Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC)
Dr Stewart Davies is a business leader with
20 years' experience in industry. Roles in the last seven years
have included involvement in the construction supply chain as
a member of the boards of the Steel Construction Centre, the Concrete
Centre and the BRE Trust. Appointed to the Sustainable Development
Commission in January 2006 as a Commissioner on a part-time basis,
he has prioritised opportunities for helping the construction
sector to work more effectively with Government to deliver national
sustainable development goals and is currently providing input
to the refreshing of the Government's Sustainable Construction
Strategy. He is giving evidence on behalf of the Sustainable Development
Commission, which is working on sustainable schools in the following
areas:
— Capacity building within the DfES
on sustainable development (including full time secondee to DfES).
— Report on opportunities for improved
carbon savings from spend on education buildings—March 2006.
— Report on carbon footprint of the
schools estate—April 2006.
— Co-sponsoring the Schools Design
Forum, set up by the BRE Trust in June 2006.
— Input to DfES Vision on sustainable
schools (ongoing).
KEY POINTS
FOR ORAL
EVIDENCE:
1. Sustainable schools have the minimum
environmental "footprint" and the maximum sustainability
"mindprint". Sustainable schools are efficient schools
that consume less energy, water and materials, and produce less
waste—a win-win between efficiency and sustainability. They
are also effective schools that recognise the power of sustainability
issues to motivate pupils, engage them in learning, and boost
their achievement, behaviour and well-being.
2. The Sustainable Development Commission
(SDC), along with other stakeholders including the construction
industry design and supply chain and local authorities, is concerned
that BSF is not currently designed to maximise its contribution
to sustainable development. In particular, it is not working towards
a vision of sustainable school buildings that those commissioning,
designing and constructing can collectively own. One consequence
is that we do not know how BSF will contribute as a whole to,
for example, carbon emissions reduction, waste minimisation, water
consumption and sustainable travel.
3. BSF could and should be working transparently
towards Government aspirations in these areas and taking the agenda
further, for example carbon neutral schools by 2015. To do this,
there is urgent need for the vision (plus associated KPIs and
guidance) for the schools estate at 2020, and how it will contribute
to national sustainable development goals (on carbon, water, congestion,
waste etc), to be developed in cooperation with industry and local
authorities. We recommend that the DfES takes as a starting point
the DfES Sustainable Schools strategy.
4. To achieve alignment with national sustainable
development goals, a new framework of sustainability standards
will be necessary to raise standards for school buildings further
than BREEAM currently mandates. Standards for key resource efficiency
criteria such as carbon emissions and water consumption are not
fixed, but "tradable" within BREEAM, whereas we believe
all projects should achieve a defined energy efficiency/carbon
reduction standard above the regulatory minimum. The Code for
Sustainable Homes is an example of where this weakness is being
tackled and a new framework for sustainable schools should be
developed in collaboration with the construction industry design
and supply chain to be significantly more ambitious whilst also
being fully deliverable.
5. The funding of sustainable design and
construction standards needs to be addressed to allow assets to
be procured on a whole-life value basis.
— PFI provides an opportunity to incorporate
whole life costing in areas such as energy usage where responsibility
for construction and maintenance/operation is held by one private
sector organisation over a 25-30 year period. In practice, adjustments
are needed to ensure that up-front decisions are consistently
being made to minimise running costs and environmental impacts
over that period. Imposition of a cost of carbon through the term
of PFI contracts might be one such mechanism, which would, for
example, incentivise distributed electricity generation on site.
— Non-PFI projects are not funded on
the basis of minimising whole life costs. There is a great opportunity
to reduce high carbon emissions through major and minor refurbishment
with significant potential for ongoing cost savings direct to
the school budgets. These opportunities are not being exploited.
Capital funding should be released wherever a positive net present
value can be shown for resource efficiency measures.
6. There is no encouragement in BSF to adopt
sustainable design where there is no direct return to the investor,
even if the wider health, environmental and social benefits are
clear. For example, there is little incentive to practice responsible
sourcing, minimise waste and traffic associated with school operations,
or to develop grounds for food growing and biodiversity conservation,
despite the fact that these measures will unlock savings for other
parts of Government—eg DH, DfT, Defra, DCLG. A mechanism
should be developed to ensure these benefits are valued and incentivised
within the procurement system, eg through an improved sustainable
design and construction standards framework.
7. The sheer scale and profile of the BSF
programme make it a test case of the Sustainable Procurement Task
Force's highly relevant findings. The SPTF report recommends that
Government uses public buying-power to support social, economic
and environmental aims, transform markets, and deliver real long-term
efficiency and sustainability improvements. The SPTF identifies
schools as a priority area and recommends that DfES and HM Treasury
work together to ensure that BSF is meeting high sustainability
standards and to learn lessons for other capital projects. Giving
priority to the implementation of the insightful and pragmatic
recommendations of the SPTF report would greatly enhance the likelihood
of success of the BSF programme in delivering sustainable schools.
October 2006
|
