noise Impact Assessment report (or other relevant acoustician's report), which may well have been completed for the planning application. This shall demonstrate that the criteria will be met by stating the:<br /> <br /> * measured background noise levels at the nearest noise sensitive receptors<br /> * plant noise limits (LAeq) set at the nearest noise sensitive receptors to achieve the BREEAM credits/planning condition, OR the predicted noise levels (LAeq) of the selected plant at the nearest noise sensitive receptors.<br /> <br /> == Post Construction Stage ==<br /> <br /> * If accurate calculations were provided at design stage, you will only require robust evidence (site inspection/delivery note/schedule) showing the correct plant has been installed.<br /> * If accurate calculations were not provided at design stage, you will need a copy of the Acoustician's test report, which show that the measured plant noise (with all plant running at normal duty) meet the criteria post development.<br /> <br /> = Applicable Schemes =<br /> <br /> The guidelines collated in this ISD aim to support sustainable best practice in the topic described. This issue may apply in multiple BREEAM schemes covering different stages in the life of a building, different building types and different year versions. Some content may be generic but scheme nuances should also be taken into account. Refer to the comments below and related articles to this one to understand these nuances. See this document for further guidelines.<br /> <br /> * (eg) International New Construction 2016<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not guarantee the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple Author Article|Multiple Author Article]] 22:16, 21 Apr 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]] [[Category:Planning_permission]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Impact_of_refrigerants 2018-04-21T21:16:05Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Aim and benefits =<br /> <br /> To reduce the levels of greenhouse gas emissions arising from refrigerants leaking in the development.<br /> <br /> == What's the problem with refrigerants? ==<br /> <br /> = When to consider =<br /> <br /> At the pre-assessment, it's useful to establish:<br /> <br /> - Will there be refrigerants? Will they likely have more than 6kg charge in each unit?<br /> <br /> - Are there any plans to use a very low GWP refrigerants?<br /> <br /> - Are we planning to have chillers? or a VRF system?<br /> <br /> = Step by step guidance =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Questions to ask while seeking compliance =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Tools and resources =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Tips and best practice =<br /> <br /> Frequently, your M&amp;amp;E engineer may well nod along that these credits are all achievable. Please consider:<br /> <br /> - DELC &amp;lt;100 or GWP &amp;lt;10 -- Unless you're using a &amp;quot;strange&amp;quot; system with refrigerants such as ammonia, water -- you probably won't achieve these credits. Less than 1000 however, is relatively OK if you use R134a/R32 or something similar.<br /> <br /> - You probably (as of Jan 2018) won't find a leak detection system for a VRF system, only if you have centralised chillers.<br /> <br /> = Typical evidence =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Applicable Schemes =<br /> <br /> The guidelines collated in this ISD aim to support sustainable best practice in the topic described. This issue may apply in multiple BREEAM schemes covering different stages in the life of a building, different building types and different year versions. Some content may be generic but scheme nuances should also be taken into account. Refer to the comments below and related articles to this one to understand these nuances. See [[BREEAM_Issue_support_document_template|this document]] for further guidelines.<br /> <br /> * List applicable schemes here<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not guarantee the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple Author Article|Multiple Author Article]] 22:16, 21 Apr 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:Articles_needing_more_work]] [[Category:BREEAM]] [[Category:Regulations]] [[Category:Sustainability]] [[Category:Design]] [[Category:Procurement]] [[Category:Products_/_components]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Enhancing_site_ecology 2018-04-21T21:15:46Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Aim and benefits =<br /> <br /> To encourage enhancement in the ecology of the site post development.<br /> <br /> = When to consider =<br /> <br /> Criteria 1 of this credit required a Suitably Qualified Ecologist to be appointed by the end of RIBA Stage 1 or equivalent.<br /> <br /> During RIBA Stage 2, the ecologist must conduct a site visit/survey, and produce a report.<br /> <br /> During RIBA Stage 1, the ecologist will likely only provide very high level advice. During stage 2 hoever, they’re likely to provide detailed ecological recommendations based on their site survey.<br /> <br /> = Step by step guidance =<br /> <br /> Prior/during RIBA stage 2 - ensure a Suitably Qualified Ecologist is appointed<br /> <br /> RIBA stage 4 - a BREEAM compliant report from the ecologist to be ready. Preferably the ecologist can use the BRE’s Guidance on relating ecology reports template, which is available on knowledge base<br /> <br /> Client/contractor to confirm commitment to imply ecologist’s ‘additional’ recommendations<br /> <br /> Refer to BREEAM Minimising impact on existing site ecology for more information<br /> <br /> = Questions to ask while seeking compliance =<br /> <br /> * Was a Suitably Qualified Ecologist appointed during RIBA Stage 1? [Remember, RIBA Stage 1 might have lasted since, for instance, a previous planning application]<br /> * Was an ecology report produced by a Suitably Qualified Ecologist during RIBA Stage 2?<br /> * Did the ecology report include a pack of recommendations?<br /> * Have we included more species post development than pre-development?<br /> <br /> = Tools and resources =<br /> <br /> [https://kb.breeam.com/?s=ecology&amp;amp;post_type%5B%5D=st_kb Knowledge Base - Ecology]<br /> <br /> [http://www.breeam.com/BREEAMUK2014SchemeDocument/content/11_landuse/le04.htm BREEAM UK New Construction 2014 Issue 5.0: LE 04 Enhancing Site Ecology]<br /> <br /> = Tips and best practice =<br /> <br /> * Use any available enhancements to the site in an infill construction where there is no space for ecological enhancements within the site<br /> * The Ecologist must have been on board from early stages<br /> * Seek opportunities for off-site ecological enhancement specially for developments in lands with high ecological value and with the risk of removing species - refer to knowledge base note ref:: KBCN0651<br /> <br /> = Typical evidence =<br /> <br /> Design Stage<br /> <br /> * Confirmation that the ecologist was appointed prior to RIBA Stage 1 and that they meet the definition of a Suitably Qualified Ecologist. Where appointed at a later stage, the ecologist must confirm that this has not hindered their ability to make recommendations or maximise potential ecological enhancement.<br /> * Copy the Ecologist’s Report or completed GN13 template listing the ecologist’s recommendations for ecological enhancement and calculations to show the increase in plant species from the existing to the proposed site.<br /> * Landscape/site plans for the existing and proposed site<br /> * Written confirmation from the project team that the recommendations of the ecologist will be included within the final design.<br /> <br /> Post Construction Stage<br /> <br /> * As built landscape plans<br /> * Assessor site inspection/photos showing the recommendations and planting schemes have been implemented.<br /> * Where the landscape is not complete at the time of the inspection, due to phasing or it not being an appropriate planting season, written confirmation that any planting will be completed within 18months from the completion of the development.<br /> <br /> = Applicable Schemes =<br /> <br /> The guidelines collated in this ISD aim to support sustainable best practice in the topic described. This issue may apply in multiple BREEAM schemes covering different stages in the life of a building, different building types and different year versions. Some content may be generic but scheme nuances should also be taken into account. Refer to the comments below and related articles to this one to understand these nuances. See [[BREEAM_Issue_support_document_template|this document]] for further guidelines.<br /> <br /> * First issue written with regard to BREEAM UK New Construction 2014 Issue 5.0<br /> <br /> This document was originally created on 7/2/18 in a collaboration of the following [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM BREEAM] Professionals: Jane Morning, Cat Clarkson and Azita Dezfouli,<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not guarantee the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple Author Article|Multiple Author Article]] 22:15, 21 Apr 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Minimising_impact_on_existing_site_ecology 2018-04-21T21:15:18Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Aim and benefits =<br /> <br /> The aim of this credit is to have a new development which is as close to (or better than!) the ecological value of the site pre-development.<br /> <br /> = When to consider =<br /> <br /> During RIBA Stage 2, begin to consider whether there is enough space on the site (with the proposed building footprint) to allow for sufficient planting. If your building footprint is much bigger than the existing site (or you’re building on a greenfield site), it may be that you want to consider a green roof (please note, you’ll need an ecologist for this).<br /> <br /> During RIBA Stages 3 and 4, the design team should identify the exact number of species of plants required to give an ecological value of the site sufficient to award your target credits.<br /> <br /> = Step by step guidance =<br /> <br /> Depending on the level of ecology on site and being proposed, the design team can either choose to appoint a Suitably Qualified Ecologist or complete a schedule themselves confirming the broad habitat type(s) and their areas for the existing and the proposed sites. This can be done using the broad habitat types described in Table 56 of the BREEAM New Construction manual to select the most appropriate habitat types and Table 57 to determine the average total taxon (plant species) richness associated with the habitat type. The information can then be input into the LE03/04 calculator tool to determine the change in ecological value.<br /> <br /> Where an ecologist is appointed then they will provide the same information but are able to determine the average total taxon (plant species) richness themselves based on their site survey and for the proposed site, based on landscape plans and their recommendations for the planting scheme.<br /> <br /> The change in ecological value is calculated by multiplying the number of species on a broad habitat type by the broad habitat type as a % of the total area. The ecological value is the sum of the total plant species richness for each habitat type. This is done for both the existing site and the proposed site. The change in value is calculated by taking the ecological value of the site pre-development from the post development figure.<br /> <br /> Where the change in ecological value is equal to or greater than zero, i.e. no negative change, then two credits can be awarded. Where the change in ecological value is less than zero but no more than minus nine plant species, just one credit can be awarded.<br /> <br /> Where the assessment forms part of a larger development and the soft landscape and ecological features form a common part of the whole site, the broad habitat types for the entire site must be considered. Where a new building is an infill on an existing site however, the construction zone for the new building can be used for the area of site being assessed under this issue.<br /> <br /> Where there are green roofs, an ecologist must be appointed to determine the plant species numbers. Green walls are not considered within this issue at present.<br /> <br /> A Suitably Qualified Ecologist (SQE) is one that holds a degree or equivalent qualification in ecology or related subject, is a practising ecologist with a minimum of 3 years’ experience in the last 5 years in the field and is covered by a professional code of conduct (full member of the CIWEM, CIEEM, IEMA, LI or IES).<br /> <br /> Where a site has been cleared prior to purchase of the site and less than 5 years before assessment, the ecological value must be estimated by the SQE of the site immediately prior to clearance using available desktop information. For sites cleared more than 5 years ago, the ecological value of the site can be assessed based on the current situation.<br /> <br /> = Questions to ask while seeking compliance =<br /> <br /> * Whether a Suitably Qualified Ecologist (SQE) has been appointed?<br /> * If there is a SQE on board - has s/he produced a BREEAM compliant report?<br /> * Are there any existing species to be removed?<br /> * Is the project part of a larger development which could benefit from the past/future enhancements<br /> * Is there an opportunity to benefit from off-site ecology enhancements - this needs to be justified by an SQE (refer to BREEAM guidance note ref:: KBCN0651)<br /> <br /> = Tools and resources =<br /> <br /> * [http://kb.breeam.com/knowledgebase/off-site-ecological-enhancement/ http://kb.breeam.com/knowledgebase/off-site-ecological-enhancement/]<br /> * [https://tools.breeam.com/extranet/downloads/GN13_BREEAM_Relating_ecologists_report_and_BREEAM_v1.1.pdf?id=0000000000000000000100000000000000037117&amp;amp;type=.pdf https://tools.breeam.com/extranet/downloads/GN13_BREEAM_Relating_ecologists_report_and_BREEAM_v1.1.pdf?id=0000000000000000000100000000000000037117&amp;amp;type=.pdf]<br /> <br /> = Tips and best practice =<br /> <br /> Don’t discount the route of calculating species richness without a Suitably Qualified Ecologist. As you have to use BRE’s figures for species richness, you may score more highly using this method. Ecologists typically give weeds on a site which has been derelict for &amp;lt; 5 years some kind of ecological value. The BRE default figures do not. Please note, if you opt to assign taxon richness yourself to areas provided by your team, you will need to declare a conflict of interest to BRE, and justify how any conflict has been avoided.<br /> <br /> Seek opportunities for off-site ecological enhancement specially for developments in lands with high ecological value and with the risk of removing species<br /> <br /> = Typical evidence =<br /> <br /> Design Stage<br /> <br /> If you have a Suitably Qualified Ecologist:<br /> <br /> * Typically they will produce a report confirming the pre-development areas, based on their phase 1 habitat survey. This typically comes in a table.<br /> * They may include calculations of the post development areas, based on the planting plan, in a similar table. However, it may be the landscape architect that produces this information.<br /> * Accompany this with a copy of the planting plan and to be thorough, confirmation from the contractor that they will plant as per the planting plan.<br /> <br /> If you don’t have a Suitably Qualified Ecologist:<br /> <br /> * Formal written confirmation of the pre-development areas and species richness using BRE’s pre-defined information.<br /> * Formal written confirmation of the post-development areas and species richness.<br /> * Accompany this with a copy of the planting plan and to be thorough, confirmation from the contractor that they will plant as per the planting plan.<br /> <br /> ==&lt;br /&gt;<br /> Post Construction Stage ==<br /> <br /> * A copy of “As built” drawings, showing planting - or a copy of Construction drawings plus written confirmation from the contractor that the planting has been done as per the construction stage drawings.<br /> * Confirmation that no changes have occurred to the design stage specification, and as such no further ecology calculations are required OR updated ecology calculations confirming areas and species richness for the as built development.<br /> * Site Inspection report confirming that planting is as per the planting plan.<br /> <br /> = Applicable schemes =<br /> <br /> The guidelines collated in this ISD aim to support sustainable best practice in the topic described. This issue may apply in multiple BREEAM schemes covering different stages in the life of a building, different building types and different year versions. Some content may be generic but scheme nuances should also be taken into account. Refer to the comments below and related articles to this one to understand these nuances. See [[BREEAM_Issue_support_document_template|this document]] for further guidelines.<br /> <br /> * (eg) International New Construction 2016<br /> <br /> This document was originally created on 7/2/18 in a collaboration of the following [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM BREEAM] Professionals: Jane Morning, Cat Clarkson and Azita Dezfouli,<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not guarantee the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple Author Article|Multiple Author Article]] 22:15, 21 Apr 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Site_Selection 2018-04-21T21:14:29Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>BREEAM Site Selection<br /> <br /> = Aim and benefits =<br /> <br /> To encourage the reuse of land that has been previously developed and discourage the use of previously undeveloped land for building.<br /> <br /> To encourage positive action to use contaminated land that otherwise would not have been remediated and developed.<br /> <br /> To avoid land which has not been previously disturbed.<br /> <br /> = When to consider =<br /> <br /> RIBA Plan of Work 2013 - Stage 1: Preparation of Brief - as early as possible.<br /> <br /> Once the site has been selected there is nothing that can be done to change the situation.<br /> <br /> A site investigation report will be done at the earliest stage and should indicate if there is any contamination. But often it has already been decided that this is the site whether it is contaminated or not.<br /> <br /> These credits are very difficult to choose to achieve as they are mainly situational.<br /> <br /> = Step by step guidance =<br /> <br /> === Previously developed land credit ===<br /> <br /> Was the site previously developed?<br /> <br /> An early Site investigation report will detail this but often it is known by the design team from the onset.<br /> <br /> As evidence, previous use will likely be detailed in the Design statement or Site investigation report. The Ecologists habitat survey may demonstrate previous land use. A Geotechnical and Geo-environmental interpretative report or Ground investigation report would also detail any previous uses.<br /> <br /> The 2011 assessment asked that the previous development to have been within the last 50 years. It is common that the land has clearly had a previous land use but if not, historical maps can be used.<br /> <br /> The design team must demonstrate that more than 75% of the site was previously used. The most straight forward method to demonstrate this is with an existing site plan showing the site boundary and the area of previously used land and the area of proposed development. Separate drawings can be used. The areas in m2 must be detailed so the 75% can be calculated.<br /> <br /> There is a compliance note in relation to education assessments and use of playing fields.<br /> <br /> === Contaminated land credit ===<br /> <br /> It is unlikely that a site would be chosen because it is contaminated but where there is a choice hopefully the client would choose it.<br /> <br /> A ground investigation report or Geotechnical and Geo-environmental interpretative report would demonstrate that there is contamination.<br /> <br /> A specialist in contamination would then likely compile a separate report or section on the contamination and the remediation measures required.<br /> <br /> The ecology report may also detail some contamination as some non-native invasive species are contaminants. Currently the two species which currently qualify are Japanese knotweed and Giant hogweed. The DEFRA website provides more information on these species. 2014 assessments can approach the BRE if they find a species which acts as a barrier to development and see if it can qualify. The ecologist would likely be able to advise on the appropriate removal of invasive species.<br /> <br /> The specialist report with the remediation instructions should be used as evidence but to achieve the credit the remediation must be carried out. For the design stage assessment, the team must confirm that the remediation is to be carried out as the specialist has instructed.<br /> <br /> = Questions to ask while seeking compliance =<br /> <br /> Was the site previously developed?<br /> <br /> How much of the site was previously developed?<br /> <br /> What was the previous land use?<br /> <br /> How long ago was it developed?<br /> <br /> Is there likely to be contamination?<br /> <br /> Has the ground been investigated?<br /> <br /> Has a habitat survey or environmental impact assessment been carried out?<br /> <br /> = Tools and resources =<br /> <br /> DEFRA website e.g.- [https://www.gov.uk/contaminated-land https://www.gov.uk/contaminated-land]<br /> <br /> SEPA e.g.- [https://www.sepa.org.uk/environment/biodiversity/invasive-non-native-species/ https://www.sepa.org.uk/environment/biodiversity/invasive-non-native-species/]<br /> <br /> = Tips and best practice =<br /> <br /> Make sure it is very clear for the auditor that 75% of the proposed site is on previously developed land.<br /> <br /> = Typical evidence =<br /> <br /> (All of these documents are not required).<br /> <br /> Existing site drawing<br /> <br /> Proposed site drawing<br /> <br /> Design statement<br /> <br /> Site investigation report<br /> <br /> Geotechnical and Geo-environmental interpretative report<br /> <br /> Contamination report<br /> <br /> Confirmation of remediation<br /> <br /> = Applicable Schemes =<br /> <br /> The guidelines collated in this ISD aim to support sustainable best practice in the topic described. This issue may apply in multiple BREEAM schemes covering different stages in the life of a building, different building types and different year versions. Some content may be generic but scheme nuances should also be taken into account. Refer to the comments below and related articles to this one to understand these nuances. See this document for further guidelines.<br /> <br /> * (eg) International New Construction 2016<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not guarantee the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Emma_Houston|Emma Houston]] 11:17, 18 Jan 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]] [[Category:Sustainability]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Adaptation_to_climate_change 2018-04-21T21:13:54Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Aim and benefits =<br /> <br /> The aim of this credit is to identify how extreme weather conditions arising from climate change may affect the building's fabric and structure, and to mitigate against these effects.<br /> <br /> Please note, many other credits in BREEAM look at various aspects of climate change - such as POL 03 - Flood Risk, HEA 04 - Thermal Comfort and as such this credit ONLY relates to building fabric and structure.<br /> <br /> = When to consider =<br /> <br /> An initial climate change adaptation strategy appraisal (catchy) must be produced during RIBA Stage 2.<br /> <br /> The recommendations from the appraisal should be implemented in to the design during RIBA Stages 3 and 4.<br /> <br /> = Step by step guidance =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Questions to ask while seeking compliance =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Tools and resources =<br /> <br /> Bill Gethings has produced significant work on climate change, which is clear and accessible. The following book may be of significant help for designers looking for background information [[Bill_Gething_and_Katie_Puckett_-_Design_for_Climate_Change|Bill Gething and Katie Puckett - Design for Climate Change]]<br /> <br /> The [http://ukclimateprojections.metoffice.gov.uk/ UK Climate Change Projections] have data for various predicted future scenarios for climate change.<br /> <br /> The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_adaptation wikipedia] article is actually quite informative, and contains a lot of useful links.<br /> <br /> The [https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/gla_migrate_files_destination/Adaptation-oct11.pdf Mayor of London's Climate Change Adaptation Strategy] contains good background information, and recommendations for buildings in London. While the recommendations are designed for a larger scale (e.g. to combat the urban heat island effect), many also provide benefit on a microscale.<br /> <br /> = Tips and best practice =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Typical evidence =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Applicable Schemes =<br /> <br /> The guidelines collated in this ISD aim to support sustainable best practice in the topic described. This issue may apply in multiple BREEAM schemes covering different stages in the life of a building, different building types and different year versions. Some content may be generic but scheme nuances should also be taken into account. Refer to the comments below and related articles to this one to understand these nuances. See [[BREEAM_Issue_support_document_template|this document]] for further guidelines.