Barriers and Drivers Within Large Architectural Practice To Low and Zero Carbon Architecture

Barriers and Drivers within Large Architectural Practice to Low and Zero Carbon Architecture
BARRIERS AND DRIVERS WITHIN LARGE ARCHITECTURAL

PRACTICE TO LOW AND ZERO CARBON ARCHITECTURE
Kate Stewart
0629468
Masters of Science: Architecture: Advanced Environmental and Energy Studies
July 2009
Graduate School of the Environment
Centre for Alternative Technology
Machynlleth
Powys
Wales
SY20 9AZ
Tel: 01654 705981
And:
School of Computing and Technology
University of East London
Docklands Campus
4-6 University Way
London
EI6 2RD
Tel: 0208 2233000

PREFACE
The purpose of this thesis is to identify the barriers and drivers to a large architectural
practice achieving the government’s low and zero carbon building targets. A mixed mode
approach was employed to obtain quantitative and qualitative information from a large,
medium, and small architectural practice, and industry stakeholders and actors from within
the construction industry for comparative analysis. Due to the lack of coherent zero carbon
definition as yet defined by government and industry the author adopted the zero carbon
definition for housing as the blanket definition for zero carbon throughout this research.
Whilst the intention of this thesis was to define the barriers and drivers to large architectural
practice with regards to the government low and zero carbon building targets the findings
from this research significantly showed, amongst other more controversial conclusions, that
the familiarity with the governments targets is varied within all architectural practice size
types. Therefore, action is required within those practices to ensure that such factors are
addressed. The thesis concludes with observations and recommendations.
COPYRIGHT
The copyright on this project and its thesis rests with its author and that no further publication
should occur without the authors consent. However, I authorise UEL / CAT to lend this thesis
to other individuals and institutions for the purposes of scholarly research.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank all those who contributed their experience to this thesis. The
author would like to thank the staff from Willmore Iles Architects, Capita Architecture and
Quattro Architects for completing the online questionnaire. The author is also grateful to the
following people for either agreeing to be interviewed or for providing invaluable contacts
and advice (and on a number of occasions both):
Celia Beeson - Bristol City Council
Jamie Bull - Carbon Plan
Colin Campbell – Capita Architecture
Paul Davis - Wates Group
Dave Farebrother - Land Securities
Bill Gething - Fielden Clegg Bradley
Bobby Gilbert - Bobby Gilbert and Associates
Gavin Harper – Author of relevant environmental texts
Karl Hutchison – White Design
Ian Mawditt - Building Sciences
Hugh Nettelfield - Quattro Architects
Rob Scot McLeod – Building Research Establishment
Rebecca Tregarthen – Capita Architecture
Martin Wiles – University of Bristol
The author would also like to thank the other interviewees who chose to remain anonymous.
Finally, the author would like to thank Melissa Taylor for her advice and patience as my
tutor, and Daniel Bellerby and Mr and Mrs Stewart for their incredible support and
assistance.
CONTENTS PAGE NO.
Preface........................................................................................................................................2
Copyright ...................................................................................................................................3
Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................4
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................7
List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................8
1 Chapter 1: Introduction.....................................................................................................10
1.1 Chapter Introduction ................................................................................................10
1.2 Research Questions..................................................................................................10
1.3 Research questions context to the environmental debate ........................................10
1.4 Aims and Objectives ................................................................................................11
1.4.1 Aims.....................................................................................................................11
1.4.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................11
1.5 Ethics and the thesis.................................................................................................12
1.6 Thesis Structure .......................................................................................................12
1.7 Chapter summary .....................................................................................................13
2 Chapter 2: Literature Review ...........................................................................................14
2.2 Large Architectural Practice ....................................................................................14
2.3 Historical Context ....................................................................................................15
2.4 Legislative Context ..................................................................................................16
2.4.1 UK Change in Legislation ...................................................................................16
2.4.2 Building Regulations ...........................................................................................17
2.4.3 Planning ...................................................................................................................19
2.5 Low and Zero Carbon Definitions ...........................................................................21
2.5.1 Definitions............................................................................................................21
2.5.2 Housing and New Build Bias...............................................................................23
2.5.3 Non-domestic.......................................................................................................24
2.5.4 The Zero Carbon Debate .....................................................................................24
2.6 Building Standards and Trends................................................................................26
2.6.1 BREEAM.............................................................................................................26
2.6.2 Code for Sustainable Homes................................................................................28
2.7 Limitations of Literature ..........................................................................................30
2.8 Chapter summary .....................................................................................................30
3 Chapter 3: Methodology...................................................................................................30

3.2 Case Study ...............................................................................................................31
3.2.1 The Case Study Method.......................................................................................31
3.2.2 Case Study ...........................................................................................................31
3.2.3 Large Practice Context.........................................................................................33
3.3 Mixed Mode Method ...............................................................................................34
3.3.1 Triangulation........................................................................................................34
3.3.2 Quantitative..........................................................................................................34
3.3.3 Qualitative............................................................................................................35
3.3.4 Limitations of Quantitative and Qualitative Research.........................................37
3.4 Chapter summary .....................................................................................................37
4 Chapter 4: Results Analysis and Discussion ....................................................................37
4.2 Data set.....................................................................................................................38
4.3 Analysis 1 – Familiarity with government statement ..............................................39
4.4 Analysis 2 – Ability to achieve government statement ...........................................41
4.5 Analysis 3 – Frequency of design criteria undertaken.............................................44
4.6 Analysis 4 – Use of BREEAM ................................................................................47
4.7 Analysis 5 – Barriers and drivers.............................................................................49
4.8 Analysis 6 – Methods for training and support........................................................55
4.9 Analysis 7 – Large Practice mission statement........................................................58
4.10 Analysis 8 – Collaborative working ........................................................................61
4.11 Analysis 9 – Knowledge sharing .............................................................................61
4.12 Chapter Summary ....................................................................................................62
5 Chapter 5: Conclusion ......................................................................................................63
5.2 Limitations of thesis.................................................................................................64
5.3 Implications for existing Orthodoxy........................................................................65
5.4 Implications for future research ...............................................................................65
References................................................................................................................................67
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................72
Appendix 1 Copies of questionnaires .................................................................................75
Appendix 2 BREEAM and CSH comparison table ............................................................92
Appendix 3 Questionnaire Results .....................................................................................96
Appendix 4 Interview transcripts .....................................................................................114
Appendix 5 Transcription coding .....................................................................................322
LIST OF FIGURES PAGE NO.
Figure 1 Timeline to zero carbon …………….……………………………………......22

Figure 2 BREEAM categories …………….………………………………………......27
Figure 3 BREEAM ratings ……………….…………………………………………...27
Figure 4 CSH categories ……………….……………………...……………………...29
Figure 5 CSH star ratings ………..………………………………………………........29
Figure 6 Familiarity with government statement ……………………………………..40
Figure 7 On target to government statement ………………………………………….42
Figure 8 Criteria for design briefs …………………………………………………….45
Figure 9 BREEAM standards achieved ……………………………………………….47
Figure 10 Barriers to low and zero carbon …………………………………………..…49
Figure 11 Drivers to low and zero carbon ……………………………………………...53
Figure 12 Training methods …………………………………………………………....55
Figure 16 Large practice familiarity with statements ……………………………….....58
Figure 17 Large practice target to achieve statements ………………………………....60
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
BRE Building Research Establishment
BREEAM Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method
CEO Chief Executive Officer
CSH Code for Sustainable Homes
CIC Construction Industry Council
CIH Chartered Institute of Housing
CLG Department for Communities and Local Government
CPRE Campaign to Protect Rural England
DC Development Control
DEC Display Energy Certificate
EMAS Eco Management and Audit Scheme
EPBD Energy Performance of Buildings Directive
EPC Energy Performance Certificate
GHG Green House Gas
IET Institute for Engineering and Technology
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
LDF Local Development Framework
NCM National Calculation Methodology
PPA Planning Performance Agreement
PPS Planning Policy Statements
SAP Standard Assessment Procedure
SBEM Simplified Building Energy Model

SPD Supplementary Planning Document
TCPA Town and Country Planning Association
TER Target Emissions Rate
UK GBC UK Green Building Council
UNEP United Nations Environmental Program
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
WHO World Health Organization

1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 CHAPTER INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this chapter is to set the research questions, aims, objectives, contexts, and
structure of this thesis in a clear and concise introduction. From the thesis the reader can be
lead into a full and defined understanding of the scope and depth that this thesis offers to the
development of the abilities of large architectural practices to design low and zero carbon
buildings.
1.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The purpose of this thesis is to identify what the barriers and drivers are within a large
architectural practice to producing the low and zero carbon architecture as committed to by
the UK government’s sustainability agenda.
Therefore this thesis asks: What are the barriers and drivers for large architectural practices
(such as Capita Architecture) to designing low and zero carbon buildings and can
comparisons and lessons be drawn from medium and small practices?
1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS CONTEXT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEBATE

The thesis is concerned with large architectural practices. To maintain clarity a single large
architectural practice was selected. Capita Architecture is currently the fifth largest
architectural practice in the UK, taking approximately £32.8 million in fees in 2008
(Architects Journal 2009). With 465 architectural staff across ten UK offices, Capita
Architecture is currently a specialist in 14 sectors (aviation, cultural, defence, education,
healthcare, industrial, leisure, rail, remand, residential, retail, science, technology, and
workplace) (Capita Architecture 2009). Residential only accounts for a small portion of their
work whilst commercial development dominates the work undertaken (ibid). A commitment
to sustainable architecture by Capita Architecture could result in a significant reduction in the
UK's CO2 emissions whilst strongly influencing others within the construction industry.
Kate Stewart – July 2009 10

1.4 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

1.4.1 AIMS
The aims of the research project and this thesis were:
• To compare large architectural practice requirements to achieve low and zero carbon
architecture to those of medium and small architectural practices, as well as suggestions
from industry stakeholders and actors.
• To show that there are barriers and drivers to designing low and zero carbon buildings for
large architecture practices in comparison to medium and small scale architectural
practices.
• To ascertain if there are differences in staff aspirations and attitudes in large architectural
practice to those of medium and small architectural practices towards UK government
low and zero carbon non-domestic building targets and the relevance of those targets to
job roles.
• To see whether there are methods for improving large practice staff knowledge and
ability in low and zero carbon building design will differ to methods utilised within
medium and small architectural practices.
1.4.2 OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the research project and this thesis were:
• Undertake a literature review to clarify historic/current legislative policies and standards

that large architectural practices are currently required to design to.
• Undertake a mixed method approach including; a case study of Capita Architecture as a

large architecture practice; surveys; and interviews with industry stakeholders and actors.
• Identify what is required for a large architectural practice to commit to the UK's
sustainability agenda and produce low and zero carbon buildings.

1.5 ETHICS AND THE THESIS

Research that aims to challenge and possibly lead to the initiation of change within current
working methods of existing companies, such as Capita Architecture, and contributes to
knowledge through the collection and analysis of primary data will have to work within
acceptable ethical parameters. As well as fulfilling ethics requirements the author will also
have to establish acceptable research methods for when engaging with stakeholders and
actors, sensitive material, and industrial knowledge.
Whittaker (2009) and McGivern (2006) identify that though different ethics committees (e.g.
University of East London ethics committee) have different practices and priorities, the core
issues that ethics committees expect to be addressed are:
• Non-malevolence – the author should take all responsible steps to protect participants
from foreseeable harm or liable action.
• Informed consent – the author should provide written information to participants to

enable them to make informed choices on being involved and non-disclosure policy.
• Ethical data management – the author will maintain anonymity and redact data where
necessary or requested by participants. Reasonable steps will be taken by the author to
prevent loss or circulation of data.
Realistically the ethical risks of being a respondent is usually minimal (Fowler 2001).
1.6 THESIS STRUCTURE

Following this introductory chapter the author will undertake a literature review of secondary
data and information in order to provide the reader with a sound understanding of the subject
and research themes of this thesis. The literature review will also clarify the value to which
this thesis contributes to existing knowledge.
The following methodology chapter will clarify the research methods carried out by the
author and justify why these methods were chosen. A discussion chapter which also includes
results and analysis will encapsulate the data collected in a debate centred around the research
question, aims, and objectives of this thesis.

Finally, a conclusions chapter will summarize findings as well as make suggestions for future
working methods within a large architectural practice. Furthermore limitations, implications
for existing orthodoxy, and implications for future research will be provided.
A list of references as well as appendices will also be provided at the end of the thesis.
1.7 CHAPTER SUMMARY

In this chapter the context, research question, aims, objectives, structure and ethics where set
out.

2 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter will undertake a literature review of secondary data and information in order to
provide the reader with a sound understanding of the subject and research themes of this
thesis. The literature review will also clarify the value to which this thesis contributes to
existing knowledge.
2.2 LARGE ARCHITECTURAL PRACTICE

As has been shown throughout this literature review and later in this thesis there is a focus on
large architectural practice. There are three key factors for justifying this focus:
• Industry and government bias – There is currently a bias in policy towards domestic
buildings (as discussed in section 2.4.2) whilst non-domestic is deficient in focus,
despite being the main work stream for large architectural practice (The Fees Bureau
2008)
• Academic - an investigation of the literature available appears to confirm that there is

little peer reviewed research undertaken with regards to the barriers and drivers within
large architectural practice to producing the low and zero carbon buildings.
• Professional interest - the author is currently employed within a large architectural

practice and is concerned that levels of knowledge and experience are not sufficient to
achieve the governments low and zero carbon building targets.
It is likely that there is a relationship between all three factors and therefore warrants the
attention of the research undertaken in this thesis.

2.3 HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The architecture industry is going through a turbulent period. A change in public attitude and
a raft of legislation requirements is placing pressure on architectural practice to change the
type of architecture they deliver and the way they design. The way that this change has
developed is important to this thesis and its context, as by looking back at the historical
context one may see the source and development of barriers and drivers.
Although international concern for the environmental impact of global development was
originally headlined with the First World Summit in 1972, it wasn’t until the Second Earth
Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 that the issue of climate change sparked a catalyst for
change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed by the United
Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and World Health Organization (WHO) in 1987 and
issued the report in August 1990 which made the connection between human activity and the
rise in global temperature (Pew Centre 2009). This was the basis of discussion at the Second
Summit and as a result the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) was formed and drafted an international response that would ensure the
stabilization and reduction of a number of Green House Gas (GHG) emissions to “a level
that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” (ibid).
However, with many countries failing to meet the original voluntary targets, it became
apparent that binding targets were required. The Kyoto Protocol in December 1997 set out to
do exactly this, and was finally entered into force in February 2005 (UNFCCC 2008).
The advantage of the Kyoto Protocol was that it acknowledged emissions levels were
proportionate to the level of a country’s development and therefore set emissions targets
accordingly. A collective target in emissions reductions of 5% below 1990 levels by 2012
was set, with the EU required to reduce emissions to 8% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012
(UNFCCC 2008).
From this as a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, the UK is obliged to fulfill a certain level of
criteria. However, it is keen to be seen to be taking steps beyond the minimum International
and European requirements and has set a number of legislative benchmarks above the
minimum required (this will be covered in more detail in Section 2.3).

2.4 LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT

2.4.1 UK CHANGE IN LEGISLATION
In 1998 the UK government produced the first White Paper which looked into existing and
predicted energy use and reserves available. This was then preceded by the White Paper in
2003 called “Our Energy Future – Creating a Low Carbon Economy” which focused on
“renewable sources and energy efficiency” (REA 2008). The purpose of the 2003 review was
to promote the security of energy supply by reducing the dependency on imports whilst
promoting renewable energy sources and cutting carbon dioxide emissions.
Alongside climate change concerns the UK is facing increasing pressure over energy
security. Driven by the decline in north sea oil and gas reserves and that UK nuclear power
stations are rapidly approaching the end of their operational life, the UK has become
increasingly dependent on imported oil and gas (Winstone et al 2007).
Buildings account for 8% of GHG emissions and 20% of GHG emissions if “upstream
emissions associated with electricity and heat are included” (HM Treasury 2009). The UK
government acknowledged this correlation and has subsequently sought to reduce energy
demand through building efficiency. This has obvious impacts on the industries and
organizations associated with the design and development of the built environment, such as
large architectural practices.
The EU introduced the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) 2002/91/EC in

January 2003 (Europa 2008). The purpose of the directive, which is mandatory to all member
states, is to encourage the energy efficiency of buildings through cost effective means. The
main initiatives include:
• Standard methodologies for calculating the energy performance of buildings.
• Minimum energy performance standards for all new buildings and consequential
improvements to the energy performance of existing buildings over 1000m2
undergoing refurbishment.
• The energy performance measurement of all buildings when they are being offered for
sale or rent. This information is then recorded in an Energy Performance Certificate
(EPC). Where the buildings are occupied by a public authority or institution, are open

for public use and are over 1000m2 (CLG 2009a) they require a Display Energy
Certificate (DEC) which must be visible for public viewing.
Informed by the UK government 2003 Energy White Paper a draft Climate Change Bill was
produced proposing a reduction in UK carbon emissions by up to 32% below 1990 levels by
2020 and 60% below 1990 levels by 2050 (UNFCCC 2008). However, upon review of
additional scientific research and advice the UK government sought to further raise the
emissions targets.
Subsequent to this, whether due to political or environmental reasons, the UK Prime Minister
Gordon Brown stated:
"The EU view is that to stand a chance of keeping the temperature increase below the 2
degrees centigrade target, and as part of a multilateral agreement, emissions from
industrialised countries like Britain should be cut by 60-80% by 2050...evidence now
suggests that as part of an international agreement developed countries may have to reduce
their emissions by up to 80%. So we will put this evidence to the Committee on Climate
Change, ask it to advise us as it considers the first three five-year budgets on whether our
own domestic target should be tightened up to 80%." (Number10 2008).
When the Bill was finally passed in November 2008 the targets were increased to 42% below
1990 levels by 2020 and the 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, resulting in the UK becoming
the first country to make long term carbon emissions targets legally binding. Crucially, for
large architectural practices this requires changes in design and working methods to not only
meet these targets, but also to stay in competition with peer organizations and to maintain
market position.
2.4.2 BUILDING REGULATIONS

The UK Building Regulations are the main form of legislation governing the performance of
buildings and therefore key design criteria for buildings. In order to meet the energy
efficiency requirements set out by the EPBD a number of changes to the existing Building
Regulations were made in April 2006.
The main changes included the introduction of a National Calculation Methodology (NCM)
which standardizes the calculation of carbon dioxide emissions and minimum energy
performance standards in new buildings and existing buildings (where applicable). This is

modeled using either the thermal simulation software Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP)
or Simplified Building Energy Model (SBEM) (BRE 2009).
UK Building Regulations Part L1A 2006 requires all new air conditioned buildings to reduce
their emissions by 28% over the previous 2002 Part L requirements and all naturally
ventilated buildings to reduce their emissions by 23.5% (Planning Portal 2008). And whilst
the previous 2002 Part L specified minimum U-Values for each building element, the revised
Part L encourages the consideration of the building as a whole, including the building
services, and its resulting performance with regards to CO2 emissions (ibid).
The Building Regulations will undergo a re-issue in 2010, improving carbon emissions by
25%, an issue in 2013 to achieve a further 44% reduction in carbon emissions, followed by
the target of zero carbon in 2016 (CLG 2008a). Two mechanisms developed to achieve these
goals, for example, are the EPC and DEC.
As previously described an EPC is required by all buildings on offer for sale or rent and a
DEC is required by all buildings open for public use and over 1000m2. Both certificates
became a legal requirement as of October 2008. The purpose of the certificates is to reduce
the carbon emissions from buildings through a commercial incentive as well as encouraging
energy efficiency.
Wilkins (2004) stated:
"People aren’t going to change their buying habits overnight - the heart rules the head. But if
you have two similar properties and one has a higher rating than the other, it may have an
effect in terms of a decision.”
The EPC confirms the buildings energy performance rating from A to G, with A being the
most efficient, in similar vein to the energy performance rating of a number of white goods.
The certificate is also required to provide a series of recommendations on how to improve the
buildings energy performance within realistic economic parameters (CLG 2009a).
DEC’s confirm the building’s actual energy use based on previous fuel use documentation
(e.g. bills). Again, the certificate is provided with a list of economic energy performance
suggestions. Unlike the EPC the DEC is required to be on display at all times and clearly
visible to the public (CLG 2009a).

2.4.3 PLANNING
Though there is a singular planning system in England the framework is fairly complex.
Under the title ‘The system in brief’ the website Planning Help, a project of the Campaign to
Protect Rural England (CPRE), provides the following description of the planning system in
England (CPRE 2009):
“The structure of influence is laid out below, starting with:
• European directives and laws
• National planning legislation
• Primary acts of Parliament
• Secondary (regulations)
• National planning policy
• Planning policy guidance notes and minerals planning guidance notes
Guidance notes are progressively being replaced by
• Planning policy and minerals policy statements
• Government circulars
• Government white papers
• Ministerial statements
These in turn influence
Regional plans and guidance
Regional planning guidance notes, progressively being replaced by
• Regional spatial strategies, including regional transport strategies
• (which influences) Other regional strategies
• Regional economic strategies
• Regional sustainable development frameworks (or equivalent)

• Others, such as cultural strategies
Regional plans then influence
• Higher tier (county and unitary council) plans
• Saved policies from county structure plans and unitary development plans (part I),
being progressively replaced by regional spatial strategies
• Saved policies from minerals and waste local plans, progressively replaced by
minerals and waste development framework
Which then influences
• Local development plans
Saved polices from existing local plans and unitary development plans (part II), being
progressively replaced by local development frameworks, which are made up of
• Statutory development plan documents
• Non-statutory supplementary planning documents.
Other 'material considerations' can be such things as changed circumstances, new

information and overriding need.”
Whilst there has been no direct change to the planning system as a result of global or
European agreements, commitments such as Agenda 21 and the Kyoto Agreement have
contributed to changes in planning policy with the emphasis being on “strategic policy
makers and planners at a regional and local level” quickly responding “to the step change in
government thinking” (TCPA 2008).
The Merton Rule, for example, is the London Borough of Merton’s response to the Planning
Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development and its supplement Planning and
Climate Change (PPS1). Whereas PPS1 sought to address climate change through the
planning process with the integration and increase of renewable energy, the London Borough
of Merton acknowledged the difficulty in providing large scale renewable energy systems
within their suburban borough. It therefore created a supplementary policy in 2003 requiring

new developments to reduce their predicted CO2 emissions by 10% through onsite renewable
energies (Merton 2008).
Whilst a number of Local Authorities have already adopted a local response to planning
policy or are in the process of producing a response it is anticipated that it will be “a few
years yet before the dust settles” (Cottrel 2009).
2.5 LOW AND ZERO CARBON DEFINITIONS

2.5.1 DEFINITIONS
The definition of a zero carbon home is one that produces “zero net emissions of carbon
dioxide (CO2) from all energy use in the home” (Hewitt and Telfer 2007) over a year. With
reference to Figure 1 the UK government has also confirmed the target of zero carbon for
schools in 2016, zero carbon public buildings from 2018 and a zero carbon target of 2019 for
all other non-domestic buildings in England. Wales have set their target for zero carbon
housing for 2011 (Planning Portal 2007).
There is, however, no definition of zero carbon for non-domestic buildings as yet and no
specific carbon emissions guide equivalent of the CFSH for non-domestic buildings.

Figure 1. UK GBC current timeline to zero carbon within the UK demonstrates the target
for architectural practices over the next ten years. Source: UKGBC 2008

In December 2008 the UK Government issued the paper “Definition of Zero Carbon Homes
and Non-domestic buildings” for industry consultation. As well as seeking a response on the
amended zero carbon housing proposals it requires feedback on what it describes as the
“Government’s ambition that new non-domestic buildings should be zero carbon from 2019”
(CLG 2008b). The government had intended to issue a summary of responses in June 2009,
followed by a further policy statement on zero carbon homes within the summer of 2009 and
conduct a further consultation in the same year to agree the zero carbon definition for non-
domestic buildings, however, at the time of writing the responses were delayed until 16th July
2009 (CLG 2009b).
Furthermore the CLG (2008b) stated that “the primary objective of the zero carbon homes
policy is to reduce carbon emissions from homes so as to help meet our long-term emission
reduction targets”.
At present it is the government’s aspiration for a zero-carbon house to “be connected to

mains electricity and gas but needs to have sufficient additional renewable power to cover
the average consumption of a house over a year. In order to achieve this, the fabric of the
building will have to be insulated and built to very high standards and the house will need to
incorporate renewable energy technologies” (DirectGov 2009).
Since Building a Greener Future was published, the European Union has agreed its
Renewable Energy Directive15. The Directive sets the UK a challenging target that 15% of
energy consumption should be met from renewable sources by 2020 (Europa 2009).
Therefore, taking into account this information, particularly the view on zero carbon from the
EU and UK government, for the purposes of this thesis zero carbon will be defined as “no net
carbon emissions from all energy use over the course of the year” as referred to by CLG in
Towards A Zero Carbon Future (CLG 2006). For the purposes of this thesis this definition
will be used in reference to non-domestic buildings.
2.5.2 HOUSING AND NEW BUILD BIAS

The CLG (2008a) document states that the housing sector was responsible for 27% of the
UK’s overall CO2 emissions. Taking into account this high contribution and the
government’s aspiration to build a further 240,000 additional homes a year by 2016 it is
understandable that domestic housing has attracted much of the focus for low and zero carbon
as new build offers more straight forward solutions.

However, it has been predicted that approximately two thirds of the building stock in 2050
will be made up from buildings existing today (Energy Saving Trust 2009) and therefore
there has been much criticism of the lack of progression with regards to existing housing
stock and non-domestic buildings.
In the Institute of Engineering and Technology’s (IET) responding letter to the CLG’s request
for consultation on the paper Building a Greener Future: Towards Zero Carbon Development
the IET criticized the consultation papers lack of relation to existing buildings suggesting that
“while the consultation talks about new housing “leading the way” to low-carbon and zero-
carbon housing, it offers no clear linkage between the two” (IET 2007).
Whilst domestic buildings typically only represent ?? (fee bureau for info) of work
undertaken by large architectural practices their dominance in the zero carbon building debate
makes them relevant to the discussion.
2.5.3 NON-DOMESTIC
Commercial buildings account for 16% of the UK’s CO2 emissions (Carbon Trust 2008) and
it has been estimated that the floor area of non-domestic buildings will increase by
approximately 25% between 2002 and 2020 (CAT 2007). Whilst Zero carbon research has
been predominantly domestic new build biased (e.g. Codes for Sustainable Homes (CSH) 1-6
and Ecohomes design tools) the UK GBC has recently been "commissioned [by the
Government] to add to the understanding of whether similar targets in the non-domestic
sector can be set and achieved and on what timescale" (CLG 2007a).
2.5.4 THE ZERO CARBON DEBATE

There is much debate in the industry as to whether the UK government’s definition of zero
carbon is the best method of reducing CO2 emissions from buildings or whether there are
more efficient methods available.
In the IET (2007) responding letter to the CLG request for consultation it was suggested that
the “zero carbon target for 2016 should be viewed realistically as an aspiration, and be
rewarded through incentives”. The IET’s reasoning for the predicted failure of legislation to
achieve the 2016 zero carbon targets is that “electrical and electronic equipment is not
covered [and] the majority of the housing stock will continue to consist of old buildings”
(ibid).

Both the lack of integration between building legislation and the energy efficiency of
consumerables and the new housing bias has been raised as a concern by significant industry
stakeholders such as the Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) (CIH 2007). The CSH, for
example, includes the calculation of “cooking, washing and electronic entertainment
appliance” at CSH Level 6 (zero carbon) despite house hold occupancy behavior being
unregulated (IET 2007).
The current definition of zero carbon also calls for carbon reduction through the provision of
onsite renewable energy. Again there is serious debate as to whether this is achievable.
The UK GBC modelled a number of scenarios for both domestic and non-domestic buildings.
A number of amendments were made to the scenario such as removing the option for onsite
biomass, which it believes is being installed at an unsustainable rate, and providing a
recalculation of the carbon intensity of grid imported energy on the basis that there will be
efficiency improvements. Results suggested that the percentage of domestic buildings that
would fail to meet the zero carbon target would rise from the predicted 10% to 80% whilst the
majority of non-domestic buildings would fail to address their energy requirements without
“significant heat dumping or connection to a local heat network on-site” (UKGBC 2008).
They recommended, therefore, that the renewables supply parameters be widened to include
near-site and off-site renewables. This has been echoed by other stakeholders in the industry
including CLG who suggested that “a target percentage of the energy to be used in new
development to come from decentralised and renewable or low carbon energy sources where
it is viable. The target should avoid prescription on technologies and be flexible in how
carbon savings from local energy supplies are to be secured” (CLG 2007b).
However, following the advice of the UK GBC’s Zero Carbon Definition Task Group, the
Zero Carbon Hub, and the Building Regulations Advisory Committee the government has
amended the definition within the consultation paper Definition of Zero Carbon Homes and
Non-Domestic Buildings to include the following considerations (CLG 2008b):
• Energy efficiency through the building fabric
• Minimum carbon reduction targets achieved through the combination of energy

efficiency methods, onsite energy supply and where applicable directly connected low
carbon or renewable heat supply.

• Choose from a range of (mainly offsite) solutions for tackling the remaining
emissions.
There is also criticism that the zero carbon definition fails to take into account the embodied
energy and lifecycle of a buildings materials and the context of the buildings location. In the
CLG (2007a) document they suggest that accountability of a buildings “carbon footprint,
which could include the links between the building and transport networks, logistics, water
use, embodied energy and construction energy use for example, would present a more
holistic picture of the carbon emissions associated with non-domestic buildings". In defense
of the UK government, however, these areas are all touched upon by both the Building
Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) and CSH. Planning
Policy Statements also require planning authorities to prepare regional spatial strategies. The
basis of these spatial strategies are to ensure sustainable rural and urban development and
minimize transport requirements “especially by car” (CLG 2007b).
Due to the lack of a coherent definition of the zero carbon term within various government
policies, the government instructed the UK GBC to use the housing definition in its paper for
Report on Carbon Reductions in New Non-Domestic Buildings (UK GBC 2008).
In 2000 the UK government announced that it aimed to produce 10% of its energy from
renewables sources by 2010 (BERR 2006). In response to the EU’s aim for the EU to produce
20% of its energy from renewables, the UK undertook the Renewable Energy Strategy
consultation in 2008 and it has been confirmed that the UK’s renewable energy target is
likely to rise to 15% by 2020 (RAB 2008).
2.6 BUILDING STANDARDS AND TRENDS

2.6.1 BREEAM
BREEAM is a tool designed by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) for assessing a
buildings sustainability performance. First introduced in 1990 to assess the criteria of offices
it now also caters for a number of specific building types (e.g. courts, education, industrial,
healthcare, retail and prisons). BREEAM is also offered for building types that do not fall
within any of their existing categories (e.g. Bespoke, International and Ecohomes). BREEAM
has become a common tool but from the author’s experience it can sometimes be applied at

too late a stage in the design processes; the use of BREEAM is sometimes a last minute point
scoring tool rather than an aid to design.
Based on a series of nine categories the BREEAM methodology awards points against
criteria within each category (refer to Figure 1). Whilst each category is weighted with points
in accordance with its priority there are a number of mandatory points (called Minimum
BREEAM Standards) which are required.
Figure 2. The table shows BREEAM categories weightings in accordance with its priority.
Source: HEEPI 2008
Following confirmation of points they are totaled and a rating benchmark of Pass, Good,
Very Good, Excellent or Outstanding is awarded (refer to Figure 3).
Figure 3. The table shows BREEAM categories rating benchmarks. Source: HEEPI 2008

One of the mandatory requirements is the SBEM calculated EPC CO2 index which becomes
incrementally harder in line with the rating benchmark (a new build BREEAM Excellent
requires an EPC CO2 index of 40, for example, whilst a new build BREEAM Outstanding
requires a EPC CO2 index of 25) (Gilbert 2009). Unlike the CSH (as discussed in section
2.5.2) BREEAM does not have a rating which achieves zero carbon.
The aspiration of the BREEAM methodology is to encourage the improved environmental

performance of buildings in a cost effective way. BRE also state that “performance levels are
based on scientific evidence wherever possible” and “where specific targets cannot be set
using hard science or research, sensible practical measures are recommended to minimise
environmental impact or enhance the environment of the building and its users.” (BRE 2008).
The BREEAM tool is increasingly requested by clients and therefore its understanding has
become of importance architectural practice. The significant relevance to this thesis is
whether staff within large architectural practice are versed in the nuances of the BREEAM
tool and how these compare to medium and small architectural practice.
2.6.2 CODE FOR SUSTAINABLE HOMES
In the CLG (2008c) document Greener Homes for the Future it is stated that our homes
“account for around 27% of the UK’s carbon emissions, a major cause of climate change”.
The CSH is also a BRE designed tool. Based on their BREEAM Ecohomes it has been
adapted for the CLG for new housing in England. Like BREEAM Ecohomes it also uses a
series of categories weightings (Energy/CO2, Water, Materials, Surface Water Runoff,
Waste, Pollution, Health and Wellbeing, Management and Ecology) and mandatory points in
order (refer to Figure 4). However, the resulting benchmark is confirmed via a “hotel-style”
star rating system and sets minimum energy and water standards at each level (refer to Figure
5).

Figure 4. The table shows CSH categories weightings and mandatory points. Source: CLG
2008d
Figure 5. The table shows the CSH star rating system. Unlike BREEAM CSH achieves a
zero carbon target. Source: CLG 2008c
Unlike the BREEAM EPC CO2 index system the CSH sets minimum incremental standards
based on a models percentage improvement of its Target Emissions Rate (TER) over Part L.

A CSH Level 6 house is required to obtain over 90% of the points available and produce zero
carbon net emissions over the first year of operation (CLG 2008c).
Originally intended to be a mandatory rating for all new homes, the mandatory requirement
was eventually reduced to government funded housing projects only which, as of May 2008,
were required to achieve a minimum CSH Level 3. The government has announced, however,
that by 2010 all new homes will require a minimum CSH Level 3, rising to CSH Level 4 in
2013 and zero carbon (CSH Level 6) in 2016 (CLG 2008c).
2.7 LIMITATIONS OF LITERATURE

The literature review highlighted and critically analysed secondary information from as
robust sources as possible in order to demonstrate the direction of current research. Due to the
lack of peer reviewed literature on large architectural practices the author looked to
professional institutes and official government department sources where possible.
2.8 CHAPTER SUMMARY

This chapter performed a literature review of secondary data and information relating to the
research question, aims and objectives outlined in Chapter 1, and placed these in context with
this literature. As shown there are opportunities for this thesis to add to knowledge as well as
change professional working methods for large architectural practice.
3 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this thesis is to identify what the barriers and drivers are within a large
architectural practice to producing the low and zero carbon architecture as committed to by
the UK government’s sustainability agenda, as show through the literature review (Chapter
2). As an analysis of all large architectural practices within the UK would constitute too
large a research topic, only one case study has been investigated as part of these works. In
order to provide context to the case study, however, the results have been compared with
other architectural practices (medium and small) and stakeholders and actors from within the
industry. All primary data has been collated through a mixed mode approach.
3.2 CASE STUDY

3.2.1 THE CASE STUDY METHOD
The purpose of the case study is to gain a detailed understanding of the large architectural
practice in order to “develop causal explanations” (McGivern 2006) to the research problem
defined. However, McGivern (2006) warns of making generalizations of the subject area on
the basis of a singular case study and suggests that, if applicable, a case study can be formed
from a number of cases, rather than just one. Therefore, in order to provide context to the
large architectural practice the author has compared results with architectural practice types
(e.g. medium and small) and stakeholders and actors from within the industry.
3.2.2 CASE STUDY

Capita Architecture is a UK based large architectural practice and is a trading division of
Capita Symonds. Capita Architecture was formed in 2007 following the acquisition and
merger of the architectural practices Capita Percy Thomas, Capita Ruddle Wilkinson and
Capita Norman Dawbarn (Capita Architecture 2009). They have 10 studios across the UK
and work in 14 key sectors (Aviation, Cultural, Defence, Education, Health, Industrial,
International, Justice, Leisure, Rail, Residential, Retail, Science & Technology and
Workplace) (Capita Symonds 2007). They employed a total of 394 architectural staff in 2008
(Capita Architecture 2009). Although there were a number of redundancies in early 2009
employment figures for 2009 were not available at the time of writing.
In the Architect’s Journal (2009) table of the UK’s top 100 largest architectural practices
Capita Architecture ranked twelfth in 2007 and fifth in 2008. However, Capita Architecture
rank third for total UK income for 2008 with £253 million (ibid).

In 2007 Capita Architecture formed the Environmental Research Group (ERG), the purpose
of which was to encourage the research and design of “greener buildings” and assist practice
staff in their every day design activities. In the same year the company announced its
sustainability plans to both staff and the media. Capita Architecture’s sustainability mission
statement is as follows:
“Develop and implement techniques and systems to ensure 70% of our buildings are carbon
neutral by 2012. To achieve this we have implemented a standard across
Capita Architecture which addresses three key areas influencing CO2 emissions;
• ENERGY: +25% on current building regulations
• RENEWABLES: +5% on Planning Policy (PPS22)
• MATERIALS: 70% of all construction materials to be specified from sustainable

sources” (Capita Architecture 2008).
The initial intention was for the mission statement and a set of toolkits to be rolled out to all
of the studios but this was never realised. As an employee of Capita Architecture from
February 2007 and a representative of the ERG since February 2007 the author has observed
a lack of cohesion between the aspirations of the mission statement and the work produced by
the practice’s architectural staff.
Initial observations within the workplace led the author to reach the following hypotheses:
• A high percentage of staff are not familiar with the mission statement.
• Those who are familiar with the mission statement think it is too aspirational and
therefore do not think it is remotely obtainable or applicable to them personally.
• Personal interest in sustainability issues amongst staff is low. Many staff do not see a
correlation between the governments low and zero carbon targets and their job role.
• Capita Architecture has many opportunities for collaborative working with a variety
of disciplines (e.g. Mechanical and electrical), however these relationships are not
explored to their full potential.

• The majority of staff are computer literate and would be inclined towards online
learning.
The intention of the investigation, therefore, is to identify causal explanations (McGivern

2006) for lack of interest and uptake of Capita Architecture’s mission statement and the
governments low and zero carbon targets. It was the aspiration of the author to also identify
ways of overcoming the barriers within a large architectural practice to producing the low and
zero carbon architecture and identify drivers.
As Capita Architecture do not yet have a reputation for environmentally responsible

architecture they are referred to as a Large Architectural Practice Non Specialist for the
purpose of this study.
In order to provide context to the large architectural practice the author has compared results
with a medium and a small architectural practice and stakeholders and actors from within the
industry.
The medium practice is Quattro Design Architects. Whilst, at 35 architectural staff they are
defined as a large practice in the Fees Bureau (see Chapter 2) the author will refer to them as
a medium sized practice for the purposes of this research. As Quattro have a reputation within
the construction industry for socially and environmentally responsible architecture
(Nettlefield 2009) they will be classed as a specialist practice for the purposes of this study.
The small practice is Willmore Iles Architects. They are a small practice of 6 architectural
staff. As they do not have a reputation for environmentally responsible architecture they will
be referred to a non specialist practice.
3.2.3 LARGE PRACTICE CONTEXT

As the focus of this thesis is large architectural practice the following will also be
investigated to provide context:
• Compare large architecture practice requirements to those of medium and small

architectural practices, as well as suggestions from industry experts.
• Ascertain if there are differences in staff aspirations and attitudes of large

architectural practice different to those of medium and small architecture practices
toward UK government low and zero carbon non-domestic building targets and the
relevance of these targets to job roles.

• Investigate whether methods for improving large architectural practices staff

knowledge and ability in low and zero carbon building design will differ to methods
utilized within medium and small architecture practices
3.3 MIXED MODE METHOD

3.3.1 TRIANGULATION
The intension of using a mixed method approach is to obtain the benefits of both the
quantitative and qualitative approach to research whilst allowing for comparative analysis.
Ideally the “systematic triangulation” (Denzin and Lincoln 2003) of the quantitative and
qualitative research will provide sufficient diversity of perspective and reaffirm each other’s
results. The author also viewed the thesis as “an 'apprenticeship' for academic research”
(Harper 2009) and therefore sought to maximize their knowledge of appropriate methods
available.
3.3.2 QUANTITATIVE
The quantitative method used was a questionnaire and in order to develop this a focus group
and pilot questionnaire were undertaken.
Whilst the Gillham (2000) suggests that the author’s brain storming of the research themes is
useful following a literature review, he does advise that it is common for an author to assume
understanding particularly if the researcher is personally familiar with the area of study. As
the author is employed by a large architectural practice assumptions were tested by
conducting a focus group with the small non specialist architectural practice.
The staff from the small non specialist architectural practice were introduced to a number of
areas for discussion. Although there were a selection of predetermined questions provided by
the author the focus group were allowed to explore the themes whilst noting “any variations
and the range of views and opinions that are voiced” (Gillham 2000).
As the author had no previous experience of writing quantitative survey questions a review of
existing questionnaires within the research area available on the internet was undertaken. By
observing the wording and structure of existing questionnaires the author was able to identify
questions conducive to the type of results required.

A number of draft questionnaires were constructed following Gillham’s (2000) principle of

three main question areas:
• Fact
• Opinions, beliefs and judgments
• Behavior
The initial pilot questionnaire and a number of subsequent redrafts (paper and electronic)
were piloted by two people with architectural backgrounds and experience and one person
from outside the architectural industry.
As determined by the pilot the majority of questions included in the final questionnaire were
closed questions. However, a select number of questions allowed the respondent to expand
upon their reply where appropriate. Respondents were also give the opportunity to comment
on any areas that they felt had not been considered within the survey. The use of similar
questions was employed as a way of cross checking results.
Questions relating specifically to the Capita Architecture mission statement were housed
within the Capita Architecture questionnaire. From the pilots the author found that the
response rate was more likely to be successful if the questionnaire was limited to two A4
pages and therefore the questionnaire was altered accordingly (see Appendix 1).
As the response rate had the potential to be in the hundreds (there were a total of 115
respondents) the online survey distribution and collection tool Surveymonkey.com was
advised by the author’s academic supervisor.
During consultation with Capita Architecture they emphasized an interest in the relationship
between the design process undertaken by their staff and low and zero carbon. As a vast
amount of research and consultation into low and zero carbon architecture has already been
undertaken by both private and government groups, and due to time constraints, the re
definition of low and zero carbon criteria was not considered relevant. Analysis of both the
BREEAM and CSH criteria led to the identification of key areas (see Appendix 2) for use
within the questionnaires.
3.3.3 QUALITATIVE

McGiven (2006) recommends that the sample group is determined to some extent by the
interviewer’s judgment. Within this thesis the interviewer (which in this case is also the
author) used a combination of snowball sampling and purposive sampling (Whittaker 2009).
There were a number of instances of snowballing when the interviewer was recommended a
suitable case sample from an interviewee and was then successful in going on to interview
them. In the majority of cases, however, the interviewee used the purposive sampling method
to select a range of suitable case samples which were judged to be reflective of the population
in mind.
A semi-structured interview method was employed by the interviewer (Denzin and Lincoln
2003) and interview questions were based upon the questionnaire. A pilot interview was
conducted to test the clarity of the questions and interview structure. Following this the
interview questions and structure were amended accordingly where required. However, on
completion of the research it was observed that the pilot interview format and results were of
sufficient quality to be included within the main results.
Interviewees were provided with an interview guide prior to interview recording.

Interviewees were informed that the guide consisted of a number of main subject questions
and that they would be asked additional sub questions depending on the answers they
provided. Whilst a number of sub questions were pre defined by the interviewee, the semi-
structured interview method allowed for exploration of additional subject areas if considered
relevant by the interviewer. It was also intended that the structured element of the interview
would provided comparable analysis.
It was the intention of the author to use these thesis findings to make business strategy
recommendations and instigate changes to Capita Architectures working methods. Therefore
staff from both Capita Architecture and its parent company Capita Symonds were informed
that they would automatically remain anonymous. However, interviewees from outside the
Capita companies were given the option of anonymity. Interviews were arranged by
telephone or email and consent obtained for the interviews to be recorded. The Interviewer
took additional written notes where considered relevant. This included notes of verbal
dialogue, visual interviewee behavior and interview process interruptions. Redacted
transcripts are included in Appendix 4. A copy of the interview transcripts was provided to all
interviewees, with the exception of one participant who refused a copy.

Results in the form of transcripts were analysed via QSR’s XSight 2 software tool. Thematic
analysis (Whittaker 2009) was undertaken through the employment of data coding in order to
identify themes within the results.
3.3.4 LIMITATIONS OF QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

Whilst a number of social study authors such as Gillham (2000) and McGivern (2006)
recommend that the semi-structured interview is typically undertaken to provide subject
clarification following the literature review and prior to the quantitative research, time
constraints led to the questionnaire being formulated and issued prior to the interviews.
The disadvantage of both a pre structured questionnaire and interview is that the subject area
scope is restrained and therefore the answer range is to some extent predetermined.
Questionnaires are also particularly subject to bias as the data is determined by self-selection
and response rates.
Originally there was a medium specialist practice selected to participate in the questionnaire
on the basis of their reputation. However, due to very poor response rates a second medium
specialist practice agreed to participate in the questionnaire.
As literature texts suggest (e.g. Denzin and Lincoln 2003, Gillham 2000) the success of
interview results depends on the interviewer’s competence and experience, and with
questionnaires it is difficult to correct misunderstandings.
3.4 CHAPTER SUMMARY

This chapter clarified the research methods selected by the author to identify the barriers and
drivers within a large architectural practice to producing the low and zero carbon architecture.
A mixed mode research method was used to provide comparative analysis of the case study.
4 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter offers the results and discussion from the mixed mode research approach as
proposed in Chapter 3. Results and discussion are presented theme by theme to aid the
narrative and structure for the reader.
Results and discussion are typically presented as separate chapters where quantitative data
alone has been sought (Whittaker 2009). However, as a mixed mode research approach has
been conducted the author has combined both results analysis and discussion and presented
them as themes within a single chapter to aid narrative and structure of the findings for the
reader, as suggested by Pitchforth et al (2005).
4.2 DATA SET

The data set to be discussed within this chapter consists of the following:
• Questionnaire responses from an Architects Practice Large Non Specialist
• Questionnaire responses from an Architects Practice Medium specialist
• Questionnaire responses from an Architects Practice Small Non Specialist
• Interviews with staff from the Architects Practice Large Non Specialist
• Interviews with staff from specialist practices
Architects Practice Large Specialist
Architects Practice Medium Specialist
• Interviews with stakeholders and actors from within the construction industry
Architects Practice Clients
Architectural Industry Consultants
Engineering Practice Large Non Specialist
Local Planning Authority
For the purposes of this thesis the author will refer to the Architects Practice Large Non
Specialist, Architects Practice Medium Specialist and the Architects Practice Small Non
Specialist as Large Practice, Medium Practice and Small Practice correspondingly.

There were a total of 115 respondents to the questionnaire (see Appendix 3): 94 respondents
from the Large Practice, 17 respondents from the Medium Practice and 4 respondents from
the Small Practice. There were also a total of 23 interviews (see Appendix 4): 10 from the
Large Practice and 12 key stakeholders and actors from within the construction industry.
The governments low and zero carbon statement and the Large Practice mission statement
can be found in Chapter 2. The Large Practice questionnaire included a number of additional
questions specific to the company mission statement and therefore the author will
differentiate between them by putting the question number for the Small Practice and
Medium Practice in square brackets after the Large Practice questionnaire number (all three
questionnaires can be found in Appendix 1). The interview data coding analysis can be found
in Appendix 5.
4.3 ANALYSIS 1 – FAMILIARITY WITH GOVERNMENT STATEMENT

The results shown in Figure 6 are drawn from question 4 [4] of the questionnaire. The
question is “How familiar are you with the following Government statement? a) ‘Zero
carbon means that, over a year, the net carbon emissions from all energy use [in buildings]
would be zero’.”
41% of staff from the Medium Practice are Very Familiar with the government zero carbon
statement and 41% are Familiar. Whilst 53% of staff from Large Practice are Familiar with
the statement, in contrast only 15% of staff are Very Familiar. 100% of the Small Practice
staff are Familiar with the government zero carbon statement.
Even before reasoning is applied, these results indicate that action is required to make more
staff from the Large Practice more familiar with the government statement – a statement that
is important to the design of architecture within all practice sizes.

Figure 6. The three pie charts are the Large Practice, Medium Practice and Small Practice
familiarity with the government statement

As the majority of Small Practice respondents were involved in the focus group study
undertaken by the author prior to the formulation of the questionnaire and interview questions
it is likely that this has influenced their response.
It was apparent during interviews that the staff from the Large Practice were lacking in a
detailed understanding of the governments targets (see Appendix 5). For example, when
asked what the practice were doing to work towards the governments low and zero carbon
building targets one interviewee responded:
“We recycle all our paper, car sharing, obviously using alternative means of transport i.e.
trains. That sort of thing. There’s no – trying to avoid as much travel as possible to do
obviously all the carbon things. There’s all the recycling stuff – off the top of my head that’s
all I can think of” (See Appendix 4; Interviewee ID A10).
4.4 ANALYSIS 2 – ABILITY TO ACHIEVE GOVERNMENT STATEMENT

question is “Do you think your company is on target to achieve statement? ‘Zero carbon
means that, over a year, the net carbon emissions from all energy use [in buildings] would be
zero’.”
53% of staff from the Medium Practice reported that they think their company is on target to
achieve the government statement, contrasting with only 3% of staff from Large Practice.
Also in the Large Practice 45% of staff think the company is not on target to achieve the
government’s zero carbon targets, while this view is shared by only 18% of staff from the
Medium Practice and a significant 75% from the Small Practice.
In interview the negative comments regarding the government’s targets far outweighed the
positive comments, from both architectural practice staff and other stakeholders and actors
from within the construction industry (see Appendix 5). All of the Large Practice
Management staff made negative comments whilst only two of the Large Practice
Management staff made positive comments.
Proportionally the interviewees that made the most negative comments regarding achieving
the government statement were from a large specialist architectural practice, a local planning
authority as well as a number of industry consultants.

Figure 7. The three pie charts are the Large Practice, Medium Practice and Small Practice
staff response to whether their company is on target to achieve the government statement

However, it can be observed that their responses were typically more detailed than those from
the Large Practice. This would suggest that both the Management and Non-management staff
from Large Practice have a more basic level of understanding of the government’s statement.
The interview data would also suggest that those with a higher level of knowledge and
experience of the government targets are able to be more critical of them:
“I think they’re well intentioned, somewhat misguided. Particularly things like the
requirements for onsite renewable, that’s by far not the best way to be meeting targets.
Secondly, if they’re not looking at the existing stock, they’re not looking at the problem.
That’s where attention really does need to be focused” (See Appendix 4; Interviewee ID
A20).
From the questionnaire results it is difficult to ascertain whether the 45% of Large Practice
staff (Figure 7) who do not think that the company is on target to achieve the government’s
targets are basing their decision on knowledge and experience or on their lack of them.
However, from interviews the author observed that only four members of staff from the
Large Practice were conversant with the details of the government’s statement (all
Management) (see Appendix 4). Therefore if generalizations of Large Practice staff are to be
made then there is a lack of understanding of the importance and relevance of government
statement to their job roles.
When asked in interview if interviewees thought that architects generally have the sufficient
level of knowledge required to achieve low and zero carbon buildings the majority of
responses were negative (see Appendix 5). Those who provided a positive response tended to
suggest that at present there is a mixture of abilities amongst architects. Negative responses,
however, tended to confirm that both Large Practice and the stakeholders and actors within
the construction industry believe that at present not all architects have the sufficient level of
knowledge to achieve the low and zero carbon buildings.
“Not in the UK! Or at least not without making a lot of costly mistakes” (See Appendix 4;
Interviewee ID A23).
In interview the positive comments regarding large practice size and the production of zero
carbon architecture (Appendix 5) slightly outweighed the negative comments. Positive
comments (Management weighted) from the Large Practice staff tended to emphasize the

benefits of scale that a large practice can provide, such as access to mechanical and electrical
engineers and financial support:
“It’s big enough to really grapple with the big issues. We’ve got a little bit of slack space to
do the R and D that’s necessary” (See Appendix 4; Interviewee ID A04).
Also the stakeholders and actors from within the construction industry felt that a large
practice size was not necessarily an inhibitor to service:
“In terms of the technical ability it really cuts across all levels” (See Appendix 4;
The negative comments from Large Practice staff (equally weighted between Management
and Non-Management) were focused on communication issues, suggesting that practice size
hinders the effective communication of information:
“It’s a bit more of a juggernaut that you have to slowly steer round” (See Appendix 4;
The stakeholders and actors from within the construction industry, however, hold the belief
that large practices “will probably defer to specialists for sustainable and carbon
management issues” (See Appendix 4; Interviewee ID A01). It is likely that the stakeholders
and actors view this negatively as it detracts from architectural staff assuming responsibility
and ownership of these issues.
4.5 ANALYSIS 3 – FREQUENCY OF DESIGN CRITERIA UNDERTAKEN

question is "Which of the following do you typically undertake as part of your design brief?
(criteria: Improve energy efficiency through building's fabric and services, Low or zero
carbon technologies, Green Travel Plan, Water use minimisation/recycling, Reduce
environmental impact of building's fabric and services, Waste reduction in construction and
building use, Optimization of building performance through site analysis/building
orientation, Future proofing and lifecycle analysis, Stake Holder consultation (building
design and use), Site ecology conservation and enhancement).”

Figure 8. Criteria typically undertake as part of architectural design briefs

Out of the ten listed criteria (required by the BREEAM and CSH design tools as described in
Chapter 2 and 3) only two criteria are frequently considered by the Large Practice staff as
part of the design brief (Improve energy efficiency through building's fabric and services at
78% and Optimization of building performance through site analysis/building orientation at
72%). The other eight criteria are only considered (approximately) half of the time.
In contrast all ten of the criteria are frequently considered by the Medium Practice staff and
seven of the criteria are frequently considered by the Small Practice staff. Low or zero carbon
technologies are always considered as part of the brief by the Small Practice staff.
The Large Practice results suggest that the company is either failing to undertake the majority
of the listed design criteria as part of their design brief approximately half of the time or that
staff structure and standard company procedure is limiting the responsibility of these criteria
to certain roles e.g. internal or external:
“I haven’t had that much chance and experience to do so yet, but I’ve got a basic
experience” (See Appendix 4; Interviewee ID A12).
Either possibility is likely to inhibit the flow of information and consequently valuable
learning opportunities for the company will be missed, reducing the probability of the Large
Practice being able to achieve government targets. Furthermore if the company’s internally
derived mission statement suggests that the company intends to go beyond the government
statement then these will certainly not be achieved under current work methods.
Interestingly the Small Practice is undertaking a far wider range of criteria despite having
previously stated that 75% of their staff do not think that their company is on target to
achieve the government’s statement. This may suggest that the Small Practice lacks
confidence in their abilities.
The results from the Medium Practice show a possible benchmark for the Large Practice to
work towards through methods expanded on later in this chapter.

