BCO Research Eco Offices Performance

IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICES MARCH 2014

ABOUT THE BCO

IMAGES

The British Council for Of fices’ (BCO) mission is to research, develop and communicate best practice in all aspects of the of fice sector. It delivers this by providing a forum for the discussion and debate of relevant issues.

COVER Microsoft Ltd, London Courtesy of tp bennett PAGE 10 George Stephenson House, York York Courtesy of Squaredot

ABOUT THE AUTHORS The BCO thanks the following people for their contributions to this report: David Richards, Arup Jonathan Ward, Arup Neil Smith, Max Fordham Tamsin Tweddell, Max Fordham Victoria Peckett, CMS Cameron McKenna  Andrew Grudzinski, CMS Cameron McKenna Mat Lown, Tuf fin Ferraby Taylor 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Members of the BCO’s Environmental Sustainability Group, chaired by Richard Francis, supported the publication of this briefing note, and we would like to thank them for their support and contributions.

COPYRIGHT © BRITISH COUNCIL FOR OFFICES 2014  All rights reserved reserved by British Council for Of fices. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written permission from the British Council for Of fices. The BCO warrants that reasonable skill and care has been used in preparing this report. Notwithstanding this warranty the BCO shall not be under liability for any loss of profit, business, revenues or any special indirect or consequential damage of any nature whatsoever or loss of anticipated saving or for any increased costs sustained by the client or his or her servants or agents arising in any way whether directly or indirectly as a result of reliance on this publication or of any error or defect in this publication. The BCO makes no warranty, either express or i mplied, as to the accuracy of any data used by the BCO in preparing this report nor as to any projections contained in this report which are necessarily of any subjective nature and subject to uncertainty and which constitute only the BCO’s opinion as to likely future trends or events based on information known to the BCO at the date of this publication. The BCO shall not in any circumstances be under any liability whatsoever to any other person for any loss or damage arising in any way as a result of reliance on this publication.

ABOUT THE BCO

IMAGES

The British Council for Of fices’ (BCO) mission is to research, develop and communicate best practice in all aspects of the of fice sector. It delivers this by providing a forum for the discussion and debate of relevant issues.

COVER Microsoft Ltd, London Courtesy of tp bennett PAGE 10 George Stephenson House, York York Courtesy of Squaredot

ABOUT THE AUTHORS The BCO thanks the following people for their contributions to this report: David Richards, Arup Jonathan Ward, Arup Neil Smith, Max Fordham Tamsin Tweddell, Max Fordham Victoria Peckett, CMS Cameron McKenna  Andrew Grudzinski, CMS Cameron McKenna Mat Lown, Tuf fin Ferraby Taylor 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Members of the BCO’s Environmental Sustainability Group, chaired by Richard Francis, supported the publication of this briefing note, and we would like to thank them for their support and contributions.

COPYRIGHT © BRITISH COUNCIL FOR OFFICES 2014  All rights reserved reserved by British Council for Of fices. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written permission from the British Council for Of fices. The BCO warrants that reasonable skill and care has been used in preparing this report. Notwithstanding this warranty the BCO shall not be under liability for any loss of profit, business, revenues or any special indirect or consequential damage of any nature whatsoever or loss of anticipated saving or for any increased costs sustained by the client or his or her servants or agents arising in any way whether directly or indirectly as a result of reliance on this publication or of any error or defect in this publication. The BCO makes no warranty, either express or i mplied, as to the accuracy of any data used by the BCO in preparing this report nor as to any projections contained in this report which are necessarily of any subjective nature and subject to uncertainty and which constitute only the BCO’s opinion as to likely future trends or events based on information known to the BCO at the date of this publication. The BCO shall not in any circumstances be under any liability whatsoever to any other person for any loss or damage arising in any way as a result of reliance on this publication.

IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICES

CONTENTS

Foreword

4

Introduction

5

Why does performance matter?

6

The BUS methodology

18

Carbon, energy and water

6

The Leesman Index

19

Occupant satisfaction

7

Energy and water

9

Introduction

9

Gathering data

9

Benchmarking

11

Improvement

11

Case study: LED retrofit

12

Case study: The value of adequate metering and clear data

13

Case study: Portfolio improvements (2013)

14

Case sudy: A simple way of assessing heating controls

16

Occupant evaluation

17

Measurement

17

Popular survey tools

17

Case study: Elizabeth Fry building

20

Case study: Woodland Trust headquarters

22

Case study: MLC Centre fit-out demonstrates market-leading satisfaction

23

Further reading

24

 Appendix A – Glossary of terms

26

 Appendix B – An approach to energy and water  benchmarking

30

 Appendix C – Guidance on entering data to Carbon Buzz

32

© BCO 2014

3

IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICES

FOREWORD

When many real estate executives think about sustainability, they have the uneasy impression that the ground is shifting beneath their feet. They are right. Uncertainty is everywhere, in new regulations, changing market dynamics and constantly evolving customer preferences. However troubling these forces might at first appear, they are guided by a simple and easily understood principle: performance is king. Whether it is lower operational costs, better health or increased productivity, we are expecting buildings to do more. Not on paper, but in use.  As an industry we are becoming information rich. As that happens, we are less trusting of the sustainability standards and labels that have traditionally conferred status. We want proof. This trend will only accelerate, as building performance becomes more measurable, transparent and, most importantly, expected. Potential buyers and occupiers will want to see real numbers, not  just about energy consumption but about a whole host of environmental impacts that buildings have on people.

certifications or technologies actually yield cost savings. If buildings do not deliver for their occupants they will find themselves unoccupied. The options are clear: performance or obsolescence. This guide is all about performance and delivery and how BCO members can manage decisions to improve actual outcomes – the things that matter most. Comprehensive in scope but specific in instruction, this study answers that all-important question: What’s next? It provides both the logic for action and the step-by-step instructions BCO members need to measure, benchmark and understand building performance. The Environmental Sustainability Group is grateful to the authors of this report and other BCO members who have donated so much time and information to this study. Once again, our members have demonstrated that, even in an ever-evolving market, they remain one step ahead in understanding change. We hope you enjoy the report. Richard Francis

Sustainability is changing in a r emarkable way. It is becoming as much about how the environment affects us as how we affect the environment. This explains the rise in the health, well-being and productivity agenda, as well as sharpened inquiries about whether

4

© BCO 2014

Chairman, Environmental Sustainability Group, BCO Director of Environment & Sustainability, Gardiner & Theobald

IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICES

INTRODUCTION

The process of planning, designing and constructing of fice buildings has been dominated for a number of years now by a suite of environmental calculations and metrics – Part L of the Building Regulations, BREEAM, EPCs to name a few. However, these are all metrics that compare the potential for a building to be energy, carbon or water ef ficient. They do not represent reality. The focus is beginning to shift to a parallel – and if anything more important – focus on the actual performance of of fice buildings. The environmental performance of buildings is becoming an increasingly important issue for owners, occupiers, design teams and contractors. Gone (or going) are the days when design, construction and operation were linked only by a room full of operations and maintenance (O&M) manuals, and a more joined up process is emerging, wherein measured high performance is the target.

Measuring, benchmarking and then improving building performance can seem a daunting prospect. This document is intended to give an overview of the methods available to define and record performance data, and where to look for further detailed guidance. The paper focuses on operationa l energy, carbon footprint, water consumption and occupant satisfaction. These are the core building performance issues that currently have the most correlation to landlord and tenants’ business needs, and where data can be readily recorded, evaluated and benchmarked. Building performance is an exciting and emerging area within the building industry. It is also one of the fastest changing as ambitions, thinking and legislation develop. The information in this document is current at the date of writing. We expect to revise and update the document as leading-edge practice evolves.