<br /> <br /> * (eg) International New Construction 2016<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not guarantee the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple Author Article|Multiple Author Article]] 22:13, 21 Apr 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:Articles_needing_more_work]] [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Speculative_floor_%26_ceiling_finishes 2018-04-21T21:13:20Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Aim and benefits =<br /> <br /> This credit is designed to minimise the waste involved in installing undesirable floor finishes in office spaces.<br /> <br /> It is common that when a tenant moves in to an office, they replace floor and/or ceiling finishes to match their corporate branding, or corporate tastes. If floor/ceiling finishes have already been installed by the developer, frequently these will be removed and disposed of. By reducing the quantity of installed floor finishes, or agreeing with the occupant in advance, this waste can be near eliminated.<br /> <br /> = When to consider =<br /> <br /> At detailed design stage, prior to RIBA stage 4 freeze when the finishes and fit-out elements are specified.<br /> <br /> This credit is not applicable to shell only projects.<br /> <br /> = Step by step guidance =<br /> <br /> The building is occupied by a specific occupant - the occupant shall select/agree the floor and ceiling finishes. The agreement must be recorded and documented for inclusion in the BREEAM evidence documents<br /> <br /> The building is tenanted - Floor and ceiling finishes shall not be specified unless the future tenants/occupants are known and agreed on the fit-out finishes - as above, the agreement documents to be provided for inclusion in evidence documents<br /> <br /> If the future occupants are unknown, finishes can be installed in the show areas only - see below for the limitation on show areas<br /> <br /> = Questions to ask while seeking compliance =<br /> <br /> Is it a show area, if so to award the credit it must be less than 25% of the net lettable floor area. Or where the future occupant is not known, and finishes are being installed to more than 25%, will there be a clause included within the lease agreement to ensure that the tenant can not remove the finishes unless necessary due to wear and tear?<br /> <br /> Is the future occupant known or not? Have they agreed to the finishes specified?<br /> <br /> = Tools and resources =<br /> <br /> [http://www.breeam.com/BREEAMUK2014SchemeDocument/#10_waste/wst04.htm#Wst_04_Speculative_floor_and_ceiling_finishes%3FTocPath%3D10.0%2520Waste%7C_____4 BREEAM UK New Construction 2014 SD5076 – Issue: 5.0 - WST 04]<br /> <br /> [http://kb.breeam.com/section/new-construction/uk/2014-uk/waste-breeam_uk_nc_2014/wst04/ Knowledge Base Articles - UK New Construction 2014 - WST 04]<br /> <br /> = Tips and best practice =<br /> <br /> tbc<br /> <br /> = Typical evidence =<br /> <br /> Design Stage&lt;br /&gt;<br /> For tenanted areas where the future tenant is not known: design drawings should be provided to show floor and ceiling finishes are to be installed to a show area only (no more than 25% of the lettable floor area) or that no finishes are to be installed. Alternatively, a copy of the relevant section/clauses of the building specification or contract could be provided.<br /> <br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Where the future tenant is not known, and the developer wishes to install finishes as part of their scope of work, they must provide a formal letter to confirm that there will be a clause within their lease agreement to ensure that finishes will not to be removed or replaced by tenants unless required due to wear and tear or damage.<br /> <br /> Where the future occupant is known, then they should provide written confirmation that they have specified or agreed to the finishes that are to be installed.<br /> <br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> Post Construction&lt;br /&gt;<br /> As design stage + BREEAM assessor’s site inspection report and photographic evidence to show the ceiling/floor finishes that have been installed. Copy of tenancy agreement, where finishes are to be installed and future occupant is not known.<br /> <br /> = Applicable Schemes =<br /> <br /> The guidelines collated in this ISD aim to support sustainable best practice in the topic described. This issue may apply in multiple BREEAM schemes covering different stages in the life of a building, different building types and different year versions. Some content may be generic but scheme nuances should also be taken into account. Refer to the comments below and related articles to this one to understand these nuances. See this document for further guidelines.<br /> <br /> * (eg) International New Construction 2016<br /> <br /> -----<br /> This document was originally created on 17/01/18 in a collaboration of the following [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM BREEAM] Professionals: Jane Morning, Cat Clarkson, Azita Dezfouli and Tom Abbott<br /> <br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not guarantee the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple Author Article|Multiple Author Article]] 22:13, 21 Apr 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:Articles_needing_more_work]] [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Insulation 2018-04-21T21:09:00Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Aim and benefits =<br /> <br /> To recognise and encourage the use of thermal insulation which has a low embodied environmental impact relative to its thermal properties.<br /> <br /> Credits are awarded based on an insulation product's Green Guide Rating score multiplied by the thermal resistance (thermal conductivity value x volume ). Where an Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) exists, this can be used to increase the score.<br /> <br /> = When to consider =<br /> <br /> The issue should be considered once the detailed and technical design stages commence and insulation materials are being selected i.e. RIBA Stages 3 to 4 and at a stage where the assessor/BREEAM AP are still able to influence the choice of materials used to ensure compliance.<br /> <br /> On shell or shell and core projects, only the insulations being installed during that phase of works needs to be considered.<br /> <br /> On Refurbishment &amp;amp; Fit Out Projects, this issue is not applicable to Part 4.<br /> <br /> On Refurbishment &amp;amp; Fit Out Projects, where there will be no new insulation, this issue will be filtered out.<br /> <br /> = Step by step guidance =<br /> <br /> The design team should complete a schedule to confirm the insulation products used. The assessor can help apply any green guide ratings. This will cover all insulation used in the thermal envelope - external walls, roof and ground floor, and in the building services.<br /> <br /> [[File:Mat04.png|link=File:Mat04.png]]<br /> <br /> Evidence to be collated for each product, will include technical literature or product data sheets confirming the insulation type and thermal conductivity, green guide rating or EPDs.<br /> <br /> Where a product requires a bespoke green guide rating, the assessor will need to submit an Insulation Proforma to the BRE (available to assessors on BREEAM Projects under Documents - Green Guide to Specification - Assessor information).<br /> <br /> The data provided should be input into the Mat04 Calculator Tool to confirm the Insulation Index score - 2.5 is required to gain a credit.<br /> <br /> = Questions to ask while seeking compliance =<br /> <br /> What insulation is being specified and where, its thickness and area (or for building services - the volume)?<br /> <br /> = Tools and resources =<br /> <br /> [http://www.breeam.com/BREEAM2011SchemeDocument/content/09_material/mat04.htm BREEAM UK New Construction 2014 Issue 5.0 - Mat04]<br /> <br /> [http://www.greenbooklive.com/search/scheme.jsp?id=9 GreenBookLive link to search EPDs]<br /> <br /> = Tips and best practice =<br /> <br /> Where insulation is incorporated as part of an off-site manufactured element, this will have been assessed under Mat01, the insulation can therefore be awarded an A+ rating under Mat04.<br /> <br /> = Typical evidence =<br /> <br /> == Design Stage ==<br /> <br /> Drawings and/or specification or completed Mat04 Schedule (example under Step by Step Guidance section. Manufacturer's data sheets. Copies of any Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) where applicable. Print off from GreenBookLive to show green guide rating for specific product and building type where EPDs are being used.<br /> <br /> A copy of the completed Mat04 calculator tool.<br /> <br /> == Post Construction Stage ==<br /> <br /> Written confirmation from the design team to confirm the information provided at design stage is still current or a copy of the updated Mat04 schedule. Where required, an updated copy of the Mat04 calculator tool. Where available, photos of the insulation on site could be used as evidence.<br /> <br /> = Applicable Schemes =<br /> <br /> The guidelines collated in this ISD aim to support sustainable best practice in the topic described. This issue may apply in multiple BREEAM schemes covering different stages in the life of a building, different building types and different year versions. Some content may be generic but scheme nuances should also be taken into account. Refer to the comments below and related articles to this one to understand these nuances. See this document for further guidelines.<br /> <br /> * (eg) International New Construction 2016<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not guarantee the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> &amp;lt;Jane Morning&amp;gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Responsible_Sourcing_of_Materials 2018-04-21T21:07:36Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Aim and benefits =<br /> <br /> To recognise and encourage the specification and procurement of responsibly sourced materials for key building elements.<br /> <br /> = When to consider =<br /> <br /> The requirement to responsibly source materials where practicable can be written into the tender documents and the design team should be encouraged to specify manufacturers that operate environmental management systems.<br /> <br /> Once the design has been fixed, a breakdown of the materials within each element can be prepared along with details of any specified manufacturers/suppliers and their EMS/COC certification. By inputting the information within the calculator tool at an early stage based on the known specified products, it is possible to see which materials will therefore need to be responsibly sourced to gain the targeted credits or advise if alternative products should be specified with higher levels of responsible sourcing. The contractor will then be able to include any responsible sourcing requirements within their subcontract and purchase orders.<br /> <br /> = Step by step guidance =<br /> <br /> There are two routes to demonstrating compliance. Either of the routes can be used or a combination may be followed:<br /> <br /> * Route 1 is intended for use in the majority of situations where detailed information on quantities is not available.<br /> * Route 2 is for situations where a more detailed analysis is possible due to the availability of detailed information on material quantities<br /> * Route 3 (a combination of routes 1 and 2) is intended for situations where details on materials quantities is only available for some of the materials.<br /> <br /> to be completed......<br /> <br /> = Questions to ask while seeking compliance =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Tools and resources =<br /> <br /> [https://kb.breeam.com/section/new-construction/uk/2014-uk/materials-breeam_uk_nc_2014/mat03/ https://kb.breeam.com/section/new-construction/uk/2014-uk/materials-breeam_uk_nc_2014/mat03/]<br /> <br /> = Tips and best practice =<br /> <br /> 'Building services’ refers to the equipment and distribution systems specified for providing heating, power, ventilation, lighting, air-conditioning and domestic water services in a building. As a minimum, this location/use category should include the equipment and controls specified for the building services.<br /> <br /> Please refer to GN24 for guidance on assessing building services ([https://tools.breeam.com/extranet/downloads/GN24-Demonstrating-Compliance-with-BREEAM-Issue-Mat-03-v1.0.pdf?id=0000000000000000000100000000000000038443&amp;amp;type=.pdf https://tools.breeam.com/extranet/downloads/GN24-Demonstrating-Compliance-with-BREEAM-Issue-Mat-03-v1.0.pdf?id=0000000000000000000100000000000000038443&amp;amp;type=.pdf])<br /> <br /> = Typical evidence =<br /> <br /> == Design Stage ==<br /> <br /> * Drawings/specification and/or schedule confirming the construction of each element and either information on the actual responsible sourcing certification or confirmation of the aspired responsible sourcing level where products are yet to be specified.<br /> * Mat03 calculator tool.<br /> * Copies of any EMS/COC certification should be provided.<br /> * Where the constructions are not yet defined, i.e. very early design stages, then a letter of intent or contract clause should be used to set out the % of RSM points the contractor is required to achieve.<br /> <br /> == Post Construction Stage ==<br /> <br /> * As built drawings/specification and/or schedule confirming the construction of each element, the product specified, manufacturer/supplier and any EMS/COC.<br /> * Mat03 calculator tool.<br /> * Copies of any EMS/COC certification should be provided.<br /> * Proof of purchase in the form of purchase orders/delivery tickets or invoices.<br /> <br /> &amp;lt;Jane Morning&amp;gt;<br /> <br /> = Applicable Schemes =<br /> <br /> The guidelines collated in this ISD aim to support sustainable best practice in the topic described. This issue may apply in multiple BREEAM schemes covering different stages in the life of a building, different building types and different year versions. Some content may be generic but scheme nuances should also be taken into account. Refer to the comments below and related articles to this one to understand these nuances. See [[BREEAM_Issue_support_document_template|this document]] for further guidelines.<br /> <br /> * BREEAM New Construction 2014<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not guarantee the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple Author Article|Multiple Author Article]] 22:07, 21 Apr 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Hard_landscaping_and_boundary_protection 2018-04-21T21:07:10Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>BREEAM Hard landscaping and boundary protection<br /> <br /> = Aim and benefits =<br /> <br /> To recognise and encourage the specification of materials for boundary protection and<br /> <br /> external hard surfaces that have a low environmental impact, taking account of the full life<br /> <br /> cycle of materials used.<br /> <br /> Hard landscaping can make up a significant area of the development and mitigating its impact can make a significant different to the site.<br /> <br /> = When to consider =<br /> <br /> Stage 2<br /> <br /> When the design is moving into detailed design. Green guide ratings of materials should be checked and the areas being dealt with should be calculated as early as possible.<br /> <br /> = Step by step guidance =<br /> <br /> Landscape architect or Architect is responsible for this credit.<br /> <br /> The landscape specification and design drawings should be provided with the green guide ratings for each applicable element detailed.<br /> <br /> The green guide to specification should be consulted when the specification is being put together -[http://www.thegreenguide.org.uk/ www.thegreenguide.org.uk]<br /> <br /> Access to the Green guide requires a log in, an email address is all that is needed and anyone can access it.<br /> <br /> Where a green guide rating cannot be found to match a proposed element the BREEAM assessor can contact the BRE for a bespoke rating. Many manufacturers have green guide ratings for their products.<br /> <br /> The areas of each applicable element are required to confirm that 80% of the products are A or A+. Where all the elements are A or A+ areas are not needed.<br /> <br /> The areas of each element are best shown on design drawings.<br /> <br /> Any existing or specified natural boundary protection gets an A+.<br /> <br /> = Questions to ask while seeking compliance =<br /> <br /> Who is specifying the hard landscaping and boundary protection?<br /> <br /> Has the green guide been used when choosing the materials?<br /> <br /> Are there any materials that must be used due to the requirements of a third party (e.g. local council)? See KBCN00062.<br /> <br /> Can natural boundary protection such as hedges be used?<br /> <br /> How much hard landscaping does there need to be?<br /> <br /> = Tools and resources =<br /> <br /> [http://www.thegreenguide.org.uk/ www.thegreenguide.org.uk]<br /> <br /> = Tips and best practice =<br /> <br /> Determine the green guide ratings as early as possible.<br /> <br /> The more soft landscaping you have the less areas that need calculated.<br /> <br /> = Typical evidence =<br /> <br /> Landscape specification<br /> <br /> Landscape drawings<br /> <br /> Areas of the hard landscaping and boundary protection<br /> <br /> Green guide ratings for each element.<br /> <br /> = Applicable Schemes =<br /> <br /> The guidelines collated in this ISD aim to support sustainable best practice in the topic described. This issue may apply in multiple BREEAM schemes covering different stages in the life of a building, different building types and different year versions. Some content may be generic but scheme nuances should also be taken into account. Refer to the comments below and related articles to this one to understand these nuances. See this document for further guidelines.<br /> <br /> * (eg) International New Construction 2016<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not guarantee the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Emma_Houston|Emma Houston]] 11:17, 18 Jan 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]] [[Category:Sustainability]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Water_efficient_equipment 2018-04-21T21:06:12Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Aim and benefits =<br /> <br /> To reduce unregulated water consumption by specifying efficient equipment.<br /> <br /> == What is unregulated water use? ==<br /> <br /> Unregulated water use is all water use not considered by building regulations. Part G of building regulations covers the regulation of water use in dwellings. In the case of non-residential properties, BRE seem to be suggesting that unregulated water use is essentially anything not covered in WAT 01.<br /> <br /> These may be things such as swimming pools, irrigation systems, fountains, vehicle wash systems.<br /> <br /> = When to consider =<br /> <br /> This is a little bit dependent on what your water uses are, but generally:<br /> <br /> * When the team begin to think about landscape design, &amp;quot;plant the seed&amp;quot; of thinking about using drought resistant planting/planting which thrives in the country's natural weather.<br /> * If there is a specific water consuming item, as soon as it's considered, start to get the design team talking about how they could reduce water.<br /> <br /> = Step by step guidance =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Questions to ask while seeking compliance =<br /> <br /> * What are the unregulated water sources?<br /> * Is there design guidance which states minimum flow rates for the specified item?<br /> * Is there any other reason we shouldn't reduce flow rate from standard?<br /> * How could we reduce water use?<br /> <br /> = Tools and resources =<br /> <br /> [http://kb.breeam.com/?s=wat+04&amp;amp;post_type%5B%5D=st_kb BREEAM Knowledge Base Articles]<br /> <br /> = Tips and best practice =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Typical evidence =<br /> <br /> Best practice evidence would include a letter or calculation sheet, calculating the water use prior to implementing water saving measures to unregulated water use, and post water saving measures. This would demonstrate a percentage reduction in water use.<br /> <br /> Regularly compliance is demonstrated through use of a signed letter, stating that irrigation has not been used.<br /> <br /> The criteria appears to be asking for demonstration of a meaningful reduction (e.g. a calculation of this), however perhaps this is down to assessor judgement and interpretation of the criteria.<br /> <br /> = Applicable Schemes =<br /> <br /> The guidelines collated in this ISD aim to support sustainable best practice in the topic described. This issue may apply in multiple BREEAM schemes covering different stages in the life of a building, different building types and different year versions. Some content may be generic but scheme nuances should also be taken into account. Refer to the comments below and related articles to this one to understand these nuances. See [[BREEAM_Issue_support_document_template|this document]] for further guidelines.<br /> <br /> * List applicable schemes here<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not guarantee the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple_Author_Article|Multiple Author Article]] 22:03, 21 Apr 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> = Find out more =<br /> <br /> === Related articles ===<br /> <br /> [[Costs_of_water_automatic_sprinkler_systems|Costs of water automatic sprinkler systems]]<br /> <br /> Future Water, The Government’s water strategy for England<br /> <br /> [[Harvested_rainwater|Harvested rainwater]]<br /> <br /> [[Swimming_pool_construction|Swimming pool construction]] (Note how much water backwashing a filter system uses)<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]] [[Category:Design]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Water_efficient_equipment 2018-04-21T21:03:48Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Aim and benefits =<br /> <br /> To reduce unregulated water consumption by specifying efficient equipment.<br /> <br /> == What is unregulated water use? ==<br /> <br /> Unregulated water use is all water use not considered by building regulations. Part G of building regulations covers the regulation of water use in dwellings. In the case of non-residential properties, BRE seem to be suggesting that unregulated water use is essentially anything not covered in WAT 01.<br /> <br /> These may be things such as swimming pools, irrigation systems, fountains, vehicle wash systems.<br /> <br /> = When to consider =<br /> <br /> This is a little bit dependent on what your water uses are, but generally:<br /> <br /> * When the team begin to think about landscape design, &amp;quot;plant the seed&amp;quot; of thinking about using drought resistant planting/planting which thrives in the country's natural weather.<br /> * If there is a specific water consuming item, as soon as it's considered, start to get the design team talking about how they could reduce water.<br /> <br /> = Step by step guidance =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Questions to ask while seeking compliance =<br /> <br /> * What are the unregulated water sources?<br /> * Is there design guidance which states minimum flow rates for the specified item?<br /> * Is there any other reason we shouldn't reduce flow rate from standard?<br /> * How could we reduce water use?<br /> <br /> = Tools and resources =<br /> <br /> [http://kb.breeam.com/?s=wat+04&amp;amp;post_type%5B%5D=st_kb BREEAM Knowledge Base Articles]<br /> <br /> = Tips and best practice =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Typical evidence =<br /> <br /> Best practice evidence would include a letter or calculation sheet, calculating the water use prior to implementing water saving measures to unregulated water use, and post water saving measures. This would demonstrate a percentage reduction in water use.<br /> <br /> Regularly compliance is demonstrated through use of a signed letter, stating that irrigation has not been used.<br /> <br /> The criteria appears to be asking for demonstration of a meaningful reduction (e.g. a calculation of this), however perhaps this is down to assessor judgement and interpretation of the criteria.<br /> <br /> = Applicable Schemes =<br /> <br /> The guidelines collated in this ISD aim to support sustainable best practice in the topic described. This issue may apply in multiple BREEAM schemes covering different stages in the life of a building, different building types and different year versions. Some content may be generic but scheme nuances should also be taken into account. Refer to the comments below and related articles to this one to understand these nuances. See [[BREEAM_Issue_support_document_template|this document]] for further guidelines.<br /> <br /> * List applicable schemes here<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not guarantee the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple Author Article|Multiple Author Article]] 22:03, 21 Apr 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> === Related articles ===<br /> <br /> [[Costs_of_water_automatic_sprinkler_systems|Costs of water automatic sprinkler systems]]<br /> <br /> [[w/index.php?title=W/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DW/index.php%3Ftitle%3DFuture_Water,_The_Governments_water_strategy_for_England%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1%26action%3Dedit%26redlink%3D1&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1|Future Water, The Government’s water strategy for England]]<br /> <br /> [[Harvested_rainwater|Harvested rainwater]]<br /> <br /> [[Swimming_pool_construction|Swimming pool construction]] (Note how much water backwashing a filter system uses)<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]] [[Category:Design]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Travel_Plan 2018-04-21T21:02:31Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>== Aim and benefits ==<br /> <br /> -----<br /> To recognise the consideration given to accommodating a range of travel options for building users, thereby encouraging the reduction of reliance on forms of travel that have the highest environmental impact.