4.6 ANALYSIS 4 – USE OF BREEAM

The results shown in Figure 9 are drawn from questions 9 [7] and 10 [8] of the questionnaire.
The questions asked were “Have you ever used the BRE Environmental Assessment Method
(BREEAM) standard within a project?” and “If yes... what was the highest level achieved?”
Figure 9. The three pie charts display the highest BREEAM standard achieved by the
Large Practice, Medium Practice and Small Practice

73% of Large Practice staff confirmed that they have used the BREEAM method within a
project. For the Medium Practice this was 77% and for the Small Practice this was only 50%.
Of those respondents who had confirmed that they had undertaken BREEAM within a project
75% of staff from the Medium Practice have achieved BREEAM Excellent whilst only 32%
of Large Practice staff have achieved this level. As only two staff from the Small Practice had
confirmed that they had used the BREEAM method within a project the author can conclude
that one member of staff achieved Very Good and the other Excellent.
It should be noted that the variety of work undertaken across all sectors by the Large Practice
is vast and therefore the assessment tools vary accordingly. For example, BREEAM, though
the most commonly used assessment tool in the UK is not typically used by all building
sectors. If the question had asked about other tools, such as the Ministry of Defense’s
Defense Related Environmental Assessment Method (DREAM), then the results may have
been in favor of the Large Practice.
In interview, 7 Large practice Staff (4 Management and 3 Non-management) mentioned

assessment tools (such as BREEAM, DREAM, etc) and of that number only 5 (3
Management and 2 Non-management) mentioned the tools in relation to their own personal
experience (Appendix 5). As a number of the staff who did not mention the use of assessment
tools are currently working in sectors which have a mandatory requirement for their use, this
appears to confirm the supposition in section 4.5 that staff structure and standard company
procedure is limiting the responsibility of these criteria to certain roles e.g. internal or
external
Interestingly during an analysis discussion of the Medium Practice’s questionnaire results

with one of the practice’s Directors, he confirmed that they usually try to dissuade clients
from using the BREEAM method as they tend to find it “prevents” them from “doing
better” (Nettlefield 2009). This opinion is reflected upon by interviewees, for example:
“They want to meet BREEAM targets... the likes of a biomass boiler, there’s renewable
energy for that. But the actual process contradicts what we’re trying to achieve, but it ticks
the box of the BREEAM calculation” (See Appendix 4; Interviewee ID A06).

4.7 ANALYSIS 5 – BARRIERS AND DRIVERS

question is "within your company what are the potential barriers to achieving zero carbon
buildings?” Figure 11 is the results from question15 [13] “What are the potential drivers
within your company to achieving low and zero carbon buildings?”
Figure 10. Barriers within Large Practice, Medium Practice and Small Practice to
achieving low and zero carbon buildings

Staff from the Large Practice cited all categories as a barrier to achieving zero carbon
buildings, with Lack of Training (78%) and Lack of Knowledge (64%) as being the main
barriers. Lack of Support, Lack of Knowledge and Lack of Interest were barriers cited by all
three practice types.
In interview those representatives with a more detailed understanding of the government

targets (see section 4.3) tended to dismiss lack of information within the industry as a barrier
to achieving zero carbon buildings and suggested instead that too much information is instead
the barrier (Appendix 4). This is reflected in the Medium Practice results where no staff cited
Lack of Information and 52% of staff cited Lack of Knowledge as a barrier.
Following this logic one would expect the Large Practice and the Small Practice Lack of
Information and Lack of Knowledge response to be similar, due to their limited experience
and knowledge of low and zero carbon architecture. Instead the Large Practice cites Lack of
Knowledge (64%) above Lack of Information (46%) and the Small Practice cites Lack of
Information (100%) above Lack of Knowledge (50%).
Interestingly the Medium Practice had the highest Lack of Support score at 43% despite
being the practice most familiar with government statement, achieving the highest BREEAM
standards (see section 4.6) and 75% of staff citing Professional Interest as a driver within the
company (Figure 11). In section 4.4 it was identified that those with a higher level of
knowledge and experience of the government statement are able to be more critical of them
and therefore it is likely that the Medium Practice have identified, through their knowledge
and experience, internal resistance to change as a barrier. This is an example of how greater
levels of knowledge equal greater levels of awareness.
Lack of Training was cited as the highest barrier to designing zero carbon buildings in the
Large Practice, and was joint second place (with Lack of Support) for the Medium Practice.
Despite the Large Practice staff citing Professional Interest as the second highest driver at
65% (Figure 11), Lack of Training is cited as the highest barrier at 78% followed by Lack of
Knowledge at 64% and Lack of Information at 46%. These results show a discrepancy
between what is cited as a barrier by Large Practice staff and what is actually a barrier. This
would suggest that staff are not willing or able to acquire information and knowledge via
their own merit and are instead relying on training provided by the company: “I would say
that it’s achievable. I would probably say that they need to invest in more training for the
staff if they want to achieve that” (See Appendix 4; Interviewee ID A12).

Small Practice staff, however, make no reference to training as a barrier suggesting that staff
assume that the practice does not have the finance or time available to provide training (the
author is a former employee of the Small Practice). It is therefore crucial for staff to have all
the necessary information available to achieve low and zero carbon buildings (hence Lack of
Information at 100%).
In interview there was a disparity between the working methods of the Large Practice as
described by the Joint Head of Sustainability and the working methods as perceived by
members of staff (Appendix 4). For example, when asked to describe the support systems that
the practice has in place to achieve the government’s targets the Joint Head of Sustainability
described the following:
“We’ve set up the business improvement groups, which is really the fundamental driver. Now
the sustainability Business Improvement Group is structured, the same as the other business
improvement groups, to drive knowledge, help best practice, disseminate that information,
improve staff core skills, make sure that they have the right skills, and understand the key
drivers and how we intend to address them” (See Appendix 4; Interviewee ID A03).
However, this was contradicted by another Large Practice interviewee (Management):
“The ERG group was set up to promote or spread best practice. But due to project pressures
within cost centres and not enough time allocated by the board to various persons involved in
that the speed of its development in the amount it’s actually been able to do is quite limited.
So as an idea it’s a good idea but the resources weren’t actually put into it to make it a useful
tool” (See Appendix 4; Interviewee ID A08).
It can be observed in Figure 10 that the bar chart profiles for the Large Practice and Medium
Practice are similar, with the exception of Lack of Information and Lack of Clarity in the
Medium Practice. The Large Practice bar chart suggests that they require the knowledge and
information to undertake low and zero carbon buildings and that due to their lack of
knowledge and experience, as previously established (see section 4.4), they require
clarification from their company management about what it is necessary for them to do –
hence a high citation on training:
“Maybe the actual BIG leader who is responsible for sustainability should perhaps go
around each of the offices and do a bit of a road show” (See Appendix 4; Interviewee ID
A05).

Whilst the Medium Practice has a similar profile to the Large Practice the supposition so far
has suggested that the Medium Practice has established knowledge and experience (see
section 4.6) and therefore Lack of Information is not cited by the Medium Practice as a
barrier to achieving low and zero carbon buildings.
Just as significantly the Medium Practice does not cite Lack of Clarity as a barrier. This can
either be attributed to level of existing staff knowledge or due to an established set of briefing
sheets that the practice uses for projects (Nettlefield 2009) to guide staff and clients through
the company’s “preferred approach to sustainable design” (Quattro 2005). According to the
company’s website the briefing sheets “act as a summary of each subject giving a sense of its
priority and relative importance; they also signpost where further information can be
accessed” (Quattro 2005). The Large Practice is currently developing a set of guidance tools
for staff and therefore these were not available at the time of survey.
This analysis possibly suggests that staff in both Large Practice and Medium Practice want
more guidance and handholding through change in working methods. This is significant as it
identifies an important avenue that actors and managers should be considering within these
practice types.
Despite Small Practice staff citing Professional Interest (100%) and Personal Conviction
(75%) as a driver to zero carbon buildings (Figure 15) and their BREEAM/CSH criteria
undertaken profile being in closer proximity to the Medium Practice than the Large Practice
(Figure 12) their barriers profile (Figure 14) cites a high Lack of Support (50%), Lack of
Information (100%), Lack of Knowledge (50%) and Lack of Interest (50%). As the practice
does not have an established history or ethos of low and zero carbon architecture it is likely
that this is resulting in lack of confidence in their abilities, as previously supposed.
Within the open ended responses to question 17 [15] of the questionnaire “If there are any
issues that have not been considered within this survey please comment” the main barrier to
achieving low and zero carbon buildings for all practice types was lack of client interest and
funding. The interview results indicate that this view is also shared by the majority of Large
Practice staff and the industry stakeholders and actors. (Appendix 4 and 5):
“Investing capital upfront is going to become – it has become a lot more difficult and is
going to become a lot more difficult still” (See Appendix 4; Interviewee ID A17).

Figure 11. Drivers within Large Practice, Medium Practice and Small Practice to
achieving low and zero carbon buildings

Government Legislation is considered the strongest driver by Large Practice staff to

achieving low and zero carbon buildings (69%), closely followed by Professional Interest
(65%). All three practices cited Job Requirement as their lowest driver to achieving zero
carbon buildings (Large Practice at 47%, Medium Practice at 50% and Small Practice at
25%). Whilst Government Legislation is proportionally cited only slightly higher in the
Medium Practice (56%) it is cited proportionally much more frequently in Small Practice
(50%) and Large Practice (69%) suggesting that the staff in Small Practice and Large Practice
do not see a correlation between their job roles and the government targets.
During interviews Marketing and Professional Interest were most commonly cited by
interviewees as a driver to achieving zero carbon buildings followed by Personal Conviction,
Job Requirement and then Government Legislation (Appendix 5). Within Large Practice
Marketing was mentioned more frequently by Management staff than by Non-Management
staff and Professional Interest was more frequently mentioned by Non-Management staff.
Interestingly, however, the Professional Interest comments tended to be marketing biased
rather than self serving:
“If we show ability in the areas then I’m sure it will open up opportunities” (See Appendix 4;
“We are trying to establish a unique selling point for the company which we don’t have”
(See Appendix 4; Interviewee ID A05).
In Figure 11 Personal Conviction is considered the strongest driver for staff from the Medium
Practice (88%), with Government Legislation coming third (56%) after Professional Interest
(75%). As the Medium Practice has an established reputation for environmentally responsible
architecture (see Chapter 3) it is possible that staff were attracted to the practice due to a
personal motivation towards this ethos and this is reflected in the results.
Furthermore, that Professional Interest is seen as a strong potential driver by all three practice
types, and that Personal Conviction is highly cited (even by the Large Practice at 50%)
provides an indication that the majority of practice staff are both willing and wanting to
achieve zero carbon buildings. This is a positive sign for the industry.

4.8 ANALYSIS 6 – METHODS FOR TRAINING AND SUPPORT

“In a lot of cases they’re asking questions, and sometimes even asking the right questions”
The results shown in Figures 12, 13, 14 and 15 are drawn from question 16 [14] of the
questionnaire “To achieve proficiency in low and zero carbon design please confirm how
beneficial the following methods of training and support would be to you?”
Figure 12. Training methods and support considered very beneficial by staff for achieving
proficiency in low and zero carbon design
Figure 13. Training methods and support considered beneficial by staff for achieving

Figure 14. Training methods and support considered slightly beneficial by staff for
achieving proficiency in low and zero carbon design
Figure 15. Training methods and support considered not beneficial by staff for achieving
82% of Medium Practice staff strongly advocated Project Design Reviews as being Very
Beneficial to design proficiency, followed by Peer review/Post-occupancy evaluation at 65%
and Workshops, Project checklist, Seminars and Continuing Professional Development
(CPD) presentations sharing third place at 53%. Taking into account the Medium Practice’s
higher level of knowledge and experience, this suggests that staff have prioritized project

design development and feedback as the most useful training methods and support for
achieving proficiency in low and zero carbon design.
Within the Large Practice 54% of staff cited Courses as being Very Beneficial followed by
Workshops at 44% and Project Design Reviews at 40%. This was reflected fairly evenly in
the beneficial category with Courses at 40%, Workshops at 44% and Project Design Reviews
at 44%. Overall Courses were considered the most beneficial by Large Practice staff with
only 1% of staff citing them as Not Beneficial. There are two possible alternative
explanations for this. Either staff are not interested in undertaking their own investigation in
order to identify the relevant information (as discussed in section 4.7), or they believe that the
company has the finances to provide training to staff. The latter has been identified within
interviews (see Appendices 4 and 5) as a reoccurring theme amongst Large Practice staff:
“They’ve got money in a pot to say that X amount has to be spent on training. Every large
practice has” (See Appendix 4; Interviewee ID A10).
“So I think if someone feels that it is sufficiently important as a company, as an overall

company, not just as Capita Architecture, that we try to achieve the government guidelines,
they need to start talking to us. Seminars. Whatever” (See Appendix 4; Interviewee ID A07).
As Project Design Reviews are a cost effective way of providing staff with feedback and
promoting best practice it is an encouraging sign that Large Practice staff acknowledge the
benefits and are willing to engage in the process.
Only 12% of Large Practice staff cited Online Learning as Very Beneficial and 52% cited
that it would be Beneficial to them. However, Online Learning received the highest citation
within the Large Practice Not Beneficial category. The majority of Medium Practice staff
cited Online Learning as either Beneficial or Slightly Beneficial whilst Online Learning
peaked within the Slightly Beneficial category for Small Practice Staff. This suggests that
whilst the majority of staff would be open to the idea of online learning it is not their
preferred method of training and support, disproving my hypothesis for the Large Practice in
Chapter 3 (section 3.2.2).
The Small Practice did not cite any learning streams as Not Beneficial (Figure 15) and the
Medium Practice only cited two. 6% of Medium Practice staff cited Office Resource Library
as Not Beneficial and almost a fifth of staff cited Conferences as Not Beneficial (Figure 15).
In comparison with the Large Practice and Small Practice this is a strongly held view.

4.9 ANALYSIS 7 – LARGE PRACTICE MISSION STATEMENT

The results shown in Figure 16 are drawn from question 5 of the questionnaire. The question
is "How familiar are you with the following Capita Architecture statement? b) ‘70% of our
buildings will be zero carbon by 2012. To achieve this we have implemented a standard
across Capita Architecture which addresses three key areas influencing CO2 emissions;

sources.’”
Figure 16. Large Practice familiarity with the company Mission statement

Fewer staff are familiar with the Large Practice mission statement than the government zero
carbon statement (Figure 6). Whilst only 2% of staff were Unfamiliar with the government
statement 24% are unfamiliar with their own company’s mission statement.
In interview (Appendix 4) it was apparent that Management staff tended to be more familiar
with the company mission statement than that of Non-Management staff:
“Yes, I hear it at every seminar to do with Capita Architecture. So yes, I’m familiar with what
we’re trying to achieve” (See Appendix 4; Interviewee ID A06).
“We’ve been told once that statement and that’s it. No other information” (See Appendix 4;
There were, however, varying degrees of familiarity with the statement by those who did
recognize it:
“I haven’t actually read the mission statement that often to even know what it says actually”
The results shown in Figure 17 are drawn from question 7 of the questionnaire. The question
is "Do you think your company is on target to achieve statement b? ‘70% of our buildings
will be zero carbon by 2012. To achieve this we have implemented a standard across Capita
Architecture which addresses three key areas influencing CO2 emissions;

sources.’”
A higher number of Large Practice staff believe that their company is either on target or
Maybe on target to achieving the Large Practice mission statement than the government
statement. Interestingly the Large Practice mission statement is actually harder to achieve
than the government statement. This suggests that staff either don’t understand their Large
Practice mission statement, or the government statement, or both. It also suggests that those
within the Large Practice responsible for formulating the mission statement and steering staff
towards achieving the government statement are not in touch with staff knowledge,
capabilities and requirements.

Figure 17. Large Practice staff response to whether their company is on target to achieve
the company mission statement
In interview four Large Practice staff suggested that they are either confident in the company
mission statement aims or enthusiastic about its marketing potential whilst disbelieving the
achievability of the governments targets (Appendix 5). In relation to the Large Practice
mission statement one Large Practice interviewee confirmed that the practice is:
“Trying to set a new bench mark and with our Environmental Research Group we have now
set new standards in terms of getting 70% of our buildings to a zero carbon status by 2012”
However, when asked to describe what the governments low and zero carbon building targets
meant to the interviewee personally they stated:

“I do feel some of our national objectives are more of a knee jerk and they haven’t really had
the long thought process put behind them” (See Appendix 4; Interviewee ID A03).
4.10 ANALYSIS 8 – COLLABORATIVE WORKING

In interviews it was observed that Large Practice staff seldom mentioned other members of
the design team (Appendix 4). As seen from the literature review, due to the engineer led and
technically focused policy and design tools, architectural practice staff should be working in
collaboration from project inception. This is succinctly highlighted by non practice
interviewees:
“They need to realize they’re not the most important member of the team any more. The most
important member of the team is the M and E engineer, who’s traditionally been the least
important person, because he’s the guy who that makes them know about the carbon the
building uses” (See Appendix 4; Interviewee ID A19).
“The most important thing is people communicating right at the beginning of a project, at a
rough level, and then that becomes more sophisticated through the project” (See Appendix 4;
4.11 ANALYSIS 9 – KNOWLEDGE SHARING

Within interview the author identified a number of instances where the Large Practice
interviewees (Management biased) attempted to portray that the company had successfully
adopted working methods for designing low and zero carbon buildings. However, due to the
authors professional knowledge of the practice (as an employee) along with the results
gathered by the thesis research indicates that this claim is unsubstantiated within interview
there was discrepancy between how practice was projected by management and how is was
perception by staff (for example see section 4.7).
This phenomenon can possibly be characterised by Hayes (2006), information sharing maybe
limited by attitudes towards perceived mistakes and failures. It is also possible that blame
cultures also limit information sharing and subsequently increase the possibility of repeated
mistakes (ibid). Transparency regarding working methods would, therefore, be advantageous
to the company learning and progression of knowledge.

4.12 CHAPTER SUMMARY

This chapter analyzed and discussed the results from the mixed mode research approach.
Barriers and drivers within large architectural practice to low and zero carbon architecture
were identified and compared to those from medium and small practice. From these findings
recommendations to business strategy working methods for both Capita Architecture and
large architectural practices in general have been identified.

5 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION

The following conclusions were identified by answering the thesis question as posed in
Chapter 1:
• Stakeholders and actors within the construction industry believe that at present not all
architects have the sufficient level of knowledge to achieve the low and zero carbon
buildings.
• Action is required to make architectural staff more familiar with the government
statement in order to improve staff understanding.
• There is a lack of understanding by all practice type staff of the importance and
relevance of the government statement to their individual job roles.
• Large Practice staff acknowledged that communications issues were a barrier to

information. Although it was shown that large practice size is not necessarily an
inhibitor to service.
• Large Practice staff are not willing or able to acquire information and knowledge for
themselves and are instead relying on training provided by the company and are
waiting for clarification from management.
• It is likely that Large Practice staff structure and standard company procedure is
limiting the responsibility of low and zero carbon design criteria to certain roles,
therefore reducing the probability of the practice’s ability to achieve either the
government statement or its own internally derived mission statement.
• Collaborative working methods are acknowledged as important to achieving low and

zero carbon buildings by the construction industry. Therefore action is required to
ensure that Large Practice staff further develop interdisciplinary relationships.
• Architectural staff do not regard online learning as a preferred method of training.
• A positive sign for the industry is that professional interest and personal conviction
are strong drivers for all practice types.

• It has been shown that greater transparency regarding internal working methods
would be advantageous to all practice types.
The thesis identified barriers and drivers to designing low and zero carbon buildings within a
large architectural practice via its primary research. It also drew comparisons and
summarized lessons that could be drawn from medium and small practices, and, industry
stakeholders and actors. There where limitations to this process which are covered in more
detail (see section 5.2) but overall, as shown by the observations and recommendations
above, the thesis answered its research question, satisfied its aims and met its objectives (see
Chapter 1).
5.2 LIMITATIONS OF THESIS

One limitation out of the authors control was the coincidence of the research with the official
clarification of the UK/Global recession. The author observed that the high level of publicity
surrounding the economy had a level of impact on staff responses during interview. The
clearest observed impact was a rise in pessimism regarding client uptake and funding for low
and zero carbon buildings.
A second possible limitation of the thesis was that research was undertaken in reaction to the
author’s personal observations of large architecture working methods. There is, as can be the
case with qualitative based research, the possibility that some of the generalized observations
and recommendations may not fit every large architecture practice – to ratify this would
require future research (see section 5.4).
A third research limitation was the size of the interviewee sample due to time constraints
imposed by work commitments and the timetable of the thesis. Without these constraints the
sample could have been widened to a broader population of both architectural practice staff
and multiple actors from each discipline within the construction industry.

5.3 IMPLICATIONS FOR EXISTING ORTHODOXY

An interim presentation of the thesis findings to the large architectural practice has already
acted as a catalyst for information sharing across the large architecture practice’s internal
networks and collaboration with other disciplines.
A significant implication to existing orthodoxy is that, as identified through the literature

review, there is currently little peer review focused on large architecture practice’s working
methods for designing low and zero carbon buildings. Therefore this research adds new
insights to the body of knowledge.
From the results it has been shown that the large architectural practice had based working
methods on untested predetermined ideas. The research of the author challenged this
orthodoxy.
Orthodoxy regarding application of government and architectural practice statements was

challenged. The research showed that generic statements and their subsequent targets are not
yet fully understood by all architectural practice staff. Illustrating the need for clearer
guidelines and championing by government.
Whilst the thesis demonstrated there are attributes, factors, and phenomenon specific to, and
found only in, large architecture practices, it also demonstrated that when done properly
succinct comparisons can be made of differing sized practices.
5.4 IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

One avenue for future research is to widen the existing sample to include multiple large
architectural practices. Such repetition of the thesis research would improve the level of
confidence in the findings outlined in section 5.1.
A significant area for future research would be to employ an action research design method to
instigate, test, and evaluate the effectiveness of the recommendations from this thesis. Doing
so would not only add further to the body of knowledge but could also be a way of instigating
long term change in working methods within architectural practice. Therefore the thesis could
be used as a starting point for further investigation and observation of the barriers to and
drivers of interdisciplinary relationships within the field of low and zero carbon architecture.


REFERENCES
Architects Journal. 2009. The Countdown of Britain's Biggest Architecture Practices. Online
from: http://aj100.architectsjournal.co.uk/default.aspx [Accessed 11 January 2009]
BERR. 2006. Energy: its impact on the environment and society: 2006: Annex 1b. Online
from: http://www.berr.gov.uk/energy/environment/energy-impact/page29982.html [Accessed
25 July 2009]
BRE. 2008. Environmental & Sustainability Standard: BES 5050: ISSUE 2.0: BREEAM
Courts 2008 Assessor Manual. IHS BRE Press publications, Watford, UK
BRE. 2009. NCM2010: National Calculation Methodology - software tools for Part L 2010.
Online from: http://www.2010ncm.bre.co.uk/page.jsp?id=1 [Accessed 16 June 2009]
Carbon Trust. 2008. Carbon Trust 2008 Budget Response: Zero Carbon Commercial
Buildings. Online from:
http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/News/presscentre/2008/120308_2008Budgetresponse.htm
[Accessed 6 January 2009]
Capita Architecture. 2008. Environmental Research Group: Mission statement. Personal

communication to Kate Stewart, 28 November 2008
Capita Architecture. 2009. Capita Architecture: History/Sectors. Online from:

http://www.capitaarchitecture.co.uk/capita.html [Accessed 08 January 2009]
Capita Symonds. 2007. Capita Architecture Launches. Online from:

http://www.capitasymonds.co.uk/ournews/article.asp?newsid=1840 [Accessed 15 February
2008]
CAT. 2007. Zerocarbonbritain: an Alternative Energy Strategy. CAT Publications,

Machynlleth, Wales, UK.
CIH. 2007. Building a Greener Future: Towards Zero Carbon Development: CIH’s Response
to the Consultation Paper. Online from: http://www.cih.org/policy/ZeroCarbon130307.pdf
[Accessed 18 December 2008]
CLG. 2006. Towards A Zero Carbon Future. Online from:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/towardszero [Accessed 7 January 2009]

CLG. 2007a. Report on carbon reductions in new non-domestic buildings. Online from:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/carbonreductions
CLG. 2007b. Planning Policy Statement: Planning and Climate Change - Supplement to
Planning Policy Statement 1. Online from:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/ppsclimatechange
CLG. 2008a. Building a greener future; Policy statement. Online from:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/building-greener.pdf
CLG. 2008b. Definition of Zero Carbon Homes and Non-Domestic Buildings Consultation.
Online from:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/zerocarbondefinition
CLG. 2008c. Greener Homes for the Future. Online from:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/codeleaflet [Accessed 2
January 2009]
CLG. 2008d. The Code for Sustainable Homes: Setting the Standard in Sustainability for
New Homes. Online from:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/codesustainabilitystandard
s [Accessed 6 January 2009]
CLG. 2009a. Display energy certificates. Online from:

http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/theenvironment/energyperformance/pu
bliccommercialbuildings/displayenergycertificates/ [Accessed 19 April 2009]
CLG. 2009b. Summary of Responses to Consultation on Definition of Zero Carbon Homes

and Non-Domestic Buildings. Online from:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/summaryresponsezero
[Accessed 27 July 2009]
Cottrel, E. 2009. Planning and Low and Zero Carbon. AEES Private Forum Index 5 June
2009. Available from:

http://www.aees.co.uk/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=14199&highlight=#1
4199 [Accessed 7 June 2009]
CPRE. 2009. Council to Protect Rural England: The system in brief. Online from:
http://www.planninghelp.org.uk/planning-system/system-in-brief [Accessed 02 April 2009]
Denzin, N. Lincoln, Y. 2003. Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. 2nd Ed. Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
DirectGov. 2009. Tax on Buying Property. Online from:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/TaxOnPropertyAndRentalIncome
/DG_4015918 [Accessed 6 January 2009]
Energy Saving Trust. 2009. Housing Renewal and Refurbishment. Online from:
http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/nottingham/Nottingham-Declaration/Advice-for-
Council-Services/Housing-Energy-Services/Housing-renewal-and-refurbishment/(tab)/2
Europa. 2009. EUR-Lex: Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 16 December 2002 on the energy performance of buildings. Online from:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32002L0091:EN:HTML
[Accessed 02 April 2009]
The Fees Bureau. 2008. Architects Fees: A survey of the Fees Charged by Private
Architectural Practices: 2009 Edition. Mirza & Nacey Research Ltd, Arundel, WestSussex,
UK.
Fowler, F. 2001. Survey Research Methods. 3rd edition. Sage Publications Inc, Newbury
Park, California, USA.
Gilbert, B. 2009. Email Communication with Kate Stewart, 7 June 2009.
Gillham, B. 2000. Developing Questionnaires. Continuum International Publishing Group

Ltd, London, UK.
Harper, G. 2009. Email Communication with Kate Stewart, 11 January 2009.
Hayes, J. 2006. The Theory of Practice and Change Management. 2nd Edition. Palgrave
Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK.

HEEPI. 2008. Scoring and Rating Section. Online from:

http://www.heepi.org.uk/greenbuild/documents/2_HE_Scoring_and_Rating.pdf [Accessed 25
July 2009]
Hewitt, M. Telfer, K. 2007. Earthships: Building a Zero Carbon Future for Homes. IHS BRE
Press Bracknell,UK.
HM Treasury. 2009. Annex 7.e Emissions from buildings sector. Online from:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/annex7e_buildings.pdf [Accessed 24 July 2009]
IET. 2007. Response to Building a Greener Future: Zero Carbon Development [Letter] from
The Knowledge Network, IET. Online from:
http://www.theiet.org/publicaffairs/submissions/sub781.pdf [Accessed 18 December 2008]
McGivern, Y. 2006. The Practice of Market and Social Research: An Introduction. Pearson
Education Ltd, Harlow, UK.
Merton. 2008. London Borough of Merton: The Merton Rule. Online from:
http://www.merton.gov.uk/living/planning/planningpolicy/mertonrule.htm [Accessed 18
December 2008]
Nettlefield, H. 2009. Personal Communication with Kate Stewart, 6 July 2009.
Number10. 2008. Number 10: the Official Site of the Prime Minsters Office; Speech on
Climate Change (19 Nov 07). Online from: http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page13791
Pew Centre. 2009. Pew Centre for Climate Change: History of Kyoto protocol. Online from:
http://www.pewclimate.org/history_of_kyoto.cfm [Accessed 02 April 2009]
Pitchforth, E. Porter, M. Teijlingen, van E. Keenan, K. 2005. Writing up and presenting

qualitative research in family planning and reproductive health care. Journal of Family
Planning and Reproductive Health Care. Vol. 31, issue. 2, pp. 132-135.
Planning Portal. 2007. Welsh government outlines zero carbon building targets. Online from:
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/government/en/1115314843329.html [Accessed
25 July 2009]

Planning Portal. 2009. Building Regulations Approved Document Part L1A. Online from:
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/professionals/en/1115314231792.html [Accessed
13 December 2008]
Quattro. 2005. Green Briefing Sheets: Quattro’s approach. Online from:

http://www.quattrodesign.co.uk/green-briefing-sheets.php [Accessed 18 July 2009]
RAB. 2008. UK Renewable Energy Strategy Consultation. Online from:

http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file48112.pdf [Accessed 18 December 2008]
REA. 2008. Renewable Energy Association: Energy White Paper 2003. Online from:
http://www.r-e-a.net/policy/energy-policy/EWP2003 [Accessed 20 April 2008]
TCPA. 2008. Town and Country Planning Authority: Community Energy: Community
planning for a low carbon future. RAP Spiderweb Ltd, Oldham, UK.
UKGBC. 2008. Zero Carbon Task Group Report: The Definition of Zero Carbon. Online
from: http://www.ukgbc.org/site/resources/showResourceDetails?id=180 [Accessed 25 July
2009]
UNFCCC. 2008. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: Kyoto

Protocol. Online from: http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php [Accessed 18 March
2008]
Whittaker, A. 2009. Research Skills and Social Work. Bell and Bain, Glasgow, UK.
Wilkins, D. 2004. Home Information Packs. Online from:

http://www.octotrad.co.uk/what_is_a_home_information_pack.htm [Accessed 11 April 2008]
Winstone, R. Bolton, P. Gore, D. 2007. Energy Security Research Paper. House of Commons
Library. Online from: http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2007/rp07-042.pdf
[Accessed 24 July 2009]
Zell, D. 2001. Overcoming Barriers to Work Innovations; Lesson Learned at Hewlett

Packard. Organizational Dynamics. Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 77-86

BIBLIOGRAPHY
ARUP. 2009. Existing Buildings: Survival strategies: A guide for re-energising tired assets
and reducing operating costs. Arup, London, UK
Bryman, A. 2004. Social research methods. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Chong, I. 2003. An Explorative Study on Knowledge Management in Architectural Practice:

A socio-technical perspective. Online from: http://www.c-sand.org.uk/documents/chong.pdf
Design Council. 2007. High level Skills for Higher Value. Online from:
http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/en/Design-Council/3/Publications/High-level-Skills-for-
Higher-Value/ [Accessed 2 May 2009]
Flick, U. 2002. An Introduction to Qualitative Research. 2nd Ed. Sage Publications Ltd,
London, UK.
Halliday, S. 2007. Green Guide to the Architect’s Job Book. 2nd Ed. RIBA Publishing,
London, UK
House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee. 2004. Learning the Sustainability

Lesson: Tenth Report of Session 2002–03. Online from:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmenvaud/cmenvaud.htm
[Accessed 20 May 2009]
LGA. 2006. Planning Policies for Sustainable Building: Guidance for local development
frameworks. Online from: http://www.lga.gov.uk/lga/aio/179453 [Accessed 22 June 2009]
Reason, P. Bradbury, H. 2006. Handbook of Action Research. Sage Publications Ltd,

London, UK
RIBA. 2007. Draft Strategy for Sustainable Construction: Response by the Royal Institute of
British Architects. Online from:
http://www.architecture.com/Files/RIBAHoldings/PolicyAndInternationalRelations/Policy/P
ublicAffairs/SustainableConstruction.pdf [Accessed 7 May 2009]

RIBA. 2008. The 2008 Autodesk/RIBA Green Index. Online from:

http://images.autodesk.com/emea_nw_w_main/files/the_2008_uk_autodesk_green_index_rep
ort.pdf [Accessed 30 May 2009]
RICS. 2007. Financing and valuing sustainable property: we need to talk. The Royal
Institution of Chartered Surveyors, London, UK
Roaf, S. 2004. Closing the Loop: Benchmarks for sustainability buildings. RIBA Enterprises
Ltd, London, UK
Stern, N. 2008. The Economics of Climate Change: The stern review. 4th Ed. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK
Taylor Wessing. 2009. Behind the Green Facade: Is the UK development industry really
embracing sustainability? Taylor Wessing LLP, London, UK
TCPA. 2008. Community Energy: Urban planning for a low carbon future. RAP Spiderweb
Ltd, Oldham, UK
Venters, W. Cornford, T. Cushman, M. 2005. Knowledge About Sustainability: SSM as a

method for conceptualising the UK construction industries knowledge environment. Online
from: http://www.c-sand.org.uk/documents/KnowledgeAboutSustainability.pdf [Accessed 16
March 2009]
Williams, K. Dair, C. 2006. What Is Stopping Sustainable Building in England? Barriers

Experienced by Stakeholders in Delivering Sustainable Developments. Sustainable
Development. Vol. 10, Issue 308
Willis, A. Fry, T. 1999. Undoing the Relation: Image, Sustainability and Architecture. RMIT
Centre for Design, Melbourne, Australia


APPENDIX 1: COPY OF QUESTIONNAIRES

1. THESIS QUESTIONNAIRE BY KATE STEWART: LARGE PRACTICE
This questionnaire is part of research being undertaken for an MSc Architecture: Advanced
Environmental and Energy Studies, at the Centre for Alternative Technology, Wales. This study will be
examining where the architectural practice is in relation to the UK government’s targets on carbon
dioxide emissions and the efficient use of energy and natural resources.
Thank you for generously taking the time to complete this short questionnaire (approximately 5-10
minutes). All responses will remain anonymous.
1. Gender
j
k
l
m
n Male
j
k
l
m
n Female
2. Age
j
k
l
m
n 17-24
j
k
l
m
n 25-34
j
k
l
m
n 35-44
j
k
l
m
n 45-54
j
k
l
m
n 55-64
j
k
l
m
n Over 65
3. Position
j
k
l
m
n Architect
j
k
l
m
n Architectural Assistant
j
k
l
m
n Director
j
k
l
m
n Senior Architect
j
k
l
m
n Senior Technician
j
k
l
m
n Technician
Other (please specify)

* 4. How familiar are you with the following Government statement?
a) “Zero carbon means that, over a year, the net carbon emissions from all
energy use [in buildings] would be zero”
j
k
l
m
n Very familiar
j
k
l
m
n Familiar
j
k
l
m
n Slightly familiar
j
k
l
m
n Unfamiliar
* 5. How familiar are you with the following Capita Architecture statement?
b) “70% of our buildings will be zero carbon by 2012. To achieve this we
have implemented a standard across Capita Architecture which addresses
three key areas influencing CO2 emissions;
• MATERIALS: 70% of all construction materials to be specified from
sustainable sources.”
j
k
l
m
n Very familiar
j
k
l
m
n Familiar
j
k
l
m
n Slightly familiar
j
k
l
m
n Unfamiliar
* 6. Do you think your company is on target to achieve statement a?

“Zero carbon means that, over a year, the net carbon emissions from all
j
k
l
m
n Yes
j
k
l
m
n Maybe
j
k
l
m
n No
j
k
l
m
n Don’t Know
* 7. Do you think your company is on target to achieve statement b?
“70% of our buildings will be zero carbon by 2012. To achieve this we have
implemented a standard across Capita Architecture which addresses three
key areas influencing CO2 emissions;
• MATERIALS: 70% of all construction materials to be specified from
sustainable sources.”
j
k
l
m
n Yes
j
k
l
m
n Maybe
j
k
l
m
n No
j
k
l
m
n Don’t Know
* 8. Which of the following do you typically undertake as part of your design

brief?
c
d
e
f
g Future proofing and lifecycle analysis
c
d
e
f
g Green Travel Plan
c
d
e
f
g Improve energy efficiency through building's fabric and services
c
d
e
f
g Low or zero carbon technologies
c
d
e
f
g Optimization of building performance through site analysis/building orientation
c
d
e
f
g Reduce environmental impact of building's fabric and services
c
d
e
f
g Site ecology conservation and enhancement
c
d
e
f
g Stake Holder consultation (building design and use)
c
d
e
f
g Waste reduction in construction and building use
c
d
e
f
g Water use minimisation/recycling
* 9. Have you ever used the BRE Environmental Assessment Method

(BREEAM) standard within a project?
j
k
l
m
n Yes
j
k
l
m
n No
10. If yes to question 9 what was the highest level achieved?
j
k
l
m
n Pass
j
k
l
m
n Good
j
k
l
m
n Very Good
j
k
l
m
n Excellent
j
k
l
m
n Outstanding
j
k
l
m
n Don't know
* 11. Have you ever used the Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) standard
within a project?
j
k
l
m
n Yes
j
k
l
m
n No

j
k
l
m
n 1
j
k
l
m
n 2
j
k
l
m
n 3
j
k
l
m
n 4
j
k
l
m
n 5
j
k
l
m
n 6
j
k
l
m
n Don't know
* 13. Please list the following 10 design considerations in the order in which
you would address them, from 1 through to 10 (1 first - 10 last).
Scale
Future proofing and

lifecycle analysis
Green Travel Plan
Improve energy
efficiency through
building's fabric and
services
Low or zero carbon

technologies
Optimization of
building performance
through site
analysis/building
orientation
Reduce environmental
impact of building's
fabric and services
Site ecology
conservation and
enhancement
Stake Holder
consultation (building
design and use)
Waste reduction in
construction and
building use
Water use
minimisation/recycling
14. Within your company what are the potential barriers to achieving zero
carbon buildings?
c
d
e
f
g Lack of Clarity c
d
e
f
g Lack of Knowledge
c
d
e
f
g Lack of Interest c
d
e
f
g Lack of Information
c
d
e
f
g Lack of Training c
d
e
f
g Lack of Support

15. What are the potential drivers within your company to achieving low and
zero carbon buildings?
c
d
e
f
g Government Legislation c
d
e
f
g Professional Interest
c
d
e
f
g Job Requirement c
d
e
f
g Personal Conviction
* 16. To achieve proficiency in low and zero carbon design please confirm
how beneficial the following methods of training and support would be to
you.
Very beneficial Beneficial Slightly beneficial Not beneficial
Office resource library j

k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n
Seminars j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n
Workshops j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n
Project design reviews j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n
Conferences j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n
Project checklist j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n
Online resource library j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n
Online learning j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n
Courses j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n
Continuing
j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n
Professional
Development (CPD)
presentations
Peer review/Post-
j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n
occupancy evaluation
Site visits j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n
17. If there are any issues that have not been considered within this survey
please comment.
1. THESIS QUESTIONNAIRE BY KATE STEWART: MEDIUM PRACTICE
1. Gender
j
k
l
m
n Male
j
k
l
m
n Female
2. Age
j
k
l
m
n 17-24
j
k
l
m
n 25-34
j
k
l
m
n 35-44
j
k
l
m
n 45-54
j
k
l
m
n 55-64
j
k
l
m
n Over 65
3. Position
j
k
l
m
n Architect
j
k
l
m
j
k
l
m
n Director
j
k
l
m
n Senior Architect
j
k
l
m
n Senior Technician
j
k
l
m
n Technician

j
k
l
m
n Very familiar
j
k
l
m
n Familiar
j
k
l
m
n Slightly familiar
j
k
l
m
n Unfamiliar
* 5. Do you think your company is on target to achieve statement a by 2016?

j
k
l
m
n Yes
j
k
l
m
n Maybe
j
k
l
m
n No
j
k
l
m
n Don’t Know
* 6. Which of the following are typically considered within your projects (by
you or other members of the client/consultant team)?
c
d
e
f
c
d
e
f
g Green Travel Plan
c
d
e
f
c
d
e
f
c
d
e
f
c
d
e
f
c
d
e
f
c
d
e
f
c
d
e
f
c
d
e
f

j
k
l
m
n Yes
j
k
l
m
n No
j
k
l
m
n Pass
j
k
l
m
n Good
j
k
l
m
n Very Good
j
k
l
m
n Excellent
j
k
l
m
n Outstanding
j
k
l
m
n Don't know
within a project?
j
k
l
m
n Yes
j
k
l
m
n No

j
k
l
m
n 1
j
k
l
m
n 2
j
k
l
m
n 3
j
k
l
m
n 4
j
k
l
m
n 5
j
k
l
m
n 6
j
k
l
m
n Don't know
* 11. Please place in order the following 10 design considerations from 1
through to 10 (1 first - 10 last).
Scale
Future proofing and

lifecycle analysis
Green Travel Plan
Improve energy
efficiency through
services
Low or zero carbon

technologies
Optimization of
through site
analysis/building
orientation
fabric and services
Site ecology
conservation and
enhancement
Stake Holder
design and use)
Waste reduction in
construction and
building use
Water use
carbon buildings?
c
d
e
f
g Lack of Clarity c
d
e
f
g Lack of Interest
c
d
e
f
d
e
f
c
d
e
f
g Lack of Knowledge c
d
e
f
g Lack of Support

c
d
e
f
g Government Legislation c
d
e
f
g Professional Interest
c
d
e
f
g Job Requirement c
d
e
f
you.
Workshops j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n
Peer review/Post-
j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n

k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n
Courses j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n
Conferences j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n
Continuing
j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n
Professional
Development (CPD)
presentations
Seminars j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n
Online learning j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n
Site visits j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n
Project checklist j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n
please comment.
1. THESIS QUESTIONNAIRE BY KATE STEWART: SMALL PRACTICE
1. Gender
j
k
l
m
n Male
j
k
l
m
n Female
2. Age
j
k
l
m
n 17-24
j
k
l
m
n 25-34
j
k
l
m
n 35-44
j
k
l
m
n 45-54
j
k
l
m
n 55-64
j
k
l
m
n Over 65
3. Position
j
k
l
m
n Architect
j
k
l
m
j
k
l
m
n Director
j
k
l
m
n Senior Architect
j
k
l
m
n Senior Technician
j
k
l
m
n Technician

j
k
l
m
n Very familiar
j
k
l
m
n Familiar
j
k
l
m
n Slightly familiar
j
k
l
m
n Unfamiliar
* 5. Do you think your company is on target to achieve statement a?

j
k
l
m
n Yes
j
k
l
m
n Maybe
j
k
l
m
n No
j
k
l
m
n Don’t Know
* 6. Which of the following do you typically undertake as part of your design

brief?
c
d
e
f
c
d
e
f
g Green Travel Plan
c
d
e
f
c
d
e
f
c
d
e
f
c
d
e
f
c
d
e
f
c
d
e
f
c
d
e
f
c
d
e
f

j
k
l
m
n Yes
j
k
l
m
n No
j
k
l
m
n Pass
j
k
l
m
n Good
j
k
l
m
n Very Good
j
k
l
m
n Excellent
j
k
l
m
n Outstanding
j
k
l
m
n Don't know
within a project?
j
k
l
m
n Yes
j
k
l
m
n No

j
k
l
m
n 1
j
k
l
m
n 2
j
k
l
m
n 3
j
k
l
m
n 4
j
k
l
m
n 5
j
k
l
m
n 6
j
k
l
m
n Don't know
* 11. Please list the following 10 design considerations in the order in which
you would address them, from 1 through to 10 (1 first - 10 last).
Scale
Future proofing and

lifecycle analysis
Green Travel Plan
Improve energy
efficiency through
services
Low or zero carbon

technologies
Optimization of
through site
analysis/building
orientation
fabric and services
Site ecology
conservation and
enhancement
Stake Holder
design and use)
Waste reduction in
construction and
building use
Water use
carbon buildings?
c
d
e
f
g Lack of Knowledge c
d
e
f
c
d
e
f
g Lack of Clarity c
d
e
f
g Lack of Support
c
d
e
f
d
e
f
g Lack of Interest

c
d
e
f
g Job Requirement c
d
e
f
g Government Legislation
c
d
e
f
g Professional Interest c
d
e
f
you.
Workshops j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n
Courses j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n
Continuing
j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n
Professional
Development (CPD)
presentations
Project checklist j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n
Conferences j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n
Online learning j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n
Peer review/Post-
j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n

k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n
Seminars j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n
Site visits j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n j
k
l
m
n
please comment.
APPENDIX 2: BREEAM AND CSH COMPARISON TABLE

CSH Criteria Author Summary of Point BREEAM (non domestic) Author Summary of Point Key Criteria Identified for
Criteria Questionnaire
Energy and CO2 emissions
Dwelling emission rate (M) DER over TER carbon (SAP) Reduction of CO2 emissions To recognise and encourage Reduction in carbon dioxide
dioxide emissions per m2 from buildings that are designed to (CO2) emissions from
heating hot water an lighting minimise the CO2 emissions building's fabric and services
associated with their operational
energy. evidence provided
demonstrates an improvement in the
energy efficiency
of the building’s fabric and services
and therefore achieves lower building
operational related CO2 emissions
consumption.
Building fabric future proof the energy efficiency of Low or zero carbon
dwellings over their whole life by technologies
limiting. Thermal performance of
building envelope
Sub-metering of substantial Green Travel plan (including

energy uses cycle, motor vehicles and local
amenities)
Sub metering of high energy load Water Minimisation/recycling
and tenancy areas
Internal lighting energy efficient lighting Environmental impact of
materials
Drying space for clothes drying Waste reduction in construction

and building use
Energy labelled white goods specific rating for goods Reduction in pollution from
from building's fabric and
services (i.e. GWP and Nox)
External lighting External lighting Optimization of building
performance through building
orientation/site analysis
Low or zero carbon (LZC) To reduce carbon emissions and Low or zero carbon technologies To reduce carbon emissions and Future proofing and lifecycle
technologies atmospheric pollution by encouraging atmospheric pollution by encouraging analysis
local energy generation from local energy generation from
renewable sources to supply a signifi renewable sources to supply a
cant proportion of the energy significant proportion of the energy
demand. demand.
Building fabric performance & Stake Holder consultation
avoidance of air infiltration (building design and use)
Cold storage Ecology
Lifts
Cycle storage secure cycle storage facilities and Cyclist facilities To encourage building users to cycle
access by ensuring adequate provision of
cyclist facilities
Pedestrian and cyclist safety
Travel plan To recognise the consideration given
to accommodating a range of travel
options for building users, thereby
encouraging the reduction of user
reliance on forms of travel that have
the highest environmental impact.
Maximum car parking capacity

Travel information Point
Provision of public transport To recognise and encourage
development in proximity to good
public transport networks, thereby
helping to reduce transport-related
emissions and traffic congestion.
Home office Proximity to amenities
Water
Indoor water use (M) To reduce the consumption of Water Consumption To minimise the consumption of
potable water in the home from all potable water in sanitary applications
sources by encouraging the use of low water
use fittings.
Water Meter
Major leak detection
Sanitary supply shut-off
External water use To encourage the recycling of Water recycling To encourage the collection and re-
rainwater and reduce the amount of use of waste water or rainwater to
mains potable water used for external meet toilet flushing needs and reduce
water uses. the demand for potable fresh water.
Additional can be used for external
Irrigation systems
Materials
Environmental impact of materials Green Guide rating Materials specification (major Up to six credits are available,
(M) building elements) determined by the Green Guide to
Specification ratings for the major
building/finishing elements.
Hard landscaping and boundary
protection
Reuse of building façade
Reuse of building structure
Responsible sourcing of materials key building elements are responsibly Responsible sourcing of materials To recognise and encourage the
– basic building elements sourced according to the following specification of responsibly sourced
criteria materials for key building elements.
Designing for robustness

Responsible sourcing of materials finishing elements are responsibly
– finishing elements sourced according to the following
criteria
Surface Water Run-off
Management of Surface Water design housing developments which Minimising watercourse pollution To reduce the potential for silt, heavy
Runoff from developments (M) avoid, reduce and delay the discharge metals, chemicals or oil pollution to
of rainfall to public sewers and natural watercourses from surface
watercourses water run-off from buildings and hard
surfaces.
Flood risk encourage housing development in Flood risk To encourage development in low
low flood risk areas, or to take flood risk areas, or to take measures
measures to reduce the impact of to reduce the impact of flooding on
flooding on houses built in areas with buildings in areas with a medium or
a medium or high risk of flooding high risk of flooding.
Waste
Storage of non-recyclable waste To recognise and reward the Recyclable waste storage To recognise the provision of
and recyclable household waste provision of adequate internal and dedicated storage facilities for a
(M) external storage space for non- building’s operational-related
recyclable waste and recyclable recyclable waste streams, so that
household waste. such waste is diverted from landfill or
incineration
Construction waste management To promote reduction and effective Construction Site Waste To promote resource efficiency via
(M) management of construction related Management the effective and appropriate
waste through the use of a Site management of construction site
Waste Management Plan (SWMP). waste.
Recycled aggregates
Composting Reduce household waste to landfill
Pollution
Global warming potential (GWP) To reduce global warming from Insulation To recognise and encourage the use
of insulants blowing agent emissions that arise of thermal insulation which has a low
from the manufacture, installation, use embodied environmental
and disposal of foamed thermal and performance relative to its thermal
acoustic insulating materials. properties and has been responsibly
sourced.
NOX emissions reduction of NOX emissions arising NOx emissions from heating To encourage the supply of heat from
from the operation of space heating source a system that minimises NOx
and hot water systems emissions, and therefore reduces
pollution of the local environment.
Refrigerant GWP - Building To reduce the contribution to climate
services change from refrigerants with a high
global warming potential.
Preventing refrigerant leaks

Refrigerant GWP - Cold storage
Reduction of night time light
pollution
Noise attenuation To reduce the likelihood of noise
from the new development affecting
nearby noise-sensitive buildings.
Health and Well-being

Day lighting To improve the quality of life in Day lighting Where evidence provided
homes through good day lighting and demonstrates that at least 80% of
to reduce the need for energy to light floor area in each occupied space is
the home. Average daylight factors adequately day lit.
View Out To allow occupants to refocus their

eyes from close work and enjoy an
external view, thus reducing the risk of
eyestrain and breaking the monotony
of the indoor environment.
Glare Control
High frequency
lighting
Internal and external lighting levels
Lighting zones & controls

Potential for natural ventilation
Indoor air quality
Volatile Organic Compounds
Thermal comfort
Thermal zoning
Microbial contamination
Sound insulation higher standards of sound insulation Acoustic performance
than those given in Approved
Document E of the Building
Regulations
Private space improve the occupiers’ quality of life
by providing an outdoor space for
their use, which is at least partially
private.
Lifetime homes (M) achievement of the Lifetimes Homes

criteria
Management
Commissioning Where evidence provided
demonstrates that an appropriate
project team member. Where, in
addition to the above, evidence
provided demonstrates that seasonal
commissioning will be carried out
during the first year of occupation,
post
construction (or post fit out).
has been appointed to monitor
commissioning on behalf of the client
to ensure
commissioning will be carried out in
line with current best practice.
Home user guide Occupant building user guide Building User Guide
Considerate constructors scheme Considerate Constructors To recognise and encourage
construction sites which are managed
in an environmentally and socially
considerate and accountable manner.
Construction site impacts Construction site impacts To recognise and encourage

construction sites managed in an
environmentally sound manner
Security To encourage the design of Security To recognise and encourage the
developments where people feel safe implementation of effective design
and secure; where crime and measures that will reduce the
disorder, or the fear of crime, does opportunity for and fear of crime on
not undermine quality of life or the new development.
community cohesion.
Site Investigation
Consultation Stakeholder consultation.To involve
the relevant stakeholders (including
building users, business, residents
and local
government) in the design process in
order to provide buildings fit for
purpose and to increase
local “ownership”.
Shared Facilities
Publication of building information
Development as a learning
resource
Ease of Maintenance
Ecology Lifecycle Costing
Ecological value of site To encourage development on land Reuse of land To encourage the reuse of land that
that already has a limited value to has been previously developed and
wildlife, and discourage the discourage the use of previously
development of ecologically valuable undeveloped land for building.
sites.
Contaminated land
Ecological enhancement To enhance the ecological value of a Enhancing site ecology To recognise and encourage actions
site taken to maintain and enhance the
ecological value of the site as a result
of development.
Protection of ecological features Mitigating ecological impact To minimise the impact of a building
development on existing site ecology.
Change in ecological value of site To protect existing ecological Ecological value of site AND To encourage development on land
features from substantial damage Protection of ecological features that already has limited value to
during the clearing of the site and the wildlife and to protect existing
completion of construction works ecological features from substantial
damage during site preparation and
completion of construction works.
Building footprint To promote the most efficient use of

a building’s footprint by ensuring that
land and material use is optimised
across the development. Net ratio
Long term impact on biodiversity

APPENDIX 3: QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS
MSc Thesis Questionnaire: Architects Practice Large Non Specialist
Gender
Response Response
Answer Options Frequency Count
Male 80.9% 76
Female 19.1% 18
answered question 94
skipped question 0
Age
Response Response
17-24 3.2% 3
25-34 41.5% 39
35-44 24.5% 23
45-54 19.1% 18
55-64 10.6% 10
Over 65 1.1% 1
skipped question 0
Position
Response Response
Architect 28.9% 24
Architectural Assistant 30.1% 25
Director 13.3% 11
Senior Architect 7.2% 6
Senior Technician 10.8% 9
Technician 9.6% 8
Other (please specify) 12
skipped question 11
Other (please
Number Response Date
specify)
1 12/22/2008 07:07:00 M+E Engineer

2 12/22/2008 15:48:00 Technical Manager
3 12/23/2008 11:03:00 Associate Director
4 12/23/2008 11:16:00 Consultant
Senior Associate
5 12/23/2008 11:34:00 Director
Senior Associate
6 01/05/2009 11:18:00 Director
7 01/05/2009 15:51:00 /Project Leader
8 01/06/2009 13:48:00 Associate Architect
9 01/14/2009 14:16:00 Projects Director

10 01/14/2009 14:23:00 Associate

11 01/19/2009 22:43:00 Interior Designer
12 01/19/2009 23:55:00 Associate Architect
How familiar are you with the following Government statement? a) “Zero
carbon means that, over a year, the net carbon emissions from all energy
use [in buildings] would be zero”
Response Response
Very familiar 14.9% 14
Familiar 53.2% 50
Slightly familiar 29.8% 28
Unfamiliar 2.1% 2
skipped question 0
Do you think your company is on target to achieve statement a? “Zero

Response Response
Yes 3.2% 3
Maybe 31.9% 30
No 44.7% 42
Don’t Know 20.2% 19
skipped question 0
Which of the following do you typically undertake as part of your design

brief?
Response Response
Improve energy efficiency through building's fabric
77.7% 73
and services
Low or zero carbon technologies 51.1% 48
Green Travel Plan 44.7% 42
Water use minimisation/recycling 45.7% 43
Reduce environmental impact of building's fabric
55.3% 52
and services
Waste reduction in construction and building use 46.8% 44
Optimization of building performance through site
72.3% 68
analysis/building orientation
Future proofing and lifecycle analysis 47.9% 45
Stake Holder consultation (building design and use) 54.3% 51
Site ecology conservation and enhancement 43.6% 41
skipped question 0

Have you ever used the BRE Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM)
standard within a project?
Response Response
Yes 73.4% 69
No 26.6% 25
skipped question 0
If yes to question 9 what was the highest level achieved?
Response Response
Pass 2.9% 2
Good 10.1% 7
Very Good 43.5% 30
Excellent 31.9% 22
Outstanding 0.0% 0
Don't know 11.6% 8
skipped question 25
Have you ever used the Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) standard within
a project?
Response Response
Yes 5.3% 5
No 94.7% 89
skipped question 0
Response Response
1 0.0% 0
2 0.0% 0
3 40.0% 2
4 40.0% 2
5 0.0% 0
6 0.0% 0
Don't know 20.0% 1
answered question 5
skipped question 89

Please list the following 10 design considerations in the order in which you would
address them, from 1 through to 10 (1 first - 10 last).
Scale
Response
Answer Options 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Count
Improve energy
efficiency through
12 16 15 14 8 2 4 2 2 1 76
services
Low or zero carbon
4 6 5 14 12 6 9 11 5 4 76
technologies
Green Travel Plan 2 0 2 5 10 9 6 9 12 21 76
Water use
3 1 2 2 4 8 13 11 11 21 76
Reduce
environmental impact
2 11 16 6 11 9 11 5 3 2 76
of building's fabric
and services
Waste reduction in
construction and 2 6 3 3 2 8 9 13 20 10 76
building use
Optimization of
through site 20 21 13 6 1 5 4 4 1 1 76
analysis/building
orientation
Future proofing and
7 7 6 8 12 13 7 9 5 2 76
lifecycle analysis
Stake Holder
consultation (building 24 4 10 7 9 4 4 3 5 6 76
design and use)
Site ecology
conservation and 0 4 4 11 7 12 9 9 12 8 76
enhancement
Question
Totals
skipped question 18
Within your company what are the potential barriers to achieving zero carbon buildings?
Response
Response Frequency
Answer Options Count
Lack of Support 36.1% 30
Lack of Information 45.8% 38
Lack of Knowledge 63.9% 53
Lack of Clarity 39.8% 33
Lack of Training 78.3% 65
Lack of Interest 24.1% 20
skipped question 11

Response
Number Other (please specify)
Date
12/19/2008
1 11:57:00 lack of client uptake
12/22/2008
2 11:00:00 Lack of leadership
12/22/2008
3 12:29:00 Educating Clients
12/22/2008
4 15:48:00 Clients Funds - How much they want to spend
12/23/2008 Client is only concerned with capital cost, not lifecycle
5 11:10:00 considerations
12/23/2008
6 11:16:00 Perceived cost
12/23/2008
7 11:34:00 The Client as they won't pay for additions
12/23/2008
8 13:07:00 unlikely to be achievable in practice
12/23/2008
9 16:04:00 Lack of clients wanting to achieve something better
01/02/2009
10 09:28:00 Budget constraints, Lack of support from clients
01/05/2009 Client's lack of interest in spending the money on
11 09:12:00 achieving zero carbon buildings
01/05/2009
12 12:06:00 Most importantly - Lack of time!
01/05/2009
13 15:51:00 Lack of Client Support
01/05/2009
14 18:10:00 No internal method of assessment
01/06/2009 Design standards from clients do not allow scope for
15 13:11:00 incorporating low carbon technologies
01/06/2009
16 13:48:00 New build .v. refurbishment
on tghis particular project so far there has been no room
01/14/2009 for real engagement and brainstorming - pay lip service to
17 14:13:00 'green issues'
01/14/2009
18 14:20:00 Client constraints
01/19/2009 Government has not set out what is really meant by this
19 23:42:00 aim. It would appear to be wholly unattainable.
01/19/2009 low project budgets in the sector/ luck of interest and
20 23:57:00 knowledge from client's or contractors' side
What are the potential drivers within your company to achieving low and zero carbon
buildings?
Response
Response Frequency
Professional Interest 65.2% 60
Government Legislation 68.5% 63
Personal Conviction 48.9% 45
Job Requirement 44.6% 41
skipped question 2

Number Response Date Other (please specify)
12/22/2008 If a Client wishes to inclhude within their

1 15:48:00 building
12/22/2008
2 16:49:00 Company KPI
12/23/2008
3 11:22:00 Client Requirement
01/06/2009
4 13:50:00 Don't know, I'm not the decision maker
01/19/2009
5 22:59:00 High budget
01/19/2009
6 23:42:00 Duty to stakeholders
To achieve proficiency in low and zero carbon design please confirm how
beneficial the following methods of training and support would be to you.
Very Slightly Not Response
Answer Options beneficial Beneficial beneficial beneficial Count
Workshops 41 42 10 1 94
Courses 51 38 4 1 94
Conferences 13 38 37 6 94
Site visits 36 39 17 2 94
Project checklist 34 37 20 3 94
Online learning 11 49 27 7 94
Project design reviews 38 41 15 0 94
Seminars 35 45 11 3 94
Continuing Professional
Development (CPD) 33 47 13 1 94
presentations
Peer review/Post-
31 36 25 2 94
Office resource library 25 42 21 6 94
Online resource library 28 42 20 4 94
skipped question 0
If there are any issues that have not been considered within this survey please
comment.
Response Count
Answer Options
10
skipped question 84
Response
Number Response Text
Date
12/19/2008
1 11:57:00 Many
12/22/2008
2 12:27:00 ENERGY EMBODIED IN MATERIALS & PRODUCTS
12/22/2008 The Client who comissions the job, determines how environmentally
3 15:48:00 friendly a building is.
4 12/23/2008 Survey does not address what the client wants. We often work on

16:04:00 very commercial developments where the client is a developer and

wants to only do the minimum and at the cheapest cost. there is no
benefit in trying to educate this type of client because they only sell
or let the building and ultimately don't care about what it costs to
run or how efficient it is. It is not the lack of will from the architect,
but the lack of interest from the developer.
Item 8 as Architects not all of these items fall in our remit so
12/30/2008 "whatdo you do" may be the wrong question, support in
5 16:39:00 lieu of do?
01/02/2009 Responsibility and requirement to inform clients who may know less
6 09:28:00 than us.
01/05/2009
7 18:10:00 Fluid dynamic thermal analyses and daylight analyses
Unfortunatly money talks, if creating a lower / zero carbon building
saved money or at least cost no more Capita's target would be very
achivable, however in my experiance clients and / or contractors are
01/06/2009 unwilling to throw a big bugetry increase at creating a lower carbon
8 13:38:00 building.
01/06/2009 Client disinterest and short term financial considerations are still a
9 13:50:00 big barrier to zero carbon building
01/08/2009
10 17:11:00 NONE

MSc Thesis Questionnaire: Architects Practice Medium Specialist
Gender
Response Response
Male 76.5% 13
Female 23.5% 4
skipped question 0
Age
Response Response
17-24 23.5% 4
25-34 29.4% 5
35-44 17.6% 3
45-54 11.8% 2
55-64 17.6% 3
Over 65 0.0% 0
skipped question 0
Position
Response Response
Architect 33.3% 5
Director 13.3% 2
Technician 6.7% 1
skipped question 2
Other (please
Number Response Date
specify)
Associate
1 04/23/2009 08:20:00 Architect
Senior
2 04/23/2009 08:27:00 Technologist

Response Response
Familiar 41.2% 7
Unfamiliar 0.0% 0
skipped question 0
Do you think your company is on target to achieve statement a by 2016?