© BCO 2014

5

IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICES

WHY DOES PERFORMANCE MATTER?

Building performance is important for a number of reasons, some legislated and others driven by the desire of many in the broader property industry to

do better. Building performance also sits against the backdrop of the UK’s commitment to an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050.

CARBON, ENERGY AND WATER From a design perspective, increasingly more stringent Part L Building Regulations in 2016 and 2019 should lead to better performing buildings in the future, which could impact on the value of poorly performing existing buildings. The Energy Act 2011 includes a provision for Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS) for England and Wales, which require that buildings meet a minimum target performance (currently assumed to be an E rated Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) or better) before they can be legally leased. Like Part L, the EPCs benchmarks a building’s energy ef ficiency not its actual consumption. Legislation regarding reporting actual energy and carbon performance is still evolving. Examples include: 





6

Mandatory Reporting. Under the Companies Act 2006 (Strategic and Directors’ Reports) Regulations 2013, quoted companies are required to report their annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in their directors’ report. The Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Ef ficiency Scheme (CRC). The CRC requires all companies or organisations with an annual electricity usage of 6000 MW h to report their carbon emissions. For commercial of fice space this could be converted to a portfolio area of approximately 30,000 to 50,000 m2. The scheme involves payment and credit based on emissions and improvement. Display Energy Certificates (DEC). Display Energy Certificates are currently only required for public buildings. They are a certified statement of a building’s energy performance and must be displayed publicly in the building’s entrance lobby.  Although it has been discussed, there is currently

© BCO 2014

little political will to make DECs mandatory for private buildings. There are also a number of corporate indices and reporting standards that require carbon and energy metrics to be reported:  Carbon

Disclosure Project (CDP)



Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark (GRESB)



Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI)

 FTSE4Good

Index



Global Reporting Index Construction and Real Estate Sector Supplement (GRI CRESS)



EPRA Reporting Guidance – European Public Real Estate Association Best Practice Recommendations on Sustainability Reporting

 UN

Global Compact.

Beyond legislation and indices, there are two further factors to consider. First of these is the simple value. While this remains dif ficult to quantify, there is a demand in the market for more sustainable and highperformance buildings, with occupants and investors paying far closer attention to these issues at the prepurchase and occupation stage. While much of the UK property market is still focused on an approach to building design based around BREEAM and Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs), the leaders in the market are now looking beyond this simplistic approach to a more sophisticated measurement and understanding of true performance. Secondly, there is a wider cities agenda. As our cities continue to expand the power network will become

IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICES

increasingly stressed, and it is likely that electricity companies will reward customers who can control their peak and overall power use. This correlates very directly with carbon footprint and performance. Beyond carbon and energy comes water use, which is the next big issue as climate change begins to take hold and expanding cities, in particular in the south east, become water stressed. The UK government considers actual environmental performance and occupant satisfaction important enough to make Soft Landings mandatory on all

publically funded projects from 2016 via a bespoke government scheme. Soft Landings is a new approach to the handover of buildings, in which the feasibility, briefing, design and construction phases of a new building or refurbishment are carried out with the operational management and end-users of the building always in mind. After construction is complete, the design team and contractors remain involved with the building to ensure that handover becomes a smooth process, with operators being trained, and optimum performance outcomes becomes a focus of the whole team.

OCCUPANT SATISFACTION Understanding of fice performance is becoming ever more important to occupiers as the combined

pressures of new working practices and the desire to enhance productivity increase. It is worth considering

Engaging with occupants Closing the performance gap

Revealing valued features

 Addressing technical building performance

Measurement and comparison

Targeting investment

Improving productivity

 A happier  workforce

Figure 1 A virtuous circle – the potential influence of occupant feedback on performance

© BCO 2014

7

IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICES

that energy and water costs usually amount to little more than 1% of business costs, whereas staff costs account for around 90%. So a 1% improvement in productivity swamps utility costs, and may represent a saving of as much as £50 per square metre.



The cost of making changes to the of fice environment can often be small in proportion to the potential for direct productivity improvements. With high overheads associated with providing of fice space, and indeed employment, savings may come from improved business output.

Measurement and interpretation of occupant satisfaction is undoubtedly harder than that of energy or water use, but when done well it can facilitate significant improvements in occupant well-being and productivity, and address a broader range of concerns (Figure 1).



Satisfaction improvement will also lead to a happier workforce, potentially reducing sick leave and other absences and improving staff retention. Some of these metrics can be harder to measure than others, but nevertheless can return significant reductions in overheads.

  The first

positive dynamic is that of engaging with occupants. The intent to better understand the performance of a workplace is beneficial in building relationships and opening a dialogue with the building users. can often reveal features of a building that are particularly valued, as well as highlight the top issues affecting the occupants of the of fice.

 As

potential savings are identified for a series of measures, occupant satisfaction surveys improve targeting of investment.

 Improved

use and understanding of performance metrics provides better measurement and comparison of new building or refurbishment programmes, new ways of working and new technologies.

 Surveys

 This

understanding can then help technical building performance issues to be addressed. For example, simple complaints of glare could lead to a recommissioning of a lighting control system.

8

© BCO 2014



Finally, building feedback and lessons learned can be used to close the gap between the project brief, design and performance in use.

IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICES

ENERGY AND WATER

INTRODUCTION Improving energy and water performance requires a systematic and iterative approach. Consumption data are collected and compared against appropriate benchmarks to assess performance; opportunities for improvement are identified and action is taken, and then performance must be assessed again. Managing energy and water data can initially seem overwhelming but if organisations start with a simple approach based on the data most readily available then further detail can be built up over time. This is the ‘graduated approach’ originally recommended by the Usable Buildings Trust. The Better Buildings Partnership is a collaboration of the UK’s leading commercial property owners working

together to improve the sustainability of existing commercial building stock. It publishes a range of guidance documents which BCO members will find useful, including BBP Managing Agents Sustainability Toolkit and BBP Better Metering Toolkit. Other guidance is available from a range of organisations, including the Carbon Trust. The advice given below is mostly aimed at energy performance but much of it is also applicable to water performance. It should be noted that actual performance is distinct from metrics such as EPCs and BREEAM, which deal with a building’s potential for energy ef ficiency rather than its real performance.

GATHERING DATA This section sets out the range of options available, from the simplest to the more complex, and points to further guidance to develop each approach.

building look far more ef ficient than it actually is, while a densely occupied of fice can appear to be poorly performing on an area basis but be highly ef ficient on a per person basis.

Whole buildings

Landlords or bill holders currently participating in the statutory CRC Energy Ef ficiency Scheme will already be familiar with managing annual energy data, and their existing reporting processes can be simply adapted for benchmarking purposes.

The easiest approach is to collate annual energy and water consumption data for the whole building. This is a good starting point for most organisations, requiring no specialist skill or infrastructure, and using utility bills as the data source. Whole-building consumption can be used for basic benchmarking against the rest of the sector or to compare year-on-year performance. This can act as a motivator for change but does not inform what change is needed: it does not distinguish between energy used by the landlord and energy used by tenant(s), and does not identify when or where the energy is used.

 Although DECs are not mandatory for the private sector (they currently apply only to buildings over 500 m2 visited by the public), members may choose to display a voluntary DEC to demonstrate the energy performance of a building. Most commercial of fices will have an F or G rating, so perhaps it is not surprising that few are displayed voluntarily.

