The benefits of lean management techniques are indisputable. But while many programme managers are aware of lean as a concept, there is often a lesser understanding of how to apply lean techniques in practice.

Lean tools need not be complicated. Here are five easy lean techniques that can help when internal processes appear unwieldy or slow.

1/ Root cause analysis using the ‘5 Whys’ technique

When difficulties occur, most managers will instinctively seek a solution to make them disappear. But this approach assumes you know why the issues occurred in the first place – which will not always be the case.

The 5 Whys is a lean tool that harnesses the power of interrogation to drill down and identify the underlying cause of an issue. Essentially you ask yourself why you have the problem, then write your answers. Then ask why again.

The resulting list of potential root causes helps inform actions to reduce or eliminate the problem, instead of purely treating the symptoms.

2/ The 3Cs

The 3Cs is a longstanding lean tool that stands for ‘concern, cause and countermeasure’. It helps team members identify, understand and solve problems collectively using boards.

These boards – which can be physical or digital – allow anyone to log a concern and demonstrate progress towards resolving it.

If the reason behind the problem is unknown, you can use the 5 Whys technique mentioned above to better understand the ‘cause’. The ‘countermeasure’ then becomes the solution.

3/ Choosing by Advantages (CBA)

In every project there are times when a major decision needs to be made.

One lean tool that is particularly effective for decision-making is Choosing by Advantages (CBA). This collaborative method encourages team members to consider the potential advantages of each alternative, leading to more informed decisions.

With clear documentation on these group decisions, the CBA technique brings a transparency that helps ensure unanimous confidence in the final decision.

4/ Process mapping

One of the key advantages of process mapping is that it presents a broad overview of any given project. This allows teams a deeper understanding of the entire process and their role in it by taking an ‘as-is’ look at what is happening at that moment.

The next step is to review the entire process through the classic lean lens by asking which steps add value, which do not, and which can be removed. This will help to streamline processes and improve efficiency.

‘Future state’ process maps — which outline the ideal way a project should operate in the future — can also help measure progress and provide direction. The real benefit, however, comes from the actions generated throughout the process.

Finally, from a programme perspective, process mapping gives people confidence that things are moving towards the desired outcomes.

5/ Kanban boards

Our final lean tool is Kanban boards. Employing the power of visualisation, Kanban boards are an efficient method of visually managing team workflows.

Sticky notes are used to represent work, while categories like ‘To Do’, ‘In Progress’, ‘Peer Review’ and ‘Done’ enable teams to monitor real-time progress and track actions.

Unlike dashboards, Kanban boards do not require data collection, nor do they quantify overall performance. Instead, they provide a visual snapshot of the workflow – and a place for people to come together to update their progress.

The post Five lean techniques to optimise your project or programme appeared first on Without Limits.

Below are just a few of the highlights from the report which shows how we are providing truly sustainable solutions for our clients informed by decades of experience, industry-leading ESG expertise and, above all, a drive to do good and be good.

—

Progressed toward our goal of science-based net zero by 2040, a target validated by the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi)

We reached operational net zero in fiscal 2021, while reducing Scope 1 and 2 emissions which cover fleet and office energy, respectively, by 47 percent from our full year 2018 baseline year, using key travel and real estate initiatives. In accordance with the new and even more rigorous SBTi net zero standard, we have also set an updated 2040 net zero target which emphasizes decarbonization over offsets. This ambitious target places us among the forefront of companies globally.

Launched our ESG Advisory Services, supported by decades of expertise

One of our signature milestones this year has been the launch of our ESG Advisory practice, which deploys our depth of expertise to navigate our clients through this rapidly evolving space and realize their ambitious visions. Working with organizations at the forefront of the green transition globally, including the United Kingdom’s Network Rail and Airport Authority Hong Kong, our Advisory Services are mitigating risk, building trust and improving long-term outcomes worldwide.

Advanced ScopeX initiatives to accelerate our ESG offering for clients and cut carbon in our work

ScopeX is a core offering of our ESG services and will be one of our greatest contributions to tackling the climate crisis. By accounting for materials, site locations, logistics and construction methods, it will help reduce and eliminate the impact of projects on the natural environment. With ScopeX, we aim to reduce the carbon impact of major projects by at least 50 percent.

Acted on equity, diversity and inclusion (ED&I) by addressing equity challenges globally and regionally

We continue to make progress towards greater equity, diversity and inclusion. We’re nearing our target for women to compose 35 percent of our workforce, with women in 18 percent of leadership roles and making up 33 percent of our overall workforce. We have also fostered a culture of inclusivity that has been recognized by organizations like the Human Rights Campaign— which has named us a Best Place to Work for LGBTQ+ Equality in the United States. Our ED&I commitments efforts extend to the communities we serve, where we’ve implemented locally relevant workplace diversity and pay equity goals.

—

Beyond a commitment

In just one year, we’ve made objective progress on our targets and have set even more stringent ones so that we can lead for our clients and our people. But what can’t be quantified is our sense of purpose.

For us, ESG is so much more than a commitment—it’s something we see every day in our work, where its impact is truly felt. I invite you to see that impact for yourself in this year’s report and explore each of our accomplishments as we continue to deliver Sustainable Legacies worldwide.

Read the report

The post Our 2022 ESG Report: a year of Sustainable Legacies appeared first on Without Limits.

As programme delivery specialists, we know first-hand the importance of using a clear, outcome-focused programme delivery model to ensure the right resources, with capacity and capability, are in place to deliver successful outcomes.   

There are two broad approaches to large-scale programme delivery within the industry. The use of generic models is one. However, because they are based on previous provisions for different clients or sectors, time and money are often wasted navigating programme-specific problems as they (inevitably) arise. There is also the risk of cost-cutting for short-term benefits that result in more problems down the line.

In contrast, a bespoke programme delivery model takes the client’s strategy and long-term intent and turns them into something tangible: a structured programme that delivers results at scale and pace. 

Five benefits of developing a bespoke programme delivery model  

We have developed a sector-agnostic approach that draws upon our knowledge of delivering major initiatives in energy, infrastructure, design, buildings, defence, and transport, as well as our global expertise. The approach is also informed by lessons we have learnt and analysis of academic research on what has worked and not worked on thousands of programmes.  

Its real value, however, is in its adaptability to suit transformational programmes of any size across different industries.  

Here are five benefits of using a bespoke programme delivery model:

1/ A laser-focus on outcomes 

A programme must be designed to deliver its outcomes. A bespoke model works ‘future-back’ to identify what the programme needs to deliver for the client and for its different stakeholders so the structure can be designed accordingly. 

2/ Defines beneficiaries and their roles 

Defines the programme’s beneficiaries and the roles they may play in decision-making.  By doing this, the complex network of relationships and organisations can be managed to ensure successful delivery of the outcomes.  

3/ Communication tool for cohesion and consistency  

All stakeholders need to unite behind a common purpose. A bespoke model acts as a communication tool setting out what the programme seeks to achieve and how it will work in practice.

4/ Creates an effective organisational structure 

Programmes are like organisations. They need to be correctly structured. A bespoke model sets out an organisational structure and the roles of different functions in delivering the programme (which ensures the right capability at the right time).  

5/ Greater speed to market 

A good programme delivery model requires the right mix of partners who bring the best of their capabilities to the delivery of the programme objectives.  Identifying and assembling these arrangements early minimises setbacks and prevents problems from arising, leading to quicker processes and faster delivery times.  

At AECOM, our sector-agnostic approach to bespoke programme delivery model design, brings together expert leadership and technical expertise to realise the outcomes and legacy environmental and social benefits of the programme. Success depends on considering the bigger picture.  

The post Five ways that bespoke programme delivery models help drive success appeared first on Without Limits.

The UK is regarded as a life sciences powerhouse. Medicinal and pharmaceutical products are among the country’s top five exported goods, and the nation comes second only to the US in terms of inward investment.  

The UK government values the domestic life science sector at £94 billion, and estimates it provides over 250,000 high-skill jobs in fields such as drug discovery, diagnostics, MedTech devices and vaccine creation. It is an expanding science, encompassing fields such as AI, genomics, biomanufacturing, tech-enabled healthcare devices and personalised immunotherapies.  

The ‘golden triangle’ of London, Oxford and Cambridge is home to some of the most significant and well-funded universities and research centres in the world – all of which demand access to best-in-class life sciences laboratories. Universities and businesses in other parts of the UK are also hungry for lab space. 

What are the characteristic design features of laboratories?

Lab fit-outs typically consist of a physical laboratory space area where research is carried out and an office-style ‘writeup space’, for performing desk-based analysis.  

However, unlike office spaces, there are no accepted guidelines, specifications or building standards for life science laboratories. Despite sharing many common features such as receptions, desk space and communal staff areas, and even though they are often based in the same building, laboratory occupiers generally have different needs to those of office workers.

Many specifications refer to BCO Office 2019 as guidance for the office element, with no real set guidance for the laboratory function.  

Confusion is also rife in how to deal with what is included within the shell and core of the building, and what is required as standard within the tenant demise. 

The way life science companies operate within a building is also evolving. The incubator model – common in the US – is now gaining traction in the UK. In this model, multiple fledgling start-ups work in the same building and utilise the same facilities.

This one-stop-shop concept provides flexible, low-cost lab space and support to develop early-stage research. In addition to shared services, incubators can provide support to access venture funding, legal and IP guidance and commercial mentoring.  

Designing with a solutions-focused lens

Some features and equipment common to laboratories are standard parts of a lab fit out specification. These include fume cupboards, door seals or multiple door systems, and writeup space.  

It is generally considered wise to keep laboratory and office writeup space adjacent to each other to encourage the cross-pollination of experiments, research, and reflection amongst peers. A typical lab/office ratio is around 50:50. In projects where labs and offices are kept separate from each other, tenants have reported difficulty in effectively collaborating.  

The access requirements must be considered well before the installation phase of a fit out. Particularly large or unique pieces of equipment may require specialist installation or be difficult to transport, lift or move, or may need to be built in situ. In some cases, rooms or buildings are designed around a specific piece of machinery. This can add to the building’s weight and structural loading considerations, including anti vibration measures, plus floor-to-floor height.  

The more specialist the equipment, the more likely the requirement to provide special measures to control the environment in which the equipment is to be located – for instance slab thickening for vibration control, dark rooms, and clean rooms.  

In turn, room heights often need to be higher to accommodate additional MEP needs. From a safety perspective, labs usually require high levels of ventilation and in some cases, advanced air filtration. There needs to be more frequent air changes in a science facility compared to an office space.  

Prioritising health and safety is crucial

Containment levels – the ability of a lab to contain key biological hazards, genetically modified organisms and chemicals – must also be taken into consideration. These range from containment level 1 (C1), which represents the lowest level of risk, to containment level 4 (CL4), where highly dangerous or exotic microbes or pathogens are present, which currently do not have vaccines or antidotes.

At any containment level, laboratory doors/entrance systems need to be sealed and airtight. There are different ways to achieve this, but a common design is to create a double-door entry system.  

The risk of containing potentially dangerous materials also makes building security a key design consideration. This extends beyond the labs themselves, to building reception areas and external spaces. Depending on the levels of security required, this will add significant costs on to a project.  

Waste disposal is also key, and subject to hazardous waste regulations. Storage is also required for products such as consumables, glass products, personal protective equipment (PPE), and scientific literature. This can significantly increase storage space demands compared to a typical office.   

‘Dry’ labs – used for computational science or advanced mathematical analyses – will require appropriate mechanical and electrical installations. Equipment such as 3D printers, powerful computers and lasers all demand specific power, safety measures, air supply controls, emergency power and humidity levels to function successfully. 