<br /> <br /> = When to consider =<br /> <br /> Design stage<br /> <br /> = Step by step guidance =<br /> <br /> A travel assessment / statement has been carried out to ensure the travel plan is structured to meet the needs of a particular site. The following needs to be covered:<br /> <br /> 1) Existing travel patterns and opinions of existing building or site users towards cycling and walking so that constraints and opportunities can be identified.<br /> <br /> 2) Travel patterns and transport impact of future building users.<br /> <br /> 3) Current local environment for walkers and cyclists.<br /> <br /> 4) Disabled access.<br /> <br /> 5) Public transport links serving the site.<br /> <br /> 6)Current facilities for cyclists.<br /> <br /> The travel plan should include a package of measures to encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport and movement of people and goods during the building's operation and use.<br /> <br /> If the occupier is known, they must be involved in the development of the travel plan and they must confirm that the travel plan will be implemented post construction and be supported by the building's management in operation.<br /> <br /> = Questions to ask while seeking compliance =<br /> <br /> The Transport Consultant creating the Travel Plan should be questioned if parts of the Travel Plan are non compliant.<br /> <br /> == Tools and resources ==<br /> <br /> -----<br /> Travel Plan and Transport Assessment<br /> <br /> -----<br /> = Tips and best practice =<br /> <br /> It may be a good idea to compare the Travel Plan with previous assessments' Travel Plans to check compliance.<br /> <br /> = Typical evidence =<br /> <br /> Compliant Travel Plan and Transport Assessment<br /> <br /> = Applicable Schemes =<br /> <br /> The guidelines collated in this ISD aim to support sustainable best practice in the topic described. This issue may apply in multiple BREEAM schemes covering different stages in the life of a building, different building types and different year versions. Some content may be generic but scheme nuances should also be taken into account. Refer to the comments below and related articles to this one to understand these nuances. See this document for further guidelines.<br /> <br /> * (eg) International New Construction 2016<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Guarantee guarantee] the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Tom_Abbott|Tom Abbott]]<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Public_Transport_Accessibility 2018-04-21T21:01:10Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>== Aim and benefits ==<br /> <br /> To recognise projects where the proximity of good public transport networks has been reviewed, and encourage the implementation of alternative transport solutions where proximity to public transport networks is poor; thus helping to reduce transport - related pollution and congestion.<br /> <br /> = When to consider =<br /> <br /> Design stage<br /> <br /> = Step by step guidance =<br /> <br /> If the assessed building is in London then Transport for London's Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) can be used otherwise the average number of services has to be calculated and entered into the Tra 01 calculator tool. For the purpose of the calculation, the frequency of public transport is the average number of stopping services at the node during the peak arrival/departure times for the building or the building's typical day's operating hours, divided by the number of hours within that period.<br /> <br /> = Questions to ask while seeking compliance =<br /> <br /> Gather all public transport timetables for the location<br /> <br /> = [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Tools Tools] and resources =<br /> <br /> Tra 01 calculator tool<br /> <br /> PTAL<br /> <br /> Bus and rail timetables<br /> <br /> = Tips and best practice =<br /> <br /> Find all the local travel nodes with timetables to show that building has a high level of accessibility<br /> <br /> = Typical evidence =<br /> <br /> PTAL rating<br /> <br /> Tra 01 Calculator tool<br /> <br /> Bus and train timetables<br /> <br /> = Applicable Schemes =<br /> <br /> The guidelines collated in this ISD aim to support sustainable best practice in the topic described. This issue may apply in multiple BREEAM schemes covering different stages in the life of a building, different building types and different year versions. Some content may be generic but scheme nuances should also be taken into account. Refer to the comments below and related articles to this one to understand these nuances. See this document for further guidelines.<br /> <br /> * (eg) International New Construction 2016<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Guarantee guarantee] the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Tom_Abbott|Tom Abbott]] 15:27, 02 Jan 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Drying_space 2018-04-21T20:59:54Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Aim and benefits =<br /> <br /> The aim of this credit is to allow residents a space to dry clothes which is not energy intensive (tumble drying), and does not cause damp in the home.<br /> <br /> = When to consider =<br /> <br /> During RIBA Stage 2, establish whether drying space in individual residences is more appropriate, or a communal drying area.<br /> <br /> If a communal drying area is suggested, allow sufficient space in the concept design.<br /> <br /> Drying spaces in residences can be considered relatively late on in the process, around RIBA Stage 3 to 4, as there are very space efficient methods of achieving the credit, so premium space is not necessarily required.<br /> <br /> = Step by step guidance =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Questions to ask while seeking compliance =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Tools and resources =<br /> <br /> Ideas for alternative styles of drying rack to typical solution:<br /> <br /> [[File:Capture.PNG|link=File:Capture.PNG]][[File:Drying_space_2.PNG|link=File:Drying_space_2.PNG]]<br /> <br /> [[File:Drying_space_3.PNG|628px|link=File:Drying_space_3.PNG]]<br /> <br /> = Tips and best practice =<br /> <br /> Often clients do not particularly want to include drying space. This is because the standard solution (a pull out rack over a bath) isn't the most attractive of options. It may be that you need to remind the client of what the purpose of this credit is, and perhaps suggest alternative drying rack options which still meet the aims of the credit but meet the aesthetic of the property better.<br /> <br /> = Typical evidence =<br /> <br /> == Design Stage ==<br /> <br /> === Individual drying space: ===<br /> <br /> * Architectural drawing(s) showing location of drying space<br /> * Architectural specification detailing manufacturer of drying rack<br /> * Manufacturer's data stating length of drying line<br /> * [If internal] M&amp;amp;E specification stating required heating and ventilation for room with drying rack in<br /> * [If external] details of posts/footings/fixings<br /> <br /> === Communal drying space: ===<br /> <br /> * Architectural drawing(s) showing location of drying space<br /> * Architectural specification detailing manufacturer of drying rack<br /> * Manufacturer's data stating length of drying line<br /> * [If internal] Architectural (or M&amp;amp;E) specification detailing access controls<br /> * [If internal] M&amp;amp;E specification stating required heating and ventilation for room with drying rack in<br /> * [If external] Details of how external space is accessible only to residents (marked up drawing, access statement)<br /> * [If external] details of posts/footings/fixings<br /> <br /> == Post Construction Stage ==<br /> <br /> * As per design stage, plus<br /> * Site Inspection Report with photographs confirming<br /> ** Location of drying space<br /> ** Sufficient length<br /> ** Access controls<br /> ** Permanent fixing<br /> ** Heating and ventilation provision<br /> <br /> = Applicable Schemes =<br /> <br /> The guidelines collated in this ISD aim to support sustainable best practice in the topic described. This issue may apply in multiple BREEAM schemes covering different stages in the life of a building, different building types and different year versions. Some content may be generic but scheme nuances should also be taken into account. Refer to the comments below and related articles to this one to understand these nuances. See [[BREEAM_Issue_support_document_template|this document]] for further guidelines.<br /> <br /> * Written to cover UK New Construction 2014<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not guarantee the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple Author Article|Multiple Author Article]] 21:59, 21 Apr 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:Articles_needing_more_work]] [[Category:BREEAM]] [[Category:Sustainability]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_LZC_technologies 2018-04-21T20:59:21Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Aim and benefits =<br /> <br /> To assess the possibility of using Low or Zero Carbon (LZC) technologies early on in the design process, so as not to limit the possibilities due to fixed site layouts etc.<br /> <br /> LZC technologies are one of the steps in the energy heirarchy (after reducing energy demand through passive measures, and that controls and energy use is efficient). Their purpose is to reduce demand on fossil fuels.<br /> <br /> Please note, this issue only covers on or near site LZC technologies. Currently, using an 100% renewable electricity supplier does not meet the requirements, as an occupier could change supplier at any point.<br /> <br /> This credit builds on the evidence produced as part of the BREEAM Low Carbon Design credits.<br /> <br /> While not a specific requirement of BREEAM, it is recommended that the passive design analysis credit is achieved before targeting this credit.<br /> <br /> This is line with the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_hierarchy Energy Hierarchy] which favours making building and systems more energy efficient before incorporating LZC technologies.<br /> <br /> = When to consider =<br /> <br /> A feasibility study must be carried out by the completion of the Concept Design stage (RIBA Stage 2 or equivalent) by an energy specialist to establish the most appropriate recognised local (on-site or near-site) low or zero carbon (LZC) energy source(s) for the building/development.<br /> <br /> When completed at a later date, an additional element would need to be included within the report to highlight the local LZC energy sources which had been discounted due to the constraints placed on the project by the late consideration, and the reason for omission. If all local LZC is infeasible due to the late stage the study was considered, the credit must be withheld.<br /> <br /> If the feasibility study is carried out by RIBA Stage 2 and concludes that the specification of any LZC technologies is unfeasible the LZC credit can be awarded.<br /> <br /> = Step by step guidance =<br /> <br /> An LZC feasibility should be provided, dated at RIBA Stage 2. The LZC study should cover as a minimum:<br /> <br /> 1. Energy generated from LZC energy source per year<br /> <br /> 2. Carbon dioxide savings from LZC energy source per year<br /> <br /> 3. Life cycle cost of the potential specification, accounting for payback<br /> <br /> 4. Local planning criteria, including land use and noise<br /> <br /> 5. Feasibility of exporting heat/electricity from the system<br /> <br /> 6. Any available grants<br /> <br /> 7. All technologies appropriate to the site and energy demand of the development.<br /> <br /> 8. Reasons for excluding other technologies<br /> <br /> 9. Where appropriate to the building type, connecting the proposed building to an existing local community CHP system or source of waste heat or power OR specifying a building/site CHP system or source of waste heat or power with the potential to export excess heat or power via a local community energy scheme.<br /> <br /> The specified local LZC technologies must be shown to provide a meaningful reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions. A meaningful reduction is not specified but as a guide, the installation should contribute to a reduction of at least 5% of overall building energy demand and /or CO2 emissions. The demand reduction with the low and/or zero carbon (LZC) technologies is demonstrated by comparing regulated carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions with LZC technologies to the actual building regulated emissions without LZCs.<br /> <br /> The meaningful reduction in regulated carbon dioxide emissions should be assessed against a base case model that includes any passive design or free cooling measures incorporated into the building.<br /> <br /> For the specified technology/technologies, the demand reductions are modelled using dynamic simulation modelling. The energy supply used for the base case is mains gas and grid electricity. If mains gas were not available at the site, then oil may be used instead. The base case includes any passive design or free cooling measures adopted for the first two credits. The actual building energy demands are calculated as for the passive design analysis. Then the carbon dioxide emissions factors used for the building regulations calculations are applied.<br /> <br /> It must be checked that the feasibility study has been completed by a suitably qualified energy specialist.<br /> <br /> Energy specialist: An individual who has acquired substantial expertise or a recognised qualification for undertaking assessments, designs and installations of low or zero carbon solutions in the commercial buildings sector and is not professionally connected to a single low or zero carbon technology or manufacturer.<br /> <br /> This role is often undertaken by the Building Services designers as they will be developing the required models as part of demonstrating Part L compliance and Thermal Performance of the building. The individual should be a Member of the Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) and/or be an accredited energy assessor.<br /> <br /> = Questions to ask while seeking compliance =<br /> <br /> * Has an LZC feasibility study been done during RIBA Stage 2?<br /> * Who completed the feasibility study?<br /> * Has modelling been done for scenarios with and without LZCs?<br /> <br /> = Tools and resources =<br /> <br /> [http://www.breeam.com/BREEAMUK2014SchemeDocument/content/06_energy/ene04.htm BREEAM 2014 V. 5.0 ENE 4 - Low Carbon Design]<br /> <br /> [https://kb.breeam.com/section/new-construction/uk/2014-uk/energy-breeam_uk_nc_2014/ene04/ Knowledge Base - UK New Construction 2014]<br /> <br /> [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Renewable_energy https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Renewable_energy]<br /> <br /> = Tips and best practice =<br /> <br /> Energy specialist: An individual who has acquired substantial expertise or a recognised qualification for undertaking assessments, designs and installations of low or zero carbon solutions in the commercial buildings sector and is not professionally connected to a single low or zero carbon technology or manufacturer.<br /> <br /> For shell only developments, in order to achieve criterion 1, thermal modelling can be completed on the basis of a typical notional layout and equipment specification for the particular building type (retail, restaurants, cinema etc.) can be used to demonstrate compliance.<br /> <br /> For a shell only project, compliance may be assessed on the built form only i.e. demonstrating that sufficient space and clearance for the installation of future LZCs has been considered, the built form is suitably sited, and that massing and orientation are optimised for the future systems.<br /> <br /> = Typical evidence =<br /> <br /> == Design Stage ==<br /> <br /> 1.A copy of the LZC Feasiblity Study, including<br /> <br /> * All content requirements<br /> * Confirmation it was produced by an “Energy Specialist”<br /> * Confirmation it was produced during RIBA Stage 2 OR confirmation that the late consideration placed no constraints on the project and that no technologies were excluded as a result<br /> <br /> 2. Confirmation of the demand reduction in CO2 emissions from the specified technology. This should be in the form of 2 x Part L reports (a baseline using gas and grid electric and the actual case). If your project is in London, you may find these labelled as the “Lean” and “Green” scenarios as part of the modelling done to meet The London Plan.<br /> <br /> 3. Specification or drawings showing technology has been implemented into the design.<br /> <br /> == Post Construction Stage ==<br /> <br /> # A copy of the BREEAM Assessor’s site inspection report, confirming that LZC technology has been installed<br /> # As built drawing/equipment schedule showing specified option<br /> # Confirmation that no changes have occurred to the design stage specification, OR, Part L modelling as per design stage assessment for the as built scenario.<br /> <br /> = Applicable Schemes =<br /> <br /> The guidelines collated in this ISD aim to support sustainable best practice in the topic described. This issue may apply in multiple BREEAM schemes covering different stages in the life of a building, different building types and different year versions. Some content may be generic but scheme nuances should also be taken into account. Refer to the comments below and related articles to this one to understand these nuances. See [[BREEAM_Issue_support_document_template|this document]] for further guidelines.<br /> <br /> * First issue written to BREEAM UK New Construction 2014<br /> <br /> This document was originally created on 7/2/18 in a collaboration of the following [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM BREEAM] Professionals: Jane Morning, Cat Clarkson and Azita Dezfouli.<br /> <br /> An amendment has been made on 21/02/18 by Tom Blois-Brooke to tie into the BREEAM Low Carbon Design page.<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not guarantee the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple Author Article|Multiple Author Article]] 21:59, 21 Apr 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Thermal_comfort 2018-04-21T20:57:34Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Aim and benefits =<br /> <br /> To make sure buildings users are warm enough in the winter, cool enough in the summer, and can have control over their own heating.<br /> <br /> (In UK NC 2014) There are 3 credits:<br /> <br /> * Is your building cool enough in the summer and warm enough in the winter?<br /> * In the future with climate change, will your building still be thermally comfortable?<br /> * Have you got thermal zones and controls so building users can control their own thermal comfort?<br /> <br /> = When to consider =<br /> <br /> See Step by step guidance below for some guidance on actions with regards to the RIBA timeline.<br /> <br /> The analysis should lead the design so ideally it should be carried out at concept design stage. RIBA Stage 2 - 3.<br /> <br /> = Step by step guidance =<br /> <br /> === Pre-Assessment ===<br /> <br /> Is your building comfort cooled? If yes, you should achieve credits 1 and 2, as long as your system is sized OK.<br /> <br /> Is your building mechanically ventilated? If yes, you’ll probably achieve the credits. Is your building fully naturally ventilated? If yes, you should achieve the first credit, but the climate change one will be really tricky.<br /> <br /> There’s no excuse in this day and age for not achieving the 3rd credit. Note, in a school situation, it might only be that FM can control the heating/cooling so that kids don’t keep changing TRVs etc. In retail buildings/prisons etc the credit only refers to staff controlling temperature.<br /> <br /> === RIBA Stage 2 ===<br /> <br /> Check overheating risk as part of initial Part L and thermal modelling. Start putting together a thermal zoning and control strategy. Consider:<br /> <br /> * the type of people that will use the building<br /> * how au fait they will be with the different types of equipment<br /> * how often they’ll be using the spaces and what the spaces will be used for<br /> * How do individuals want to interact with heating/cooling controls?<br /> * How can you balance different peoples’ requirements?<br /> * How will the systems interact with each other?<br /> * Does there need to be an override so systems aren’t used totally inefficiently?<br /> <br /> Work out how many heating/cooling zones are appropriate. Do central cores need separate heating to perimeter areas in large rooms?<br /> <br /> == RIBA Stage 3 ==<br /> <br /> Produce thermal comfort report, covering winter comfort and overheating. Finalise zoning and controls strategy. Include these in a report (could be your stage report, or a stand-alone report)<br /> <br /> Modelling should be carried out using dynamic simulation software (IES or TAS for example) an be in accordance CIBSE AM11, ensure this is referenced in any report used as BREEAM evidence.<br /> <br /> == RIBA Stage 4 ==<br /> <br /> Unless there are any major design changes relating to heating and cooling, you’re done.<br /> <br /> == RIBA Stage 5 ==<br /> <br /> If you’re working for an M&amp;amp;E sub contractor you may need to produce a markup of an as built drawing showing the zones and controls. You may also have to confirm formally that there have been no changes to the design which would affect the overheating risk, or make the building too cold in the winter. The BREEAM assessor will take a bunch of photos of the site showing that there are heating and cooling systems as per the design.<br /> <br /> = Questions to ask while seeking compliance =<br /> <br /> What is the thermal comfort criteria?<br /> <br /> TO BE ADDED TO<br /> <br /> = Tools and resources =<br /> <br /> BREEAM Manual<br /> <br /> CIBSE TM52<br /> <br /> TO BE ADDED TO<br /> <br /> = Tips and best practice =<br /> <br /> Don't forget winter time thermal comfort<br /> <br /> TM52 isn’t a limiting stop. A building won’t necessarily be comfortable because you met TM52. Try not to let the thermal zoning exercise feel like “something you just have to do for BREEAM” – control strategies are a really important part of soft landings and trying to reduce the performance gap<br /> <br /> TO BE ADDED TO<br /> <br /> = Typical evidence =<br /> <br /> TO BE ADDED TO<br /> <br /> = Applicable Schemes =<br /> <br /> The guidelines collated in this ISD aim to support sustainable best practice in the topic described. This issue may apply in multiple BREEAM schemes covering different stages in the life of a building, different building types and different year versions. Some content may be generic but scheme nuances should also be taken into account. Refer to the comments below and related articles to this one to understand these nuances. See this document for further guidelines.<br /> <br /> * (eg) International New Construction 2016<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not guarantee the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Sarah_Peterson|Sarah Peterson]] 15:39, 20 Feb 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Indoor_air_quality_Ventilation 2018-04-21T20:56:10Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Aim and benefits =<br /> <br /> Many studies demonstrate that poor ventilation is one main cause to health issues. The effects of poor indoor air quality can include headaches, dizziness and fatigue, while also contributing to more long-term health issues such as asthma, heart disease and cancer.<br /> <br /> It is also proved that productivity is higher in workplaces with better indoor air quality.<br /> <br /> The aim of this BREEAM credit is to promote healthy buildings, reducing risk of health concerns associated with indoor air pollution and provide building occupant comfort and productivity .<br /> <br /> = When to consider =<br /> <br /> This is not applicable to Shell only projects<br /> <br /> This should be considered during the early design of the ventilation systems for the building. The majority of buildings will use air conditioned or mixed mode ventilation systems. The location of the air handling unit’s intake and exhausts need to be considered.<br /> <br /> The intakes and exhausts should be 10m apart and intakes should be over 20 m from sources of external pollution (such as car parks and roads etc)<br /> <br /> OR<br /> <br /> The buildings intake sand exhausts can be designed in accordance with BS EN13779:2007 Annex A2.<br /> <br /> For Naturally Ventilated buildings<br /> <br /> Openable windows should be over 10m from external sources of pollution.<br /> <br /> = Step by step guidance =<br /> <br /> tbc<br /> <br /> = Questions to ask while seeking compliance =<br /> <br /> * Check the filtration class as the first task, as in many cases it does not comply - then you do not waste time with checking rest of this issue (not applicable for Shell and core).<br /> * Is the building naturally ventilated or mechanically ventilated?<br /> * What is the proposed plant location? If it is on the roof how far away are the ventilation intakes are from sources of pollution from other building, frequently used roads or car parks?<br /> * Can the intakes or exhaust be extended?<br /> * Is the building occupancy fixed or variable? ( this may be a by product of the natural of the building i.e office will always be design to so many people per square metre where as retail space can be subject to large variable changes in occupancy)<br /> <br /> = Tools and resources =<br /> <br /> EN:13779: 2007 Annex A2 - For mechanically ventilated buildings<br /> <br /> EN:13779: 2007 Annex A3 - For naturally ventilated buildings<br /> <br /> = Tips and best practice =<br /> <br /> In some cases it is easier to draw a 10m radius on the roof drawing, with supply in the middle - showing there is not extract in the circle. Please note this is 3D space so if the building is high off the ground away from a source of pollution it will still comply.