Making adjustments for occupancy density or vacant spaces is important. An empty floor can make a

The Better Buildings Partnership has questioned the value of an energy rating that does not distinguish

© BCO 2014

9

IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICES

between energy used by the occupier(s), shared services and common parts, and whether the DEC benchmarks are appropriate for private commercial of fices. Their proposed alternative is discussed below. For further information see BBP Position Paper: Voluntary DECs and Landlord Energy Certi ficates.

Landlord and tenants It is preferable to segregate landlord and tenant energy consumption. This enables each party to understand how they are performing in relation to the energy they have influence over. The way in which utility supplies are set up may facilitate this approach, or sub-metering may be required.

Increased frequency of data collection

The Landlord’s Energy Statement and Tenant’s Energy Review (together known as LES-TER) were developed by the British Property Federation for use in multitenanted of fices. The methodology is available online and is free to use. The Better Buildings Partnership is currently developing a Landlord’s Energy Rating (LER), which will replace the LES.

Manual meter readings can be taken monthly or even weekly to build up a more accurate picture of when energy is used. Alternatively, organisations may switch to smart metering, which allows utility meter data to be collected automatically on a half-hourly basis and viewed via an energy management software package. The utility provider can provide further information.

 As a rough rule of thumb, the landlord’s services (including lifts, ventilation, heating, cooling and common area light and power) account for half of the energy consumption, with the tenant’s light and power (including ancillary cooling) making up the remainder.

Many utility meters are half-hourly meters, and these can provide a very useful indication of energy-saving opportunities by visually showing any excessive energy use on evenings and weekends.

Sub-metering When and where? Whole building or landlord–tenant energy ratings allow benchmarking against comparable buildings or tracking performance over time, but proactive energy management, identifying possible savings and evaluating progress, requires a greater understanding of when and where energy is being used. This involves energy monitoring, such as sub-metering of individual systems and, potentially, automatic data collection covering shorter time frames – in other words, finer granularity by area or by time. To do this in a way that is appropriate to the building and businesses it supports it is necessary to develop a strategy for sub-metering to ensure that meters are placed appropriately, commissioned and that data are harvested systematically. This may require specialist consultancy or the development of an appropriate in-house skill.

10

© BCO 2014

Sub-metering helps inform where energy is being used. This can be by area, such as a floor plate, or by end use, such as lighting or heating. In existing buildings, sub-metering options will be limited by the configuration of existing services. An ideal time to consider installing sub-meters is during a major refurbishment. A specialist will be needed to advise on what is feasible. Sub-meters can be read manually, but with automatic meter reading (AMR) half-hourly data can be collected very ef ficiently, and this provides the highest resolution of when and where to identify effectively opportunities for improvement.  Analysing and interpreting these data can be done by a specialist consultant. Guidance on an overall approach to energy and water benchmarking is set out in Appendix C.

IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICES

BENCHMARKING Whole-building annual consumption data can be used to assess performance against a range of benchmarks. There are two good sources for benchmarks. The Chartered Institute of Building Service Engineers’ (CIBSE) TM22 provides a methodology for measuring energy use and associated benchmarks, and is widely used by the building assessment profession. The Real Estate Environmental Benchmark produced by Jones Lang LaSalle and the Better Buildings Partnership provides energy, water and waste benchmarks for both naturally ventilated and air-conditioned of fices based on actual operational data. Benchmarks are provided for both typical and good practice, allowing organisations to see how well their building is doing.  A benchmark of 100 kg CO2e/m2 of gross internal area (GIA) for a whole building can be considered a reasonable starting point using emission factors from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Corporate Reporting guidelines

(approx. 0.6 kg CO2e/kW h for electricity and 0.2 kg CO2e/kW h for natural gas). This is approximately the E/F boundary of the Display Energy Certificate rating scale. We also recommend that members upload their annual consumption data to Carbon Buzz, a free platform developed by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) and CIBSE for the purpose of collecting and sharing building energy-performance data. Data are anonymous unless you choose to ‘publish’ it. Energy data are grouped by sector, such as of fices, to enable useful comparisons to be made. Carbon Buzz is likely to become an increasingly valuable source of benchmark data if more organisations use it. Over time, it will be possible to create more bespoke benchmarks from the data collected. Guidance on using Carbon Buzz is given in Appendix D and can be found on their website.

IMPROVEMENT Benchmarking annual consumption against comparable buildings, either on a whole-building basis or separately for landlord and tenanted areas, and then making this performance visible and understandable, can be a motivator for change and can be used to set improvement targets. Identifying how improvements can best be achieved often requires finer granularity, as described above. Degree-days are a measure designed to reflect the amount of energy needed to heat a building in a given location. Weekly gas meter readings can be compared with degree day data to determine how effectively the heating system is controlling the internal environment in response to external temperatures. This approach can also be used to assess the effectiveness of a heat-saving initiative. An example is given in the case studies. Further information is given in Monitoring and Targeting: Techniques to Help Organisations Control and Manage their Energy Use (Carbon Trust, 2010) and on the Degree Days website.

Many organisations will be surprised to discover how much energy they use outside normal occupied hours. This can be determined by analysing half-hourly data, obtained either from utility meters or individual sub-meters. Some out-of-hours consumption will be necessary – that associated with servers for example  – while other consumption may be associated with lighting or equipment left on unnecessarily. While each organisation will need to decide what is appropriate for it in the context and culture of its business, out-of-hours consumption is often a good starting point for energy reduction. This may be achieved via a combination of management practice, behaviour change and custom settings on equipment.  Any behaviour-change initiative, such as asking staff to turn off computers or lights, is best accompanied by feedback data (i.e. making energy performance visible) that demonstrates the effect of their efforts. The Carbon Trust has a range of guidance on engaging employees in energy-ef ficient behaviour.

© BCO 2014

11

IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICES

CASE STUDY: LED RETROFIT LED lighting improves ef ficiency by 30% at The Crown Estate’s 1 Vine St of fice development. The Crown Estate’s redevelopment of 1 Vine Street was completed in 2007 and provides high-quality of fice accommodation at the south end of Regent Street. One of the original of fice tenants vacated in late 2012, and this triggered a refurbishment of the third and fouth floors. An analysis of meter data for tenant lighting (separately sub-metered) indicated an annual consumption of 27 kW h/m2. While this is a good performance from a T5 installation, analysis demonstrated that significant savings were possible by a switch to LED lighting. Using an LED product reduced the power density by 30%, which in turn produced a projected annual carbon saving of 9 tonne CO2, and an energy cost saving to the tenant of £1200/year, making it easier to let. Savings in maintenance are also forecast, as the LED lamps offer a significantly longer service life than fluorescent lamps. In addition to the energy benefits, agents reported that the aesthetics of the new lighting have made a positive contribution to the look and feel of the space, and the change was well received by prospective tenants. This project is part of a programme of improvements to operational buildings across The Crown Estate’s London portfolios, targeting a reduction in annual carbon emissions of over 200 tonne CO2 in year 1.

Occupier: The Crown Estate Building Performance Consultant:  Arup

12

© BCO 2014

IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICES

CASE STUDY: THE VALUE OF ADEQUATE METERING AND CLEAR DATA Separate metering of lighting energy allows targeting of increased daylight linking. In a central London of fice separate metering of electricity use for lighting allows a clear measure of monthly consumption. Much of the building is well lit by daylight and there is a full lighting control system, including daylight linking features. Inspection of the data is suf ficient to identify the fact that the lighting energy use does not vary over the year. Despite the increased availability of daylight in the summer, the data provide a simple indication that the design and commissioning of the control system should be adjusted to achieve summertime energy savings. The annual lighting electricity use is approximately 25% of the total, so a tightening up of the lighting control system to give 20% lighting savings would achieve a 5% red uction in total energy use. These data have provided an increased incentive to implement a full recommissioning of the lighting control system, improving the daylight linking and providing better sensing of light levels.