Occupancy levels tend to be lower than typical office standards, between 15 – 18m2 per person, which impacts key services such as WC/shower provision and lift capacity.

Meeting the growing demand for lab space

The sector is a hot asset for private investors. A record £2.5 billion in venture capital (VC) was invested into private UK biotechs in 2021: a 79 per cent increase on the total raised in 2020. Overall, this signals that life science companies in the UK are now strong targets for both state and private capital and suggests demand for lab space is unlikely to abate in the short term.  

As new science clusters emerge outside of the golden triangle, major new projects are springing up around the country, with big-name international businesses making the UK regions their home.  

Life science laboratory fit-outs must be adaptable and able to meet the needs of biotechnology start-ups, which are by their nature nimble, ambitious and fast-growing. They demand high-tech, high-spec working environments where they can meet and collaborate with their peers.

Strong sustainability credentials are also key. The challenge for the design and construction industries is to keep pace with the scale and ambition of the life sciences sector – creating laboratory spaces that help accelerate and support scientific progress.   

This is an abridged version of an article that was first published in Building magazine. You can read the full article by clicking here.

The post Designing the life science laboratories of tomorrow appeared first on Without Limits.

The 2019 Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System final report called for an ambitious reform agenda with more than 65 recommendations to improve the state’s mental health and well-being system. The expansion of flexible mental health infrastructure is the centrepiece of significant investment commitments from the Victorian State Government and is shining a light on the need for modern facilities that support recovery-focused treatment and provide consumers with an appropriate level of autonomy over their environment. 

Over the last two years, the Victorian state budget has committed more than $AUD 5 billion (US$3.4 billion) to support better mental health outcomes. AECOM is currently engaged on several mental health projects, including the secure forensic mental health facility, Thomas Embling Hospital. The 136-bed facility is undergoing expansion and refurbishment, providing an additional 82 beds by the end of 2024. The hospital provides treatment and care for people living with a serious mental illness who are in, or at risk of entering, the justice system. The $AUD474 million expansion will address critical bed shortages, providing 82 new secure mental health beds, including a new dedicated women’s precinct, a medium security men’s facility and a new entry complex. AECOM is providing multidisciplinary engineering services for the project, working closely with Guymer Bailey Architects and MAAP Architects.  

In this article, we share learnings from the design and delivery of mental health facilities in Victoria and explore the key considerations that make these facilities unique from any other health facility.  

Co-designing a better future 

As design professionals, we are responsible for interpreting and responding to community insights to provide better spaces that support recovery. 

Modern-day mental health facilities are an important part of our community, and their design is evolving with greater recognition of recovery-focused outcomes. Learning from those with lived experiences through the ongoing co-design of facilities is integral to the evolution of mental health care and ensuring the needs of consumers are met. For example, during the co-design process, consumers can share aspects of a facility where design solutions could improve their experience, or they could share their personal experiences, such as feelings of fear and confusion when arriving at a facility and the key design elements that could improve the experience. 

Through co-design, we gather their unique insights – what were the pressure points, what was good and how could it be better? Their perspective is essential to ensuring our facilities are fit for purpose.  

The design of mental health facilities is critical in providing a safe and rehabilitative environment for consumers, and while from the outside, facilities may appear to be similar to other buildings, they are highly bespoke with every aspect, from design to material selection and audio-visual solutions, considered. 

Six key considerations  

1. Safety is the core design principle: safety is at the heart of the design process to ensure the wellbeing of consumers and staff. Safety is prioritised across every design element and impacts everything from electrical solutions and fire safety interventions to ceiling heights to reduce risks of self-harm. For example, a higher level of acoustic treatment is required in mental health facilities to minimise stress incurred from noise in adjacent spaces. When considering security design, it’s important to take a mitigative approach using passive systems, which are unobtrusive and respectful of privacy while prioritising consumer and staff safety.  
2. Designing for flexibility: it’s critical to design facilities to be flexible and adaptable to cater to changing models of care and to reduce the impact on facility operations and unnecessary disturbances to consumers. For example, floor-to-floor heights will need to be coordinated with building services to make it easier to adapt spaces in the future. This requires a highly integrated design between engineering disciplines and architects.
3. Sustainability and access to nature: the environment has an important role in enabling a salutogenic approach to health and wellbeing. A healthy and comfortable indoor environment is widely accepted to support positive health outcomes for consumers and staff. Access to daylight and improved indoor air quality is vital to achieving this and can be supported using anti-ligature operable windows to help consumers control their environment. Providing consumers with a connection to nature through biophilic design solutions that use natural materials and providing courtyard areas and visual access to the landscape through views of water and green spaces can also support recovery. The use of temperature control can also be beneficial to help reduce aggressive behaviours and encourage good sleep hygiene, while the use of circadian lighting can be used to support health and wellbeing by mimicking natural lighting to align with our biological clock. 
4. Technology: plays an important role in recovery. Internet connection and web-based communication platforms can provide consumers with a sense of connection to friends, family, and support networks beyond the mental health facility and access to training and development programmes. These connections form part of an integrated approach to treatment and support their reintegration into society and ability to lead a meaningful and contributory life. Audio-visual technology solutions, such as sensory rooms with fibre-optic star ceilings and wall projections create immersive experiences for consumers and are designed to aid rehabilitation.  
5. Designing for infectious disease: the coronavirus pandemic has fundamentally changed how we design buildings. We are now acutely aware of the need to control the spread of infectious diseases, and how this will inform design outcomes in future. In practice, this could be designing specific wards that can operate safely in pandemic mode or be more easily adapted to suit pandemic operational requirements. This is particularly critical for mental health facilities where consumers cannot be easily transferred to other facilities due to specific safety and security requirements or where disruption to one’s environment may impact recovery outcomes. 
6. Embed your costing in the process: mental health facilities are inherently complex. What appears as a regular building component is rarely as it seems, for example, plywood backing behind walls for reinforcement, anti-pick caulking around fittings, and tamperproof and anti-ligature fixtures and fittings all add a premium cost. Every aspect requires more or special materials or time to achieve the level of robustness needed. This means there are significant cost risk factors across every design element, and they must be tracked throughout the project to reduce the risk of going over budget.

A solution for all 

Mental health projects require meticulous planning and delivery experience. New technology and models of care are driving better outcomes for consumer recovery, and how our buildings transform over time requires both an agile mindset and a considered approach. Innovative ideas are important to push the industry forward and drive better care, but to be successful in a mental health setting, a thorough understanding of the unique sensitivities and pressure points is vital to creating a built solution that meets the needs of consumers, their families, and staff alike. 

The post A new vision for mental health facilities appeared first on Without Limits.

The construction industry is an important part of the UK economy, employing over two million workers. The way construction companies make purchasing decisions therefore has enormous potential to create a positive impact for the planet and people. We call this sustainable procurement.  

What is sustainable procurement and what makes it different? 

Procurement is the buying of goods, services and works that enable an organisation to operate their supply chains in a profitable and ethical manner. Traditionally, suppliers are appointed based on three criteria: cost, time and quality. Sustainable procurement, however, identifies value for money against social, economic, and environmental criteria. 

Knowing and understanding this difference is crucial. Sustainable procurement factors in these indirect cost considerations to gain a holistic view on a supplier’s proposal, rather than focusing on the direct procurement costs alone. 

What are the barriers to adoption? Are they easy to overcome? 

As sustainable procurement specialists, we see a lot of untapped potential. There are several reasons for this.  

The government’s Public Procurement Note 06/20, which came into force in 2021 for in-scope organisations, encourages greater action around social value within public sector contracts. Yet, guidance and parameters are limited.  

We also see a lack of understanding around sustainable procurement, as well as fears around extra costs and lack of capacity.  

But, with increasing emphasis from society and stakeholders on environment, social and governance (ESG) issues, pressure to act is only going to increase. 

The good news is that the journey to integrate sustainable procurement within an organisation does not require significant change on day one. Here are five simple changes that construction professionals can make. 

1/ Establish a baseline 

Establishing a baseline position identifies the good work that supply chain members are already doing. It will also enable your organisation to demonstrate future progress both internally and as well as actual societal impact.

2/ Include a purposeful sustainable procurement question 

Include a purposeful sustainable procurement question within tenders. This will initiate conversations with suppliers and lead to conscious decision-making when preparing bids.   

3/ Set a pathway for success 

Setting the pathway for success is an important factor not to be overlooked as it provides employees with direction and suppliers with a vision for them to tailor in their responses.  

Develop sustainability policies and accompanying procedures to ensure consistency across projects and practises.  

4/ Be clear at the outset  

To get the maximum output from bidders, organisations and the project team need to communicate to each other the social value outcomes that they want to achieve through the procurement process.  

This information can be disseminated through the Construction Innovation Hub’s Value Toolkit, as well as the Social Value Portal.  

These mechanisms can also be used to capture the good work already being done in the supply chain – another easy win. 

5/ Manage through to completion   

One of the most overlooked areas in sustainable procurement is the management of delivery.  Project teams are often so focused on completing the job on time and to budget that it is easy to neglect suppliers’ tender commitments. But there are ways to ensure delivery without the need for additional resource.   

For example, we developed an innovative clause that amended a client’s NEC contract to allow it to withhold payment if a successful bidder failed to deliver on their social value commitment.   

The bidder was responsible for evidencing real and meaningful social impact to ensure swift payment, which they were happy to do.  

The post Five simple changes to make to procure more sustainably appeared first on Without Limits.

In 2023, universities are facing two key major issues. The first is rising energy prices. Universities are research, people and data-intensive and consume vast amounts of power, and thus face particularly high bills. One major UK university reported a rise in its total energy bill from £30 million per annum to £70 million in 2022; such price hikes will influence their appetite for spending on new major infrastructure projects.  

The second issue is decarbonisation. Many universities are committed to achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2030. However, universities tend to have large physical estates. Many include buildings which are decades, or even centuries old, which were not built with energy efficiency or decarbonisation in mind. 

Purposeful design goes a long way

Over the past decade, brand new buildings sprang up on university campuses to attract attendees and to deploy the capital raised from fees. This is reflected in the far higher standard of student accommodation which has now become an expectation across the UK. However, looking ahead, many universities will have to manage their budgets carefully. We could see an uptick in refurbishment projects as universities assess their estates, and as funding becomes more challenging in the face of high energy costs and inflation.  

When looking at the commissioning and design of new buildings, some universities prize architectural merit and distinctive designs which single them out as world-leading centres of excellence for a specific discipline. Many universities have buildings of historic importance, or have simply become iconic parts of a city or town’s architecture and landscape. In these cases, buildings may be retained even if they are difficult to integrate into modern-day education and sustainability requirements.  

Other, more practical, or teaching-intensive universities will require simpler buildings which can accommodate as many students as possible, with 1.5-2 metres of teaching space allocated per person. 

Harnessing smart technology for campuses

Today, as in the professional workplace, students and academics are largely embracing a hybrid, flexible approach to studying, which necessitates less physical teaching space and strong IT infrastructure. Decarbonisation, digitisation and energy efficiency are increasingly dovetailing with each other. IT master plans are emerging that enable the digital student experience and teaching model to connect to physical spaces – the smart campus concept.  

Under this model, physical aspects of a university are linked and respond flexibly to their users via smart devices, monitoring systems and sensors. For example, desks in a library building might be equipped with sensors to measure room usage, and reduce lighting and heating in unoccupied spaces.  