Response Response
Yes 52.9% 9
Maybe 23.5% 4
No 17.6% 3
Don’t Know 5.9% 1
skipped question 0
Which of the following are typically considered within your projects (by
you or other members of the client/consultant team)?
Response Response
94.1% 16
and services
88.2% 15
and services
94.1% 16
skipped question 0

Response Response
Yes 76.5% 13
No 23.5% 4
skipped question 0
Response Response
Pass 0.0% 0
Good 0.0% 0
Very Good 25.0% 3
Excellent 75.0% 9
Outstanding 0.0% 0
Don't know 0.0% 0
skipped question 5
a project?
Response Response
Yes 64.7% 11
No 35.3% 6
skipped question 0
Response Response
1 0.0% 0
2 0.0% 0
3 50.0% 5
4 30.0% 3
5 10.0% 1
6 10.0% 1
Don't know 0.0% 0
skipped question 7
Please place in order the following 10 design considerations from 1 through to 10

(1 first - 10 last).
Scale
Response
Improve energy
efficiency through
7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 15
services

Low or zero carbon

0 1 1 1 3 2 3 2 1 1 15
technologies
Water use
1 0 1 1 1 3 3 2 2 1 15
Reduce
0 2 2 4 3 2 0 2 0 0 15
and services
Waste reduction in
building use
Optimization of
through site 4 3 4 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 15
analysis/building
orientation
Future proofing and
0 1 4 2 3 3 0 1 1 0 15
lifecycle analysis
Stake Holder
consultation (building 2 0 1 3 0 2 1 1 2 3 15
design and use)
Site ecology
enhancement
Question
Totals
skipped question 2
Within your company what are the potential barriers to achieving zero carbon buildings?
Response
Response Frequency
answered question 7
skipped question 10
Response
Number Other (please specify)
Date
04/20/2009
1 07:50:00 lack of client will & project funding
04/22/2009
2 07:03:00 The barrier is usually with the clients!
04/22/2009
3 09:47:00 client willingness for initial expenditure
04/22/2009
4 11:07:00 lack of money?

04/22/2009
5 13:31:00 funding
04/23/2009
6 08:15:00 Contractors/Clients
04/23/2009
7 08:19:00 cost barriers with clients and contractors
04/23/2009
8 08:40:00 Lack of Money
04/23/2009 Finding a Client that wishes to achieve Zero Carbon, perception is
9 08:42:00 that Zero Carbon is more expensive to achieve.
04/23/2009
10 13:59:00 Lack of funding from clients
04/29/2009
11 18:41:00 clients wishing to pay for it
What are the potential drivers within your company to achieving low and
Response Response
skipped question 1
Other
Number Response Date (please
specify)
1 04/23/2009 08:40:00 rewards
Workshops 9 6 2 0 17
Courses 6 10 1 0 17
Seminars 9 5 3 0 17
presentations
Peer review/Post-
11 4 2 0 17
skipped question 0

If there are any issues that have not been considered within
this survey please comment.
Response Count
Answer Options
2
answered question 2
skipped question 15
Number Response Date Response Text
value for money
1 04/20/2009 07:50:00 issues
2 04/23/2009 13:59:00

MSc Thesis Questionnaire: Architects Practice Small Non Specialist
Gender
Response Response
Male 100.0% 4
Female 0.0% 0
answered question 4
skipped question 0
Age
Response Response
17-24 25.0% 1
25-34 75.0% 3
35-44 0.0% 0
45-54 0.0% 0
55-64 0.0% 0
Over 65 0.0% 0
answered question 4
skipped question 0
Position
Response Response
Architect 25.0% 1
Director 0.0% 0
Technician 0.0% 0
answered question 4
skipped question 0
Response Response
Familiar 100.0% 4
Unfamiliar 0.0% 0
answered question 4
skipped question 0

Do you think your company is on target to achieve statement a? “Zero

Response Response
Yes 0.0% 0
Maybe 25.0% 1
No 75.0% 3
Don’t Know 0.0% 0
answered question 4
skipped question 0
Which of the following do you typically undertake as part of your design

brief?
Response Response
100.0% 4
and services
75.0% 3
and services
100.0% 4
answered question 4
skipped question 0
Response Response
Yes 50.0% 2
No 50.0% 2
answered question 4
skipped question 0

Response Response
Pass 0.0% 0
Good 0.0% 0
Very Good 50.0% 1
Excellent 50.0% 1
Outstanding 0.0% 0
Don't know 0.0% 0
answered question 2
skipped question 2

a project?
Response Response
Yes 75.0% 3
No 25.0% 1
answered question 4
skipped question 0
Response Response
1 0.0% 0
2 0.0% 0
3 0.0% 0
4 33.3% 1
5 0.0% 0
6 0.0% 0
Don't know 66.7% 2
answered question 3
skipped question 1
Please list the following 10 design considerations in the order in which you would
address them, from 1 through to 10 (1 first - 10 last).
Scale
Response
Improve energy
efficiency through
2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
services
Low or zero carbon
0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 4
technologies
Water use
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 4
Reduce
0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 4
and services
Waste reduction in
building use
Optimization of
through site 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4
analysis/building
orientation
Future proofing and
1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 4
lifecycle analysis
Stake Holder
1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 4

design and use)

Site ecology
enhancement
Question
Totals
answered question 4
skipped question 0
Within your company what are the potential barriers to achieving zero
carbon buildings?
Response Response
answered question 4
skipped question 0
What are the potential drivers within your company to achieving low and
Response Response
answered question 4
skipped question 0

Workshops 2 2 0 0 4
Courses 2 2 0 0 4
Seminars 1 2 1 0 4
presentations
Peer review/Post-
1 2 1 0 4
answered question 4
skipped question 0
If there are any issues that have not been considered within
this survey please comment.
Response
0
answered question 0
skipped question 4

APPENDIX 4: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS

A01-APC-M-S01-15122008-A14&15-KS-KS
Interviewee ID: A01
Interviewee Subgroup ID: APC
Interviewee Subgroup Level ID: M
Location: S01
Date of Interview: 15/12/2008
Data Storage ID: A14&15
Data Collector Kate Stewart
Transcriber Kate Stewart
Short Description: Interviewee is a Building Projects Procurement and

Management Officer for a large university estate.
Q OK. So can you describe how your company or organisation is working

towards the governments low and zero carbon building targets?
R From a company perspective I don’t think I’m fully qualified to answer

this question. There are many initiatives that go on within the university.
Only a few of which I’m involved in and I have a scant amount of
knowledge about. But the ones that I’ve been personally involved in,
firstly outside of the Capital Projects procedures, we’re involved in the
HECM initiative. Which is Higher Energy - Higher Education Carbon
Management. Now that initiative seeks to minimise our carbon
emissions through a series of best practice initiatives, and it’s done
throughout all of the higher education departments who wish to
participate in it. It’s run through our Environmental Management Unit
and the person who would know more on this Martin Wiles, who runs
the Environmental Management Unit. So that’s one of the ways in which
we’re working towards, as an organisation, zero carbon. As a
department we perhaps focus on our carbon emissions only through the
BREEAM process. And the BREEAM process targets that we’ve set
ourselves as a department, but also as a company, is BREEAM
Excellent for anything that is classed as new build or anything that is
deemed to be of significant new build component enough to ask for that

level of initiative. And then for any refurbished project, recognising the
difficulties we have with refurbishments and achieving BREEAM
Excellent, we’ve gone for BREEAM Very Good rating. Now BREEAM is
in our eyes a bit of a moving target at the moment, and we’ve gone
through a couple of iterations over a couple of projects, however, so far
we have achieved all of the key criteria. As in Excellent for refurb’ – for
new building, and Very Good for refurbishment. Up to date, and indeed
every project that’s going through anything further than detailed design,
is currently targeted to achieve its requirements. As an office within a
delivery authority, within an organisation, we are involved in some more
initiative to do with good office practice. And managing more of our
energy management and good working practices. The one that we’re
spending a bit of time on as an office and one that I’m personally
responsibly for the office is the Green Impact awards. Which is a - again
- it’s something that’s been done across all higher education, but it’s
been focused more on the student activity. And it was a student started
initiative, but we’ve as an organisation decided to take this initiative and
use it for our academic departments and our supporting departments.
So as an office within an organisation we are seeking to minimise our
carbon emissions through advised best practice. That doesn’t really
give a great deal of advance towards the government’s targets, but it’s
contributing to the organisations goals, which hopefully you’ll receive
from - a little more detail from one of my colleagues.
Q So you’ve already mentioned some of the ways of support staff to

achieve targets, for example the low and zero carbon BREEAM etc.
what other support systems do you think you have in place for your staff
to help them towards these goals?
R Support systems - I’m just trying to analyse the question a little bit more.
Could you clarify a little bit further?
Q So, for example, do you have a training initiative for all staff or is this
something that’s evolving at present?
R Yes, I would consider it to be in the early stages of its development. For

example, on the Green Impact Awards there is a credit that’s available
for having every new member that joins the organisation inducted on
sustainable best practice. So, we don’t do it at the moment but it’s
something that’s being fed through the organisation through the
application of the Green Impact initiative. However there are - there are
lots of good practice that the organisation, more than the department -
more than my department perhaps, but the organisation carries out that
supports staff making the most of their ability to work towards the
governments targets. And a lot of these centre around corporate social

responsibility, best practice really. So, for example, supporting

sustainable methods of transportation. We have a very strong car
sharing scheme. We have quite a high level of cycling facilities, and
indeed public transport supporting facilities. We have our own mini bus
that takes you from the University to the train station, for example. I
would say that we’ve still got some way to go in supporting staff to make
the right ethical decisions. We don’t, for example, go to the level of
offering working at home options to save carbon emissions. We don’t
offer Think Client technologies throughout the work place yet. It’s still
under test and under review.
Q Can I just clarify what Think Client was [interviewer laughs]?
R Yes, sorry. It’s basically low carbon computing.
Q Right OK.
R So it’s - you have a, if you like, a link to a main frame type system and
all you have on your desk top is a dummy box, if you will. A router that
gives a lot lower usage at the point, at the desk. So if you were to apply
that across every desk in the university, you would make substantial
monitor and desk top savings. So that’s an initiative which is yet to be
fully adapted - fully adopted, sorry. We have - we don’t tend to have a
great deal of working towards personal comfort in normal desk
situations. Now, what I mean by that is we don’t have air conditioning as
a policy on office based areas. So that’s a big positive. We also tend to
have quite restrictive functionality of heating systems. So if the heating
is on across the whole department it then there’s very little deviation
between - from one room to another room. Having said that we do have
thermostatic valves on almost - almost all of our radiators, which can be
adapted if in periods of extreme discomfort. So, does that answer the
question?
Q Yes, no, that’s great thank you. And within your organisation what do
you think are the barriers, or what do you think are going to be the
barriers to getting the low and zero carbon architecture?
R So this is a question predominantly about architecture?
Q For this one, yes.
R Ok. I think there is still a preconception across a lot of the stakeholder

groups, within the University, that the risk of zero carbon architecture is
that it has the potential to be too expensive. I suspect. And this is more -
this is colloquial information I suppose, this isn’t anything I can give you
any facts on. But as someone who is quite a strong advocate of low

carbon design, because of what I do, and because of my position within

the organisation, when I am advocating it I do come up against
resistance. Its resistance, I suspect, that’s based around lack of
knowledge rather than - and perhaps slight mistrust, rather than any
hard fact. So that is a battle that will need to be over come before the
war is won, I think. Now having said that we have a very strong, pro
good, pro carbon - zero carbon architecture within the University. And
they range from the Environmental Management unit, which is going to
be looking at that obviously. The Capital Projects department are as a
whole pro low carbon design, and that’s supported by the Capital
Projects director. And I think from an Estates, and a higher level than
Estates even, there is a strong pro ground swell towards low carbon
design. So I think the right people are supporting the process, however,
there are still are other stake holders out there that may not be fully pro
yet and remain to be convinced. And having said that, we need to check
ourselves at every step of the - at every step of the process to make
sure that what we’re doing is still good design, for good designs sake.
Rather than tokenism. Because of the client that we are, tokenism
would be quite dangerous to allow to happen. And we are constantly
double checking ourselves to make sure that we aren’t making
decisions just because of vogue.
Q Right OK. From your experience do you think architects have the
sufficient level of knowledge to produce low and zero carbon buildings?
R I think architects, the way that we procure our construction, have other
priorities forced upon them that make them focus on different - on things
other than low carbon design. And, well let me qualify that a little bit
further. We have done some very good low carbon design on various
projects. However, there’s normally a point, and I would guess it comes
in around about the early, maybe pre-novation, and certainly post-
novation times, when the pressures upon the design process are such
that it’s perhaps easy to forget about this one aspect of the design. And
when seeking solutions to design problems zero and low carbon has in
the past been compromised, I think. But I would struggle to find discrete
examples of that. This is just my own thinking - thinking of the process.
We put our design teams under quite a bit of pressure to come up with
solutions that are all things to all people and we are continually
balancing value against sustainability, against maintainability, against a
number of other facets. Normally lowest cost is not a - one of those
facets that we’re trying to balance, however, we do have to remain
commercially aware. So although it’s perhaps not our first concern in
good design it is a concern that has to be born in mind anyway. So, to
go back and answer your question, I think that in a concept stage yes

the architects that work for us have the ability to do good low and zero
carbon design. However, once we get beyond concept I think that low
and zero carbon design gets forgotten due to project pressures.
Q What do you think they would need to do to ensure that, if that was still
an import factor, that this is carried through?
R It’s difficult to see how the architectural design can make that difference
at that stage within the procurement process. I think that the only way
you are going to be able to do it is to constantly challenge the views of
the client, and if your thinking low and zero carbon that comes through
in your design process. Then when reading the output of your design
we will be at least reading low and zero carbon. And that sometimes
doesn’t get perhaps the precedent it should get. You normally don’t get
sustainability statements in the very early parts of any design report.
And you certainly don’t tend to get it as part of a - in any great detail as
part of an exec’ summary. It’s normally one of the later sections in the
document, and perhaps that’s something that could be changed. And
perhaps that’s something that should be changed. But I’d like to reserve
my views on that, to have a think about it maybe.
Q OK. Have you observed any differences in knowledge between the

large architectural practices and the small ones?
R Not – hold on, let me just think this through. I think some of the smaller
firms that we use are if anything more architecturally - more carbon
aware than the larger ones. But the reason for that is, I suspect,
because the architects that are carrying out the functions for us in the
smaller practices are more multi-disciplinarian. In that in a larger firm
the architect will probably defer to specialists for sustainable and carbon
management issues. In the smaller firms I suspect that some of the
knowledge needs to be born by the project architect themselves. And it
- again to go back to the previous answer, I think all of our firms,
everyone that works for us, during the concept stage, whether it be by
the project architect themselves or whether it be a seconded specialist
within the firm, have strong ideas about how to design well sustainably.
But then gain all of the architects, whether it be large or small, come
under the pressures that I previously mentioned and are found - and
find themselves in a position where perhaps they need to compromise.
So - yes, the difficulties that the larger firms have is that they have to
call on the specialism. Or they have a process that calls upon a
specialism, rather than being all part of the project architects lead.
Q Within the construction industry, the building industry obviously that

you’re part of - what do you think are the main barriers within the

industry as a whole?
R Currently - well, it’s changing on a daily, maybe even a weekly basis.

It’s difficult to know what one is going to have to do in the construction
industry at the moment to remain competitive and therefore successful.
If I were in a contracting environment at the moment I suspect I would
be focusing less on low carbon and sustainability based decisions, and
more on survival and commercial decisions. I suspect. I don’t know that
for definite because obviously I am not in that environment at the
moment. I did a presentation last week where I was indicating - trying to
talk about procurement and sustainability. And from the point where I
put my thoughts down about the presentation to the point where I
actually gave the presentation, which was about two months, my
thoughts were completely out of date. So I had to start gain and
basically do the presentation on the hoof.
Q Perhaps that’s - do you think that’s perhaps one of the barriers - the
speed in which everything’s changing?
R [Over talking] very much so, yes. A decision that seems robust one
week maybe haphazard the next. And I certainly don’t know where
we’re heading with this. Information that I have received at various
seminars recently suggest that as a client you still - it pays a client still
to look for sustainable zero carbon, low carbon design. And there is no
premium that is at risk to try and do that in today’s day and age. Which I
think I agree with. And I think - I’m still struggling to see situations where
we wouldn’t want to make good green decisions. However, what
happens next month and in six months time, I wouldn’t like to guess.
Q What do you think are the advantages for your company to go to the low
and zero carbon? I think you’ve just briefly touched on one possibility
with saying that it’s for the client to still go for the low and zero carbon.
Are there any other benefits for trying to achieve them?
R Well, as we are a fairly large estate owner, and as we are going to be

paying fewer bills and presumably carbon taxes at some point in the
future. And we are not doing a project which we handover and then
walk away from. It is a legacy for the organisation. The benefits to us
are in whole terms really and low carbon design normally supports low
cost in use design which is still a significant objective of the
organisation. So this is why - I think that in the last question I suggested
that in a different circumstance I might be thinking differently. In our
current - in my role, in my current organisation, I think that the decisions
are still as they would have been six months ago. Which is low cost in
use design, and low whole life costing. And zero carbon and low carbon

design supports that objective.
Q Just let me know if you don’t think this is appropriate to answer, but
what do you think within large architectural organisations are the
barriers to get the low and zero carbon architecture targets?
R I’m not sure that I am best placed to answer this, but from my own - this
is my own personal view from my own personal perspective. When
someone procures a project with a large named firm I suspect they are
looking for named innovation, rather than what could be seen as low
carbon frugalism perhaps. Having said that I don’t think we fall into that
category as an organisation. I don’t think we’re employing the services
of a large named firm that would be in a position to have those
compromises. Although I did read that - I think this was a couple of
months back now, so before we got to our worsened status - and it was
just a check list of what a client wants these days. And it wants
BREEAM Outstanding, it wants a Zaha Hadid design, and it wants
everything for still the lowest cost. And I’m not sure that - of that triangle
of qualities, I’m not sure where the compromises are when one
employees currently a large organisation - a large architectural practice.
Q What do you personally think about the governments low and zero
carbon targets?
R I personally think we’ll overshoot them by a significant margin, as in not

achieve them by a significant margin. I think if the world over the last
year had continued on a steady growth plan, rather than following it’s
actually trajectory that it followed, I think we would be heading in a
positive direction. And possibly following the trend, although I still think
that we would fail to achieve the targets. However, I think now the
targets have possibly been forgotten about by large sectors of the
country and certainly of the industry. In much the same way as new
houses targets have been forgotten by the country. We’re never going
to achieve what was set out - what we we’re setting out to achieve
twelve months ago.
Q And if is there was anything you think that you would personally change
about the governments low and zero carbon targets? And this can be
anything from even what the targets are to how we go about achieving
them?
R What would I change? I think, this may already be happening

somewhere, but I think there needs to be a warts and all review of
where we are currently within industry and within the domestic affairs of
the country. And I think that that review should be applied to the targets

to, to possibly see whether or not we’re - to if there’s any chance at all
of us following even a similar trajectory to the targets. And I suspect this
maybe happening, it may already happened recently, I’m not sure, I
haven’t read anything. But I’m not sure there’s any real easy answers
on this one at the moment, so I reserve a little bit of judgement.
Q I think you’ve possibly already covered this, but it’s just whether you
thought there were any alternative ways of going about producing the
buildings, other than the way we do now? Again when I was thinking
this one I was focusing on things like BREEAM and Code and whether
you thought there were perhaps any alternative strategies?
R I think perhaps what the industry will be forcing itself into is a period
where they question whether a new building is needed, in most
business cases. And if one can make improvements to an existing
fabric that give the benefits of low energy in use that - but that also give
significant savings in terms of construction costs, so almost the - we
might be heading into a phase where refurbishment is - you have to
argue against it rather than arguing for it. I suspect there will be less
new build opportunities or knock down and new build opportunities out
there, and I suspect that far more conservative plans will be the
preferred option for many, for many new building scenarios set. And to
some extent that probably should have been happening anyway. As a
large estate owner it’s sometimes difficult to see that - sorry I’m
speaking for the, for someone I don’t actually have the authority to say
on, but I can assume that it’s easy to see a new building as the solution
to all of one’s problems, when we may not now have that luxury. I’m not
sure that any further [unclear] Of BREEAM or of Codes for Sustainable
Buildings, or of anything that the government might like to start
supporting, I’m not sure if any of those initiatives are going to add
anything to the cause at - in this day and age, because there are bigger
issues in the minds of the commissioners if you will.
Q Great thanks very much I’ll switch this off now. END OF INTERVIEW.

A02-APC-M-S02-06012009-A20&21-KS-KS
Interviewee ID: A02
Interviewee Subgroup ID: APC
Location: S02
Short Description: Interviewee is the Energy and Environmental Manager for a

large university estate.
Q Can you describe how your company is working towards the

governments low and zero carbon building targets?
R Right well, obviously there’s the targets in that they’re not – they’re
enshrining them really in bits of legislation like Part L. What we’re doing
is - with most of the projects we’re doing BREEAM. And we’re using that
as the framework to do all the energy saving type of things. So we’re
setting targets with new builds of Excellent, and within that there’s a
certain number of points that they need to achieve in terms of carbon
reduction. For refurbishments we’ve gone for Very Good so there are
set ones in there but obviously we - there is a push for them to – attain
a certain level of carbon reductions. We are at the moment reviewing
our environmental policy and within that there’s an element of
sustainable construction. So we’re looking at doing some targets for
that. So we had thought about adopting the government’s approaches
but that’s something we need to discuss with the University and see
how we can get it to work really. So we have looked at, looking at,
overall taking on board the government’s 80% reduction and so in terms
of our building stock that would need to contribute into that. But I
suppose the first project we’ve done, which is the animal welfare
building, that’s got against our current standards that we’ve got within
the University that’s made [unclear] I think we’ve got 40% reduction.
50% reduction relating to targets the government is setting so – Part L.

So that wasn’t really pushing it hard so I think there’s more to be done.

It’s finding a level for us because we’ve got things like highly serviced
buildings that we’re putting out. Very bespoke buildings. A new vets
surgery that we’re looking at the Langford site. So that’s got theatres for
the animals and it’s got – what do you call it? The after – recovery unit
and all sorts of things like that. So it’s quite a detailed and complex
system that isn’t an office block, which is how most of these targets
seem to come at it - always very easy. It’s the same like – we’ve got
biosciences which is highly serviced labs. So there’s not really
standards that are for those. But I know there’s BREEAM new targets
coming in, and their developing a HE centre one at the moment which
has got one specifically around labs. So it will hopefully help us a bit
more. But that’s our thrust. We obviously look at the building new builds.
Obviously our main concern is the other 98% of our stock which is
existing. So we spend a lot of time on that but our targets are really -
we’ve used BREEAM as a focus and that’s been integrated quite
successfully. We’ve had the first run of projects and we’ve learnt a lot
from those. And we’re now going into the second set and we’ve refined
what we’re doing on each of those. We’re doing a lot more work with
our BREEAM consultants. So that’s working a bit more, people are
getting used to what were asking for now in terms of the design team.
So yes, that’s the general trust. Does that answer the question?
Q Yes, that’s great. And can you describe the support systems that you’re
putting in place to help your staff work towards the targets?
R In terms of?
Q How your, whether you, have any systems or training that’s available for
your staff ..?
R [Over talking] I suppose the biggest thing was when we started off doing
the BREEAM stuff. It was sitting in meetings discussing it through by
seeing what was possible and what wasn’t possible. So I suppose
there’s been a lot of learning by doing. We’ve done, I’ve done a lot of
briefings, especially to the Capita Projects Team. We’ve done a lot of
briefings with them and we’ve had to reiterate things on a number of
occasions with them. So I think people having gone through it once –
we’ve done more with it as times gone on. We have done one or two
other very specific things relating to the construction side but not so
much on the energy targets things. More around things like site waste
management plans which have become more important. So we’ve done
briefings to the Capita Projects and to our contractors as well. So
there’s been a lot done around those sorts of things so - but obviously I
sit in the team. We employ a BREEAM consultant to – well initially it

was just to do the BREEAM. Tick the boxes and sit in the meetings and
tell people what they need to do. But we’ve enlarged on that now and
they’re - they do an advocacy role for us but they also do a support role.
So if the team says I’ve no idea what this means in terms of BREEAM
then they can have a chat with the consultants and see what they –
because they’ve got a whole range of projects that they do so they can
bring other experiences to bear with that. Obviously there’s my team as
well. I’m getting more of them involved. So John Brenton, in my team,
he’s got a lot of experience around renewables. So he’s able to plug a
lot of that into the team and say well why don’t you do this, or why don’t
you do that, think about these sorts of things. To a certain degree we’re
paying the consultants to develop buildings so we’re not going to design
them for them. So we set the targets and challenges really so for them
to be ingenious and come up with those things. But really hopefully in
that debate we have regular BREEAM workshops where we – obviously
at each of the stages, but we also have other ones. So like we’ve had
ones recently on energy and on renewables. We’ve done ones on
waste and materials used so we get – we’ve have that structure there
and we pay the BREEAM consultants to run those for us. So I suppose
that’s support as well in terms of saying this is how we do the process
and this is what we’re looking for.
Q And what would be the benefits to your organisation for achieving these
low and zero carbon targets?
R When I came to the University a number of years ago our utility bill was
about three and a half million. It’s now nudging seven and a half, eight
million and I think overall in terms of the estates budget, and the estates
budget is one of the biggest budgets in the University barr salaries
[interviewee comments on vocal interruption by colleague], rather than –
the estates budget is one of the biggest ones and it’s about twenty
seven million. Something like that. So energy is now becoming a really
big issue for us and – especially now with the recession, anything that
can reduce costs is straight off the bottom line. So it’s a key thing for us.
I think it’s also a broader thing about sustainability, and there’s
sustainability agenda within sector, and there’s sustainability generally
going on. Even though recession is hitting it’s still a key issue there and
there’s a lot of discussion about it. In terms of reputational approach the
University takes it on board. But the University has taken on three new
risks. It has a business risks, it reviews those and puts in place
structures to try and address those risks. And those risks are made -
like any risk management are down to how much they are going to cost
and what’s the likely hood of it happening. So there’s one on carbon,
i.e. energy, and so that’s a key risk which is high, likely of happening.

We’ve got legislation coming in which is going to affect us like this. And
it’s a higher cost so it’s a key risk and the university has said right we
need that risk in there. They also got one on legislative compliance and
one on reputational risk around environment. So the University’s now
saying we’ve got to do something about these things. It may not be the
number one priority but I don’t think the environment is a number one
priority for any organisation really. But I think it’s becoming now part of
the business plan and an element like anything is within that business
plan. That’s the direction I think it is.
Q From your experience do you think architects have a sufficient level of

knowledge required to achieve the low and zero building targets?
R It’s a difficult one. I think some do, some don’t. Some merrily design
buildings and then turn to their engineers and say now service that. And
I, we’ve, got a building designed which was essentially that. We had -
they’ve tried to service it in a low energy way but it’s not a low energy
building. They’ve done the best that they can. I think it’s new for a lot of
them to be honest. I don’t think - well it’s new and it isn’t. I think all the
processes and all the systems are quite standard practice, to be honest
with you, they’re just not being asked for them generally. So as a client
we’re asking for that and they’re a bit stunned by it really. I think they’ve
also seen it, as initially they saw it like me, asking them to do this and
it’s not really what the University really is asking us to do [interviewer
laughs]. The University’s really saying to the design teams build it on
time and build it within budget. And that’s all their worried about and
they’re not really, didn’t really, take it on board that it’s a key deliverable
now. I think they are starting to get that message through and starting to
realise that. So I think they’re working with it. I think a lot of them are,
some of them are rising to it, others are not. I think within architectural
practices I seem to see this. We have, we use, a lot of top practices
both in terms of architectural and engineering side of things, which have
specialities in this, have won awards for sustainability. What you tend to
find is there’s a core group of people that might be working on these.
And what we often get is jobbing engineers, jobbing architects. Who half
the time don’t know what’s going on in their own organisation in terms of
sustainability and what they’re building. So I think that’s another issue
as well. So it’s, like most things, it’s down to the personalities that are
being involved and you can get some really good architects who know
the stuff and others that don’t. I think there’s still a certain scepticism out
there about low carbon buildings and I think people tend to think it’s not
architecture. Stop tying our hands, we want to design a fancy pants
buildings really that’ll have iconic status and use interesting materials,
and things like that. Not really - they don’t see it as a - they see it as a

bit of almost legislation that oh my god we’ve got to do this.
Q Another one [interviewer laughs].
R Yes, that’s another one that we’ve got to meet in terms of fire reg's or
something like this. But it’s not impossible and I think the guys in on the
project we’ve first done on this - they’ve – they weren’t doing anything,
people said to us this doesn’t look like a sustainable building. We said
well it doesn’t need to have bling all over it to make it look like a green
building. It just needs to be properly insulated and all those sorts of
things. Which sometimes the architects tick the box of Part L, we’ve got
to that standard we don’t need to do anymore. So I don’t know. There
are some very good practices out there, it is becoming more common
place. People are asking for it now. We’re asking for standards, I know
in the sector they’re asking for similar BREEAM type standards. So it’s
not difficult to achieve, it’s not difficult to do. I think there’s still a certain
dragging of feet with some architects, but it’s the nature of, I suppose,
the nature of creativity isn’t it. That architects are essentially creative
people so you can say to them design this building and we need it to do
this function but oh by the way can you do this, this and this as well. It
starts to tie them down a bit too much. So I can see that tension there.
But it does amaze me that as a client you can say to them we want to
do this and they almost ignore it [interviewer laughs]. And we’ve had an
architect that has essentially done that, has completely ignored it
[interviewee laughs]. And you just think, well!
Q What do you think the architects need to be doing then, from your
prospective, to get to these low and zero carbon targets?
R I don’t think they – one thing, and I think this universal, is some of them
will say they do that. You look at the really big people here. The Richard
Rogers? He works with an engineering company and he’s worked with
them a lot and they work together on the design. And I don’t feel at
times that architects do that enough and it’s common, it’s been said for
years, and I think a lot have got better. But there is still a design - here
we have a drawing and a design can you service it. Which is not the
best way of doing it and they - I sometimes feel the architects feel that
they can’t learn from the engineers. There is still that strong need to
learn, to work in synergy. So if they did that more they could say well,
build it like this it is going to be heavily serviced, if you built it like this
you could make it naturally ventilated. I think - from my point of view -
it’s more of a challenge, and it should be more exciting for an architect
to do it like that. I don’t think it needs to be such a constraining thing. I
think it’s more of a challenge, more interesting. I do sometimes feel as
though people turn up and say well, you want a science building, well

this is one we did earlier, here are some plans. I get that feeling at times
and you think oh hang on do it for us not cutting the corners. But that’s
also behind that business about you maximise your profit - anyway
that’s a side issue [interviewer laughs]. Yes, but I would think they’d be
working more with their engineers and also just up skilling themselves
within it. And I don’t think a lot of its rocket science. I think sometimes
they think we’re going to come in and say you need something – fuel
cell technology to run your buildings or something. Well no, it’s just
proper insulation, natural vent, use low energy systems where you need
them, and you get a hell of a long way with that. And if they just did that
it would be good but, also, it’s a bit hard for me, it seems easy for me to
say but lateral thinking. Sometimes I feel as though they say you asked
for a building that was purple so we’ve given you that. Not saying that
that might not get through planning or that might not be that best thing
to do or those materials won’t last or something. Sometimes I feel that
they don’t come back and say that’s not the way to do it at times. They
just sort of say you told us to do that. You’re the client and you told us to
do it so we’ve done this. It’s probably contradictory of me in some
respects from saying they’re not listening to us but then they do exactly
what we say but we’re buying peoples professional knowledge and
experiences so we expect them to give us that rather than just being ..!
Q Have you noticed any difference in the knowledge between them and
the large architectural practices?
R No. There’s some architectural practices that I know, I’ve heard of, that
we haven’t used, that are supposed to do wonderful things. So I don’t
feel as though I’ve got head architects sitting in front of me that laugh at
what I’m saying because it’s not green enough. I don’t feel as though
I’ve had anybody that’s like that. I feel as though there’s a lot of green
wash that comes out from some of them. So yes, I think it is down to
particular personalities within them. We’ve had the same architectural
practices where architects have been really - I find this really interesting
I want to do more of this - and others are saying – they barely want to
be in the room with me [interviewer laughs] so ..!
Q Within your organisation what are the potential barriers to achieving the
low and zero carbon?
R I’d say actually getting the design teams to think in a low carbon way,
designing low carbon. And they will put up loads of barriers to say you
can’t achieve that. And it’s almost a knee jerk reaction from them to say
you can’t achieve it before they’ve actually sat down and looked to see
what they can or can’t achieve. And I think it’s because it feels as
though it’s making them think slightly – challenging them to do

something slightly different. And I think that’s the strongest barrier.

There are some barriers about people saying it costs more and it
doesn’t need to if it’s properly designed it shouldn’t cost any more. In
fact it could save in capital and it obviously saves you revenues so I
think that’s from my point – that’s the strongest thing. There are a few
other barriers you find along the way that might be something to conflict
with other people’s needs. So that that’s just about a dialogue. So it
might be - I might want to specify a flooring type which isn’t particularly
good for cleaning so there’s a discussion there. And it’s the same if
there might be some technologies that get specified that are new to the
university so there’s a maintenance issue or that might even be some
things that are causing a maintenance problem that just need to be
reviewed. But that’s just about dialogue. There not insurmountable
problems. And yes so I think the biggest, probably the first barrier was
to persuade the University to go down this route. And that involved –
essentially we got the BREEAM stuff in by doing a BREEAM on one of
our buildings and doing a load of energy survey work on a new building.
And coming back and saying we’ve achieved below average on this
new build in terms of BREEAM and we’ve found a hundred and fifty
thousand pounds worth of savings that we could have annually if we
had just included a few minor things in the design beforehand. And I
think saying that to the Head of Estates that your building below
average buildings and you’re wasting money for the sake of spending a
little bit more money upfront and there’s a proper payback behind it, I
had to convince a few people that, I had to show them the evidence
really. They wanted to see that so that was easy to do – relatively easy
to do. So once we’d got that buy it was then just persuading everybody
else that you need to along the way. So it was persuading the Capital
Projects, persuading the other Estates, engineers involved, designers
etc. It’s been a long process but it’s not too bad.
Q What do you think are the biggest barriers within the industry as a
whole, the construction industry, to achieving the target?
R It’s a combination. Its clients asking for it, people believing that it doesn’t
cost more, getting the right skills knowledge to the right knowledge and
skills to say this is how you can achieve those targets. I think we had an
interesting - on one of the projects we had an interesting approach
where the engineers started off by saying well we’ve got to achieve –
we’ve got to do loads of renewables on the building. These are all the
sort of things where you can see the costs racking up straight away, but
they haven’t actually really sat down and said well we can design this to
be low energy. Quite obvious things but it’s where they get driven by
certain - that was driven because the local authority were saying well

we’re going to want you to produce a certain amount of energy like the
Merton rule – which we find they didn’t realise that if you made it really
low energy you didn’t need to have very much renewables on it. So it’s
those kind of things that come out but I think - yes, just knowledge in the
sector. The client - the informed client asking for these things. And
informed because there is always an engineer – I’ve had this before. I
had one of the structural engineers on a project saying you can’t
achieve BREEAM Excellent on a refurbishment and it’s not that it’s
harder than on a new build but it’s not impossible. And when you get
somebody from the design team who’s the expert telling a client who
may not know very much oh you can’t achieve this, well you take their
word for it. So informed clients is probably a strong element there and
then getting – filtering - out the architects and engineers that are not
able to do it for you really. Not just going for the one that can give you
the cheapest price, those sorts of things. Also another big element of
this is working with the contractors further down the line because you
can loads of things, and we do design and build which novates quite a
lot, quite a chuck of the design over to the contractor. So you need to
get them tightly held with your contract and if possible engage with them
as early as you can. Two stage tenders are quite good things to get
them on board so they understand what you’re trying to achieve and not
just trying to tick boxes for you. But a lot of the contractors that are out
there, whatever they are the Cowlins or whatever, they know about this
stuff, they do it. Yes ...
Q How are you finding that part of the process? I’ve had feedback from
one portion of the industry who’ll say the problem they find is once it
gets passed over to the contractor then they almost lose control but
from your perspective how is that part?
R Well, strong project management. We’ve got some project managers

that this has got nothing to do with me gov' it’s you the contractors, we
got other project managers – we had another project manager that
came back and said they’re first meeting with the contactors they said
we can’t achieve the Excellent rating, and the Project Manager turned
round and said well that’s what you’ve signed up to do. Would you turn
round and say actually we can’t, for the price we’ve quoted you we can’t
build you the four floors that we’ve quoted for. I think there needs to be
strong contractual relationships and I think it needs to build those
relationships. You can build using a carrot and stick rather than it being
all stick and saying this is what you said. But they will try and on that
they turned round and said well OK yes we can do it. So – but that’s the
problem with design and build - is that it’s about we put in a bid and we
push the quality and cost down as much as we can to get away with it to

build our profit. But that’s the struggle.
Q Within – what do you think are the biggest barriers within the large
architectural organisations to achieving the low and zero carbon
targets?
R [Over talking] I don’t know your starting to stretch my knowledge of

these sorts of things [interviewer and interviewee laugh]. These all –
hypothesizing really. I don’t know. I don’t know on the bigger practices, I
don’t know whether it’s simply – I think there’s specialism’s that go on
and they may say well we’ll get our specialist to deal with that. I think
there’s a need for skilling across the board and a lot of these things are
fairly standard practice really. Specifying – it doesn’t take much to
specify beyond building regulations without excess costs. So we’re
talking about materials. So that skilling is really, I think, a strong thing
there. But yes they may all turn round and say it’s about the client. I
don’t know.
Q What do you personally think about the low and zero carbon targets
from the government?
R They are good to drive us in a good direction really. I think it’s useful to
have those things there otherwise we could say that’s where now. For
some of them, especially for some of the engineers they really like to
define exactly where we’re going with this so they can design the
systems to meet those targets. So yes I think it’s good to ratchet it
down. It’s ...
Q Is there anything that you would change or in your personal opinion you
think would be a different or a better way of ..?
R I quite like the – it seems to be with some of the building regulations

they’re starting to be more iterative about things so they learn from
what’s working and what’s not working and hopefully learn on that. Build
differences into the system, so they moved away – got more of a holistic
approach to it rather than your U-values for windows must be X. You
can play those things off. And that’s a different way of thinking. I think a
lot of the architects and engineers said we met building regulations by
having this U-value and they haven’t said what is the whole building
approach. So you could have poor U-values on windows but improve it
elsewhere. So I think that’s a good approach so – but it gives them a
framework. I’m always trying to push them beyond it really.
Q OK. Are there any other big issues you think within this subject area that
I’ve not touched upon that you think are important?

R No. I think probably on the last one sometimes it’s a light touch and it’s
an enforcement element there. But I don’t know whether the building
regulators are - Local Authorities are fully up to it really. There is still a
predominance in planning terms of it’s all about conservation and
building type rather than about sustainability. And I think that needs to
come through more from Local Authorities. It’s starting but it’s not –
some of the progressive local authorities, but it still feels the planning
departments are populated with people who want crinkly bits on
buildings or [interviewer laughs] they’re not really – they’re saying it’s
one or the other. Whereas I think you can actually – you can make
iconic buildings that are green, you can make buildings that are – look,
fit in with your Georgian facade that are green. I don’t think there’s
anything that’s - you don’t have anything that’s impossible there. And I
think that light touch with legislation is needed. We’ve gone through a
whole raft of bits - energy legislation that have been – we’ve spent more
time dealing with verification and things like that than actually doing the
change. Because I think that’s quite key thing around the legislation.
But I think it’s good to have these drivers. It’s useful for me to be able to
say to people that in X number of years we’re looking at commercial
buildings, what is it 2016 or something isn’t it, low zero.
Q [Over talking] 2019.
R Is it 2019. Yes. But it feels a long way off but oh no it’s not [interviewer
laughs] in terms of our where we are now, getting there. So I - the other
thing as well is we felt that in [unclear] wanted to build some low energy
buildings [unclear]. Set targets for us but we know we might not be able
to achieve those. At the moment energy price is going up that might
affect it so ...
Q OK. Brilliant. Thanks. END OF INTERVIEW.

A03-APLNS-M-S01-21012009-B9&10&11-KS-KS
Interviewee ID: A03
Interviewee Subgroup ID: APLNS
Location: S01
Data Storage ID: B9&10&11
Short Description: Interviewee is the Joint Head of Sustainability within an

Architects Practice Large Non Specialist.
Q Can you describe how your organisation is working towards the

R Right. Well, in terms of [our company] obviously we put sustainability

very high on our agenda. And in order to actually drive our organisation
forward into meeting these targets, but also setting our own targets, we
set up our sustainability research group. So we‘ve got one of our
business improvement groups – now this group is structured basically to
push forward practice within the organisation. We are also trying to help
develop skills and knowledge of sustainable design and to make sure
we drive an ethos through from design level right through from the
outset. To make sure our organisation gets clear briefing off clients and
advise clients of the skills that we have that we can put forward. And to
make sure that we get clients on board at a very early stage to ensure
they understand the implications of they’re involvement. And that we
can get the best out of the briefing and therefore into the design
development. We also are trying to actually push above the standards
most organisations are going for as in the base practice. Obviously you
have statutory obligations. We are trying to set a new bench mark and
with our Environmental Research Group we have now set new
standards in terms of getting 70% of our buildings to a zero carbon
status by 2012. And also trying to make sure that we source materials

sustainably, together with ensuring that best practice is pushed through.
Q Could you possibly describe in a bit more depth the support systems
that your company has in place to help the staff towards these targets?
R Right. In terms of – as I’ve said we’ve set up the business improvement

groups, which is really the fundamental driver. Now the sustainability
Business Improvement Group is structured, the same as the other
business improvement groups, to drive knowledge, help best practice,
disseminate that information, improve staff core skills, make sure that
they have the right skills, and understand the key drivers and how we
intend to address them. The best ways to address them. This is
obviously an iterative process in terms of the staff that we are trying
make sure we have our champions set at place. Within each of our cost
centres we’ll have an Environmental Champion. The will report to the
business head of the Business Improvement Group and then through
that structured set up we can disseminate information down through.
Obviously the other way is continual professional development to make
sure that we have structured seminars in place. Make sure that we can
target the right sort of training for people should it come available. And
also to make sure those champions, together with the training, can
disseminate that information down through the levels of staff within the
organisation.
Q What do you see as the benefits to your company for achieving low and
zero carbon architecture?
R Well, in the first sense we would obviously take the commercial angle.
It’s going to be the first one at the end of the day, we’re a business. If
we produce –help our clients produce better buildings, more sustainable
buildings that have better value there in the workplace. And ensure
those buildings will hold their value then that’s obviously commercially
beneficial for us because we have return clients, because they see a
return for themselves. Because they have a better product at the end of
the day but obviously there’s the usual ethical stance as well. We’ve got
to be seen to do the right thing. It’s obviously [interview is briefly
interrupted] – Yes, as a point from ethics it’s – it’s a house objective
because it can be taken a different way, but we all have a responsibility.
We’ve got a responsibility for ourselves and future generations to make
sure that we don’t actually leave our environment in a worse state than
it is at the moment. We should all be striving to improve and therefore
we have a responsibility. Therefore as designers – now as designers at
the forefront of design that rests heavily on our shoulders. The
decisions we make as architects and designers then gets driven heavily
through the rest of the project. And, some poor decisions made early

that has a knock on effect all the way through. So clearly we’ve got to
ensure that we do our best to make sure the products that we provide
and the services we provide are benign as possible. And, that they
produce the best product as possible, which is being as sensitive to the
needs of our client, and also the people using the buildings, and also
the wider community.
Q From your experience do you think architects have the sufficient level of
knowledge required to achieve low and zero carbon buildings?
R No. It’s quite straight forward. Unfortunately when architects go through

college there’s a lot of emphasis on design - and on the conceptual
architectural design, but very, very little is put onto the science and
understanding how the buildings actually function is one of our critical
areas. We love what things look like but we don’t always understand the
implications of that and how the buildings function. Architectural science
is something that should be heavily embodied within architectural
design courses, as it is with engineering. The fact is the other side of it
is you have architectural engineering courses which tend to throw bias
the other way. There is always a – we were always trying to design
wonderful looking buildings to get admiration from our peers and also to
- for awards. But sometimes – and generally at the expense of the
environment. What we need to ensure is that, within the colleges and
what we’re doing in terms of our organisation and training, is that we get
people to understand that you can get great design which embodies all
good sustainability factors and good design concepts. And in fact the
best designs are probably the ones that relate heavily to those because
form follows functions. If we can understand the function of a building
we can design it. Get the form of the building to actually react with that,
integrates between the internal and external environment. And if we can
get good sustainable design embedded at the start the rest will naturally
follow.
Q Have you observed any differences in knowledge between the small

and large architectural organisations?
R You can have large organisations which are very focused on this. You
can also have large organisation that are totally oblivious. You do tend
to find the small practices, with the one to five persons, tend to be –
there’s a lot of them that are a lot more focused on sustainability,
because they tend to be very passionate. It’s a driver to them going on
their own. It’s something that they probably don’t find that they get in a
bigger practice. All be it a lot of the designs tend to be one offs or
smaller buildings. And whilst it’s very impressive to see what some of
these one man bands and smaller organisations actually produce in the

scale of things it’s the larger organisations that are doing the damage.
And for every one little building it’s creating, if they do ten buildings it’s
even better. But then you only have to have one fifty or a hundred
million pound project which has been badly conceived, it knocks that
out. So the biggest problem there is whilst there seems to be a lot of
emphasis that smaller practices - there’s a lot of people with a great
focus on environmental sustainability, it’s the bigger practices which
really need to focus on what is important because they’re the ones that
carry the bigger legacy generally.
Q In your opinion what do you think architectural practices need to do to

ensure they produce the low and zero carbon buildings?
R Sorry can you say that one again?
Q Sorry. In your opinion what do you think architectural practices need to

do to ensure they produce low and zero carbon buildings?
R I think there’s definitely strength of leadership mindset. You lead from

the top. If you don’t have that driven through and if people – I don’t like
making [unclear] but if you don’t make clear what your organisation is
trying to achieve or what it stands for then basically you are on a
slippery slope straight away. So basically it’s going to be down first and
foremost is leadership driven from the top. To make sure that that is
carried through and that it’s not compromised at the expense of a
business case. There is a balance. At the end of the day you’ve got to
stay in business. Business is business. But if practice understands that
the better product you produce, and the better that you can brief clients,
and the service they provide will actually get more return, then it’s a
good strong business case. But you’ve got to lead from the top. If you
don’t have that strength of leadership to allow junior members of staff to
take these concepts forward without being challenged all the time it’s
very, very hard to make that sort of commitment to what will be
successful. So I think one of the biggest things is really the leadership
as driver. Making sure that we do what we say we are going to do. And
also to make sure that people are supported.
Q The staff?
R The staff yes. Make sure that the team are supported.
Q Oh supported. Within your organisation what do you think are the

potential barriers to achieving low and zero carbon buildings?
R Well, again within the organisation itself this comes very similar to the
last question. You have to have strong leadership. A strong direction.

The other is going to be client pressures, people only looking for quick
profit. And sometimes some of the best buildings do take time. It does
need a substantial amount of input in the conceptional design and buy
in. and you’ve got to be very strong with clients as well. And I think also
[unclear] is client pressure. Because a lot of the time we’ll cave in to
clients because being a commercial organisation we don’t want to lose
the project. No one’s been bold enough to stand up to a client and say
we’re not the right people for the job because what you’re asking for is
not really what we’re about. So it’s going to be a brave man who does
that. But on the other hand we’ve got to be careful that if we are strong
with clients, clients lead us a lot of the time. Clients lead us as opposed
to us leading clients. It’s great now and again we do get enlighten
clients now and again, but looking across our portfolio the - more the
sustainable buildings that we’ve actually procured over the last five, ten
years have been basically because our clients have driven us rather
than as opposed to us driving our clients. So more public sector
buildings we’ve had some great flagship buildings such as Abbey Wood
and Andover Fleet Headquarters together with OpTIC centre. But then
again our clients – I know that with the school projects there’s again
some enlightened clients. But then on the other side of it if you see
some of the clients we’ve tried to turn around the stories not the same.
And that’s one of the hardest things we’ve got to do is to get our clients
on board and make sure we don’t just cave into their concerns over
budget and affordability.
Q Do you think that will change with more rigorous legislation?
R Well, that’s the driver all the way along. At the end of the day what
everyone falls back onto is legislation. There’s a minimum statutory
compliance and even some of our better clients have fallen back on this
in more recent years because cost over runs. Very few of our clients
actually start to look at the whole life cost element of projects and half
the problem with that is that it tends to be separate budgets. So they’ll
have a fixed budget and they’ve probably already put through their
business plan and usually find most budgets are under rather than over
and for other reasons they end up compromised from the start. So
straight away they’re looking for savings and the usual thing is the
architectural design. Also it’s very hard to try and get clients to think of
whole life cost savings on a building when they’re only interested in
capital costs initially. They’re separate budgets. Bringing those together
- if they can start to collect these budgets together and changing the
way they’re funded so they can actually – together probably with
incentives, maybe it’s government incentives or other incentives, to be
able to get people to offset some of the costs to recoup latter on maybe

a way forward. Obviously the – back to your original question is

legislation the main way, hopefully even with us taking forward
exemplar buildings and showing what people can achieve and taking
clients forward is another. And then obviously enlightened clients is
even better again. But legislation will always be the way to hit people
over the heads to get them to go forward. Other than that it is – you are
down to enlightened clients unless the whole structure of financing
changes.
Q Within the industry as a whole what do you think are the potential
barriers to achieving the low and zero carbon buildings?
R At the end of the day I don’t think there’s really any barriers. Anything
can be achieved, history proves it. It’s the willingness to do it. It’s also
down to organisations. How they actually perceive buildings. If buildings
– if we develop buildings and – with the emphasis then goes more on
the actual energy rating or sustainably virtues of a building , the same
as cars now through taxation and other legislation like that, I think you
will see a change. And people will always, developers and contractors
will obviously change with the need and also they’ll change with
legislation. I think it’s - there’s a change in mindset. I think it’s gradually,
through peer pressure, there is an upward movement now that people
are actually more concerned with how they’re viewed in terms of
sustainably and what they produce. Certainly you see it within car
manufacturers and they’re probably one of the best examples of people
who’ve actually changed within one or two years. What was seen as
acceptable has suddenly become common place and they were very
quick to change. In the construction industry we seem very slow to
change. And it’s quite a strange dichotomy but I do think that certainly
peer pressure will force about change. Consumer request will change it.
People won’t take a building - they’ll look at the energy rating of a
building. They may not rent it, they may not want to buy it. If they see
it’s three ratings down to another product down the [unclear]. So there’s
going to be a lot of pressure there which will bring about change. So I
think it’s just that willingness and to make sure that – it’s got to be as
well as the stick there’s got to be the carrot. And I think this is the way
they incentives that. And maybe, as I said, the way we finance projects
maybe that could change. Maybe there would be more willingness for
people to invest because they know there’s some sort of long term
return.
Q In large architectural organisations what do you think are the potential

barriers?