Electricity consumption by usage type 350,000

300,000    )    h 250,000    W    k    (   n   o    i    t 200,000   p   m   u   s   n   o   c 150,000   y    t    i   c    i   r    t   c   e    l    E 100,000

50,000

0  Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 Jan-13 Feb-13 Mar-13

Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13

Jul-13

Other (remaining not metered/assigned)

 Auxiliary energy – fans and pumps

Cooling

Small power 

Mixed use

Lighting

Mixed use (basement)

Total – electric

Catering – electric

Occupier: Arup Building Performance Consultant:  Arup

© BCO 2014

13

IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICES

CASE STUDY: PORTFOLIO IMPROVEMENTS (2013) Energy survey work resulted in annual savings of over £120,000 in operating costs, 800 tonnes of CO 2 and £10,000 in CRC liabilities.  A post-occupancy appraisal was carried out on three principal buildings in a large portfolio. Energy surveys were carried out to identify measures to improve building performance and to lower carbon emissions. The operational performance of the buildings was poor. The priority for the client was to get better transparency of how the buildings used energy. Changes to the implementation of automatic metering were recommended, linked into effective energymanagement procedures; this resulted in refinement in the control of major plant items to essential operation only, and better management of small power. By implementing the recommended changes significant operational cost savings were achieved. The solutions are being extended to the rest of the portfolio.

No. 1 Oliver’s Yard

Johnson building

14

© BCO 2014

Davidson building

IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICES

1200 1000    ) 800    V    k    (    d   n 600   a   m   e    D 400

200 0 27 Dec 06

06 Apr 07

15 Jul 07

23 Oct 07

31 Jan 08

10 May 08

18 Aug 08

26 Nov 08

Time (days) Johnson building – maximum demand, January 2007 to October 2006

Key facts Three buildings with complex service requirements were surveyed. Better management of out-of-hours lighting and data-room energy use has reduced energy consumption. The energy savings on the previous year (not adjusted for degree days) were:

• • •

Oliver’s Yard: –17% electricity, –35% gas Johnson building: –6% electricity, –34% gas Davidson building: –9% electricity, –1% gas

No. 1 Oliver’s Yard – IES energy model

Occupier: Derwent London Building Performance Consultant:  Arup

© BCO 2014

15

IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICES

CASE STUDY: A SIMPLE WAY OF ASSESSING HEATING CONTROLS Manual weekly meters readings enabled us to assess the impact of retro fit insulation. Max Fordham’s London of fice is within a converted Victorian industrial building. The company wanted a simple and cheap method of establishing how well its gas use responded to the weather and of assessing the impact of new insulation. The building manager took readings from the gas meters every Monday morning, and plotted a graph of the weekly gas use against the number of heating degree-days above 15.5°C in that week (freely available from www.degreedays.net). After installing insulation and secondary glazing, a new graph was plotted and the results compared. The graph showed a significant reduction in gas use for a given number of degree-days, showing that the insulation was having a positive effect. The range of scatter shows how effectively the heating is responding to external temperatures. The building manager is now trying to improve control by iteratively adjusting radiator valves and thermostats to take into account feedback given by building users.

Gas consumption against degree-days 3000 Pre-insulation Post-insulation 2500

   )    h    W    k    (   r 2000   o   o    l    f   r   e   p   e 1500   s   u   s   a   g   y 1000    l    k   e   e    W 500

0 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Heating degree-days

Occupier: Max Fordham Building Performance Consultant: Max Fordham LLP

16

© BCO 2014

70

80

90

100

IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICES

OCCUPANT EVALUATION

Collecting and evaluating feedback from occupants is a very different process from collecting and evaluating data on energy and water use. It begins with surveying

occupants via a series of subjective questions, and then interpreting the results to drive change and improvement.

MEASUREMENT Surveys should be carried out as part of an agreed programme of assessment and improvement. It is important to obtain buy-in to the process at a leadership level. The programme should acknowledge the potential for the findings to identify a range of improvements to the building systems, facilities management or human resources process. It is an obvious statement, but an organisation or employer should not start a review process without acknowledging that it is likely to point out the need for changes. Committing to making changes at the outset will avoid the syndrome which sees enthusiasm for a post-occupancy survey and then the results being sunk without a trace. Surveys should be done after a reasonable period of occupation to allow occupants to become familiar with their workplace. A year is usually considered to be adequate because it allows an occupier to experience the building through all four seasons. Surveys can be carried out online or via a paper-based questionnaire. An electronic version can be very

practical, simple to use and generate the data in a form that is easily analysed. However, the survey invite can get lost in the daily flood of emails. A paper version has been found to generate higher levels of response, having the appeal of a more personal invite and request for engagement. A paper survey also means that the assessor has to visit the building and talk to the occupants, which gives valuable context when interpreting the data. When introduced with a personal invite from the leadership of an organisation, a survey is given more authority and is likely to receive a greater level of participation. The invite should include a statement on why the information is being collected and what will be done with it. Equally, a follow-up message is important to thank participants for their responses. (Even at this level, proactive engagement with occupants can improve workplace satisfaction, but this guide is not intended to give advice on staff engagement management techniques!)

POPULAR SURVEY TOOLS  A range of survey methods is available, and indeed individual questionnaires may be tailored to suit a particular business, workplace or range of workplaces. The outcome of a survey is easier to understand when put in the context of similar buildings. It is dif ficult to get all aspects of a building or workplace right, but comparison of aspects between peers allows better understanding of features that are above average and

those where improvement is required. Two established methods for post-occupancy evaluation and comparison are the Building Use Studies ( BUS) methodology and the Leesman index. The BUS methodology primarily addresses the performance of the of fice building and its installed systems, and summarises the feedback from occupants, providing comparison with similar buildings.

© BCO 2014

17

IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICES

The Leesman method, like BUS, also uses a standardised questionnaire but focuses more on the

workplace and its effectiveness as an environment for the particular business of the occupier.

THE BUS METHODOLOGY The Building Use Studies (BUS) methodology is an established process for assessing occupant satisfaction. Using a standard paper or web-based questionnaire, a range of aspects of comfort and occupation are rated by occupants. The results are presented on a scale from ‘bad’ to ‘good’, and a comparison is made against a benchmark pool of similar buildings. BUS methodology reviews the performance of the building from the point of view of the occupant. The BUS methodology has been developed over the last 30 years, allowing benchmarking levels of occupant satisfaction within buildings against a large database of results for similar buildings. The method was developed and refined during the 1990s, when it was used for the government-funded PROBE building performance evaluation studies. It has been used on the Carbon Trust’s Low Carbon  Accelerator and Low Carbon Building Programme and also on the Technology Strategy Board’s Building Performance Evaluation Programme. Delivered by a trained partner network, the BUS methodology uses a structured questionnaire designed to extract as much information as possible from as few questions as possible. Respondents rate various aspects of performance on a scale of 1–7 and can also provide comments, so both quantitative and qualitative feedback is obtained. Over 45 key variables are evaluated, covering aspects such as thermal comfort, ventilation, indoor air quality, lighting, personal control, noise, perceived productivity, space, design, image and needs. Customised questions can also be added to address concerns associated with a specific building. Standard BUS methodology results are presented as an anonymised web-based report and two sets of data (benchmarked variables and comments). The BUS methodology partner can then provide additional interpretation of the results and put them in context for the building.