Creating more inclusive, welcoming spaces is also rising in importance. Recent AECOM projects include interventions that support neurodivergent students and building users. Enabling excellent accessibility throughout physical buildings, supported by smart technology, is now a principal design tenet – creating the ability to open doors via a smartphone, for example, or to message a reception desk to help staff prepare a physical space ahead of a person’s arrival.    

Enabling the local community to better integrate with university building is increasingly a feature of new developments. For example, the ground floor of a new research building could be made accessible to the public, enabling local people to access learning, research, and coffee shop facilities. Not only can this improve educational and social outcomes for local communities, it can also help students to feel more at home in the town or city they are studying in.  

Meeting sustainability and net zero targets

Many institutions within the university sector, with its focus on innovation and research, are committed to becoming trailblazers in sustainability. As a result, willingness to invest is high and many of the lower-carbon technologies and materials deployed in university building projects later trickle through to other sectors.  

The net zero goal is strongly influencing university’s master plans and use of space. By creating more compact, well-utilised spaces, the goal is to reduce embodied carbon and to reduce unnecessary energy use. 

As with other sectors, refurbishments have become key to meeting embodied carbon reduction goals. In many cases, the embodied carbon profile of improving an older building is far lower than creating a new building. Refurbs are set to become a mainstay of order books in the years ahead, as asset owners look to adapt their portfolios to meet decarbonisation requirements.   

However, many universities are asking for Passivhaus principles to be applied to new projects; this may favour new build over refurbishment to achieve the goal of air-tight buildings, or divestments of old buildings to make way for new assets with assured quality. 

Alongside Passivhaus and LETI principles, other accreditations such as the US-based WELL standard are rising in uptake.  

Ensuring a financially viable future for universities

As in other sectors, there are ongoing challenges around procurement and cost increases. AECOM’s TPI indices rose 9.9 per cent year-on-year in 2022, with a 6.9 per cent increase anticipated in 2023. Combined with rising energy costs, creating financially viable new projects is currently difficult.  

Despite the challenges, it is important to note that overall, UK universities’ incomes are increasing. According to the University and College Union (UCU), in 2020/21, the most recent financial year, universities finished with £3.4 billion more cash than they started it with. The combined surplus of the universities of Cambridge and Oxford in 2020/21 alone was £1.7 billion. University leaders also told regulator the Office for Students (OfS) that they were planning to increase overall capital expenditure by 36 per cent in 2022/23, to £4.6 billion. 

The question is where they will allocate this money. Trade unions are calling for it to be diverted away from capital spending, and instead spent on increasing teaching wages, or on technology rather than on physical assets; it could be stockpiled, rather than spent. Outside of broader macroeconomic forces, these are perhaps the most influential factors on whether we will see a strong pipeline of university building projects in the near and mid-term future.  

This is an abridged version of an article that was first published in Building magazine. You can read the full article by clicking here.

The post Adapting UK universities to address energy efficiency and decarbonisation appeared first on Without Limits.

The revised and expanded PAS 2080 Carbon Management in Buildings and Infrastructure specification represents a massive advancement in how our industry can play a crucial role in enabling reductions in greenhouse gas emissions through greater understanding, thereby accelerating the charge to net zero.

PAS 2080 has established itself as the global gold standard for carbon management in infrastructure since its release by The British Standards Institution (BSI) in 2016. However, the upgrade – PAS 2080:2023 – introduces a decisive and exciting change: it is now the world’s first framework to unite both buildings and infrastructure in the decarbonisation of the built environment.

What’s in the new PAS2080:2023 revision?

The revised PAS demands that every part of the value chain works together to consider the whole life carbon of projects by bringing carbon impact into decision-making as early as possible, considering our assets as part of a wider system, and embedding best practices within procurement through to end-of-life management.

Furthermore, it requires industry to break the habit of viewing carbon with tunnel vision. Now, we must consider the importance and influence of interrelationships like nature-based solutions, climate adaptation and biodiversity and their impacts on carbon.

Everybody working in the built environment knows full well that collaboration is critical to accelerating decarbonisation. As industry contributes over 50 per cent of global carbon emissions, there is a huge task ahead of us. And so, we welcome a framework designed by and for the industry that emphasises and provides vital guidance on how it can be achieved across the full life of a project or programme.

The renewed PAS will undoubtedly help industry put the inconsistencies of the past behind it and collaborate to ensure we get the basics of carbon management right. It will boost cooperation to identify and mitigate emissions at every stage.

As a member of the Technical Advisory Panel for the revised PAS 2080: 2023, we are fully committed to working with all our partners and customers to ensure the specification is harnessed to its full potential in reducing the carbon impact of our projects.

Three key elements of the new PAS that should guide our thinking

As the industry continues on the decarbonisation path, there are three key elements to the new PAS that should guide our thinking:

1/ We must work together and factor in carbon thinking right from the start

At the heart of the renewed PAS is the recognition that there must be behavioural change if we’re to achieve our collective goals. And so it insists that all stakeholders, including owners, designers, constructors and suppliers, work together in a common framework from the earliest moments of a project. Only by doing that will projects be built on the firmest foundations for success.

As well as demanding leadership and improved governance, the framework establishes roles and responsibilities across the entire value chain to maintain a focus on carbon for the project’s lifetime.

It emphasises decisions and actions that reduce whole-life carbon as early as possible with the whole value chain considered rather than focusing on the capital (or embodied), operational or user carbon in isolation. This refreshed approach will influence broader participation and the sharing of results to reveal best practices for advancing decarbonisation.

The framework will also create a forum for parties to work together and think innovatively about which delivery approaches will work best for people and planet, such as the consideration of retrofit over new build, or the adoption of digital tools and processes.

2/ PAS 2080 certification demonstrates a clear commitment to climate action

It is notable and impressive how many people working in this industry are passionate about making a difference. Adopting the revised PAS 2080 provides us with a framework that will enable the transition to a low-carbon built environment and a means of validating this commitment. Verification will indicate adherence to the industry’s very best practices and will demonstrate clear climate action leadership.

And it also makes business sense. Users can reduce their energy, labour and material costs and win a competitive edge when bidding for tenders in an increasingly carbon and climate-aware world. In the UK for example, government-funded arms-length bodies such as major infrastructure providers National Highways, High Speed Two (HS2) and Network Rail are required to be PAS2080 certified in 2023. This will have wider implications as their supply chain will need to demonstrate compliance too.

3/ Maximise opportunities to build climate resilience

PAS 2080 acknowledges the shared obligation of the industry to contribute towards creating a cleaner and more sustainable environment.

It goes beyond carbon reduction and promotes a holistic approach to project planning that considers the broader impact on climate resilience, biodiversity, and environmental restoration.

A platform for rapid change

PAS 2080 is becoming an increasingly important means of promoting decarbonisation. As panel members of the Institution of Civil Engineers’s (ICE) Carbon Champions Programme, we have observed numerous instances of good practices and innovation within the industry that have resulted from these commitments.

The principles underpinning PAS 2080:2023 are already embraced by ScopeX^TM – AECOM’s approach to solving for carbon. We strongly support our clients’ ambitious decarbonisation commitments and PAS 2080 requirements for their supply chain. It reflects our common drive for decarbonisation, and together enables us to identify and implement innovations and opportunities to create a more sustainable built environment, which is core to the AECOM’s ScopeX^TM approach.

We are excited to collaborate with our clients to push the boundaries of best practices and drive progress towards a more sustainable future for the built environment.

The post All you need to know about the revised PAS 2080 standard on carbon management appeared first on Without Limits.

Reducing the carbon impact of existing building stock is a time-critical task for the industry, as the consequences of human-induced climate change are now tangible. In 2022 alone, the UK experienced its warmest year on record, according to Met Office data. The past year has also seen heavy rainfall, flooding, urban wildfires, and other extreme weather conditions in the UK and on a global scale – all of which are being experienced with increasing frequency.

The scale of the decarbonisation challenge cannot be underestimated. Existing building stock accounts for approximately 23% of UK carbon emissions, according to a 2019 Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors report. In the housing sector alone, the UK Green Building Council estimates that the UK’s 29 million homes must be retrofitted at a rate of 1.8 every minute to achieve net zero by 2050.

The public sector

Despite immense funding pressure, the UK public sector has in many cases led the way in estate decarbonisation investment. Initiatives such as the Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme (PSDS), launched by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, are injecting cash into improving public buildings by stripping out carbon and energy inefficiencies.

The PSDS has to date provided around £1.6 billion in grant funding to help public sector organisations improve the energy use of existing buildings, and to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels. Additionally, the Public Sector Low Carbon Skills Fund provides grants for public sector bodies to engage specialist advice to develop decarbonisation plans for their estate.

The private sector

For private estate owners, the investment case for decarbonising their buildings centres around both highlighting their ESG credentials and preventing assets from becoming stranded. Assets become stranded when their value is vulnerable to external factors such as changing regulation, technological innovation or evolving social norms.

In real estate, legislation preventing assets with poor energy efficiency from being occupied is a growing risk. There is also rising pressure from fellow asset owners: initiatives such as the Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance requires members to reduce emissions across global property portfolios.

To mitigate this risk, tools are emerging to help estate owners assess the likelihood of their assets becoming stranded. The European Union (EU)-funded Carbon Risk Real Estate Monitor (CRREM) is a tool that allows investors and property owners to assess the exposure of their assets to stranding risks based on energy and emission data and the analysis of regulatory requirements.

Factoring energy efficiency into design

Cutting carbon by increasing energy efficiency typically involves improving the thermal efficiency and air tightness of the building fabric, along with the installation of energy-efficient plant and smart building control technology. Energy assessments will provide guidance on what is possible at each site.

A fabric-first approach is important. Improving mechanical, electrical and plumbing engineering (MEP) systems in a building with a poorly performing external envelope has limited value. In contrast, upgrading facades, adding insulation, and increasing air tightness are all effective interventions and are often the first point of focus when taking on a retrofit challenge.

That said, improving the heat efficiency of the building fabric can often create an increase in whole-life carbon. Given their carbon intensity, is only advisable to undertake full cladding replacement if the existing system is damaged, performing poorly or nearing the end of its useful life. A holistic approach should be taken to considering the impact of building fabric changes – overheating and condensation, for example, can be consequences of failing to consider how a replacement building fabric will interact with existing building components.

Once decisions about the external fabric and structure have been made, it is important to understand how a building is used. Heating, cooling and lighting unoccupied space is costly in both monetary and carbon terms, yet if building occupier patterns are fully understood, this is a relatively easy way to quickly cut carbon output and energy costs.

This can be done through installing building-level controls to enable efficient building management. Controls are key to ensuring energy use is minimised and the benefits of natural ventilation are explored and incorporated where feasible. Incentivising efficient occupier behaviour is another important way to reduce energy demand.

Introducing onsite renewable energy generation capability is something developers are often keen to explore, as it is typically a highly visible example of a building’s efforts to be more sustainable and can help achieve higher EPC ratings. However, it should be noted that as electricity sourced from the national grid decarbonises, the operational carbon benefit of onsite production lessens.

Full grid decarbonisation is still decades away, but we are swiftly moving towards renewables becoming the dominant source of on-grid power. Onsite generation has other valuable benefits, such as energy security and the potential to sell energy to the grid, but electrification of existing plant has the biggest impact on carbon reduction.

Creating holistic decarbonisation plans

For real estate owners that are yet to consider these issues, thinking ahead of time and having a plan in place for estate decarbonisation will enable them to be nimble and take full advantage when new funding streams or supportive initiatives are announced. Tax policy is one area in clear need of greater government support. That UK policy currently favours new build developments over refurbishment is bewildering in the face of our climate goals, and needs to change.

