This blog has now moved. Please visit Zerochampion.com and update your bookmarks
This blog has now moved. Please visit Zerochampion.com and update your bookmarks
I'm cooking on gas today. Here's my first interview for Zerochampion.
The familiar industry figure that is Peter Rogers has now stepped into the green debate. Clearly a glutton for punishment after running industry bodies such as Constructing Excellence and the Strategic Forum Rogers, as well as knocking up 12 construction commitments for the London Olympics last year, he has now taken on the mantle of chairing the UK Green Building Council. This is a new group stretching across the development and construction industry to push the sustainable agenda which will formally launch itself to the world at this month’s Eco Build conference.
Yet another body you must be sighing. Well, it does feel a bit like that. But if Rogers, brother of architect Sir Richard and director at one of the UK’s most enlightened developers Stanhope, is involved it should have clout. And the membership is impressive – from Agrregate Industries to Arup, British Land to the BRE, Willmott Dixon to HBOS. “It’s a bit like Noah’s Ark,” as Rogers puts it, referring to its wide industry coverage. I spoke to him about the challenge that the body has set itself on its website, no less than
'To dramatically reduce the environmental impact of buildings by radically improving the way they are designed, built and maintained.'
We talk renewables, energy, BREEAM and light switches. Click below for the full Q&A
PC: What is the main aim of the new body?
PR: We need a cohesive lobbying voice. There are lots and lots of very good green organisations but there is a lack of cohesion. From a developer’s point of view we need to get engaged (with Government). The Government is making us waste a fortune with the pressure to incorporate renewables on projects. It’s nonsense – we could easily meet aggressive targets by reducing energy in buildings not by adding Mickey-Mouse photovoltaic’s.
PC: There’s clearly an issue there for you to tackle with Ken Livingstone (who is demanding 10% renewables on all new developments in London and wants this figure to rise)
PR: Ken is a real enthusiast but I think the Greater London Authority should take on more of a co-ordination role rather than setting down rule. It’s just not feasible to incorporate all the renewables they want on office schemes. Couldn’t we share them with nearby housing schemes? That could work.
I’m not saying there is a fear in the development community about this. Funders are prepared to put money into sustainable development but there’s a frustration that there’s currently no sensible policy or direction from the Government.
PC: What’s the make-up of the group?
PR: There’s 32 founding members. We have an operational board and are currently headhunting for a chief executive. The idea it to keep it a relatively small organisation. I do not see this as becoming a competitor to other organisations. We want to bring together the skills from other groups.
PC: Are you looking at new sustainable standards?
PR: We have BREEAM which already works. There is a British trait to complain about existing systems and look for new ones, but developers have told us this would create chaos. We don’t need a new standard – let’s build on solid foundations. There is a lot of good work being done but we need joined up thinking.
PC: I’m sensing you’re not quite convinced about renewable technologies just yet
PR: I think there are problems with technologies such as ground source heat pumps and biomass sin city centres. I don’t want to denigrate these technologies - I’m sure for out of town schemes they work and are entirely logical. There’s also conflicting reports on wind. The efficiency is low.
PC: So it’s more about the buildings themselves:
PR: Yes. Just take the existing stock – about 80% of property in the UK was built pre-1980s. There’s a big challenge to tackle that, make it more efficient. A lot of work can be done on it but slinging up a wind turbine on the roof will not work (pay attention David Cameron). You could insulate your roof instead or get rid of incandescent lights which could make a massive difference.
PC: What else could done to the existing stock?
PR: I’d question the investment requirement for all office buildings to be temperature controlled to the 21-22 centigrade mark. That’s a very narrow band- why is that? Buildings should be allowed to float in temperature. It’s bad for them to be controlled. And we should stop manufacturing products inside buildings with stand-by systems. Manufacturers should be encouraged to make equipment that switches itself down.
The scale (for sustainability) is both small and big. Small in examples such as training occupiers to use buildings better ie turn their lights off or switch off appliances. Big in the need for the planet to find a fuel that’s carbon neutral – there’s a lot of money and research that should be thrown into that.
PC: Do you have a message for a particular part of the industry?
PR: In the office sector we have got to get after occupiers. Their sole concern is operation – they chuck tonnes of power into buildings, partly in terms of back-up. If you look around the City of London these buildings are probably generating enough energy to power the rest of the UK. I can understand it’s for safety and security reasons but we have to got to find a more efficient way of doing that. We need a secondary energy supply system that acts as back up for these buildings.
Comments