<br /> <br /> Fire smoke extract is not considered and does not need to be checked.<br /> <br /> = Typical evidence =<br /> <br /> Design stage evidence<br /> <br /> * IAQ plan.<br /> * For mechanically ventilated buildings - Layout of the roof showing position of all air intakes and extracts and their position to each other. Not only from HVAC units itself, but also between them and to any other building extracts - eg. sewage system, toilet extract, local extract, etc.<br /> * For naturally ventilated buildings - Layout and elevations showing distances to external pollution sources.<br /> * For mixed mode buildings - both evidence as above.<br /> * Technical report from mechanical engineer confirming standards used as per S&amp;amp;W List.<br /> * Technical sheets from HVAC units / technical report listing type and class of the filters used.<br /> * If applicable, drawing showing position of CO2 sensors and technical report describing their functionality.This is applicable for areas of large and unpredictable or variable occupancy patterns..<br /> * Letter / extract from the law confirming that smoking is prohibited in the building OR drawing with non-smoking signs and policy to be implemented. In case that dedicated smoking room is present, technical report describing its ventilation system.<br /> <br /> Post construction evidence<br /> <br /> * IAQ plan, including photos from its implementing during construction.<br /> * As-built drawings.<br /> * Photos of windows / supply / extract / sources of pollution - confirming that the drawing is reflecting the reality.<br /> * HVAC and ventilation commissioning report confirming fresh air rates according to S&amp;amp;W List.<br /> <br /> For naturally ventilated building confirmation from designer that building complies with BREEAM criteria.<br /> <br /> = Applicable Schemes =<br /> <br /> The guidelines collated in this ISD aim to support sustainable best practice in the topic described. This issue may apply in multiple BREEAM schemes covering different stages in the life of a building, different building types and different year versions. Some content may be generic but scheme nuances should also be taken into account. Refer to the comments below and related articles to this one to understand these nuances. See [[BREEAM_Issue_support_document_template|this document]] for further guidelines.<br /> <br /> * UK New Construction 2014<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not guarantee the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> This article was created originally in a BREEAM Workshop by Tom Abbott, Sandra Turcaniova, Lenka Matejickova, Azita Dezfouli and Joe Hodgkinson<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple Author Article|Multiple Author Article]] 21:56, 21 Apr 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Indoor_air_quality_plan 2018-04-21T20:55:44Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Aim and benefits =<br /> <br /> To recognise and encourage a healthy internal environment through the specification and installation of appropriate ventilation, equipment and finishes.<br /> <br /> Poor indoor air quality is linked to health deterioration and therefore this issue seeks to minimise sources of pollution and optimise indoor air quality. There are many pollutants present inside our buildings and the materials we use to construct them. Of particular concern are volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions and formaldehyde as these are known to cause cancer in animals. Indoor Air Quality Plans (IAQP) should therefore be produced to manage the contaminants within new buildings and will contain advice on the levels of contaminants that are acceptable, measures for specifying materials with low emission levels, detail procedures for flushing out buildings and advise on pre-completion testing to ensure acceptable levels have been met.<br /> <br /> The IAQP should cover:&lt;br /&gt;<br /> • Removal of contaminant sources;&lt;br /&gt;<br /> • Dilution and control of contaminants during construction;&lt;br /&gt;<br /> • Detail procedure for pre-occupancy flush out;&lt;br /&gt;<br /> • Specification for third party independent testing.<br /> <br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> By specifying materials in accordance with the plan and flushing out the pollutants from the construction process sufficiently prior to building occupation, we can provide healthier work and living spaces reducing the potential for indoor air pollution and supporting the physical health of building occupants.<br /> <br /> = When to consider =<br /> <br /> Fully fitted buildings As early as possible. The objectives of the Plan are meant to be used in the Ventilation strategy. So it’s best to do prior to RIBA stage 2 to feed into HVAC design and complete prior to Detailed Design Stage (RIBA Stage 3 freeze) so that architects can implement into their specifications.<br /> <br /> Shell and Core and Simple Buildings Projects – N/A<br /> <br /> = Step by step guidance =<br /> <br /> Pre-assessment -<br /> <br /> * ensure a specialist is being appointed to produce the plan. A sustainability consultant/mechanical engineer/architect may have knowledge to produce the report, otherwise external consultants can be sourced.<br /> * Ensure the specialist is aware of the BREEAM criteria and all the 5 headings in the guidance are considered as a minimum.<br /> * Ensure the client is aware of the third party testing and allows for appointments if they are willing to proceed with the recommendations and wish to target the additional credit for Post Construction Emission Levels.<br /> <br /> Design Stage -<br /> <br /> A copy of Indoor Air Quality Plan to be submitted as an evidence document<br /> <br /> The Indoor Air quality Plan should be provided to the architect as typically it will list the standards that the finishes (usually specified by the architect) should comply with<br /> <br /> = Questions to ask while seeking compliance =<br /> <br /> Who is writing the indoor air quality plan?<br /> <br /> * It is frequently missed from anyone's’ scope of works. While the Sustainability consultant or M&amp;amp;E engineer may be fully capable of writing this, their appointment may not allow for it. For scale, I wouldn’t expect this to be more than 1 days work for a consultant. There are indoor air quality testing companies who can also provide the reports.<br /> <br /> = Tools and resources =<br /> <br /> [http://www.breeam.com/servlet/bre.breeam.extranet.Download/BREEAM-UK-NC-2011-and-2014-Guidance-Note_GN06_IAQ_plan_May_2014.v0.1.pdf?id=0000000000000000000100000000000000036776&amp;amp;type=.pdf Guidance Note regarding Indoor Air Quality Plan] [Please note: This is available to licensed assessors only]<br /> <br /> [http://kb.breeam.com/?s=HEA+02+Indoor+Air+Quality+Plan&amp;amp;post_type%5B%5D=st_kb BRE Knowledge Base related articles]<br /> <br /> [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XfWokwafMi9WqZmjwL84XKuEmPwn8eN8xjysfPDoCWU/edit?usp=sharing Template Indoor Air Quality Plan]<br /> <br /> = Tips and best practice =<br /> <br /> Tips<br /> <br /> * Make sure it is someone’s responsibility to actually write this report.<br /> * This is a relatively low cost credit if you are struggling to find credits to boost you up to the next rating which aren’t already in the design.<br /> * Ensure that main contractor implements a policy of requesting the relevant certification for products (paints, varnishes finishes) during procurement.<br /> <br /> Best Practice<br /> <br /> * If you wanted to go above and beyond BREEAM requirements, you could suggest making it mandatory for contractors to hand a copy of this guide (or an amended guide relating to maintaining air quality in use) to the occupants.<br /> <br /> = Typical evidence =<br /> <br /> Compliant Indoor Air Quality Plan - Typically you will receive a written report as an “Indoor Air Quality Plan”, however any form of evidence which complies with the BREEAM evidence principals would be acceptable for this purpose.<br /> <br /> It may be helpful to provide clients with a template report, which contains each of the headings required. An example of this can be found in Tools and Resources.<br /> <br /> = Applicable Schemes =<br /> <br /> The guidelines collated in this ISD aim to support sustainable best practice in the topic described. This issue may apply in multiple BREEAM schemes covering different stages in the life of a building, different building types and different year versions. Some content may be generic but scheme nuances should also be taken into account. Refer to the comments below and related articles to this one to understand these nuances. See [[BREEAM_Issue_support_document_template|this document]] for further guidelines.<br /> <br /> * UK New Construction 2014<br /> <br /> -----<br /> This document was originally created on 10/01/18 in a collaboration of the following BREEAM Professionals: Jane Morning, Cat Clarkson, Azita Dezfouli, Rebecca Day, Joe Hodgkinson and Tom Abbott<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not guarantee the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple Author Article|Multiple Author Article]] 21:55, 21 Apr 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Visual_comfort_Glare_control 2018-04-21T20:54:43Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Aim and benefits =<br /> <br /> To ensure occupant controls are considered at the design stage to ensure best practice in visual performance and comfort for building occupants. This involves reducing glare that can cause discomfort and distraction, and enabling occupant lighting control<br /> <br /> = When to consider =<br /> <br /> BREEAM assessor does not need evidential documents at a certain time but designers may consider the potential opportunities for glare control as early as concept design.<br /> <br /> Incorporating reducing glare control at early design stage allows architects to propose any building integrated options such as brise soleil or other innovative options, whereas if it’s left to the end they may be left with the only option of blinds<br /> <br /> = Step by step guidance =<br /> <br /> Please note, not applicable to shell or shell and core assessments<br /> <br /> Check which areas will be relevant i.e. areas where lighting and resultant glare control could be problematic e.g. workstations, where projector screens may be used or sports halls.<br /> <br /> Confirm with the design team which glare control method will be applied. Blinds are the simplest form of glare control. Where other methods are used design data must be used to demonstrate compliance.<br /> <br /> = Questions to ask while seeking compliance =<br /> <br /> Shell and Core - The design team must demonstrate how the glare control criteria will be met without a reliance on blinds when the building is occupied.<br /> <br /> Compliant forms of glare control - curtains as glare control: - Compliant shading measures for meeting glare control credit include:<br /> <br /> * Building integrated measures<br /> * Occupant controlled devices such as blinds (where transmittance value is&amp;lt;0.1 (10%))<br /> * Bioclimatic design<br /> * External shading or brise soleil<br /> <br /> = Tools and resources =<br /> <br /> * BREEAM Manual<br /> * [http://standard.wellcertified.com/light/solar-glare-control Solar glare control | WELL Standard]<br /> * [https://www.cibse.org/getmedia/8faea1b4-1cee-4fcb-93f0-37df26acab2d/Lighting-for-Residential-Buildings-(LG9)_2015.pdf.aspx LG9: Lighting Guide 9 - CIBSE]<br /> * BREEAM Knowledge Base<br /> * BREEAM Extranet<br /> <br /> = Tips and best practice =<br /> <br /> Seek from the developer their standard, or project, specification. Are blinds (or other features, such as brise soleil) included in the base building, or fit-out works?<br /> <br /> Has the designer assessed solar effects on the building users and considered protection from these effects.<br /> <br /> Is it too late to amend the design to improve shading control (e.g. by using over-hangs)?<br /> <br /> All building facades will need some shading protection, even if the sun does not shine directly into some areas of the building.<br /> <br /> Remember that protection must provide shading from high level summer and low level winter sun.<br /> <br /> Automatic controls may provide compliance, but are not essential to comply with the requirements.<br /> <br /> Curtains (where used without other forms of shading) do not meet the criteria for the glare control credit.<br /> <br /> There are many means of controlling glare, such as blinds, brise soleil, building overhangs and even natural protection for some schemes. Keep an open mind about the potential solutions, where possible.<br /> <br /> = Typical evidence =<br /> <br /> Design Stage<br /> <br /> * Design drawings identifying relevant building areas, windows and any glare control such as blinds specified<br /> * Specification of glare control system such as occupant controlled blinds (confirming transmittance value of &amp;lt;0.1<br /> * Drawings showing building integrated measures where applicable i.e. extent and height of eaves in relation to windows and building orientation<br /> * Drawings/specification of any external shading systems or brise soleil<br /> * Where fixed systems are used then design studies/calculations must demonstrate that sunlight will be prevented from reaching building occupants during occupied hours.<br /> * The simplest form of glare control is occupant controlled blinds<br /> <br /> Post Construction Stage<br /> <br /> * As Built drawings/specifications for glare control system - for blinds this could be manufacturer's literature confirming the transmittance value.<br /> * Assessor site inspection photos and report<br /> <br /> = Applicable Schemes =<br /> <br /> The guidelines collated in this ISD aim to support sustainable best practice in the topic described. This issue may apply in multiple BREEAM schemes covering different stages in the life of a building, different building types and different year versions. Some content may be generic but scheme nuances should also be taken into account. Refer to the comments below and related articles to this one to understand these nuances. See [[BREEAM_Issue_support_document_template|this document]] for further guidelines.<br /> <br /> * BREEAM International New Construction 2016<br /> * BREEAM UK NC 2011<br /> * BREEAM UK NC 2014<br /> * BREEAM UK NC 2018<br /> * BREEAM RFO 2014<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not guarantee the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> This article created originally in a BREEAM workshop by Pantelis Levantis, Azita Dezfouli, Tom Abbott, Jane Morning, Martin Earl, Eleni Kalyva<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple Author Article|Multiple Author Article]] 21:54, 21 Apr 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/How_to_track_progress_on_a_BREEAM_Project 2018-04-21T20:52:41Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Information management or ‘tracker’ tools =<br /> <br /> This article provides a place to share what works best in terms of tracking progress on BREEAM related projects. If you do something different to what is already listed below please add it.<br /> <br /> == BREEAM approved software ==<br /> <br /> * We find both IES Tap and Tracker Plus are excellent tools<br /> * Project management software such as IES Tap and Tracker Plus are excellent tools which will help you compile and reference evidence<br /> <br /> === Tracker+ ===<br /> <br /> * We use Tracker+ with monthly reports sent out to design team<br /> * We use Tracker+ and add comments to this which can be downloaded in report format, I have some project teams that are happy to log into this.<br /> * From the principal contractor's point of view Tracker+ is the best, but only when used correctly as we have all the evidence in one place and can re-visit it. It saves us time and duplication of work.<br /> * Tracker+ is good but sometimes hard to convince everyone to use it<br /> <br /> === IES TaP ===<br /> <br /> * We have used the IES TaP on projects. It has been very helpful for the entire project team for keep tracking of documents, progress and being transparent.<br /> * IES Tap will allow you set up responsibilities and assign them to particular project team members.<br /> <br /> == Other software ==<br /> <br /> * 4P - it may also called '4 Projects' or 'V for Projects'<br /> * 4P or Conject are common examples of document management on sites. It’s useful when assessors have access to them as all design partners including contractors and sub-contractors feed their documents there already. It means that no one needs to copy and paste from one software to another.<br /> * Most large project teams are familiar with using 4P and I generally ask if they can set up BREEAM folders on this which evidence can be linked to, I can then download this fairly easily and it saves times searching for evidence.<br /> * I use ProjectPlac, it is similar to Tracker+<br /> <br /> === Excel ===<br /> <br /> * I like the systems offered on Tracker Plus. But most of my clients prefer Excel spreadsheets so that comments can be added<br /> * I use only Excel. One column for each design team member allows to easily track who has to do what<br /> <br /> * We tend to start in an Excel sheet and then move into Tracker+ particularly before design stage assessment as we submit the assessment through Tracker Plus. However we end up duplicating the updates on both Excel &amp;amp; Tracker plus. Now we are trying to move to Tracker+ early in Stage 3 and reduce reliance on Excel. Although we would have a one-page Excel summary (which is quick to update anyway).<br /> * I found that using an Excel spreadsheet is the easiest way to go. I've tried to use software tools, but I had a hard time convincing other team members to login and use them as well.<br /> * Excel will take some work at first to prepare, but once done, it will be the easiest for the project team to use and comprehend.<br /> * A password protected Excel is better than PDF as it is more flexible.<br /> * We don't normally issue the excel file, only a pdf, however if asked specifically for the excel sheet then we send it<br /> <br /> == Challenges ==<br /> <br /> * Getting everyone to use the tool on a regular basis - is always a challenge<br /> <br /> = General communication =<br /> <br /> === Email ===<br /> <br /> * When it comes to providing evidence on regular basis email is the best way<br /> * I find clients prefer to email evidence rather than upload to each of the BREEAM issues<br /> <br /> === Meetings and progress reports ===<br /> <br /> * Presenting the trackers in regular (as a minimum, quarterly) meetings with the whole team present. Discuss responsibilities, changes, etc.<br /> * Connection with the Client and project Team via phone/e-mail with monthly reports and schedule of tasks<br /> * Issuing progress report to the project team is good to keep them up to date on what is still required<br /> * Monthly progress reports which include a colour coded table for each credit are also an easy way to demonstrate what has been received and what is outstanding (e.g. credit is red for no evidence and green for all evidence requirements fulfilled)<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not guarantee the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple Author Article|Multiple Author Article]] 21:52, 21 Apr 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Design_team_perception_of_the_BREEAM_standard 2018-04-21T20:49:52Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Benefits of BREEAM =<br /> <br /> Real benefits can be seen if the Design Team have a favourable Perception of the BREEAM Standard. Projects which seek higher BREEAM certification, for example BREEAM Excellent, will appoint BREEAM AP at an early stage in the project to guide them through the BREEAM process. This contact between the BREEAM AP and Design Team can assist in Project Team collaboration and streamline the Assessment process.<br /> <br /> = Perception =<br /> <br /> === Box ticking ===<br /> <br /> * BREEAM can be seen as an aside rather than an integral part of the design process. This is perhaps reinforced by the main focus often being on the Assessor rather than the AP. Indeed, even appointing an AP can be seen as a “box ticking exercise” rather than helping the DT create a more sustainable project. Perhaps this can be compared to the old joke where the barman asks the customer whether he wants a tray for their drinks and he replies, “don’t you think I’ve already got enough to carry?” BREEAM ought to be seen as the tray helping the DT carry the project instead of “yet another thing to carry”.<br /> * The design team generally sees BREEAM as a planning requirement. As Home Quality Mark (HQM) the residential equivalent to BREEAM, is not mandatory client's generally never take an interest in subscribing to an HQM scheme. The perception is that BREEAM adds to the cost.<br /> * Clients see BREEAM as a box ticking exercise and find it hard to see the value for their development and it doesn’t help when the QA and evidence requirements are so pedantic, we’ve had to drop credits where the client has essentially achieved the credit but the document has been done too late or misses one of the BREEAM requirements e.g. travel plan doesn’t quite tick all the boxes.<br /> * There is usually a misconception that the design team believes BREEAM is simply a checklist exercise. It is critical to engage the design team early on to ensure that they understand the complexity of the Standard and that it can add significant richness to the project’s design if discussed with the design team (and other relevant stakeholders) from day one.<br /> <br /> === Quality Assurance Procedures ===<br /> <br /> * Negative perception can be hard to change when requirements/ QA feedback are pedantic.<br /> <br /> === Duplication of Requirements ===<br /> <br /> * There is often duplication of documents/ work which is not very welcome by the team i.e. stakeholder consultation in the design team always happens, and inputs obviously influence the design process, but providing evidence is time consuming. The whole process is perceived as too academic and often not aligned to practice.<br /> * We sometimes find that design teams see some items as a “BREEAM” thing and therefore it is only benefiting the BREEAM process rather than being something that would be good for the building and the occupants. An example is thermal comfort, and the benefit of utilising modelling to determine if there would be any issues now and to future-proof the building, by ensuring that the building provides a good thermally comfortable environment for occupants. Or metering - when metering requirements are based on those set out in the Building Standards.<br /> * Lots of additional work that requires particular documentation that wouldn't otherwise be required for a project e.g. materials efficiency can be demonstrated on any project but wouldn't necessarily be documented formally and as such creates a paper exercise that can be viewed negatively<br /> <br /> === Innovation ===<br /> <br /> * One item that we find hard to justify with a client is the innovation credits. Sometimes a client has carried out a successful innovation on a project (project A) which rendered this development more sustainable. However, the client (or design team) cannot learn from that innovation and apply it again (on Project B) as it would not be given any recognition by the BRE in the credits assessment.<br /> * Applied for innovation credits are almost impossible to convince a client to go for because of the cost to apply for them. It may be that another un-connected project has already applied for the same or similar innovation; although there is a list of some successful innovations not all have been published. The perception for the potential of an applied for innovation to be rejected is too great for most Clients to consider.<br /> <br /> = Misconceptions =<br /> <br /> === Criteria Selection ===<br /> <br /> * Criteria selection is done by AP/ Assessors; based on the investment cost and “easiest job to get the certificate” (devaluing the certification only to the paperwork, I've seen this in other pre-assessments several times, generally it's a hard job to explain to the design team, client.<br /> * Working with the BREEAM international technical manuals the design team members often comment that the manual is not applicable for the local conditions. We then need to explain the local weighting and standards and that we can comment on new manuals before they are published.<br /> <br /> = Inconsistencies/ Rationale =<br /> <br /> === Same Credit, Different Standard ===<br /> <br /> * A retained façade (non-domestic) is considered under BREEAM New Construction. While for residential it is accepted as a refurbishment (BREEAM Domestic Refurbishment). These apparent inconsistencies tend to make BREEAM look not completely rational.<br /> <br /> === Credit Rationale, Inflexible Requirements ===<br /> <br /> * It is hard to justify the rationale of some of the credits. For example, an existing tree needs to be removed (one tree in a very large site) however this can lead to losing BREEAM credits, despite the client proposing to plant more replacement trees instead.