Eco-(nomically) Friendly

Does building in an environmentally friendly way cost the earth? It appears to be an assumption made in the industry and amongst construction clients, namely that in order to create a greener product one will inevitably have to put much more investment up front on the capital costs. That extra cash will be ploughed into whizzy new technology or products to reduce energy consumption,

or one will need to buy in solar panels or wind turbines to adhere to upcoming building or planning regulations. This is the widespread knee-jerk reaction, according to sustainability experts. “The reaction is ooh, that’s new, we’ll have to whack on an extra 15% on costs,” explains Georgia Elliott-Smith, director at environmental consultant Element 4. And a report jointly written by Cyril Sweett and the Building Research Establishment, called Putting a Price on Sustainability, further backs up this view. “Typically, cost consultants can add a significant margin of as much as 10% to capital costs to allow for more sustainable solutions,” it says.

The Cyril Sweett/BRE study has attempted to analyse whether such a perception of additional costs is a reality. “It’s something we felt was a myth that needed to be interrogated and questioned,” Adam Mactavish, an associate in sustainability at Cyril Sweett, explained at a seminar unveiling the study last week. The myths may well have been sparked by reports on eco-friendly buildings that have busted their budgets. Last year it was claimed that the landmark eco-friendly BedZED housing scheme, developed by housing association Peabody in Croydon, south London, ended up £10m over its expected cost of £14m. This is hotly disputed by the scheme’s architect Bill Dunster. “It’s just not true,” he says. “It’s a total myth. There was not even a defined budget at the start and the brief changed, including the size of the buildings. I think the scheme was good value.” Dunster says the final cost was £1,475 per square metre, which he says is similar to the square metre spend by other housing associations on more standard housing schemes.

And myths they certainly are if the results of the Cyril Sweett/BRE study on the cost of going green are to be believed. Taking four case studies of typical buildings – a house, an air-conditioned office, a naturally ventilated office and a LIFT health centre – and working out what cost would be added for implementing sustainable solutions for each, the research found that to reach good environmental standards, the BREEAM rating, involved minimal extra costs (see box). In fact, in the case of one building type, a naturally ventilated office, achieving a good environmental rating actually meant a saving of between 0.3-0.4% of the cost. Dunster is also preaching a mantra of reasonable cost allied with sustainable solutions. His firm Bill Dunster Architects is offering a so-called rural ZED kit, which provides a prefabricated pack for a new house at around £1,000 per square metre. “It’s a totally defined spend,” he says.

“You are basically eliminating labour which makes it more predictable.” The firm is also carrying out trials on some house kits for a batch of three to four bedroom semi-detached houses in South West seaside town Newquay at a cost of around £1,100 per square metre.

Sustainability will soon become an integrated part of the construction process

James Williams, Gardiner & Theobald

Beyond the up front cost of the building is its running costs, and the Cyril Sweett/BRE study also shows significant benefits to the whole life costing of buildings during their life-spans (see below). For each standard building type there are a variety of savings within the report, and Cyril Sweett also offers a more dramatic live example of how much savings can be made on one part of the £1bn Barts and Royal London PFI hospital scheme. The study claims that such savings could appeal to both public and private sector clients, offering benefits to owner occupiers of offices for example, or providing positive selling points for those letting or selling an office.

For Francis Ives, chairman at Cyril Sweett, the opportunity for building green is more radical than just a case of considering up front or whole-life costs of buildings. At last week’s seminar he argued that the rating of buildings according to their green credentials would eventually lead to their value being linked to their environmental impact.

A European Commission directive, called the energy performance of buildings directive, is due out next year and will rate all commercial buildings based on their energy usage. “This will create a new sort of obsolescence for buildings. The value of poor performing ones will fall, meaning owners will have to undertake costly refits. This is turning traditional thinking on its head,” Ives said. James Williams, project surveyor at Gardiner & Theobald and part of the firm’s sustainability team, sees a growing evolution in client awareness of sustainability. “The office market has begun to pick up on it. Sustainability will soon become an integrated part of the construction process.”