R Again very similar to some of the ones earlier on in the mindset of the
organisation. Putting profit against product. But again in this climate to
survive you have to change. I think sometimes in large organisations it’s
just the way they’re structured - seem to think they don’t have to react
the same as smaller organisations. But I think that will change. You’ll
going to get a client base who’s – that’s well informed these days.
Perhaps – we don’t seem to have an educated client people perceived
we had twenty years ago. Just the whole way the internet works now
and the freedom of information being available it’s very easy for
someone in a couple of days to get quite well informed. And I think that
clients are becoming quite acute and aware and they now know what
they want. So I think a lot of clients will force organisations to change
because if it affects them or their business then they’re going to want a
better product.
Q What do the governments low and zero carbon building targets mean to
you? What do you personally think about them?
R It’s like any target. The Welsh Assembly Government have actually set
higher targets than national government and brought them forward. I’m
all for them. The problem is again its one thing setting very high
standards and wanting people to achieve it, the other is putting the right
structure in place to allow them to do so without penalising people
unjustly. The problem is I think is that in our country compared to other
country, we’ve been very slow off the mark. Standards we are trying to
achieve here were achieved in Scandinavian countries ten, fifteen years
ago. So – and it wasn’t hard. The trouble is the change now – I do feel
some of our national objectives are more of a knee jerk and they
haven’t really had the long thought process put behind them. They tend
to be reacting very much on a bandwagon approach as opposed to
really having a long term process driven in. I applaud what they’re trying
to do but I think in terms of actually meeting them the only way you’re
going to get a lot of people to keep up to the pace of governmental
change is legislation. So I think it’s the same as the Welsh Assembly
Government they set real high targets but again there’s very few
buildings at the moment which are actually starting to meet those
targets. So it’s going to be an interesting couple of years.
Q What if anything would you change about the governments low and
zero carbon targets? Or perhaps if you’d change the target itself?
R I don’t think I’d actually change anything. I think it’s just the way of
helping people achieve it I would try and focus on. There seems – that’s
one of the dichotomies we’ve got. We set our own targets. We set
ourselves those where we can. Where we have client buy in we are

going to achieve 70% of our buildings to be zero carbon by 2012. The

first thing is understanding people’s definition of zero carbon, of what
we’re trying to achieve. But the other - sorry, can you just rephrase the
question?
Q It’s just if you, if there are any changes about the governments low and
zero carbon targets that you would change?
R [Overtalking] oh sorry yes. So as I said I think what they’re doing is

right. I think the problem at the moment is there are so many
interpretations of what they’re trying to do. The other issue we’ve seen
is where they’re brought in new targets and they’ve brought in new
assessment procedures. SBEM calculations. They haven’t well road
tested and they’re basically flawed. And then you find it’s very hard to
achieve certain standards or actually to achieve standards is actually
better to air condition a building than to try and passively ventilate it. So
in some ways it actually back fires and the only way some of our
consultants have actually managed to achieve government targets or
adhere to certain standards set by their assessment methods is actually
to condition buildings. Which seems to be a bit perverse as it seems to
go against everything we’re trying to achieve. So I think one of the
things they need to invest heavily in is education and helping people get
a greater understanding of how to achieve the targets. And maybe give
more flexibility. I think they seem to be too ridged. The other thing is in
terms of, as we call the eco bling, is that everyone has got these
preconceived ideas of what sustainability is. Whether it’s wind turbines
or PV cells. Where is the basic criteria of good solid conceptual design,
good orientation, and use of insulation correctly, use of thermal mass
and all the basic things that we should be trying to use in our buildings
aren’t that well explored. We tend to see certain things which we believe
will get the ratings but they don’t necessarily give us the best results.
Every building's different and unfortunately I think people, especially
designers, are mislead in the way they best achieve this. so I think
there’s – there needs to be more education, greater input, more
dialogue in the industry of what works and what doesn’t work. As I said
the car industry is a great way because they are mean and lean and
they can achieve at lot. If you look at it they will not just go with the
trend. They actually research carefully what works and what doesn’t
work. And I think that’s one of our - the big problem with the
government legislation is they set the legislation but they haven’t really
thought how you achieve it
Q How familiar are you with the [our company] mission statement
[interviewer laughs]?

R I don’t know anything about it [interviewer and interviewee laughs]. Yes,

very familiar about it obviously. [Unclear] talking joint ownership of that
[unclear] our sustainability agenda.
Q And what does the Capita mission statement mean to you?
R What it means generally to me is more of a direction, focus. What we

are trying to do is set the way forward for the practice and basically to
help navigate the practice. It’s not something we can guarantee we’ll
achieve but it’s trying to focus people and point people in the right
direction. This is what we should be trying to do. I think with any target
it’s always easy to be optimistic about what we think we can achieve
and it’s very easy to set something, but the hardest thing is to actually
deliver. But if you don’t set yourself a target in the first place you’re
never going to be able to aim for something. So it really is – it’s to give
strategic direction. Now again it maybe a case we have to revisit things
and things do change. But I see it as focus for the practice on the way
we should be moving forward.
Q OK. I think you’ve touched upon this briefly before, but, what do you
think [our company] is currently doing to achieve this statement?
R Again as we said we set up – firstly in terms of [our company] and [our

company] we’ve [unclear] our ISO14001 accreditation. But that’s
basically set basic good practice of environmental standards
throughout. On the back of that we set up our Business Improvement
Groups. Which then – the sustainability is one prominent group within
that. And within that the Environmental Research Group is trying to
push forward best practice. So gain, as reiterated earlier on, we set up
this group - we are trying to educate through dissemination of
information through champions into our studios and to get those
champions to enthuse team members within the practice. And to
understand that sustainability is not just a bolt on it’s actually a holistic
approach, but it also runs through everything else we do in terms of
health and safety and good design practice. And it’s a thread that runs
right the way through. It is a holistic approach. We make – we’ve got to
make sure that our team understands it’s holistic and it’s a cradle to the
grave consideration. If we get people thinking that way we can make
sure we drive it through and get the right education, the right steer. And
making sure there’s people that they can get information from and share
information. Then I think that’s a good start for us as a practice.
Q OK. Do you think [our company]’s mission statement should be different

and if so what would you suggest [interviewer laughs]?

R I do feel, and I’ll probably be chastised for it, that it’s great as a set
statement and there’s always days when people are very bold and we
set ourselves targets and we set ourselves very high targets and we
could have easily shot ourselves in the foot. But on the other side of it,
as I said, if you don’t aim for the stars then you’ll never get to the moon.
So it’s a case of - we may have set targets which at this moment in
time, by some people, may be felt to be unrealistic or unachievable but
by setting them what we do achieve will be better than setting no targets
at all. In terms of the targets I think we are quite tightly aligned with
government thought. And if anything I’d change it’s probably to try and
be - have given more thought to the targets. And maybe drive it from a
different perspective, not just latch it on the back of if the government is
trying to achieve zero carbon buildings by 2012, 2016, depends where
they are. We may have actually taken a slight different direction on what
we’re trying to achieve rather than make bold statements about zero
carbon. May have made a different statement about how we wanted to
improve our design approach or drive that through. I think it’s very easy
just to pick up and have headline statements. I think if I’d change
anything it’s probably the way we approach that and maybe be more
uniquely focused.
Q OK. Do you think that specific training is required within [our company]
to achieve the mission’s statement?
R Absolueltly.
Q And again you’ve touched on that in terms of passing training through

and ...
R Yes.
Q OK?
R Basically we’ve embarked on a career which is one learning curve. It

doesn’t matter what age you are in this profession or where you are in
this profession, the day you enter the door to the day you leave it you’re
learning. And it’s continuous learning. And I think the biggest problem
we have is willingness of the organisation. I do perceive there’s a
degree of selfishness. Information is not disseminated as well at should
be. I think what we need to do is nurture a culture of support as
opposed to self importance. And unfortunately there’s a lot of people
who have knowledge but they don’t - they’re not willing to pass that
knowledge on for various reasons. Knowledge is power, fear, fear of
their position, that people may out grow them. It’s the wrong way of
thinking because the only way you grow is to actually challenge

yourself. By disseminating information you get feedback. From that you

actually - you interact with other people and you get some feed back to
them on some areas you probably never even thought to go. So the
winners always, as I see it, are the ones that actually share and work
together as opposed to the ones that work in autonomy. So as well as
education I think it’s making sure that people are transparent and
support each other. So it’s nurturing that culture. Which is very hard in a
big commercial organisation like we’re in. But never the less I think
that’s the way forward.
Q Can you describe what training you feel is required and your preferred
methods of receiving that training?
R Is this me personally or as a practice?
Q [Overtalking] you personally, sorry.
R Well, certainly part of the alumni from the master’s course – I think
there’s a lot of further courses which were off the back of that which I’d
certainly like to engage with. But the problem is with the practice half
the time it seems to be you have to put forward a business case all the
time. But the specific training I suppose I would like to start again, more
specific training, is methods of – is all the different tools, software
methods of evaluation. We obviously we touched upon Ecotec within
the practice but there’s other modelling techniques out there with TAS
and other - so – and I think I’d like to get more interaction with our
consultants, engineering colleagues. I think they’ve got so much to offer
and bridging the gap between the two of them I think there’s – more
interaction is needed there and more understanding of what they
require and we require and if we engaged in forums with them I think we
could learn a lot. The trouble is we end up in an us and them culture.
And whether it’s from a snobbery point of view that architects are
unwilling to engage with engineers and they always see them as a
consultant as opposed to a strategic member of the team. What we do
need to do is certainly nurture more, in terms of the champions, people
really have that cross discipline and understanding. So certainly if I was
looking for more training that was the area I’d be looking in. to get more
understanding of the building services and how we interact with the
more holistic approach we are trying to take. I know that’s certainly
where I’d come from. And also understand the different sustainability
approaches to take such as BREEAM, DREAM and others. Again I
think we should be more engaged in that process.
Q In terms of delivering that information, that training, are there any

preferred methods that you would like to receive?
R Well, personally in terms of [unclear] certainly on the masters I see -

there’s also a couple of PHDs I’m quite interested in. There’s obviously
the odd course here or there which is obviously quite useful, like Carbon
Trust or someone of that nature. But certainly personally I would
certainly like to embark on something a bit more challenging. And well,
personally ...
Q Very challenging [interviewer laughs].
R I’d certainly like to do another masters or actually take a bit of high level
research forward. Certainly with the current project it would be really
nice to actually have something aligned with that. Which would be
beneficial for the practice and something we could actually capitalise on
later on.
Q Brilliant. Is there anything within this interview to do with the subject

area that you don’t think I’ve touched upon?
R [Overtalking] What we touched upon because there was so much

[interviewer laughs]. I think the one thing is – I’ve talked about very
much what we do as an organisation internally what we do. But it’s this
wider team. We don’t have enough interaction other than project
interfaces with other consultants. I think we should be trying to structure
more forums where we take this more, to use the term, more holistic
approach with all the disciples. And then we can interact a little more
with the – I think the biggest problem is we don’t really get the best out
of our consultants. We tend to work with them but outside a project we
have very little interaction and again if we can get in that very multi-
disciplinary approach and interaction outside a project it would be very,
very useful. To whether we have a forum we set up – so I think that’s
one area we ...
Q [Over talking] And is that - when you say a forum is that specifically
project orientated or do you mean in terms of us interacting with other
disciples in day to day capacity?
R Its interaction on the day to day, but its part of this learning. When
obviously - you are doing your masters, I’ve done my masters, there
was such a wealth of experience but also breadth of age within it. We
had people who had just finished their BSc or BA doing their masters.
We also had two or three professors actually doing the masters. So we
had an age range from people there who were doing – we had an age
range from about 22 up to about 65. But not just through the age range,
but the disciplines. There were all different disciples. There were

mechanical service engineers, electrical engineers, there were [unclear]

planners there, architects, and the great thing in that melting pot was
the breadth of experience. And I think the only time I’ve actually come
across a similar sort of thing recently, or though not quite as broad, was
when we had the away day with Armstrong. Is that we actually had
these disciplines together and we actually started to think, outside a
project, a task and we actually started to work of each other. And there
was - a lot of blue sky thinking that came out of that was actually really
conducive to a good learning environment and I think – it came out of a
lot of it. I think a lot of things we don’t just do what ifs or have a brain
storming session. We just get a group of people together and say right
hers a particular conundrum we are trying to solve. Let’s all look at it
from different angles and to help see things from a different perspective.
Because if we can see things from a different perspective we actually
may get out of a rut and actually be better designer. That’s what we’re
missing I think. Really should try and create or construct certain forums.
Not project related, but just try and to take things forward. It maybe
something to do with what we’re doing in sustainability. We have a
particular issue, zero carbons one [unclear]. I think by having those sort
of forums, interactions, everybody could have a lot clearer direction
when they come out of it. I think that’s one of the biggest things we’re
missing. We’re stuck in a certain way of thinking and mentality and we
don’t always open our minds to other ways. Sometimes we have
preconceived ways of delivering thinking, we think it’s the only way it
can be done. We always know better because that’s the way we’ve
been taught and that’s the way we’ve been focused. And yet there are
times when mechanical solutions or other solutions like that are actually
the only way forward, and actually a better product. We seem to think
that a passive strategy is always the best way forward. In fact it may not
be because the longevity of the building maybe compromised because
of it but there maybe things we could put in place [unclear] product at
the end of the day [unclear]. So yes I think that’s something we should
certainly – obviously that hasn’t been covered by that but something I
think we should really consider.
Q OK. Brilliant.
R [Over talking] and if we don’t do that I don’t know how we can really
move forward.
Q OK. Brilliant. I’ll switch this off now. Thank you. END OF INTERVIEW.

A04-APLNS-M-S03-22122008-A18&19-KS-KS
Interviewee ID: A04
Location: S03
Short Description: Interviewee is a Senior Associate Director within a

Q So OK, can you describe how your company is working towards the
R Predominantly in the education sector we operate the BREEAM for

Schools methodology, and so all the projects I work on will have that
process undertaken. Generally we are required to achieve Excellent by,
I think it’s - at the moment it’s a bench mark. It’s rare that we only have
to achieve Very Good. I haven’t been asked yet to achieve Outstanding.
And usually that Excellent standard is tied to the funding. If you don’t
get Excellent, you don’t get the funding.
Q So could you describe the support systems that you have within your
organisation to help support the staff towards these targets?
R What happens is we - increasingly we’re working with the contractor at

the beginning as well. So as a whole team there will be an appointed
BREEAM consultant who is really the custodian of the environmental
strategy for the building. So a slightly wider brief than just being the tick
list person. And from the earliest design team meetings BREEAM will
be raised. But we would have several sessions through design process
where a four hour period of time would be given over to running through
BREEAM. And using that as a device to look at a fairly wide tranch of
environmental issues, because you’ll know this, BREEAM covers
everything from travel plan to insulation of the building, quality of the

boilers you use, or are you using renewable energy and so on. So it
gives you a chance to look at the whole compass of an environmental
approach to building. I think - I have some criticisms with certain
aspects of BREEAM but I think it’s not a bad first pass at trying to
grapple with the whole of an environmental picture, and I think its best
thing is it’s not narrow. So it’s not just looking at energy alone and not
thinking about how a building sits in the community. Which is to my
mind is equally important. Yes.
Q And you were talking about these meetings. Does that, are there, a
number of people from your team that will go to the meetings?
R Yes, predominantly. just think of the most recent example, it will be

likely to be someone like me, representing us strategically the kind of
things we want to achieve, it will be the Project Architect and we would
probably bring along an Assistant Architect to that meeting. For them
mainly just for the experience. The Project Architect has got to know
and be part of the debate, and I’m there just to lobby for certain things I
believe in.
Q OK. And what do you see as the benefits to your company for achieving
low and zero carbon architecture?
R Right well for - on a personal level for a long time I’ve been wanting to
do low energy buildings even before they were fashionable. And there
was a time where you got - you achieved that by sneaking it through the
system [interviewer laughs]. Yet clients might - clients ten years ago
were fairly neutral on the whole about it and if anything slightly
antagonistic. I think the more forward looking architects were sneaking it
in. Things have changed totally now and even if I wasn’t committed to it
you’d have to do it anyway because we do publically funded work. I
don’t know of any recent publically funded project that has no - not
written into the brief a high demand for environmental responsibility. So
the advantage to the business is you wouldn’t get any business if you
didn’t do it. I think there is an advantage to the business in thinking
thoughtfully about what a good - narratives about good environmental
strategies. Now we’ve worked quite hard as a team to develop ideas
that knit an environmental strategy into the education that might be
propagated through a school. So that on a very simple level, if you had
photovoltaic’s cells which may or may not be good for payback, they’re
generally not, but if they’re liked up to a display panel in a public area of
a building then that information is accessible to the students for studying
maths, or physics, or whatever. So there may be a double benefit
educationally. So we’ve pursued that quite a lot and I think when I go
round doing - speaking in conferences or making presentations to

clients, they’re interested to hear that extra level of thinking which isn’t
just oh we’ve got to do low energy buildings. Every one is saying that.
So you need a little bit extra to have some business benefit.
Q And can you see that working for sectors beyond the Education?
R Absolutely yes. I think one of the very good things about Capita is it
seems to - I think it’s large enough to have grappled well some more
philosophical issues about being a business in the twenty first century.
So I’m delighted that the company is pushing forward on corporate
responsibility. And I think a big element of corporate responsibility is
handling ourselves well environmentally, irrespective of whether there’s
a business benefit or not. I think there is but I think it’s very good that
we’re doing it. I think it is - I would be quixotic to be pushing it in one
sector and saying well it doesn’t matter for prisons. I think that would be
really - a strange business strategy. So for Capita to be able to
demonstrate across its sectors that it’s hitting the highest levels is a
very, very powerful thing to be able to claim.
Q From your experience do you think architects generally have the

sufficient level of knowledge required to achieve the low and zero
carbon buildings?
R I think - to a degree I think they now have to. So the answer probably is
becoming yes. Now we - if you roll back ten years, I’ve been in the
business a few years now, ten years ago when I designed a primary
school in the welsh valleys - this is where I’m saying I was very
committed to low energy building then. We dug stone out of the ground
and used it on the building, for low embodied energy and so on. But that
was because I was pushing for it and I managed to get it through. No
one was sufficiently against it not to happen. Now we’ve moved forward
there are so many evaluation criteria that you have to meet, whether it’s
DQI or BREEAM, or endless client consultations, DDA legislation has
developed a lot, Sport England Negotiation for Schools. All these
assessments that all our guys have to do that to see the thing built. So
whether they’re good or bad at it is almost irrelevant, we just have to do
it. It’s good I have nothing against that because it means that the worst
performing architects out there still have to hit a certain level. Now the
issue is how do you manage a team to be able to deliver elegant
beautiful buildings that don’t lose their quality going through all these
processes, that are affordable, that meet the client’s needs and so on.
And I love to think our education team we’re equipping people with - to
have a rounded knowledge of what a building has to do as well as look
good. But not forgetting that it’s got to look good.

Q What do you think in your opinion architects practices need to do to

ensure that they carry on working towards these low and zero carbon
targets?
R OK, a few things. On a practical level we - those of us who are in a

slightly more management situation, need to make user friendly
processes available, sometimes checklists or whatever, to remind our
project architects that they need to make sure they’re covering this, this,
this, and this. So just tell them what the scope of the work is, beyond
just designing. But then that’s the dry formal bit. But there are two other
things. There’s one aspect is making sure people like myself who’ve got
reasonable experience now, been through a few buildings, when
working with a project architect that I’m sharing that in a accessible way.
I.e. when we’re sitting on a train we talk these things through and I don’t
just assume knowledge, that’s very important. The other thing is it’s
moving all the time and I value very much just, over a coffee or
whatever, talking to someone who knows a lot about environmentalism.
What are people thinking now? We have a guy, you may know him, ***
in office. Who I think did the same course as you [interviewer agrees],
yes? And he’s really interesting and slightly off message in a really
provocative way about issues. And I always take the opportunity to ask
him about things. As an example, he’s quite sceptical about the
appropriateness in many situations of rain water harvesting, arguing
that a lot of energy is expended filtering water - it’s not necessarily the
great solve all solution out there. Well it’s a counter argument to the fact
that it seems like a good idea. And theories are changing all the time.
So an idea gets some kudos initially, people go oh its great biomass
boilers, and then people say ah but if we all go to it these are the
problems. So you’ve got to stay up to date with knowledge and you do
that with talking as much as anything. I try and read things but inevitably
other people will know a lot more than me, so I’m far better off just
asking people who know more than me, what do you reckon about this,
what do you think [interviewer laughs]? So that’s an important thing.
Just stay in tune with the debate.
Q OK. Have you observed any differences in knowledge between small

and large architectural practices?
R Yes, there’s some fabulous small practices out there who know brilliant
amounts and get really - I think the best small practices are really niche
and know their territory fabulously well. I almost worry about the
medium size practices, if I’m honest. I think the small ones know their
patch. The big ones like Capita - one of the great things about Capita,
at its best, is that it’s big enough to really grapple with the big issues.

We’ve got a little bit of slack space to do the R and D that’s necessary. I
think the medium sized practices struggle to do what we’re doing and I
think they - there are gaps there across the board, not only with
environmentalism, but with all other legislation as well.
Q OK. Within your organisation what do you think are the potential barriers
to achieving the low and zero carbon targets?
R Good question. I think very, very compressed programmes and tight

budgets, and builders - in particular builders who say one thing and do
another, if I’m honest. So on BSF Nottingham, which I’ve been
incredibly involved in, I like our partner Carillion very much but they, and
I can only assume - wonder at the pressures that they’re under, will
promise a lot when we win the bid and sometimes just pull the rug from
underneath our feet later on. So we will do everything we should be
doing in saying we’re committed to this policy and draw it on our
drawings. And then when they come to offer up contractor’s proposals,
CP’s, they’ll say yes we’ll take that out, we’ll put it back in later if we can
afford it. And you can’t say don’t do that, you just have to accept it.
They’re paying your bills, they’re your boss. So modern procurement
techniques mitigate against the architect being of powerful voice around
the table. You just have to lump it sometimes when they take out things
you really believe in.
Q Do you think there are any methods, or any ways that we could possibly
address this?
R No, not in - not that I know off. Not in current modern procurement
methods. It’s the - you made the pact with - no I shouldn’t call the
contractor the devil [interviewer laughs]. That’s - the government tried
out architect led frameworks and didn’t like it, they prefer contractor led
frameworks. But when a contractor leads the framework they make the
decisions and it’s the architect’s job to lobby as hard as they humanly
can for the good things, but in the end you can only try and pursued,
you can’t demand. I don’t think you could ever be better in the current
framework, current procurement practices.
Q Within the industry as a whole what do you think are the barriers to the
R Yes, OK. I think it just is - just very compressed programme and

finances. I know education well and you have a government who says
in the next ten years it wants to spend forty five billion pounds on
education. That’s a hell of a lot of product. And what they want to do
with that is they don’t want to ever give you too much money, so you

can do it easily, and they certainly don’t want to give you much time. So
I always think the programmes are a year shorter than they should be.
So we - on the William Brookes School, Much Wenlock, which is a High
School twenty three ish million quid. We got our brief in April; we’re in
competition against Willmott Dixon and Feilden Clegg. We’re with Kier.
Tough competition. We win it in about August and we’re on site already
with planning permission. That is a tight programme and in order to
really [interview briefly interrupted by person entering the room and then
leaving again] - it’s a really, really tight programme and we’re signing
right now. Today they will be signing off contractors proposals and that
will have tremendous detail about what the ceiling will be the [unclear]
and so on. An amazing amount of detail. So to really be imaginative and
inventive about your environmental solutions, it’s really difficult. Now we
have got quite an imaginative solution there. We’re using solar water
heating as space heating, not only just to heat the water but also space
heating which I think is quite unusual. But it’s very hard under those
circumstances to really draw back and reflect on all the things that could
be done. And what I think happens is that the work horse solutions have
to happen. So one way and another in order to get - this is why
BREEAM is very good in fairness, they’re committed to BREEAM
Excellent so they’ll just damn well have to do it. So they commit to that. I
think the slightly more flaky, imaginative, and things nice things that
could or couldn’t happen – a sculpture garden using recycled materials.
Everyone talks about them in engagement meetings but there isn’t time
to really lobby for them. This juggernaut moves on and some of the
more slightly quirkier, interesting, thoughtful, imaginative, innovative
ideas just get dumped because you just have to move so fast. So if the
government really, really believed in environmentalism they would
definitely put aside some money over and above everything else on a
building, because it does cost money. And I hate it when government
documents say it’s just about good design, it needn’t be about more
investment. Something’s are about good design. Getting your
orientation right, I appreciate. Lots of things aren’t. Insulation is a great
way of saving energy. The more insulation, the more money. Simple as
that. And often to do it right is to spend a bit more money and to take
longer. In BREEAM some of what they’re asking for is proper
consultation early on. Proper consultation takes time, but you’ve got a
government on the one hand saying you’ve got to do all this and
another saying oh we want it on site in eight months. Same
government, same - mixed messages [interviewer and interviewee
laugh].
Q So actually, before you mentioned about large architectural

organisations having a positive side, are there any barriers being a

large architectural organisation?
R [Over talking] I just think, and I think this is very relevant to Capita, is
one shouldn’t be dewy eyed about how good communication is within
Capita. There are – and frankly if I’m [interviewer laughs] – this is risky –
there are within Capita very good pockets of architectural excellence,
there are areas of architectural decency, and there are areas which I
think are terrible. And I think the terrible people are going to be hard to
redeem. If we are taking it seriously I think there are plenty of dreadful
architects here who will struggle to do very much in this territory at all.
Q Right OK...
R [Over talking] blunt enough isn’t it [interviewee laughs].
carbon building targets?
R I think it’s great to aim for that. The definition of low and zero carbon is, I
think, a little bit allusive and I don’t think that’s helpful. I think - it seems
to me that governments are at their best when they do things if you can
identify they’ve happened or they haven’t happened. Now when I look
at say some of the things that Ken Livingston has done in London. And I
face both ways on him, I think there’s a side to him that I don’t
particularly like, but what I admired about him is that some things are
undeniably deferent as a result of his time in office. So congestion
charging has a positive and negative argument maybe. But there was
undeniably a difference once it happened. I think - I feel the government
spends more time setting targets than introducing undeniably tangible
initiatives. If I were the government - sorry I’m ranting here [interviewee
laughs]. If I were the government I would invest massively in public
transport and make it magnificent and cheap, good and reliable. You
could get on a train and you know you’d get a seat. And it’s on time and
you don’t have to be massively wealthy to use the train to get to London
and so on. People won’t get out of their cars until trains are a lot more
affordable really in all honestly. If I wanted to take my family to London it
would cost six hundred quid or something. It’s unlikely to be done. So I
think really tangible things would be far better than lofty aspirations. We
put all the pressure on the private sector to deliver in sometimes very
inhospitable procurement environments. We’ll do our best, but we need
more support in real tangible terms. Where as in government it’s easy
isn’t it. They just say oh you’re going to do that and they set targets that
I don’t quite believe they know how they’re going to be achieved. There
was – and I regret that I haven’t held it so strongly in my mind, but a few
months ago the government was looking at maybe even green paper

stage, very early thinking about a more spread bet approach to

renewable energy. Do you remember all this?
Q I recently saw something sent through to me saying they were

considering allowing more flexibility in terms of onsite and offsite
renewables? I don’t know much more in depth.
R I think the government could take a lead on R and D in renewables. I

think that would be really helpful. I don’t think they do much about that.
The renewables culture was so out in the cold under the conservative
years it’s still not right in the core of things and I think should be. Very
recently Barack Obama’s appointed a couple of people who look like
they might be really influential on renewables energy. Having a big
influential position in whatever their version of a cabinet is. That sounds
great and I don’t think we - well maybe I don’t know enough, but I don’t
feel that there’s, around the cabinet table, enough of a voice for
alternative technologies about energy and so on. So I more interested –
in a long winded way I’m saying I’m more interested in real initiatives
than targets. Because any one can set a target and explain it all away
when you fail to do it.
Q And they do a lot [interviewer and interviewee laugh].
R Yes.
Q So can you describe any alternative ways of producing buildings in the

UK, so not necessarily down the BREEAM route or the Code route or
the way the government is currently looking at doing it? Do you have
any personal opinions about how we could go about producing better
low emissions buildings, low carbon buildings?
R Good question. Will have to think about that. I think the WRAP
initiative’s really good and we're grappling with that in Capita. I’m really
pleased about that. I think more could be done there. And I - here I
wouldn’t mind in the same way that BREEAM’s become virtually
mandatory, I think – well maybe I don’t know enough, but I’m not sure
that it’s more than just an encouragement to do WRAP stuff. Whereas I
think you could probably tie in public funding to demand a certain level
of recycling and so on. So I think that could be - that could help us make
lower energy buildings. I think Building Bulletins have a part to play and
I wonder if, and this is the sort of thing Richard Rogers has been talking
about for a while, if one starts to talk about how culture values low
energy against thermal comfort is quite an interesting debate. Sensitive
debate because everyone wants to be comfortable, and not to hot and
to cold I fully appreciate. It seems to me there is a tradeoff between

good on the whole better natural ventilation strategies and so on and a

slightly wider band width of comfort. Days when you might be a little bit
stuffy and so on. And that debate hasn’t been fully aired and recent
Building Bulletins in schools, I can’t speak for the rest of the sectors,
have kind of narrowed your options rather than widened them as if to
say it has to be like this. It forces you down certain environmental
solutions which may or may not be the best.
Q Building Bulletins are they DECs and that kind of thing or are they
something different?
R Well in schools we have Building Bulletin 98 about high schools,

Building Bulletin 99 about primary schools, Building Bulletin 101 about
environmental solutions in schools and so on. So they are not
mandatory but strongly advisory documents and often funding is
attached to achieving what they asked for. So they sit along sides the
building reg’s as not quite stuff you have to fulfill but almost. And
sometimes building reg’s look across and say in order to fulfill this
you’ve got to do that. So Part E of the building regulations, acoustics,
says you’ve got to fulfill Building Bulletin 93 which is the acoustic
Building Bulletin. That sort of thing. So you have to fulfill it via that route.
Q Ok. How familiar are you with the [our company] mission statement? If I
just point to it [interviewer points to written statement on interview
guide].
R I am familiar with it.
Q OK [interviewer and interviewee laugh].
R That’s one of my shortest answers. You looked really shocked. He’s got
a short answer for once [interviewer and interviewee laugh].
Q And what does the statement mean to you?
R A noose around our necks as my dear friend Paul who I sit neck to said.
I just – I think personally, this is just from my own experience, I think it’s
naive. Because we can do our job wonderfully well but in the same way
as I was saying that when we’re working with construction partners we
don’t – all we have is a lobby influence. We’re not the deciders of policy
and I think it’s absolutely way beyond our gift to say that seventy
percent of our buildings will be zero carbon by 2012. We just do not
have it in our ability to make that statement. I think its nonsense. Just
don’t think we – be great if we do, but it’s not in our hands. We just do
our job as well as we can. I think we have a moral and professional
responsibility to lobby for buildings to be environmentally responsibly as

possible but the final analysis clients and construction partners will
choose whether they do or not and we won’t be able to stop them.
Q Ok. I think that’s a good point. In connection with the mission statement
what do you think Capita are doing to get to the mission statement at
present?
R Right, yes well. Indeed [interviewee laughs]. I think it’s good and
necessary to have a [our company] wide group who are bringing -
pooling expertise. I think that’s quite right and I applaud that. I think
that’s a good thing to do. Beyond that it’s very difficult. People are
absolutely, now this is from the heart now, foot to the floor delivering.
And I think it’s a lot of responsibly on people like me looking after teams
to make sure we’re operating well. I think Capita have been sorting out
a lot politics and stuff to try and make sure good practice is
disseminated widely. It’s more than just the environment that needs to
be sorted out to get to that level of excellence everywhere. I don’t think
we’re near that really. They’ve got a big job on the hands. I’m a big fan
of Clifford and Co, I think they’re great, but they’ve got a lot on to just
get the level generally good, let alone this kind of – pushing on further.
Q And if you, if [our company]’s mission statement could be different, if

you could decide on what the mission statement was what would you
aim for?
R Yes, OK that’s interesting. I wouldn’t – like as I say my friend Paul – I

wouldn’t put a noose around our neck that we can’t deliver, because we
won’t deliver that, I bet. I would do something more loosely. I would
accept now – once upon a time, if you go back seven, eight, nine, ten
years, you could launch a company where your unique selling point was
the environment. There was a firm called – it began with the letter E in
London – E something or other. I nearly joined them a few years ago.
ECD maybe? And the E stood for environment. Anyway [interviewer
laughs] they were quite a niche practice. They’re trading thing – they
were very environmental, I don’t think they’re going any more. White
Design has I think have slightly spuriously got themselves a niche here.
I think it’s a bit spurious and I don’t think they’re schools are as - I think
they’re brilliant at marketing and I like Craig from White, I mean he’s
good. But on the whole I don’t think they’re any better than anyone
else’s environmentally. I just think they’ve marketed themselves well.
They’re probably the only practice in Britain who have an association
with a level of environmentalism. As I say I think it’s spurious, but credit
to them they’ve got a bit of a reputation. So if you have a book about
the environment people say let’s have a Craig White, a White Design.
Arguably Feildon Clegg I think have a bit of a reputation. Beyond that I

can think of no firm that if you were writing a book now on

environmental design – oh Bed Zed guy, Bill Dunster. You would have a
Dunster thing, you might have a White Design, you might have a
Feildon Clegg, but everyone else it’s completely level. So if you are
wanting a mission statement that people really believe in you’ve got to
be a Bill Dunster and there just aren’t many of them. And I don’t even
agree with all what Bill Dunster’s doing if I’m honest. I think he is quite
doctrinaire about this is good, this is bad, for fairly fallacious reasons.
But for the rest of us it will be very – I think impossible to separate
Capita off from the pack in terms of we’re more environmental than
Sheppard Robson and Aedas and so on. I think we can separate off by
doing damn good buildings all the time but – and they must be
environmentally responsible. But I think it would be naive to expect any
statement here to mean that someone would go on our website and go
they are going to do that, I’m going to use them. I personally don’t think
that will happen. I think therefore your statement is more about what
you’re - the story you’re telling yourself. Now clients will like it, and it’s
all part of the backdrop that’s good. And it would - I think for me the
statement would be about - more about making sure that every single
person in a practice has a good robust understanding of environmental
issues and feels a passion for it. Now I wouldn’t want I suppose - I’d be
careful not to make that coercive, but at least make it set a culture.
Because on the whole I don’t think I’ve met anyone who’s anti
environmentalism. So you set a culture that people’s lukewarmness or
enthusiasm is fired up by a belief that it’s an important issue that we as
designers have the big part to play. So it would be about making sure
that every element of the process – every person is really fighting for it
rather than a target we’re dodging [interviewer laughs].
Q So do you think there’s any specific training that we need within [our
company] to reach these targets?
R That’s a good question. I think that would not be a bad thing, training.
Yes, I think that would be good actually. And I’d make it – well if we did
it would have to be very good, but I think it should be for everyone then.
So that everyone hears the message, Admin and everyone. And then
you look at certain areas you could do.
Q Do you think personally there are any particular methods that are better
than others that would get that information or message across?
R I think the – to be a - because you’ve gone, in your own personal study,

you’ve gone a long way down a road. You’ve spent some time on that.
That’s not going to be available to everyone. Inevitably for most, even
Project Architects, they’re going to be heavily dependent on the quality

of their M & E for their environmental solutions. And they might hear
through someone mentioning it or read in a magazine about a new
renewable energy device, but they’ll go to their M & E and their M & E
will say it’s not very practical because blah. And it’s unlikely an architect
is ever going to be equipped enough to say ah yes no but in the
Scientific Journal today they’ve disproved that. There will be some out
there but not many. So we are dependent on our team around us. So if
there were training I think it would be about – it would be more strategic
in a sense, is what can I do to make difference type training. Rather
than trying to give people endless information that they couldn’t deal
with unless it’s their specialist interest. So if I’m a Project Architect on
the job how can I make sure I do this well? Well you need to be doing
this, you need to be connecting up with them, you need to be asking
this of your clients, so on. Maybe the big picture stuff training could be
quite good.
Q And any preferred methods? As in things like, the typical one is CPDs,
but whether there was anything else that you thought might be a better
way?
R Oh right. Nothing – I don’t know, good question, I don’t know

[interviewer and interviewee laugh].
Q OK. Great. Well, I think that’s – I think that’s it [interviewer laughs].

Thank you very much.
R It’s a pleasure. END OF INTERVIEW.
*** Name redacted for data anonymity.

A05-APLNS-M-S04-21012009-B14&15-KS-KS
Interviewee ID: A05
Location: S04
Data Storage ID: B14&15
Short Description: Interviewee is an Associate Director within an Architects

Practice Large Non Specialist.

R The company or the office?
Q The company?
R The company. Well we’ve set targets so that by 2012 a certain

percentage of all our buildings will be carbon neutral. A percentage of
which, I’ve forgotten off the top of my head at the moment - is it ninety?
Q Seventy I think.
R Seventy, is it seventy percent of our building will be carbon neutral? So

we’ve given ourselves that incentive. We’ve also set up what’s called a
BIG, Business Incentive Groups, within each office. and Within each of
those offices there is a particular person who is assigned to be the rep’
to deal with energy efficient buildings, carbon neutral buildings etc, etc.
so there’s some one specific in each office who deals with it and the
idea being that at the early stage of the project the rep’ will be involved
in looking at and will see best way of moving forward in order that we
give the best carbon neutral energy efficient building.
Q OK. Are there any other support systems that you think your company

has in place to help you achieve those targets?
R Well within our office we have M & E and we also have the sustainability
section of the M & E based in our office. Who were actually working out
of Redditch but they’re actually based in our office at the moment. So
we have the opportunity to go and talk to them and talk about how we
can achieve BREAAM etc at the very early stage of the project. So what
we do is use the other parts of the business to assist us in progressing
the designs.
Q OK. And what do you see as the benefits to your business for achieving
the low and zero carbon targets?
R The benefits we get is obviously – well, first of all at the moment we are
trying to establish a unique selling point for the company which we don’t
have. And one of the unique selling points which I champion is that we
design carbon neutral energy efficient buildings. By doing that obviously
it makes us more advantageous in the market. If a client particularly
wants to go for BREEAM Excellent building he’ll look at us and think
they’re the experts, they’re the people I want to use to do my building
and hopefully that’s what will happen.
knowledge required to achieve these targets?
R I don’t believe so, no. I don’t think there is enough information currently
available within the business. It’s probably there somewhere but I don’t
think it’s being communicated at the moment.
Q OK. And what do you think then that the practice will need to do then to
ensure you achieve these low and zero carbon targets?
R Yes. I think – personally I think we need to have workshops or even

road shows or something. Somebody who’s going to champion it and go
round all the offices and say look we’re trying to achieve these targets.
In order to do this we’re going to put these systems in place. If you need
any information, you need any help with any of your buildings come and
see me or whoever and we’ll help you to achieve it. Because at the
moment if you went into the studio and spoke to some of the guys they
probably wouldn’t have a clue who they should be speaking to.

R Yes. I think in the larger architectural practices there is probably more

emphasis on trying to achieve the targets. Probably because we have

the bigger clients who are prepared to pay for it. Smaller architectural
practices working with probably clients who are on limited budgets,
smaller schemes don’t really see it as that important. More of an add on
to get approval more than actually trying to save the planet if you like
[interviewee laughs]. Its just – in a lot of cases sustainability is just a tick
box on a planning form that you need to get passed and also building
regulations. There’s not really this ethical view of the wider picture to
actually drive it to make our buildings more sustainable.
Q Within your organisation what do you think are the potential barriers to
achieving the low and zero carbon targets?
R Yes, I think the potential barriers comes down to funding and get the
message to clients to – OK initially there’s a big pay out but you’ve got
to give them, show them that they’ll pay back in later life. And also again
there’s the wider picture. The ethical benefits that you’re actually going
to be providing a building that’s friendly to the planet if you like. And
also in terms of raising the profile of the company again as well. We
could push it forward for awards etc and gets this in the market place
and get our faces seen.
Q When you said funding at the beginning do you mean funding in terms
of from the client?
R From the client, yes. Again working with some developers it’s just a tick
box. It’s a means to get an approval and I think we need to be talking to
them and encouraging them and saying well not really. We should be
pushing the boundaries a bit further really.
Q And what do you think are the barriers within the industry as a whole
towards the targets?
R Technology. At the moment I don’t believe that technology is moving

forward enough for us to enable us to produce these buildings and we
seem to be stuck in a rut. It’s almost as if a couple of years ago it was
the buzz word but now it’s gone a bit stagnant but maybe that’s a
reflection of the market at the moment. It’s going to be difficult I think
over the next 12 months when fees are tight, every ones under cutting
each other and stuff to try and encourage the people to spend the
money. It’s going to be tough.
Q Have you seen any impacts in relation to economic down turn at all? In
relation to how sustainability is perhaps viewed or …
R [Over talking] not really. Not at the moment no. There’s the potential as
the year progresses when we do get involved in projects that this will

apparent, but not at the moment no.
Q OK. And what do you think are the biggest barriers within the large
architectural organisation to achieving the targets?
R Again I think its communication and training. There’s obviously there’s -

the people there and there’s the knowledge and it’s just a case of
getting the systems right in each studio. Making sure we are following
the protocol.
carbon targets?
R I think they’re unachievable personally. I think they’re putting too much

emphasis on trying to achieve the targets and I think they should be
relaxed a little bit more. I think it can – they shackling them at the
moment. It is defiantly having an impact on the market I think. It’s
making it more expensive to build. Especially in the housing market it’s
really killed it.
Q And what if anything would you change about the governments targets
or whether you would, or how we get to the government targets?
R I think they need to be reviewed. I think we need to be governed more

time. They need to be relaxed so that that people can start building
again. And just try and get to the point of just – it’s all very well saying in
so many years time to get to carbon neutral but if we’re not building
then it’s pointless really.
Q Do you have any ideas of alternative ways of producing buildings,

perhaps building buildings, that you think are available that would be
different to how the government are looking at getting to the low and
zero carbon targets?
R Yes, I’ve looked at pre fabricated systems, almost factory built houses
etc where detailing can be tightened up. One of the major problems with
buildings is air leakage, the detailing. The stuff that’s manufactured off
site you’re relying on the skill of a tradesman to guarantee that it’s built
accordingly. If you stood on a prefabricated basis you could control it
and I think we should be looking at more methods like that.
Q And how familiar are you with [our company]s mission statement?
R Familiar.
Q OK. What does the mission statement mean to you? It’s just on the
bottom of the page if you want to [interviewer points to written

statement on interview guide] …
R Yes. It’s - to me that - it gives a vision. It gives a target, something to

aim for. And what it also does is it sets us aside from other architectural
practices. I’ve mentioned this before it gives us a USP, a unique selling
point that maybe other architectural practices haven’t got. It can only be
a good thing really. I think we should have a statement like that.
Q What do you think [our company] is currently doing to ensure it achieves

this mission statement?
R They are, like I said, there have been systems put in place, the BIG
reps in each of the studios. I think there should be more emphasis on
CPD related to this subject and again maybe the actual BIG leader who
is responsible for sustainability should perhaps go around each of the
offices and do a bit of a road show and make people aware exactly
what the statement means and what we’re actually doing to try and
achieve this.
Q And if the mission statement could be different in any way do you have
any personal views on what could be any alternative mission
statements?
R No, I haven’t got any comment on that really, no.
Q No, that’s fine. Do you think, well actually you have touched on this
before, about the specific training required to achieve the mission
statement, again is that CPDs? Would there be anything else that you
think would help?
R Possibly more literature. We’ve got the standard architectural

magazines but I don’t think we get anything that’s specifically related to
sustainability and renewable energy.
Q And you mentioned CPDs. Would there be any other forms of training
that you think would be useful or relevant?
R May be just opportunity to go out and find out what’s going on in the
market. I attended Think O8 last year and it was only by myself and
another colleague but I think more people should be encouraged to
attend some of these conferences because there are plenty going on.
People should be encouraged. I’m attending one in a couple of weeks
in Coventry. Again it’s regarding sustainability.
Q Are there any issues within this subject area that you think are important
that I haven’t mentioned?

R No [interviewer laughs].
Q OK. Thank you.
R I can’t think of any sorry [interviewer and interviewee laugh]. END OF

INTERVIEW.

A06-APLNS-M-S05-17122008-A5&6-KS-KS
Interviewee ID: A06
Location: S05
Short Description: Interviewee is an Associate Director within an Architects

Q OK. Can you describe how your company is working towards the
R What we try to do as, at the beginning of every design, we look for ways
to actually - I think, it’s so important to reduce the energy consumption
by design. Use of orientation, that sort of thing. We always have some
sort of idea of the target and keep it in our minds to try to meet the
government standards. Whether we actually do in the eventual outcome
or not I think has a lot to do with the client and his budget and what
values he actually sees with the end product. And because some of our
clients are oil companies so they’re not so conscious about the energy
consumption. So therefore you might end up with glass boxes in West
Africa, for example [interviewer laughs]. So I could go into more detail in
that but I think probably latter. Is that OK?
Q Yes, no that’s fine thank you. Could you describe what support systems
your company has in place to support the staff to work towards these
targets?
R Support systems. Well basically as we’re going through the design

procedures one thing that’s of great benefit is to have the engineers
close by. We’re particularity fortunate because the energy saving group,
or sustainability group, are just opposite from where we sit. So, for
example, I just go over and actually have a chat with them quite

regularly during the initial stages of design. And just recently, for
example, we - they’ve got a programme which follows the sun path of a
particular location and because this building is at - near the equator - it
was very useful to see how the sun path is effecting north and south
facades. So that programme you can do it on a draft initial way, but can
go into more detail and we always recommend it with the clients to do
thermal modeling with the use of their programme software. Apart from
that, just in general. What’s in the magazines, what’s the latest, and
using the web type of thing. And drawing on experience that we’ve
already got within the team. And just making sure we’re as
knowledgeable as possible in that area - in these areas.
Q OK. What do you see as the benefits to the company for achieving low
and zero carbon architecture?
R I think from a marketing point of view it puts us up there, where we

should be. So certainly clients - more and more clients are very
conscious of that - the carbon footprint. Because generally it does have
an impact on the type of building that they want to provide for the end
user at the end of the day. For example, the one I’m doing in *** is an
office block, and it’s for *** but it’s being done by the client. So they’re
actually - they’re running, the project, but we’ll hand it over to ***. And
one of the specifications for that compliance from ***was to make sure
they met the BREEAM - certain values within the BREEAM codes and
that sort of thing. So, yes …
Q OK. From your experience do you think architects have the sufficient
level of knowledge required to achieve low and zero carbon buildings?
R Probably not. I think there’s still a lot to learn, but as I say it is - I think
it’s important, the communication between the people who do know.
Accessibility I think is very important. Engineers obviously, because
really we’re going to as many seminars as possible, within reason.
Because there’s a lot of ideas out there and just being conscious of the
amount of energy that is being pumped into a building. Is it necessary?
We should be trying to design the impact. The energy for air
conditioning and that sort of thing - designing it out of the building. I’m
sure the engineers wouldn’t be too happy about that but I think the role
that these guys are talking up stairs, for example, they’re looking at the
sustainable side also. So it’s a balance that they’ve got to work with and
not necessarily doing them out of a job.
Q Have you observed any difference in levels of knowledge between small


R Well, I haven’t really had a lot of experience with small practices for a
long time. Certainly since they’re more conscious of the green issue
these days. So, not particularly, no.
Q And in your opinion what do you think architectural practices ..?
R [Over talking] can I just say actually I feel the benefit of Capita being a
large organisation means that we do have the engineers there, and,
because we’ve got the multi-discipline set up means that they are more
accessible, and these issues are more accessible. So I think we’ve got
an advantage over the smaller practices there.
Q What do you think architectural practices need to do to ensure they can

produce and will produce the low and zero carbon buildings?
R A lot to do with what I was saying. To think about, I think, not how to
save energy at a later stage, but how to save energy when you start off.
I think one main issue is the buildings orientation. It’s not a case of
trying to find renewable energies for the building. I think it’s a case of
lets design the building to make sure we keep the energy consumption
low in the first place.
Q So focus on fundamental design issues?
R Yes. Yes defiantly, and if you hit it at an early stage obviously that’s - I
mean, we just suggested the other day - we’re doing an office block in
Equatorial Guinea for Marathon Oil - and the orientation of the building
is, sort of, north west - north east to south west. And the glazing is on
the north east - north west - anyway [interviewee laughs] of the sun
path. If we could just tweak it by ten degrees and it would have a huge
saving on the requirements for energy. So it’s to make sure that we ask
the question early on why the client wanted the building to be in this
particular orientation. Is it something to do with the views out? I think
that’s all it is, and how it’s seen from the road. But a ten degree change
- shift in the orientation - still provided what they’re after, but reduced
the solar gain and therefore reduced the energy requirement. And it will
reduce costs to the budget. Chillers, for example, we may need only two
chillers or less capacity within the chillers. So overall it’s actually making
sure that the client’s on board with the benefits. Not just for maintaining
the building at the end product, but what it’s going to cost them and how
it’s lowered the costs from the design. Something simple like that –
orientation.
Q Within your organization what do you think are the potential barriers to
achieving the government low and zero carbon targets?

R Bureaucracy possibly. Just the wealth of information out there. And

sometimes we’re misguided and misinformed. Why does something
save energy? Is it a renewable source? Because I think we are largely
misled a lot of the time, just about which ones are actually more
effective than others. Because a windmill, for example, [interviewee
greets passing colleague] - the cost of actually installing one of them
and just the benefits that it creates is extremely minimal. Maybe that
budget could go on to something else that is a lot better. So I think it’s
having the right facts of how these – just what’s on the market. What’s
the most effective? Does that answer the question?
Q [Over talking] no, no, that’s yes [interviewer laughs] …
R Because I’m just trying to think from the government’s side – and I think
there’s a lot of advisers from the government’s side that are advising -
giving people, designers, the correct information?
Q What do you - what do the government’s low and zero carbon, sorry,
building targets mean to you personally? What’s your opinion of them?
R Of the ..?
Q Of the government incremental low and zero carbon targets?
b Well, again I think yes it’s something – it’s good to have a system there
to follow, but just how effective is it? And there could be the
bureaucracy that’s attached to it. It could maybe be more streamlined
and I think a lot of the facts [unclear] to be more effective in that sense. I
think it could be improved. I don’t know how [interviewer laughs] to go
about it obviously, but yes from my experiences that’s how I feel about
it.
Q And what, if anything, would you change about the targets? Or how we
achieve the targets?
R [Interviewee laughs] not sure. Just to be realistic I suppose. Yes.
Q Are there perhaps any alternative ways of producing the buildings? Or

ways that you can think of producing buildings, perhaps not to the
government’s targets but a different way of – things like reducing energy
..?
R [Over talking] yes I think – I mean there could be - within the targets if
you’re just ticking boxes along the government guide lines then - I think
we should be responsible as designers to have a broader look at
design, and not just be we need to meet this target. Then again the

likes of the Serp projects, they want to meet BREEAM targets, but
actually it contradicts what - the likes of a biomass boiler, there’s
renewable energy for that. But the actual process contradicts what
we’re trying to achieve, but it ticks the box of the BREEAM calculation.
So I think there’s problems with the system there and the bureaucracy
of that. So yes, I think we’ve got to have - always have a subjective look
at the – these guidelines.
Q How familiar are you with [our company]’s mission statement? This
[interviewer points to a written statement].
R Yes, I hear it at every seminar to do with [our company] [interviewer

laughs]. So yes, I’m familiar with what we’re trying to achieve. I agree
it’s something that benefits the company from the - as a whole.
Q What does the mission statement mean to you?
R It means that I believe in – when I approach a building to design it’s

something I’m always conscious of. So it reinforces a belief that maybe
clients have in us. Something that I would do as part of course any way.
So I think - yes, I think it’s important to point it out that from – personally
I think that’s the right direction to take.
Q And what do you think [our company] is currently doing to achieve the
mission statement?
R Currently doing? Yes, I mean, we do have design reviews and I think

maybe there could be a bit more emphasis on the sustainability, and
possibly have – these guys, the engineers upstairs, are purely
sustainability. So in [our company] it might be good to have some
expertise more identifiable that you could approach. And just even as a
checklist, not just the BREEAM, but the – an internal one from [our
company] that during the design reviews that could be part of the
design review just to make sure that – if there is someone who’s
expertise is in sustainability then they could cover that and suggest how
the design could be improved, sustainability in mind. So yes, I think …
Q Do you think that the [our company] mission statement should be

different in any way, and if so what would you suggest?
R Well, it’s all numbers isn’t it? It’s good to have a target I suppose, but is
it going to be realistic. At least if you’ve got a target, something to work
towards, it’s a good thing. But doesn’t necessarily mean that you – once
you’ve done the others you can relax. I think if you can do better than
that then that would be good. Yes, it comes across, I think, fine as far as

I’m concerned.
Q OK. Brilliant. Well, thanks very much for your time [interviewer laughs].
END OF INTERVIEW.

A07-APLNS-M-S06-16012009-B3&4-KS-KS
Interviewee ID: A07
Location: S06
Short Description: Interviewee is an Associate Architect within an Architects

Q OK. So can you describe how your organisation is working towards the
R No, not really [interviewee laughs].
Q No. That’s OK [interviewer laughs]. The next question was going to be

how you describe the support systems that your organisation has in
place to support staff towards these targets? Are you aware of any
support systems to help meet regulations to do with low and zero
carbon?
R No.
Q OK. What benefits to your company do you think there are for achieving
R I think if we are able to do this then obviously we will be able to – I

guess it’s all down to the procurement and the kind of work that we can
reasonably expect to come from various sectors. If we show ability in
the areas then I’m sure it will open up opportunities.
Q So business opportunities for further work?
R Yes.

