Sir: Rob Outhwaite's letter (Building Services Journal, November 2000) obscures some of the more important factors that explain the airtightness of Leeds Metropolitan University's new Learning Resource Centre.
In December 1997 I proposed that the University set demanding energy and environmental targets for its new building, and made a number of specific recommendations to ensure that these would be met. These included the adoption of an in-situ reinforced concrete frame with wet-plastered masonry in-fill as the main form of construction.

This recommendation was powerfully reinforced by Bill Bordass and David Olivier at a design workshop in March 1998. To his credit, Trevor Hudson, the University's Director of Estates, adopted it almost immediately, despite the fact that work on a steel-framed design had already begun. This single decision almost certainly had a larger effect on the outcome than any other.

The fact that the project has subsequently demonstrated such a low air leakage is cause for congratulations to the design team, the contractor and Trevor Hudson and his colleagues. It is also further confirmation that, under current conditions in the UK, high envelope performance is more readily achieved in concrete than in steel-framed construction.

Finally, it illustrates once again the absolute importance of getting the best technical advice to the client and the design team at the earliest possible juncture.