Public sector support – directly through grant funding, targeted initiatives, and regulatory change – is key, but is only one part of the solution. Private sector action on estate decarbonisation is crucial and is an important part of the jigsaw which cannot be ignored. More instruments are needed to accelerate this market, whether in the form of a carbon tax, or a shift in the relative prices of gas and electricity or other solutions.

The construction industry, the financial community, and asset owners must all pick up the pace on estate decarbonisation if both the UK’s and other international carbon targets are to be achieved. In the face of soaring inflation, a recession, labour and materials shortages and a lack of knowledge in the sector on the topic, it is an indisputably difficult task. Success in these conditions may be about trade-offs and compromises – and collectively creating holistic decarbonisation plans to break the decarbonisation challenge down into achievable steps, one project or estate at a time.

This is an abridged version of an article that was first published in Building magazine. You can read the full article by clicking here.

The post Decarbonising real estate starts with intelligent planning and design appeared first on Without Limits.

The UK is home to some of the most innovative state-funded cancer treatment centres in the world. However, the NHS is under immense strain: record numbers of people are coming forward for cancer tests, with almost a quarter of a million referrals per month in 2022, according to NHS data. This is triple the number of referrals reported in 2020, when the coronavirus pandemic meant people were often reluctant to attend hospitals or to visit their GP practice.

This means cancer care centres are dealing with all-time high levels of referrals and patients, at a time when coronavirus and its attendant risks is still ongoing. Those commissioning cancer facilities are tasked with the challenge of delivering high-quality spaces which are sensitive to patient needs, while incorporating the best of new and existing technology. There’s also a huge focus on quality; and all this must be achieved under tough public sector budget and time constraints.

Enhancing patient experience

Cancer facility designs should provide a sense of calm and reassurance, in a place where patients often feel frightened and overwhelmed.

Clear wayfinding, creating logical pathways and flows through the building are a key factor in order to reduce stress on patients, staff and visitors. Wayfinding and layout should also account for the fact that people often receive difficult news and information in these spaces.

Discreet, calming interview rooms are necessary, and some centres have private exit routes which avoid patients and families having to walk through a public waiting room after receiving bad news. In turn, waiting areas are evolving from serried rows of fixed seating to a more relaxed, hotel lobby-style layout, with chairs that can be moved around coffee tables or by windows.

Cancer treatments typically require patients to make multiple outpatient visits, and so designing simple pathways that enable visitors to create their own rituals – whether that means being able to go from a cafe out to a courtyard garden or terrace with a coffee, or into a quiet multi-faith space for contemplation – is important.

Giving patients a sense of autonomy and choice is vital and can lead to better healthcare outcomes. Most new cancer care centres with patient beds are now favouring single patient rooms. Evidence suggests inpatients will have a shorter length of stay if they’re in a single room, which provides a more peaceful environment, greater privacy, the ability to have relatives and friends sleep in their room, and also having loved ones able to help carry out their personal care. That said, some small, four-bed bays are still being designed into projects to provide patient choice.

Ensuring staff feel valued and supported

Providing care makes heavy demands on staff. There are currently more than 110,000 unfilled posts in the NHS, and staff retention is a critical issue for the service. Employees need to feel valued and cared for in their workspace.

These needs can be met in building design via good changing facilities, excellent provision for pedestrian, cycling and driving access and parking, restful facilities for breaks such as quiet rooms, sleep ‘pods’, spaces for indoor exercise such as yoga, and also private outdoor spaces to provide privacy and fresh air during shifts.

Access to education spaces should be seamless. Staff also require access to good education and training facilities, ideally close by or within the same building. Activity-based working involving a variety of workspace typologies is shifting from general workplace design into healthcare buildings. This is reflected in growing calls for these buildings to integrate, or at least have ready access to employee education, office space, clinical and support services such as Maggie’s or Macmillan support centres.

Creating adaptable buildings

Treating the shell and core as having a longer lifetime and the internal fitout as a shorter-term endeavour is a way of looking at buildings which NBBJ has been doing in conjunction with AECOM. Even if they are being procured as a single contract, designing the shell and core as distinct and separate from the internal fit-out configuration is being increasingly practiced. As cancer treatment and hospital design is changing and developing quickly, this approach enables faster changes and updates to the internal elements.

Standardisation – to have repeatable rooms where possible – provides benefits in terms of design, construction, maintenance, cost and clinical safety. As staff become more familiar with a room layout and equipment layout, it is much safer for them to be able to treat repeated patients without the added burden of understanding an unfamiliar space or layout. This also lends itself to Modern Methods of Construction (MMC).

Cancer care centres and net zero

Cancer care centres often have a higher energy usage (kWh/m²) than acute hospital facilities. This is due to a higher proportion of specialist radiotherapy and imaging equipment, usually within a smaller building footprint; the need to maintain a comfortable internal environment; and for specialist departments to incorporate a high fixed air change rate for infection control purposes. There is a potential conflict between NHS Net Zero Carbon (NZC) requirements, and the ability to offset the energy consumed by major medical equipment and Mechanical, Electrical and Public Health (MEP) plant serving energy intensive departments.

When developing net zero carbon energy strategies for cancer centres, it is important to ensure that actual energy usages are quantified during the early design stages. This should incorporate design solutions that allow clients to manage and benchmark their energy consumption, against design assumptions, so that they can achieve net zero once the building is in operation. At present, new-build healthcare projects target BREEAM Excellent as a minimum.

AECOM is designing solutions to enable new cancer centres to achieve net zero. Our approach includes designing all-electric facilities with a fabric-first focus, working with the architect to maximise the efficiency of the building through materials and components choices. Also central is the use of highly efficient decentralised air-handling plant to reduce both distribution energy losses, while maximising MMC.

Case study: Clatterbridge Cancer Centre

The Clatterbridge Cancer Centre in Liverpool is part of a cluster of world-leading specialist hospitals within Merseyside, including the Alder Hey Children’s Hospital and the Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital.

The 11-storey, 110-bed NHS facility opened in June 2020. AECOM provided building services engineering, civil and structural engineering, acoustic engineering and sustainability as well as BREEAM and environmental services.

In collaboration with architect BDP, the focus from the outset was on designing a low energy building with a fabric first approach. A high-performance facade was integral to achieving this, as it insulates the building while maximising daylight penetration and thermal comfort for users.

Dynamic control systems help the building to perform over 50 per cent better than the Department of Health’s guideline carbon targets. More than 30 per cent of the building’s electrical demand is generated on site by low and zero carbon systems, including photovoltaic panels.

Modern methods of construction have been used wherever possible: 30 per cent of the structure comprised modular components. Prefabrication and modularisation of MEP systems in particular aided on-site construction and improved quality of build, cutting timescales and reducing on-site health and safety risks. The project is rated BREEAM Excellent.

 

This is an abridged version of an article that was first published in Building magazine. You can read the full article by clicking here.

The post A holistic approach to designing cancer care facilities appeared first on Without Limits.

Despite clear public interest in speeding the delivery of infrastructure improvements in the United States, it can take as many as 4½ years on average to receive environmental approvals that clear the way for major federal projects.

The Infrastructure and Investment Jobs Act (IIJA) establishes an approach to reduce these delays, and other permitting reform efforts are being pursued by government to deliver needed highway, rail, water, new energy and utility projects more quickly. At the same time, new cloud-based, interactive digital platforms like AECOM’s PlanEngage can be influential  to help reduce by half the cumulative review time and improve transparency and public engagement. In fact, lawmakers in Congress are considering policies to encourage the use of digital tools in the review process.

Making regulatory documents more accessible

While the review requirements set out in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are critical to protect communities and habitat, a combination of factors over time has combined to extend the environmental review process – leading to costly delays and even dooming worthy projects. Environmental Impact Statements that were as once as short as 10 pages now average 600 pages, plus appendices that typically exceed 1,000 pages. Understaffed regulatory agencies often working across multiple jurisdictions and juggling input from the public, consultants and other stakeholders can bog down under the sheer weight of the review process.

Online digital platforms like PlanEngage essentially make NEPA documents more accessible, expanding stakeholder engagement and transparency, while enabling interactivity and edits in real time between regulatory agencies and the public that can speed up reviews.

How PlanEngage made collaboration easier in Arizona

This was the case in Arizona where PlanEngage was first used by the Arizona Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) during review of a 280-mile interstate highway segment between Nogales and Wickenburg. Instead of navigating dense, static, two-dimensional PDF documents, the platform allowed users to search headings and subheadings through a navigation bar and provide input. Readers could pop out graphics, see photos and visualizations in a separate window on their devices, and provide input.

In addition to promoting more efficient reviews, online digital platforms allow for better collaboration between agencies that can identify and resolve conflicts earlier in the process, which also reduces the number of formal comments on the draft EIS. In the case of Arizona’s I-11 expansion, it also unlocked new opportunities.

Arizona officials said the results achieved through the interactive process will guide their efforts on future studies.

With as much as $1.2 trillion in new federal infrastructure spending hitting the market, and greater demand by the public for input and more equitable ways to deliver it, the timing is right for increased uptake of online digital platforms. In a process where debate is limited to formal written submissions or public hearings, interactive, mobile-phone friendly documents and engagement, can draw higher levels of interest, reach a broader audience and allow for a wider diversity of voices in real time.

What’s more, officials say, is that better public understanding of projects leads to more substantive comments, less ambiguity and fewer delays or challenges related to not being able to find information in a timely way.

Reducing costs, speeding up delivery

The core goals of environmental review and public participation remain as important as ever in the review process. Delivering an ambitious infrastructure program requires a new approach that aligns with the original intent of NEPA requirements and helps get projects off the drawing board.

A 2015 analysis prepared by Common Good, a nonpartisan reform coalition, found that a six-year delay in starting construction on public projects cost the nation nearly $4 trillion, a sum far in excess of the amount needed to modernize America’s infrastructure. Today’s inflationary economy has already begun eating into the spending power created by IIJA and client project decision-making.

Regulators and clients alike can play a role in encouraging innovation and moving from the approach of previous generations for environmental reviews to an interactive, cloud-based platform approach appropriate for 21st century infrastructure. The outcomes can lead to better projects delivered faster and more economically, while ensuring the environmental protections that keep our communities safe and thriving.

The post Online review tools mean better outcomes for infrastructure appeared first on Without Limits.

After a turbulent period which started with Brexit and was sustained by coronavirus, materials, labour and supply chain issues have now been ramped up by the conflict in Ukraine. Wider economic inflation, in turn, is driving costs to all-time highs.  

Yet the most surprising thing about the logistics market at present is that it is buoyant in the face of these staggering materials price hikes. The industrial market has experienced double-digit increases on build cost over the past eighteen months – leading to an incredibly challenging time for market participants, where demand is high, but supply of key elements is low. 

Logistics buildings typically have a very simple design, comprising an envelope of structural steel, a concrete slab, and then cladding on the walls and roof. However, with steel and concrete now in high demand and low supply, logistics centres’ need for large amounts of steel means costs and delays have become particularly pronounced. Steel and concrete are also energy intensive products to produce. As energy pieces rise, production costs have also soared. 

How inflation impacts procurement

The typical procurement route for this building type is changing. A previous preference for single-stage tendering is now changing in favour of two-stage tendering, and to a more partner-based approach. Many of the bigger developers are even bypassing two-stage tendering – instead, going straight to a partnership with a contractor at an early stage, in order to try and lock in prices and contractor availability.  