Q OK. From your experience do you think architects have the sufficient
level of knowledge required to achieve the governments low and zero
carbon targets?
R No.
Q OK. What do you think is the reason for them not having the
knowledge?
R I think that we have a working knowledge of these issues. As long as

we keep up to date with news and recent events, and latest trends. And
read our trade magazines and go to our CPDs, we will have an
overview. The personal level will depend on your interest or your time
available. But I think that you need to be working in a field which is – it
is very essential to be directed down that kind of route. If it is an
important part of your brief then you’ll obviously concern yourself a bit
more than perhaps otherwise. But I think we will have – we will take into
account as part of our daily work elements – basic elements of these
kinds of things. But I don’t think we’ll be satisfying everyone’s criteria all
the time.
Q Have you observed any differences in knowledge between the small

R No, I haven’t. Until Capita I’d always worked for smaller practices and I
have to say that as things were progressing along these green routes,
green lines, and zero carbon, low carbon, I think they all took it as
seriously. And they all tried to get up to date.
Q And in your opinion what do you think large architectural practices will
need to do to be able to achieve the governments low and zero carbon
targets?
R I think that they’ll need to have people spear heading this kind of thing.
And then working out strategies for - going from one office to the next
and bringing it to our notice. Training us and that kind of thing. Some
sort of structured campaign.
Q Right OK. That’s interesting. And do you think the training is an

essential part of this?
R Well, it’s more of a – no. I think someone needs to make it clear, make it
known, of the relevance of this kind of thing. Because as we are we’re
busy, we’re too busy, and it’s just another complication. It’s another set
of forms to fill in and another bothersome movement of the goal posts if
you like. And it – my attitude is probably typical. You need to get on with

the job. You’ve got clients to satisfy and targets to hit. And there is just a
limit to what you can take in and what you can – the time you can
devote to learning about things. So I think that if left to our own devices
you’ll find that experience, competence, in these kind of things are hit
and miss. From office to office. From within in each office. So I think if
someone feels that it is sufficiently important as a company, as an
overall company, not just as [our company], that we try to achieve the
government guidelines, they need to start talking to us. Seminars.
Whatever.
Q OK. Within your organisation what do you think are the potential barriers
for eventually achieving that low and zero carbon?
R People like me [interviewee laughs]. People that are – lack of time, lack
of resources. Possibly – when I joked about people like me, possibly
certain people with an attitude that - say oh I can’t be bothered with that
or whatever. I think really it’s the knowledge. Someone passing on the
knowledge. You see I’ve heard of these zero carbon targets but I don’t
for one moment believe that you can ever achieve zero carbon. I think
that’s a fallacy. Low carbon yes. Probably more realistic. But I wouldn’t
know how to achieve it. I would require a serious of CPDs, seminars,
lectures, whatever, to make that relevant to what I do from day to day.
Because for me to adopt these kind of things and apply them to the
work I do it adds time. It adds a minor element of expense until you get
the hang of it. And trying to pass that on to your client and your end
user, you have to have a good reason to further complicate things. To
add to the cost of the building process. To talk to the people who have
the purse strings and say well actually I need a larger budget because
this zero carbon building block costs ten percent more than your next.
We’re the ones that have to stand up and explain ourselves when
budgets aren’t hit. So we’ll be the ones who have to translate any fancy
ideas about us achieving these targets. And if us at the coal face have
sufficient knowledge and are confident that our organisation will back us
up, will support us and will educate us, or give us the means, then we
might be a bit more inclined to start applying that on a very practice
level.
Q Yes, OK. What do you think the barriers are within the industry as a
whole?
R I think at the moment it’s going to come down to money. Any change
will obviously meet some – meet resistance when it comes to people
used to doing things a certain way and wanting to carry on repeating.
And having to learn a new way, and having to learn to think new ways,
and specify new ways, and build new ways. And I think that takes time

and it takes effort, and as I say, training – oh education, in whatever

format that takes. But I think that at the moment it’s going to be a money
thing. I think that - you can look at things like the - these energy efficient
cars, the Preais. Their sales are dropping. I know all cars are, but these
kind of car sales are dropping quite dramatically because of the
expense, the initial cost of – over the price of a normal car. People I’m
sure can see the benefits of having the car and running the car but in –
when times are good they think oh yes I’ll stump that extra fifteen
percent, or whatever it is, but when times are hard they’re going to think
bloody hard. Sorry. They’re going to think very hard [interviewer and
interviewee laugh]. And that’s going to work for our clients. And I don’t
think it matters what field we’re in. In this office we work in education,
justice and defence. And I think all three of those sectors will be very
careful when it comes to seeing prices rising if – if that’s what the cause
of this kind of – whatever it is [interviewer and interviewee laugh].
Q The targets?
R Yes. If that’s the cause of the targets and us as an organisation

achieving those targets or at least aiming for those targets. If it has a
financial implication that will be our biggest – and I’m sure that’s the
same for the whole industry. Not just ourselves.
Q Do you think, or have you seen, any impact because of the economic
down turn?
R Yes. Good and bad. I’ve seen today my first cost estimation come back
which is reduced for a third quarter. That’s the first time I’ve ever seen
that. So you’ve got the current price and the third quarter price which is
five percent lower. Now I’ve never seen that before. On the bad side
yes, we’ve seen – there’s a large development next to our office which
was all residential and they’ve virtually come to a standstill. But we
haven’t seen any down turn in our work load.
Q Right OK [interviewer and interviewee laugh].
R Not yet.
Q We’ve slightly covered this, but what do you think are the biggest
barriers within large architectural practices to achieving the low and
zero carbon? Probably already mentioned time and resource.
R I think the trouble with large organisations is, compared to small, small
are more flexible, quicker to react, less red tape, less binding
agreements, documentation, rules and regulations. They can react
quicker. They can be smarter quicker and pro active. Larger

organisations, such as ours, I think they’re a bit more – it’s a bit more of
a juggernaut that you have to slowly steer round. And I think - I’m not
saying that Capita’s particularly slow to pick up on these things because
I think in that respect they are quite - I don’t know, they seem to be
quite pro-active in things like this. But the size of an organisation does –
it’s just a filtered down thing. Passing on information, passing on ideas.
It just – it automatically takes longer in a large organisation. When you
got a small office with one lead architect and a few assistants it can be
a very quick thing. You can transmit your ideas. Quick exchange of
ideas and there you are, you done. But when you’ve got an organisation
with thousands of people in, however many offices, it’s just a bit slow
and a bit more difficult. And there are bound to be people within there
with strong views who are fighting against each other [interviewee
laughs].
Q OK. What do the governments low and zero carbon building targets
mean to you?
R Professionally or personally?
Q I think professionally on this question.
R Professionally I think they could have an impact - they will have an

impact in the future. I don’t expect to see much in the way of
implications in the near future – well, I don’t expect it to happen too
quickly. It has to filter down from central government to local
government, which is who our clients are. They then have to agree and
adopt and dictate to us that they’re going to follow them to whatever
degree before we have to react. Or - before it will affect us. I expect it to
affect us. I expect it to affect my working life. As I said before I think
zero carbon is a – well, I don’t think we should really talk about it
because it’s impossible. But I think low carbon is a bit more realistic. A
bit more of a – something to aim for.
Q OK. I was going to say the next question was going to be in your
personal opinion what if anything would you change about the
governments low and zero carbon targets [interviewer laughs]?
R The wording [interviewer and interviewee laugh]. I think is often with

these people they can use misleading names and titles. It’s very nice.
It’s very positive to talk about zero carbon but you can’t manufacture or
build or – you can’t do anything without creating some sort of carbon
footprint. And all this offsetting business is just a – it’s just nonsense. It’s
just stalling. It’s just bargaining and excusing really isn’t it? Well, I think
it is [interviewee laughs].

Q Do you think there are any alternative ways of either producing

buildings or, for example, perhaps changing the targets? I know you
obviously mentioned before not going for zero, but were there any
alternatives that you ..?
R [Over-talking] I think if you use realistic targets you’re a lot more likely to
achieve them. I think that someone should think very carefully about
staging those targets on a yearly or – I don’t know, two, three, five
yearly – just gradually getting there. I don’t think you can suddenly
expect everyone to achieve the maximum in a very short time. Because
I think, as I said before, we’re the people who have to pass on this to
our clients and then say to them actually this is going to cost you more.
Sorry, Government ideas. Doesn’t always go to well. I think it’s an
education thing isn’t it? With us, as well as the professions, with the
normal public, everyone needs to understand the importance of this, the
relevance of this. Once everyone understands that or at least has taken
it in we’ll find that our clients, end users, fund holders, are more
receptive to the idea. And as time goes by potentially in the distant
future we’ll look back and think why we were so slow. I don’t know. But I
think it’s going to be a cost thing overall. I might be wrong but that’s my
grasp.
Q How familiar are you with [our company]’s mission statement? I’ll just
point to it on your sheet [interviewer points to written statement on
interview guide].
R [Over talking] I have read it before on here. I must admit I skated over it.
I remember thinking seventy percent zero carbon hmm. So yes, I’ve
seen it before.
Q OK. And what does that mean to you personally?
R Well, seventy percent buildings to be zero carbon means nothing to me

because it – with my knowledge of the issue I don’t think it’s achievable.
Now whether they mean – zero carbon. Do they mean running?
Running at zero carbon or do they mean construction? Life cycle?
Q I’m not entirely sure...
R [Over talking] I think the reduce energy use in buildings by twenty five
percent is absolutely achievable. It’s the correct specification. Building
methods, blah, blah, blah [interviewee reads written mission statement
from interview guide]. Seventy percent of all construction materials to be
specified from sustainable sources is difficult. Expensive again, and we
don’t currently have the range of choices for materials that would
achieve that. So something quite radical has to happen within the

market place for us to come anywhere near to that. I might have a

different opinion in two years time but at the moment we can’t specify
anything like seventy percent sustainable. We’d be building buildings
entirely out of timber if we had to. And another five percent through
renewables. Yes, that’s doable now. That’s the kind of thing that we’re
building into our specifications for Cambridge County Council education.
So that’s – no problem with that.
Q What do you think [our company] is currently doing to achieve this

mission statement?
R I’m not aware of anything [interviewee laughs]. Sorry.
Q That’s fine.
R [Over talking] I mean sometimes – I’ve seen this kind of thing

[interviewee refers to written mission statement from interview guide]
but nothing following up from that.
Q And do think that, do you have any opinions of whether the mission
statement perhaps should be different? Or different targets?
R I think it should be realistic. I think it should be realistically achievable. I

don’t think our aims should be so high that they’re – we’re doomed to
failure. However, if I have miss interpreted this and it’s zero carbon
running costs that might be a bit more realistic. But when I hear of
buildings to be zero carbon I’m thinking the whole life cycle. From
breaking ground to demolishing the thing and I – it’s just not going to
happen.
Q OK. Is there anything else you think perhaps that I have missed – an
important subject within this debate that I’ve not covered within the
interview?
R No, not really. I welcomed the opportunity to answer your email

because it’s not something I’ve had the time or the inclination to pursue.
So you’ve got me thinking.
Q OK [interviewer laughs]. Brilliant. Thanks very much. END OF

INTERVIEW.

A08-APLNS-M-S05-17122008-A3&4-KS-KS
Interviewee ID: A08
Location: S05
Short Description: Interviewee is an Associate Architect within a Architects

Q So can you describe how your company is working towards the

government low and zero carbon building targets?
R Company, you mean projects?
Q [our company] and projects? Both. On projects or however you or your

company work.
R Well, because I’m working in the Education team all the projects have
their BREEAM requirement. Although the energy bit of BREEAM here is
– well, it’s just become statutory, I think, to achieve a certain amount of
points in the energy section. We generally work with the [our company]
Low Carbon Unit. So we appraise the project based on their budget and
obviously we try and push the envelope of reducing energy usage and
moving beyond say BREEAM benchmark. Or the BREEAM energy bit
of the bench mark we’re going for, generally Very Good. So we try and
push the envelope a bit with the clients with the budget. But generally
on BSF projects the budget just isn’t really there at the moment
[unclear] zero carbon. But working with the Low Carbon guys we
generally come up with a strategy where maybe we can build in a bit of
flexibility in say plant room sizes and the systems they use. So maybe
cooling can be added in. Mechanical heating, overheating or you’re
trying to reduce energy usage by super insulation. So try and push it
with the client but generally the funding envelope isn’t there for zero

carbon at the moment. The BSF and the LSC funded projects, further
education projects, their cost model allows for ten, twenty percent on
site renewables. And then of course spread that across trying to reduce
carbon emissions through using of insulation rather than onsite
renewables or something. Although for the LSC there’s a report by
ARUP which is called the LSC’s Road Map to Zero Carbon where
they’ve got quite a weighty tone, but it’s only a recommendation that
they commissioned. It isn’t currently reflected in the LSC cost model
and the LSC cost model calculating so many pounds per square metre.
And there is an allocation for BREEAM rather than zero carbon for life
but they assume that a certain amount of that is for energy saving. But
yes, that can vary from nothing to ten, twenty percent. But obviously we
are aware of the deadlines set by central government but they don’t
seem to be aware of funding envelopes that are required to get there
[interviewee laughs].
Q OK. Could you describe what support systems your company has in
place to help support staff work towards these targets?
R The ERG group, which probably hasn’t been as active as it should have
been. We do have CPDs as well which try and enlighten people to –
well, mainly they’re about on site renewables. We’ve had a few about
low embodied energy materials, alternative type materials. We had a
CPD two weeks ago actually by the Low Carbon team which took a
lunch time seminar. The whole studio were equally invited to that one,
everybody was invited. I think about twenty people turned up. And that
was quite good.
Q Did staff find that useful?
R I think so yes. There were a few people turned up from air and rail. So
there was a mixed – half of which were from the education team and
some mix of the other people.
Q What do you think are the benefits to your company, [our company], for
achieving low and zero carbon architecture?
R Well, green sells at the moment actually, so it’s a good marketing - we

tend to use it quite a lot marketing on the LSC bids. Well, all the bids
basically. Particularly in education we tend to take along somebody
from the low carbon team and use, unless there’s a set agenda. If to a
certain extent we are able to set our own agenda it means we are going
to try and make a good twenty five percent of the presentation on
sustainability and low energy buildings. So it’s a good marketing tool.

Q Do you think there are any other benefits to [our company] at the
moment aside from the marketing?
R Well, it helps to position us better – well, it’s not strictly marketing, but in
business development it helps position you in the market. Most – we
have the Low Carbon Unit here which is an offshoot of the M & E
actually but - most multi-disciplinary, like Buro Happold, have a low
carbon, or the various names, but low carbon units. But in the Education
team it’s fundamental to everything we do here which – but I’m not sure
…
Q So you have one in house?
R Yes. Six guys sit upstairs. Taariq. His team was set up by Neil
Cartwright as an off shoot of M & E because sustainability, or the
engineering bit of sustainability is through the M & E consultant. So they
set up a separate unit and branded it Low Carbon consultancy set up
on [unclear]. They can do initial energy modeling. They look at solar –
they look at orientation very quickly using IES and they can do quick
[unclear] heating, cooling calc’s that helps with [unclear] orientation.
R No [interviewee laughs].
Q Could you possibly [over talking]
R Some people just aren’t interested in it. Well not interested in it or don’t
know anything about it, which is probably a result of not being interested
in it. In a lot of sectors it doesn’t affect their daily working activities
because clients don’t require it. Because up till recently it hasn’t been
mandatory, it’s only been housing associations and education,
government funded projects that have required it. So a lot of clients
haven’t bothered with it. Although we do tend to have the air - well the
air team have a centralized BAA policy on whatever they’re doing on
sustainability, low energy anyway. So its client led. The same with rail
really. Framework, so it’s client led there. Although we did do a
feasibility study a while ago, quite awhile ago, for DECO on rail where
we tried to LEED a separate office building, therefore it was more
appropriate to lead using sustainability and low energy buildings. So to
go back to the question. Yes a lot of people it’s not part of their day to
day activity. They haven’t had to be interested in it. Although there have
been some CPDs, particularly in the last year or so, CPDs are voluntary
and there’s no mandatory training. Probably quite a good point. You can
have CPDs which if you’re interested in or you can come along and

learn a bit about it. Renewable materials or onsite renewable systems. If

you’re not interested in it you don’t have to come along to the CPDs or
you’re not an architect you don’t have to. And quite a lot of people in the
studio aren’t architects they’re technologists so only if it’s of personal
interest they come along [unclear]. There’s no role out of mandatory
training with regards to sustainability or low energy buildings per se.
Only in Part L where we do have seminars and conferences where that
is discussed but that is because we’d have to consider it on a lot of
projects although not [unclear] following the government or client lead
on how they’re moving towards low carbon from BREEAM 10 to 20% to
carbon reduction. How they’re going to get to zero carbon.
Q Do you think, or have you observed, any differences in knowledge

between those working in small or large architectural practices?
R I don’t really have much contact with smaller architectural practices

now. I know there are quite a few specialist sustainability low energy
specialist practices. Sorry the other way round actually. Specialist
sustainability low energy practices tend to be small practices. There the
people – well, other than people like Buro Happold I suppose where
they really role it out. Again I’ve only got experience of that in education
because they’ve got in house multi discipline. They’ve quite a lot of back
up on the engineering side of low energy systems. But in education
they’ve developed an in house strategy which *** is trying to develop for
Capita actually so it’s probably worth - I think he’s not in today.
Q I think he’s back on the 22nd [interviewer laughs].
R Oh is he? OK yes. Because they are trying to – the Low Carbon Unit
here are trying to put together a design guide for schools actually.
That’s the first area they are looking at. And so we’ve actually got a
strategy in place on how we approach schools, what we think are the
correct approaches and solutions.
Q That’s interesting. And in your opinion, personal opinion, what do you

that architectural practices need to do …
R [Over talking] Sorry, when I said Buro Happold I meant BDP.
Q What do you think architectural practices need to do to ensure they’re

going to achieve the low and zero carbon targets?
R Increase staff training. Increase resource allocation to do specialist units

like the Low Carbon Unit. Probably make sure that where you do have a
separate low carbon unit they are actually integrated within the studio.
Because they are coming from the M & E side and there line

management is up to the engineering side so it’s important to make

sure that that’s blended in with the architectural as well. Which is what
we’re trying to do, which is why *** ran this CPD to introduce his unit to
the architects [unclear] just to show what they were doing.
Q Make their presence [interviewer laughs]. Within your organisation what

are the potential barriers to achieving the low or zero carbon
architecture? You may feel that some of your answers have already
covered that to some extent.
R Well funding envelopes from clients. They’re not necessarily - they’re

aware of the issue, as I said with the LSC they commissioned this
ARUPs study, there trying to put this road map together but that’s only
dependant on funding matching their work [unclear]. Schools as well.
The funding doesn’t match [unclear]. There’s a low carbon schools task
force which are trying to look at how schools developed to become zero
carbon, but there’s only two building cycles left until 2016. 12 – 16 I
think. So if you are looking at BSF academies that only two building
generations away and they are supposed to be zero carbon. Well,
how’s that going to happen. There isn’t funding and there probably isn’t
the depth and spread of technical knowledge in both the architectural
and the engineering side to be able to [unclear]. Specialist M & E
people, there’s not that many of them around. There’s not going to be
enough of them to go around basically. Although you’ve got people like
Falcrum and BDP, their M & E side. Buro Happold.
Q What do you think are the barriers to industry as a whole, the

construction industry, to achieving these targets?
R The industry is very cautious of any innovation. It doesn’t matter what it

is, whether it’s materials or mechanical systems. And to a certain extent
they’ve had their fingers burnt by the first generation of onsite systems. I
think builders say well we’re not doing biomass, we did a biomass, it
never worked for two years, we’re always going back and fixing it so
don’t even think about using biomass on this school project. So
because this whole on site thing has been centrally driven by
government a lot of contractors have had their fingers burnt on it to a
certain extent. It hasn’t been a waste of time because it was trying to
stimulate renewable technology [unclear] in this country. But it’s
probably had a negative effect in a lot of ways. And the whole thing
about micro turbines and all that. And I think the new government white
paper is all aimed at looking at basically the heat load in schools to try
and develop more centralised – well, CHP systems. Or whether that’s
micro CHP or medium or large CHP systems. Maybe they start of on
gas and then convert to god knows what [interviewee laughs]. Timber or

biogas or hydrogen.
Q Do you think there are any barriers – same question but with regards to
being a large architectural organisation like [our company]?
R Yes there is because as a large business we’ve got the same concerns
as the contractors and the rest of the buildings industry, that innovation
is a risk. And if we are going to go down a passive route of designing
there buildings not so reliant on bolt on systems – sorry not bolt on
systems but renewable energy systems. Helps you gain more passive
route then also has risks because nobody wants to design a solar
school that doesn’t work and over heats in the summer. So risk averts
innovation. The pace at which we are supposed to be going from now
until 2016.
Q For schools?
R Yes. It is too innovative, it’s going to go too fast. and the industries not
used to that pace of change from where we are now to zero carbon
buildings in ten years time.
you personally?
R [Interviewee laughs] I think they’re a good thing actually. It’s good to

have a – they stepped up a bit in the ambitions if you like. I think they
acknowledged when they issued it that it was an ambitious target but
there’s no point in having an ambitious target if one, you’re not going to
fund it and two, you’re not going to meet it or [unclear]. And maybe it’s
too ambitious in that the time scale is quite unachievable really. But I’m
glad they did it because it does stimulate business and discussion but in
a way could be counterproductive.
Q So what would you, if anything, would you change about the targets?
R I think there’s something by ACB or things like that are printing articles
about well, zero carbon is a good catch word but it’s not really
achievable so why not just admit that. Just say well we’re going for
80%, but it hasn’t got a catchy tag to it [interviewee laughs]. 80% by
2016 or 80% reduction by 2016 or something. And then the last 20% we
can sort out as we’re thinking about how we’re going to get to the
energy generally.
Q Would you change the way the targets are classified and achieved?
R Well, there is no real definition is there ..?

Q [Over talking] target definitions?
R Yes, there’s no clear definition. But it depends what clear bench

marking systems you are using any way doesn’t it. Yes – I don’t really
work on housing anyway so I haven’t looked at it in detail but there are
various commentaries out there for the Code for Sustainable Homes.
So for drying rooms and water usage and all that sort of thing. But
regards energy I think- there’s a sort of – the main thing on the energy
side is the onsite and offsite discussion really. It’s not terribly clear –
well, there’s various planning document policies that point you towards
onsite but if we are going to meet these targets then that’s going to
have to change. So the onsite off site bit of the definition of zero carbon,
well not zero, is going to have to change or make it more flexible within
the planning system, funding systems.
Q How familiar are you with [our company]s mission statement? I’m aware
there is one. I think that I am aware of it is that we should actually be
actively prompting sustainability and zero – well, low carbon buildings
with clients. Which is what we do try and do in education. So we do try
and push the envelope a bit but at the end of the day you present the
information to the client but it’s their choice at the end of the day. Most
education projects do have quiet good conditions. How much of that is
[unclear] funding envelope.
Q So I was going to say what does Capita’s mission statement mean to

you but it’s whether you feel it’s being integrated into what you’re
doing?
R I think it is in our team, yes, because we are doing education. It’s a

fundamental aspect of education. Whether that’s the case in other
sectors I don’t know. Probably not I suspect [unclear].
Q So within [our company] what do you think they are doing to achieve the
mission statement?
R [Interviewee laughs] well the ERG group was set up to promote or

spread best practice. But due to project pressures within cost centers
and not enough time allocated by the board to various persons involved
in that the speed of its development in the amount it’s actually been
able to do is quite limited. So as an idea it’s a good idea but the
resources weren’t actually put into it to make it a useful tool. But don’t
quote me on that [interviewer and interviewee laugh].
Q Do you think [our company]s’ mission statement should be different and

if so what would you suggest?

R I haven’t actually read the mission statement that often to even know
what it says actually [interviewer laughs].
Q That’s just a copy there [interviewer points to written statement].
R Oh that one. Oh the *** bit [interviewee reads written statement]. It’s
probably a bit too technical for most people to appreciate what that’s
actually talking about. Not technical but there’s too many figures and
percentages in there. And there’s no, as your previous question there’s
no definition of zero carbon in there. It could be a bit more poetic.
Q [Interviewer laughs] do you want to describe what you mean?
R Not as many figures and percentages in there. Figures and numbers.

Just, I don’t know, [our company]s’ intension to develop low carbon
buildings by 2012 or something, rather than talking about percentages.
As for when people want those percentages or what they mean or – is
that high or is that low? Is that good or is that bad?
Q That’s interesting. Right. Thank you very much [interviewer and

interviewee laugh]. END OF INTERVIEW.

A09-APLNS-NM-S06-21012009-B5&6-KS-KS
Interviewee ID: A09
Interviewee Subgroup Level ID: NM
Location: S06
Short Description: Interviewee is an Architectural Assistant within an


R There are a few projects that have got some concentration in our cost
centre, but I’ve heard about other cost centres where they’re doing
more of sustainable and renewable designs and things like that. But I
don’t think we’ve got a chance to completely explore that part of design
and things like that. So maybe forty percent or something.
Q And can you describe what support systems you think that your
organisation has in place to support staff to work towards these low and
zero carbon government targets?
R What do you mean by support systems?
Q [Over talking] so is it – are you aware of any specific system that – of –

so that they can make sure that you make your buildings sustainable or
help you with knowledge towards … ?
R [Over talking] we have had a few CPDs in our training for sustainable
products and things like that. But I don’t think there’s any official training
to give any consideration.
Q And what do you see as the benefits for your organisation to work

towards the governments low and zero carbon targets?
R Sorry I [unclear] …
Q That’s alright [interviewer laughs]. What do you think would be the

benefits to the organisation to achieve and build low and zero carbon
architecture …
R [Over talking] I think there would be lots of benefits like innovative

design and innovation in a lot of construction techniques and things like
that. And maybe innovation in different materials. And probably
experimental issues were materials as well as form and structures are
concerned. And at the same time it would benefit the zero carbon
policy. And also it will make you think differently. Different norms of
design so …
Q And do you think, from your experience, that architects have the
sufficient level of knowledge required to achieve these low and zero
carbon targets?
R It depends on individuals really. There’s – I don’t think there would be a

syllabus as such that we need to finish and be graded against. But
probably it’s how much you explore it. How much you take risks doing
different kinds of things. And how much you give a chance to any
material or form of design to evolve. So it depends on the individuals
really.
Q So it’s more on individual …?
R [Over talking] Yes. So how much you would read through books, and
how much you investigate about stuff and technically use, and maybe
even your creative side. Like if you could think of using something
somewhere that would be sustainable or maybe like – I don’t know. But
thinking out of the box kind of a thing. Which is not standard related.
Q Have you personally noticed any differences between small and large
architect’s practices in terms of knowledge to do with the government’s
targets?
R I’ve not worked with small architects. I’m sorry.
Q [Over talking] OK. No, that’s OK. OK. And in your opinion what do you
think a large architectural practice needs to do to make sure that it’s
R I think it’s more of the client side of it where – because at the moment
we’re working on schools and we were free to do - on this school we

were free to do – give a totally zero carbon, sustainable design for the
school. And in the end the budget that was approved wouldn’t allow for
anything that – it would just allow for standard construction. Brick and
block construction. So in the end it wasn’t in our hands. We tried to do a
really funky design which would allow sustainable heating and water
harvesting and things like that. But nothing got implemented in the end
so it was really difficult [interviewer and interviewee laugh].
Q That doesn’t sound like a good experience [interviewer and interviewee

laugh].
R No.
Q Within your organisation what do you think are the barriers to these
targets?
R That’s probably the budget that we get to work within. And I don’t know.
Planners. Not – this is not within the organisation but it is a big barrier.
Q Yes. And …
R [Over talking] sorry I just wanted to give an example. This school, this is
the biggest experience that I’ve received, but this school it was built in
an area where things - buildings were listed and things. But it’s not got
any real nice architectural features or proportions. And the school wants
us to – sorry the planners wanted us to replicate the building because it
completes the shape of a horse shoes or something. And we wouldn’t
be able to use modern material or anything of that sort to …
Q Yes. OK. And within – actually within Capita itself do you think there’s
anything that’s stopping you achieving …?
R [Over talking] not really, no.
Q OK. And within the industry as a whole what do you think are the
barriers? So covering the whole of the construction and the architecture
industry here.
R System really.
Q OK, so when you say the system?
R I think the nature of contract and procedure that you have to go through
probably bends over someone else’s likes and dislikes [interviewer and
interviewee laugh].
Q Is there anything specifically about large architectural practices that you

think are a barrier to achieving?
R May be office politics.
Q What do the governments low and zero carbon targets mean to you?
R Damp buildings.
Q Damp buildings?
R Because they just don’t want any air to come in [interviewer and
interviewee laugh].
Q Oh right OK. Yes.
R Well maybe there are good and bad points but that’s the first thing that
comes to my mind.
Q So you’ve had a few negative experiences of …?
R Not negative as such but - I mean it really sounds suffocating when you
just want to shut down all the external air that comes in and just want to
keep the building warm and stuff [unclear]. Like your breathing stuffy air
and things like that. But there are other things like – there are other bad
points as well where - things like if you’re stopping the air and you’re
making the air stuffy and then you want to introduce mechanical
ventilation. And then again you’re using energy to run the mechanical
ventilation system. So you’re never going to get zero carbon at any
time.
Q What if anything would you personally change about the governments

R Just maybe not jot it down as rules. People should be aware of it and be
able to do it freely rather than imposing on them that they have to go
zero carbon.
Q OK. And do you have any personal opinions about how you think
perhaps we should be either building different to achieve these targets
or even if the targets were different? Whether the government should be
going for different targets or something like that?
R I don’t think the government should be going for any targets

[interviewee laughs]. But they should defiantly encourage people to
build differently. Like I think statutory bodies like planners and Building
Reg's people are part of government and they’re the ones that
sometimes come in the way of doing things [interviewer laughs].

Q OK. How familiar are you with the [our company] statement? I’ll just
[interviewer points to written statement on interview guide] – on the
page
R I just read it really.
Q OK. So that’s the first time you’ve come across that? OK.
R We’ll I think I heard a mention of that once. I think in one of the Capita
day out or something like that. Other than that there has been no
mention in the office or anything.
Q So it’s not had any impact on you’re – on the workplace at the moment
or ..?
R No.
Q OK. Having quickly looked at that target is there anything about it – is

there anything that Capita are doing to make sure that they achieve that
target?
R I think many other offices within Capita are doing some work but I don’t
know if that would be enough to achieve the target.
Q OK. And do you think that - would you change that mission statement in
any way or ..?
R Sorry can I read that?
Q Yes. Yes [interviewer and interviewee laugh]. Sorry I should give you a
sheet.
R [Interviewee reads written mission statement from interview guide] yes,

probably. I don’t want the buildings to be looked at – or zero carbon or
energy efficient. I want it to be, as an architect, I want it to be looked at
aesthetically with innovative designs and practicality of the building
rather than …
Q What – is there any specific training you think is required with in [our
company] to achieve this mission statement?
R No.
Q And do you think that any specific training is required within [our
company] to reach the low and zero government carbon targets?
R No. I don’t think so.

Q OK. And if you were to receive training [interviewer laughs], which might
not be applicable, what are your preferred methods of receiving
training?
R I think the CPDs that we have about new products coming in with the
sustainable qualities – maybe what we can use to bring our project to
that level would be good because the market keeps changing. And
other than that I think basic knowledge’s of science and mathematics
would be enough.
Q OK. Is there anything within this subject area that you think is important
R No. I just wanted to ask – you doing an MSc in ..?
Q It’s MSc – it’s a long title. MSc Architecture, Advanced Environmental

and Energy Studies [interviewee laughs]. Sustainability.
R Oh right. Do you study more about sustainability?
Q So yes, I’ve been doing the masters over a couple of years. So I’m
finishing off with this thesis.
R So do you learn something different than …
Q [Over talking] so I’ve been learning quite different …
R [Over talking] oh right. so probably I’m not aware of things – which is – I

don’t know what kind of training there would be if there were any –
probably you’re doing – there is some kind of training [unclear] but I
don’t know what that covers really.
Q I guess for the – for this I was thinking whether there were ways of
getting knowledge into the offices that would be accessible to people -
convenient. And then obviously the sort of issues of management of
time and all that kind of thing.
R Right. Well yes [interviewer and interviewee laugh].
Q OK. Well, I’ll just switch this off. END OF INTERVIEW.

A10-APLNS-M-S04-21012009-B12&13-KS-KS
Interviewee ID: A10
Location: S04
Short Description: Interviewee is an Architect within a Architects Practice

Large Non Specialist.

R At the moment everything that we have - we recycle all our paper, car
sharing, obviously using alternative means of transport i.e. trains. That
sort of thing. There’s no – trying to avoid as much travel as possible to
do obviously all the carbon things. There’s all the recycling stuff – off the
top of my head that’s all I can think of.
Q OK. With the targets as well for the architecture, so the governments
low and zero carbon targets, what do you feel your organisation is doing
towards this?
R We actually look at ways in which – alternate means of energy, and

things like that for buildings. It is architecture you’re talking about, the
buildings that we provide as well, yes?
Q Yes.
R We actually do look at alternate means of energy usage and obviously

all the mechanical stuff has to be done to certain carbon emission level,
and that sort of thing any way. And a lot of the time the planners are
actually saying this building has to have X percentage of low energy
use items. I.e. low carbon emitting. So it is sometimes government

orientated more than anything.
Q OK. Could you describe the support systems your organisation has in
place to help you to work towards these building targets?
R We have a specialist person in the office and we actually – in the

Birmingham office we have the sustainability team that sit round the
corner.
Q Oh right OK.
R So if you did want to speak to them you’re quite welcome to I would

have thought.
Q That’s quite handy.
R Yes, so we can just ask them questions. But obviously when they start
doing all the BREEAM assessments and this and that and the other we
have to ask to bring in onboard. Make sure we get the targets that we
are trying to achieve. Excellent or Very Good I think is what we have to
achieve so …
Q Do you find you tend to talk to them more because they are so closely
located?
R [Over talking] Lots. Yes, that’s right. Well just get up and walk around
the corner and ask them a general question. I think I was working –
what was I working on? I think I was working – where was I working? I
think I was working in the Glasgow office at one of the times and we
needed a BREEAM document which is quite useful. And we just phoned
Jo up, which is one of the girls that works round there, and it’s handy
having people like that in the office so we can just give them a call and
they sent all the documents I needed through. Very, very hard for
people around there, they’re not [unclear].
Q OK. What do you see as the benefits to your company for achieving low
R In my lifetime nothing, but in future lifetimes obviously – save the world

sort of thing. So it’s not – I can’t see anything happening short term
because it’s not just a switch on off scenario. It is a process that goes
on and on and on - that type of thing.
Q And from your experience do you think architects have the sufficient
R Depends on the age. I think its age orientated. Where – my age now

you have to learn about it because you’ve got no choice what so ever.
Everyone before me they have to know about it, everyone above me
are going to find it difficult to adapt. I think that’s where it gets difficult.
So …
Q Are you finding that in your office?
R Yes. But then everyone has a go [unclear] because obviously there’s all
the people here to speak to and get advice from. And it’s just like a
workshop, you say oh what can we do here, can you just give me a
hand and have a look at this and then pass it be somebody else. It’s –
not just what can I do and you’re sitting there on your own. It’s – have a
chat with people and that sort of thing.
Q OK. In your opinion what do you think architectural practices need to do

to ensure that they can produce …
R [Over talking] more training, every time
Q OK. Any specific type of training?
R Well there’s – for example the RIBA CPDs that they do. They actually
have quite a lot on sustainability and alternate means of energy and
how its incorporated in buildings at the moment and what buildings and
that sort of thing. Seeing how other people have done it more than
anything rather than having to research. If you have to do it then you’re
going to have to spend X amount of time researching it, trying to get a
right solution and this that and the other. But if somebody’s already
done it and you’ve had a lecture on it and people have gone through all
the processes all ready then why kill yourself trying to do it again.
There’s - absolutory pointless exercise that is …
Q [Over talking] so to be shown examples and …
R [Over talking] exactly yes.
Q OK. Have you observed any difference in knowledge between small and
large architectural organisations?
R I used to work - I worked for a small one who were totally ignorant
towards it, I worked for a medium one who are slowly getting around to
doing it and now I work for this company who are focusing on doing it
more. So I’ve been through each of the bands.
Q OK [interviewer laughs]. And within your organisation what do you think

are the potential barriers to achieving low and zero carbon buildings?

R Ignorance.
Q In what sense?
R People not wanting to learn about it. I think they’re so used to the
traditional ways of doing things. And not understanding it is another one
actually. It’s the understanding of it as well as the …
Q OK. What do you think the potential barriers are within the industry as a
whole? So across the board?
R Again it’s getting the correct training for it again. It’s because training
doesn’t come for free which is - in the climate at the moment where
people are struggling to get work, monies obviously really tight isn’t it?
and you can’t just put ten people on random courses really because it’s
all money at the end of the day. So you’ve got to make a profit
somewhere.
Q And within the large architectural organisations what do you think are
the biggest barriers?
R I don’t really know. I don’t think there is a barrier. I don’t think there’s an
excuse really. They’ve got money in a pot to say that X amount has to
be spent on training. Every large practice has so – I think again it’s - I’m
not sure if I’d put it down to laziness or not willing to learn about it so …
Q What do you personally think about the government’s low and zero
carbon buildings targets?
R [Over talking] unachievable totally. Totally unachievable but that’s what

they’re aiming for. And if they aim high and they drop down low at least
they’ve aimed for the bench mark.
Q OK. What if anything would you change about the governments low and
R Make it more realistic [interviewee laughs] over the time scale.
Q Would there be anything perhaps about either the targets themselves or

how you get to the target?
R [Over talking] Well they need to give companies and things like that
incentives to do this. There’s no incentives out there at the moment.
They say you have to do it and then people are thinking OK I’ve got to
spend X amount of money on doing this and there’s nothing in there for
me basically. And obviously in the short term as opposed to the long
term. I don’t mean like there’s nothing there – OK the worlds going to

end type of scenario but …
Q OK. And could you describe, or do you have any thoughts, about any
alternative ways of producing buildings in the UK that maybe a different
way to the way that the government is looking?
R Sorry, what’s the question sorry?
Q Whether you think there are any alternative ways of producing buildings
in the UK that would be different to perhaps how the government is
pushing at the moment? So perhaps the targets that they’re doing at the
moment?
R A lot more flexibility on how you design in terms of – because the

planning authorities always the ones that hold you back from doing
anything and they always stop - you try doing something a bit different
and – OK you can play the sustainability card all the time but they still
need to have a bit more relaxation on design to achieve what we’re
trying to achieve. That’s what [unclear] in some instances so ...
Q OK. And how familiar are you with [our company]s mission statement?
It’s just on the bottom of the sheet [interviewer points to written
statement on interview guide].
R Not very [interviewee laughs]. I don’t know how common that is but its
…
Q What do you think the statement means to you?
R They’re trying their damnest to get - play the sustainability card and
everyone has to be on board not – Capita can tell you what to do but it’s
not just the people above can say this. They need to be able to rely on
people in each office to implement this as well. Don’t get me wrong. The
offices I’ve worked in, because I’ve worked here, London, Bristol and
Glasgow, and everyone does all the recycling and car sharing and that
sort of thing as well, so everyone is making an effort. But it’s just that
they need to find ways of pushing it even more and find alternative ways
of trying to reach that bench mark really I suppose.
Q OK. I was going to say what do you think [our company] is doing to
achieve the mission statement at the moment?
R To be honest I don’t know. I really don’t know.
Q OK. And do you think the mission statement could be different at all or
do you personally prefer to see anything?

R No I think they’ve got the right words they just need a better way of
implementing it to be honest. Because nobodies actually come to the
office and spoke to us about any of this. Nobody’s ever mentioned it
really and unless you go looking for it yourself it’s not evident really. So
this is how I’ve seen it because no bodies ever mentioned it to me so I
don’t know anything about it.
Q No absolutely [interviewer laughs]. Do you think, well, you did mention

training before but actually what sort of specific training do you think
that Capita needs to do to achieve both the mission statement and the
low and zero carbon?
R Just methods on how it’s done. If somebody says to me so rain water

harvesting how – what is the best way it can be done? I know go and
employ a mechanical guy and tell him to do it but you still need an
understanding on how’s it’s done. It’s for you to design a building for
that system to be implemented. It’s not just as clear cut as we’re
sticking that in this building we still have to design around it so …
Q And so are there any preferred methods of receiving training? So, for
example, you mentioned CPDs before or any other preferences?
R [Over talking] obviously having a group of people together and doing it

in one hit makes sense really, and workshops and that type of thing?
Q OK. So group work is that just financial or for other reasons?
R No because you get everyone else options. Because you meet people
who work in the industry, work in other offices for example, or who work
in different parts of the industry, who have a different perspective on
sustainability to what we do. For example if you got a - I went on a
course to do with fire risk assessment. Every building has to have a fire
risk assessment now. I went in a course and they had insurance
brokers, because they have a totally different perspective on things like
that than architects do. And imagine if you have a sustainable building
how an insurance broker, for example, would insure that building,
because you’ve got this – it’s not – you look at it from every angle as
opposed to just I’m an architect this is how we’re going to do it.
Q OK. So it wouldn’t necessarily be just the architects?
R [Over talking] It could be any body, everybody and how people look at it.
Q OK. Brilliant. Is there anything you think that is really important to this
topic that I haven’t mentioned?

R The future. What’s happening? What other things could happen.

Because you’ve got all the standard stuff. Is there anything that
nobody’s ever thought of? Is there a next step let’s say. Is there - you’ve
got things that are on the market at the moment but how is it looking in
the future? And I think one good example is Japan. The technology is
ten years ahead of the UK. There doing things now - it’s looking at other
people. Chinese, Japanese and all those sorts of people. India,
because they are actually trying to push the zero carbon as well aren’t
they? And there’s a lot of people that are actually a lot further ahead
than us so there might be something out there that nobodies actually
picked up on yet so …
Q Brilliant. Thank you very much
R No problems. END OF INTERVIEW.

A11-APLNS-NM-S01-15122008-A1&2-KS-KS
Interviewee ID: A11
Location: S01
Short Description: Interviewee is a Technician within an Architects Practice


government low and zero carbon building targets?
R Not really. Don’t really know that’s the problem. We know we have got
these targets, but not sure what they are or how we are supposed to be
getting there.
Q So do you actually know yourself? Do you think you are aware of what
the actual government targets are? Are you aware of the Capita
targets?
R Not off the top of my head but I know we have got them. We reducing
them by 30 % or something like that - or more than that maybe?
Q I’ll come along to the mission statement at the end of the interview. So
obviously you have mentioned that you’re not, you don’t think, you’re
aware really of the targets. What do you think your organization are
doing to help you, help support you get to the targets?
R Nothing.
Q That’s fair enough [interviewer laughs]. And what do you think would be
the benefit of trying to get to the low and zero carbon targets for your
organisation?

R Well it’s obviously good for the environment first of all. Good marketing I
suppose, saying to client’s low carbon. That’s probably about it.
Q OK. So from you’re experience do you think architects, and I think

you’ve probably answered some of this all ready, have the sufficient
This can be within your company or with other companies.
R No. I don’t think they do. So many ways of doing it aren’t there, that we
do need to be told.
Q Right OK. So you feel that you need more support or more instruction
about what to …
R [Over talking] there’s obvious things about it, but I don’t think generally
everyone knows.
Q OK. And do you think that’s something that your company can support
you more with? Or do you think that’s something to do with training or ...
R [Over talking] probably training side of things like CDPs and getting
people in on it.
Q OK. Do you think there’s any difference between, for example you
obviously you work in a large architectural organisation, do you think if
you were working for a small architectural organisation that there would
be any difference in your knowledge about low and zero carbon
targets?
R Probably less because here obviously we got more people to talk to

about it.
Q Right OK.
R And, other departments to speak to, like M and E in particular.
Q OK so you feel that working for a large architectural organisation is

actually an advantage?
R Yes, unless it was a specialist architects that dealt with greener

buildings.
Q OK. And in your opinion, you’ve already mentioned things like CPDs
etc, what else do you think architectural practices need to do to make
sure that you’re on target to get to these government architectural
targets?
R They need to make clear what the targets are and make clear how to do

it and have set ways of building. Set products, set methods, set
suppliers.
Q So it’s all about very clear instruction?
R Basically yes. Because everyone needs to know, not just one person.
Q OK. And within your organisation what do you see then, what would you
foresee, as being the barriers in the future to getting towards the
targets?
R Lack of information, really. Knowing how to do it. And contractors

maybe. A lot of our contracts are design build. We try and push them
down one route, the more expensive normally, they’re going to go for
the cheaper option which probably isn’t quite so good.
Q Right OK.
R So we need something inline with the contractors as well to tie them in

on it.
Q OK. Have you experienced any of that so far?
R Not on sustainability, no.
Q No OK.
R [Unclear] other, anything else.
Q Yes. And does that extend to your relationships with other people within
the design team or within architecture? Well, those people working
towards the buildings?
R Probably. M and E are quite clued up on it all so they tend to go their

route, but probably could do. The client sometimes they want different
things. It comes down to cost at the end of the day mainly.
Q That’s obviously an important factor. OK. Do you think that tends to be,
the cost issue, the overall driver at the moment or do you think there is
a bit of flexibility for pushing the environmental side?
R Its probably cost is main but I’m sure if you’re selling a building to a
client with the green approach they would - and they want to pay a little
bit more for it, they’ll go for it.
Q Right OK. So do you see there being, aside from just the architecture
side, actually within the whole construction industry, do you think there
are any major barriers to the low and zero carbon? Obviously you have

mentioned cost already but is there anything else that you think might
be a factor?
R Its just information that’s really that’s all.
Q Information for everyone [interviewer laughs]?
R Yes, information for everyone. So yes.
Q OK, and obviously again to touch on the large architectural

organisations and whether you think there’s any barriers to being a
large company in comparison to a small company?
R Yes. The barriers there would be lack of communication, basically. You

have someone that does know what they are doing and other people
that don’t and as always happens the bigger it is the worse the
communication is.
Q OK. And what do the government low and zero carbon targets mean to
you personally? So how do you feel about them and whether you have
any level of interest in them?
R Well personally it’s a good thing. It’s our future, the world. And yes,
that’s about it.
Q That’s OK.
R Make the world a better place [interviewer and interviewee laugh].
Q Would there be anything that you think would need to be changed about
the targets? For example the way that they’re pushing forward the
targets or even the way perhaps the government are going about, as
you were saying, things like supporting ...
R [Over talking] well they could probably put adverts on TV and stuff.
Make people aware of what it’s all is about and why we need to lower it.
And the biggest polluters and stuff like that. Shame them a bit.
Q OK. Get mean on them [interviewer laughs]. And, so do you think you
have got much experience with, for example, things like BREEAM and
actually trying to lower things like carbon emissions of buildings?
R Yes. BREEAM is applied to MOD jobs that we’re doing. So we’re

dealing with them. Bit of a funny thing with BREEAM. Some of the
things in there are a bit pointless, like specifying a recycling bin in every
office or something like that. I think it needs to be a bit more building
construction orientated, like the actual products. Which it is as well, but

little things. Environmental statements on all the jobs.
Q When you say environmental statements do you mean to make sure

that you’re saying something in the contract to make sure it’s taken all
the way through?
R Yes, yes. Which is good. It needs to be there, that ties the contractor in
then doesn’t it.
Q Yes. And so would there be anything that you think would need change
about the way, for example, BREEAM and other procedures are done,
or how would you go about trying to address carbon, lowering the
carbon emissions for buildings?
R What you mean as a company?
Q As a company or as yourself?
R I think there all there but they’re not seen as the important things. There
should be a pile of documents for each jobs that’s seen as like
important, like the clients brief. With that you should have the
environmental statement, that’s agreed with the client and the
contractors and then it has to go forward that way.
Q And OK so onto the Capita mission statement. Actually if I just

[interviewer provides interviewee with written mission statement] -
there’s a quote for you there. How familiar do you think you are with [our
company]’s mission statement?
R [Interviewee looks at written statement] well I quoted 30% earlier, so not

very familiar at all [interviewer laughs].
Q Do you think, do you perhaps think, there’s been enough information for
you to understand what the targets are about and why you’re supposed
to be aiming for?
R Well there hasn’t. We’ve been told once that statement and that’s it. No
other information.
Q OK. So what would getting to these targets mean to you? What do you
think - how do you think - that would affect your daily working?
R Quite a lot. 70% of buildings - so what [interviewee reads from

statement] 70% of what we build has to be carbon - zero carbon? I don’t
know how you do that? Reduce energy use in buildings by 25%, so
that’s M and E really, and a bit us. Specify 70% of materials are
obtained from sustainable sources. Where are they? We need help on

that one. And 5% on renewables. Well, that’s going to be project

specific I would have thought as well. I mean there’s going to be jobs
coming in that you’re not going to be able to do those on. So how, I
don’t know quite how you say 70% of buildings can be zero carbon.
Q So is that quite high then...
R [Over talking] it is quite a high percentage, yes. You can’t - you could
have a hundred jobs in and you could have 30 of them that you just
purely can’t make carbon zero - zero carbon.
Q And then you were saying about the materials. So perhaps is there any
way that you think you could possibly get to the 70% construction
materials to be from the sustainable source?
R If we knew about these sustainable sources, yes.
Q So again this is about having the information?
R Yes, having - I mean that’s something to help, but be a list of products

that are suitable.
Q OK. What do you think [our company] are currently doing to achieve this
mission statement?
R No idea.
Q So you don’t feel that you’re seeing any obvious evidence of anything at
the moment?
R No.
Q OK. And do you think, with regard to the mission statement, if you could
create your own mission statement to do with producing more
environmentally friendly buildings or reaching the government targets,
what would you personally think we should be aiming for?
R I don’t know. 50% maybe, [unclear] below 40%.
Q For that same time line?
R Right. That’s only three years away now, isn’t it? That’s not very long. I
mean how many buildings have we got on site at the moment? Not
many. So the designs we are doing at the moment are going to be
going on site about then aren’t they?
Q Right OK. So to reach that really we need to be starting that now?

R Yes, basically. So we need, I’d say, by 2015 40%.
Q OK. And in your opinion would you go for different percentages, for say
the construction materials, or would you say perhaps we should be
aiming at other ways - so not necessarily just targets on things like
materials and energy. Are there any other considerations that you think
would need be taken on board?
R Well, energy is the easy one to hit, isn’t it? You design a building so that
it uses as little energy as possible. You use economical systems to heat
and light the building. So that’s a good start. 70% of construction
materials from sustainable sources, that’s going to be quite tricky I
would have thought. And not only to do it but to monitor how you’re
getting on. I mean how do you work out 70% of a building? That’s quite
tricky. So, what was the question?
Q If you had...
R [Over talking] could change that?
Q If you just wanted to personally change the mission statement at all?
R Reduce energy use in buildings by 25% [interviewee reading mission

statement]. That’s also going to be quite hard to monitor. Because you
design a new build building, how they going to know what the usage is?
Q So do you think for that one, would there be opportunities for things like
EPC’s and DEC’s to monitor them?
R What are they?
Q Sorry [interviewer laughs], the energy performance certificates - in

theory they’re legal requirement from now aren’t they? And so that
possibly would give you an opportunity to monitor that in the first year.
R Yes, yes. Well, I think M and E they got it – from what I can see they’re
sorting it out. They’re putting in efficient boilers and everything and my
last job, which I just worked on, they’re putting in a biomass boiler in
there. And we went through the whole process of sorting what other
options there were to achieve excellent rating on BREEAM. So M and E
side of things they could probably, what [interviewee looks at statement]
they’re reducing energy in new buildings by 25% on - is that on a 100%
of their buildings?
Q I’d have to clarify that.
R Yes. It’s a bit open that statement isn’t it. I mean ...

Q [Over talking] so do you think perhaps more clarity with what the
mission statement and ...
R [Over talking] Yes.
Q What the baseline from where they’re taking the targets from which
would perhaps be more helpful in ...
R [Over talking] probably, I mean yes these could be - [interviewee looks

at the mission statement] 70% of construction materials is a very vague
one as well.
Q OK. So before you were talking about things like more information,
more basic training within the organisation. Do you think there are any
other ways, or what would be the most useful ways of being trained
within the company to reach these targets?
R Probably CPD’s at lunch times, lunch time chats on it. I think something
very useful would be a list of products that are very good for us to start
using.
Q And how would you best prefer to access these lists?
R Just ...
Q [Over talking] would that be something online or in the office on paper...
R [Over talking] just an online data base we have or something. On the

extranet or something like that.
Q OK. Are there any other issues to do with both the government and the
[our company] targets that you feel haven’t been addressed?
R No.
Q OK. Well thank you very much. Thanks.
R Cheers.

R The company or the office?
Q The company?

R The company. Well we’ve set targets so that by 2012 a certain

percentage of all our buildings will be carbon neutral. A percentage of
which, I’ve forgotten off the top of my head at the moment - is it ninety?
Q Seventy I think.
R Seventy, is it seventy percent of our building will be carbon neutral? So

we’ve given ourselves that incentive. We’ve also set up what’s called a
BIG, Business Incentive Groups, within each office. and Within each of
those offices there is a particular person who is assigned to be the rep’
to deal with energy efficient buildings, carbon neutral buildings etc, etc.
so there’s some one specific in each office who deals with it and the
idea being that at the early stage of the project the rep’ will be involved
in looking at and will see best way of moving forward in order that we
give the best carbon neutral energy efficient building.
Q OK. Are there any other support systems that you think your company
has in place to help you achieve those targets?
R Well within our office we have M & E and we also have the sustainability
section of the M & E based in our office. Who were actually working out
of Redditch but they’re actually based in our office at the moment. So
we have the opportunity to go and talk to them and talk about how we
can achieve BREAAM etc at the very early stage of the project. So what
we do is use the other parts of the business to assist us in progressing
the designs.
Q OK. And what do you see as the benefits to your business for achieving
R The benefits we get is obviously – well, first of all at the moment we are
trying to establish a unique selling point for the company which we don’t
have. And one of the unique selling points which I champion is that we
design carbon neutral energy efficient buildings. By doing that obviously
it makes us more advantageous in the market. If a client particularly
wants to go for BREEAM Excellent building he’ll look at us and think
they’re the experts, they’re the people I want to use to do my building
and hopefully that’s what will happen.
knowledge required to achieve these targets?
R I don’t believe so, no. I don’t think there is enough information currently
available within the business. It’s probably there somewhere but I don’t
think it’s being communicated at the moment.

Q OK. And what do you think then that the practice will need to do then to
ensure you achieve these low and zero carbon targets?
R Yes. I think – personally I think we need to have workshops or even

road shows or something. Somebody who’s going to champion it and go
round all the offices and say look we’re trying to achieve these targets.
In order to do this we’re going to put these systems in place. If you need
any information, you need any help with any of your buildings come and
see me or whoever and we’ll help you to achieve it. Because at the
moment if you went into the studio and spoke to some of the guys they
probably wouldn’t have a clue who they should be speaking to.

R Yes. I think in the larger architectural practices there is probably more

emphasis on trying to achieve the targets. Probably because we have
the bigger clients who are prepared to pay for it. Smaller architectural
practices working with probably clients who are on limited budgets,
smaller schemes don’t really see it as that important. More of an add on
to get approval more than actually trying to save the planet if you like
[interviewee laughs]. Its just – in a lot of cases sustainability is just a tick
box on a planning form that you need to get passed and also building
regulations. There’s not really this ethical view of the wider picture to
actually drive it to make our buildings more sustainable.
R Yes, I think the potential barriers comes down to funding and get the
message to clients to – OK initially there’s a big pay out but you’ve got
to give them, show them that they’ll pay back in later life. And also again
there’s the wider picture. The ethical benefits that you’re actually going
to be providing a building that’s friendly to the planet if you like. And
also in terms of raising the profile of the company again as well. We
could push it forward for awards etc and gets this in the market place
and get our faces seen.
Q When you said funding at the beginning do you mean funding in terms
of from the client?
R From the client, yes. Again working with some developers it’s just a tick
box. It’s a means to get an approval and I think we need to be talking to
them and encouraging them and saying well not really. We should be
pushing the boundaries a bit further really.

Q And what do you think are the barriers within the industry as a whole
R Technology. At the moment I don’t believe that technology is moving

forward enough for us to enable us to produce these buildings and we
seem to be stuck in a rut. It’s almost as if a couple of years ago it was
the buzz word but now it’s gone a bit stagnant but maybe that’s a
reflection of the market at the moment. It’s going to be difficult I think
over the next 12 months when fees are tight, every ones under cutting
each other and stuff to try and encourage the people to spend the
money. It’s going to be tough.
Q Have you seen any impacts in relation to economic down turn at all? In
relation to how sustainability is perhaps viewed or …
R [Over talking] not really. Not at the moment no. There’s the potential as
the year progresses when we do get involved in projects that this will
apparent, but not at the moment no.
Q OK. And what do you think are the biggest barriers within the large
architectural organisation to achieving the targets?
R Again I think its communication and training. There’s obviously there’s -

the people there and there’s the knowledge and it’s just a case of
getting the systems right in each studio. Making sure we are following
the protocol.
carbon targets?
R I think they’re unachievable personally. I think they’re putting too much

emphasis on trying to achieve the targets and I think they should be
relaxed a little bit more. I think it can – they shackling them at the
moment. It is defiantly having an impact on the market I think. It’s
making it more expensive to build. Especially in the housing market it’s
really killed it.
Q And what if anything would you change about the governments targets
or whether you would, or how we get to the government targets?
R I think they need to be reviewed. I think we need to be governed more

time. They need to be relaxed so that that people can start building
again. And just try and get to the point of just – it’s all very well saying in
so many years time to get to carbon neutral but if we’re not building
then it’s pointless really.