Temperature in summer overall

Uncomfortable: 1

Tsover 

7: Comfortable

Temperature in winter overall

Uncomfortable: 1

Twover 

7: Comfortable

 Air in summer  overall

Unsatisfactory: 1  Airsover 

7: Satisfactory

 Air in winter  overall

Unsatisfactory: 1  Airwover 

7: Satisfactory

Lighting overall

Unsatisfactory: 1

Ltover 

7: Satisfactory

Noise overall

Unsatisfactory: 1

Nseover 

7: Satisfactory

Comfort overall

Unsatisfactory: 1

Confover 

7: Satisfactory

Design

Unsatisfactory: 1

Design

7: Satisfactory

Needs

Very poorly: 1

Needs

7: Very well

Health

Less healthy: 1

Health

7: More healthy

Poor: 1

Image

7: Good

3 2   x   e    d 1   n    i   y   r   a   m 0   m   u   s    S  –1    U    B

0

10

20

30

40

50 60 Percentile

70

80

90

80 60 40 100 20

Image to visitors

 –2  –3

Perceived productivity

Decreased:  –40%

Prod

Further information on this method is available from http://www.busmethodology.org.uk.

18

© BCO 2014

Increased: +40%

IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICES

THE LEESMAN INDEX The Leesman Index (Lmi) measures the effectiveness of corporate workplaces. The Lmi benchmark is generated from the largest contemporary database of workplace satisfaction surveys available. It was created to offer easy access to vital, empirical e vidence to inform the design and management of commercial of  fice environments. The simple survey and analytics tools provide an inexpensive and systematic approach to the collection, analysis and benchmarking of workplace satisfaction data, and generate a single, universal measure of effectiveness – the Lmi. The survey questions focus on four main areas. The first determines which work activities are important to employees and how well these are supported by the workplace. Then satisfaction with the important physical features and the important facilities services of the of fice environment are addressed. Finally, an assessment is made of the impact of workplace design on corporate image and culture, sense of pride, enjoyment, community and productivity at work. The information is gathered via a confidential online questionnaire, which t akes employees around 11 minutes to complete. The survey uses a standardised core of simple, easily understood questions which do not vary, and an optional array of additional, flexible modules. This gives clients and their consultants the ability to compare their results with thousands of others and, at the same time, collect detailed and insightful diagnostic data. The data are then housed in an online environment called Lee sman Analytics.

My workplace enables me to work productively

My workplace is a place I am proud to bring visitors to

 Agree strongly (8.8%)

 Agree strongly (12.1%)

 Agree (25.1%)

 Agree (21.7%)

Slightly agree (21.2%)

Slightly agree (15.3%)

Neutral (16.7%)

Neutral (19.5%)

Disagree slightly (14.8%)

Disagree slightly (13.0%)

Disagree (9.1%)

Disagree (10.3%)

Disagree strongly (4.4%)

Disagree strongly (8.1%)

The design of my workplace is important to me

My workplace creates an enjoyable environment to work in

 Agree strongly (28.0%)

 Agree strongly (10.0%)

 Agree (41.9%)

 Agree (25.5%)

Slightly agree (18.4%)

Slightly agree (22.9%)

Neutral (9.3%)

Neutral (15.7%)

Disagree slightly (1.3%)

Disagree slightly (13.9%)

Disagree (0.6%)

Disagree (8.0%)

Disagree strongly (0.5%)

Disagree strongly (4.0%)

Further information on this method is available from http://leesmanindex.com.

© BCO 2014

19

IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICES

CASE STUDY: ELIZABETH FRY BUILDING Many buildings fail to live up to expectations with regard to energy performance and user comfort, but good buildings can maintain their performance. In 1998, the BUS methodology was used to evaluate the Elizabeth Fry building at the University of East  Anglia as part of the CIBSE Post Occupancy Review of Buildings and their Engineering (PROBE) studies. The building was evaluated again in 2011. The BUS methodology provided a robust benchmarked solution with qualitative comments against which the original evaluation took place; the building scored significantly above the benchmark. The same method could then be used when the building was re-evaluated against current BUS methodology benchmarks 13 years later. Multiple changes took place during 1995 and 2011. The BUS methodology allowed the assessor to demonstrate that, despite these changes, the Elizabeth Fry building remained a good building in relation to its peers, with only small changes from the original results being found. Occupant comfort was exceptional and remains so after a long period. Building performance expectations received a high level of attention during the original brief, design and construction period, and 2 years post-occupancy. This clearly influenced the outcomes that the BUS methodology was used to validate. Initial results were also used to inform improvement where required. For example, there was a responsive action where winter comfort temperatures were on the cool side, and perimeter panel heaters were subsequently installed in some affected rooms to overcome this problem.

2011

1998 Temperature in summer overall

Uncomfortable: 1

Tsover 

7: Comfortable

Temperature in summer overall

Uncomfortable: 1

Tsover 

7: Comfortable

Temperature in winter overall

Uncomfortable: 1

Twover 

7: Comfortable

Temperature in winter overall

Uncomfortable: 1

Twover 

7: Comfortable

 Air in summer  overall

Unsatisfactory: 1  Airsover 

7: Satisfactory

 Air in summer  overall

Unsatisfactory: 1  Airsover 

7: Satisfactory

 Air in winter  overall

Unsatisfactory: 1  Airwover 

7: Satisfactory

 Air in winter  overall

Unsatisfactory: 1  Airwover 

7: Satisfactory

Lighting overall

Unsatisfactory: 1

Ltover 

7: Satisfactory

Lighting overall

Unsatisfactory: 1

Ltover 

7: Satisfactory

Noise overall

Unsatisfactory: 1

Nseover 

7: Satisfactory

Noise overall

Unsatisfactory: 1

Nseover 

7: Satisfactory

Comfort overall

Unsatisfactory: 1

Confover 

7: Satisfactory

Comfort overall

Unsatisfactory: 1

Confover 

7: Satisfactory

Design

Unsatisfactory: 1

Design

7: Satisfactory

Design

Unsatisfactory: 1

Design

7: Satisfactory

Needs

Very poorly: 1

Needs

7: Very well

Needs

Very poorly: 1

Needs

7: Very well

Health

Less healthy: 1

Health

7: More healthy

Health

Less healthy: 1

Health

7: More healthy

Poor: 1

Image

7: Good

Image to visitors

Perceived productivity

20

Decreased:  –20%

© BCO 2014

Image to visitors

Prod

Increased: +20%

Perceived productivity

Decreased:  –20%

Prod

Increased: +20%

IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICES

The second evaluation showed the impact of changes to the building over a longer period of time. The BUS results show how comfort was affected by th e conversion of cellular space to open-plan of fices, particularly acoustically owing to the higher occupant density, reflective exposed concrete ceilings and a new bus route outside the building. The variable most affected by increasing occupancy levels and a proliferation of computer equipment was the temperature in summer, where the average score fell. This is reinforced by a loss of perceived control in the open-plan areas The key benefit that the BUS methodology provided was to reflect changes and reveal features of the building which impact occupant satisfaction. The results are used to improve the ef ficiency of the building and occupant satisfaction, and thereby effectiveness of the workplace. These lessons or features of the building can then be used to make improvements to, or avoid pitfalls in, new building designs. Owner: University of East Anglia Building performance consultant:  Usable Buildings Trust, Bill Bordass and Adrian Leaman

