APPENDIX 22
Memorandum from Tom Woolley
1. I am Professor of Architecture at Queens
University Belfast and Director of the proposed Centre for Green
Building Research. My primary area of work is on the field of
sustainable building and housing and we carry out research, publication
and consultancy in this area. Our most significant output is The
Green Building Handbook, Volume 1, 1997 and Volume 2, 2000 published
by Spon Press. Volume 2 won a Gold medal from the Chartered Institute
of Building. Our research ranges from innovative work on new sustainable
materials such as building with hemp and other crop-based materials.
We have been funded by the Engineering Research council (EPSRC)
to do work on ecological building materials and products. We also
do work on environmental assessment methodologies and have given
papers on this at international conferences including, Oslo, Brisbane,
Mexico City, California, South Africa etc.
2. We are one of the few independent sources
of information on the environmental aspects of building and housing.
We are currently carrying out a feasibility study, funded by the
Energy Saving Trust into an innovative demonstration sustainable
housing project with the Rural Housing Association in Northern
Ireland. We have carried out an environmental audit for Portakabin/Yorkon
and are involved in a project with Taylor Woodrow Ltd called "Balanced
Value". Professor Woolley was a member of the working group
set up by the Town and Country Planning Association looking into
planning aspects of sustainable housing.
3. Summary of main points in this memorandum:
— Current sustainable housing practice
is uneven and partial and fails to adopt an holistic approach.
— Measures are cherry picked with little
understanding of their environmental impact.
— Many measures are "greenwash"
in that they only done for public relations reasons. There is
insufficient joined up thinking between the agencies involved.
— Little attempt is made to insist
on environmental auditing of construction innovations and there
is no clear benchmark on which this can be based.
— Much innovation in building methods
is being done in the same quick fix way as in the 60s and 70s.
— Insufficient work is being done in
the UK to develop life cycle analysis and to define sustainability
in terms of building methods which last.
— Much can be learnt from traditional
methods of construction which were much more sustainable.
— Much more needs to be done to develop
and harmonise environmental standards to ensure that there is
a consistent set of standards which the industry can work to.
— There is insufficient support for
independent research and development in this sector. Insufficient
University based research is being carried out compared with other
European countries.
— The UK Government could do more to
support the development of green and ecological building products.
— There is insufficient date on the
environmental performance of products and materials
— There is a need for greater emphasis
on sustainability in the work done on efficiency in the construction
industry and more consultation with the alternative green building
movement.
— We need more and better demonstrations
of sustainable housing that reflect holistic thinking but current
procurement methods inhibit this.
— There is a need for a high level
Government enquiry into sustainable construction that will shift
thinking about housing provision, not just in terms of numbers
and planning but how it is actually built.
4. The lack of holistic thinking in sustainable
housing: In order to ensure that future buildings are "truly
sustainable and take full account of environmental objectives."
(Quotation from Press Release 30 April 2004), it is necessary
to be clear what is meant by sustainability and environmental
objectives. Plenty of work has been done to define these terms,
but what happens in practice in the industry is that different
sustainable actions are cherry picked on the basis that doing
a little is better than nothing. This idea is based on a fallacy
and current practice of this kind must be challenged and revised
if future building is to be truly sustainable. Instead a balanced
and holistic approach should be adopted in which an assessment
of the implications of all actions is made, based on fundamental
thinking about environmental impact.
5. Examples of cherry picking: Much current
practice assumes that simply increasing insulation, or adding
renewable energy is in itself sustainable. These measures are
usually driven by what grants or funding is available, or by regulations.
The environmental impact of such measures is rarely assessed.
Thus the use of fossil fuel based insulation materials, heavily
dosed with fire retardant chemicals and toxic binders can do more
damage to the environment in the long term through pollution to
sea or air, than the carbon emissions they may save over a few
years. Sealing up an air tight, well-insulated house with toxic
materials, with inadequate ventilation may do considerable damage
to the health of building occupants. Truly sustainable housing
would assess all of these issues and sustainable measures will
be taken for all of them, not just a handful, which are easy to
do. An holistic assessment will involve consideration of about
40 factors.