Q Do you have any ideas of alternative ways of producing buildings,

perhaps building buildings, that you think are available that would be
different to how the government are looking at getting to the low and
R Yes, I’ve looked at pre fabricated systems, almost factory built houses
etc where detailing can be tightened up. One of the major problems with
buildings is air leakage, the detailing. The stuff that’s manufactured off
site you’re relying on the skill of a tradesman to guarantee that it’s built
accordingly. If you stood on a prefabricated basis you could control it
and I think we should be looking at more methods like that.
Q And how familiar are you with [our company]s mission statement?
R Familiar.
Q OK. What does the mission statement mean to you? It’s just on the
bottom of the page if you want to [interviewer points to written
statement on interview guide] …
R Yes. It’s - to me that - it gives a vision. It gives a target, something to

aim for. And what it also does is it sets us aside from other architectural
practices. I’ve mentioned this before it gives us a USP, a unique selling
point that maybe other architectural practices haven’t got. It can only be
a good thing really. I think we should have a statement like that.
Q What do you think [our company] is currently doing to ensure it achieves

this mission statement?
R They are, like I said, there have been systems put in place, the BIG
reps in each of the studios. I think there should be more emphasis on
CPD related to this subject and again maybe the actually BIG leader
who is responsible for sustainability should perhaps go around each of
the offices and do a bit of a road show and make people aware exactly
what the statement means and what we’re actually doing to try and
achieve this.
Q And if the mission statement could be different in any way do you have
any personal views on what could be any alternative mission
statements?
R No, I haven’t got any comment on that really, no.
Q No, that’s fine. Do you think, well actually you have touched on this
before, about the specific training required to achieve the mission
statement, again is that CPDs? Would there be anything else that you

think would help?
R Possibly more literature. We’ve got the standard architectural

magazines but I don’t think we get anything that’s specifically related to
sustainability and renewable energy.
Q And you mentioned CPDs. Would there be any other forms of training
that you think would be useful or relevant?
R May be just opportunity to go out and find out what’s going on in the
market. I attended Think O8 last year and it was only by myself and
another colleague but I think more people should be encouraged to
attend some of these conferences because there are plenty going on.
People should be encouraged. I’m attending one in a couple of weeks
in Coventry. Again it’s regarding sustainability.
Q Are there any issues within this subject area that you think are important
R No [interviewer laughs].
Q OK. Thank you.
R I can’t think of any sorry [interviewer and interviewee laugh]. END OF

INTERVIEW.

A12-APLNS-NM-S03-22122008-A16&17-KS-KS
Interviewee ID: A12
Location: S03
Short Description: Interviewee is a Technician within a Architects Practice

Q OK. Can you describe how your organisation is working towards the
R No, I can’t.
Q OK. That’s fine. If there are any questions that you don’t feel that you
can answer it’s fine to …
R [Over talking] OK. Yes, cool.
Q OK [interviewer laughs]. Do you, are you, aware of any support systems

in place within the organisation to help you to work towards the
government targets at all?
R I think there’s something on – what’s it – the desktop – Capita Desktop I

think isn’t it? But I’m not really sure where. I’ve never been sat down
and shown where really so …
Q OK. What would you see as the benefits to your company for achieving
low and zero carbon building targets?
R Well, that’s the way the future’s going really isn’t it so if we can achieve
that now especially in the current climate. If you can keep on getting
clients which are willing to achieve that sort of standard then it sets a

good example really. And shows how well business is doing.
Q Thank you. From your experience do you think that architects have the
sufficient level of knowledge required to get to these low and zero
carbon targets?
R I think some do. I wouldn’t say all do. I know that some go down that
direction more than others. I think one of my friends ***, used to work
here, she did a specific course on environmentally friendly architecture.
So she’s going to have more of an idea than other architects I would
have thought.
Q Right OK. What do you think that the architectural practices need to do
to ensure that you can in future achieve those low and zero carbon
targets?
R What to the actual practice?
Q Yes, the actual practice. Yes.
R Well, they should put on training days and give their staff sufficient
training really. Sponsor them in - send them on training courses really.
Q OK. And this may or may not be applicable to you but have you noticed
any difference in the knowledge of architects in smaller and large
architectural practices with regards to low and zero carbon
development?
R No, not really. No, I can’t say I have really.
Q Within your organisation what do you think the potential barriers are to
achieving these low and zero carbon targets?
R I suppose cost to the client – wants to spend on the project. I would

have thought that would have a large impact. And again, lack of
knowledge of staff and architects and people doing the design process
on the job.
Q Within the whole construction industry, as a whole, what do you think

the barriers are?
R I don’t get what you mean?
Q So, for example, you were talking about clients before and the
knowledge within the office. When it comes to the wider construction
industry, developers and other people in the team as well, what do you
think are the barriers for other people to - achieving these targets as

well?
R Well, I would have thought – their thoughts on it you mean? Or their ..?
Q [Over talking] things that make it more difficult for them to achieve the
targets?
R Well, I would have thought cost is the main factor for clients and
contractors. I would have though contractors would want to value
engineer as much as out to be able to save costs for themselves and
make more money.
Q [Overtalking] is that your experience?
R Yes [interviewer and interviewee laugh]. But as in barriers I would have

thought that was the only one really, that I can think of. There’s
obviously going to be stuff that clients and contractors probably would
like to do and not like to do. And some of them may fit in with what the
designers are trying to design towards, and may not. So I suppose it’s
just what they want and how much they want to pay.
Q OK. And, as I say, within the large organisations what do you think the
biggest issues are with getting the low and zero carbon architecture? So
Capita, for example, is a pretty big architectural firm in comparison to
some of the others in the UK. What do you think Capita’s biggest
challenge is?
R Probably because we do a lot of government and again a lot of value

engineering goes on within the government work. A lot of PFI jobs. And
a lot of the time it’s the contractor calling the shots really and they just
want to make as much money as they possibly can. And in doing so
they can ruin the design in a lot of ways and stop the designer getting
those low carbon [unclear].
Q What do you personally think about the government’s low and zero
carbon targets?
R I think it’s a good – I think we should all be aiming to do as much as we

can to save the environment or do what we can. So …
Q OK. And would there be anything that you would perhaps change –
perhaps either the targets themselves or the way we go about trying to
achieve the targets ..?
R [Over talking] the way they architects can achieve or the government?
Q The way perhaps the architects – or it could be the government as well

actually. If there’s any obvious things that you’ve noticed.
R I think that there possibly should be more incentives for doing

environmental design and perhaps they should pitch the client a bit
better.
Q And when you say incentives, what kind of incentives is that?
R Cost incentives I would have thought. Yes …
Q [Over talking] Right OK.
R More grants available for such things as green roofs and things like that.
I think perhaps the government should be putting training schemes in
place themselves to try and coax designers to design like that and
clients to pay for stuff like that.
Q And so you mentioned earlier that you didn’t have much experience with
things like BREEAM, or Code, or anything like that, have you got - what
do you think, you’re level of understanding is with regard to green and
low and zero carbon architecture is and perhaps what would you want
to know?
R I’d like to go – yes, I’d like to go further in that direction myself really in
the future. I haven’t had that much chance and experience to do so yet,
but I’ve got a basic experience I’d say.
Q OK. And how familiar [interviewer points to written statement on

interview guide] do you think you are with this [our company] mission
statement?
R What main?
Q The 70% of its buildings?
R Alright OK, sorry [interviewee reads written mission statement from

interview guide]. No, I’ve never seen this.
Q OK. What do you think - or what’s your impression really of what Capita
are aiming for with regards to low and zero carbon from what you’ve
read or know?
R Well, I would have thought they’d try and compete with the market and
try and better anyone else. And get as many environmentally friendly
buildings out there. We may as well to make a statement that we are
getting good clients, we are producing quality – and good jobs, good
designs. And even in the current climate that we’re in.

Q OK. With regards to that particular mission statement, is that something

that sounds that it could be obtainable or would you have any thoughts
as to whether there’s any issues with it?
R I would say that it’s achievable. I would probably say that they need to
invest in more training for the staff if they want to achieve that. And do a
lot - yes, do a lot more training with the staff and making sure they’re
competent and know what they’re doing with environmentally friendly
stuff.
Q OK. And if you could create your own mission statement for Capita, with
regards to the environmental architecture, what would you like – is there
anything different that you would say or have you got your own ideas
about what they should be going for?
R No, I couldn’t say to be honest with you.
Q So you mentioned before about the training and that being key to you
getting to …
R [Over talking] to achieve what they want to achieve.
Q You mentioned things like training courses and paying for people to go
away. Any specific types of training that you think would be valuable or
that you would find most useful for learning about low and zero carbon
and environmentally friendly buildings?
R How do you mean? Can you give me a few sort of ..?
Q [Over talking] so, sorry, for some people it’s CPD’s. Other people prefer
to go away and do training …
R [Over talking] No I think CPD’s are good. I think the only problem is that
they do all of them in a lunch time. And I don’t - I’m always doing
something at the lunch time so I don’t have chance to attend most
CPD’s. They could perhaps put them at different times. Maybe
sometimes not at lunchtimes, sometimes after work, before work, even
in work!
Q That would be a bonus, yes [interviewer and interviewee laugh].
R [Over talking] yes, yes. But just vary it about a bit because if you keep
on doing at one time there’s always going to be someone who can’t
make it.
Q No, that’s true. And do you think perhaps, for example, they should be
compulsory or do you still think they – at the moment because obviously

they’re flexible depending on what your credit level…?
R [Over talking] yes, no, I think they probably should be in a way

compulsory but at the same time doing at lunch times when people
have got – you can’t put something in place that’s compulsory if it’s in
their own time really. So if you’re not paying them to do it you can’t
make something compulsory.
Q More in Capita’s time?
R Yes, yes. So if it’s going to be compulsory - I think it should be

compulsory but if it’s going to be compulsory obviously it should be in
Capita’s time not ours.
Q Are there any other training methods you think might be useful or ways
of you accessing information you think would be useful to you?
R How do you mean?
Q So that, again, that could be things like at the moment the BMS system
is online and whether something similar could be useful for – more for
the architectural production side?
R Perhaps weekly things sent out by email with just – not too much
information. Just something small that’ll just throw something in. Like a
fact of the week or something like that. Which I think it would be quite
good because you’re more likely to take that in.
Q So small snippets of information?
R [Over talking] Small snippets of information just so they’re on one factor

of design. And did you know if you design this it save so much, and
things like that really. Or stuff like what’s out on the market at the
moment. Or something that possibly has come out which is quite new
that people can use within their design to lower their carbon [unclear].
Q Is there anything else about low and zero carbon and environmental
buildings that you think is an important issue that I haven’t possibly
covered in this or that ..?
R As in how we’re designing or ..?
Q Sorry, from your perspective as working in the architects practice that

you think is important that perhaps hasn’t been raised?
R As in what’s going on in the office, or what we’re designing, or how

we’re being taught or …

Q Or any of those [interviewer laughs] …
R [Over talking] any of those. No, no, I don’t think so. As I said I think that
we need more training on it. I think it’s important that we do – especially
the way things are. We need to design to the best of our capabilities,
with the best – that we go out there on the market and try and make a
statement that we are trying to improve the environment.
Q Brilliant. OK. Well, thanks very much. END OF INTERVIEW.

A13-APLS-M-S07-22012009-B20&21-KS-KS
Interviewee ID: A13
Interviewee Subgroup ID: APLS
Location: S07
Short Description: Interviewee is a Sustainability Partner within an Architects

Practice Large Specialist.
Q Can you describe how your company is working towards the

R Well, we’ve been doing low energy buildings for a long time. Right from
the start of the practice. So that comes from Peter being at Yale doing a
Masters in Environmental Design. The practice was set up in seventy
eight and so we were all interested in – the people who set the practice
up basically went to university together. It was the oil crisis and all those
sorts of things and part of the main focus was on low energy buildings
and passive solar design and that sort of thing. So we imported ideas in
from the states and timber framed buildings, well insulated. So in those
days it was easy to be a head of the game. Now it’s more difficult to be
ahead of the game because the game has risen. And to the point where
the economic case for doing things better is less clear. So we are
working towards the idea of zero carbon building targets. So we entered
one of the first, god what’s it called, carbon – it was one of the first
English Partnerships competitions for Code Six homes. Bristol’s
Hanham Hall? The Carbon Challenge. So that was looking at whole
development of zero carbon homes. Whereas if you use a slightly
different definition of low and zero carbon we do a lot of work with
bioregional. Again Bedzed fame and all of that. They disregard the
governments Code Six definition of zero carbon and say it’s perfectly
fine to have off site renewables. Better bang per buck. So we’ve done a

couple of schemes, one planning scheme with them. One Brighton and
one Gallions. And generally we try to raise the agenda [unclear] but
we’re lucky in that clients tend to come to us because we’ve got a
reputation. On the commercial side - sorry I’m not sure I believe you can
get zero carbon non domestic buildings because you can’t – we’ve got
as close as anyone can apart from the RES building, Watford. Which I
think Inbuilt are based there. Inbuilt are owned by RES, or set up by
RES, and as far as I know that’s the only zero carbon office building.
But that requires a five hectare field of Miscanthus to do so, and a 225
kilowatt wind turbine. So that’s what you need to do so I think it’s all a
bit of nonsense. So things like our National Trust headquarters
generates about, depending on how you mash the figures, 15% of its
own energy. So we’re always pushing and I do a lot of work with RIBA
on consultations and stuff, so I am the RIBA’s President’s Sustainability
Advisor. For six or so years. So I am involved in a lot of policy thrashing
around which promotes low and zero carbon stuff. So we know what’s
going on.
Q What support systems do you have in place to help your staff to work
towards the governments low and zero carbon targets?
R Well, because we try in this area the general level of knowledge is quite
good and I think it’s getting better. People are interested in it. People
come and work for us because we have got a reputation, and they
actually get disappointed when they can’t work on some cutting edge
project. Not every project is a cutting edge project so we are pragmatic.
So we’re not super green. We’re not as green as Bill Dunster, for
example. I’m sure he’d turn down clients [unclear] - certainly clients feel
that they might not be good enough for him and therefore don’t ask him
to work for them. So we’re not dogmatic. Maybe we’re just tarts
[interviewer laughs]? Don’t know, don’t think so [interviewee laughs], but
better be careful what I say on the tape. We do - we have endless
environmental policies and all that. We have just got ISO14001. But
that’s tends to look at our behavior as a business rather than just design
practice. But we’ve, for example, done audits of our own emissions etc.
The first one is 2002 and [unclear] 2007 and we are just finishing one
now. We are now recording stuff so that we can know where we are all
the time rather than just one off audits. My role is supposed to be as a
floating advisor on projects. So I will go to project reviews which we
have regularly and also have a chat with people about sustainability
issues to pick their brains at any the time. We need to do more of that
and we do try and – a lot of our CPDs are geared in this direction. And I
tried to be – we try to get people who give talks outside the office
because an awful lot of people bang away at conferences and things so

we try to get them repeated in house. With a big organisation it’s

interesting that you think everyone knows about everything you do and
of course they don’t. I gave a talk about housing at the London office at
the end of last year and I just suddenly realised that people just don’t
know about some of the stuff we did in the early days – eighty three or
something. It’s history to them. I somehow I think that everyone knows
about this stuff and they don’t. So I think a big organisation it is an issue
and also because we’ve grown quite a lot over the past few years and
we’re a bit more mature. And so you suddenly – there are points in our
year - we have parties and things when you have a point to reflect. And
Richard, Richard the partner who died three years ago, so every
January 3rd there’s a point where we toast him and then you suddenly
realise that half the people in office didn’t know him. Which is
extraordinary in such a short period of time, [unclear] too much. People
come and work for us principally for two reasons. One is our
sustainability but also because we’re good designers and so people will
have different personal biases. And some people – I don’t think there’s
anyone in the practice who doesn’t give a shit about sustainability and
will just do anything they can. But people’s preoccupation [interviewee
interrupted by colleague] – sorry.
Q What do you see as the benefits to your company for achieving the
governments low and zero carbon targets?
R Achieving? Well, it’s a very challenging target. It’s dubious as to

whether we will in the end - whether it’s sensible. So I suppose you
could say that if you can demonstrate that you can do it then you ought
to get more work because it’s difficult to make. That’s one of our
strengths. We have the confidence and experience to say how badly
our buildings do. It’s a funny reverse promotion really. Because most
people talk about targets, how the building was designed to hit a
particular target. But very few people will actually say well actually we
didn’t make the target for these reasons and that’s where you learn a
huge amount. So our Heelis building for example, the National Trust
headquarters. I’ve given many talks and it’s had a lot of post occupancy
evaluation done on it which has exposed all sorts of interesting issues,
particularly IT. And our schools. Some of them have been monitored. All
schools used to [unclear] as much electricity as they were designed to
and I’m trying to understand that. It gets quite complicated. And
something’s they can do about that and something’s they can’t.
Understanding the truth is a real preoccupation of ours. So yes, I think
we actually have quite a strong social commitment. Again that’s from
the history of the practice where we started off as community architects.
We started off in a shop, not like proper architects invisible to some.

And so we feel a very strong commitment because it’s a massive

problem for humanity and actually [interviewee laughs] and actually we
need to try and do it. That’s probably more of a driver than a business
driver, probably.
Q Right OK. In your experience do you think architects have the sufficient
R This is a tricky one because I think there’s sort of an assumption that

you create skills. and I think you do, but then we’ve just learnt by
looking what other people have done and copying, trying things, finding
out about stuff. It’s not that difficult. And you see how fast the profession
has been learning. When – I mean in Bristol there’s Stride Treglown
who are not noted for sustainable – there a big commercial practice and
- I think they’re the biggest in the west country?
Q They probably are.
R They’re bigger than us. And then suddenly they produce a scheme of
ecohouses from nowhere, apparently. And they’ll pretty good,
interesting. And who are those people? Architecture – Associated
Architects in Birmingham who, again if you look at their website it’s all
glitzy office buildings. They produced an absolutely beautiful private
house for somebody made out of Cob and won the RIBA sustainability.
And all the aggregates mixed on site, the contractor cycled to the
scheme. Absolutely amazing, something from know where. So I’ve got a
lot of faith in people being able to pick these things up. I think there is a
fair amount of obviously green bling around and people not quite
understanding – particularly things like passive solar design which
people still bang in about. Which most of the time is a pain in the arse
because everything over heats. So there are always new – things that
you discover that are slightly counterintuitive. But I suppose that’s what
differentiates the people with experience from the people who are –
most of this stuff is not rocket science. And actually you can get much
further by doing simple things well than innovative things badly. Novices
tend to do – they’ve innovated something bonkers and …
Q What do you think architectural practices, or this might apply specifically

to certain architects, need to do to ensure they can produce low and
R Would be to find out! And do a BREEAM assessment. That was one of

– we did one for the first time for our low energy office for the BRE and
that was a very good learning experience. because the whole point of
BREEAM was that when you – it’s a process and you get an initial

rating which means you then have to produce a lot of information. So it

makes you – under the standard headings it means you have to try to
understand a lot of issues about it. But then as you go through the
process there’s always this thing well if you did this you could lift your
rating or it’s a shame you didn’t do that. And then the next time you do a
project you do that. So that’s a very good process. I should say you’re
asking about the skills of architects, I think there is a shortage of skills of
engineers. Because we really incredibly heavily on very good engineers
and there are not many of them around. The names always pop up.
Fordham’s, Atelier Ten, [unclear], Buro Happold. But then some of the
bigger firms are now getting their act together. Faber Maunsells, those
sorts of people who are getting a lot better. But the ordinary journeyman
M & E people who quote cheap and they’re not interested. They just like
pipes [interviewer laughs] and they’re not interested in designing the
building, they’re not interested in physics. They don’t - the building to
them is a box that needs to remain completely unchanged from when
they first look at it. They just want to plug a system in and that’s it
[unclear].
Q Have you observed any differences between the smaller and larger
architectural practices?
R Well, I guess – I’m not sure if I’ve got a huge amount of experience of a
[unclear]. I suppose the smaller practices tend to be set up by
enthusiasts and the people at the top of a small have a passion for it
and then a lot of knowledge and they’re driving the agenda so it’s a very
tight little team. The larger practices if they’re trying to change - I think
we’re unusual because we have the passion as a group and –
surprisingly. Then the larger practice like Fosters, like Aedas, once they
get the idea they buy expertise in. and they have a proper research
department, they have a person doing stuff but they don’t have to do
other things. And Aedas, for example, has produced a very good little
guide, a whole series of guides, so that would be really useful. And
Yousef is ex Fosters so she’ll be able to tell you about Fosters. Fosters,
they’ve always been savvy about environmental issues. The building I
always site from them is, well there’s a few, there’s the Willis Dumas
Building. Do you know that? Insurance building in Ipswich?
Q Is it the [hand gesture from interviewer]…
R [Over talking] It is. It’s a wiggle building. It’s that [interviewee sketches
building form] and a curve, and a glass wall. Single glazed, incredibly
clever piece of technology. It’s all hung from the top and then sits in a
slot which is filled with oil all which is sealed, it pneumatic. And then the
plan is – you circulate round the outside. So its big open plan shed. You

circulate in the zone where it’s a bit chilly, so everyone’s in from the
edge. Very compact plan so inherently it’s got a very low heat loss even
though it a single skin building. And I think it uses – it re circulates
waste heat. So coming it’s from a different direction, it’s not hairy. but
it’s only when you understand what the hell’s going on - and I guess the
natural successor of that is the GMA building which is focused on
reducing the envelope or getting to as near as sphere as possible.
Which is barking but of course they’re interested in those sorts of things
and then the Gherkin. Which is the whole shape of the thing is designed
to reduce heat and keep positive and negative pressures. That very
clever but fundamental building physics but completely let down in
practice. Useless. Biggest disappointment of the lot. And then the
Commerzbank Bank where the natural ventilation – do you know the
[unclear] bank in Frankfurt? I can’t draw it because it’s basically a sort of
– is it three towers with – well, basically it has the winter gardens that go
up the building so every – it’s a forerunner of the Gherkin in a way so
you’ve got - they go up the building and round and they’re three stories
high and so they’re intermediate spaces, offices, look out onto the
natural ventilation works. Very, very clever. Again use good engineers,
people like ARUPs. So I think that’s the difference. They approach it in
a different way and they probably - it’s more a small engine of
enthusiasts and they’re pretty good at disseminating information and
very systematic. If Foster decides to do sustainability they will have a
library, the best library of information in the world probably, and they’ll
be somebody who catalogues it the whole time. And we’re not that
supportive, maybe we should be. Sorry banging on too much.
Q They’re getting them for free though aren’t they? Lots of free students
that go there [interviewer laughs].
R They’ve done the most fantastic school, the Free School. No air
conditioning, very high levels of thermal mass, some parts highly
shaded. Bloody clever, good stuff. No one else is doing things like that.
Q Within your organisation what do you think are the potential barriers for
achieving the governments low and zero carbon targets?
R Well, there are barriers for everyone. For us it’s the value for money
equation. Our problem is that’s probably the thing that is the
fundamental issue. And so, as I say, in the past it was quite easy to be
a lot better. As the regulatory floor comes up the things that it’s sensible
to do in pure economic terms gets fewer and fewer, the extra ones. We
never used to worry about the U-values of our buildings because we
knew they were much higher than they needed to be whereas now
we’re looking at U-values and saying these are too high. The

regulations are saying there’s no need to insulate this much. I mean

office buildings, for example, you want to get rid of the heat most of the
time. So the times they’re actually needing heating - it’s not a simple
equation. So I think money is always an issue. Convincing clients to do
things. It’s interesting when you say hitting the zero carbon targets
you’re presumably talking about the 2016, 2019 targets? I suppose
what I’m thinking about is trying to hit those targets now rather than
then. So it’s very difficult to make an argument for building Code Six
houses, for example, because people don’t value the potential future
costs of energy. Because everyone’s always said that energy is going to
go up in price dramatically and it hasn’t really. It’s got cheaper. It went
up a bit last year but that’s the fundamental problem isn’t it. The whole
systems is based upon cheap energy and no one quite believes that
energy will get expensive or short.
Q Do you see attitudes changing when they are likely to get more
expensive?
R Yes. Or the government starts to – the Stern Review obviously said you
have to use regulation taxation incentives, a combination, and they’ve
done nothing really. The treasury is completely detached from this. After
Stern it’s gone completely silent. They never did – I went to this thing
yesterday for the UK Green Buildings Council and I think there was
Defra, or whatever these people are called, BERR, and DEC were all
there. Not a sign of the treasury, it was absurd. So until an agent, a
commercial agent, has a financial framework of where the values are for
these things, which has to mean a changing [unclear] system, they are
going to keep on saying there’s no money in sustainability. Of course
there isn’t until you have total economic collapse [interviewee laughs].
Anyway let’s not get depressed.
Q Do you think there are any other potential barriers within the industry as
a whole to achieving these targets other than the cost implications to
the client?
R I think cost is really important but the feeling you get is there isn’t a big
plan. So everyone’s doing things that sort of make sense within their
little sphere. An example of that is oh I’ll do a zero carbon building and
that just means you bung in a biomass boiler. And once you’ve done
that you don’t invest in things like solar hot water heating which is
reducing the cost effectiveness of the biomass boiler. But in the bigger –
and that’s absolutely fine, make it stack up, justify it, but there isn’t
enough biomass to go around and so it’s not an answer. The trouble is
even Bedzed, for example, they’re biomass system CHP was fired by
thinning, prunings from Crawley. I think Crawley Park’s Department is

the first urban FSC certified products. Great. But there’s enough
thinnings in Crawley to do three Bedzeds.
Q Oh right.
R So it’s not a – I maybe talking bollocks but I don’t think I am. But it’s that
order of magnitude. There’s a fantastic book on the web
www.withouthotair. Do you know it?
Q I looked on that the other day. I haven’t read it yet, it does look really
interesting.
R David MacKay.
Q It looked really funny.
R Yes! He’d a very good speaker and he has a nice take on things. What
he does in that book is to set out all what the problem is. So he converts
everything. Demand for cars, energy use, renewables all into watts per
person per annum and that means you get an idea of the order of
magnitude of the problem or the order of magnitude of watts available.
So wave energy on the west coast of [unclear] seems like a good
resource but it works out as half a watt per person per annum. So it’s
pathetic. So when people say oh put [unclear] you can’t get anywhere
near all of that. So he comes to the conclusion that even if you reduce
demand you need country size renewables. So you either buy loads of
biomass from Canada, so you either find a country with a lower
population density, or you get some electricity from north Africa. So it’s
fantastic at showing you what you need to do. The government don’t
have a big plan yet. Doesn’t feel that a huge amount can be done by
decarbonising the grid. And I’m sure there working on the figures but
there’s nobody saying we’re going to use all the biomass for cars, for
example, or they’ll be this much biomass per person. Bill Dunster’s
worked out the national biomass quota. 250 dry kilograms per person
per annum, or something like that. And so his schemes are designed
around that as a sort of that’s how much we’ve got. But I don’t know
whether his calculations grab all the biomass or buildings. I think he
probably has left enough for growing some food or – there needs to be
a big plan. [Unclear] I think we may well be doing all sorts of things that
are sensible within our little set of rules but may well turn out to be
bonkers. But the big barriers – say you take the Code Six definition of a
house or site it’s – well, it’s jolly expensive to do. And you can see that
it’s bad value for money and no one can afford it. So it’s cost but cost is
related to practicality. [Unclear] if you’re doing flats there’s just not
enough roof area to do it all with PV [unclear] [interviewee laughs].

Q Code Six is interesting.
R Yes, well, there’s lots of consultation on these sorts of things going on.
Q Do you think there are any specific barriers to large architectural

practices?
R Well, I think probably their client base as it tends to be rapacious

developers who are only interested in turning over large sums of
money. Because they’re in the main stream and that’s probably it isn’t
it? What with them being the main stream clients, we’re lucky in that we
tend to deal with specialist clients, and the main stream isn’t convinced
of the value of low and zero carbon. So if the main stream changes they
ought to be able to – it’s interesting these conversations because I
hadn’t really registered that before but it’s interesting.
R I’ve probably covered it. I’d love to see a big plan. And I think the Code
for Sustainable Homes and the road to zero carbon was a fantastically
influential moment and the idea of a framework that will say what will
happen in the future, where are we going and when, is incredibly
powerful. It’s a shame that we missed it completely and it’s interesting
how fast people have reacted to it, and how fast the flaws in it are
emerging. And obviously they are working on the Code for Sustainable
Buildings which is the thing that I was doing yesterday. Which is a
different problem. It clearly can’t work without offsite renewables so you
have to, some of us have to grip that problem. I’ve got a [unclear] if you
take the Gherkin, if you were to provide all its electricity from PV you
need a one and a half kilometer diameter array of PV.
Q Right [interviewee laughs].
R And most of that is that Bank of England which is obviously not

necessary anymore but that is the whole of the city of London which is
covered. And that’s not the only building [interviewer laughs]. And that’s
just with its stated energy consumption, the target energy consumption.
So I think you could probably be fairly confident that it’s [unclear]. It’s a
big problem. So it’s getting real and one of David MacKay’s mantras is
numbers not adjectives and they’re not quite there on the numbers yet.
So I think it’s unrealistic. The other thing is obviously the existing stock
is the crucial issue. And everyone always says this and never does
anything about it, including ourselves. And basically if you can sort of
the existing stock the new build is easy. At the moment we’re trying to
build the market with new build and then say that the existing stock will

then take care of it’s self. But it you turned it round then it’s absolutely
clear that decarbonising the grid is absolutely fundamental. So if you –
and how you decarbonise the grid has a huge influence on what
resources you’ve got to apply to new build and existing stock.
Q I could assume, wrongly, that perhaps because people, clients, aren’t

offering you refurbishment work?
R That’s true. We do get the occasional one. We used to get more I think.
We have a Creative Re-use team, so we have conservation. So that’s a
chance to pick up some of these things. But the existing is a tricky one
particularly because it’s not necessarily an architect’s world. And
particularly housing. It’s B&Q, white van man, DIY, all of those sorts of
things. Small builders. And that’s a bigger education issue. And to some
people in the construction industry the bigger players, the people like
Atkins, the chair or CEO or whatever they are, Chief Executive of Atkins
is now the chair of the CIC, Construction Industry Council. And I was at
a meeting – they’re technically the voice of the construction industry to
government, and he was saying we shouldn’t talk to government at all
about existing housing because it’s not our business. And that seemed
to be really odd because if we don’t try to deal with that who will? Who
is going to take a holistic view of what we are going to do with homes.
It’s a problem because it’s a very difficult area to get into outside the
professions. But obviously a hell of a lot of architects survive on doing
private houses but they’re impacts in terms of numbers of units done is
quite small.
Q You have already touched upon it, but would there be anything else that
you would look to change about the governments low and zero carbon
targets or maybe even the targets themselves?
R It’s tricky because, again these things come up in discussion a lot, the
focus on carbon is powerful because it’s focusing on the problem. And I
remember when the performance directive came in and I was quite
supportive of it being carbon not kilo watt hours, but there is a problem
of people hiding behind renewables. I think - so the reemphasis on low
energy before you worry about low carbon because the two things
aren’t the same. There’s an assumption because they’re fired by fossil
fuels that they’re the same thing but really they aren’t the same and I
think that needs to be picked up. I think we’re getting better I think but a
reemphasis on performance and practice because at the moment we’re
making policy on the basis of very little information. The [unclear]
amount of information on the existing stock and what it’s actually doing
is very limited. The information is there – so for example utility bills
should be in the public domain. They’re not because of the data

protection act or some bollocks and it’s absurd. And I think there’s some
confusion [unclear] as to why that ever happened. You can go to the
land registry and find out how much somebody paid for their house but
you can’t find out what their utility bill is. But if you had that information,
and that information is there because the utility companies have to
provide it, I believe, to the government – don’t know because they don’t
check the meters half of the time, it would be a fantastically powerful
research tool. It makes – you’d know what the hell was going on. So I
think measurement and proper investment of data collection and
understanding what’s going on. Sorry I am rambling, but anyway, we
now measure our energy consumption of the office on one of these little
[unclear] sort of things. And you can see standing loads is about eight
kilowatts, so when everything’s off you’re still using eight kilo watts of
energy. And we’ve been trying to [unclear] as well where that energy is,
so turn everything off, turn the servers off, and we we’re still had four
and a half kilo watts! We don’t know where it is. So we’re now going to
turn off every circuit until we find out where that energy is. It’s exactly
the same problem as the government – as we have in the country. We
just don’t know. Someone probably does somewhere, but I just don’t
feel that it’s understood well enough. There’s very little joining up. It
would just be great to hear more from the energy companies about what
the hell they’re doing. And how the way energy is sold supports energy
saving? It’s the bonkers thing of the more energy you use the less you
pay for it. What? Whereas Dongtan in China they’re going to say you
can use this much energy and if you use more than that energy you pay
triple. So I think that if you have a three tier energy charging system
based on your Energy Performance Certificate, your allocation a
perfectly reasonable figure, another band for additional, then you’d have
a band called excessive and you’d pay eight times [interviewee laughs]!
Q That’s a good idea. Are there any particular areas in this subject that
you think are important that I haven’t covered?
R I suppose the business of the credit crunch of course.
Q Have you seen any knock on effects from the credit crunch towards
perhaps things like clients attitudes towards targets or uptake?
R Yes, slight. [Unclear] of our clients is negotiating on a site and there is a

requirement [unclear] when we did the planning brief for the site that all
the buildings should be Ecohomes Excellent, in 2005 that was. With
particular carbon targets as well. So it was like a fore runner for Code or
Sustainable Homes. That’s obviously some time ago and the first phase
of the buildings is all Ecohomes Excellent in 2006, so actually the
standards been raised, and now we’re in 2008. So now we’re

negotiating the next phase and the person buying the site said they’re
having to do the Code Three which is sort of the equivalent of Very
Good, but actually it’s moved on so it is actually a higher standard than
the original requirement in pure numbers terms. and there was – the
deal was that they work out how much it would be to go to Code Four
and the client, the person selling the land, had the option to adjust the
selling price to cover that cost. And they said forget it we’re not going to
go higher than Code Three. Because its mind blowing that somebody’s
buying a site at the moment [interviewee laughs] and the idea that
somebody would pay more for a site in this climate is reduced. Because
already it’s a high discounted site because of the high energy standards
and they discounted it as a bit of a laugh. Why would you do that?
Because everyone’s just fighting for their lives. Because certainly in the
private housing market it’s a war of [unclear] absolutely. It has to be
said that this is one of the few sites that’s selling at all which is
interesting. But whether that’s the architecture or the energy, it’s an
interesting combination. But they’re peculiar houses.
Q They’re you’re …
R Yes. Interesting. Different. Small gardens but decks, upper level decks.
Every level has an external space on both sides of the house so the sun
is always shining depending on the time of day, every day. [Unclear]
obviously they’re charming homes and very well landscaped etc, etc. so
it is quite amusing that it is - it’s great.
Q Brilliant. Anything else or ...
R I don’t think so.
Q OK. I’ll just switch this off …
R Just one thing. Just to reiterate that the idea of a target even if it’s
unobtainable is terribly powerful. So it’s like – something that people get
hold off – so things like the one planet living concept. It’s wonderful
because it encapsulates what you are trying to do in one idea. It’s just
really simple. Those sorts of things are very powerful so don’t – we
shouldn’t get rid of the targets even though we might argue the toss
about whether they’re realistic. That will bottom out through the course
I’m sure. OK?
Q Brilliant. Thank you very much. END OF INTERVIEW.

A14-APMS-M-S08-19122008-A12&13-KS-KS
Interviewee ID: A14
Interviewee Subgroup ID: APMS
Location: S08
Short Description: Interviewee is the Principle Architect within an Architects

Practice Medium Specialist.
Q So, can you describe how your organisation is working towards the
R Right. Well, I suppose we, as a practice, we would suggest that we look

to exceeding the governments low and zero carbon targets.
Governments low and zero carbon targets [interviewee reads from
Interview Guide]. It’s worth just defining a bit more about what you
mean - what exactly are the targets you’re talking about?
Q I think specifically those from the government, specifically their housing

one. They’re asking other people to use the housing one as the same
as the other one.
R We – just in terms of the housing one then, the 2016 target, we actually
don’t do a lot of housing, although we do do some housing. But what we
have been developing is – we developed a standard house type which
we feel would fit a basic Code Level Five. We’ve been quite – certainly
in the in house development, when we’ve been doing it, we’ve been
looking at Code Five as our target really I think. There’s various reasons
why we look at Code Five. Code Six is obviously very difficult but also
there’s a question in the office – we question whether or not actually
Code Six is the best way to go. Because after you get to Code Five
maybe it’s more about lifestyle change. And actually for that last five
percent, or whatever you get, to get from Code Five to Six. Maybe we

would [unclear] to save money to get better carbon reductions over the
whole thing. So we’ve been particularly looking at that and I think we’ve
been doing some internal studies, because we’ve got an internal
research team. We’ve been looking at studies about what the benefits
of getting to Code Five and Six are. What other benefits you might get
in terms of – for example, if it was a housing scheme, setting up a
community management panel or something like that. Which running
the scheme might get you a lot more carbon benefit than just hitting the
targets. So [unclear] organisation that’s the way we always look at
things. We never take things at face value. We always look to question
why we have to get to certain targets. And we do various other things in
house as well. We – as I mention the research team we’ve got. So
we’re also looking - because we’re involved with a lot of Modcell as well.
A lot of [unclear] we’ve been doing in terms of our housing design has
been looking at the embodied carbon of the fabric as well. So we
actually now try and look at every design we do. Do we need to report
how much carbon is in the fabric of the building? Because clearly, when
we get to 2016 the question is going to be where do we go from here?
So then maybe the next phase is how much is actually in the building.
And a lot of the Modcell work we’ve been doing is - well actually can we
get embodied carbon in the building which can clearly reduce as to be
negative carbon [unclear].
Q And in terms of the government’s, it appears to have aspirations to use

the same criteria for their non domestic buildings. Do you, are you,
currently applying those to those buildings? For example, you say
you’re working in the schools area at the moment and they’ve got their
targets as well at the moment.
R Yes. I think the way it - the difficulty with White Design is that the
actually – the aspirational point [unclear] is always to start off with
looking at zero carbon building. So in many ways every building that we
start off with we agree to make it zero carbon. And it clearly it’s – then
work back. So when there’s client – when the client won’t go there in
certain situations we can’t do that. Our aspiration was to start off with a
zero carbon building. [Unclear] school design is – every school design
that’s been done has been looking to push the boundaries beyond what
other people are doing. So we’re doing Dartington School at the
moment which could be pretty close to being the first zero carbon
school. Because it’s basically made out – it’s all timber made so there’s
going to be very little carbon in terms of the production of the building.
It’s going to have – the ventilation strategy [unclear]. So we would hope
actually – yes, whatever the government targets are we would hope that
we’ve already been there. So we’re – which is the case many ways.

We’ve been there and we’re actually stepping back and saying why are
the government targets are flawed in many ways.
Q Right OK. And what support systems do you have in place within the
company to help your staff aim for low and zero carbon targets?
R Yes, well – officially – well, probably we haven’t got enough [unclear].

It’s - I think we’re the size of practice where we probably assume there’s
– no we do have a lot. We have – there are regular CPD’s. We have
Friday afternoon sessions where people share information, and that’s
often based around some feature of sustainability. For example, we had
one on plastic in buildings and whether or not – it was picking up on the
BRE stuff. They did that, the new issue of the Green Spec’, was
whether or not plastic windows were more sustainable than timber
windows. So we had a session in the office whereby we tasked two
groups in a Friday afternoon session, which is basically everybody in
the office in this room, to go away and do some research into those two
areas and see what the nuances of those [unclear] were. So in that
respect there’s issues that Craig’s been [unclear] on. Which based on
what he does, if he goes out and does talks [unclear] that’s fed in. But
we – and then we have – we do have – White Design has a really good
CPD allocations. I don’t know what the figure is but every [unclear] a
CPD, and that CPD’s then brought back in. so we will go to [unclear]
five or six CPD – external events. The issue is that they will always be
sustainably based. But ninety percent of the time they will be
sustainably based and part of what we need to do is we need to stay in
the – at the cutting edge of sustainability. So most of our CPD’s are
based round that and [unclear] the rest of the practice. So we have –
there’s BREEAM assessors, but we don’t do full on BREEAM
assessments. They’re on board to advise on our own building projects,
but also to keep us up to date with what’s going on on that side of
things, [unclear] and things like that.
Q OK. And, this may seem like an obvious question, but what do you see
as the benefits to your company for achieving the low and zero carbon
targets?
R Yes, I don’t know, it’s a strange question because actually we wouldn’t

see the benefits [interviewer laughs] - White Design’s quite strange
because it’s actually set up, Craig set it up – it was to make sustainable
buildings. So it’s part of our business plan really. So [unclear] doesn’t go
any further than that. That’s what we do, that’s what we need to do. So
it’s not in terms of the – it’s not of what’s required, it’s what we’re going
to do. So it’s a bit tricky.

Q That’s OK. And from your experience do you think architects in general
have sufficient level of knowledge required to achieve the low and zero
carbon buildings?
R Right. I think there’s two things there. Architects in - generally are

probably, are pretty good actually in terms of having an awareness of
sustainability, of the issues. That’s one side of things and it’s difficult to
know what, outside of the practice, people are engaged in [unclear]. In
my previous practice, for example, I would say no. There was very little
awareness or it was very cursory. It was very much based around just
having to get to the basic targets. There was no creative thinking
around it. The other issue to that is that actually sustainability is so
much about team and clearly what the targets are now meaning is that
obviously the M and E Engineer is now key – is a key role in that.
Trouble is architects - we’re not M and E Engineers but what - the whole
sustainability move is meaning that we are actually having to do more
and having to be more involved in the M and E side. Or being more
proactive in making sure we work closely with the M and E engineers.
Or working with good M and E engineers. Because they’ve got an
expertise which we haven’t got and we need to use that expertise.
[Unclear] slag the engineers off but there’s a very wide set of M and E
engineers. There’s people who don’t know anything about sustainable
design and there’s people who are very good. And it can make all the
difference in a successful project in terms of which one you get or how
much – so we’re, for example, we’re starting to bring on board software
packaging which is slightly M and E based. Because we feel we need to
be able to deal with those and work them through with a thorough
understanding otherwise we’re at the - we just have to do what the M
and E engineer tells us. So the more thermal modeling or daylight
modeling or carbon modeling we can actually do ourselves, the better I
suppose really.
Q Is that through dedicated packages like Ecotec or IES?
R Yes. Yes. Although I don’t think IES - we’ll ever get to that level. But
we’ve been using, with success, the Carbonmixer. So that we can
actually analyze where carbon is being used in buildings at every stage
and that’s – more and more we try and bring those things in.
Q And in terms of other practices what do you think that they need to do to
ensure that they can produce it? So again you were talking about things
like the team and, I guess, it depends on how much you deal with other
practices?

R It’s very difficult to say. It’s a very difficult question for us to answer I
think because we’re in such a – the market we’re in. and It’s very
difficult to know from that point of view what’s happening within other
practices. Clearly we do have a relationship with people like Feilden
Clegg and Architype, but they’re in the same area so we know what
they’re doing. We’re in the same area as that. It would be very difficult
for us to, other than previous practices we’ve worked for, comment on
what people are – Strides or [unclear] or what ever we’re doing…
Q [Over talking] tend to work with experienced people within the field?
R Yes. Especially – but what I do find is that the good thing about big
practice is they’re able to bring in – if you’ve got a practice of a hundred
or so you’re able to bring in specialist input [unclear] as part of that set
up [unclear]. In the slightly multi-disciplinary [unclear]. From my
experience what is – what it’s about in many of the bigger practices is
getting that core group. They might have ten people really interested in
sustainability issues. It’s getting that round to the rest of the practice,
and often they’ve got a pivotal group who do that for them. It’s getting –
how they get that policy taken on board by the rest of the staff.
Q OK. And within your organisation what do you think are the potential
barriers to getting to low and zero carbon? Although you say already
that’s what you aim to do any way so perhaps this doesn’t apply to
you…?
R [Over talking] So say that one again.
Q [Over talking] Whether there are any potential barriers within your
specific company?
R No. Just the obvious one’s for example, but aren’t specific within our
company, is always about budget. I think there is - in terms of zero
carbon, there is defiantly – there is always an additional cost for these
sorts of things. Although I’d like to say its cost neutral I think there are
costs. There’s procurement processes, for example. Now we’re – if it’s a
traditional then through the process we can go a lot further than often
we would working for a Design and Build contactor. The pressures on
the budget and [unclear] it’s much more difficult to get these sort of
issues considered. Or they get taken out [unclear] before they come in. I
think one of the main things is about how we work particularly with the
contractors I suppose.
Q And again the question with the potential barriers was do you think
within the industry there are any barriers to achieving…

R [Over talking] yes, loads [interviewer and interviewee laugh]. Yes

[unclear] is just not interested any more. It’s tricky. It’s particularly
pertinent at the moment isn’t it when – credit crunch and all that. It’s
amazing how - yes, I think we started working in a niche market
[unclear]. When we go out into the open market sometimes we feel that
people just aren’t interested. [Unclear] the big contractors they’re
interested in as far as they have to be. And then if they have to be then
- the building reg’s have been upgraded, or whatever, then they’re
interested. But ultimately – I suppose that’s why it’s key that the
government set legislative targets because if they don’t most people
would [unclear] for money. And if it’s choice between sustainable or
make more money, then they’ll make more money won’t they. So I think
that’s why building reg’s and Code for Sustainable Homes are key
aren’t they because they’re like - if you can’t argue with them, you can’t
argue with them. You’ve got to do it. And that will you know. It’s clearly -
when we’ve done presentations on Code for Sustainable Homes,
initially contractors are just really scared because they’ve realised that
they’ve just got to do it. That’s when – because they are in their own
way quite creative people. The argument is by the time it gets to there
they will then explore all the ways they can do that to maximum cost
benefit. And they would get there, but if it’s a voluntary thing it’s not
going to happen is it? That’s the – within the market generally, it will
happen with individuals interested in doing that anyway.
Q OK. And, again I don’t know whether this would be applicable to you,
but do you think there are barriers within a large architectural
organisation, being disseminating information and getting people on
board? Do you think there will be any other barriers you can foresee?
R Well, there’s a level of expertise isn’t there. Which again it’s difficult to
say because clearly it’s all around us here so - and then there’s that
CPD – it’s basically a training exercise to get – but I think people
coming out of college now are more highly trained in those areas
anyway. So they’ve got to be involved and they’ve got to be able to
work with senior people who maybe more technically able but less
knowledgeable of the issues of sustainability.
Q I’ve noticed that they seem to be introducing sustainability more into the
education process for architects. I think UWE who obviously has the
benefit of perhaps having that bias anyway, but whether you’ve seen
students from other universities coming out with a higher level of
interest?
R Yes defiantly, defiantly. I think, yes, absolutely. Seems to be students

have got a huge amount of interest in it [unclear]. Like UWE clearly.

Cardiff is the other one where obviously got [unclear] as well. So, Yes,
there defiantly more into it. More clued up as well, and more knowledge
about certain areas. Yes.
carbon targets [interviewee laughs]?
R Do you want the truthful answer?
Q This always causes a laugh [interviewer laughs].
R Yes. I don’t know. I think they’re laudable, they’re great. Two views on
this really I suppose. One is that to be perfectly honest when sometimes
you think about this, you’re doing all these things and actually we’re all
just completely missing the point here. Because I think in many ways -
because that’s the political views isn’t it, and I think the government’s
only going to work within their political – they’ve got a point which they
can’t go past. And it’s - what it is they’re looking at technologies and
they’re looking at something very specific, things that they can deal
with. But in many ways that’s fine, but that can only do a certain
amount. They’re not looking really – those things don’t cover – it’s back
to what we were saying about lifestyle change. If we’re are going to
have a sustainable – or going to avoid too much global warming, it has
to be about people making lifestyle changes, not just about the
technologies that we use. I would have thought anyway. That’s my view.
And these targets are never dealing with that even though – and their
targets are always – yes, we could go on a long time about how rubbish
the government targets are and how they don’t include air travel and all
those sort of things. And therefore [unclear] - but just in terms of their
architectural targets I think they’re great, but they need to be more far
reaching really. But you know they can’t be because you know that the
government’s got to work within – otherwise they’d never get elected
would they so [unclear].
Q How would you suggest, or what would you consider, changing either
the targets or the way they’re going towards the targets?
R Strictly in terms of the targets? In terms of the Code and how the Code
is set up - no, I think it’s really good. A lot of people have a big issue
with it. It’s – and then there’s clearly points of argument that they’re
using the BRE to do - to generate it all. And there was that thing about
plastic windows and there’s [unclear] big disagreements but generally
it’s great. There’s always going to be those small points but …
Q Would you, for example, if you were in charge would you perhaps even
decide right we’ll go for occupant behavior and address those issues

or...?
R Yes. I think my – well, yes. In many ways the other big thing they miss
is the infrastructure isn’t it? You can – it’s focused on individual
buildings and it’s focused on the efficiency of those individual buildings.
Even still now there’s a lot of awareness about how those buildings link
together, that uncovered area. The Ecohomes, and the BREEAM,
whatever it will become for schools, its great. It’s always the joined up
thinking between those that’s the issue. If you’ve got a school that’s
fifteen miles away from the houses that’s always going to be a problem
even if that’s a sustainable school and the houses are sustainable. If
you can build the school within the community its how we set that up.
And I know that’s part of the ecotowns, maybe that’s part of the
ecotowns thinking. I think it – it seems to me that’s the big area where
the [unclear] needs to go a lot more in terms of planning control.
Planners. That has to be one of the areas where we can make the most
benefit and we can work it within the planning system. And then it has to
be seen and it has to go through to the strategic planning. So that the
way our local planners are set up are encouraging sustainable
settlement design in the first instance and everything fits into that. And
great - and then when you have got a sustainable building that fits into
an overall plan you would have thought that would be – yes.
Q OK. Do you think there’s any other major points that perhaps I haven’t
considered or that you think are important that are not being considered
by industry at the moment?
R No. But I should have been more prepared because I am sure there are
but I can’t think of them off the top of my head.
Q That’s OK [interviewer laughs]. Well, brilliant. OK. I’ll switch this off.
END OF INTERVIEW.

A15-CCL-M-S04-21012009-B18&19-KS-KS
Interviewee ID: A15
Interviewee Subgroup ID: CCL
Location: S04
Short Description: Interviewee is the Carbon Manager for a Construction

Contractor Large.
Q So can you describe how your company is working towards the

R A lot of the work that we do tends to be led by clients but we are – Code
for Sustainable Homes had a very big impact because on the housing
side – the companies split into four different sectors. We have Living
Space which is affordable housing. Code for Sustainable Homes means
that we now have to – because we only work for social housing
providers we have to build to a minimum of Code Level Three,
sometimes Code Level Four. We were involved in Hanham Hall where
we came a close second, so Code Level Six. And we have developed
templates for Levels Three and Level Four, and we do lots of research
on occupancy behavior. Been involved in a number of projects over the
years, going back to the house at CAT [Centre for Alternative
Technology] which was built in the 1970’s. In terms specifically around
low carbon housing we do – we started to look at refurbishment
because some our clients our interested are in refurbishment. And we’re
involved in a project with BRE which is called rethinking refurbishment
which is around sustainable refurbishment. The other areas of the
business tend to be less – there’s less involvement because the
legislation isn’t there. Some of our clients – some of our retail clients
aren’t interested in more energy efficient buildings because of the

bottom line cost of energy. But in terms of working towards the

government’s – it would be nice if we knew what the government’s low
and zero carbon targets were going to be [interviewee laughs]. You
know we thought we’d got a definition for zero carbon for domestic
buildings, but it would seem that that’s now out for consultation. There
still isn’t a definition for zero carbon non domestic, but what we’re told is
it’s likely to follow the definition of a zero carbon domestic. But we don’t
know what that is yet. So in terms of how we’re working towards it - we
are gaining knowledge. We are doing research into – particularly
relationships between building modeling and actual performance in use.
There’s too many assumptions in the - when buildings are designed for
a purpose. And people never go back and check. And its interesting
display energy certificates are going to change all of this, and they’re
actually quite a good thing in that respect, in that the consultants will
design a building based on technical guides, and what things are
supposed to do based on information from the BRE. But none of that
information ever really includes occupancy behavior. And occupancy
behavior can rapidly change from one building to another. And it can
change in the life of the building. If the – [unclear] commercial buildings
if the operator changes the way it uses its buildings. If it moves more
people in or it moves more people out or particularly on offices if it
changes from a call centre to a less intensive office, or vice versa, the
energy performance of that building can actually fluctuate. And its
energy consumption in terms of whether its heat or power also has a big
influence on what you do in terms of – so we are doing a lot of research
around that. And around trying to get people to start looking at energy
profiling and – but obviously the problem is that things like SBEM and
SAP, which are the tools that are being used to measure the carbon
performance of a building, will tell you something completely different.
You could build a house and you could put solar thermal heating on it
and theoretically SAP would say you’ve got a twenty five percent
reduction on your carbon emissions. A family moves in or an old person
moves in, is a classic example, who don’t use a lot of hot water – they
will not get that benefit. So there is – we are doing a lot of work around
that. And also we’re looking at embodied carbon as well which isn’t
included in government targets at the moment. Because we actually
think that is - embodied carbon and ecological footprinting and lifecycle
carbon, because those are - we think important areas. Because if you
can chose a product, one product over another, what appears on the -
we did stuff with paints for example, these eco paints. You actually need
five to six more coats than you do with standard paint to get the same
opacity. The work we did with Axonobel, who obviously have a vested
interested in this kind of thing - but their eco paints range which is low

VOC, or whatever, is very, very high opacity. So although the actual can
of paint versus – one can of paint versus another, the eco paint might at
first glance have a lower ecological footprint. If you factor in the volumes
of paint you have to use to get the same opacity you’re actually better
off going back to the paint that on first glance didn’t look as good. So
there’s a lot of stuff around that and a lot of stuff about life cycles of
products. Some products which can be carbon intensive will last longer
than - bricks are a classic example. Bricks are quite carbon intensive
but you’ll can get a window that’s - brick buildings that are two, three
hundred years old and there’s realistically nothing wrong with them.
Where as if they were some kind of light weight cladding panel that has
a twenty five year warrantee, or a render screen that needs
maintenance. So there is that issue as well. But at the moment that isn’t
- doesn’t appear to be on the government’s agenda and I think it will be
a very, very long time before it does come on the government’s agenda.
In fact I’ve had very long discussions with Paul Allen [Centre for
Alternative Technology] about trying to find out the embodied carbon of
PV panels and how long it take them to pay that back. It’s – yes …
Q Could you describe the support systems that your organization has in
place to support the staff to work towards those targets?
R [Overtalking] that will be me [interviewer and interviewee laugh]!
Q A few people have said that.
R Well, yes, that’ll be me [interviewer and interviewee laugh]! Well we –

Angus, myself. There used to be – this is shocking, there’s an
organization that turns over a billion pounds a year, 2600 employees.
There used to be three people looking at sustainability. There are now
two because one of them left to go and work for a train company
[interviewer laughs]. Yes, trains are very sustainable, but they need to
be more sustainable apparently. In saying that we do have a – basically
my role is I filter information down. So we have a technical services,
technical design management. We do – we have got a training
programme in place. We use external consultants quite a lot. But really
it’s about – there’s three areas that we focus on in terms of
sustainability and that is waste, people and carbon. Because those are
the three that we have identified. Probably the areas where we can
have the biggest impact as a business. So in terms of waste we do a lot
of work on – we’ve got a zero waste to landfill policy by 2010. So there’s
a lot of work done around that. We use a lot of organizations to help
support that. That gets trained down into the business - pretty well
embedded. The people issue - there’s quite a few people who work on
that, and that’s all about long term employment for unemployed people

and life time communities kind of stuff. And then the carbon stuff is what
I deal with. So in terms of support within – there is basically two people
that – but then we have champions within each business and we
undertake training. We do have a very complicated framework system.
There is a plan there, but it tends to change every time the goal posts
get moved by something or other happening.
Q How do you undertake your training then?
R We use external organizations most of the time. Generally people that

we’ve identified from the industry, usually consultants, who we feel have
a good knowledge of the subject. And we choose people based on their
specific – we also use some of our supply chain people. Organize
suppliers and installers of equipment. If it’s a specific technical issue
around photovoltaics, for example, we’ll use a specific PV supplier to do
that. But always caveat it with there are other PV companies available.
And you have to do - you do have to be very careful actually when you
do involve those people because they do try just sell you - and they
don’t tell you what the problems are with it. Because every technology
has it’s applicability, and in some cases it’s not applicable. So it’s - yes,
we have an ad hock approach to it I would say. It’s probably fair to say
the business doesn’t quite fully understand the size of the problem and
people keep referring to it as – the expression that gets banded around
is it’s like trying to eat an elephant. Although I did warn somebody in a
meeting the other day that if they ever used that term again I would
force them to eat an elephant [interviewer and interviewee laughs].
Q I’ve never heard that [interviewer laughs]. What do you see as the
benefits to your company for achieving low and zero carbon
architecture?
R The benefits are being perceived as a responsible contractor.