<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not guarantee the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple Author Article|Multiple Author Article]] 21:49, 21 Apr 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Common_pitfalls_relating_to_BREEAM_assessments 2018-04-21T20:49:11Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>=== Assigning responsibilities ===<br /> <br /> * Lack of commitment from site team as they have more important concerns<br /> * For any BREEAM project, there should be a Project Manager/Lead who will clearly explain the purpose and necessity in achieving the targeted BREEAM rating for the project. It is very difficult for BREEAM assessors to undertake the assessment without any support from the PM/Lead as the assessors do not usually have the authority to push the project team to work towards to meeting the BREEAM criteria. This should be agreed from the beginning between the assessor and the client/project team.<br /> <br /> === BRE QA ===<br /> <br /> * Not taking into account time taken to complete BRE QA<br /> * BRE QA feedback may require a resubmission thus delaying certification<br /> * Misunderstandings from the BRE QA team concerning some provided evidence. Solution: the newly created QA chat for assessors helps a lot to avoid these misunderstandings.<br /> <br /> === Changes ===<br /> <br /> * Developer starts new project with same contractor and specifications as previous project but the BREEAM scheme has changed…difficult to reach the same target !<br /> * Design changes - or changes on site that are not communicated properly. So subcontractors and designers not being fully aware of BREEAM requirements and how a specification meets those.<br /> * We are still having Clients telling us as Contractors “don’t worry, the design will just move and change throughout the project delivery.” If they have employed BREEAM AP’s this really should not be something they are saying…...<br /> * Changes in scope of work or building types as project progresses on speculative projects.<br /> <br /> === Communication ===<br /> <br /> * Client’s not understanding what a Contractor can actually deliver means that the scope of works are either too wishy washy leaving the requirements unclear and Contractors confused. At the other extreme, Clients just put all of the risk of BREEAM delivery onto the Contractor but then either don’t feed that into the contractual requirements or don’t check that other contractual requirements contradict BREEAM.<br /> * With traditional projects, with contractors prelims, project teams try to maximise Wst 01 credits by moving them over to the contractor, which sometime gets too onerous for the contractor - forcing them to cut corners (VE) in other areas.<br /> * Client handing an Interim Stage Assessment to a Contractor and saying go deliver this and expecting the Contractor to be able to price and re-design within an extremely tight timescales.<br /> * Have sent a WeTransfer link which expires after a week that was not opened in time - delay on getting feedback<br /> * Achievement of credits at the design stage not always carried over into PCR achievement - break down in communication between design and construction teams<br /> * Assuming future building occupiers will create compliant finishing / fit-out works.<br /> * If a client/contractor sells a project as BREEAM to the future building occupier too cheaply without having any expertise nor motivation.<br /> * Change over points in responsibility for different team members to take the lead with a credit area. This can include, for example, from design team members to Contractor but also between Design Team managers and their site staff- communication is key.<br /> * Contractors who have a pre construction team and forget to advise the construction team of the BREEAM requirements and the commitments that have been made.<br /> * Discuss with the client and the design team about possible cost of each credit<br /> <br /> === Criteria details ===<br /> <br /> * Level of overly prescriptive requirements in some criteria compared to others (eg transparency of blinds - doesn’t make a building more sustainable so possible not appropriate to include)<br /> * Criteria that suits some projects better than others, e.g. Wst 01 waste targets are easily achieved on Industrial units (and all shell only, shell and core projects) but for a fitted out building it’s very onerous.<br /> * Some credits such as Waste storage and cycle storage credits are difficult to get on small office/ retial units, when no site wide provisions are available. At design stage, credits were achieved as these were shown on drawings but at PC, there wasn’t anything provided physically as this meant reduction in net lettable space.<br /> * Mandatory LE03 credit missed because there is not the space or resources in place to mitigate the ecological impact.<br /> * Site records not being kept as confirmed at design stage even though a meeting has been held with the site team to discuss and run through their requirements.<br /> * Specification not carrying specific enough requirements to fulfill BREEAM targets (eg Sustainable sourcing of timber. I found it quite common that architects are writing in their specification that all timber should be responsibly sourced but if not available then …. - this second part after “but” should not appear if you want to achieve BREEAM)<br /> <br /> === Planning ===<br /> <br /> * On some of these projects the Planning requirement/ contract agreements require BREEAM Excellent, which is nearly impossible.<br /> <br /> === Scope ===<br /> <br /> * Pre Assessment tracker does not align with actual contract terms of agreement for scope - not picked up until later stages<br /> <br /> === Timing ===<br /> <br /> * Clients can miss the early RIBA credits, including the AP ones which can make achieving ‘Excellent’ very difficult<br /> * Late engagement (e.g. client expecting contractor to take the risk of compliance)<br /> * In most of our current RFO projects, our appointment has been at late stage 2 or early RIBA stage 3, due to which early credits are lost.<br /> * Appointing consultants at the correct stage to help inform the design is often an issue.<br /> * Client only considers BREEAM when it comes up as a planning or funding requirement - misses early stage credits, this will be more critical for BREEAM 2018 which has far more early stage requirements e.g. Ene 01, Mat 01.<br /> <br /> === Tracker tools ===<br /> <br /> * If using your own tracker always use BRE tools to double check scores and weightings etc to ensure no mistakes<br /> <br /> === Unrealistic commitments ===<br /> <br /> * Contractors giving unrealistic commitments at design stage and being unable to deliver at PCR<br /> <br /> === Value engineering ===<br /> <br /> * Design teams sign up to credits at the beginning and then key items might be value engineered out meaning credit is lost<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not guarantee the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple Author Article|Multiple Author Article]] 21:49, 21 Apr 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Tips_for_a_new_BREEAM_assessor 2018-04-21T20:48:31Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Pre-appointment =<br /> <br /> == Good questions to ask ==<br /> <br /> * Project’s particularities?<br /> * What is the actual stage of the project? Timescale?<br /> * Is a BREEAM AP appointed on the project?<br /> * What is the client’s previous experience with BREEAM, do they understand the process and the role they play.<br /> * What is the BREEAM level targeted? Is it achievable?<br /> * Is BREEAM target a client’s choice or planning requirement?<br /> * What meetings have already taken place? Are there minutes for these?<br /> * What RIBA Stage are we at? Are the RIBA Stage sensitive credits still obtainable?<br /> * Can all the mandatory credits be achieved?<br /> * What steps must be priority?<br /> <br /> = Early stages =<br /> <br /> == Applicable criteria ==<br /> <br /> * Review the site location to see what credits are achieved by default i.e. Ecology, Flood Risk or Transport issues<br /> * Always check for any building specific criteria<br /> * Could this be a ‘Simple Building’?<br /> <br /> == Pre-Assessment ==<br /> <br /> * A pre-assessment can be completed on BREEAM Projects.<br /> * What is the desired timescale for completing the pre-assessment?<br /> * If you are aiming for a target rating aim 5% higher than you need. This will help you avoid missing the targeted level because of pitfalls on your project<br /> <br /> == Briefing the client ==<br /> <br /> * Make clear to the Team the type of evidential requirements and format<br /> * Be specific and try to avoid quoting large part of the manual. Give similar examples from other projects (you are new so may need to be innovative or have a chat with more senior BREEAM assessor before the meeting)<br /> <br /> == Assessment scope ==<br /> <br /> * Check what minimum standards will apply<br /> * Which compliance notes could affect you getting the credits?<br /> <br /> == Assessment tools ==<br /> <br /> * It is also possible to use Tracker Plus and IES Tap to create Pre-Assessments and gather evidence throughout the BREEAM assessment.<br /> * Do not dismiss the available reporting tools such as Tracker+, some clients are fans<br /> * Familiarise yourself with available tools and present to the client your opinion on which is the best but ultimately if client wants to use a particular one you should go with client’s selection.<br /> <br /> == Consultants ==<br /> <br /> * Advise on early stage consultants that will be required i.e. ecologist, acoustician etc<br /> <br /> == Project info ==<br /> <br /> * In order to start an assessment you will need to know the building type, scope of works and rating required<br /> * Review what information is available<br /> * and what stage the project is at to see if any early stage credits are achievable or have been missed<br /> * What's driving the BREEAM assessment (e.g. planning requirement, client intent?)?<br /> * Targeted BREEAM rating (e.g. Very Good, Excellent)<br /> * Confirmation of current RIBA stage<br /> * Budget of project.<br /> * Project directory available listing all design team parties<br /> * What's the type of contract (e.g traditional D&amp;amp;B)?<br /> * Gross internal floor area confirmation.<br /> * M&amp;amp;E design description.<br /> * What is the sustainability approach? Has an LZC report been conducted? Is there an intent for use of renewables or any LZC technologies?<br /> * Understand what has been designed in the scheme to date<br /> * Understand the design and construction programme<br /> <br /> == Registration ==<br /> <br /> * Register your scheme as soon as you are appointed, make sure you get the right scheme<br /> <br /> = During assessment =<br /> <br /> === General advice ===<br /> <br /> * Some project teams need more support, be proactive and prepare frequent updates but make it clear it’s not your job to win the credit for them<br /> * Seek access to the owner of the building.<br /> * You are an assessor not the AP (probably or in some cases), however it is expected of you to provide explanation or certain degree of support as you are the specialist! You have to be proactive if you want repeat business<br /> * Competent communication with participants of the assessment<br /> <br /> = Report completion =<br /> <br /> === Checklist ===<br /> <br /> * Create a checklist and review before you issue your report<br /> <br /> === Evidence ===<br /> <br /> * Be as flexible as possible in terms of receiving evidence but ensure they address all the necessary criteria clearly<br /> * Site Inspection Report is the most valuable and robust type of evidence.<br /> <br /> === Referencing ===<br /> <br /> * Be as specific as possible in referencing, it makes your life and the QA team’s life a lot easier<br /> <br /> === Timescale ===<br /> <br /> * Always check with your clients if they need the certificate by a certain date, you may need to apply for fast track<br /> <br /> = Personal qualities =<br /> <br /> * Be equipped with perseverance.<br /> * Don’t pretend you know all the BREEAM Technical Requirements, nor to be an expert on each discipline (if any). Take time to understand the project and provide answers when you are clear.<br /> * Patience<br /> <br /> = Resources =<br /> <br /> === BREEAM Forum ===<br /> <br /> * If unsure you can always use the Assessor Forum to consult the advice of other assessor’s, we are all always learning with every new project so never feel stupid to ask<br /> <br /> === Knowledge Base ===<br /> <br /> * Always consult the Knowledge Base<br /> * The Knowledge Base under BREEAM Projects is very useful source of information<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not guarantee the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple_Author_Article|Multiple Author Article]] 16:28, 19 Apr 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Evidence_gathering 2018-04-21T20:47:44Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>The following comprises of comments from people with experience gathering BREEAM evidence<br /> <br /> = Briefing the Design team =<br /> <br /> === Contract clauses ===<br /> <br /> * Make sure client team are including BREEAM performance in their appointments, sub-contracts and key reporting criteria for PMs<br /> * Include in your fee proposal and initial reports information on design responsibilities relating to evidence gathering and format/types using the BREEAM evidential requirements section from the manual as a guide.<br /> * Ask the design team to add into the specifications the full list of evidence to be provided by the contractor.<br /> <br /> === Assigning responsibilities ===<br /> <br /> * A pre assessment summary report with a summary of the information required from each party<br /> * Set out strong description of what is required for each issue at a very early stage, and keep this in regular discussion, making sure people actually understand what is required and when. Ideally this should be done directly rather than at a big meeting which is often not productive, or the client is present so people nod and say ‘yes i know what im doing’ and then deliver nothing<br /> * Meeting with the full team where all issues are explained and where every team member hears what his responsibilities are. During the meeting everybody writes in the pre assessment report what he is responsible for<br /> * Clear fee scope and an early meeting to discuss and agree design team responsibilities.<br /> <br /> === Deadlines ===<br /> <br /> * Providing the team a timeline for the delivery of the evidences and managing to monitor this.<br /> <br /> === Documentation ===<br /> <br /> * Prepare a Contractors BREEAM Specification document, an M&amp;amp;E BREEAM spec document and Architects BREEAM spec which describe what is required and when<br /> * Provide schedule of evidence required against each credit and assign responsibilities<br /> <br /> === General tips ===<br /> <br /> * Evidence examples and templates are very useful for teams<br /> * Ensure team know how to improve any evidence sent asap, what is good / acceptable and what is not compliant<br /> * Collaborate with the BREEAM AP or other client project owner, throughout the design and construction phases. Indirectly keep BREEAM on the project team’s agenda!<br /> * Praise good evidence so they know they can produce this in the future for further assessments<br /> * Clearly explain that most evidence can be based on “usual” project documents if they contain the information needed.<br /> <br /> = Chasing evidence =<br /> <br /> === Tracking tools ===<br /> <br /> * Online portal through which all project team members can access the<br /> * criteria and provide evidence in real time.<br /> * We use IESTap<br /> * Use shared online spaces for sharing documents and records (Dropbox, OneDrive, etc), ensuring the privacy and correct visibility of each folder for each design team/requirement/theme<br /> * IES TaP or BREEAM TrackerPlus work well, but<br /> <br /> === Progress updates ===<br /> <br /> * Provide regular feedback on the evidence they submit rather than just leaving it so they don’t know where they stand<br /> * Attend regular meetings to provide updates on the evidence still needed<br /> * Send out regular evidence trackers - use traffic light system to name and shame the team.Enter here<br /> * Regular updated action lists for each project team member confirming exactly what they need to provide<br /> * Issue regular score update and list containing the typical design/post construction stage evidence required.<br /> * Regular updates and feedback on what has (or hasn’t) been provided<br /> <br /> === General tips ===<br /> <br /> * Setting dates<br /> * A good collaboration with BREEAM AP gives assessors better access to and influence on project team throughout design and construction.<br /> <br /> = Find out more =<br /> <br /> === Related articles ===<br /> <br /> * [[BREEAM_Evidence_types_by_issue|BREEAM Evidence types by issue]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Evidence_referencing|BREEAM Evidence referencing]]<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not guarantee the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple_Author_Article|Multiple Author Article]] 16:27, 19 Apr 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Evidence_types_by_issue 2018-04-21T20:46:59Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>This page contains example evidence types by BREEAM scheme issue suggested by users of the schemes. If you have further examples of useful evidence types that can be used to demonstrate compliance please add them to the list<br /> <br /> == Management ==<br /> <br /> {|<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;|<br /> <br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Design stage<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Post construction<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Stakeholder consultation<br /> |<br /> Sign in sheets, feedback forms, Agendas, meeting invites, Meeting<br /> <br /> Meeting Minutes<br /> <br /> Project brief<br /> <br /> Photographs from consultation events<br /> <br /> Design &amp;amp; Access statement<br /> <br /> File note with a description of the process that has been taken<br /> | Consultation responses and feedback to consultees<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Sustainability champion<br /> |<br /> BREEAM AP Certificate<br /> <br /> Letter of appointment<br /> <br /> Meeting Minutes/Reports<br /> |<br /> BREEAM AP stage reports<br /> <br /> Meeting minutes<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Life cycle cost and service life planning<br /> |<br /> LCC Report<br /> <br /> File notes from project team demonstrating how LCC study impacted design decisions etc<br /> | Letter of confirmation from developer/contractor showing that the lowest LCC option (as selected at Design stage) has been implemented.<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Environmental management<br /> | Copy of ISO 14001 Certification. Specification, contract clause or letter of commitment to follow best practice policies and procedures<br /> | Final implementation plans and corresponding copy of ISO 14001 certification for materials<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Considerate construction<br /> |<br /> Letter of commitment to score targeted, including individual scores in each section - signed and dated. Letter confirming registration and targeted score<br /> <br /> Contract document with BREEAM requirements<br /> |<br /> CCS final certificate<br /> <br /> CCS final SIte Monitors Report<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Monitoring of construction site impacts<br /> | Letter of commitment; Screenshots/ output from SMARTwaste etc used to monitor site impacts<br /> | Energy &amp;amp; water graphs<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Commissioning<br /> | Letter confirming appointment and details of this<br /> |<br /> Commissioning records<br /> <br /> O&amp;amp;M Manuals<br /> <br /> Confirmation letters<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Handover<br /> | Confirmation of production of a Building User Guide<br /> | Building User Guide<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Inclusive and accessible design<br /> |<br /> Design &amp;amp;<br /> <br /> Access statement<br /> <br /> Architect notes with accessibility explanations<br /> | Site inspection confirmations<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Aftercare support<br /> | Letter of commitment<br /> |<br /> Aftercare plan<br /> <br /> List of support team<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Seasonal commissioning<br /> | Specification, contract clause or letter of commitment to undertake seasonal commissioning<br /> | Commissioning records (minutes, action plans)<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Post occupancy evaluation<br /> | Plan of what to do and when<br /> | Program to show when to carry out evaluation<br /> |}<br /> <br /> == Health and Wellbeing ==<br /> <br /> {|<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;|<br /> <br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Design stage<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Post construction<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Daylighting<br /> | Daylighting calculation report<br /> | Technical notices of windows and corresponding final implementation plans : these documents must comply with daylighting calculation report<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM View out<br /> | Marked up GA plan<br /> | Assessors site inspection and photographs from PCR visit<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Glare control<br /> |<br /> Typical floor layout, technical specification<br /> <br /> Designer’s letter of intent where not detail design available yet<br /> |<br /> As-built drawings<br /> <br /> Technical data sheet with the user control description<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Internal and external lighting<br /> |<br /> Specification confirming requirements<br /> <br /> Drawing showing internal lighting layout and zoning arrangements<br /> | As built drawings showing internal and external lighting design<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Indoor air quality plan<br /> | IAQ plan<br /> |<br /> IAQ plan<br /> <br /> Flush out protocols<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Ventilation<br /> |<br /> Air handling equipment written specifications.<br /> <br /> Fresh air intakes location<br /> |<br /> Datasheets of the equipments<br /> <br /> As-built drawings<br /> <br /> Visual inspection<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Indoor pollutants VOCs<br /> | List of presumed materials within the project with standards/limits requirements<br /> | Products’ technical files with VOC information<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Potential for natural ventilation<br /> |<br /> Architectural drawings<br /> <br /> Simulation study where relevant<br /> |<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Safe containment in laboratories<br /> |<br /> <br /> |<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Thermal comfort<br /> |<br /> 1. Thermal Comfort Report<br /> <br /> 2. Statement confirming that the thermal comfort strategy has influenced the design.<br /> <br /> 3. Heating/cooling drawings.<br /> |<br /> 1. Confirmation of no changes or updated thermal comfort report.<br /> <br /> 2. Assessor Site Inspection<br /> <br /> 3. As built drawings<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Acoustic performance<br /> |<br /> Design acoustic report<br /> <br /> Email confirming compliant pre completion acoustic testing<br /> | Testing report showing compliance<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Safety and security<br /> | ALO/SQSS report<br /> | Site inspection and purchase orders confirming recommendations were implemented<br /> |}<br /> <br /> == Energy ==<br /> <br /> {|<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;|<br /> <br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Design stage<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Post construction<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Reduction of energy use and carbon emissions<br /> |<br /> Copy of as designed SBEM<br /> <br /> Confirmation of energy assessor’s accreditation<br /> |<br /> As Built SBEM<br /> <br /> Confirmation of energy assessor’s accreditation<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Energy monitoring<br /> |<br /> Schematics and specifications<br /> <br /> Submetering schematic<br /> <br /> BMS specifications<br /> |<br /> Meter commissioning records<br /> <br /> BMS printscreen<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM External lighting<br /> |<br /> External lighting drawings<br /> <br /> Specification confirming efficacies<br /> |<br /> Manufacturer’s datasheets<br /> <br /> Photo evidence<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Low carbon design<br /> | LZC feasibility report<br /> |<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Passive design<br /> | Passive design report<br /> |<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Free cooling<br /> |<br /> <br /> |<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM LZC technologies<br /> | LZCT Feasibility study<br /> |<br /> As built drawing<br /> <br /> Photo evidence of LZCT that’s been installed<br /> <br /> Specification of the LZCT system that are used for the assessed building<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Energy efficient cold storage<br /> | Designer description of cold storage, including required design features applied and TEWI calculation.<br /> | Assessors site inspection and photographs from PCR visit<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Energy efficient transportation Systems<br /> |<br /> Transport demand analysis<br /> <br /> Lift comparison<br /> <br /> Lift specification<br /> | Site Inspection to confirm installation<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Energy efficient laboratory systems<br /> |<br /> <br /> |<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Energy efficient equipment<br /> | Written specifications for the foreseen equipment<br /> | Datasheet of the equipment<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Drying space<br /> |<br /> GA plan<br /> <br /> Confirmation statement stating how much drying space will be provided<br /> | Photo evidence and assessor site inspection report<br /> |}<br /> <br /> == Transport ==<br /> <br /> {|<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;|<br /> <br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Design stage<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Post construction<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Public transport accessibility<br /> |<br /> Scaled map showing location of bus/train/subway nodes, distance to these from building main entrance and services which stop there<br /> <br /> Timetables highlighted with appropriate stop.