© BCO 2014

21

IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICES

CASE STUDY: WOODLAND TRUST HEADQUARTERS  An understanding of occupant feedback allowed the building to be reorganised for better perceived productivity. The 2700 m2 Woodland Trust Headquarters in Grantham, Lincolnshire, was completed in October 2010. It is a timber composite frame, naturally ventilated building providing of fice and meeting space for up to 200 staff and thin client IT facilities for the organisation’s staff in the field. Under the Technology Strategy Board’s Building Performance Evaluation programme, a BUS occupant survey was carried out half way through the second year of occupation by Bill Bordass of the Usable Buildings Trust. There was a 90% response rate from the 180 full- and part-time staff. Overall results were relatively good, apart from noise in the open-plan spaces. Scores for summer-time temperatures and perceived health were only at the midpoint of the of fice dataset, and the air was perceived to be dry. There were some complaints about draughts, from the front doors and atrium in particular. There were some concerns about unisex WC cubicles.  Ac oust ic s Some steps had already been taken prior to the survey date. The call centre operators needed high speech intelligibility and were moved away from the reception area to a quiet corner of the floorplate. Signage has also been put up in this area.  Anecdotal complaints have not been reported since.  Ai r qualit y and summer-ti me temperature  Both of these relate to ventilation and window operation; air quality in the winter and temperature in the summer. The survey also picked up some occupants experiencing headaches. Winter air-quality improvements have been measured with wider use of manually opening windows and moving sensitive occupants away from sources of draught. A study of the sof fit thermal mass has allowed automated window controls to be improved for both situations. The temperature in the past summer has been anecdotally reported as improved.

Woodland Trust Headquarters © Peter Cook

Temperature in summer overall

Uncomfortable: 1

Tsover 

7: Comfortable

Temperature in winter overall

Uncomfortable: 1

Twover 

7: Comfortable

 Air in summer  overall

Unsatisfactory: 1  Airsover 

7: Satisfactory

 Air in winter  overall

Unsatisfactory: 1  Airwover 

7: Satisfactory

Lighting overall

Unsatisfactory: 1

Ltover 

7: Satisfactory

Noise overall

Unsatisfactory: 1

Nseover 

7: Satisfactory

Comfort overall

Unsatisfactory: 1

Confover 

7: Satisfactory

Design

Unsatisfactory: 1

Design

7: Satisfactory

Needs

Very poorly: 1

Needs

7: Very well

Health

Less healthy: 1

Health

7: More healthy

Poor: 1

Image

7: Good

Image to visitors

Perceived productivity

Decreased:  –40%

Prod

Owner/occupier:  The Woodland Trust Building performance evaluation:  FeildenCleggBradleyStudios/Max Fordham/Bill Bordass

22

© BCO 2014

Increased: +40%

IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICES

CASE STUDY: MLC CENTRE FIT-OUT DEMONSTRATES MARKET-LEADING SATISFACTION I really enjoy our new work environment and the flexibility it offers (Of fice worker, MLC Centre) Thirty-three years after construction, refurbishment of the world-renowned MLC Centre provided an opportunity to turn an existing older building into a new work environment. giving staff leading-edge facilities with work-friendly technologies. Staff were surveyed on several occasions to ensure that the brief met the needs of a diverse workforce. The focus on ecologically sustainable development improved the quality of the environment and ensured operational cost saving. Staff felt ownership of their environment, embracing the new of fice and the ways of working it brought. A post-refurbishment evaluation showed that the of fice had a higher occupant satisfaction rating than any other of fice measured in Australia.

• • • •

The of fice was redesigned and refurbished with a 21st century fit-out. The of fice now provides a sustainable and productive environment for staff. An occupant satisfaction evaluation conducted one year after occupation provided a unique before and after evaluation of occupant perception. The results clearly demonstrated that the goals of a sustainable, productive workplace were met.

Comfover 

  y   r 7   o    t   c   a    f   s    i    t 6   a    S

5 60 40

4 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

3   y   r   o    t   c   a 2    f   s    i    t   a   s   n    U 1

80

90

100 20

2009 survey results 2012 survey results 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percentile

© BCO 2014

23

IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICES

FURTHER READING

The Better Buildings Partnership (BBP) Landlord Energy Rating. Available at: http://www.betterbuildingspartnership.co.uk/working-groups/landlord-energy-rating (accessed 21 February 2014). BBP (2010) Green Building Management Toolkit. Translating Words into Action. Available at: http://www.betterbuildingspartnership.co.uk/download/bbp-green-building-managment-toolkit-1.pdf (accessed 21 February 2014). BBP (2010) Sustainability Benchmarking Toolkit for Commercial Buildings. Principles for Best Practice.  Available at: http://www.betterbuildingspartnership.co.uk/download/bbp-sustainability-benchmarking-toolkit.pdf (accessed 21 February 2014). BBP (2011) Better Metering Toolkit. A Guide to Improved Energy Management through Better Energy Metering. Available at: http://www.betterbuildingspartnership.co.uk/download/bbp-better-metering-toolkit.pdf  (accessed 21 February 2014). BBP (2011) Managing Agents Sustainability Toolkit. Available at: http://www.betterbuildingspartnership.co.uk/download/bbp-managing-agents-sustainability-toolkit.pdf (accessed 21 February 2014). BBP (2012) Voluntary DECs and Landlord Energy Certificates. BPP Position Paper. Available at: http://www.betterbuildingspartnership.co.uk/download/bbp-position-paper---voluntary-decs-and-ler-%28 final%29.pdf (accessed 21 February 2014).

British Council for Of fices (BCO) BCO/CABE (2006) The Impact of Of fice Design on Business Performance. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. uk/20110118095356/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/impact-of fice-design-full-research.pdf (accessed 21 February 2014). BCO (2011) British Council for Of fices Guide to Post-Occupancy Evaluation. London. BCO. BCO (2011) British Council for Of fices, Designing for Biodiversity, Productivity and Profit. London. BCO (2013) British Council for Of fices Guide to Lighting. London. BCO(2013) British Council for Of fices Building Information Modelling for Commercial Of fice Buildings. London.

Building Research Establishment (BRE) Lewry A (2012) Energy Management in the Built Environment: A Review of Best Practice. BRE, London.

Carbon Trust Carbon Trust (2011) Green Gauges. Lessons Learnt from Installing and Using Metering and Monitoring Systems in Low Carbon Buildings. Available at: http://www.carbontrust.com/media/81353/ctg037-green-gauges-metering-monitoring-systems.pdf  (accessed 21 February 2014). Carbon Trust (2010) Monitoring and Targeting: Techniques to Help Organisations Control and Manage their Energy Use.  Available at: https://www.carbontrust.com/media/31683/ctg008_monitoring_and_targeting.pdf (accessed 21 February 2014).

24

© BCO 2014

IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICES

Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) CIBSE (2012) Guide F: Energy Ef ficiency in Buildings. CIBSE, London.

Degree Days Weather data for energy professionals. Available at: http://www.degreedays.net (accessed 21 February 2014).

Department of Communities and Local Government DCLG (2008) The Government’s Methodology for the Production of Operational Ratings, Display Energy Certificates and Advisory Reports. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-methodology-for-producting-operational-ratingsdisplay-energy-certi ficates-and-advisory-reports (accessed 21 February 2014). DCLG (2013) A Guide to Display Energy Certificates and Advisory Reports for Public Buildings. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/display-energy-certificates-and-advisory-reports-for-public-buildings (accessed 21 February 2014).

Landlord’s Energy Statement/Tenant’s Energy Review (LES-TER)  An industry initiative led by the British Property Federation, with technical assistance from the Usable Buildings Trust and financial support from the Carbon Trust. Available at: www.les-ter.org (accessed 21 February 2014).