6. Guard against Greenwash: many organisations
have now identified the marketing advantages of appearing to be
sustainable, but very often the measures which are taken amount
to little more than greenwash because they are tokenistic and
use conventional building practice, with some small changes. Most
timber suppliers will tell you that their timber is from a sustainable
source and these largely bogus claims are readily accepted in
the industry, as knowledge of certification is poor. This is partly
because there is a plethora of environmental standards and everyone
has a shallow understanding of some aspects of sustainability
which is not based on a good knowledge base. At present the knowledge
base is dispersed and fragmented. Essential data on environmental
profiles, embodied energy, environmental impacts and assessment
methodologies is not easily obtainable.
7. Agencies responsible for this work: Much
good work is done through the Environmental best Practice Programme,
Energy Saving Trust, Carbon Trust, BRE, CIRIA, BSRIA etc. and
so on but little of this is joined up. There has not been a significant
conference to bring together all of these bodies for over a decade
and for researchers like myself to expand their knowledge base
it is necessary to go to other countries. There is an urgent need
for a review of the role of these organisations, the work which
they subcontract to consultants and whether money is being wisely
spent.
8. Innovative Construction Methods: A considerable
number of new construction systems are appearing on the market
in an effort to respond to demands for higher energy efficiency
and lean construction. While these methods may receive Agrement
certification or CE marking, the environmental impact of new products
and construction methods is rarely or properly assessed. It is
largely left to specifiers to deduce from a range of uneven information
sources on a hand to mouth basis. It is sometimes possible to
draw conclusions from the BRE Green Guide or the Green Building
Handbook, but in many cases it is still an industry of make do
and mend. Things have not moved on since the 60s and 70s when
I saw industrialised systems rubber stamped and used for the housing
boom, only to be demolished a decade later. The same risk exists
today, even where things are more sophisticated, because companies
are using quick fix solutions rather than sustainable ones. Many
new quick fix forms of construction are likely to run into difficulties
in a few years, while more sustainable ecological methods of building
are being ignored.
9. Assessing life cycle performance and
environmental impact: Currently very little work is being done
on these two vital topics. Much better work is being done in Australia,
Austria, USA and Holland developing holistic methodologies which
can assess both environmental impact, economics and performance.
This triple bottom line approach is absent from the belt and braces
methods which are currently used in the UK to define environmental
performance. There is little analysis in the UK of the longevity
of materials as more sustainable solutions invariably increase
labour costs . Instead the industry is fixated on de-skilling
and using methods of construction which involve short term glue-ing
and fixing methods. Sustainable construction means just what it
says, that what we build should last more than 25 to 30 years.
Many of the lightweight, synthetic forms of construction being
introduced, not only damage the environment through pollution
and eventual disposal problems but are unlikely to last very long.
10. Learning from tradition. Traditional
building, using natural, local materials was inherently sustainable.
When these buildings are demolished, they can be dismantled, materials
like slate and brick and timber, taken out, cleaned up and re-used.
Modern building methods using cement and glued fixings do not
allow for dismantling and thus they end up in landfill. Very often
new material is wasted on site (often as much as 20%) because
construction methods are rushed and wasteful. More needs to be
done to revive the use of materials like lime instead of cement
and building workers need to be taught better ways of fixing and
looking after materials. Materials like lime are being refined
so that they can meet the needs of a mass industry but builders
don't like them because they need time to dry out . Instead they
prefer to use materials which, high in solvents dry out rapidly,
but also create pollution.
11. Too much variation in environmental
standards: Some of the academic work I have done, partly stimulated
by the Partners in Innovative Balanced Value project, has been
to compare environmental assessment systems and benchmarks. There
are literally hundreds of them world-wide and they are all different.
I have attached a conference paper, which addresses these issues.
Many of the environmental standards like "Eco-Homes"
have developed in a relatively pragmatic way, and while the standards
are being revised it is not clear to me how this is being done
within the walls of the BRE. A standard such as Eco Homes should
be based on wide debate and social and economic criteria with
input from a wide range of interests. Housing finance, building
regulation and Planning Act requirements should be related to
these standards, but at present they all operate independently.
Many local authorities in England are introducing sustainable
building standards, but they are all re-inventing the wheel and
standards differ from place to place. Even something as simple
as energy requirements in the building regulations are different
in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland . . .and widely differ
from those in similar climatic zones in Europe. . . . Why? This
variation in standards causes serious commercial problems for
companies, which are producing products for sale across the whole
of the UK.