January 2022 saw some of the sharpest materials price increases on record. To offset building costs, rental prices are rising on units. This shift in yield has helped upcoming and in-development projects to continue to be financially viable. The problem developers face doing deals going forwards is how to predict build cost, and whether deals can be achieved on a fixed-price basis.  

Design with end use in mind

The biggest change with this building type over the past decade has been the shift to ecommerce, which now dominates demand. All retailers are assessing their ‘dark lstores’ and last-mile facilities and want to use them to help gain a competitive advantage over rivals – by ensuring their logistics centres enable the fastest and smoothest order fulfilment. 

While logistics centres are relatively simple in design, there are differences in facility layouts and heights based on what stage and type of fulfilment they are catering to. Last-mile logistics centres typically have a ground-based operation inside the building. They do not require high racking and are often laid out like a supermarket, with staff doing the picking rather than shoppers. In contrast, larger distribution centres, perhaps leased or owned by major international online retailers, feature high bay racking, and often deploy greater levels of technology and robotics for picking products.  

Therefore when developing a shell, it is important to consider the expected end use. For example, a fulfilment centre which has heavy amounts of robotics may need to reconsider the use of roof lights, windows, and sources of natural light, which can confuse robot tracking and motion sensors.   

Amenities for the people who working in logistics centres are improving, as labour shortages make it more important to attract and retain workers. Some core features are found in almost every project – such as a canteen, showers, changing and toilet facilities, and a large car park. However, gyms, sports fields, trim trails and additional EV charging points for staff cars and grassy outdoor meeting or relaxation areas have all been included in recent projects, to attract tenants and retain labour.  

To maximise value, some tenants are opting to make their distribution centres also their HQ or primary office location. This may also drive-up demand for enhanced staff amenities and increased office design. Offices are typically fitted out to Cat A. 

Making logistics centres sustainable

Because logistics centres are such large, open spaces, the cost impact to improving sustainability is relatively small compared to the cost of the building itself. BREEAM Very Good is easily achievable with speculative logistics developments, and is now a baseline; BREEAM Excellent status is also being reached on some projects where tenants have demanded it.  

Logistics centres, with their large flat roofs, are obvious choices for solar PV installation and this is now commonplace. Some developers are selling the electricity generated from their rooftops to tenants. Making logistics centres self-sufficient from an energy perspective will likely become a strong selling point soon.  

Location also informs what sustainability measures can be included. Rainwater harvesting, on-site wind turbines, EV charging points at every delivery van space and water attenuation are all being deployed on projects.  

A smarter and more efficient future

Rather than a case of ‘survival of the fittest’, where only the largest contractors or tenants can take on and manage the risk associated with the inflation happening on these projects, it may turn out to be survival of the smartest – those industry players who can collaborate with the right partners; secure prices, labour and materials as efficiently as possible; and keep watch and respond to the retail trends which are influencing demand for these buildings.  

This is an abridged version of an article that was first published in Building magazine. You can read the full article by clicking here.

The post Designing logistics centres that can keep pace with demand appeared first on Without Limits.

Reducing operational emissions is now only half the story when it comes to designing net zero carbon buildings. Thanks to the focus on operational energy demand and the radical decarbonisation of the electricity grid in the UK, carbon emissions of new buildings are decreasing and are projected to decrease further. This has raised the prominence of embodied carbon – the emissions from pouring concrete and forging steel – to a point where they are responsible for over half the total carbon emissions of a new building.

It’s amazing to think that the amount of carbon emitted is the same during the first two years of construction as 60 years of use. It comes as no surprise that the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) told the BBC that we should “refurbish old buildings rather than scrap them”.

However, the industry is still catching up with the change in emphasis towards embodied carbon and opportunities to cut carbon emissions associated with construction. Policy has started to shift, however. The London Plan asks for Whole Life Carbon Assessment for referable projects and LETI and RIBA are proposing stringent targets to drive change.

If we look at the LETI and RIBA targets, then the extent of the net zero challenge becomes clear. A highly efficient non-domestic building operates at around 120kWh/m²/year energy demand and the LETI / RIBA target is less than 55 kWh/m²/year. Similarly, a typical steel and concrete building comprises over 1,000 kgCO₂/m² and LETI / RIBA is proposing targets of <350 by 2030, equivalent to a 65 per cent reduction over the baseline.

This article uses a simple visualisation to illustrate what’s needed to get our buildings to net zero.  The net zero quadrant shows, in stages, the opportunities and influences over operational and embodied carbon reduction, but ultimately, demonstrates how net zero carbon can only be achieved if all parties – developers, operators, and occupiers – take a holistic approach to the way buildings are designed and operated.

Dividing up operational and embodied carbon emissions

Roughly speaking, the proportions of carbon emissions from a new building can be divided into four segments (see Figure 1). This is a huge simplification and uses lots of assumptions, but it helps to illustrate the relative influence and the opportunities for reduction. On the left in yellow, embodied carbon is split into two blocks: substructure and structure, and fabric and fitout. On the right in blue, operational energy is split into the (regulated) base build loads and the (unregulated) fitout and equipment loads, which comprise the remaining operational carbon used.

Furthermore, the diagram shows how designers have more influence on the carbon content of base build while the clients or occupants have more influence over the carbon content of the interior fitout and the operational energy demands from equipment such as ICT.

Of course, the overall carbon impact of the building starts with the genesis of the project and the all-important project brief. As there has been so little focus on embodied carbon until very recently, there are more opportunities to reduce this element through changes to the design (and the brief!) that have not yet been taken. On the other hand, the operational energy and carbon emissions of new buildings are getting increasingly harder to reduce. This is because new buildings are designed to be highly efficient, usually through the adoption of a fabric-first approach, all-electric supply with heat pumps, and maxed-out on-site renewables.

Using the quadrant to show emissions reduction potential

Figure 2 below shows how much potential there is to cut emissions in the substructure and structure of a typical building. Low carbon concrete will reduce emissions; cement substitutes alone can reduce the emissions by 8-20 per cent, depending on the structural solution. Designing-out basements will significantly cut embodied carbon as they require a lot of concrete to be poured. This has massive ramification on building design, particularly in cities, where basements are used to service the building.

The use of alternative materials for the structure, fabric, and fitout will cut emissions. For example, reclaimed raised floor tiles have a fifth of the emissions associated with new ones, and unfired bricks made from construction waste have a tenth of the emissions of the usual fired bricks. Lightweight façades make the whole building lighter, as well as reducing the thermal bridges created by having to tie back heavy materials.

Figure 3 shows an example of a project where the key opportunities were assessed in terms of total carbon emissions. The relative carbon cost of each of these measures was also assessed and in terms of ‘cost per tonne of carbon saved’ the clear winners are the embodied carbon savings from cement substitutes. The operational savings are small as the building is already optimising the fabric, using highly efficient systems as well as ground source heat pumps and a PV array.

Using the quadrant to visualise the extent of the gap to be bridged

If we superimpose net zero emissions levels as stipulated by LETI and RIBA onto the quadrant (see dotted blue line in Figure 4), we can clearly see the extent of the gap to be bridged. To meet these targets, we need to halve emissions – and that will require radical changes to the way we design and operate buildings.

Showing the new approach

Figure 5 shows how we will have to change our whole approach to projects if we are to hit the LETI and RIBA targets.

Firstly, we need to rethink the idea of base build and fitout. Often, items are installed to let the building which are then torn out and replaced by the tenant to meet their needs. Likewise, with control systems, some large commercial buildings have two Building Management Systems (BMS) that are not fully integrated, making it difficult to understand the energy use and impossible to tightly control the systems.

To avoid the above, designers and operators will have to work hand-in-hand to optimise everything from the built form to the installed capacity of the building services to hone the building for lean design and lean operation.

Secondly, we will have to cross the landlord/tenant divide as this contractual line drawn through our buildings means that the landlord loses control over the energy demands in the building. The tenants’ demise becomes a ‘blackbox’ of energy use with occupants able to install any equipment they like and demand that the building runs 24 hours. This can lead to the tail-wagging-the-dog where one small, tenanted area can force all of the central plant to be running continuously. Then, at the end of the lease, the landlord has no records of the maintenance and warranties of the plant and equipment that is in the tenants’ demise, making it difficult to be able to keep it and pass it onto the next tenants.

The solution is to erode the line between landlord and tenant, with landlords taking responsibility for the equipment in the tenant’s demise and working closely with the tenant’s fitout team to ensure that the design fits with the net zero targets. This approach is starting to be adopted by some farsighted developers.

We need a radical rethink

Meeting the net zero challenge is going to need more than a tweaking of business-as-usual practice or a reliance on technology. We need to rethink the brief and revaluate what we expect from our buildings, in terms of everything from basements, structural solutions, building heights, through to retention and refurbishment of existing buildings instead of building new.

The post Visualising what we need to do to meet net zero carbon targets in buildings appeared first on Without Limits.

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has sounded the alarm: “Any further delay in concerted anticipatory global action on adaptation and mitigation will miss a brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all.”  

The IPCC scenario assessment demonstrates that limiting warming to less than 1.5°C requires global greenhouse gas emissions to peak between 2020 and 2025 at the latest and be reduced by at least 43 percent by 2030. Without radical proactive action, we will not achieve this.  

As a key contributor of carbon emissions, the building industry must respond. We need to build flexible, carbon-positive buildings and infrastructure while simultaneously upgrading and adapting our existing assets to drive down our carbon footprint.  

Without change, the buildings of yesteryear will not thrive in a net zero society and may become ‘stranded assets’ – one of the biggest challenges facing the property and infrastructure sector today. These buildings will continue to negatively impact our ability to meet carbon targets, and running costs will surge. We must act now to prevent these assets from becoming less desirable to future users and tenants, and less valuable to investors – essentially ‘stranded’.  

The transition to renewable energy is often seen as a silver bullet for carbon elimination. However, to achieve the targets set out in the Paris Agreement, which aim to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius, we need to consider an asset’s whole operational life. Reducing operational emissions requires a multifaceted approach, driving carbon elimination across energy, waste, fuel, refrigerants, water and wastewater, and transport. 

Refitting for resilience 

An asset that achieves highly sustainable outcomes today may underperform against sustainability principles of the future. For our assets to remain valuable and relevant in a net zero society, we must rethink the design of new buildings and places and how we upgrade existing building stock to serve our changing environmental and societal needs. 

Let’s explore how action to eliminate operational carbon. Five key areas can drastically change a building’s resiliency and impact the level of associated risk for owners and investors.  

Operational carbon action: compare the pair 
Our asset owners, Fred and Yasmin, are making choices today that will impact each building’s carbon emissions and value in the future. Explore the scenarios below:        

Why policy must become Australia’s first line of climate defence 

Policy and incentivisation play an integral role in education, equity, and mobilisation, and will be vital to quickly achieving carbon targets. History tells us that policy works – addressing knowledge gaps and driving widespread change throughout communities.  

Governments across the globe are using policy to shape climate resilience: 

• In Canada, the federal government has implemented a carbon pollution pricing system and a 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan.  

• The UK government has introduced a policy to stop the sale of internal combustion engine cars by 2030.  
• Through its Heat and Building Strategy, the UK has also introduced a £450 million (US$548 million) Boiler Upgrade Scheme to help existing small domestic buildings transition to low carbon heating systems.  

In Australia, policies like these are yet to be taken up at a national level. Timeliness is crucial. If the industry waits until policy demands change, we will see a delayed impact in reducing our emissions. We are also likely to see the effect of rapid decision-making. Industry will be forced to adapt quickly, which could create capability gaps, including a lack of training to enable skilled employees to transition out of fossil fuel industries, a lack of readiness in the supply chain to respond to demand, and a lack of supporting infrastructure.  