© BCO 2014

25

IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICES

APPENDIX A GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Performance has a host of terms and acronyms of its own. Those used in this report, together with some additional terms commonly used in this arena, are explained here.  Auto matic Meter Readin g (AMR) Technology allowing the automatic collection of electricity, gas or water usage information from respective meters – on a periodic basis or in real time – to help both consumers and suppliers to review and control their use/supply of energy and/or water. Better Buildings Partnership (BBP) A collaboration of the UK’s leading commercial property owners who are working together to improve the sustainability of existing commercial building stock. More information is available at www.betterbuildingspartnership.co.uk. Building Information Modelling (BIM) BIM is a digital representation of the physical and functional characteristics of a building, its construction and systems. A BIM model is a shared knowledge re source that contains information about a building and forms a reliable basis for decision-making during the building’s life cycle (defined as the period from earliest conception to demolition). More information is available at www.bimtaskgroup.org. Biodiversity (or ‘biological diversity’) A term used to describe the number, variety and variability of living organisms; essentially a synonym of ‘life on Earth’. More information is available at the United Nations Environment Programme, World Conservation Monitoring Centre: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/what-is-biodiversity_50.html. BUS (Building Use Studies) methodology An established process for assessing occupant satisfaction, using a standard questionnaire that is completed by occupiers to rate a range of aspects of comfort and occupation. More information is available at http://www.busmethodology.org.uk. Carbon Buzz A free platform developed by the RIBA and CIBSE for the purpose of collecting and sharing building energy-performance data. Data are anonymous unless you choose to publish them. Energy data are grouped by sector, such as of fices, to enable useful comparisons. More information is available at: www.carbonbuzz.org. Carbon Disclosure Project An international, not-for-profit organisation providing the only global system for companies and cities to measure, disclose, manage and share vital environmental information. More information isavailable at: www.cdproject.net. Carbon Trust A not-for-profit company, primarily funded by government, with the mission to accelerate the move to a low-carbon economy.It publishes a wide range of guidance, covering topics from energy metering and monitoring to energy savings, through lighting, heating and other infrastructure technologies. Further information is available at: http://www.carbontrust.com. CIBSE (Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers) CIBSE has been involved in many initiatives around environmental performance. Its technical memoranda are often quoted, notablyTM22: Energy Assessment and Reporting Methodology. CIBSE is one of the core collaborators in Carbon Buzz. Display Energy Certi fi cate (DEC) DECs were introduced to raise public awareness of energy use and to inform building users/visitors about the energy use of buildings. They provide an energy rating (on a scale of A to G) based on the actual amount of metered energy used by the building over a 12-month period. Any building with afloor area

26

© BCO 2014

IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICES

of more than 500 m2 occupied wholly or in part by a public authority must prominently d isplay a DEC. The building owner must also hold an advisory report, which sets out recommendations for improving the energy performance of the building. More information is available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/display-energy-certificates-andadvisory-reports-for-public-buildings. Degree-days Degree-days are a measure of the severity and duration of cold weather, usually calculated by reference to a base temperature of 15.5°C, at which most buildings in the UK do not need supplementary heating. Degree-days are calculated as the difference between the baseline and the actual outdoor temperature multiplied by the number of days. Degree-days are usually used as a measure of heating but are also applicable, in principle, ficiency/degree-days. to cooling. More information is available at: www.carbontrust.com/resources/guides/energy-ef  Dow Jones Sustainability Index A set of indices, compiled jointly between S&P Dow Jones Indices and RobecoSAM, that lists companies by a total sustainability score, allowing investors to target sustainable companies. The sustainability score is calculated using an annual corporate sustainability assessment prepared by RobecoSAM, taking into account sustainable business practices critical to creating long-term stakeholder value, and sustainability factors representing opportunities and risks for the company to address. More information is available at: www.sustainability-indices.com. Embodied carbon The amount of carbon emitted during the full life cycle of a building, component or material. It includes the carbon emitted during the process of extracting raw materials, processing them into components, transporting them to site, installation, maintainance throughout their life and disposing of them after demolition. Like many measures of carbon, it is more often stated as a weight of carbon dioxide (the gas actually emitted to the atmosphere during any of these processes). EPRA Report ing Guid ance Guidance issued by the European Property Real Estate Association with the aim of enhancing the financial reporting of listed property companies and attracting investment in the listed property sector by way of key performance indicators. More information is available at: www.epra.com/regulation-and-reporting/bpr. FTSE4Good In dex An index prepared by FTSE to allow the performance of companies that meet globally recognised corporate responsibility standards to be measured using transparent management and criteria, to allow the assessment of investment products. More information is available at: www.ftse.com/Indices/FTSE4Good_Index_Series/index.jsp. Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark An industry-driven organisation committed to assessing the sustainability performance of real-estate portfolios (public, private and direct) around the globe. The dynamic benchmark is used by institutional investors to engage with their investments, with the aim of improving the sustainability performance of their investment portfolio, and the global property sector at large. More information is available at: www.gresb.com. Global Reporting Index Construction and Real Estate Sector Supplement A construction and real estate sector-specific sustainability reporting framework developed by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). The GRI aims to drive sustainability reporting by all organisations through a comprehensive Sustainability Reporting Framework that is widely used around the world, to enable greater organisational transparency. The framework, including the Reporting Guidelines, sets out the principles and indicators that organisations can use to measure and report their economic, environmental and social performance. More information is available at: www.globalreporting.org/ resourcelibrary/CRESS-Summary-Document.pdf. Graduated Appro ach An approach developed by the Usable Buildings Trust for use by organisations that are initially overwhelmed by the management of energy and water data. The approach proposes that organisations start with a simple approach based on the data most readily available, and then go on to use further detail and more sophistication as they develop a greater understanding of occupier behaviour and the monitoring process.

© BCO 2014

27

IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICES

Landlord Energy Rating (LER) A replacement for the Landlord’s Energy Statement currently being developed by the Better Building Partnership (BBP), further to the findings of the UKGBC Task Group Report Carbon Reductions in Existing Non-Domestic Buildings (March 2011). The BBP is seeking to use the LER to differentiate energy-ef  ficient of fice space in the marketplace, and to create the potential to feed this through into market valuations. More information is available at: www.betterbuildingspartnership.co.uk/working-groups/landlord-energy-rating. Landlord’s energy statement and tenant’s energy review An industry initiative led by the British Property Federation, with technical assistance from the Usable Buildings Trust andfinancial support from the Carbon Trust. It is a set of tools and a process designed to enable landlords and tenants to measure, understand and reduce their emissions from their ownership and occupancy of commercial buildings. More information is available at: www.les-ter.org Leesman Index (Lmi) An effectiveness measurement benchmark, produced by Leesman, that calculates an Lmi score for each workplace, based on a survey of a client’s staff, seeking to understand the activities that people are doing and the physical features and the facilities services provided around them. LES-TER  See: Landlord’s energy statement and tenant’s energy review . Low Carbon Accelerator  An initiative launched by the Carbon Trust in 2006 that focuses on the gathering of data and demonstrating expertise in the energy-ef ficient refurbishment of non-residential buildings. The aim of the initiative is to accelerate the take-up of cost-effective, low-carbon initiatives during non-residential-building refurbishment. Low Carbon Building Programme (LCBP) Now closed, the programme provided grants for the acquisition and installation of microgeneration technology in homes, schools, public buildings and other not-for-profit projects. The LCBP was a major government grant funding programme that provided approximately £131 million in grants for around 20,000 projects between 2006 and 2010. More information is available at: www.bre.co.uk/page.jsp?id=1332. Minimu m Energy Perform ance Standards (MEPS) A set of minimum performance requirements for buildings under the Energy Act 2011. The UK government currently intends to make a minimum building energy perfor mance rating of E mandatory for all letting residential and non-domestic buildings by 2018. PROBE (Post-occupancy Review of Buildings and their Engineering) Between 1995 and 2002 this project, under the UK government’s Partners in Innovation scheme, attempted to improve access to feedback from users through a number of post-occupancy evaluations of completed non-domestic buildings. The results were published as a series of case studies in the journal of the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, theBuilding Services Journal (BSJ). More information is available at: www.cibse.org/index.cfm?go=page.view&item=2481. Real Estate Environ mental Benchmark This comprises a set of energy, water and waste benchmarks for both naturally ventilated and air-conditioned of fices, based on actual operational data, produced by a collaboration between Jones Lang LaSalle and the Better Buildings Partnership (BBP). Further information is available at: http://www.joneslanglasalle.co.uk/UnitedKingdom/EN-GB/Pages/Real-Estate-Environmental-Benchmark.aspx. Real ti me A term often used to describe systems. Real-time systems react to information on receipt, and are thus able to adjust to conditions and occurrences at the time when they change/occur. RIBA (Royal Institute of Britis h Architects) The professional body of the architectural profession in the UK. It is one of the core collaborators in Carbon Buzz. Service life/life-cycle carbon A measure of the inputs and outputs with regard to materials, energy and waste flows associated with a building (or any other product) over its entire life cycle. It is often used as a measure of a building’s whole-life environmental impacts.