Understanding our clients’ needs, understanding the landscape. And
because this is something that we have to do. Come 2016 the
government wants every single new build property in the UK to be zero
carbon. In 2019 every new non domestic building. If we don’t do it we
won’t be in business. That’s what I tell every director. You can’t sack
me, you won’t have a business left [interviewer and interviewee laugh].
R No. Well, not all architects. There are some that do and some that don’t.
But then, yes, if you speak to a contractor they tell you that they don’t
believe some architects have sufficient knowledge to design a building

[interviewee laughs]. But yes – No, it’s – I don’t think that the entire
industry has enough knowledge. Not just consultants. Every disciple in
consultants, not just architects. M & E engineers, structural engineers.
When we are doing projects we tend to use specific people and I could
almost – there are probably – [unclear] in every consultancy I would say
there are twenty to thirty people in all of the consultants, in all of the
disciples across the UK, that I would say have the requisite knowledge.
That’s a very, very small pot. And when you meet these people they all
know each other. It’s like a little – the construction industry is quite
insular anyway in that everybody knows everybody else, but when you
get down to sustainability in construction, everybody does know
everybody else. Or they’ve heard of them, or they’ve read something
they wrote, or they’ve had an argument at some point [interviewer and
interviewee laugh]. There’s a very small amount of people that – and
even organisations that you think – unless you get the right person. It’s
funny, when I get involved in projects now there are probably – at the
moment there are two architects that I would put forward, and it is
literally two architects. Not two architects practices, its two architects. If
both of them worked at the same practice it would be one architect.
There are – in fairness there are other people out there but it’s – you
tend to find that there are lots – there are lots of people out there that
are purporting to be experts in sustainability. And a lot of them don’t
know anything that they’re talking about. Some of these sustainable
consultants that have just sprang up – and you get large architectural
organizations that have bolted it onto their business, in the way that
they bolted CDM on. We are sustainable consultant, we do [unclear].
And they just see it as a bolt on that they can make money out. But it’s
not – they don’t understand it. It’s not embedded into the culture of the
business. So you’ll never get a decent service or decent knowledge out
of it. And then you get the real sort of radical guys like Bill Dunster who
are out there on the cutting edge. But unfortunately as much as we’d
like to build Bill Dunsters buildings they don’t always work and we have
to look at it commercially. So the people that we tend to work with are
ones that to have a similar philosophy to ourselves. And that’s what it
comes down to finding someone with the knowledge and the same
philosophy. Because otherwise you just end up arguing all the time.
Q What do you think architectural practices need to do to ensure that they

can produce low and zero carbon buildings?
R Train people. Send them to Sweden for six months. It is that - most of
the architects that I work with have spent a lot of time going around
Europe understanding stuff. Understanding what the issues are. Talking
to contractors out there who have built things. Talking to consultants

who have designed things. Talking to people who occupy the buildings
and understand what the issues are and bringing that knowledge back.
Also understand, and this is the area where most people fall down and
the government are included in that, in that they go to Sweden and they
look at things like [unclear]. And they look at things like Malmo and they
think that they can just take that as it is and transplant it straight into the
UK. It doesn’t work because we have very, very different issues around
energy generation and – the reason why heat pumps are everywhere in
Sweden is because they have grid emissions of ninety seven [unclear]
per kilo watt hour as opposed to the UK who have 422. So you’re going
to get a low carbon building if you put in a heat pump in Sweden, you’re
not if you put one in the UK. And also the issues around Climate. We
have a very, very different relative humidity. We don’t get the extremes
of temperature that they get in Sweden, or they used to get. We don’t
have the very, very mixed seasons. And also there are cultural
differences as well. It’s embedded in people’s vulture over there
because they’ve been doing it for so long. Realistically Sweden is now
where you envisage this country to be in 20 – 30 years time. But we’re
nowhere near this now and we can’t just transplant that ideal into the
UK and think that every ones is going to live like that. It’s a cultural shift.
But it needs to come from the top down in organizations. It can’t just be
- you need to embed it into an organization. You can’t – if you’re an
architect’s practice, or any organization, you can’t just have a
sustainability guy. It’s got to be - actually to some extent I used to say to
people that’s the worst thing you can do. Because if you have a
sustainability person everyone just says oh I don’t need to worry about
that that’s what the sustainability person does. And actually you need to
embed it across the culture of the business and make people
understand it’s the responsibility of all of them. And it needs to come
down from the top. It needs to be – that culture needs to be embedded
at board level. And they need to understand that this is an important
issue but in some respects the construction industry has reacted. It
reacts either to customer requirements or legislation. And until the
government puts strict legislation in the government will not pay any
attention to it.
Q Have you observed any differences in knowledge between small and

large architectural practice?
R The green, if you like, the green – the green issues around buildings,
they’ve economic reason to why they want to try –as common place.
They will see it as common tools. That they need to know about this
because that is their architecture. That is their engineering. That’s the

way I see it [unclear].
Q I was going to say what do you think architectural practices need to do

to ensure that they can reach these targets?
R No, not really. There are some small practices that have – it’s down to
individuals, it’s not down to practices. It’s down to – if it’s a large
practice it tends to be that its one of the partners that started it. If it’s a
small practice then it’s one individual or generally senior partner that
has an interest in that. We work with all sorts of size of practices, what
we tend to find is the smaller practices have less knowledge that maybe
some of the larger practices but they are more open to suggestion. We
work with some very small practices and you come up with some really
interesting ideas when you work with those guys. They don’t come from
the angle that they know it all and they are going to tell you what to do.
Like Mr Dunster will tell you exactly how to build a zero carbon building
and that’s the only way of doing it and no other way [interviewee
laughs]. Are you interviewing him as part of this [unclear]?
Q No, I should do actually. I should try and …
R [Over talking] you should try and – it would be very entertaining. You
would need a very big recorder though.
Q I know. I’d have to buy another one. Within your organization what do
you think are the potential barriers for achieving low and zero carbon
architecture?
R Understanding. Cost. And culture.
Q Work place culture is it?
R Yes. Just culture in general. One of the things I’ve heard over the last
six months is we can’t afford to do all this anymore; we’ve got an
economic problem. OK then, we’ll just tell the planet to stop getting
warmer and [interviewer laughs] then we’ll make some more oil. We’ll
bury some trees and then they’ll be - I did actually read something in a
magazine today on the train that was talking about some company has
got this plan to bury some trees to make some oil for the future.
Q Does it not take a while?
R Yes, it takes about a thousand years [interviewer laughs] but it’s a long
term investment plan. We should have started this years ago [unclear]
…

Q [Overtalking] I should have thought of that one.
R [Overtalking] we’d be rich by now [interviewer laughs]. I’m not surprised

actually that somebody hasn’t come up with the suggestion of making a
time machine to go back and bury some more trees. Just remember
where they are [interviewer laughs]. No, it is a - the main barrier is
peoples understanding of the cost of it. I don’t think people understand
the issue because it is so huge and that’s why we as a business have
tried to narrow it down to three key objectives. Because this is
something that is going to take years to sort out unfortunately. I actually
don’t think we’ll sort it out in the time scale that climatologists say we
have. But at least we’d have had a bloody good go [interviewee laughs].
Q Within the industry as a whole what do you think are the barriers for
achieving low and zero carbon buildings?
R Cost. Cost is the big issue. Everybody says it costs too much and they
all come back to this issue of payback. Until there is a proper price put
on the cost of carbon you will never overcome that barrier. Until the real
cost of carbon, and the real cost of materials, and the real issue of peak
oil, and peak materials, and lack of natural resources, and running out
of landfill, and true cost of waste, until those things are applied people
won’t - it doesn’t stack up financially. But We have bizarre concepts
about actually it costs too much to put photovoltaic panels on the roof
because it takes twenty five years to pay back. Yes, but that’s if you
base it on today’s energy prices. In twenty five years time what if you’re
paying a thousand pounds per kilo what? Therefore your PV panels will
stack up very quickly won’t they [interviewer laughs]. They’re too short
sighted. They need long term vision. W
Q What do you think are the barriers for a large architectural practice?
R Clients. Clients don’t – as I said the industry is very reactive. If clients

don’t want it – it’s amazing. I know a lot of people out there and a lot of
knowledge and in some respects we could probably get enough people
together and there is enough knowledge out there we could actually be
building zero carbon buildings today but people don’t want them.
Because they either can’t afford them, no one’s making them do it.
There’s no point in – the government’s set a target for 2016, you’re
starting to see the house builders beginning to move. Or the people in
the housing industry beginning to move towards that, getting that kind of
knowledge. But now that they’ve just moved the goal posts it’s
incredibly frustrating for all of these consultants that have gone out and
trained as Code Assessors or done all this stuff. And all of a sudden the
government has said well actually we are going to start again. We are

going to have a consultation on – they should have had a bloody

consultation three years ago. But – so you can see that will put
business off. It’s like why should I – and I find it all the time. Particularly
in my role when I’m trying to tell the business what it should be doing to
make sure it’s really for five years time. And then all of a sudden the
government changes the station.
Q Do you see the client interest changing as we get closer towards tighter
legislation?
R Yes but I think one of the things we don’t do is advise clients of the
legislation. Carbon reduction commitment, for example, I don’t know
how many organizations are fully aware of these commitments under
the Reduction Commitment and what impact that could have on their
buildings. If you own a large estate and you have half hourly meters and
your currently 5999 mega watt hours half hourly electricity. You build
one more building and you go over 6000 mega watt hours, you come
under the carbon reduction commitment. You’ve got to start measuring
all of your emission, you’ve got to have procedures in place, you’ve got
to report it, you’ve got to reduce it, you’ve got to pay twelve pound per
carbon unit from your entire – are we giving clients that information as
consultants. Are you bothering to check as an industry going [unclear]?
You’ve got to be – yes. I don’t know. Certainly the big ones do in terms
of the big retailers that are affected by it and the local authorities. But I
think there are probably a lot of organizations out there who maybe
aren’t aware of it. And maybe if they are, aren’t aware that building that
new building or refurbishing that building will - I think that will be a
driver, certainly in some commercial buildings, will start to ask the
question. And I don’t know how many consultants out there – if you
went out there now and said to any of those architects how much
electricity is that building going to consume? What if we span it round
90 degrees and got more passive solar gain on it, more natural daylight
in to it? Make the windows bigger on that elevation. How much electrical
consumption could we reduce and then obviously try and balance that
off with solar gains. We have to put shading on there to make sure that
AC costs didn’t spiral in the summer. And actually we don’t understand
enough about that. And even the experts out there couldn’t tell you that.
We start to get down into – it’s very fortunate for me because I am not a
consultant and I don’t have to have the answers I can just sit there and
shout [unclear]. What if you did that, what if you did this? Why don’t you
know that? You’re supposed to know that [interviewer and interviewee
laugh]. So I think it will change going forward but unfortunately it’s all
driven by legislation. People only do stuff when you make them do it. A
classic example is the seat belt law. Everybody where a seat belt in the

car, there are some nutters out there who don’t but – it was only until
that law came in the 1970’s that people did it. Before that people didn’t
bother. And unless you make people do stuff they won’t do it. But – it’s
illegal to use you’re mobile phone while driving but the amount of
people you see still doing it is – even if you make them do it they still
don’t pay any attention [interviewer and interviewee laugh].
R I didn’t agree with Code for Sustainable Homes definition of Level Six
because it was nonsense, it was unworkable. The thing that always
annoys me when people talk built environment is they talk about
housing being responsible for 27 % of the carbon emissions in the UK
and the built environment being responsible for 40% emissions in the
UK. Its rubbish, it’s not. The buildings do not use carbon. It’s energy use
in buildings that produces carbon. And you go back to this issue of UK
grid generated electricity emissions and it’s a really difficult issue for the
government to tackle with. Because they need to do something very,
very quickly. But the problem they have is there’s no long term strategy
although what is begging to come out of the climate change commission
is the embryo of a long term strategy. Which will hopefully grow in that
the long term target is by 2020 to get grid generated emissions below
200 grams of CO2 per kilo watt hour. But the issue around that is – the
problem is you always have a transitional period because –heat pumps
are a classic example of this, because heat pumps use grid generated
electricity you don’t get huge benefits because grid generated electricity
is very carbon intensive. If your grid generated electricity is less carbon
intensive then your heat pump becomes low carbon. So two [unclear]
for building. You build a building in Britain and you build a building in
Sweden and they’re both connected to the grid. That one will be very
low carbon and that one won’t. And because you’re looking for zero net
emissions in this offsetting system, offsetting grid emissions by
generating your own on site, the one in Sweden you’re going to need
less PV to generate the equivalent amount of electricity to [unclear] zero
carbon than you are the one in the UK. So when you start looking at it
at that level you just think actually this is crazy. The newer proposals, in
the consultation, seem more practical because there’s less emphasis on
onsite generation. But this idea of carbon offsetting and building it’s
difficult. The governments have got some real issues. There’s all of the
existing building stock that they’ve got to deal with. There’s the new
strategy that your new stock wouldn’t emit any more carbon so you’re
fairly sound and it’s a problem. But how do you get that practically to
zero carbon? And I actually think something along the lines of the

Passivhaus standard encouraging people to build buildings that are

more energy efficient rather than tasking the construction industry as a
whole with solving the problem of low carbon energy generation. And
the problem is that the way the policy works is that it favors biomass
and it just gets annoying that every time you just have to stick a
biomass boiler in [interviewer and interviewee laugh]. I go to meetings in
– I’ve been down to London this morning in a meeting and where doing
houses in Hackney and they’re talking about biomass. Where the hell
do you get biomass in Hackney? It’s not – I suggested that we did one
that worked on burnt out cars because there’s loads of them in Hackney
[interviewer laughs] but it didn’t go down well.
Q [Overtalking] tyres …
R Yes. Stolen Ford Sierras and power it from them [interviewer and
interviewee laugh]. It needs some joined up thinking and we need to get
the energy companies more involved. but the energy companies aren’t
getting involved now and you’ve got the likes of Eon interested in doing
– running ESCOs in schemes around 200 units which is – well they’ve
done that in the continent in Germany, Sweden and so on. We do need
a little bit more flexibility in the definition of how you get there but I do
think there should be at least a minimum standard of energy efficiency
because you can get to Code Four and just stick in a biomass boiler
and not do anything. But the whole definition around on site generation
is just stick in 30 thousand pounds worth of – it’s all based on
theoretical stuff as well. So you stick 100 thousand pounds worth of
photovoltaic’s on the roof that gives you a definition of zero carbon.
What if those PV panels stop working or don’t generate the amount of
electricity they’re supposed to because something went wrong. They’re
not quite the right aspect. Efficiency of the panel types. [Unclear] in
twenty five years time when their efficiency has plummeted is
somebody going to replace them? And if you’re looking at building
integrated PV you would hope that the technology had moved so far
forward to – so you have façade integrated PV that you then need to
replace at some point, will that – what - if you think that most of the
buildings that we’ve built are around the hundred year life span, some
are even older, and we need to think about - I’m a great believer in
reverse engineering which is what the construction industry does any
way. We design something, architects design something. And they do a
picture. It’s going to look like that. And then we work back form that end
point and work out how we are going to make it. They don’t start off by
doing the details. They start of by doing the big picture and they work
out the details after. And then the contractor looks at it and he breaks it
down even further and works out how it’s going to get there. I actually

think that what we need to do is to work out what – rather than trying to
– we’ve said right we’re going to get to eighty percent by twenty fifty and
we’re looking at the details before we even know what the big picture
looks like. We need an idea of what the big picture – what is Britain
going to look like in 2050 consuming 80 % – or emitting 80 % less
carbon than it does today. And once we know what that picture looks
like we can now start to work backwards and break down the
components and understand what it is we should be doing now to make
sure we get there. Whereas now we’re laying the foundations on
something but we don’t know what the hell we’re building. And then
they keep having to change it because – demolish that bit because it
doesn’t fit. I just can’t understand why we don’t just go that’s where we
want to be.
Q Is there anything else that you touched upon that we should do as an

alternative to the targets, do you have any idea or can you think of any
changes to the government’s definition of the low and zero carbon
targets or whether you’d go for a completely different target?
R I think they’ve got to look at the target holistically and they can’t just look
at – they can’t separate new and existing buildings. They’ve got to look
at both together. Do you need to zero carbon new build because you
might be able to get greater – but it’s part of this not knowing what this
big picture is. We don’t know what we need to get to. And the - I think
they need to look at it terms of a scenario - they need a road map in
terms of driving down emission, energy generation. Because if you said
to a consultant actually 2020 we are going to half emissions to grid
generated electricity then your heat pump – you’re going to put a heat
pump in instead of a biomass boiler because it’s more practical. At the
moment I just think were storing up problems for the future in the way
that we’re doing it. We could develop an over reliance on biomass.
Someone said to me the other day with all this over use of biomass I've
heard that’s soot’s going to be the new carbon. And I said to them well
lets deal with the old carbon first before we worry about the new one
[interviewer laughs]. But They kind of had a point in that we would
actually be – by not having a long term strategy and not really thinking
about where it is we’re trying to get to, you could problems in current
legislation will come out of the woodwork. Hanham Hall is a classic
example. Barratts are putting a dirty great CHP in there based on
electrical generation, not heat generation, because – I only know this
because we worked on Hanham Hall and dismissed CHP fairly early on
because the heat load wasn’t there. And what they’d done is they’d
sized they’re system – basically if you worked out the heat load of the
houses because they are all high energy efficiency houses the heat

load wasn’t enough to generate enough electricity to get to your zero

net carbon. However if you rate your unit based on electrical generation,
you over generate heat and that’s what Barratts are doing on Hanham
Hall and that’s what been signed off by English partnerships. And that’s
what the government is saying is the right way of doing it. And now they
are going to unnecessarily burn a shed load of biomass so they can
generate enough electricity and then they’re going to dump heat. They
had an idea to – they’re going to put green houses in there and grown
pineapples [interviewer laughs]. And I just think this is the wrong way of
doing it but that was using current government legislation. The easiest
way to do it guys is to stick a biomass CHP in, just make it enormous
and give people – but if you were allowed to do it – that’s not a bad
way to do it if you were then going to connect all the existing houses
around to that to get heat. But they’re not doing that and there’s always
barriers as to why you can’t do something but now I think it does need a
bloody good rethink. And it needs to involve the energy companies and
what their commitment should be.
Q Have you got any, or are there any, alternative ways of producing
buildings? Not necessarily the way we’re being pushed by legislation to
benefit existing architectural styles and types. Producing more
sustainable buildings?
R Passivehus. Course the Wate's House at CAT built in 1975 [interviewer

laughs], and just short of Code Level Five. Have a look at that. That’s
how houses should be built [interviewee laughs].
Q Which ones that one?
R The low energy house. As you walk up – you know the Straw Bale
Theatre?
Q Yes.
R Opposite the Straw Bale Theatre. Set back.
Q Oh right OK. Very hot conservatory, I remember that.
R Yes, yes, yes. We didn’t put a conservatory on it, it was put on after. I
can’t claim any involvement in that because I was only four when it was
built [interviewer laughs]. But now If you look at that building – it’s
actually quite interesting if you look at that building because it
encapsulates everything that the government is talking about. But it is
effectively Passivehaus. I think the Passivehaus standard is the way
forward. Actually I think we need more experimentation. And We need
to be bloody honest as well when we do experimentation. We need to

say what didn’t work. You take the houses at ***. There’s only one of
those houses that is actually certified properly to Code Level.
Q Is that the *** one?
R No.
Q Ok.
R Did they tell you?
Q I think they did at Ecobuild.
R [Overtalking] of course they would [interviewer and interviewee laugh].

Yes, I know Andrew Mellor [unclear]. That’s who I was with this morning
was Andrew Mellor of PRP so [unclear]. Because the story you get from
Andrew is very, very different. They never received the final certificate.
They got a certificate from the BRE because they’re paying the BRE
twenty five thousand pounds a year to have a house there. And they all
have to be demolished after three years. But you’ve got the Ecotec
house which is the really ugly one. The boxy looking thing. That’s Code
Level Four and that’s certified to Code Level Four. Kingspan Lighthouse
failed virtually every single air test. It leaks. When you walk around it
you can see evidence of water ingress so how the hell it can be air tight
to below one air change per hour I don’t know how. They had all sorts of
problems when they were building it. That’s the knowledge that needs
to come out. And it’s the same with the Sigma house. The Sigma house
they had problems with it, but it’s only if you know people, the people
involved in building those buildings, that over a beer they’ll tell you all
those problems associated with it. But that knowledge needs to come
out to the wider industry but the problem is the organizations involved in
it won’t tell anybody. We’re not perfect. We did a building nine years
ago with integrated solar façade, PV façade. We went back and found
out the invertors had been wired the wrong way around and the things
hadn’t been generating electricity for the last nine years. And …
Q Oh no [interviewer and interviewee laugh].
R Yes. So – and now we’ve got a little best practice in our business on if
you put a PV panel on make sure you get the invertors the right way
round [interviewer laughs]. But it’s only from – you only learn anything
from the things you do wrong don’t you? If you do something right you
might learn a little bit, but you actually learn a hell of a lot more when
you get it wrong. And as an industry we don’t do enough of that. We
don’t do enough experimentation. We don’t actually know the right way
to build zero carbon. Everyone goes on about [unclear] - endless

debates with people about the health issues. And I say do you know
and they say no but I’ve read it might be. Building buildings below one
might be an issue, but people don’t know. And we don’t know enough
about it. It’s great when you go out to Scandinavia. You speak to any
Danish or Swedish architects or anything like that. We always perceive
them to be as experts and they just always say to you we’re just trying a
few things, a bit of experimentation. And we don’t do enough of that
because clients don’t like it I think.
Q Is there anything you think is important to the debate that you think I
haven’t touched upon so far?
R Do consultants get paid too much money [interviewee laughs]? No, no.
There’s – it is such a huge issue but the issue of knowledge is the - and
there isn’t nearly enough out there. I mean I studied as a glass blower
so what the hell I know about sustainability I don’t know. It always
worries me sometimes that you get elevated to being an expert when
you haven’t had any training in it what so ever. It’s only what you’ve
picked up over the years [interviewee laughs].
Q OK. I’ll switch this off. Thank you. END OF INTERVIEW.

A16-EPLNS-M-S01-19012009-B7&8-KS-KS
Interviewee ID: A16
Interviewee Subgroup ID: EPLNS
Location: S01
Short Description: Interviewee is an Associate Director within an Engineering

Q OK. So can you describe how your organisation is working towards the
R How we’re working towards the government’s low and zero carbon
building targets – right. Predominantly what we get involved is - we look
– we work heavily in building design and how we can reduce energy.
The way we do that is by design – well, if I put it in the sense that we
look to reduce the carbon of the architectural designs to start off with.
And the way we do that is by using dynamic simulation modeling. I think
we’ve been using that quite a bit. What that actually does, it allows us to
physically test - well under simulated conditions, test building designs to
find out how much carbon would that building emit to maintain internal
conditions, environmental conditions, such as heating, cooling, lighting
etc. We can’t manage what we can’t measure - Yes, we can’t manage
what we can’t measure. So in the first instance what I believe is once
we’ve got a design if there’s some way of measuring how much carbon
that building is emitting we can then start to manage how we can – we
can then start to manage the reduction. And once we start to manage
that reduction we can start to look at different features and then have a
look at what the cost implications of those different features. So in our
company, or in our team, what we try to do is we try to – in trying to
meet the government’s legislation, such as ten percent reduction of
carbon or twenty percent reduction, the first thing we do is model our

buildings to find out how much carbon is being emitted. And then we
can then look at how we are going to meet that with a ten percent
reduction, twenty percent reduction, and then match what features and
what design concepts do we need to do. Or what components, building
components need to be fitted in. Or even construction methods as well.
That’s how we start to reduce our – we start looking in a – how do you
say it – in a numerical and imperical way in how we can reduce carbon.
I think that - dynamic simulation modeling was in its infancy in the
nineteen nineties, beginning of the two thousand. It started to take off
beginning 2000, 2003, but once legislation kicked in with all the Part L
regulations etc., it’s now started to become common place. And
amongst engineers we see that we use dynamic simulation much more
than in the former part of the – how do you call that? The zeros?
Q Noughties [interviewer laughs]…
R [Over talking] 2000 – in the noughties, that’s it. Noughties, zeros, in the
nougties. So that I - and what we’ve also seen is simulation is not just
tied down to the building services engineers. We’re needing to go one
step, or a few steps above, and work with the architects and the
structural engineers at concept stage. Because sometimes concepts - if
they go too far down the line we haven’t had an opportunity to assess
how much carbon a design, or the concept, is actually going to emit.
Q OK. Could you …
R Does that answer the question?
Q Yes, that’s great thank you. Could you describe the support systems
that your organization has in place to help your staff to work towards
these targets?
R Right. We’re in the process of - to work towards these targets – in terms

of training we’re developing a low carbon training programme and
similar to - because I’m from a building services background, our team
is from an engineering services background, we’re looking to – the low
carbon training programme will not only touch along building services,
but will also help with – we’ll also be getting it from architects,
structures. The intention is we have a kind of multi disciplinary training
programme which tackles low carbon and the green issues. And the
carbon economy in the wider context. Now I think for our organization
because it’s a multi disciplinary company - and also there was a
conscious decision made to move the sustainability and the engineers
and the architects into one location in Goswell Road so that they can
start to put forward these multi-disciplinary – if you like, a multi-

disciplinary offering. One thing that you see with large companies is that
they do have multi-disciplinary, but you have the potential for working in
silos or working in separation even though it’s multi-dis’. Sustainability,
and the need to design if you like, has given the opportunity where
engineers, architects and structures now have more of a reason to work
together, in what they call an integrated, holistic approach. [our
company], or the organization, it has that multi-disciplinary – it has the
teams there. And now the structures are being out into place so there is
that dialogue, that forum that is taking place. The low carbon training
programme will act as modules. As the sustainability evolves more
modules will be taught or will be imparted to the trainees or to the
engineers or to the architects. This will take in the form of what they call
lunch time seminars. Or they have pizza seminars where people get
pizzas together and someone gives a talk. But also it’s being matched
up again with part of the actually training development of an engineer
which we’re in the process of putting all these formalities together. Also
at the same time there’s the on the job training that you get as you’re
working through projects. We get the opportunity to work with architects
and discuss concepts, and we bring in the graduates or the younger
engineers in to just assist when the brainstorming session is taking
place, when buildings are just a blank sheet of paper. And that was
different from before because mechanical electrical engineers, building
services engineers, they usually get the plans after they’ve been
developed. But now there’s a need to actually have that input at a black
page stage. Effectively what we’re doing today, at a blank page stage,
we’re coming in to see OK then energy wise how we can make this
building work. I mean from – the way that I see for any building,
sustainability or green issues, if it is regarded as a bolt on you don’t get
the full benefits of a green building, or sustainability, or the main aim.
It’s true that we have all of these targets but the targets for a good
design – the targets shouldn’t be the – it shouldn’t be the aim. The
targets should be – that should just be common, but we should try to
see how we can maximize the use of or maximize the sustainability
credentials of the building whilst still keeping within cost. And it can be
done, but it just demands that there’s a bit more thought process and a
bit more time for analysis that’s put upfront. Which is predominantly not
the same time frames as they had in previous designs, or how we
worked previously. We’re seeing that we’re needing a good six to eight
weeks, perhaps, in testing different concepts so that we can refine a
concept. And previously that wouldn’t be the case. Previously there
would have been very minimal time, if anything, to have a look at
concepts. You’d have the concept but you don’t have time to analysis
the concept. So we’re talking in the RIBA stages A and B there’s a lot

more modeling work and simulation work that needs to be done. So that
we come out with a product that we know is going to reduce much
carbon than compared to other issues. So that’s what – from the few
years experience that we’ve been looking at we’re seeing that a lot
more times we’re being called in at a very early stage and we do
needing to … when they’re saying that we’ve only got a month or six
weeks to work on the concept, we’re actually saying we’ll we need more
time. Give time for the analysis to take place. We do have the tools now
like in simulation modeling etc. You have the simulation, you do the
simulation. you then get it costed and see if it works, and if it does
excellent, and if it doesn’t you refine the simulation and then it goes –
it’s like a bit of a process. It takes longer but you know that you’re
getting to that carbon, or you’re getting nearer to that zero carbon
building that we’re trying to aspire to.
Q You mentioned about these training modules. Will they be transferable

to the architecture side do you think?
R We’ll at the moment they were more geared towards building services.
As we’ve seen over the past few months it was done for – the modules
started off for building science and looking at the building physics
aspects. Heat gains, heat losses, things like – more from an
engineering perspective. But we can now start to see that we’re now
starting to looking at structure a lot more. Thermal massing and what
have you. So there is potential there to start moving into the broader –
like day lighting issues and things like that. Start moving it into
architectural and whether it’s architectural engineering if you like
[interviewee laughs]. It’s a mixture between the two and then that’s how
we’re planning to move it forward into that. It’s the – that’s where we’re
- I think that because sustainability is evolving we’d want - we’re going
to see more multi-disciplinary action upfront and architects knowing a bit
more about what the engineering is doing and engineering vice versa.
Also because predominantly the design – the responsibility of the
design rests with the architect, and I think the engineers that come in
we’re not looking to change design but rather work with the architectural
intent. So it’s getting the engineers to start thinking like – getting into the
mindset about the architectural intent before they – because engineers
will just come in and say right we need ducts, we need holes in the
walls, and this that and the other, and start – a bit of, how can I say
that… with sustainability you’ve got the opportunity where it’s more
integrated. You’re still keeping with the architectural intent, but you’re –
what we’re trying to do is stay within that intent just to reduce the – just
to reduce carbon and present the options and see how we can work
together. So you’ve got architecture, structures, they’re all working on –

as an integrated team. I think that gives more team cohesion compared

to perhaps what we we’re having previously.
Q What do you see as the benefits to your company for achieving the low
R The benefits to multi-dis’ – if they can get the multi-displinary offering

correct there’s – it can save a lot of time in terms of getting teams
together to work.
Q From you’re experience do you think that architects have the sufficient
R Not just yet. Not just yet.
Q OK. And why do you think that is?
R The green issues around buildings, they’ve probably been around for
quite – well, they have been around since the 1980’s, 1990’s. Because
it wasn’t legislated, legislation driven, there was a lot of voluntary action
in there. There wasn’t really a need. There was more of a want or a
desire from an architect to produce green buildings for those who are
really environmentally conscious. However, environmentally conscious
people used to be like tree huggers and things like that, but that’s now
moved into mainstream, into the public conscious main stream. Sorry,
the public’s main stream consciousness, that’s what it’s moved into
now, and we’re all quite aware now of climate change. Previously
climate change was a theory. It’s now been - as of the IPCC – I think it
was 2007 when all the finer minds got together and then they confirmed
that climate change is directly linked to manmade activity. Therefore
that gave the basis to say that there is climate change as a
phenomenon that’s – that has been created by man. And from that
there’s been European directive for building – European Building
Directive 2003 that says OK then we need to do something about
reducing carbon and reducing energy consumption etc. So the one
argument is climate change. The other argument is conservation of fuel.
Reduction in the dependency on fossil fuel, especially for countries
where the fossil fuel - where they have the natural resources which are
depleting, for them to continue to maintain their economic progress and
their financial independency. They need to reduce dependence on fossil
fuels, if they are importing fossil fuels, and - for any civilisation just to
continue to develop. So you’ve got a twin argument there. There’s one
of climate change and saving humanity on a wider scale, but also
there’s an economic reason to why they want to try – government’s
need to reduce their dependency on fossil fuel. So I think between that

the – since it’s come into the domain and - which was - we’re talking
about 2000 where it’s really kicked off. Legislation driven as of 2000
and 2002, three, five, six. We’re about, what, four years into
sustainability and now it’s really starting to drive into the industry. Into
the construction industry. And as a whole we’re needing to do a lot
more in terms of our design. And it is a green revolution. It’s a green
revolution that started back in 2000 but it’s now becoming more main
stream. Hence you’ll see a lot of sustainability consultants or architects,
as such, who move into environmental or green design. It’s main stream
for them. It – the younger architects, perhaps than the elder generation,
they have got it. They’ve learnt about architecture and they know –
they’re now getting to grapples with the green architecture. But I think
what will happen are the new architects and the new engineers coming
through they will see it as common place. They will see it as common
tools. That they need to know about this because that is their
architecture. That is their engineering. That’s the way I see it.
Q I was going to say what do you think architectural practices need to do

to ensure that they can reach these targets?
R Well if they are trying to meet those targets, how do we meet those
targets? One thing we do is if they are doing designs what - we need to
demonstrate that we can – that on the onset the building design itself is
zero carbon. And to demonstrate how your building is zero carbon there
needs to be a method that Capita [Architecture] can come out with to
say right this building design – here we’ve got a building design and
when we test it or we send it through - we know it’s zero carbon. How it
does that at the moment -it’s probably on a case by case basis or
whether it’s just qualitative. Saying that OK it uses a green roof, it uses
this feature, it uses this feature, so we’d anticipate it gets to zero
carbon. They could probably do that in the future but at the moment I
don’t think there’s a set way of – the one way that we’re doing it which is
[unclear] like I was saying. We can – we now have the tools to
dynamically simulate buildings and I think, again, simulation modeling
will become more available into building design. We use it a lot more
because it is quite powerful. We use it a lot more in building design just
so we can manage that process to get to zero carbon. And once we are
at zero carbon I’m pretty sure that they’ll say well if you put these ten
features into your building you’re going to come out with a zero carbon
building. And potentially at that point dynamic situation doesn’t need to -
won’t need to test those buildings because we know we’ve got all the
features in that make a zero carbon building. But to get to that at the
moment requires a lot more modeling work and a lot more research as
well. I think for a company like [our company], [our company], they need

to focus on research as well. And it’s good to know that at least with
these – even though there is a commercial balance that needs to take
place, if they’re putting out strap lines as such where they’re trying to
get to 2015 zero carbon, carbon positive building, there needs to be
some research to see how we can do that as an organization. And not
get lost. They shouldn’t lose sight of that because 2012 is only about
three, four years away and it is somewhat difficult to get to zero carbon
at the moment. So not to lose credibility in the future. OK so it’s 2012
Capita and you’re still producing building’s that produce sixty percent
carbon reduction. Why?
Q OK. Have you noticed any differences in knowledge between the small
and the large architectural practices?
R Some of the smaller organizations they use – when we talk about small
organization we’re tending to see that there’s sustainability consultants
which - they were into sustainability at the very beginning. And it only
consists of a handful of consultants and they can give a lot of targeted
advice very quickly on a project. But that’s due to them being of a small
nature and highly qualified. It’s more like the - they can be very flexible,
if you like, on one the side. Capita I see it as - they’ll move slowly but
that’s how fast you’ll move a giant. And if there’s some way within
Capita where they can speed up the moving giant it can tap into quite a
lot of sustainability work in the future. And we’re talking about not only
building design. We’re talking right from cradle to cradle, and even
cradle to grave because there’s the recycling component in there. From
the onset straight through to – from the onset of the design, right
through the building design process, right through to construction, right
through the recycling process as well because we have all these
different components within Capita. Also corporate carbon management
schemes and things like that. We can also tap into those types of
markets. And basically Capita [Symonds] have the ability to give the
complete offering in sustainability, because sustainability means
different things to different people. But within Capita themselves it’s just
trying to get effective focus group together and an effective
sustainability group. Which matches the financial set up that they have
in Capita, demonstrating that there is profitability in there. Because
effectively Capita - they’re internal so as much as they’re looking at
sustainability if it’s done properly there is potential profitability in there.
So you can actually become quite an effective marketing tool as well,
whilst still generating profit. Which in itself is therefore sustainable.
Q Within your organization what do you think are the potential barriers to
achieving the governments low and zero carbon building targets?

R Barriers? Barriers at the moment I think is – it’s to do – designing needs

more time to - more analysis time and more integration with the design
team at the earlier stage. Projects can be done in the same framework
it’s just that different time allocations for the project stages need to be
re-evaluated. Other barriers that exist at the moment. More of a
conscious effort from the higher management. Giving time and
allocation for research or making funds or making facilities available to
look into research. With local universities …
Q What do you think are the potential barriers within the industry as a
whole?
R Potential barriers in the industry as a whole at the moment? It’s

grappling with the level of knowledge and in depth requirement. In
depth knowledge that we need to come out with sustainable and
innovative solutions.
Q And within large architectural organizations what do you think are the
barriers?
R [Over talking] the barriers – it’s the ability to – in large organizations it’s
what I call the silo effect. Communication. Not because any one or any
person is consciously not talking or not communicating. It’s because the
work structure in Capita can cause – does not necessarily fit with the
way sustainability works and the way that the finances are set up.
Because for every – for the teams to talk together and work on projects
together there’s a whole financial background that’s keeping them in
silos. Or management issues, management requirements. There’s not
one common pot that everyone works on in terms of money that allows
them that time to be paid from that common pot. And potentially that
should be looked at when they’re working on multi-disciplinary teams.
That there is a common pot and everyone’s working at various rates.
And that’s one where we could derive the maximum benefit from
architects, engineers and all the other consultants.
Q OK. What do you personally think about the governments low and zero
R I think it’s a good drive. It’s aspirational. It’s - some people might say
somewhat unrealistic but at least there’s a target that’s high and it’s
going to challenge the industry. And if you thing that this sustainability
movement is doing is that its challenging the government at the
moment.
Q And would they’re be anything that you would possibly change about
the governments low and zero carbon targets? Or even perhaps the

targets themselves?
R How would they get to zero carbon?
Q Yes. If you think they’re are any alternative ways of doing it? Or perhaps
even whether zero carbon targets are the right thing?
R I think there’s going to be two things that – there is the progress of

technology that will use less energy, but there might be changes in
lifestyle as well. There might be changes in lifestyle and potentially we
might see – what I’d like to see is working more hours in the summer
and less hours in winter [interviewer laughs]. Because it increase
daylight and reduces - say during winter time we work from ten, finish at
three, but in summer you start at eight and you finish at six. With the
breaks and everything. So effectively over the whole year you’ve work
the same number of hours but you’re more in tune with the natural
environment. Now if you look at the natural environment it’s evolved so
that you use the least amount of energy anyway. That’s just the natural
progression so anything that we’re trying to do against that is going to
be using effectively more energy.
Q Interesting. And do you think there’s any alternative ways of perhaps

producing buildings?
R They do talk about modulising buildings using thermoplastics. So once

you’ve finished with your building melt it down and then start up again.
But then that’s a lot of use of plastics there so …
Q Right OK [interviewer laughs]. And how familiar are you with [our
company]s mission statement?
R What’s that?
Q I’ll just point to it on the sheet [interviewer points to written statement on

interview guide]
R It’s meant to be [interviewee reads written mission statement from

interview guide] – oh reduce energy by twenty five percent. Specify that
seventy percent of – I’d say I’m twenty five to thirty percent familiar with
that. I know the first line. Construction materials, twenty five percent
through renewables. Right OK. But this – again that is Capita’s
[Architecture] statement. It’s an aim. And similar to government targets
they’re putting all of these things into place. I think Capita, as a large
organization as well, can start to put workshops into place to try and see
how they can achieve that. And then come up with some golden rules or
some type of guide book on how they can achieve that. But that will not

be done just by some - the architects. It would be – or the engineers, or

the structures, or even the project managers. Everyone would need to
have an input in to that.
Q What do you think [our company] is currently doing to achieve this

mission’s statement?
R Can I say I don’t know?
Q That’s OK [interviewer and interviewee laugh].
R I’m not too sure.
Q And do you think the [our company] mission statement should be

different in any way in your opinion? Perhaps if there was a different …
R [Over talking] I think they should say that seventy percent of its
buildings should aspire to be zero carbon. I know that they made a
strong statement there but unless someone has thought about it and
demonstrated on one building how they made it zero carbon, and how
that can be translated to all the buildings that Capita will be working on,
it’s a challenge. It’s quite a good challenge. Because even if we don’t
get to zero carbon, if we’re ninety percent there or eight percent there,
at least we’re there or there about. But coming 2012 and then trying to
redefine zero carbon in 2012 will be …
Q OK. I’m not sure whether you can answer these questions but I was
going to say whether you think any specific training is required in [our
company] to possibly achieve that mission statement?
R I think at first [our company] need to get together and define how they
can get to a zero carbon building, to start off with. From there they can
then be identified what skills and what knowledge needs to be
developed by the personnel. Once you can take one building and say
this is how we make it zero carbon. We reduce the U-values, we put in
green roofs etc, we put in this type of renewable technology, we export
back to the grid etc, we – items like that. You’ve got about fifteen,
twenty features that go in and then you can say right OK then. What is
U-values talking about? It’s taking about building science. Therefore
architects need to be learning about building sciences. [Unclear] CHP is
an example or looking at building services. OK we need to get building
services – architects to know about building services and building
services to know about architects vice versa. So we can already identify
that there’s the energy measures, energy efficiency issues. There’s the
renewable technologies and the science behind the renewable
technologies. Understanding its implications on building design. So we

can then start to put together – OK we know then these packages of

knowledge. And then you can break that down into modules. Develop a
module for that. Give the [unclear], get the speakers in or get people
within our own Capita to talk about it. At least that will then uplift them.
You know exactly when you are approaching someone what they want
to speak about or what you are wanting them to talk about. And you
might see through that there’s about seven or eight knowledge
packages that are needed. And once someone has gone through those
seven, eight knowledge packages they come out and they’ll know all
the issues that are related to getting to a zero carbon building. I think
something like that might …
Q OK. Brilliant. Thank you very much. END OF INTERVIEW.

A17-EPLNS-M-S04-21012009-B16&17-KS-KS
Interviewee ID: A17
Interviewee Subgroup ID: EPLNS
Location: S04
Short Description: Interviewee is an Associate Director within an Engineering

R Are we talking ..?
Q [our company].
R [our company]. In a very ad hoc, disjointed and uncoordinated fashion.

Individual service streams are addressing issues that are specific to
their business in the manner that they see fit. But currently there is little
or no co-ordination centrally of any service offering.
Q OK. And could you describe the, or any, support systems that your
organisation has in place to help you obtain these targets?
R Speaking from someone working in the services division what has

happened is a number of different specialisations, if you like, have been
developed within the service offering. Such as things like the building
modeling, renewable energy feasibility. we also pick up BREEAM
assessment and in terms of where to go to in order to obtain that
support - I suppose because I represent the bit of the business where
people go to get support it’s difficult question to answer because I
suppose I’m it [interviewer and interviewee laugh]. But if I were an on
the ground engineer, perhaps in another office, it may be a little difficult

to appreciate what other parts of the company are doing. I think that’s
probably something where we’re lacking. Not so much that we don’t
provide the service but we’re not good at explaining to our own people
where to go to in order to obtain that support.
Q OK. And what do you see as the benefits to your company for achieving
R Well, it’s getting to the stage where unless you can offer that sort of
expertise you’re not going to win the work. Whether a client is actually
serious about obtaining certain performance standards or whether they
are paying lip service because they’ve got to for whatever reason.
Whether it’s a political imperative or whether there’s some sort of
organisational policy that these sorts of things have got to be
considered, very often I think, and certainly within [unclear]
questionnaires and things we’re being asked the question directly. And
certainly for government bodies they tend to work in a rigid scoring
methods when they’re awarding a contract. And if you don’t do it you’ll
score low and you’ll be at a disadvantage with regards to the
competition. So I think it’s pretty much a – I don’t think there’s vast
amounts of additional fee available but there is a point to be made that
may suggest that you wouldn’t get the work in the first place.
R No. But not through any fault of theirs. If we’re talking low or zero
carbon you’re talking energy consumption. If you’re talking energy
consumption you’re really looking at a combination of architecture and
engineering. And the key from my perspective isn’t just having the
technical capability to deliver it’s having the project organisation in place
early enough to enable the building design and services to be
integrated in such a manor to be successful. Because with the best will
in the world you can design a super insulated building which has got all
sorts of fantastic funky fabric involved but if you haven’t agreed a
serving strategy that makes best use of the building fabric, for example
with your engineer, all he’s got to work with is whatever space is
available within the building. Very often low carbon building may make
use of thermal mass for example. Now if you haven’t organised your
servicing strategy in detail, possibly involved some CFD with the
engineers at an early enough stage, you’re either going to encourage
excessive capital cost or you won’t be able to achieve your objectives. I
think that’s the main issue. It’s think it’s a multidiscipline problem.

Q What in your opinion do you think they need to do to ensure they

produce low and zero carbon buildings?
R I think I kind of alluded to it [interviewer laughs]. I think it’s ensuring that

primarily your architect and your engineers have the technical
capabilities to deliver with regard to their specific disciplines. And then
organise the project in such a manner that they’ve got time to speak to
each other and they’ve built those communication channels to enable
the design to progress. I suppose – I hate using the word holistic but
[interviewer and interviewee laugh] in essence to make sure the design
progresses with the best possible co-ordination between disciplines.
And the other point is that - realistic QSs. because so many times the
project brief says one thing, the design team delivers and the QS
devalue engineers it out [interviewer laughs].
Q Interesting one. Have you observed any differences in knowledge

between the small and large architectural practices?
R No. I think the small practices we’ve dealt with are a mixed bag. There
are some who are basic architects who design a building and there are
others, who because of the nature of the service we’re offering, have
developed a niche designing sustainable buildings. And so in terms of
the technical ability it really cuts across all levels. Within major
architectural practices it depends on who you’re talking to really. Some
individual architects are better than others and I guess it’s a reflection of
personal interest and whether they’ve had the opportunity to get
experience on the job.
Q Within the industry what do you think are the potential barriers to
achieving low and zero carbon buildings?
R Capital cost. I suppose twelve months ago I may have said something
different. In the current economic climate I think investing capital upfront
is going to become – it has become a lot more difficult and is going to
become a lot more difficult still. But there are also project issues. Very
often clients are organising projects, project managers are setting up
projects, without appreciating the need for people to be involved and
talking to each other early.
Q OK. And within a large architectural practice what do you think are the
potential barriers for them achieving the targets?
R That’s one that’s a little bit more difficult for me to answer not having
worked inside an architectural practice. Working alongside, parallel with.
But I suppose from the outside looking in I suppose in a lot of
architectural practices we use a lead architect who’s extremely capable

but the guys who are actually on the ground don’t necessarily have that
capability. But that goes for engineering and any other discipline as well
and it’s a function of how we keep our costs down.
Q OK. What do you personally think about the governments low and zero
R It’s very difficult. Very difficult. And it really depends on your definition of
what a low and zero carbon building is?
Q It was, we we’re, trying to use the government’s definition which I know

is perhaps fairly flexible at the moment in that there’s a housing
definition. They’ve assumed with the UK Green Building Council at the
moment for them to use the same definition for their study on
commercial but obviously with the target, the definition, still being in flux
still till - is it march?
R [Over talking] I think regardless it’s – the economic circumstances at the

moment are at such that it’s going to be very difficult to achieve low and
zero carbon buildings full stop. Some of the measures that they are
going to need to implement in order to achieve those standards are
going to require money. There isn’t any out there in the market place.
Certainly we all know currently where a lot of house builders stand. That
they’ve moth balled perfectly good developments that are half built.
They’ve literally just boarded them up and walked off site. There are
others who have laid off large members of staff and I know that on the
commercial side a lot of our business has dried up. And we’re doing
quite well but we’re doing well on the basis of public sector. Now they’ve
obviously got their own targets but today I’ve had two telephone calls
from people working on two different projects saying what are the
implications of us not achieving BREEAM Excellent because of the cost
implications. You can see where it’s going. I think that their targets are
very optimistic but in terms of time scale and in terms of the
performance levels they’re looking to achieve. I think that, certainly on
the domestic side, if you’re looking to developments which may need
district heating for example it’s very, very expensive. Long term it’s a
good bet but upfront capital is always going to be a problem.
Q OK. What if anything would you change about the government low and
b That’s a good question. I think they have to be reviewed in the light of

the current economic down turn. I think that certainly there needs to be
a degree of relaxation. There needs to be some guidance with regard to
how – or the methods employed. I suppose what they’ve done is they’ve

set a target and they’ve said go away developers and identify some
solutions which get us there. And I appreciate why they’ve done that
because there’s no point setting a target if it’s not going to be
challenging. If you set a very challenging target and people are just
about to miss it I suppose you can pretty much guarantee that they’ve
gone about as far as they can go. What would I change? There are
technologies that they’ve incorporated which I don’t believe - currently
within currently government guidance which are not low carbon. VRF air
conditioning, for example. But that’s because I am a bit of a purest
about these things. They need a tighter definition of what they mean by
low carbon and zero carbon. Because one persons zero carbon
development is another person’s filthy horrible one. The relationship
between the targets and the building regulations needs development. I
think greater clarity between what is intended and where future
amendments with regards to the building regulations are taking us.
Because it’s one thing setting another target and it’s another making it
mandatory, and clarity with what happens if you don’t achieve the
targets is another question.
Q Right OK. How familiar are you with [our company]’s mission
statement?
R Not very. Not very. [Interviewee reads from written statement] 70% of its
buildings to be zero carbon by 2012, reduce energy use in buildings by
25%, specify that 70% of all construction – well, OK. If I’m going to put
my cynical hat on [Interviewee reads from written statement] 70% of its
buildings to be zero carbon by 2012. Well, what’s your definition of zero
carbon? Reduce energy use in buildings by 25%. Is that our buildings
that we occupy or buildings that we’re designing?
Q I think they mean the buildings that we’re designing.
R OK. Reduce energy use in buildings by 25% from what? What’s your
base line? And have you done the research to identify that baseline
before you’ve claimed that you’re going to make a 25% saving? And
how are you going to monitor the performance of buildings in operation
because traditionally in – or do you just go on the basis of your
engineers energy models? Specify that 70% of all construction
materials are obtained from sustainable sources as defined by who?
And save another 5% through renewables. 5% of what? So with my
cynics hat on and [unclear] would probably kill me for saying this, but it’s
meaningless. But again I’m a purest and I walked into Marks and
Spencer’s the other day and had a look at their statements that have
arisen from their “Plan A - Because there is no plan B” and they’re
equally as bland [interviewer laughs]. But you could probably put some

numbers together to claim that you’ve achieved most of those targets

already. Depending on how you define what a sustainable construction
material is and your baseline with regard to your carbon reductions and
your definition of what zero carbon is. The other issue is how on earth
can you going to make 70% of your buildings zero carbon by 2012 if
your clients aren’t prepared to pay for them and they’re not within your
design brief. Because we have to respond to a clients aims, as the
designers, as a business.
Q Yes. Do you think that the [our company] mission statement should be
different, and if so what would you suggest [interviewer laughs]?
R Yes! Yes, yes, yes and yes! But I think that obviously this is
paraphrased and I don’t know what sits beyond this. There may be
definitions of all of these issues, which to be fair I’ve jumped in at the
deep end. It’s just not tight enough. There are no definitions in here. It
may well be that it’s been developed specifically to do that. It may well
be that it’s intended to be – we’re going to shove all this under the
clients nose. Bearing in mind that I’m an environmental professional and
a born cynic, it’s very easy to shoot holes in it, it’s too easy to shoot
holes in it. What is our definition of zero carbon? Is 70% realistic? I’d
much rather have a tighter definition of the standard we’re aiming at and
a more realistic target.
Q OK. Do you think that specific training is required within [our company]
to achieve that mission statement?
R Yes. Yes, it needs clarity. But this is more than just [our company] this
goes across the whole business. It cuts across everything and it goes
back to this lack of any kind of central direction within the group. I
suppose I’m falling back on group, it’s where I sit. And [our company] is
almost an operating division within [our company] Ltd. And I know that
Architecture have done a lot of good work independently of the rest of
us, mainly because we can’t get our act together as a business as a
whole.
Q With regards to training for the architects for either this mission
statement or low and zero carbon …
R I think if you are going to launch a mission statement like that, and
obviously I don’t know activity has gone on in Architecture as a
business, I would have expected that in parallel with issuing such a set
of aims and ambitions, that an action plan for ensuring it’s achievement
would have been put together which would have involved that training
packet. Now whether that’s purely and simply a day where designers

are told this is what this means and this is what we’re expecting you to
do. Or whether it’s something more detailed or whether it’s a half hour
session, I don’t know. It depends on how serious we are about
achieving this, but to be honest the fact that you’re asking the question
leads me to believe that this hasn’t been done. Because otherwise you
would have been trained [interviewer and interviewee laugh]. It would
have happened.
Q Are there any other issues within this subject area that you think are
important to the debate?
R Yes. Generally speaking I suppose that if you look into the big wide
world the term sustainability is getting tired. It was always a
meaningless word because every body’s definition of sustainability is
different. It’s tightened. Prior to sustainability we were all talking about
energy. The, in inverted commas, sustainability agenda took over and
it’s now moving towards carbon. And we’ve talked about low and zero
carbon, that’s what people seem to be interested in. People have
tended to have sharpened their definition of sustainability, whether they
think they’re doing that or not, towards we want low carbon, zero
carbon, carbon savings, carbon management. It’s all about carbon.
There is an argument that says that we could well be throwing the baby
out with the bath water here because there other issues such as your
traditional environmental pollution. It’s all very well have a super
insulated building but if the manufacturer of those insulants poisons half
the fish in the north sea or something then we’re missing something.
And there has to be a balance between the carbon agenda, which I
perceive to be rising, and more traditional issues surrounding
environmental pollution, biodiversity, land use and ecology. The basic
philosophy of where we’re designing because – town planning is a big
one. Where you site a building is going to have a massive implication
for its impact during operation. Are we designing our city centres in such
manner that we enable our buildings to operate in the lowest possible
carbon manner I| suppose. You just look out of the window at all the
cars trollying around. They’re all going to buildings, coming from
buildings. And I think that needs to be looked at in more detail. We too
often focus at the building specific level and as a business [our
company] can do more than that because we’re involved in planning
and regeneration. Yes. Yes, I think that the answer to my question that
the balance needs to be struck, but it’s needs to be stuck on a
development by development basis I think because the issues are
going to be different development from development. If you are building
next to a world heritage site you’ve got different issues to building in the
middle of the town centre. So I think we need to be looking or casting

the net a bit wider I think. We’re in danger of letting ourselves get
blinkered as an industry.
Q Right OK. Interesting. OK. Great. I’ll switch this off. END OF
INTERVIEW.