<br /> <br /> For London projects the TFL website can be used to download the PTAL report.<br /> |<br /> As design stage or where 12 months has lapsed, up to date timetables or PTAL report.<br /> <br /> Where relevant site inspection and photos of transport nodes.<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Proximity to amenities<br /> | Google maps annotated with distances.<br /> | Assessor site inspection and photos<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Cyclist facilities<br /> |<br /> Drawings<br /> <br /> Confirmation of building user numbers<br /> |<br /> Drawings and pictures<br /> <br /> Site Inspection report<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Alternative modes of transport<br /> |<br /> <br /> |<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Maximum car parking capacity<br /> |<br /> Drawings<br /> <br /> Confirmation from designers/clients with number of building users<br /> | Drawings and pictures<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Travel plan<br /> |<br /> Travel Plan<br /> <br /> Design drawings demonstrating that the travel plan recommendations have been implemented<br /> <br /> Letter confirming that a copy of the Travel Plan will be provided to all future tenants - speculative units<br /> |<br /> As built drawings<br /> <br /> Assessor site inspection<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Home office<br /> |<br /> <br /> |<br /> <br /> |}<br /> <br /> == Water ==<br /> <br /> {|<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;|<br /> <br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Design stage<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Post construction<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Water consumption<br /> |<br /> Sanitaryware schedule<br /> <br /> Floor plans<br /> <br /> Water schematic<br /> <br /> Area schedule from the architect<br /> <br /> Calculator tool<br /> |<br /> As built water schematic (water)<br /> <br /> As built floor plans<br /> <br /> Manufacturers data sheets<br /> <br /> Site inspection<br /> <br /> Confirmation of no changes (or additional info as above)<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Water monitoring<br /> |<br /> Schematics/specification<br /> <br /> Submetering schematic<br /> <br /> BMS specifications<br /> |<br /> Assessor site inspection<br /> <br /> As built drawings/schematics<br /> <br /> Manufacturer’s records (commissioning) confirming meter has a pulsed output<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Water leak detection<br /> |<br /> Water schematic<br /> <br /> Specifications<br /> <br /> Product details<br /> |<br /> Site inspection<br /> <br /> As built schematic<br /> <br /> Manufacturer’s literature<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Water efficient equipment<br /> |<br /> Specification of irrigation system (if there is one)<br /> <br /> If no irrigation system is specified- confirmation letter<br /> <br /> Confirmation letter stating how the landscape/ planting has minimised water usage<br /> |<br /> <br /> |}<br /> <br /> == Materials ==<br /> <br /> {|<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;|<br /> <br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Design stage<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Post construction<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Life cycle impacts<br /> |<br /> LCA Analysis<br /> <br /> Design specifications used to inform the Analysis<br /> <br /> Filled in Mat 01 Calculator<br /> | Confirmation whether updates were required and updated LCA Analysis<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Hard landscaping and boundary protection<br /> |<br /> Hard Landscape and boundary protection material schedule/ specification<br /> <br /> Drawings showing ty<br /> |<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Responsible sourcing of materials<br /> | List of presumed materials, reference specification (suppliers) with resp. sourcing requirements<br /> | Summary list of relevant materials developed by GC Certificates<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Insulation<br /> |<br /> Initial area/thickness and volume take offs<br /> <br /> Details of insulation to be used<br /> |<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Designing for durability and resilience<br /> | Drawing of designed durability measures.<br /> | Assessors site inspection and photographs from PCR visit<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Material efficiency<br /> |<br /> Material efficiency report.<br /> <br /> Summary technical report.<br /> | Assessors site inspection and photographs from PCR visit<br /> |}<br /> <br /> == Waste ==<br /> <br /> {|<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;|<br /> <br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Design stage<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Post construction<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Construction waste management<br /> | Contractor’s specifications<br /> |<br /> Site specific waste management plan<br /> <br /> Waste collection data<br /> <br /> Waste processing data<br /> <br /> Site visit reports with photographic evidence<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Recycled aggregates<br /> | Calculation % of recycled aggregates.<br /> |<br /> Checklist A6.<br /> <br /> Delivery confirmation.<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Operational waste<br /> | Drawings<br /> | Drawings and Post construction inspection report<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Speculative floor &amp;amp; ceiling finishes<br /> |<br /> <br /> |<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Adaptation to climate change<br /> | Adaptation to climate change study.<br /> | Assessors site inspection and photographs from PCR visit.<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Functional adaptability<br /> | Functional adaptability study. Summary technical report.<br /> | Assessors site inspection and photographs from PCR visit<br /> |}<br /> <br /> == Land Use and Ecology ==<br /> <br /> {|<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;|<br /> <br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Design stage<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Post construction<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Site Selection<br /> |<br /> Existing site plan<br /> <br /> Proposed site plan<br /> |<br /> Existing site plan<br /> <br /> ‘As built’ development<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Ecological value of site<br /> | Ecology Report<br /> | Landscape Drawings and Schedules<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Protection of ecological features<br /> | Ecology Report<br /> | Contractor evidence and assessor site inspection reports/photos<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Minimising impact on existing site ecology<br /> | Ecology Report<br /> |<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Enhancing site ecology<br /> | Ecology Report<br /> |<br /> Landscape Drawings and Schedules<br /> <br /> Assessors site inspection and photographs from PCR visit.<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Long term impact on biodiversity<br /> | Ecology Report<br /> | In case of habitat creation assessors site inspection and photographs from PCR visit.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> == Pollution ==<br /> <br /> {|<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;|<br /> <br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Design stage<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Post construction<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Impact of refrigerants<br /> |<br /> General specifications<br /> <br /> Filled in calculator tool with estimates<br /> |<br /> Technical specifications<br /> <br /> Filled in calculator tool with actual technical data<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM NOx emissions<br /> | M&amp;amp;E Specification<br /> | Product Datasheet<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Flood risk management<br /> | FRA,<br /> | Confirmation if changes occur<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Surface water run-off<br /> | FRA, Design Drawings and Specification<br /> | Assessors site inspection and photographs from PCR visit.<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Reduction of night time light pollution<br /> |<br /> External lighting drawings<br /> <br /> Calculation and drawings how is CIE fulfilled.<br /> | Assessors site inspection and photographs from PCR visit.<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Reduction of noise pollution<br /> |<br /> Acoustic study for background noise levels.<br /> <br /> Acoustician contract with achievement measurements.<br /> |<br /> Measurements.<br /> <br /> OR<br /> <br /> Confirmation within 800m radius of the assessed site.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> = Find out more =<br /> <br /> === Related articles ===<br /> <br /> * [[BREEAM_Evidence_gathering|BREEAM Evidence gathering]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Evidence_referencing|BREEAM Evidence referencing]]<br /> <br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Guarantee guarantee] the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> This page created originally by 70+ assessors and APs at a BREEAM Professionals workshop March 2018<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not guarantee the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple_Author_Article|Multiple Author Article]] 16:26, 19 Apr 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Tips_for_a_new_BREEAM_assessor 2018-04-19T15:28:39Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Pre-appointment =<br /> <br /> == Good questions to ask ==<br /> <br /> * Project’s particularities?<br /> * What is the actual stage of the project? Timescale?<br /> * Is a BREEAM AP appointed on the project?<br /> * What is the client’s previous experience with BREEAM, do they understand the process and the role they play.<br /> * What is the BREEAM level targeted? Is it achievable?<br /> * Is BREEAM target a client’s choice or planning requirement?<br /> * What meetings have already taken place? Are there minutes for these?<br /> * What RIBA Stage are we at? Are the RIBA Stage sensitive credits still obtainable?<br /> * Can all the mandatory credits be achieved?<br /> * What steps must be priority?<br /> <br /> = Early stages =<br /> <br /> == Applicable criteria ==<br /> <br /> * Review the site location to see what credits are achieved by default i.e. Ecology, Flood Risk or Transport issues<br /> * Always check for any building specific criteria<br /> * Could this be a ‘Simple Building’?<br /> <br /> == Pre-Assessment ==<br /> <br /> * A pre-assessment can be completed on BREEAM Projects.<br /> * What is the desired timescale for completing the pre-assessment?<br /> * If you are aiming for a target rating aim 5% higher than you need. This will help you avoid missing the targeted level because of pitfalls on your project<br /> <br /> == Briefing the client ==<br /> <br /> * Make clear to the Team the type of evidential requirements and format<br /> * Be specific and try to avoid quoting large part of the manual. Give similar examples from other projects (you are new so may need to be innovative or have a chat with more senior BREEAM assessor before the meeting)<br /> <br /> == Assessment scope ==<br /> <br /> * Check what minimum standards will apply<br /> * Which compliance notes could affect you getting the credits?<br /> <br /> == Assessment tools ==<br /> <br /> * It is also possible to use Tracker Plus and IES Tap to create Pre-Assessments and gather evidence throughout the BREEAM assessment.<br /> * Do not dismiss the available reporting tools such as Tracker+, some clients are fans<br /> * Familiarise yourself with available tools and present to the client your opinion on which is the best but ultimately if client wants to use a particular one you should go with client’s selection.<br /> <br /> == Consultants ==<br /> <br /> * Advise on early stage consultants that will be required i.e. ecologist, acoustician etc<br /> <br /> == Project info ==<br /> <br /> * In order to start an assessment you will need to know the building type, scope of works and rating required<br /> * Review what information is available<br /> * and what stage the project is at to see if any early stage credits are achievable or have been missed<br /> * What's driving the BREEAM assessment (e.g. planning requirement, client intent?)?<br /> * Targeted BREEAM rating (e.g. Very Good, Excellent)<br /> * Confirmation of current RIBA stage<br /> * Budget of project.<br /> * Project directory available listing all design team parties<br /> * What's the type of contract (e.g traditional D&amp;amp;B)?<br /> * Gross internal floor area confirmation.<br /> * M&amp;amp;E design description.<br /> * What is the sustainability approach? Has an LZC report been conducted? Is there an intent for use of renewables or any LZC technologies?<br /> * Understand what has been designed in the scheme to date<br /> * Understand the design and construction programme<br /> <br /> == Registration ==<br /> <br /> * Register your scheme as soon as you are appointed, make sure you get the right scheme<br /> <br /> = During assessment =<br /> <br /> === General advice ===<br /> <br /> * Some project teams need more support, be proactive and prepare frequent updates but make it clear it’s not your job to win the credit for them<br /> * Seek access to the owner of the building.<br /> * You are an assessor not the AP (probably or in some cases), however it is expected of you to provide explanation or certain degree of support as you are the specialist! You have to be proactive if you want repeat business<br /> * Competent communication with participants of the assessment<br /> <br /> = Report completion =<br /> <br /> === Checklist ===<br /> <br /> * Create a checklist and review before you issue your report<br /> <br /> === Evidence ===<br /> <br /> * Be as flexible as possible in terms of receiving evidence but ensure they address all the necessary criteria clearly<br /> * Site Inspection Report is the most valuable and robust type of evidence.<br /> <br /> === Referencing ===<br /> <br /> * Be as specific as possible in referencing, it makes your life and the QA team’s life a lot easier<br /> <br /> === Timescale ===<br /> <br /> * Always check with your clients if they need the certificate by a certain date, you may need to apply for fast track<br /> <br /> = Personal qualities =<br /> <br /> * Be equipped with perseverance.<br /> * Don’t pretend you know all the BREEAM Technical Requirements, nor to be an expert on each discipline (if any). Take time to understand the project and provide answers when you are clear.<br /> * Patience<br /> <br /> = Resources =<br /> <br /> === BREEAM Forum ===<br /> <br /> * If unsure you can always use the Assessor Forum to consult the advice of other assessor’s, we are all always learning with every new project so never feel stupid to ask<br /> <br /> === Knowledge Base ===<br /> <br /> * Always consult the Knowledge Base<br /> * The Knowledge Base under BREEAM Projects is very useful source of information<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple Author Article|Multiple Author Article]] 16:28, 19 Apr 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Site_visits 2018-04-19T15:28:12Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>The following is a write up of the BREEAM Assessors online workshop in June 2016 regarding many different aspects of site visits<br /> <br /> * All bulleted text are assessor comments<br /> <br /> = Frequency and barriers =<br /> <br /> === Frequency ===<br /> <br /> BRE set no minimum for the number of site visits but the Operations manual does state ‘good practice suggests that between 2 and 3 site visits is appropriate as a minimum’. We asked assessors how many they do typically and then asked how many would be best to maximise sustainability on the project. These were the results (68 assessors):<br /> <br /> {|<br /> | No of site visits<br /> | What assessors currently do<br /> | What assessors think is optimal<br /> |-<br /> | 1<br /> | 13<br /> | 3<br /> |-<br /> | 2<br /> | 17<br /> | 13<br /> |-<br /> | 3<br /> | 16<br /> | 31<br /> |-<br /> | 4<br /> | 22<br /> | 21<br /> |-<br /> | Average<br /> | 2.7<br /> | 3<br /> |}<br /> <br /> You can see that assessors suggest 3 visits on average is optimal but 44% do less than this. Several said the optimal number was project specific:<br /> <br /> * Depends on project<br /> * Larger projects need more but small simple buildings are not complicated and do not need multiple visits.<br /> * It is however, very site specific. I wouldn't bother with more than 3 for a simple office building for instance. I have a project with a mosque and 4 school buildings, which will vastly increase the site visits/costs<br /> <br /> There are clearly some barriers to carrying out several site visits and some assessors consider a single visit at the end has benefits<br /> <br /> * How does the cost cover 3 or more site visits? My clients cannot afford that many site visits.<br /> * For BREEAM there isn't a lot you cannot see at the end. Solenoid valves and insulation is about it - so how useful is an intermediate visit?<br /> <br /> === Barriers ===<br /> <br /> Typical Barriers to site visits:<br /> <br /> * Costs - client not wanting to pay<br /> * Distance to site<br /> * Workload<br /> * Contractor cooperation<br /> * Time<br /> * Not knowing when site will be ready<br /> * Liability - if BREEAM assessors take on role of checking things are built to spec you open yourself up to being sued if you have missed anything - not our role and our insurance wouldn't cover it.<br /> * Site induction and CSCS card requirement<br /> * Hard to tell client that contractor has not delivered<br /> * Timing several visits correctly<br /> <br /> * Safety - Last stages of a project can be high risk from H&amp;amp;S perspective (lots of trades moving about site) and therefore contractors are reluctant to add to this mix<br /> <br /> Distance – is collaboration a solution?<br /> <br /> * Sometimes our sites are in other countries<br /> * Location of site, can be 4 /5 hours away &amp;amp; not accessible via train<br /> * 'Frequent' site visits limit an assessor to where geographically assessments can be undertaken as travel time and costs will increase fees<br /> * Distance problem? Team up with a local Assessor<br /> <br /> Costs<br /> <br /> * It’s hard to quote fees for site visits with new clients as you don’t know if they will be great at BREEAM or novices and require further hand holding and visits<br /> * Clients are against it because of costs<br /> * If a client is against it then surely those are the sites that DEFINITELY need visits - and more of them?<br /> <br /> = Tips – what makes a difference? =<br /> <br /> === Get the client’s support ===<br /> <br /> * Support from the client during construction that the BREEAM certification is important and needs to remain on the agenda throughout construction.<br /> * Find among the people in the contractor team the one who is willing to do something more for our environment. Once you identified that person, things go much better.<br /> * Having a 'sustainability champion' or trained Assessor on site/part of the contractors team<br /> <br /> === Minimise paperwork ===<br /> <br /> * Be careful not to overwhelm with paperwork<br /> * Realistically, more paper work could mean more unread paperwork. I think it is crucial to name the people that are responsible at all levels for BREEAM implementation.<br /> * You need to ABSOLUTELY MINIMISE AT ALL COSTS the paperwork you give to Site Staff. When you first meet them, find out what they already do in their own site checking procedures and take natural advantage of what evidence they gather on a regular basis – such as asking for an occasional email from them with relevant progress photographs OR simply ask to be included on their site progress reporting emails. For them an email is easy but a form to fill is GOING to be avoided.<br /> <br /> === Actively Engage ===<br /> <br /> * Project teams only care about delivery and they need a push from Assessors.<br /> * Get talking to the site manager from the get-go and keep calling every so often so that she/he knows WHO you are and WHAT you are about. Then when you meet it will be as two colleagues seeking a common goal.<br /> * Fully informing the site manager is key<br /> * Identifying the design team/contractors is important. AP's/Assessors are more likely a lot faster in telling specialists the exact information they require, rather than relying on the client. An example would be contacting the glazing specialist yourself and being concise about the evidence required<br /> * Regular phone discussion with site agent<br /> * The regular issuing of trackers (with useful notes) to remind them of their requirements and commitments<br /> * Ensure that your regular Site Report or Job Report goes under the nose of the Client or Client's Representative AND the Project Manager AND the Site Foreman AND the Contractor’s Project Manager - as demonstration of your value and as a snapshot of what has been independently witnessed on site and as a key indication of both ‘warnings’ and what is needed in order to comply.<br /> * One problem: we need to be considered as partners, not as inspectors when visiting the site. It helps.<br /> <br /> === Educate where you can ===<br /> <br /> * It is important to raise awareness of the whole team at the beginning of site works, so that BREEAM is in the site works weekly agenda even if we are not here<br /> * Toolbox meetings for the people working on site so everyone know what the aims are and not only the site manager. The contractor has to see the workers are getting excited about the issues ;-)<br /> <br /> === Site access tips ===<br /> <br /> * MEP engineers can have access to even more areas than assessors - they might have permission to go to areas of site where assessors might not have<br /> * MEP engineers do site visits and can take photos for us assessors<br /> <br /> === Site visits are a good way to get robust evidence ===<br /> <br /> * Hardly any Clients pay for As Built drawings - even on high-spec schemes<br /> * In general, site visit would be the most efficient way to get robust evidence. Compared to evidence gathering.<br /> <br /> === Builds experience and credibility ===<br /> <br /> * More and more site visits builds up hands-on experience. Competitive assessors could possibly sell this experience to their clients<br /> <br /> === General Benefits ===<br /> <br /> * If complying with the BREEAM issues can bring something more exciting than the usual building works, the contractor seems sometimes likely to go far for it. We have to communicate well about the environmental benefits for all<br /> * Agree, I often wish I had time (money!) to put something together at the end with their certificate - like well done, you've saved the equivalent of driving round the world 5 times in CO2 and enough water to fill, something to at least put some (light hearted) realism in to what that certificate means..<br /> * Brilliant idea! That would make it such a tangible benefit.<br /> <br /> === Share best practice ===<br /> <br /> * Sharing good practice from the sites around the world would help.<br /> <br /> = Site visit checklists =<br /> <br /> === Master checklists ===<br /> <br /> * A general checklist is easy for BRE to create and applicable to all jobs. The one's I've created previously extracted the necessary photos/site evidence from BRE guidance, in Excel format so comments could be added at each site visit (including photo references to help QA audits).<br /> * You can have a master checklist for the use of assessors which can be filtered if responsibilities are assigned so it can generate sub lists for distribution to different team members<br /> <br /> === Project specific checklists ===<br /> <br /> * I think it’s really important that the lists are specific to the job and not generic, extracting relevant information from the design and using this information in the checklists is essential<br /> * I agree<br /> * Any half decent assessor should have their own checklist / Site inspection report<br /> * General checklists adds to the &amp;quot;BREEAM is only a tick box&amp;quot; effect<br /> * Internally, we tried a lot to do some standard checklist, but finally there are always too many specificities for each project, even simple projects<br /> * I agree, the contractor always point the generalities you may have left in the checklist and says it doesn't apply to the project, so it introduces doubts about the quality of the entire checklist...<br /> <br /> === Checklists for the site manager ===<br /> <br /> * I find that producing an on-site checklist is really useful. We produce these for site managers (as these aren't often involved heavily with the BREEAM) outlining the items we typically need to see on site e.g. labelled refuse store and the things they need to make sure they're doing e.g. monitoring water/energy etc.<br /> * We provide the checklist either in person at the pre-contract meeting or as a report followed up with a phone call to the site manager.