In 2021, Australia ranked number one in the Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark results, we were a world leader in sustainable buildings. However, while we might outperform many countries in the built environment, this reflects the top of the market – our most privileged, most incentivised, and most able to act now.  

Initiatives need to be driven by bottom-up and top-down approaches. Private developers have put Australia at the forefront of sustainability indexes for the built environment globally, rather than national policy.

To meet standards set out in the Paris Agreement, we need national policies that incentivise change and increase the equity and accessibility of operational carbon asset upgrades for small to medium businesses and investors. Without support, how can asset owners like Fred contribute positively and thrive in a net zero society?

The truth is, it’s crunch time. Our government must align national policies to IPCC recommendations to help decarbonise the built environment across all sectors. With the proper support, we can design and upgrade our buildings and communities to create climate-resilient assets that serve our planet and community.

Eliminating operational carbon is not just good business sense; it’s critical for a liveable future.

The post Thrive or dive: how choices today can save our buildings and places tomorrow appeared first on Without Limits.

Coronavirus is not fundamentally changing office design. Home working, hybrid models, hub-and-spoke offices, ‘resimercial’ design – all of these concepts were in existence long before early 2020. The pandemic has merely acted as a catalyst for their growth, propelling them from trends to established norms.

What has changed is employee expectations of what constitutes a ‘good’, healthy, productive workplace. The balance of power has shifted towards the employee, and their needs are now influencing office design just as much, if not more, than their employers. Working three days at home and two days in the office is no longer a benefit that must be ‘earnt’ or negotiated. Instead, it’s an expectation.

After two years spent working largely from home, employees are now more educated and engaged in hybrid alternatives to the fixed-desk office than ever before – and are willing to leave or join companies if they cannot offer working patterns and office spaces that fit their lifestyles, as seen in the ongoing ‘Great Resignation’. So how can office design attract and retain talent?

Standards are emerging to support decision-making

There is no one-size-fits-all solution, trend or model that will define what makes an effective, future-proofed office that promotes the wellbeing of its users. However, standards are emerging to help give developers a sense of what is important to consider at the design stage.

The WELL Building Institute’s WELLNESS scoring criteria offers 10 concepts to consider when building with wellness in mind from air quality and light to materials and mind. Achieving specific, defined targets within the above concepts means a building is awarded points which can be used to achieve the WELL standard. Accreditation is evidence based and must be verifiable and presented for outside input.

Furthermore, AECOM’s Strategy+ design consultancy studio equips clients with a proprietary wellness audit, which assesses the wellbeing of an organisation with metrics that go beyond tangible elements and physical assets before designing a fit-out. Some of the factors that influence office wellbeing are objective: achieving a building certification, for example. Others are subjective, such as the presence of support networks and access to mental and physical health resources.

Factors such as employee absenteeism and attrition, staff autonomy, the presence or absence of reward systems, strong CSR and ESG strategies, the promotion of positive behaviours towards colleagues and KPIs related to wellbeing are just a handful of the metrics we measure in order to gain a picture of the ‘wellbeing maturity’ of a business. From there, we can design offices which meet the specific well-being needs of the organisation. 

Designing for the future

Rather than instigating new office models, coronavirus galvanised existing trends such as hybrid and agile working, pushing them into the mainstream. Instead, we think it is wellness, sustainability, and the legal challenge to achieve net zero by 2050, that will be the overarching drivers of innovation in office fit-out design, costs and materials moving forwards.

For the industry at large, delivering office fit-outs that consistently achieve these high standards of wellbeing on both new-build and refurbishment schemes will require a radical overhaul of the way we plan, commission, design and build projects. Here are just two examples:

1/ Is fit-out Category A still fit for purpose? In an era of low waste and sustainability, is the Category A model still fit for purpose? For some office builds, arguably it is. For open-plan office spaces with a simple design, a lot of the principles of Category A fit-outs still work well, with the majority of the materials and design used being able to be retained. But the more bespoke an office is, the less Category A is suitable. Offices of the future will need to accommodate hybrid and agile working practices, and these models require bespoke fit-out solutions.

A better option may be increased uptake of the ‘landlord contribution’ model, where the landlord gives a fixed amount of funding towards the tenant fit-out as part of the lease agreement, to create a fit-out that meets a tenant’s own specifications.

2/ Circularity: beginning with the end in mind. At present, there are few examples of fit-outs that truly embody the principles of low carbon sustainability, wellness and circularity. However, the WELL standard is making wellness easier to benchmark, offering a glimpse of what could become the norm.

As an example of an office project with wellness designed in, one Manchester office with a WELL Platinum rating incorporates air-quality monitoring and filtering to achieve a constant Excellent VOC rating, at least 50 per cent of the furniture is second hand — including reclaimed desk chairs that had been earmarked for landfill. The lobby’s welcome desk appears to be made of marble but was produced from recycled yoghurt pots. Such choices helped cut the fit-out’s embodied carbon to 120 kilograms of embodied carbon per metre squared, compared with the 180 to 220 kilograms estimated for a standard fit-out.

As employees decide how they want to work, and who they want to work for, employers have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to re-assess and reset what their office spaces represent and stand for. We advocate a holistic, individualised approach to office design. This ethos encompasses not just the fixed physical assets of an office, but prioritises active carbon reduction principles, makes use of behavioural science and building data, and quite simply, delivers a workplace that people feel safe, motivated and excited to come back to.

Furthermore, smart businesses should take advantage of this unique moment in time and work to future-proof their company against perhaps the biggest risk facing us all right now – climate change.

Office fit-out cost model

We have developed a cost model based on a notional fit-out for a space for 1,000 full-time equivalent staff, using a sharing ratio of 50 per cent.

You can read the full article and download the cost model here.

This is an abridged version of an article that was first published in Building magazine.

The post How carbon and wellness principles are driving office design appeared first on Without Limits.

With 48 new hospitals in the pipeline and an immediate investment to the tune of £3.9 billion, it’s no wonder that the NHS England team describes its New Hospital Programme (NHP) as the ‘biggest hospital building programme in a generation’.  With an ambitious delivery date of 2030 in place, the Infrastructure Projects Authority and the NHP team are looking to MMC to shift the build programme into top gear.

The use of offsite construction and prefabricated components on healthcare projects is not new. From fully modular pandemic response facilities to internal fitouts, the use of pre-fabrication has saved the sector time and money.  However, the NHP is unprecedented in size and scope – and this presents a potential problem, as the construction industry (and its supply chain) is not yet able to implement MMC at the scale and pace required. Progress is being made to invest and upskill, but designers recognise the utopian dream of a standardised approach that includes a library of components and widespread manufacturing facilities for prefabricated parts does not yet exist at the scale required.

Certainly, for those hospitals currently in the detailed design stage, there is a danger that MMC could be shoehorned into the design to increase pre-manufactured proportions without due regard to project specifics or the wider construction market, and the much sought-after social and programme benefits that we all seek from MMC will not be realised. It’s up to healthcare designers to bridge this gap between expectation and reality to make sure that the NHS gets value for money not only on the first wave of hospitals, but also across the future pipeline, so that it can take delivery of all 48 hospitals on time and on budget.

To navigate this challenge, AECOM is taking a strategic approach in our work on the first wave of NHP hospitals, which we hope will inform best practice on future phases. This article examines that approach in greater depth and explains why it is necessary in the current climate.  We also discuss steps the construction industry could be taking to get the most out of prefabrication on current and future NHP phases, which has relevance across the wider pipeline of government-commissioned work.

Current context

By placing  MMC at its heart, the NHP is following the best practice outlined in the UK government’s The Construction Playbook. The playbook was published in December 2020 and contains government guidance on sourcing and contracting public works projects and programmes across 14 key policies, of which MMC is one.  To ensure the best practice guidance is applied consistently, government departments and arm’s length bodies are required to adopt the policies on a ‘comply or explain’ basis.

Significant progress has been made in other sectors in adopting MMC principles and realising the benefits that this brings. However, a step change is needed to support the future 48 hospitals so they can comply with Construction Playbook best practice. The NHP has begun early engagement with the construction industry supply chain to create “new standards to help standardise the design of new hospitals and make use of modular construction methods to speed up the build”.

This will only succeed if the project management, cost management, and design teams educate clients, so they understand the benefits committing early bring to ensure the true value of MMC is unlocked.

However, the approach taken on the NHP hospitals currently in design does not propose a change in design process. The more measured approach requires engineers to evaluate how pre-fabrication is implemented into these projects to increase MMC adoption by recognising current constraints and utilising the existing supply chain to maximise benefits.

Maximising the benefits of MMC

How engineers and designers respond to the challenge on the first wave of hospitals has implications for the future pipeline, as it presents an important opportunity to influence thinking. To do this, our specialist healthcare teams have been drawing on experiences from schemes where MMC is at a similar or more advanced stage of adoption such as Clatterbridge Cancer Centre and The Grange University Hospital. Below, we list our recommendations.

1/Taking a system-agnostic approach

Through the application of MMC on the hospitals that have already been built, we have seen significant benefits from an increase in construction quality through factory-controlled processes and improved health and safety through to the reduction in material wastage and the potential for reduced carbon emissions.

However, designing for specific MMC types narrows markets, lessens competition, and increases risk in the event of failing contractors. By contrast, a system-agnostic approach that encompasses all MMC typologies drives competition, increases innovation, and embeds efficiencies and benefits regardless of construction techniques.

We must also consider the wider implications of increasing MMC to make sure the specific systems are used appropriately. It is a mistake to focus solely on maximising proportions as opportunities can be missed and inefficiencies can be introduced. For example, on a refurbishment project for an operational hospital, designing in modularised risers purely to increase MMC proportions would lead to increased embodied carbon for the module frames, and slow progress on site to thread the risers through a warren of existing services.

2/Embedding MMC principles right from the start

Early decisions made by the client and design team can either limit or increase the opportunities afforded by MMC.  Unravelling designs to accommodate MMC at a later stage is inefficient and often problematic. MMC principles must be baked in at the start of the project so that they guide the design.

Doing this successfully involves developing a full understanding of the project and constraints. Individual project characteristics vary significantly – from topography to location and from refurbishment to new build schemes – so a thorough understanding will inform how and where MMC can be incorporated effectively.

Furthermore, optimising the design for MMC should be done without stifling creativity or compromising functionality. Working with the NHP advisors and committing to collaboration across all NHP schemes through sharing expertise and combining knowledge is critical.

3/Engaging with the supply chain

The supply chain is evolving rapidly due to the government’s drive to embed MMC across its public sector programmes, but also in response to the pandemic, where off-site production is proving its worth over site-based activities.

Engagement with the supply chain brought tangible efficiencies to The Grange University Hospital in Wales. As the project’s building services engineer, we had taken a Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA) approach right from the design stage, engaging with the contractor Laing O’Rourke and using its in-house component library. The resulting designs led to a 42-week (23%) programme saving and reduction in 237,099 working hours on site.  This was further improved to 52 weeks in response to the pandemic and a critical need for additional beds.  partial opening of the £350m hospital was achieved in April 2020, nearly a year ahead of schedule.

Ongoing engagement with the supply chain is therefore very important as understanding opportunities and constraints in this growing market can guide the designs. Given the imminent delivery of the pathfinder schemes. However, designers need to do this at an individual project level.

Further actions for the construction industry to take

Working with the Department of Health and Social Care, the NHS E/I and the NHP, here are three actions that the construction industry could take to improve MMC adoption of current and future phases.