12. The need for more independent research:
While much of the work being done at the Building Research Establishment
is excellent, the UK Government puts far too much funding into
the BRE and supports other research of dubious quality in the
private sector. Very little support is given to Universities to
carry out research on environmental and sustainable aspects of
housing and building construction. Much current work is driven
by commercial vested interests, particularly the concrete, plastics
and synthetic insulation industries. Very little work is done
which might take a critical or independent look at these issues.
I was asked by MISTRA, a small independent trust in Sweden linked
to the Government, to review a £5 million sustainable building
research programme. This programme was one of many programmes
in Sweden, but it alone supported more PhD students and in depth
research projects than the whole of the UK.
13. The UK Government could do much more
to support innovative green and sustainable building methods and
materials: Most of the environmentally friendly building materials
and products used in the UK are imported from Germany, Austria
and Switzerland. Insulation products made from crop based materials
such as straw, flax, hemp, wool and so on are being developed
in these countries through direct Government subsidies. While
these subsidies have been challenged by the "toxic"
industries, natural products now have a substantial share of the
market in these countries. Natural paints, oils and stains are
also largely imported. While there are a few notable UK pioneers
in this area, manufacture of sustainable building products is
miniscule in the UK. There is no obvious Government agency which
can support or encourage such initiatives.
14. Lack of data on these issues: It would
be useful to support many of the above assertions with data but
due to the dearth of research funding in the Cinderella field
of sustainable construction little information is available. Instead
it is necessary to rely on anecdotal evidence and to try and work
at a local level grubbing up limited support from wherever it
can be found. Research and development in this sector will only
grow if it is championed by Government and a clear policy direction
is given to support holistic thinking and practice. Environmental
standards need to be co-ordinated with work in Europe but also
peer reviewed by a range of bright young minds who are coming
out of Universities, but unable to carry out PhDs in this area.
Data must be more widely available and not subject to the current
limitations of commercial confidentiality. More support for innovative
demonstration projects must be forthcoming in order for things
to be tried and tested at full scale.
15. Lack of interface with other Government
Action on the construction industry: Work done following the Egan
report and in efforts to improve efficiency and training in construction
fails to address sustainability to any significant degree. Apart
from a bit of cherry picking and greenwash there is a complete
lack of joined up thinking on these issues.
16. The need for more consultation on sustainable
building with the sustainable building community: I only found
out about this enquiry after the deadline for receipt of submissions
and a quick ring round other leading people in the sustainable
construction and housing field revealed that no-one else knew
about it either. I feel strongly that further consultation using
the various environmental networks would yield a wealth of important
and useful views and information which should be taken into account
by the Environmental Audit Committee.
17. What would really sustainable housing
be like? Currently we have very few models for really sustainable
housing, projects like BEDZED in Sutton or other projects around
the country are driven largely by pragmatic decisions that depend
on funding resource and the degree of commitment of the actors
in the project. Future projects need to include on site sewage
treatment, rainwater harvesting, natural and low impact materials
and construction systems which will last a long time, health and
non polluting materials should be used, low energy should be a
matter of course and so on. We have the expertise and knowledge
to do all this, and it is affordable and feasible, it's just that
hardly anyone does it.
18. Procurement Methods: there are many
barriers and obstacles which get in the way of sustainable solutions.
The whole system is geared up to work on a lowest initial cost,
risk averse model which restricts the scope for innovation. A
study of these issues would be an important aspect of promoting
sustainable housing.
19. The need for a Government level enquiry:
there is a need for a high powered enquiry into sustainable housing
which will consider supply and demand and planning issues but
largely focus on environmental impact, sustainability and construction
methods and materials. This should be chaired by someone who would
take a radical and independent view of the issues and while it
should involve all interests in the construction industry should
have the resources to commission work from people who would not
otherwise have the resources to prepare detailed information.
One objective of the enquiry would be to identify a research agenda
to ensure that a proper knowledge base of material on environmental
assessment is available. It should also endeavour to see how a
proper broad based and internationally compatible set of environmental
standards should be compiled. Finally it should look at ways in
which product and building innovation can be encouraged and supported.
June 2004
| 