<br /> * A standalone checklist for site manager's to make them aware of what has been agreed at design. Often the site manager is are not aware of what the design manager has put in their commitment letters!<br /> * Often we get info that is created just for BREEAM but then not passed onto the site team and therefore it can't be achieved at PCR stage.<br /> * The assessment can often go wrong when the site manager is not aware<br /> * When I have BREEAM review meetings on site, I usually ask the site manager to be there.<br /> <br /> === Qualities of a good checklist ===<br /> <br /> * The site visit list should mention the NAME of the PERSON responsible for each item. Otherwise it comes out to be a &amp;quot;we'll care for that&amp;quot;<br /> * A checklist with defined responsibilities<br /> * A well laid out checklist for each project team member<br /> * I’ve found a tracker showing the whole evidence required and who is responsible puts the relevant team members off. They just want to know their own contribution<br /> * Any checklist should indicate what is mandatory to photograph<br /> * Things we expect to see on site (in line with design stage evidence)... i.e. labelled refuse store AND things the site manager should be doing i.e. monitoring site water and recording this data and displaying these on site, it’s important to get all relevant PCR items down in one list and given to the appropriate people i.e. those who are responsible for doing it<br /> <br /> === Checklist Tips ===<br /> <br /> Prepare a list of things you need to see on site in advance and send it to the contractor prior to the visit - the site visit is more organised and the contractor can tell you in advance if something won't be available to see<br /> <br /> * I think a checklist is great and instead of being seen a 'box ticking' exercise it can be seen as a schedule for the contractor to use to ensure the final visit is well timed<br /> * If the contractor participates in creating the list he will be more willing to follow the items.<br /> <br /> === Checklist support ===<br /> <br /> * Guidance in the BREEAM manual re: what needs to be witnessed/ photographed at each site visit - this would be particularly useful for those newly qualified under NC 2014 as little guidance is given.<br /> <br /> = Site visit kit list =<br /> <br /> * Archisnapper (software)<br /> * BREEAM associate - if one on client team<br /> * BREEAM Tracker tool<br /> * Camera<br /> ** On long lanyard<br /> ** Camera - Did see an acoustician use a selfie stick to get a photo inside a cavity once...<br /> ** Camera battery<br /> ** Camera with date stamp<br /> * Checklist<br /> * Checklist of photos to take<br /> * Clipboard<br /> * Copy of Design Stage report<br /> * Copy of ecology and day-lighting reports<br /> * Design drawings<br /> * Design specification<br /> * Floor plans<br /> * Food/snacks<br /> * Highlighter pen<br /> * HVAC, DHW, Lighting drawings/schematics<br /> * Laser measure<br /> * Marked up drawings with photo locations<br /> * Measuring tape<br /> * Paper<br /> * Pen<br /> * Pencil<br /> * Person with keys to access all areas<br /> * Site plans<br /> * Torch<br /> * Voice recorder<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Guarantee guarantee] the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple Author Article|Multiple Author Article]] 16:28, 19 Apr 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Evidence_gathering 2018-04-19T15:27:39Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>The following comprises of comments from people with experience gathering BREEAM evidence<br /> <br /> = Briefing the Design team =<br /> <br /> === Contract clauses ===<br /> <br /> * Make sure client team are including BREEAM performance in their appointments, sub-contracts and key reporting criteria for PMs<br /> * Include in your fee proposal and initial reports information on design responsibilities relating to evidence gathering and format/types using the BREEAM evidential requirements section from the manual as a guide.<br /> * Ask the design team to add into the specifications the full list of evidence to be provided by the contractor.<br /> <br /> === Assigning responsibilities ===<br /> <br /> * A pre assessment summary report with a summary of the information required from each party<br /> * Set out strong description of what is required for each issue at a very early stage, and keep this in regular discussion, making sure people actually understand what is required and when. Ideally this should be done directly rather than at a big meeting which is often not productive, or the client is present so people nod and say ‘yes i know what im doing’ and then deliver nothing<br /> * Meeting with the full team where all issues are explained and where every team member hears what his responsibilities are. During the meeting everybody writes in the pre assessment report what he is responsible for<br /> * Clear fee scope and an early meeting to discuss and agree design team responsibilities.<br /> <br /> === Deadlines ===<br /> <br /> * Providing the team a timeline for the delivery of the evidences and managing to monitor this.<br /> <br /> === Documentation ===<br /> <br /> * Prepare a Contractors BREEAM Specification document, an M&amp;amp;E BREEAM spec document and Architects BREEAM spec which describe what is required and when<br /> * Provide schedule of evidence required against each credit and assign responsibilities<br /> <br /> === General tips ===<br /> <br /> * Evidence examples and templates are very useful for teams<br /> * Ensure team know how to improve any evidence sent asap, what is good / acceptable and what is not compliant<br /> * Collaborate with the BREEAM AP or other client project owner, throughout the design and construction phases. Indirectly keep BREEAM on the project team’s agenda!<br /> * Praise good evidence so they know they can produce this in the future for further assessments<br /> * Clearly explain that most evidence can be based on “usual” project documents if they contain the information needed.<br /> <br /> = Chasing evidence =<br /> <br /> === Tracking tools ===<br /> <br /> * Online portal through which all project team members can access the<br /> * criteria and provide evidence in real time.<br /> * We use IESTap<br /> * Use shared online spaces for sharing documents and records (Dropbox, OneDrive, etc), ensuring the privacy and correct visibility of each folder for each design team/requirement/theme<br /> * IES TaP or BREEAM TrackerPlus work well, but<br /> <br /> === Progress updates ===<br /> <br /> * Provide regular feedback on the evidence they submit rather than just leaving it so they don’t know where they stand<br /> * Attend regular meetings to provide updates on the evidence still needed<br /> * Send out regular evidence trackers - use traffic light system to name and shame the team.Enter here<br /> * Regular updated action lists for each project team member confirming exactly what they need to provide<br /> * Issue regular score update and list containing the typical design/post construction stage evidence required.<br /> * Regular updates and feedback on what has (or hasn’t) been provided<br /> <br /> === General tips ===<br /> <br /> * Setting dates<br /> * A good collaboration with BREEAM AP gives assessors better access to and influence on project team throughout design and construction.<br /> <br /> = Find out more =<br /> <br /> === Related articles ===<br /> <br /> * [[BREEAM_Evidence_types_by_issue|BREEAM Evidence types by issue]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Evidence_referencing|BREEAM Evidence referencing]]<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple Author Article|Multiple Author Article]] 16:27, 19 Apr 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Evidence_types_by_issue 2018-04-19T15:26:54Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>This page contains example evidence types by BREEAM scheme issue suggested by users of the schemes. If you have further examples of useful evidence types that can be used to demonstrate compliance please add them to the list<br /> <br /> == Management ==<br /> <br /> {|<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;|<br /> <br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Design stage<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Post construction<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Stakeholder consultation<br /> |<br /> Sign in sheets, feedback forms, Agendas, meeting invites, Meeting<br /> <br /> Meeting Minutes<br /> <br /> Project brief<br /> <br /> Photographs from consultation events<br /> <br /> Design &amp;amp; Access statement<br /> <br /> File note with a description of the process that has been taken<br /> | Consultation responses and feedback to consultees<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Sustainability champion<br /> |<br /> BREEAM AP Certificate<br /> <br /> Letter of appointment<br /> <br /> Meeting Minutes/Reports<br /> |<br /> BREEAM AP stage reports<br /> <br /> Meeting minutes<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Life cycle cost and service life planning<br /> |<br /> LCC Report<br /> <br /> File notes from project team demonstrating how LCC study impacted design decisions etc<br /> | Letter of confirmation from developer/contractor showing that the lowest LCC option (as selected at Design stage) has been implemented.<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Environmental management<br /> | Copy of ISO 14001 Certification. Specification, contract clause or letter of commitment to follow best practice policies and procedures<br /> | Final implementation plans and corresponding copy of ISO 14001 certification for materials<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Considerate construction<br /> |<br /> Letter of commitment to score targeted, including individual scores in each section - signed and dated. Letter confirming registration and targeted score<br /> <br /> Contract document with BREEAM requirements<br /> |<br /> CCS final certificate<br /> <br /> CCS final SIte Monitors Report<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Monitoring of construction site impacts<br /> | Letter of commitment; Screenshots/ output from SMARTwaste etc used to monitor site impacts<br /> | Energy &amp;amp; water graphs<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Commissioning<br /> | Letter confirming appointment and details of this<br /> |<br /> Commissioning records<br /> <br /> O&amp;amp;M Manuals<br /> <br /> Confirmation letters<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Handover<br /> | Confirmation of production of a Building User Guide<br /> | Building User Guide<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Inclusive and accessible design<br /> |<br /> Design &amp;amp;<br /> <br /> Access statement<br /> <br /> Architect notes with accessibility explanations<br /> | Site inspection confirmations<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Aftercare support<br /> | Letter of commitment<br /> |<br /> Aftercare plan<br /> <br /> List of support team<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Seasonal commissioning<br /> | Specification, contract clause or letter of commitment to undertake seasonal commissioning<br /> | Commissioning records (minutes, action plans)<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Post occupancy evaluation<br /> | Plan of what to do and when<br /> | Program to show when to carry out evaluation<br /> |}<br /> <br /> == Health and Wellbeing ==<br /> <br /> {|<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;|<br /> <br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Design stage<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Post construction<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Daylighting<br /> | Daylighting calculation report<br /> | Technical notices of windows and corresponding final implementation plans : these documents must comply with daylighting calculation report<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM View out<br /> | Marked up GA plan<br /> | Assessors site inspection and photographs from PCR visit<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Glare control<br /> |<br /> Typical floor layout, technical specification<br /> <br /> Designer’s letter of intent where not detail design available yet<br /> |<br /> As-built drawings<br /> <br /> Technical data sheet with the user control description<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Internal and external lighting<br /> |<br /> Specification confirming requirements<br /> <br /> Drawing showing internal lighting layout and zoning arrangements<br /> | As built drawings showing internal and external lighting design<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Indoor air quality plan<br /> | IAQ plan<br /> |<br /> IAQ plan<br /> <br /> Flush out protocols<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Ventilation<br /> |<br /> Air handling equipment written specifications.<br /> <br /> Fresh air intakes location<br /> |<br /> Datasheets of the equipments<br /> <br /> As-built drawings<br /> <br /> Visual inspection<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Indoor pollutants VOCs<br /> | List of presumed materials within the project with standards/limits requirements<br /> | Products’ technical files with VOC information<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Potential for natural ventilation<br /> |<br /> Architectural drawings<br /> <br /> Simulation study where relevant<br /> |<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Safe containment in laboratories<br /> |<br /> <br /> |<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Thermal comfort<br /> |<br /> 1. Thermal Comfort Report<br /> <br /> 2. Statement confirming that the thermal comfort strategy has influenced the design.<br /> <br /> 3. Heating/cooling drawings.<br /> |<br /> 1. Confirmation of no changes or updated thermal comfort report.<br /> <br /> 2. Assessor Site Inspection<br /> <br /> 3. As built drawings<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Acoustic performance<br /> |<br /> Design acoustic report<br /> <br /> Email confirming compliant pre completion acoustic testing<br /> | Testing report showing compliance<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Safety and security<br /> | ALO/SQSS report<br /> | Site inspection and purchase orders confirming recommendations were implemented<br /> |}<br /> <br /> == Energy ==<br /> <br /> {|<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;|<br /> <br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Design stage<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Post construction<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Reduction of energy use and carbon emissions<br /> |<br /> Copy of as designed SBEM<br /> <br /> Confirmation of energy assessor’s accreditation<br /> |<br /> As Built SBEM<br /> <br /> Confirmation of energy assessor’s accreditation<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Energy monitoring<br /> |<br /> Schematics and specifications<br /> <br /> Submetering schematic<br /> <br /> BMS specifications<br /> |<br /> Meter commissioning records<br /> <br /> BMS printscreen<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM External lighting<br /> |<br /> External lighting drawings<br /> <br /> Specification confirming efficacies<br /> |<br /> Manufacturer’s datasheets<br /> <br /> Photo evidence<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Low carbon design<br /> | LZC feasibility report<br /> |<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Passive design<br /> | Passive design report<br /> |<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Free cooling<br /> |<br /> <br /> |<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM LZC technologies<br /> | LZCT Feasibility study<br /> |<br /> As built drawing<br /> <br /> Photo evidence of LZCT that’s been installed<br /> <br /> Specification of the LZCT system that are used for the assessed building<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Energy efficient cold storage<br /> | Designer description of cold storage, including required design features applied and TEWI calculation.<br /> | Assessors site inspection and photographs from PCR visit<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Energy efficient transportation Systems<br /> |<br /> Transport demand analysis<br /> <br /> Lift comparison<br /> <br /> Lift specification<br /> | Site Inspection to confirm installation<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Energy efficient laboratory systems<br /> |<br /> <br /> |<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Energy efficient equipment<br /> | Written specifications for the foreseen equipment<br /> | Datasheet of the equipment<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Drying space<br /> |<br /> GA plan<br /> <br /> Confirmation statement stating how much drying space will be provided<br /> | Photo evidence and assessor site inspection report<br /> |}<br /> <br /> == Transport ==<br /> <br /> {|<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;|<br /> <br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Design stage<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Post construction<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Public transport accessibility<br /> |<br /> Scaled map showing location of bus/train/subway nodes, distance to these from building main entrance and services which stop there<br /> <br /> Timetables highlighted with appropriate stop.<br /> <br /> For London projects the TFL website can be used to download the PTAL report.<br /> |<br /> As design stage or where 12 months has lapsed, up to date timetables or PTAL report.<br /> <br /> Where relevant site inspection and photos of transport nodes.<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Proximity to amenities<br /> | Google maps annotated with distances.<br /> | Assessor site inspection and photos<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Cyclist facilities<br /> |<br /> Drawings<br /> <br /> Confirmation of building user numbers<br /> |<br /> Drawings and pictures<br /> <br /> Site Inspection report<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Alternative modes of transport<br /> |<br /> <br /> |<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Maximum car parking capacity<br /> |<br /> Drawings<br /> <br /> Confirmation from designers/clients with number of building users<br /> | Drawings and pictures<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Travel plan<br /> |<br /> Travel Plan<br /> <br /> Design drawings demonstrating that the travel plan recommendations have been implemented<br /> <br /> Letter confirming that a copy of the Travel Plan will be provided to all future tenants - speculative units<br /> |<br /> As built drawings<br /> <br /> Assessor site inspection<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Home office<br /> |<br /> <br /> |<br /> <br /> |}<br /> <br /> == Water ==<br /> <br /> {|<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;|<br /> <br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Design stage<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Post construction<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Water consumption<br /> |<br /> Sanitaryware schedule<br /> <br /> Floor plans<br /> <br /> Water schematic<br /> <br /> Area schedule from the architect<br /> <br /> Calculator tool<br /> |<br /> As built water schematic (water)<br /> <br /> As built floor plans<br /> <br /> Manufacturers data sheets<br /> <br /> Site inspection<br /> <br /> Confirmation of no changes (or additional info as above)<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Water monitoring<br /> |<br /> Schematics/specification<br /> <br /> Submetering schematic<br /> <br /> BMS specifications<br /> |<br /> Assessor site inspection<br /> <br /> As built drawings/schematics<br /> <br /> Manufacturer’s records (commissioning) confirming meter has a pulsed output<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Water leak detection<br /> |<br /> Water schematic<br /> <br /> Specifications<br /> <br /> Product details<br /> |<br /> Site inspection<br /> <br /> As built schematic<br /> <br /> Manufacturer’s literature<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Water efficient equipment<br /> |<br /> Specification of irrigation system (if there is one)<br /> <br /> If no irrigation system is specified- confirmation letter<br /> <br /> Confirmation letter stating how the landscape/ planting has minimised water usage<br /> |<br /> <br /> |}<br /> <br /> == Materials ==<br /> <br /> {|<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;|<br /> <br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Design stage<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Post construction<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Life cycle impacts<br /> |<br /> LCA Analysis<br /> <br /> Design specifications used to inform the Analysis<br /> <br /> Filled in Mat 01 Calculator<br /> | Confirmation whether updates were required and updated LCA Analysis<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Hard landscaping and boundary protection<br /> |<br /> Hard Landscape and boundary protection material schedule/ specification<br /> <br /> Drawings showing ty<br /> |<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Responsible sourcing of materials<br /> | List of presumed materials, reference specification (suppliers) with resp. sourcing requirements<br /> | Summary list of relevant materials developed by GC Certificates<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Insulation<br /> |<br /> Initial area/thickness and volume take offs<br /> <br /> Details of insulation to be used<br /> |<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Designing for durability and resilience<br /> | Drawing of designed durability measures.<br /> | Assessors site inspection and photographs from PCR visit<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Material efficiency<br /> |<br /> Material efficiency report.<br /> <br /> Summary technical report.<br /> | Assessors site inspection and photographs from PCR visit<br /> |}<br /> <br /> == Waste ==<br /> <br /> {|<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;|<br /> <br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Design stage<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Post construction<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Construction waste management<br /> | Contractor’s specifications<br /> |<br /> Site specific waste management plan<br /> <br /> Waste collection data<br /> <br /> Waste processing data<br /> <br /> Site visit reports with photographic evidence<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Recycled aggregates<br /> | Calculation % of recycled aggregates.<br /> |<br /> Checklist A6.<br /> <br /> Delivery confirmation.<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Operational waste<br /> | Drawings<br /> | Drawings and Post construction inspection report<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Speculative floor &amp;amp; ceiling finishes<br /> |<br /> <br /> |<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Adaptation to climate change<br /> | Adaptation to climate change study.<br /> | Assessors site inspection and photographs from PCR visit.<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Functional adaptability<br /> | Functional adaptability study. Summary technical report.<br /> | Assessors site inspection and photographs from PCR visit<br /> |}<br /> <br /> == Land Use and Ecology ==<br /> <br /> {|<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;|<br /> <br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Design stage<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Post construction<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Site Selection<br /> |<br /> Existing site plan<br /> <br /> Proposed site plan<br /> |<br /> Existing site plan<br /> <br /> ‘As built’ development<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Ecological value of site<br /> | Ecology Report<br /> | Landscape Drawings and Schedules<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Protection of ecological features<br /> | Ecology Report<br /> | Contractor evidence and assessor site inspection reports/photos<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Minimising impact on existing site ecology<br /> | Ecology Report<br /> |<br /> <br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Enhancing site ecology<br /> | Ecology Report<br /> |<br /> Landscape Drawings and Schedules<br /> <br /> Assessors site inspection and photographs from PCR visit.<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Long term impact on biodiversity<br /> | Ecology Report<br /> | In case of habitat creation assessors site inspection and photographs from PCR visit.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> == Pollution ==<br /> <br /> {|<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;|<br /> <br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Design stage<br /> |width=&quot;33%&quot;| Post construction<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Impact of refrigerants<br /> |<br /> General specifications<br /> <br /> Filled in calculator tool with estimates<br /> |<br /> Technical specifications<br /> <br /> Filled in calculator tool with actual technical data<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM NOx emissions<br /> | M&amp;amp;E Specification<br /> | Product Datasheet<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Flood risk management<br /> | FRA,<br /> | Confirmation if changes occur<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Surface water run-off<br /> | FRA, Design Drawings and Specification<br /> | Assessors site inspection and photographs from PCR visit.<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Reduction of night time light pollution<br /> |<br /> External lighting drawings<br /> <br /> Calculation and drawings how is CIE fulfilled.<br /> | Assessors site inspection and photographs from PCR visit.