Further engagement across NHP schemes. The gateways to allow projects to advance to the next stages and demonstrating a robust MMC strategy are now established. The NHS E/I have also begun to engage designers across the pathfinder schemes to find commonality or dissimilarity in their respective designs and gain benefit across the wider programme. Design teams must continue to collaborate and partner with the NHS E/I to drive wider MMC implementation across current and future schemes.  Without this learning process there is a danger future NHP scheme designs may have to be reviewed and reworked to increase proportions of MMC, which could delay delivery.

Collate data and a shared set of metrics.  Collating real-world data across sectors will be pivotal in informing future MMC strategies. Metrics on waste reduction, waiting times, transportation distances, skills uptake, quality and defects, health and safety records, cost, and programme can all be used to correlate the effectiveness in the increase of pre-manufactured value (PMV) and compare against MMC strategies. We must implement a common digital approach from design through to construction to facilitate this.

Review procurement routes. Future procurements and frameworks should support MMC with the development of a market and supply chain that can develop and deliver designs based on MMC principles, manufacture and supply components, and innovate to improve and develop over time.

Finding common ground

Ultimately, to get the most out of prefabrication, we would like to see the UK government adopt an open source approach that employs a library of components or ‘kit of parts’, a ready stream of contractors and prefabrication facilities to manufacture these components, as well as a reliable workforce. This would require government investment, incentives, plus a strategic approach across all government departments on major capital projects.

Until such time, designers, engineers, and contractors on the NHP must work together to find common ground to break down some of the barriers to rationalisation and repeatability that currently exist on the hospitals being built. If we take an open book approach to capture and share data, we can build on efficiencies from project to project for the greater benefit of the entire health service.

The post MMC and the New Hospital Programme: unlocking the limitless potential of prefabrication appeared first on Without Limits.

Organisations, educational institutions, and companies with large campuses must decarbonise their real estate. In many cases, this is a complex challenge as each individual building – whether recently-built or 100 years’ old – must be made more energy efficient to reduce the amount of operational carbon used.

Historically, this might have been done on a project-by-project basis. To meet publicly stated climate emergency declarations and net zero carbon commitments however, organisations, institutions and companies will need to take a different approach, or risk reputational damage.

In this article, we argue the case for the adoption of a comprehensive decarbonisation plan on commercial and institutional campuses as the best way to reduce operational carbon in the most time and cost-efficient way. Furthermore, a comprehensive plan can also reduce reliance on increasingly expensive and bureaucratic carbon offsetting schemes.

1/ A piecemeal approach won’t cut it

Currently, there is a common knowledge gap between setting net zero targets and understanding what role decarbonisation plays on that journey, and how it can be achieved. Decarbonisation is not as simple as replacing gas boilers with heat pumps (as doing so greatly increases running costs). Instead, we strongly advocate that any action to reduce operational carbon by moving away from fossil fuels should be considered in the context of all ongoing maintenance and must touch all capital works.

2/ If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it

Establishing a baseline for how well an estate is performing is the first step, along with general condition of the plant and fabric. If not already available (as part of either planned maintenance or maintenance backlog information), then an extensive survey will be required. Our Operational Carbon & Energy ANalysis tool (or OCEAN for short) gathers data on carbon and energy performance of individual buildings so that holders of large asset portfolios can understand how their entire portfolio is performing.

If not already installed, adequate metering is a good investment as it is essential to understand how an estate is performing to determine where or when to make interventions. Furthermore, once a solution has been implemented, it is equally important to then monitor performance.

3/ Make better use of space

Once a baseline has been established, the buildings and systems should be evaluated to determine whether space could be better used and/or operational hours consolidated.

In universities for example, where the pandemic has accelerated the trend to online study at home complemented by collaborative in-person sessions, the way space is used on campus has altered dramatically. Managed correctly, this is an opportunity to reduce energy demand by delivering learning in selected spaces that are shared between departments and faculties, and thus used more intensively. Similarly, the creation of night hubs allows parts of an estate to remain open out-of-hours while the majority closes.

4/ Develop a decarbonisation plan

The next step is to develop a decarbonisation plan for each building that considers fabric, lighting, controls, and plugged-in load. The plan should consider the opportunities for reducing operating temperatures to allow heat pumps to be used, and the possibility of using thermal storage. A decarbonisation plan needs to be built into the planned maintenance and plant replacement schedule along with an adequate budget commitment over the identified decarbonisation period.

Finally, each project needs to be delivered in sequence to ensure an institution can decarbonise in line with its publicly stated goal. Having switched to a lower energy approach with all electric services, organisations should subscribe to a certified zero carbon electricity tariff to complete the process.

Essential and achievable

Adopting a comprehensive plan to reduce operational carbon on a commercial or educational campus is essential – and achievable. In our experience decarbonising commercial and public real estate across the region, the most effective campus-level plans are informed by an organisational-level net zero transition plan. It’s the best way for firms and educational institutions to identify opportunities that save carbon, time, and money in the short and longer term, while providing assurance to stakeholders, customers and students.

The post Reducing operational carbon on commercial and educational campuses appeared first on Without Limits.

London is home to many world-leading scientific institutions, but laboratory space in the capital is at a growing premium. If the UK’s science capabilities and output are to continue to expand, more high-quality research space is needed.

Former UK Research and Innovation chairman John Kingman has stated that for the UK government to achieve its goal of growing scientific research and development (R&D) to 2.4 per cent of GDP from its present 1.7 per cent, it requires the UK to lift total economy R&D from £37 billion a year now to £68 billion in 2027, with the scientific workforce also needing to increase by 50 per cent.

To create a successful research ecosystem that is attractive to the scientific community requires both scale and proximity to other research sites — no mean feat to deliver in London at a reasonable cost. This can, however, be achieved at a more affordable, sustainable manner in a campus environment, where the cost of living for scientists is also far lower than in the capital.

This shift to regional science parks is being driven in part by the government’s levelling-up agenda, which is contributing to prompting the industry and its clients to ask where high quality regional laboratory, research and development facilities could be created beyond expensive urban hubs.

Estate agent Savills reports that laboratory space around the UK saw rents rise in 2020. Availability of commercial lab space in Cambridge is at its lowest in seven years, with prime laboratory rents at an all-time high.

There is therefore an opportunity to create a pipeline of high-quality, low-rise regional facilities to house these new businesses. Rural science park proposals are typically easier to gain planning consent for, are more affordable, and offer greater space than London-based developments. The cost of land and rental values are lower, and the cost of living is significantly less compared with the capital for the people working in these developments.

The cost of delivering this building type is considerably lower than for developing or even redeveloping an office facility in London. From a space and planning perspective, is easier to deliver a two-to four-storey new-build facility in an emerging research park or business park location than in a built-up city location.

Built well and situated carefully, these parks can become part of thriving residential and academic communities, feeding in talent and knowledge from local universities and teaching hospitals, with tenants benefiting from close proximity to other researchers and start-ups. Furthermore, the UK is following the US’s lead in commercialising research-focused organisations that spring out of academic institutions. About four out of every 10 UK start-up incubator companies specialising in science and technology originated within a university, and these institutions are becoming more aware of the financial implications and opportunities of this. Meanwhile, the start-ups themselves are becoming an increasingly attractive proposition for investors.

Examples of completed projects include the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, which has become the largest centre for medical research and science in Europe, and Norwich Research Park, which currently offers more than 1.7 million square foot of build space with simplified planning and access to business rate discounts due to its enterprise zone status. Looking ahead, locations such as Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Belfast and Dublin are gaining the attention of developers.

In a recent article for Building magazine, we explored the changing faces of scientific need and estate requirements, putting the campus at the heart of the community as a whole. The article covers:

Design considerations

• • A key design consideration is the pace at which start-up science organisations can grow, as this directly affects how flexible their accommodation needs to be. The typical start-up spun out of a university begins with one to five people; this can rapidly expand within an 18-month to two-year period to potentially 50 to 100 staff, if the company makes strong progress with the science it is developing.
  • A number of factors contribute to the relative ease of delivering commercial lab facilities in regional science parks compared with tight city-centre sites: increased ratio of office-to-lab space; ease of installing site-wide infrastructure and utilities; and freedom to build horizontally and logically.
  • Functionality of spaces. Often tenants that receive start-up or seed funding may need to use it to buy particular scientific equipment. Smart developers are recognising a science park environment can de-risk this by allowing tenants to spend their money more wisely on more affordable space and to share equipment.
  • Flexibility of design: Developers need to design in adaptability in floorplans and MEP plant areas to enable, for example, labs to be able to transform from dry lab to wet lab.  What’s more, plug-and-play service modules can increase the building’s ability to adapt as tenant needs and technology evolve.

Construction issues

• • Constructing sufficient power infrastructure for these energy-intensive sites is one of the biggest challenges at present. Local utility providers must therefore be consulted to determine if there is sufficient available capacity and whether upgrades to higher-voltage supplies are required.
  • Consideration also needs to be given to the space allocated for back-up power systems.
  • Given the high amount of data generated in these buildings, digital security issues must also be considered. In multi-tenanted buildings, intellectual property issues can arise so it may be necessary to separate different tenants’ physical and digital access to services.

Key requirements

• • The requirements for scientist occupants can differ greatly from those of typical office workers. In a flagship commercial office in a city centre, a statement entrance is often a client priority. For the scientific community however, high levels of practicality are more important. This could include getting goods in and out of the building with ease or access to high quality equipment.
  • Having an engaged, thriving scientific community at science parks is key to fostering knowledge and collaboration in these spaces. To help promote user satisfaction and enjoyment, this is often as much about the outside space as it is about the building. Generally, office workers tend to look favourably upon office spaces with a gym inside the building. Scientists however, often prefer to have that type of facility situated away from their workplace, where they are often working under intense laboratory conditions. Instead, excellent outdoor space is often prized by clients, which in practice can include natural landscaping, ponds, wildflower meadows and green space.
  • This leads to another key client demand in regional science parks: the ability to commute to these buildings in a low carbon manner.

Regional science parks offer a cost-effective solution to the pressing need for increased laboratory and research space in the UK. They also drive investment, jobs and opportunities into regional parts of the country, contributing to the government’s levelling-up agenda and serving the educational institutions and communities that surround them.

Designed well, these buildings can contribute to meeting net zero carbon goals and provide staff with the ability to live and work in a community of scientists and analysts outside of the traditional golden triangle of London, Oxford and Cambridge — promoting a diversity and availability of opportunities far beyond the capital.

Cost model for a regional science park

We have created a cost model for a regional science park facility, comprising ground floor plus four more floors of flexible office and laboratory accommodation. Each floor is divisible by up to four tenants. The lab to office ratio is 60:40, while the net to gross floor area ratio overall is 77 per cent. The building is set on a typical greenfield site, with good accessibility from major highways, on a plot location that has main plot infrastructure in place to the point of connection.

It is assumed that the building will adopt all electric MEP installations, to meet the BREEAM Excellent standard and contribute towards making it a low carbon facility.

To read the above article in full and to download the full regional science park facility cost model, please click here.

The post Regional science parks: key design, cost and construction considerations appeared first on Without Limits.

In 2016, a report chaired by Professor Rafael Bengoa found that the current model of health and social care provision in Northern Ireland was financially unsustainable and unable to meet the needs arising from demographic change, increasing demand, health inequalities and a disempowered workforce.