28

© BCO 2014

IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICES

Soft Landings Soft Landings is used to describe a new approach to the handover of buildings, in which the feasibility, briefing, design and construction phases of a new building or refurbishment is carried out with its operational management and end-users always in mind. After construction is complete, the design team and contractors remain involved with the building to ensure that the handover process is smooth, with operators being trained, and optimum performance outcomes become a focus of the whole team. More information is available at: https://www.bsria.co.uk/services/design/soft-landings. Technology Strategy Board The UK’s innovation agency, which has the aim for the UK to be a global leader in innovation. Its role is to stimulate innovation, working with business and other partners, in order to accelerate economic growth. It has funded a number of performance-related research projects, including research into the implementation of Soft Landings principles in schools. More information is available at: www.innovateuk.org. UN Global Comp act A strategic policy initiative for businesses that are committed to aligning their operations and strategies with ten universally accepted principles in the areas of human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption. By doing so, business, as a primary driver of globalisation, can help ensure that markets, commerce, technology and finance advance in ways that benefit economies and societies everywhere. More information is available at: www.unglobalcompact.org. Usable Buildi ngs Trust A UK educational charity dedicated to improving the performance of buildings in use. More information is available at: www.usablebuildings.co.uk.

© BCO 2014

29

IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICES

APPENDIX B AN APPROACH TO ENERGY AND WATER BENCHMARKING STEPS Define scope for measurements

OPTIONS • Whole building • Landlord areas only • Whole building subdivided into landlord and tenanted areas

GUIDANCE NOTES The available options will depend on how energy is supplied to your building. Tenants may have their energy supplied direct, it may be sub-metered from the landlord’s supply, or there may be a single supply to the whole building with no sub-metering. Where tenants are supplied direct, the landlord may or may not have access to these data. Where data exist to report separately on landlord and tenant areas, this is the best option.

Identify available data

• Energy and water utility bills Many buildings now have advanced metering systems that provide more accurate energy data. • Manual meter readings Where utility bills are based on estimated consumption • Automatic meter readings rather than actual meter readings, manual meter • Sub-meter readings readings should be taken on a monthly basis, as this will be more accurate than estimated consumption. The majority of buildings will have gas and electricity supplies. Where there is on-site renewable energy generation, these data should also be collected. • Floor area

Floor area should align with the scope determined above, e.g. whole building, landlord and/or tenanted areas. The gross internal area (GIA) should be used as the measurement of floor area, as this aligns with Display Energy Certificates (DECs) and Carbon Buzz. See the RICS Code of Measuring (6th edition) for the full definition of GIA.  An approximate conversion from net lettable area (NLA) can be achieved by multiplying by 1.25.

Understand occupancy

Determine if the building is fully occupied to allow comparison against benchmarks. An empty building has a better energy rating (based on energy per m2) than a full one.

Determine hours of use

DEC methodology allows for this.

Collect data

30

© BCO 2014

Data should be collated on an Decide whether reporting against calendar years or tax annual basis years is more appropriate. The latter will align with CRC reporting.

IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICES

STEPS

OPTIONS

Process data

Annual consumption to be reported in kW h/m2 for energy or m3/m2 for water. Make sure that the consumption and floor area are consistently measured  – usually primary energy consumption and gross internal area (GIA).

Benchmark – compare annual consumption against benchmark data to determine how well your building is performing

• Benchmark against realestate environmental benchmarks

GUIDANCE NOTES Data are reported in line with the scope agreed above. Be careful with conversion factors used to convert metered energy consumption into primary energy or kg CO2. Make sure they are consistent with the benchmarks used.

• Commission a voluntary DEC • Produce a Landlord’s Energy Statement and/or Tenant’s Energy Review • Upload annual energy and water data to the Carbon Buzz website

Report performance

• Report to board members • Include in the annual corporate, social and environmental responsibility report

Make the report highly visual and easy to understand for decision-makers and occupiers if you want to motivate and encourage change.

• Display the energy rating Define scope for measurements

• Whole building • Landlord areas only • Whole building subdivided into landlord and tenanted areas

The available options will depend on how energy is supplied to your building. Tenants may have their energy supplied direct, it may be sub-metered from the landlord’s supply, or there may be a single supply to the whole building with no sub-metering. Where tenants are supplied direct, the landlord may or may not have access to the data. Where data exist to report separately on landlord and tenant areas, this is the best option.

© BCO 2014

31

IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICES

APPENDIX C GUIDANCE ON ENTERING DATA TO CARBON BUZZ www.carbonbuzz.org

STEP Register your organisation

GUIDANCE NOTES Once registered, use the ‘Company home page’ to set up user accounts for all staff who may be involved in uploading and analysing the data.

Create building Use ‘Add new project’ to set up a profile for each building in your portfolio. profiles There are a small number of mandatory fields, including Gross Internal Area and whether the building is single or multi-use (if it is all of fices, this counts as single use, regardless of the number of tenants). Of the optional fields, we recommend you also provide: Section 1: Building/project type; completion date if recent. Section 2: Sector; category and subcategory (use ‘Commercial of  fice’ unless this is inappropriate). Section 3: Tenancy; landlord’s area; number of tenants. Section 4: Property owner. In the ‘Comments’ section, please state ‘BCO member’, as this may be used in future to group members’ data together. Please also state here whether you are providing whole-building data, landlord-only or landlord and tenanted areas separately.  Add users to projects

Once a project has been set up, the ‘Users’ tab can be used to specify which of your registered users can access the project.

Create energy records

 An energy record will be added for each building each year. Open a project profile and select ‘Add new record’. There are a large number of optional entry fields. We recommend the following as a minimum: Overview 1 Source: ‘Measured’ + ‘meter readings’ or ‘bills’ as applicable; enter start and end dates for metering period. Record name: eg ‘Annual consumption 2013’. Number of zones. Overview 2: Water consumption in litres per person per day. Save the record overview. Select the ‘Zones’ tab and enter zone names and areas. Select the ‘Energy details’ tab and enter total electricity and non-electricity for thefirst zone. You may need to use the expand icons before entering data. If you have renewable energy sources, these should be entered here. Select ‘Energy details’ for each other zone and enter the energy data. Further details can be added (e.g. to describe the building’s operating conditions) but this is optional.

Review results

32

© BCO 2014

Review results