Perception of BREEAM & CSH
In general our interviewees supported the ratings systems at the strategic level. They credited BREEAM and CSH with helping to lead a stepped change in sustainable development over the last number of years.
More specifically, the requirements of the systems were seen as driving exciting innovation in certain technologies such as lighting. Improvements in specification of other materials and standards has also been attributed to BREEAM.
One participant made reference to a large house builder that actively markets their homes based on improved energy efficiency and fuel savings.
It has also been credited with stepped improvements within the procedures and processes of companies. CSR policies are now seen as standard, where as only 15 years ago they were not on the agenda of the senior management, never mind the Board. While there will always be differences between large and smaller organisations, one of the interviewees believes that the systems have resulted in ensuring that most companies now have “sustainability in house”.
As a result, tenants are more interested and aware of sustainability issues. This is demonstrated through stakeholder and tenant requests for improved levels of environmental performance.
However our interviewees, whilst believing the systems as a whole were practical and that the standardised elements of the rating system were necessary elements which had helped to drive the sustainability agenda forward, agreed unanimously that the administrative requirements of the systems had become overly burdensome.
Phil Allard, Director at Wildstone Planning believes the “system has become a bit bloated” and that the repetition between requirements of CSH and those of Building Regulations is time consuming. The participants all agreed that the systems suffer from a lack of clarity with the assessment methodology being overly bureaucratic.
Festus Moffat Architect at JRA, agreed that BREEAM can be a “blunt tool at times”, where certain credits are pursued simply to gain the points rather than for virtuous reasons.
Another criticism was that the lack of flexibility within the practical application of the tool, resulting in limited methods for introducing innovation into the process. The impact of this impinges directly on the commercial realities of individual projects. (e.g biomass boilers that were never switched on).
Although the industry is pushing hard on building efficiency and on zero carbon objectives, one of the repeated criticisms from our interviewees related to the confusing advice given at macro and micro level. It was felt, that the advice at policy level cannot always be implemented at the practical level; while consultants were accused of offering confusing advice.
Such lack of clarity was in part attributed to the performance gap and failure of the industry to reach its objectives.
It was also acknowledged that while the vast majority of clients are very focused on general sustainability issues, there are equally few clients focused on zero carbon. As a result it was claimed by one of our interviewees that the ‘industry is not geared up to deliver zero-carbon’ (Festus Moffat, JRA). This is a worrying thought due to the significant lead in time that is likely to be required for both private industry and Local Authorities to establish the needed legal framework and project delivery capabilities to take on this responsibility.