The  ‘Systems, Not Structures: Changing Health and Social Care’ report noted that “the trends in healthcare towards a more personalised, preventative, participative, and predictive model of care will not happen at the necessary speed in the present fragmented and reactive model of care,” describing the current situation as a “burning platform.”   In a 2019 update on the report, Professor Bengoa stated that the pace of change had clearly increased but more was required.

Then in 2020, coronavirus hit and accelerated changes to the primary care landscape, transforming almost overnight the way consultations were held. Only a small percentage of GP consultations were undertaken by phone or video conference prior to the pandemic, yet at the peak around 70 per cent of all consultations were virtual.

Combined, these factors have stimulated an essential rethink of how primary care facilities are designed. Healthcare architects now have to deliver contemporary facilities that meet patient, clinical and operational needs while providing therapeutic and inspiring environments that enhance the wellbeing of all users. Facilities must also serve their communities both in and out of working hours and must be flexible enough to meet future demand and change.

This article highlights five areas that our specialist healthcare architects and cost managers focus on when designing sustainable health and wellbeing centres, drawing upon best practice learnt from delivering award-winning contemporary facilities across the UK and the island of Ireland.

1/Comprehensive stakeholder engagement

What does comprehensive stakeholder engagement on a healthcare facility look like in Northern Ireland?

Firstly, it is important to establish strong relationship with all parties right at the start of any given project, which in the case of Northern Ireland includes the Health and Social Care Board, Local Commissioning Groups, patients, staff, design consultants, local authorities and local community groups.

Secondly, the focus should always be on proactive, timely and professional interaction, engaging with the right people at the right time throughout the design and delivery of the project, with fair consideration given to all viewpoints. Both a formal and informal approach to stakeholder engagement is important, depending on the objectives and always with an aim to facilitate a full understanding of each other’s needs and aspirations. On our recently-delivered Goodman’s Fields Medical Centre in London for example, we incorporated Bengali translations into the signage to be inclusive of the high percentage of Bangladeshi patients as identified through extensive community consultation.

Thirdly, it is important to appreciate that all stakeholders are experts in their areas and that listening and learning from their experience and knowledge is a vital ingredient for success.

2/Design that’s flexible and adaptable

Future change to primary care is inevitable – some changes we can predict, others remain unknown. It is important therefore that adaptability and flexibility are built into the project brief as essential requirements.

As primary care service providers adapt to meet new trends and demands so must the buildings they occupy. We are seeing a shift towards larger buildings with flexible and interactive spaces that can be repurposed quickly. Our healthcare architects are designing and delivering health centres that will be used as a community meeting space out of hours. However, if there is an immediate need for evening appointments these spaces can be freed up for treatment.

The best way to meet this need is to keep the architectural, structural and services design simple.  Over-specification, over-complication and a design based on short-lived, quick fix technologies should be avoided. It is easier to adapt spaces to alternative uses if room sizes and dimensions are standardised and sit within floor plans that are designed to a planning grid. Likewise, we design services with appropriate overcapacity as well as making sure that plant and service access spaces can accommodate future building service expansions, adaptation or replacement.

3/Creating positive and therapeutic environments

Ultimately, healthcare environments should stimulate and support the power of interpersonal relationships between patients, families, clinicians and staff to transform experiences and improve health and wellbeing outcomes.

The ideal way to design environments that promote wellbeing, privacy and dignity is through a collaborative and research-based approach.  Every aspect of the design must be carefully considered with special emphasis given to natural light, welcoming entrances, reception and waiting areas and ensuring staff have good observation points. Natural, warm and soft palettes of colours work best alongside materials with good acoustic properties to create comfortable environments for patients and staff. As part of our interior strategy, and in collaboration with clients, we select healthcare-appropriate furniture which is complementary to the overall look and feel whilst ensuring it meets infection control requirements. The combined results are far removed from the perception of hard chairs and bare walls that many associate with visiting the doctor.

Lighting is also important. Our architects work with in-house lighting designers and engineers to ensure the ambient lighting provides areas with overall levels of brightness, illumination and the right colour temperature. It is important to provide examination lighting within each clinical room to allow clinicians to examine or treat patients appropriately.

Furthermore, as primary care centres increase in size, they can become more challenging for patients to navigate so aligning the patient journey with key architectural and interior elements is central to alleviate excessive signage.

4/Sustainability

 Sustainability is a key driver of change in the design and costing of primary care facilities. As environmental scrutiny is heightened throughout the world, healthcare providers are focused on reducing their carbon footprint. The sustainable design standards that were once considered as ‘nice to haves’ are now a given, and new and refurbished buildings must achieve a high sustainability rating. Through early definition and analysis of the likely embodied and operational carbon of a building, renewable energy and an offset approach is factored into the design of our primary care buildings.

Important elements include maximising natural daylight and ventilation, the use of efficient lighting, heating, mechanical ventilation, and air conditioning, as well as the specification of the most appropriate insulation and low energy IT and appliances.   With new build projects, our default approach is to use renewable energy sources such as photovoltaics, ground-source or air-source heat pumps, rainwater collection and high-performance building envelopes.

5/ Delivering design principles to budget

There are several factors that can influence the costs of developing a new healthcare centre. Specific location and site conditions will automatically influence development costs but there are also other factors which will influence the design and hence cost of individual centres.

With the current focus on digital consultations, there will be a greater emphasis on resilient and quality IT installations. Equally the need for improved ventilation, highlighted by the pandemic, will increase the loadings on plant and associated costs. Over the longer term however, the drive towards zero carbon is also expected to increase the capital cost of developing new projects across the construction sector and primary healthcare centres will be no exception.

Conclusion

Primary care is no longer about reacting to symptoms and illness.  Primary care clinical services are evolving quickly to include health and wellbeing, delivered directly to communities.  As services and staffing are decentralised from within acute hospitals, it is crucial that the next generation of primary care centres are able to flex to support current – and future – clinical and digital strategies.  They will need to be positioned at the heart of the communities that they serve, with adaptable spaces to support the delivery of new models of care.

Healthcare centre cost model

Our cost model is for the development of a typical healthcare centre (gross floor area = 1,550m²) to be used by GPs, community nurses, midwifery services, mental health services, social services and support services based in Northern Ireland. The development is based on achieving a BREEAM Rating of Very Good. The model assumes a single / part two-storey development.

Costs are based on Q3 2021 and include for Supply and Fix of Group 1 and Fixing of Group 2 items and an allowance has been included for external works. The costs exclude utilities, contingencies, professional fees, surveys and VAT.

In addition, costs reflect a single stage competitive tender with a standard construction contract. The rates would need to be adjusted to account for actual specifications proposed, specific location / site conditions, procurement route and programme.

Click here to download the model.

The post Designing for primary care change in Northern Ireland appeared first on Without Limits.

The built environment is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for an estimated 49 per cent of the UK’s total output.

Nevertheless, new homes must be built. The government wants 300,000 homes built each year to meet demand but construction is falling far short of this goal.

The industry is tasked with meeting the dual challenge of delivering new residential buildings while reducing carbon output to neutral levels, in order to fulfil the UK’s legal requirement of producing net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Building homes to net zero standards will therefore be critical to providing much-needed housing stock while keeping the sector’s carbon emissions to a minimum.

Current guidance

As yet, there are very few completed net zero carbon housing developments of significant commercial value and scale to use as standard bearers and templates for future projects. Existing low or zero carbon developments tend to be one-off experiments, such as small projects built to Passivhaus standards.

The London Energy Transformation Initiative (LETI) current guidance is that for a residential building to be whole-life net zero, it must have a zero carbon balance for its operational activities, and be 100 per cent circular – meaning each and every one of the building’s materials and products “are made up of reused materials, and the building is designed for disassembly such that 100 per cent of its materials and products can be reused in future buildings”.

Achieving these standards will seem to many like an impossible goal. Nevertheless, it is a goal that will need to be met in the coming years for the industry to remain viable and new-build projects to be greenlit.

The industry is at a unique point in time where we know we must provide net zero developments in order for the construction sector to meet regulatory requirements and keep up with the rest of the country’s efforts to decarbonise; yet a single or an agreed set of over-arching guidance, principles and rules for creating net zero homes has not yet been fully established. Perhaps most importantly, if net zero buildings cannot be made affordable – at least not right now, at this early, experimental stage – then we also need to consider what the premium is on delivering these projects.

For a new-build project targeting net zero status in 2021, the goal therefore is to strive to meet operational and embodied carbon targets from trusted industry networks and institutions such as LETI and the RIBA, and to offset any remaining carbon.

Building For 2050

The Building For 2050 research study which is being funded by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, highlights the need to construct housing that is low carbon through its design rather than through reliance on technology. Being delivered by AECOM, architect Pollard Thomas Edwards, consultant Delta-EE and energy specialist Fourwalls, the project aims to understand the attitudes towards and challenges of this type of home, the costs and cost drivers associated with its construction, and the energy performance once occupied.

The findings of the research, which has focused on five developments, will be published in 2022, providing evidence to support low carbon building policy and inform future emissions reductions plans. One of those five projects is Marmalade Lane, Cambridge, a custom-built co-housing community (pictured above). Made up of 42 custom-built homes, the scheme has been designed with a fabric-first approach and passive energy design principles, delivered with offsite manufactured closed timber panels supplied by Swedish builder Trivselhus.

More information on the Building for 2050 research project can be found at: buildingfor2050.co.uk.

The future

There is an obvious need for accurate, reliable data to enable standardisation of net zero – with the goal being that the carbon value of each element of design, construction, operation and decommissioning can be easily quantified. Our Scope X^TM process addresses these gaps and helps measure critical elements of building design.

The uncertainty around what exactly constitutes a net zero homes project will soon fade. For example, residential buildings will need to be constructed to meet future Part L regulations – updates to which are in consultation, with new guidance due next year. These updated rules will help set the standard for the energy performance and carbon output of new dwellings.

Changes to Part L of the Building Regulations will also inform the upcoming Future Homes Standard, which is due to be implemented in 2025. That policy will require all new homes to be “zero carbon ready”, which will involve a huge step change in how we design and heat our homes. In the meantime, developers, contractors, suppliers and designers are tasked with meeting the net zero challenge using their own metrics and definitions – which will be influenced by existing cost models.

It is worth noting that institution-specific targets and standards are constantly evolving, further adding to the complexity of designing and building for net zero – LETI, the RIBA and the Greater London Authority are all in the process of updating and aligning their embodied carbon targets.

Regardless of which set of principles eventually becomes standardised, building net zero homes will undoubtedly require a massive shift in our collective mindset. For example, LETI advises that we begin to regard new buildings as “material resource banks” – that is, as a source of materials that can and should be used decades after the building has been decommissioned.

It is also likely that older buildings that become available for redevelopment will be treated as “donor buildings” for the future, and that we may also see specialist salvage contractors create a market through this. These concepts require us all to start thinking more imaginatively.

Net zero concepts in some ways represent a return to traditional ideas – of sourcing locally and frugally and of considering natural materials and reducing waste – yet they also demand understanding and being ready to deploy forward-looking technology and carbon-quantifying techniques to achieve and measure a successful project.

For net zero housing to move from ideas, plans and goals to a commonplace reality in the UK, adaptability and a willingness to update design and construction techniques will be required. The pay-off for those who do apply net zero principles to their residential projects is to be working at the vanguard of design, construction and building philosophy – and to be actively contributing to meeting the pressing need for a lower carbon building industry.

Clearly, for new innovation that delivers zero carbon to become more cost-effective, it needs to be implemented as mainstream practice and regulation – and we must get beyond the age-old chicken and egg.

This is an abridged version of an article that was first published in Building magazine.

The post Costing net zero homes appeared first on Without Limits.