<br /> |-<br /> | BREEAM Reduction of noise pollution<br /> |<br /> Acoustic study for background noise levels.<br /> <br /> Acoustician contract with achievement measurements.<br /> |<br /> Measurements.<br /> <br /> OR<br /> <br /> Confirmation within 800m radius of the assessed site.<br /> |}<br /> <br /> = Find out more =<br /> <br /> === Related articles ===<br /> <br /> * [[BREEAM_Evidence_gathering|BREEAM Evidence gathering]]<br /> * [[BREEAM_Evidence_referencing|BREEAM Evidence referencing]]<br /> <br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not [https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Guarantee guarantee] the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> This page created originally by 70+ assessors and APs at a BREEAM Professionals workshop March 2018<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple Author Article|Multiple Author Article]] 16:26, 19 Apr 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Post_occupancy_evaluation 2018-04-19T15:26:21Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Aim and benefits =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = When to consider =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Step by step guidance =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Questions to ask while seeking compliance =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Tools and resources =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Tips and best practice =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Typical evidence =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Applicable Schemes =<br /> <br /> The guidelines collated in this ISD aim to support sustainable best practice in the topic described. This issue may apply in multiple BREEAM schemes covering different stages in the life of a building, different building types and different year versions. Some content may be generic but scheme nuances should also be taken into account. Refer to the comments below and related articles to this one to understand these nuances. See [[BREEAM_Issue_support_document_template|this document]] for further guidelines.<br /> <br /> * List applicable schemes here<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not guarantee the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple Author Article|Multiple Author Article]] 16:26, 19 Apr 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:Articles_needing_more_work]] [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Seasonal_commissioning 2018-04-19T15:26:02Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Aim and benefits =<br /> <br /> This is proved to be a valuable and crucial service for all building types, a building with fewer defects performs better.<br /> <br /> The aim of seasonal commissioning is to observe the building services when they are run at their full load and ensure they perform as the were designed to.<br /> <br /> A continuous support of the commissioning team during the first year reduces the operation and maintenance costs as the defect are identified and rectified in time and hence increasing the systems’ lifetime<br /> <br /> Training undertaken as part of the commissioning helps the building occupants and facilities managers to better understand the functionality of the building and to ensure it continues to perform at optimum levels<br /> <br /> = When to consider =<br /> <br /> A commitment to carry out seasonal commissioning will be required at design stage. Seasonal commissioning should commence during the first 12 months after the building is occupied and take place during full load conditions (i.e. heating equipment in mid-winter and cooling/ventilation during summer) and part load conditions (spring/autumn)<br /> <br /> = Step by step guidance =<br /> <br /> The requirements of this credit are an extension of the normal responsibilities for a Contractor where there is a 12 months defects period in place under the contract and contributes to providing a soft-landing for the client/occupier.<br /> <br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> The Contractor is required to confirm that a Specialist Commissioning Manager has been appointed to carry out seasonal commissioning during the first 12 months after occupation. Under the BREEAM criteria, there are a number of systems defined as complex and it unlikely that a single person will have sufficient experience to undertake this role for all systems. Therefore the Contractor may need to appoint more than one individual to this role.<br /> <br /> Ideally, as part of the design stage, the Contractor should nominate named individuals to undertake this role in particular where the Man 04 credit on Commissioning Building Services has been targeted as the same people can carry out both roles. However, if this is not appropriate, commitment to make the appointment would be sufficient.<br /> <br /> For simple systems, this role can either be undertaken by the Contractor or the client/occupier can nominate an individual from within their facilities management team to undertake the required activities. Where the client/occupier has nominated an individual to monitor the commissioning of the systems on their behalf, this person could also perform this role.<br /> <br /> = Questions to ask while seeking compliance =<br /> <br /> # Are Complex Systems present within the building design?<br /> # Can the role of the Specialist Commissioning Manager appointed for Man 04 be extended to meet the requirements of this credit?<br /> <br /> = Tools and resources =<br /> <br /> BSRIA Commissioning guides and CIBSE Commissioning codes.<br /> <br /> Knowledge Base Link for Man05: Aftercare: [https://kb.breeam.com/section/new-construction/uk/2014-uk/management-breeam_uk_nc_2014/man05/ https://kb.breeam.com/section/new-construction/uk/2014-uk/management-breeam_uk_nc_2014/man05/]<br /> <br /> = Tips and best practice =<br /> <br /> Where a Building Management System is Specified the following procedures should be carried out:<br /> <br /> * The occupier is fully trained in the operation of the system.<br /> * All BMS graphics and schematics are fully functional and installed to user interface before handover.<br /> * The BMS/ controls installation should be running in auto with satisfactory internal conditions prior to handover.<br /> * In addition to air and water flow results, commissioning results include physical measures of air temperatures, off coil temperatures and other key parameters as appropriate.<br /> * Commissioning of air and water systems is carried out when all control devices are installed, wired and functional.<br /> <br /> = Typical evidence =<br /> <br /> === Design Stage ===<br /> <br /> Specification, contract clauses or appointment letter confirming commitment to carry out commissioning during the first 12 months of occupation. Where complex systems are installed, a specialist commissioning manager must be appointed.<br /> <br /> === Post Construction ===<br /> <br /> Copies of appointment letter confirming seasonal commissioning responsibilities and seasonal commissioning schedules confirming what will be commissioned and when. Where seasonal commissioning has already taken place due to the timing of the post construction assessment, records and reports to confirm this has taken place should be provided.<br /> <br /> = Applicable Schemes =<br /> <br /> The guidelines collated in this ISD aim to support sustainable best practice in the topic described. This issue may apply in multiple BREEAM schemes covering different stages in the life of a building, different building types and different year versions. Some content may be generic but scheme nuances should also be taken into account. Refer to the comments below and related articles to this one to understand these nuances. See [[BREEAM_Issue_support_document_template|this document]] for further guidelines.<br /> <br /> * BREEAM UK New Construction 2014<br /> * BREEAM UK Refurbishment and Fit-Out 2014<br /> <br /> This article originally created in a BREEAM Professionals workshop by Jane Morning, Tom Blois-Brooke, Tom Abbott and Azita Dezfouli<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not guarantee the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple Author Article|Multiple Author Article]] 16:26, 19 Apr 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Aftercare_support 2018-04-19T15:25:29Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Aim and benefits =<br /> <br /> Along with seasonal commissioning, aftercare support to the building end users is essential to improve the building operation performance and to reduce performance gap.<br /> <br /> The BREEAM criteria overlaps government and BSRIA‘s soft landing requirements and helps a smooth transition from handover through to when the building is in full operation.<br /> <br /> A face to face training for the FM team and the end users, also helps to optimise the use of user guides, O&amp;amp;Ms and all other documents passed on at hand over stage.<br /> <br /> Frequent meetings, and facilities to monitor utilities consumption allows to enhance seasonal commissioning and to identify defects sooner rather than later.<br /> <br /> = When to consider =<br /> <br /> At design stage - if targeted, bring to the awareness of the client/design team that commitment is required and it needs to be included in the Employer’s Requirements (ERs) prior to tender so the potential contractors are aware that they need to allow for the service.<br /> <br /> At post construction stage - Principal Contractors to appoint a team/individual in charge of aftercare duties, which then shall to provide the meetings and training schedule and the list of potential attendees.<br /> <br /> = Step by step guidance =<br /> <br /> The Principal Contractor should demonstrate how they will:<br /> <br /> * Present key information about the building including the design intent and how to use the building to ensure it operates as efficiently and effectively as possible.<br /> * Conduct on-site facilities management training, to include a walkabout of the building and introduction to and familiarisation with the building systems, their controls and how to operate them in accordance with the design intent and operational demands.<br /> * Provide initial aftercare support provision for at least the first month of building occupation, e.g. on-site attendance on a weekly basis to support building users and management (this could be more or less frequent depending on the complexity of the building and building operations).<br /> * Provide longer term aftercare support provision for occupants for at least the first 12 months from occupation, e.g. a helpline, nominated individual or other appropriate system to support building users/management.<br /> <br /> = Questions to ask while seeking compliance =<br /> <br /> * Are the facilities specified for sub-metering and monitoring? Is there a BMS specified and are all the sub-meters linked to the BMS?<br /> * Who is in charge to appoint the aftercare team? Is it a contractor’s requirement or an independent party is being appointed?<br /> * Do you know the end users? So that the aftercare team can arrange training schedule<br /> * If the end user is unknown or multi tenanted, does the building have a central facilities manager to receive all the necessary training<br /> * Does the aftercare team have a weekly and monthly meeting schedules for the first 12 months after occupation<br /> * Ask the client what sort of operational infrastructure and resources they have/intend to have in place to coordinate the collection and monitoring of energy and water consumption data once the building is occupied<br /> <br /> = Tools and resources =<br /> <br /> * [http://www.bimtaskgroup.org/government-soft-landings http://www.bimtaskgroup.org/government-soft-landings]<br /> * [https://tools.breeam.com/extranet/downloads/SD5076-BREEAM-UK-New-Construction-2014-Technical-Manual-ISSUE-5.0-UK.pdf?id=0000000000000000000100000000000000038641&amp;amp;type=.pdf https://tools.breeam.com/extranet/downloads/SD5076-BREEAM-UK-New-Construction-2014-Technical-Manual-ISSUE-5.0-UK.pdf?id=0000000000000000000100000000000000038641&amp;amp;type=.pdf]<br /> <br /> = Tips and best practice =<br /> <br /> * Remind contractors that they are actively involved with the building’s management team and all the necessary meetings and schedules are drafted prior to handover<br /> * Ask for drafts of the contractor’s schedules etc prior to completion to check that they will meet BRE’s requirements<br /> <br /> = Typical evidence =<br /> <br /> Construction programme demonstrating a handover meeting.<br /> <br /> Contractor’s summary to demonstrate how they intent to present key information about the building, on-site facilities management training,timetable for a walkabout of the building and introduction to the building systems, their controls and how to operate them.<br /> <br /> Extract from contract (or contractor’s commitment) to provide initial aftercare support provision for at least the first month of building occupation.<br /> <br /> Extract from contract (or contractor’s commitment) to provide longer term aftercare support provision for occupants for at least the first 12 months from occupation.<br /> <br /> = Applicable Schemes =<br /> <br /> The guidelines collated in this ISD aim to support sustainable best practice in the topic described. This issue may apply in multiple BREEAM schemes covering different stages in the life of a building, different building types and different year versions. Some content may be generic but scheme nuances should also be taken into account. Refer to the comments below and related articles to this one to understand these nuances. See [[BREEAM_Issue_support_document_template|this document]] for further guidelines.<br /> <br /> * Applicable to all BREEAM schemes after 2011<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not guarantee the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple Author Article|Multiple Author Article]] 16:25, 19 Apr 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Inclusive_and_accessible_design 2018-04-19T15:24:58Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Aim and benefits =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = When to consider =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Step by step guidance =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Questions to ask while seeking compliance =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Tools and resources =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Tips and best practice =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Typical evidence =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Applicable Schemes =<br /> <br /> The guidelines collated in this ISD aim to support sustainable best practice in the topic described. This issue may apply in multiple BREEAM schemes covering different stages in the life of a building, different building types and different year versions. Some content may be generic but scheme nuances should also be taken into account. Refer to the comments below and related articles to this one to understand these nuances. See [[BREEAM_Issue_support_document_template|this document]] for further guidelines.<br /> <br /> * List applicable schemes here<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not guarantee the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple Author Article|Multiple Author Article]] 16:24, 19 Apr 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Handover 2018-04-19T15:24:33Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Aim and benefits =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = When to consider =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Step by step guidance =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Questions to ask while seeking compliance =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Tools and resources =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Tips and best practice =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Typical evidence =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Applicable Schemes =<br /> <br /> The guidelines collated in this ISD aim to support sustainable best practice in the topic described. This issue may apply in multiple BREEAM schemes covering different stages in the life of a building, different building types and different year versions. Some content may be generic but scheme nuances should also be taken into account. Refer to the comments below and related articles to this one to understand these nuances. See [[BREEAM_Issue_support_document_template|this document]] for further guidelines.<br /> <br /> * List applicable schemes here<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not guarantee the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple Author Article|Multiple Author Article]] 16:24, 19 Apr 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:Articles_needing_more_work]] [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Commissioning 2018-04-19T15:24:14Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Aim and benefits =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = When to consider =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Step by step guidance =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Questions to ask while seeking compliance =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Tools and resources =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Tips and best practice =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Typical evidence =<br /> <br /> Awaiting content<br /> <br /> = Applicable Schemes =<br /> <br /> The guidelines collated in this ISD aim to support sustainable best practice in the topic described. This issue may apply in multiple BREEAM schemes covering different stages in the life of a building, different building types and different year versions. Some content may be generic but scheme nuances should also be taken into account. Refer to the comments below and related articles to this one to understand these nuances. See [[BREEAM_Issue_support_document_template|this document]] for further guidelines.<br /> <br /> * List applicable schemes here<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not guarantee the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple Author Article|Multiple Author Article]] 16:24, 19 Apr 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/BREEAM_Monitoring_of_Construction_Site_Impacts 2018-04-19T15:23:51Z

<p>Multiple Author Article: </p> <hr /> <div>= Aim and benefits =<br /> <br /> To recognise and encourage construction sites which are managed in an environmentally and socially considerate, responsible and accountable manner.<br /> <br /> To focus the principal contractor and project team on the amount of energy and water consumption used during the construction process and to consider the CO2 emissions that result from the transportation of materials and waste to and from site. By monitoring and reviewing the data, this should hopefully encourage the principal contractor to identify areas where energy/water usage can be reduced and wastage minimised. By monitoring mileage and CO2 emissions from transportation of materials and waste this may encourage them to look at the distance materials need to be transported and the number and types of deliveries required.<br /> <br /> The BRE are collating the data provided and may in future use this to establish targets.<br /> <br /> = When to consider =<br /> <br /> The requirement to monitor and record the energy and water consumption and transport of materials and waste should be included within the tender /contract documentation.<br /> <br /> The principal contractor will need to ensure recording processes are in place when commencing on site including taking initial meter readings and establishing procedures for recording mileage and deliveries/waste collection.<br /> <br /> = Step by step guidance =<br /> <br /> One person from the principal contractor; such as the site foreman, manager, logistics manager or Sustainability Champion; should be appointed to monitor, record and report the data required.<br /> <br /> The contractor should keep maintain monthly records of any energy consumption as a result of the use of construction plant, equipment (mobile and fixed and site accommodation. The records should therefore cover all temporary electric supplies (via meter readings), fuel or hours of use for generators, fuel used on site for plant. The data will need to be converted into kWh and CO2 emissions. Details of the generators maybe required to allow the figures to be converted.<br /> <br /> The contractor will also need to keep records and meter readings for the potable water used during the construction process. This may include water bowsers or bottled water where mains supplies are not available. This should be recorded in m3.<br /> <br /> The contractor will also need to record the transport of construction materials to site and any waste taken from site. The records should include details of the materials/waste being transported, the type of vehicle (i.e. van or HGV) and the distance travelled. This will enable the litres of fuel and CO2 emissions to be calculated using conversion rates and the figures to be divided between materials and waste transportation.<br /> <br /> For the transport of materials, this should be recorded from the factory gate to the building site.<br /> <br /> For the transport of waste, this should be recorded from the construction site gate to the waste disposal processing/recovery centre gate.<br /> <br /> BREEAM requires monitoring and recording of construction materials’ transport to cover as a minimum:<br /> <br /> * Materials used in major building elements as defined in the BREEAM issue of Life cycle/ Environmental impact of materials, including insulation materials<br /> * Ground works and landscaping materials<br /> <br /> To ensure consistency across assessments, the information completed in the scoring and reporting tool should be restricted to this minimum data.<br /> <br /> The record of data on transport resulting from delivery of the majority of construction materials to site should be calculated according to the type of material purchased.<br /> <br /> 1. Raw materials: transport data calculated from the supplier to the site, as consideration of the previous stages is too complicated and out of the contractor’s control.<br /> <br /> 2. Manufactured/Bespoke products: transport data calculated from the factory assembling the module in its final form to the site.<br /> <br /> 3. For small islands: no consideration of the ferry transport is required as there is no choice in selecting this transport type. Transport data will take into account the total tracking: i.e. the delivery from the factory/supplier to the first port and from the second port to the site.<br /> <br /> = Questions to ask while seeking compliance =<br /> <br /> What types of energy will be used on site i.e. generators or mains electricity. You may require the type and size of generator to enable conversions to CO2 emissions and kWh for reporting where temporary power supplies are being used.<br /> <br /> Where a mains water supply is not in place at the start of a project, water bowsers and bottles should be recorded until the water supply is in place.<br /> <br /> Project value to enable consumption to be reported per £100k.<br /> <br /> = Tools and resources =<br /> <br /> CO2 emissions can be obtained from the following link: [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2017 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2017]<br /> <br /> [https://kb.breeam.com/section/new-construction/uk/2014-uk/management-breeam_uk_nc_2014/man03/ https://kb.breeam.com/section/new-construction/uk/2014-uk/management-breeam_uk_nc_2014/man03/]<br /> <br /> [https://kb.breeam.com/section/refurbishment-and-fit-out/uk-refurbishment-and-fit-out/2014-uk-refurbishment-and-fit-out/01-management-uk-rfo-2014/man-03-responsible-construction-practices/ https://kb.breeam.com/section/refurbishment-and-fit-out/uk-refurbishment-and-fit-out/2014-uk-refurbishment-and-fit-out/01-management-uk-rfo-2014/man-03-responsible-construction-practices/]<br /> <br /> = Tips and best practice =<br /> <br /> (TG) Use of the BRE SmartWaste reporting tool including API<br /> <br /> = Typical evidence =<br /> <br /> === Design Stage ===<br /> <br /> Contract or specification clauses or a formal letter of commitment can be used to show intent to meet the criteria at design stage.<br /> <br /> === Post Construction ===<br /> <br /> Records to show the energy consumption in kWh (and where relevant, litres of fuel used) as a result of the use of construction plant, equipment (mobile and fixed) and site accommodation and the total carbon dioxide emissions (kgC02/project value).<br /> <br /> Records to show the water consumption in m3 as a result of the use of construction plant, equipment (mobile and fixed) and site accommodation.<br /> <br /> Records to show the total distance travelled (km), total fuel consumption (litres) and total carbon dioxide emissions (kgC02 for materials delivered to site and waste from site.<br /> <br /> = Applicable Schemes =<br /> <br /> The guidelines collated in this ISD aim to support sustainable best practice in the topic described. This issue may apply in multiple BREEAM schemes covering different stages in the life of a building, different building types and different year versions. Some content may be generic but scheme nuances should also be taken into account. Refer to the comments below and related articles to this one to understand these nuances. See [[BREEAM_Issue_support_document_template|this document]] for further guidelines.<br /> <br /> * (eg) International New Construction 2016<br /> <br /> &amp;lt;Jane Morning&amp;gt;<br /> <br /> -----<br /> BRE Global does not endorse any of the content posted and use of the content will not guarantee the meeting of certification criteria.<br /> <br /> --[[User:Multiple Author Article|Multiple Author Article]] 16:23, 19 Apr 2018 (BST)<br /> <br /> [[Category:BREEAM]]</div>

Multiple Author Article