A18-LPA-M-S09-00002009-A22&23-KS-KS
Interviewee ID: A18
Interviewee Subgroup ID: LPA
Location: S09
Short Description: Interviewee is the Climate Change and Built Environment

Co-coordinator for a Local Planning Authority. Interviewee confirmed that all
responses are interviewee’s personal opinion and not representative of the
Local Planning Authority.
R Yes. I guess in a – if I take those different work contexts one by one. So

in terms of planning policy we are working on the Local Development
Framework at the moment and bringing forward policies to promote
sustainable energy and low carbon building. So using tools like
BREEAM and Code for Sustainable Homes levels, potentially Merton
style policy requiring on site renewable energy, and also to promote and
encourage CHP distinct heating, and some large scale renewables to.
There’s not much scope on the city but Avonmouth is a particular focus
for those schemes. So that’s under way and to support that work I am
currently project managing a survey that’s being done across the city to
look at capacity and potential. Which depending on the timing you might
find useful? That’ll go into the public domain because it’s part of the
evidence base for the LDF. And that’s due to report in April. And then
just to take a step back we’ve already got supplementary planning
guidance which was adopted in February 2006 called Sustainable
Building Design and Construction which was an SPD. Which can’t set
any requirements but promotes sustainable building and has a set of
key questions. And particularly encourages applicants to provide a

sustainability statement which sets up what they’re going to do in the

development. And for very large developments, so a hundred dwellings
upwards, that is a requirement through the planning performance
agreement for those, where we have a PPA instead of the thirteen
weeks. And they’re submitting statement now. So that’s policy – well,
that leads into development control. So through that SPD we now have
a protocol where ever possible we get a sustainability statement with
the application. And then if it’s a small that’ll be appraised within DC.
And if it’s a larger one it’ll come to me for comment and suggestions
and recommendations. And so typically I might recommend conditions
and obligations. So, for example, if the applicant said we are going to
meet BREEAM Very Good I’ll say secure that by condition if you can
[interviewer laughs] so it’s not just an aspiration. And then I’m, again for
the very large applications, I am part of the formal assessment team for
that. So engaging in pre’ app’ negotiations with applications. So things
like at the moment the urban extensions is a big focus for that work.
Looking at master plans and commenting. So that’s development
control. And then in terms of corporate building the focus for that most
recently has been around schools and the Building Schools for the
Future programme. Replacing, in the end, all our secondary schools.
And there we’ve done that through the spec’. So we’ve been consulted
on the spec’ and we’ve got an agreement to reach at least BREEAM
Very Good for those and potentially Excellent through our Local
Education Partnership. And before that, before we had BREEAM, we
wrote our own spec’ which is specifying carbon analogy targets. And the
next piece of work is to do the Primary School Review which we’ll do
the same thing. We’ll write the spec’ for the schools and we’ve got key
performance indicators relating to carbon and energy, and water and
sustainability. So we’ll be able to monitor the level and report on those
annually so we can see how well they’re doing. And then there's a
couple of other – we’ve got some other corporate building projects and
the most recent one is the Colston Hall. Which you might have seen has
got our wind turbine?
Q I didn’t notice that actually [interviewer laughs].
R [Over talking] only last week. Yes. Brand new. It’s got a vertical wind
turbine fitted and it’s also got solar thermal for the kitchens. So that was
quite a big achievement. And that was through, again, us being invited
to comment on the spec’, talk to the architect and also secure the grant
that funded a big chunk of that work.
Q Right OK. Could you describe what support systems your organisation
has in place to help staff to work towards these targets?

R Staff? Yes. There’s a few things. We did a Climate Change Select

Committee last year and as part of that we did a staff survey where we
invited staff to tell us what their concerns and aspirations were around
carbon emissions and climate change. And then we took that and we’ve
again got lots of recommendations on what we might do. We obviously
have national indicators for reducing the corporate carbon emissions.
NI185 or 186?
Q Oh I don’t know actually [interviewer laughs].
R Which [unclear] it’s council. It’s related to council emissions. And we’ve
got a target to reduce that year on year, which we’re meeting at the
moment. So the other thing to mention with that is that for a long time
we’ve had a corporate travel plan looking at the different council offices.
And we’ve got things like a bike purchase salary sacrifice scheme to
help with that. We’ve got somebody who’s detailed to work on that to
promote greener travel to council offices and also on council business.
So things like more pool cars and fewer individual cars coming through
that. Reducing car parking and managing it better, and promoting public
transport. So one particular success is the bus that actually comes here,
the inner circuit bus, which is subsidised by the council.
Q Do you have any mechanisms for people, not just in your department,
but through larger scale for training individuals towards the
governments low and zero carbon targets?
R Staff within the council?
Q Yes, sorry.
R Yes. Yes we do. I should also mention the EMAS scheme, Eco
Management and Audit Scheme, which we’ve been signed up to for at
least five years. Which we’ve been rolling out one department at a time
and that’s externally audited. So that again gives us actions and targets
that we can measure. Not all related to climate change but sustainability
in general. And we have - as part of that we’ve got a system of reps in
the satellite offices who promote sustainability and work with the EMAS
team. And we often have if we’ve working with - for example we’re
working with housing, we’ve got a seconde from housing who’ll come
and work in our office for a year say to actually manage that. So
providing the link between EMAS based here and the housing team.
And that’s been going on some time now.
Q What do you see as the benefits to your organisation for achieving low
and zero carbon targets? This may seem like an odd question to you

[interviewer laughs].
R Well, I think there’s that whole – there’s a top level aspiration for Bristol
to be a low carbon city with a high quality of life. And that sums up the
aspiration. We see that whole traditional view to some extent a tradeoff
between social economic and environmental sustainability, but we don’t
work with that particularly because what we see is that when you have
environmental sustainability it can enhance the city’s offer. So we’re one
of the top ten cities as a travel destination to visit, so from that you get
economic growth. And it’s also worth mentioning for a while we’ve had a
scheme called BETS, Bristol Environmental Technology Sector, where
we’re working with our colleagues in economic regeneration to
positively promote the development of environmental businesses in the
city. And see if we can find locations for them to form a cluster and to
support each other. So there’s a whole network there. And they
organise an expo in the summer, and they have a steering group and
spatially, again, we’ve got preferred places in the city. So Avonmouth,
for example, is a big focus of activity. Lots of environmental technology
there. So we’re supporting that and enabling it. So we see economic
benefits coming back to the city from those activities. And things like the
Green Capital which unfortunately we didn’t win but we did very well to
be short listed really within Europe.
Q Right OK. Was that the recently announced …
R [Over talking] it was announced on Monday.
Q You came second?
R We didn’t actually come second [interviewer and interviewer laugh].

That would have been – well, we did pretty well because some of the
German and Scandinavian cities have got an easier legislative contact
to work with. They have more local control, for example, for transport
and land use. So we didn’t do bad. It enhances the city.
knowledge required to achieve the low and zero carbon buildings?
R That’s a good question. Not always. It’s hugely variable. Some

architects in the city – again because Bristol’s quiet a green city and it
tends to attract people who are interested in that agenda, there are
some architects that are way ahead. So people like White Design,
Quattro, have been doing this for years so it’s almost like there USP.
They position themselves, particularly White Design, to market

themselves as a green and sustainable practice. I think among other

practices - yes I think it’s changed a lot in the last few years. I think
things like BREEAM and the Codes, while there’s been some resistance
to more regulation, have actually forced us, pushed us to engage with
that agenda. Particularly changes to building reg’s Part L around energy
mean that architects have to engage more with the M & E side of things
earlier in the process and they didn’t have to previously. They could just
design and then hand it over to the techie people [interviewer laughs].
So I think we’ve got a more integrated approach to design and that’s
really coming through those national initiatives. That’s not so much local
but we’re seeing the benefits. I’d say most architects in the city are
really pretty signed up to this. Now we get invited to go and do CPD
sessions. Yes, I think – there’s still some resistance around form filling
[interviewer laughs]. Things like BREEAM and the amount of paper that
you have to gather together for your evidence to get your sign off. But I
think in general people are behind it.
Q Actually one of the sub questions was have you observed differences in
knowledge between the small and large architectural practices but you
have mentioned two in particular who are small practices [interviewer
laughs]?
R Well, there small but White Design have grown enormously but they’re
still pretty small in the grand scheme of things. They’re not a major –
yes, I think there is. It’s interesting, I’ve actually got a student on
placement who’s actually researching things like the Code impact on
design.
Q Oh right OK.
R And it does seem quite onerous for the small practice - sorry one
person practice it’s really quite difficult to achieve. And we’ve just been
talking to this architect and he’s done all his sustainable homes
evidence gathering himself rather than employing an assessor and not
surprisingly he’s found it really heavy going. And I think it’s too do with
scale. If you’re a big practice and you can employ a dedicated BREEAM
Code assessor and just hand it all over to them and they look after it.
But if you are a one or two person practice then it’s really quite onerous.
And again having said that, in terms of innovative and creative design I
should mention Archipelago as well. Which is also based here in the
city. That’s just a two person practice and they’ve done fantastic things.
So I think it can be done but perhaps the evidence gathering is more
difficult for a small firm.


ensure that they can produce these low and zero carbon buildings?
R I think actually the down side of those assessment methodologies it that

you can constrain to the lowest common denominator of the design. So
if you just say aright I’m going to build to Code Five or Code Four and
you just stop at that point to some extent it can depress people’s
aspirations to do something really interesting and creative. And I think
that’s a pity. And I think there are a lot of things that aren’t considered
by the Code. So, for example, two big issues for me, longevity and
flexibility. So we’re not talking about the life span of these houses. So
actually they could just be Code Five and Six but if there only going to
stand for thirty years that’s really not very good. If you were to look at
the life cycle of carbon emissions from that then you’ve got really far too
much on the construction. The operation’s quite good but you get the
high cost of the construction. So I think we should look at the life span
of buildings. I don’t know quite how you’d measure that? Things like the
embodied energy in materials we haven’t really got a methodology
properly yet. Not really. And then flexibility. I think being able to adapt
buildings to different uses over time because you don’t know how things
are going to change. And having that flexibility of layout so that you can,
for example, convert from commercial to residential or the other way
round. Whereas lot of building’s we’re building now are very just single
purpose and can’t be reconfigured so they have to be demolished which
is hugely costly in terms of carbon and natural resources. Yes. I think
we need to do much more flexible design.
achieving the low and zero carbon buildings targets?
R Well, cost [interviewee laughs]. I expect everybody says that. Cost is a

big one and then I think also perceived cost. I think quite often people
assume it’s going to be expensive to do even if there’s not evidence for
that. So there’s an assumption it’s going to be costly and difficult. So
there’s a bit of resistance to that. And the way our funding processes
are structured I think it’s fair to say that, in particular with PFI Private
partnership projects, it’s very difficult to make the case on spending
more on capital in order to reduce revenue because if the person who’s
designing and building this is not running it then they don’t care what
the revenue saving are. And it can’t be built in. You’ve got a fixed sum,
typically your doing PFI you bid to the government, you get a fixed sum
to work with and that’s it. And you have to somehow – then if you are
going to allocate extra for sustainability something else has to be cut.
And quite often things get value engineered out that’s the other thing.

That they’ll be on the table at the beginning of the process, you think
you’ve secured them and then they get valued engineered out right at
the eleventh hour which is a great shame. The other thing to mention is
there is some times, particularly at the moment, competing priorities
around now things like Section 106 Agreements and you have a bit of a
stark choice sometimes. A higher percentage of affordable housing or a
higher Code level and the developer will say, with some justice, well,
you can have one but you can’t have both because it will damage the
viability. And then that’s a really tough call for the planning officer to try
and come down on one side or the other.
Q Within the industry as a whole what do you think, you have actually just
mentioned a couple, think of the potential barriers to achieving the low
and zero carbon targets?
R [Over talking] within the industry?
Q Yes. So the construction industry as a whole?
R Again I think there’s misinformation out there about how difficult these
things are. I think there’s a resistance to change. I think when you get
volume house builders and they’re building to a pattern book they don’t
particularly want to go back and rework those designs fundamentally.
There’s a certain amount of conservatism really in the thinking. And it’s
interesting because the impression we get here at Create people come
and visit here if we have events here and so on, is that the market aren’t
delivering the kind of houses that people want. Because we get a lot of
enquiries about self build because people want something that’s more
sustainable. So I think there’s a gap between what the market – what
people think is wanted and what’s actually being delivered. Particularly
land agents and estate agents haven’t understood that sustainability
gives you a market advantage. They are not using that in they’re
marketing as much as they could do. You could potentially recover the
extra you’ve spent or maybe sell quicker so that then you’ve got your
cash flows better but I think that’s not well understood. It’s not quite -
not got there yet. Not in people’s thinking.
Q No [interviewer laughs]. Within large architectural organisations, if you

feel you can answer this, what do you think are the barriers to achieving
the low and zero carbon buildings?
R Large architects? That’s interesting. I don’t think it’s particularly to do

with scale because some of the larger ones are very good. Stride
Treglown, large, are very good. AFM are very good. Actually we’ve got
some fantastic architects in this city. We’re probably a bit privileged in

Bristol. We don’t deal really – I don’t think we deal with architects who
don’t get this agenda at all, not any more. No I wouldn’t say so. I think
some architects are a little bit to in general concerned with the way
things look in relation to how they function. So their primary concern is
the aesthetic rather than how the buildings functions. So they’d be
much more prepared to invest extra in, for example, some very nice
cladding or something like that, rather than improved M & E that you
can’t see. It’s not visible, it doesn’t have that iconic – it isn’t striking
enough. So I think there is a bit of a tendency to want the wow factor or
to want something that’s striking in terms of design and aesthetics over
what might be seen as more boring insulation and building
performance. Not quite as glamorous really. You are not going to find
the Will Alsop’s of this world embracing – being interested in M & E.
Q What do the governments low and zero carbon targets mean to you?
R Well, I think they’ve been incredibly useful to us. When Building a

Greener Future came out, was that eighteen months ago now? ‘O7 I
think. That statement of intent with the trajectory between here and zero
carbon in 2016, I think that was incredibly helpful really. because then
we could go and say, for example, applicants for planning permission,
especially for large applicants, well look it’s a risk to you if you don’t
take this agenda on board. You should future proof your design
otherwise you might have to rework it at a later stage. Or when people
are going for outline and then coming back for full permission actually if
you build it in now – so it did enable us to say the governments behind
this agenda and it gives you a little more leverage really. And if you
could frame it in terms of risk to the project or benefit to the project it
isn’t always – you can’t always promote sustainability because it’s the
right thing to do. Or even in terms of global warming because people
want to hear what matters to that project. So it allowed us to really
relate it to those particular concerns about getting the project going.
Q What do you personally think about the low and zero carbon targets?
R I think - this is personally, this is not Bristol City Councils view, I think
that they were hugely over ambitious to start with and now they are
hugely under ambitious [interviewer and interviewee laugh]. I think
they’ve done that classic thing of going two prong without really thinking
it through properly. I think in particular Code Level Six; it’s such a huge
jump. I think including – making Code Level Six include total emissions
and not regulated emissions was a huge mistake because how can you
do that with a building really? That’s about lifestyle. I’m not sure it’s
appropriate to use buildings to do that. And that’s actually – people
would say oh Code Level Six is ridiculous and it would prevent them at

looking at Code Levels Three and Four. They wouldn’t read any further.
They’d just reject the whole thing. So yes, I think they went too far and
then they got scared. And then of course the economics have changed
and now they have retreated too far.
Q What if anything would you change about the low and zero carbon
targets? This is again your personal opinion …
R [Over talking] Yes, I suppose a more incremental approach would be

better and traditionally that’s the way we do things in this country in
relation to planning. We don’t generally do a huge leap forward. So I
think you need a more measured approach and I think you need interim
targets. There was a road map wasn’t there for the zero carbon
between here and 2016 but I think actually again 2016 is too far off to
be easily useable. What they really want is targets for the next year
actually. And I think the other bid mistake was to make social housing
providers work with Code for Sustainable Homes and not the market. I
think that really needs to be rectified. We need a single approach
across the board really. And again there’s been some market
implications there because you probably know that in some cases
there’s been developments that have social housing and private
housing side by side. And where the social housing is being delivered
for a housing association they are having to build to Code Level Three
and for the private housing nothing at all. And then the market changes
and they can’t sell those private houses. They can’t then sell them to
the housing associations because they don’t meet the standard …
Q [Over talking] that’s interesting.
R Well, that’s a huge own goal and everybody loses because the
developer can’t sell, the housing associations want to buy, governments
are giving housing associations money to do it and there are people
desperately need affordable housing. So it was like unintended
consequences really. So – and originally DCLG were going to make
Code ratings mandatory from last April and actually [unclear] on that. So
now you have to have an assessment but you can submit a nil return
which is a big loop hole. So I think really single standard for all housing
and all buildings, not just ones that are just limited to the public purse.
That’s been one of the biggest mistakes with it really.
Q OK. Are there any alternative ways that you, again as your personal
opinion, that you either think that we should be either building our
buildings or perhaps changing the targets or perhaps changing the
tools? If in your personal opinion any changes would be beneficial?

R Yes. I think that one about a level playing field is an important one. And
I think there needs to be a commitment to review these. I think there is a
bit of uncertainty developing around whether BRE are taking the lead
on this or whether the UK Green Building Council are taking the lead,
and that needs to be resolved. Again, potentially there’s uncertainty and
developers like certainty. And we do to. We don’t want to be saying in
our LDF we’re going to be specify BREEAM levels in this masterplan
and then by the time we get there BREEAM has been abolished. And
then once you start having to put wording in that says or equivalent
you’re weakening what you’re doing. So I think what’s needed is a more
consistent approach really. So across the whole building industry,
treating the various sectors equally. So it’s a little bit piecemeal at the
moment and BRE have had supremacy in that for a long time but are
now are being challenged. Do you know the LEED methodology which
is also a challenge?
Q The typically American [unclear]?
R That’s right, yes. Which is self certified which is quite a lot weaker. But
it’s creating a muddle really. A lack of clarity. I think the virtue of the
Code is the Code is the Code. That’s it. We’re all working at it even if
there are these little anomalies, you can put in a nil rating. But I think we
need the same for non residential [unclear].
Q Ok. Is there anything that you think is important to this topic that you
don’t think I’ve covered in the issue?
R It is very thorough actually [interviewee laughs]. It is really thorough. No

I can’t think of anything particularly. We’ve covered quite a lot of ground
there haven’t we?
Q If there is anything you could always email me [interviewer laughs].
R Yes.
Q OK. That’s brilliant.
R Well, I suppose we haven’t done enough around retro fitting of existing

buildings. That’s the big gap. And I think government were going to
announce a scheme and then they postponed it till next month. I think
when that comes it will be really useful because 80% of your building
stock is going to be the same in 2016. So we need to work with what
we’ve got really and look at how we can upgrade that. And doing that
without getting into an argument about demolition because that’ll be a
huge mistake again. People are going to start saying the only solution

to do now is demolish these buildings because their energy

performance is so poor. Then you lose – there’s a huge issues around
community cohesion and the design.
Q And there have been studies that have disproved the knocking down to
build new [unclear]?
R But there’s still an argument - like the Tyndall Centre are still saying
potentially you need to demolish 40% of your building stock which
would be [interviewee laughs] – It’s [unclear] really.
Q Oh right.
R Yes, retrofit and refurb’. And also in line with that promoting design now
that can be easily retrofitted later. So things like looking at your
orientation and things like roof pitches so you could retrofit PV when it
becomes more affordable. Oh and the other big gap is that of climate
change adaptation which we haven’t really begun to look at, and the
need for cooling in buildings. Everything’s around heating and obviously
if temperatures go on rising we’re going to have big issues around over
heating buildings and how you manage that without people shipping in
air conditioning. Which would be fairly disastrous really. So we need
buildings that perform well in a fairly wide range of temperatures. And
they need to be modeled to show that they can perform at 30 degrees
centigrade for overheating…
Q [Over talking] and is there anything in the pipe line to, that looks like it
might, ask for that in the future?
R There’s a requirement for the council’s to produce an adaptation plan

but in terms of building design – ARUP have done quite a lot of work on
this, which is really, really good quality and so has the TCPA. But that’s
just the beginnings really. I don’t think the government has quite got that
agenda yet. We perhaps need a PPS on climate change adaptation.
Adaptation with mitigation that it doesn’t make things worse.
Q Great.
R Yes those too. There’s quite a lot there.
Q I’ll switch this off. Brilliant. END OF INTERVIEW.

A19-RET-M-S10-17122008-A7&8-KS-KS
Interviewee ID: A19
Interviewee Subgroup ID: RET
Location: S10
Short Description: Interviewee is an Environmental Director for a large Real

Estate Trust which builds and manages commercial buildings.
Q OK, can you describe how your organisation is working towards the
R Interesting - I’m not sure that we are. I’m not sure that they’re even
achievable. We are founder members of the UK Green Building Council,
and I sit on the technical committee, and obviously the UK Green
Building Council is putting together the agenda to try and get to the
targets that the government is setting. But I don’t think the government
even understands what it is asking people to do. If you’re building a
small out of town green field development where you can orientate
things, you can make use of the lie of the land and build it in to cliffs and
hills, perhaps put up a local wind turbine - you might have a chance. If
you’re building thirty five storeys of London office block, five hundred
thousand square feet based on a small footprint, four mega watt
electricity demand - you cannot make it zero carbon. There is no
renewable technology yet discovered, that will provide four mega watts
of electricity for a building in London in any practical way.
Q OK. And how do you, perhaps how do you, support the people within
your company to at least target the...
R [Over talking] the role of my team, and what we’ve been doing since I
got the role twelve years ago, is about awareness, culture change - and

I think we’ve been quite good at that that’s why we’ve reasonably
successful embedding the environmental stuff. Selling a policy, setting
objectives and targets that are realistic and achievable - making sure
we achieve those targets. My team does training, we do various
awareness campaigns, we do auditing, we’ve got 14001 invested - so
it’s embedded in everything that we do. We do an e -learning package
on environment, which we’re expanding into other areas of speciality
like climate change and waste recycling. So it’s -we and be everything.
But obviously what my team does, there’s three of us, which doesn’t
sound a lot but it’s a least two people bigger than any other property
company has got. What we do is act as the internal team to make things
happen. What we can’t do is do everything ourselves, that would be
impossible, so we make sure the project managers and the building
managers understand the issues and manage them themselves and
what we do is check on them. But we give them the tools and check that
they’re using them properly.
Q How or what do you see as the benefits to you company for achieving
R At the moment its reputation because the big problem the industry has
is there’s no fiscal link between how sustainable a building is and its
initial value, its retained value or the level of rent you get. So if you put
two buildings, identical looking buildings up next to each other, and one
was a good BREEAM but not particularly sustainable and one was an
Excellent BREEAM and low carbon etc, you’d get the same rent.
Q Right OK.
R And that’s a big problem.
Q Do you foresee that changing?
R The investors property data base, IPD, have just started to launch a tool
to look at how sustainable a building is and it’s a bit of a blunt hammer
approach -blunt hammer, that’s bad - that’s not right - blunt instrument
approach. But it’s - and it’s a start, and they’re comparing that to value.
And at the moment they think that if you plot value against greenness
you get a scatter diagram and they hope that over five years that will
start to coalesce into a straight line and if does that then people will start
to say if I spend an extra five percent on making the building more
sustainable I’ll get an extra six percent return. Therefore it makes
sense. But at the moment that isn’t there and the reason we do things is
because our chief executive actually says I have a gut feeling it has to
be right and also why would you want to do anything in any business

that isn’t sustainable in the long term. So it’s - like it is with a lot of
organisations that have done well, it’s a CEO driven - well he’s not only
person driving it, there’s obviously me and my boss and a few other
people, but the CEO believes in it and he used to chair of our
environment committee. So he’s convinced by the issues and he’s
taken the board with him on the basis that it has to be right, but I can’t
yet see the financial value, but I’m sure it’s there. His view is that if we
weren’t doing it there’s a loss of value.
Q An interesting one. From your experience do you think architects have

the sufficient level of knowledge required to achieve low and zero
carbon buildings?
R Generally speaking many are - most aren’t displaying it. Some of them
may have the knowledge but it’s well hidden, but don’t seem to have the
will to do it. Are you an architect?
Q No, technically no.
R So I don’t mind offending you then [interviewer laughs]. The problem is,
and it is changing a little bit, they’re too effing precious about their
design. They’ve got to start facing the fact it’s no longer about them,
and making their name and designing buildings that they think are nice.
The general public don’t actually like architect designed buildings
anyway. We like Christopher Wren and he died a long time ago. No one
will ever remember Rogers and Foster. In a hundred years time no one
will know who they are, but they’ll all know Wren’s name. I’ve annoyed a
lot of architects saying that because - sorry they’re too precious.
They’ve got to face up to the fact that their job now is to design low
energy buildings and it doesn’t actually matter what they look like. And
that’s quite a hard nut to crack, because it - a lot of them are in it
because their peacocks, and they need not to be. They need to realise
they’re not the most important member of the team any more. The most
important member of the team is the M and E engineer, who’s
traditionally been the least important person, because he’s the guy who
that makes them know about the carbon the building uses. But the
architect will make an enormous difference to a design. Just look at the
amount of solar gain we’re getting [interviewee refers to interview rooms
windows]. It is December, and the amount of heat that’s coming in
through that window. It’s pointless. Even with the blinds we can’t control
it - I’m baking sitting here in December because of the sun that’s
coming through. Well, it’s not difficult to stop that. And OK the building
looks different, but it’s got to be done. You’ve got to stop that
happening.

Q OK. And in your opinion what do you think architectural practices need
to be doing to ensure that they produce the necessary...
R [Over talking] I think they should all have an in house sustainability

expert, and not training an architect to give him a background in it. They
should have somebody in there whose job is sustainability. Who sits on
every design and asks why. Why you doing it that way, why have you
got a ten foot high glass window around the whole board room, why you
doing that. Yes, it looks nice. Would you - we had a building where that
happened years ago. We thermally modelled it and the internal
temperature was going to hit forty six centigrade because of the glass
green house effect in - within the meeting room. And our engineers said
we can’t cool that. What you need is to put some solar shading glass
up, different colour to stop the solar gain. And the architect said no, the
building’s designed to have clear glass, you’ll just have to put in more
air conditioning. And hopefully no one’s as bad at that now, but that was
the prevailing thought that we mustn’t change the design of the building.
That’s sacrosanct and it’s up to you to cope. I’ve designed the building
and you make it work. Well actually it’s got to be a team approach. The
engineer and the structural engineer, and the QS and architect have all
got to work together to come up with something that works, is
sustainable and is low cost. Because there’s no point building it
sustainability if it costs twice as much. And I don’t think it does, I think
there’s a perception gap. People automatically assume if it’s BREEAM
I’ll add ten percent to the price, but it doesn’t have to be like that. A lot
of materials substitution - most buildings typically have fifteen percent
recycled content, whether they know it or not. You can get up to twenty
percent simply by changing specifications for no cost. So therefore thirty
percent probably isn’t that far away. So you’re already reducing the
amount of materials going into the building because you’ll be using stuff
from other buildings. Embedded carbon in the buildings - people are
starting to look at. I know Chinese granite is a fraction of the cost of
English granite, but why ship granite all round the world when it’s here.
There’s at least two places in the UK where it’s easily minable. Why not
use it.
Q Have you seen any differences in knowledge between the large

architectural practices and the small ones?
R As you can imagine we probably tend to work with some of the larger
ones, and there are ones that seem to be better than others. Certain
architects are ahead of the game regarding sustainability, for example
Rab Bennetts. There are two or three architects at Fletcher Priest who
are really quite convinced about this and they’re probably medium -

they’re not one of the big firms. Some of the stuff that Mr Rogers and Mr
Foster proclaim to be cutting edge is not sustainable at all, and they’re -
the [unclear] - I can’t remember who design the Baltic Exchange - it
doesn’t work. It loses space, so it’s not sustainable in the sense that the
shapes of the building mean the floor area ratio to usable floor - is
wrong. But technically the engineering side of it doesn’t work. It doesn’t
meet the targets it was designed to so it’s not sustainable. Someone
should come out and tell the stories, but they build their reputations on
these fabrications. I’m not saying they don’t do some good things, but
there’s a lot of emperor’s new clothes about there - and we’re finding
the same with M and E. Everyone’s always used Arup’s and Hoare Lee
and Faber Maunsell, and they have good engineers, like all firms, and
they have bad engineers. But there are small consultancies coming up
that actually build their image, not around a solution that’s sustainable
but building it around sustainability and making that a solution. And
putting - reversing it. So when we’re looking at sustainable homes, for
example, some of the traditional consultants would come and say what
are you building, alright I’ll assess that against the methodology - you
get twenty seven credits or whatever. The other people, the ones I
want, are the ones that come in and say we’ll tell you what to do to get
fifty credits and we’ll work with your design. We won’t just score it we’ll
tell you no don’t do it that way, do it this way. We’ve done that before,
this works. And you need to be more proactive and look for innovative
solutions, or I think the markets going to change towards that sort of
younger firm. Particularly now, when there’s going to be a market, I
think, for company start ups. The government will at some point
obviously will prime start up companies because it’s got to re kick start
the economy. I think there will be a lot starting up with sustainability at
the core rather than just an add on. Because in the past it’s just become
we can do this. Everyone else is offering sustainability, we’d better have
a sustainability team. Well that’s not really - it doesn’t work.
Sustainability has got to be where you design it from, and everything
else is - we use our professional skills to see how we do it.
Q Do you see there being a skills gap at the moment?
R Definitely, and not just in designs, in operation. And it’s been true for
twenty years because we have been building buildings with all sorts of
clever controls for twenty odd years and they don’t get properly
operated. Because the engineer goes in and he looks at this building
management system, with its computers and its screens and he’s going
I haven’t got a clue. And the tenant’s complaining its cold, and the
easiest way round is to put it in hand, and he runs it in hand. So all the
clever electronics that’s gone in get over ridden, but the tenants happy

because it’s warm when they come in in winter, and it’s cold when they
go or come in in summer. The fact that he’s run it cold all night
[interviewer laughs] - and they never know it’s not operating efficiently.
Q OK. So within your organisation what do you think are the potential
barriers to achieving these low and zero carbon targets?
R At the moment, because of the situation, like everybody else, it’s going
to be morale. People won’t go the extra mile because if people are
getting laid off and they’re not sure about their own jobs morale goes.
So every aspect of business suffers then. So no reason sustainability
shouldn’t be any different. The big - it’s not so much a barrier as the
absence of a driver, is the link between sustainability and value. There
is a barrier also, in terms of adequate resources. And my team as I said
is three. Now I could put - I’ve got enough work for ten people. So to do
it properly we could have ten people. We’ll never get ten, we’re lucky to
have three, by the time I get back to my desk there could be two of us
who knows [interviewer and interviewee laugh]. So - don’t laugh. Hope
not. So I think that’s a barrier. But also cost or at least a perception that
green costs more. And sometimes it does. Sometimes if you want the
more efficient boiler you pay an extra ten percent for it, and then the
problem is that the developer pays the ten percent extra capital, but all
the benefit accrues to the tenant in reduced running costs. If you were
doing it for your own building you would pay that extra ten percent up
front because you can see it’s a two point six year payback, it’s got a
twenty five year life - if I pay a little bit more upfront, over twenty five
years I’m making enormous savings. So you’d do it. Course you would,
like you would at home. But if you’re the developer, why pay an extra
five grand, ten grand, fifty grand, for no extra income for somebody else
to save money. So ...
Q That sort off leads on really to what are the main barriers really in the
construction industry as a whole? Obviously you have mentioned cost
and perception...
R [Over talking] picking up on the last point, just before we leave it, is that
there is attempt to address this through so called Green Leases. If
you’ve read anything in property week, which I’m a little bit of a sceptic,
in that they’ll take a while to come through. And we’ve sort of jumped
ahead. We’re actually putting voluntary plans in place with our tenants,
which go further than a Green Lease ever would anyway. But because
it’s not written into a lease we can change it at a moment’s notice. If
something suddenly doesn’t work or something becomes best practice
that we weren’t doing, we just agree it to do it differently. So much faster
reacting. Just started out, launching EMPs for all our London tenants

and over the next year will monitor what difference it makes. In terms of
the construction side the problem is you’ve got two or three contractors
who understand the issues really well. The likes of Bovis Lend Lease
and they’re really trying to make - every job they try and do better than
the one before. We’ve got a few other major contractors who
understand the issues in so far as they’ve made sure they’ve got 14001,
and they manage their waste, and they’ve look at - but there’s no
innovation there, they’re not trying to do anything different, they’re just
trying to manage things better. Reduce their impacts. But there’s no
importance to actually completely redesign the way they put together a
Design and Build contract. And then you’ve got the vast bulk of builders,
who are the smaller ones, that don’t work for Land Sec’s but work for
the small landlord who modernises a small block of flats in Cheedle
Hulme, or where ever, or Wrexham or - does that, and that’s the bulk of
the industry. And they’ve got no idea what sustainability is. They’ll build
for price, the lowest price.
Q That’s - just quickly, for the purposes of the interview, the Green Lease
is to encourage...?
R The idea for Green Lease is that when you sign a tenant up, for an
office or a shop, you put some clauses in there that require both the
landlord and the occupier to do things that they might not otherwise do.
So you make it a legal requirement within the lease. And that’s why I’m
slightly sceptical because the industry’s developing those but there’s no
occupiers involved in developing the leases. Suppose no one will sign
one. What you going to do then. Say we’re not going to have you as an
occupier, when everyone is crying out for tenants. So the approach
we’ve done and we’ve spoken now to about eighty five, ninety percent
of our London occupiers, is say what - are you keen on sustainability?
Yes. What about the credit crunch? It makes it even more important is
the unanimous answer we get back, which is encouraging. They’ve all
said we want you to do more not less, and we said OK let’s put a plan in
place but it requires you to do something as well as us. So for example
if we provide the waste recycling facilities you have to commit to
educating your staff. Put up posters, explain to them why, make it easier
for them. Do away with paper towels and use hand driers, this sort of
thing. If you do that, then we’ll do this. And if we do this, you’ve got to
do that. So a plan of about six or seven simple things. All no cost items.
But if you do that then in a year’s time we’ll measure the difference. Or
we’ll measure it ongoing, but in a year’s time when you’ve had a full
year - the trouble with buildings is you need to go through all four
season to see if something is working [interviewee laughs]. And we’ll
see. And I think that we will start to see a difference. I reckon, just on

energy, even in one of our buildings where it’s reasonably well run, I
reckon I can go in and save ten percent simply by changing some of the
house keeping things. In a poor building I reckon you can save between
fifteen and thirty percent just by changing occupancy hours, changing
set points, communicating that actually you don’t need the building
open on a Saturday. I know the lease says it needs to be open, but no
one works Saturdays any more so turn the building off. You have
ludicrous situations, not just this company, and hopefully we’ve
corrected it - but lots of other companies, where the lease will say that
the building can run from nine till one on a Saturday. Now even though
the building manager knows that nobody is in there he runs it from nine
till one because he’s afraid that if he doesn’t and someone does turn up
they want a rent rebate because the building wasn’t fit for purpose on
the day. So you run an empty building. Why? Why can’t you just agree
no one will be there, we’ll turn it off. If you want to come in let us know
and we’ll put the boilers on. Doesn’t that make more sense?
Q That’s an interesting one [interviewer laughs].
R Well if everybody - a building that runs on a Saturday morning,

unoccupied, is probably accounting for something like eleven percent
energy wastage.
Q That’s quite a large percentage.
R So if it’s running Saturday mornings every week, with no body in there,

that’s about eleven percent energy over run on the landlord services.
Q So you think this is - I get the distinct impression a lot of it’s to do with
behaviour?
R We’re saying to our tenants let’s pare the core hours down. If you go at
five thirty lets get the system to turn off so the heating goes off at
quarter past five, because it will still be warm enough by half past five. If
you want to stay late because you have a board meeting, tell us that the
board meeting is going on and we’ll programme it in, but then on the
day confirm. Because what often happens is there’s a Thursday night
board meeting. We need the board room air conditioned tonight until ten
o’clock because there’s a board meeting - the chairman’s still on the
plane back from America or still on the golf course and he phones up
say he’s got to cancel the board meeting because he’s not going to be
there. So they tell the directors not to come but do they tell the building
manager “actually the meeting’s off”. So we’ll air condition an empty
room for five hours. All we say is just tell us. Just make a note in your to
do list that if a room booking - if you book the room make a note to say

two hours before you go home to confirm it. Just little things like that
which, actually their only being polite if - so it’s not asking too much, but
it can make an enormous difference in energy efficiency. Because
keeping plant going to do a small area - it’s not running efficiently
because it’s running way over size for the load it’s being asked to do.
So it’s a tremendous energy drain. How many buildings do you walk
past every night with the lights on?
Q There was a large campaign by Friends of the Earth wasn’t there? to do

with the ...
R [Over talking] I’m sure it was [Interviewer laughs]. Canary Wharf -

bankers at the Canary Wharf would deliberately leave the lights on all
night in their towers, or until eleven o’clock or twelve o’clock, even
though there was nobody there because if we turn the lights off the vibe
was our rivals will presume we’re not busy. So we’ll leave the lights on
to make it look like we’re working. Sorry [Interviewer laughs]...
R Unrealistic.
Q And ..?
R The solution’s got to be in the delivery of the energy mix. We can make
buildings more efficient clearly, but zero – it’s - energy’s got to come
from somewhere. We can’t put wind turbines up in London. A, there’s
no where to put them, and b, they won’t turn. Historically you build cities
where they’re safe. So you don’t build them generally speaking in flood
plains, you build them on the hills overlooking a river. You don’t build
them where it’s windy because old wooden buildings used to blow
down. So traditionally our cities aren’t where the wind is. So wind
turbines in cities won’t work. You can’t use solar PV, is so ineffective in
terms of turning solar energy into electricity, that it’s not cost effective.
So that leaves you ground source. Which is only suited to some
locations if you’ve got the aquifer and you can’t put too great a density
in because then you effect the temperature of the ground water and it
all stops working. So we’re not really left with anything other than
hydrogen fuel cells, and there’s no hydrogen network yet, and there’s
no commercial hydrogen fuels cells in the UK other than other than the
one Woking have put in the swimming pool. And district heating, using
gas pipe CHP. And that’s where, certainly in London, they’ve started to
come up with district heating schemes, distributed energy centres as
they call them. And they’re saying if you get planning consent for a

building you have to make it flexible enough to change over from the
grid connections to our energy centre. Fine, but you need to tell us
when will that be available, how will you be supplying the energy. Will it
be steam, water or electricity, or a combination and when. How will we
connect, what type of connector. Because if you just say it must be
flexible, that adds a few million pounds to our design.
Q So what would you change about the targets, or would you change the
targets?
R I’d redefine what they mean by zero carbon. I’d rule out - if they’re going
to talk about zero carbon commercial buildings it can only relate to the
landlord side. Which is the building servicing provision. First you’ve got
a chance of being able to do that if you allow near and off site energy to
be ring fenced for it. You can’t do it using onsite. You have to
completely review tenants lighting and small power because then -
that’s the three mega watts of load you’re talking about in a tall building
to run all the tenants kit. Sorry, it’s electricity. You can’t provide it any
other way basically than off the national grid. So they need to look at
the grid mix. And perhaps that is through distributed energy centres -
and New York has these little power stations scattered through the city,
doesn’t it. It doesn’t rely on big plant- it has a network of big district
power stations - but New York they are actually in the city. So we need
something like that. Not at that scale, but there’s plenty of boiler houses
that could be used to generate half a megawatt or something like that.
We should be using them.
Q And do you think there’s any alternative ways of - I was thinking the way
we tend to sort of build at the moment is through the sort of standards
and the targets, things like BREEAM, do you think there are any
alternatives ways to developing to what we’ve got at the moment?
R Well, I think you need some sort of guidance like that because at least it
focuses the mind. But I’ve just done the BREEAM assessors course last
week, and I know you have to have rules but, for example, you get a
credit for being within five hundred metres of a post office. If that post
office is in Tesco’s you can still get that credit, but they don’t measure it
to the front door of Tesco’s, they measure it to where the post office is
within Tesco’s. So if when you do your design the post office is at the
front of the store and its four hundred and ninety metres, you get the
credit. If during your construction Tesco revamps and moves the post
office to the other side, and is now five hundred and ten metres away,
you lose the point. I’m sorry, how’s that encouraging the developer to be
sustainable. Just give them the credit - just use the front door of the
building. Sorry, it’s too pedantic and there’s no flexibility. So I think there

is a danger that if you use standards - what I’m trying to say is if you
use standards, they become a straight jacket. And they’ve lost the point.
What they’re trying to do is encourage sustainability. If you build your
office block within five hundred meters - no different if it’s five hundred
and one or four hundred and ninety nine. Within five hundred metres of
the facility to encourage people to walk rather than drive, then that’s
what you’ve done. Fine, don’t penalise them because actually it’s now
five hundred and three metres away. Because actually to the average
person it’s not – it’s no more or less sustainable for doing that. I know
they’ve got to have rules but they’re losing sight of why the rules are
there. So I think there’s a danger that if you do use standards, it can be
counterproductive.
Q Are there any, from your experience from within your section of the
industry, any particularly important points that I haven’t covered?
R The old chestnut about the government needs to set the standards with
the buildings that it procures itself. We’re one of the largest providers of
buildings to the government and we have to tell them what their targets
are, sometimes. They don’t know what they’re doing - so we go for a
PFI contract, and we go what about BREEAM? And they say BREEAM,
BREEAM? You do realise that the building we provide will have to be
Excellent. Do they, OK? Because you only put Very Good in the tender.
Well we thought that was alright. Yes, but now you have a government
target your buildings have to be Excellent. And they don’t know. So
that’s - so government needs to be a lot smarter in how it procures, and
leads by example. Its needs to think what’s appropriate. It’s bringing in
something called the carbon reduction commitment, which is supposed
to be cost neutral. Its emissions trading for medium sized UK
companies. It’s so cost neutral that it’ll cost us about a million pounds a
year, just in lost interest and buying the credits upfront. And then we
possibly can’t recover the money from our tenants because, even
though we told the government, leases don’t always legally allow us to,
they’ve told us it’s our problem. And we’re going, no it’s your problem,
you should have drafted a legislation to say this is mandatory and then
no one can argue. So lots of issues like that. So they need to
understand the sectors - so it will be the same for other sectors. They
need to understand the sectors they’re managing, rather than having
civil servants come in and write legislation. They need to get the sectors
to write the legislation and actually trust us to do the right thing,
because we could have written this a lot better than they could.
Q Brilliant, thank you very much - switch the tape off. END OF
INTERVIEW.

A20-STC-NM-S11-17122008-A9&10&11-KS-KS
Interviewee ID: A20
Interviewee Subgroup ID: STC
Location: S11
Data Storage ID: A9&10&11
Short Description: Interviewee is a Sustainability Tools Consultant within an

environmental consultancy that champions the case for One Planet Living.
Q Ok [interviewer interrupts recording to check sound quality]. Can you

describe how your company or organisation is working towards the
R Well, basically our company is involved in helping other people meet

those targets. And also analysing things like for the councils, and so on,
what policies they need to put in place to reach those targets. To ensure
the developers in their borough, or area, are meeting those targets. So
that involves lots of interpreting other peoples cost modelling, cross
modelling ourselves. Tracking down a much data as possible. We’re
getting very keen on any body who’s got any SAP information that’s
anything to do with us - we want it all at the moment. So, yes, things to
do with finding out how people are trying to meet targets now. Looking
at whether that is going to be enough and looking at what they can be
doing, to try that little bit harder and make sure they do meet.
Q So can you describe, if this is applicable to you, the support systems

that your organisation has in place to help staff work towards these
targets?
R Not really. We don’t have specifically set targets ourselves. We’ve not
got involved with - as an organisation we want to reduce our footprint be
X - or anything like that because we’re a growing organisation and we’re
also quite decentralised. As far as the footprint of our office is, well most

of us work from home. So, yes, it doesn’t really apply.
Q And what do you see as the benefits to your company for achieving the
low and zero carbon architecture targets?
R We get paid [interviewee laughs].
Q That’s your work [interviewer laughs]?
R Yes, that’s our job [interviewer and interviewee laugh].
Q From your experience do you think architects have sufficient level of

R No.
Q Do you want to [interviewer and interviewee laugh] ...
R [Over talking] I’ll expand. No they don’t. They’re very often much more -
not concerned - with the practicalities of how the building services work.
They’ll quite often become engrossed in one particular technology
without really looking in depth at whether it’s appropriate for site.
Whether it works on the site, and whether it works on any site
sometimes. They can get very carried away with visual things, so
looking at natural materials and things like that. Which I’m sure they’re a
good thing but they’re not the first thing they should be, perhaps,
something you look at after how the buildings going to work and how
the building services are going to fit together.
Q Do you mind if I just test if this is recording?
R Go for it [interviewer interrupts recording to check sound quality].

ensure they can produce the low and zero carbon buildings?
R In a lot of cases they’re asking questions, and sometimes even asking

the right questions. But it’s whether those, the answers that they get,
feedback into what they do in practice. We seem to have a lot of times
we’re we’ll go in and give some sustainability talks to architects and at
the end of it maybe one or two of them will come up to us and ask
further questions. But we know full well they’ve not picked up enough
detail in a twenty minute presentation, on a broad range of subjects, to
then go on and design a sustainable building on their own at that stage.
But we don’t hear back from them so its - hopefully they’ve gone off and
got the work from someone else, but I’m not a hundred percent
convinced. So, yes, it’s about buy in from the people involved in the

practice and really trying to make sure that they’re well educated. But
architecture is kind of like a project management trade really. Yes, it’s
kind of like project management so it’s about pulling in the right advisors
at the right time. And its, yes, to some extent one of the key things is
making sure you get the right advisors. Whether that’s building services
people or various other services - modelling kind of things. There’s
experts on everything really and architects can’t be expected to be an
expert on everything.
Q Have you seen any difference between the knowledge in small and
large architectural practices?
R Don’t have a lot of experience with really large architectural practices,

its mainly medium sized practices. Small practices to one or two man
bands. And I find my experience of those ones is much more towards
the eco end of things. So they’re often really, really good. And some of
the bigger ones are good but they seem quite glossy in a lot of places. It
seems what’s really there is a surface dressing thing for clients - they’ll
come along to conferences and they’ll talk and you’ll just see everybody
glazing over and switching off and, well you’re not saying anything, do
you really know anything?
Q Right OK [interviewer laughs].Within your organisation what are the

potential barriers to achieving the low and zero carbon building targets?
R Again, lack of uptake. It’s a hard place to be doing a building. We give

the advice - if it’s not needed ...
Q Do you think though, that say for example, there are barriers to the
knowledge from yourselves?
R Yes, this is true. There’s obviously a limitation in any modelling kind of

things and maybe the money isn’t being spent on the research. Or the
money there is being spent on the research is being sent to the BRE
who then charge you to look at it. Yes, that privatisation of what should
be a public service is difficult.
Q And within the construction industry what do you think the main
potential barriers are to low and zero carbon?
R The credit crunch at the moment more than anything else [interviewee
laughs]. Yes, it all costs money and it all costs a lot of money when it’s
being done for the first time. Perhaps in some senses this minor break
in building, and particularly the fact that this break in building isn’t
happening so much in publically funded things, could be a good
learning experience for builders. If know body is really paying for them

to build anything apart from the government with their sustainable

performance plans, then maybe they’ll come out the other side a lot
better off. But that’s speculative at best. You got to hope [interviewer
and interviewee laugh].
Q And within the large architectural organisations what do you see as

being their potential barriers to production of the low and zero carbon
buildings?
R Having the trained staff is probably top of the list. It’s having people that
really know what they’re doing and know how to fit all the pieces
together. Because there’s a lot of pieces that, because there’s a whole
other set of pieces, that all need to fit together and it can be difficult.
Some of the practices like Buro Happold, for example, have got some
really good engineering type people who are really hot on sustainability.
And Arup as well - really good. They’ve got a big and really growing
sustainability team who check everything that comes through,
particularly things that are supposed to be sustainable. They pass them
on and then rather than working on them full time everyone else is
working on them, but they keep coming back in and prodding them in
the right direction. And making sure that all the sustainability targets
they’ve been set are being met and are being worked towards properly.
R I think they’re well intentioned, somewhat misguided. Particularly things

like the requirements for onsite renewable, that’s by far not the best way
to be meeting targets. Secondly, if they’re not looking at the existing
stock, they’re not looking at the problem. That’s where attention really
does need to be focused. Whether that means you’re upgrading the
existing stock or that means you’re providing low carbon energy to
existing stock through district heating mains or renewable electricity.
That's really the big way of getting at the problem. That doesn’t mean
they shouldn’t be designing towards zero carbon new builds, they
should absolutely be doing that as well, but it’s whether they can allow
offsetting of some of the zero carbon target. The money might be better
spent on targeting local buildings and reducing their demands, and
providing them with renewable energy in some other way.
Q Do you have experience with researching existing stock?
R Yes, I do.
Q So can you just tell me a little bit about that and perhaps what’s

happening since you’ve done the research?
R Since I’ve done the research - the research was based on the last
iteration of the building regulations. So as building regulations -
basically the research found that refurbishment over its life - sorry, to
refurbish a house costs about a fifth as much carbon as building a new
one and that credit at the start of the life span is roughly balanced out
by a slightly worse performance over the building life span. As new
builds become better that credit is eaten away into quicker, basically.
Unless you bring in targets and standards for refurbishment. So if you
look at a zero carbon home from 2016, theoretically, you try and look at
a refurbished home, if that refurbished home is not virtually zero carbon
itself over the life time of the building it’s going to end up using more
energy.
Q Could you describe any alternative - or any alternative ways that the
government should be going about addressing the issues? Other than,
for example, some of the systems we already have in place?
R Yes, well I like the idea of - on refurbishment - managing targets on

refurbishment or managing targets on sales. So you need to reach your
EPC by one grade - I’ve forgotten what EPCs were. That’s probably my
favourite but the idea was touted about a couple of years ago for
consequential improvements on domestic refurbishments. Which is
whenever you do a major refurbishment project or some how you define
major, probably by cost, you earn say - ok 10% of that project has to be
spent on improving the energy efficiency of the home. I’m quite keen on
the idea of a code for sustainable refurbishment. I think that’s really high
on the list of ways that they can get at things. At the moment VAT is set
at zero for new build but you pay full VAT, presumably it’s just changed,
on refurbishment or renovation products. Apart from specifically energy
efficient ones, which I think some of them are rated above so - but if you
can say, for example - you’ve got a code for sustainable refurbishment
and you need to do it on a sliding scale. An average building is like this
or an average of this type performs this well. You improve it by 10% you
get 2% off your VAT, or something like that. So you have a, basically a
sliding scale, of the more you are refurbishing your house the more you
get a kick back at the end of the project and a VAT refund.
Q Are there any other major issues to do with the government targets that
you think need to be addressed?
R The new Climate Change and Energy Bill is a good, very good bit of
progress and it’s amazing that that has actually been passed and the
government are going to have to be setting the targets, Five year

targets, and reporting on progress towards that. There’s no way you can
manage something that you’re not measuring. And particularly if you’re
only measuring towards an end point - that the pathway you take to get
there is just as important. You can’t do everything at the last minute and
hope to get away with it.
Q Great. Thanks very much.
R Good, good. It’s been a pleasure. END OF INTERVIEW.

A21-SBPC-M-S12-07012009-A22&23-KS-KS
Interviewee ID: A21
Interviewee Subgroup ID: SBPC
Location: S12
Short Description: Interviewee is a Director within a Sustainability Buildings

Physics Consultants.
Q OK so can you describe how your company is working towards the

R Yes, I guess I tend to work with other people to help them achieve
them. Either consultants, other consultants, or architects a lot to help
come up with low carbon energy strategies. That’s one area and I guess
the other area is developing software tools, like Carbon Mixer and other
little tools either for other people to use themselves or for Local
Authorities to use as part of the acceptance process and assessment
process, that sort of thing.
Q And what do you see as the benefits to your company for achieving the
low and zero carbon government building targets?
R The benefits for my company? Sorry, what for anyone achieving them
or...
Q For you too - Jamie’s answer was along the lines of that’s what his
business was, that might be the case [interviewer laughs] with yourself.
R Yes.
Q Just working towards the targets?

R Oh so thinking about the governments targets. Well yes, I guess that is

what my business is. I think my business also is to some extent to
question those targets and how they’re set up. For example, there’s
plenty of anomalies in the way that they’re done and often they’re not
particularly logical. So, I don’t think this is quite answering the question,
but I’m quite often involved in trying to steer them to get what they want
rather than what they’ve asked for. For example, the North East
Assembly have a variation on the Merton Rule, which I implemented
some software to help them assess but it’s all based on ten percent
reduction in energy through renewables rather than reduction in carbon,
and that is a nightmare. Because the best way to meet your energy
demand, ten percent of your energy demand with renewables is to burn
lots of wood in the garden. Big bonfire. As long as it’s big enough you’re
hitting ten percent of your energy. No one says it has to be useful. So
yes, helping - trying to make more useful. I guess that’s my - what I
personally like to do and I feel there’s a market in that for me, for my
services.
knowledge required to achieve the governments low and zero carbon
building targets?
R I’d say it’s unusual that they do - to have - I think some do but that’s -
it’s usual that they have the range of expertise required. Which isn’t
necessary a problem. Just got to know where you’re limitations are and
work with other people where that is the case.
Q What do you think they need to be doing to ensure that they can
achieve these targets?
R Understand the bigger picture more and I think - well, two things there.
Lots of cross discipline discussion. So the architect should be talking to
the building services engineer, who should be talking to the structural
engineer, who should be talking to the planners. But right from the very
beginning. That stuff obviously all happens eventually, but really needs
happen as soon as you’re sketching stuff out on the back of an
envelope or whatever. You should have everybody involved, and that
traditionally doesn’t happen. You tend to call in the building services
people once the thing is pretty well decided and then it’s - they’ll fix
anything because their engineers. They’ll just throw huge amounts of
energy at. So I think possibly, in my view, the most important thing is
people communicating right at the beginning of a project, at a rough
level, and then that becomes more sophisticated through the project.

Q Have you observed any difference in knowledge between the smaller

and the large architectural practices?
R I’m trying to think have I worked for any really large architects. The large
companies I work for have been more consultants, so like ARUPs and,
not Faber’s, one of the others, and so one step removed from the
architects. Either people who offer services themselves, like
consultants, or people on the other side like planners etc. So - what can
I think? Well, thinking of say, for example, ARUP’s, or the BRE for that
matter, who do have some architectural expertise in house, they’re
more likely to have all the skills available. But from my limited - fairly
limited experience, I’d say that is no boundary to them not talking to
each other [interviewer and interviewee laugh]. They’re just as likely to
not talk to each other and not - as if they were in separate companies.
And actually I think, just thinking out loud really, but I think quite often
the smaller companies who have to call in an outside M and E engineer
and an outside, I don’t know, energy consultant whatever, are more
likely to have a friendly chatty ongoing thing. But that’s probably not
based on that many companies, but on a few I’ve worked with.
Q Within your organisation, again this might not be applicable, what do

you think are the potential barriers to the low and zero carbon
government targets?
R I’m just trying to understand that. So - what to me being able to get

those achieved?
Q Yes.
R And when you say low and zero carbon barriers are we thinking Code
levels five and six and that sort of thing?
Q Yes. I guess I’m working at the moment just on the basis that with the
housing obviously the target of the energy there, and then that they’d
said to the Green Building Council to use that same target for the
commercial at the moment whilst they’re doing their research.
R OK. Well, one thing that occurs to me, I’m not sure it quite answers, but
it is - I think some of these targets are very poorly thought out and they
sound straight forward at first sound zero carbon buildings, that’s easy
isn’t it? That’s just - all your energy’s got to be renewable hasn’t it, and
you don’t use very much. And then you get in to it and I feel they often
make a real meal of - I mean there are so many definitions floating
around now of what a zero carbon house is, and it’s different depending
on whether you want your land registry tax back. Is it land, or whatever
tax it is? Or whether you want to get to Code Level Five. And crazy

things like Code Level Five is a hundred percent reduction in carbon,

but it’s not zero carbon. Code Level Six is zero carbon and you - why is
that different [interviewer laughs]. Because you’re measuring - do you
know?
Q I didn’t notice that actually [interviewer laughs].
R It’s a huge different, you’re only about 60% of the way there when you
get to a 100% reduction [interviewer laughs]. The reason being that up
to Code Level Five they don’t include any of the appliances so the
electric load is just lighting and any electricity used for your heating
system. So pumps and fans etc. And because originally they said well
what’s in the house, the telly, the washing machine, all that stuff, isn’t
part of the house it’s part of the people. But they rather blew that by
saying unless it’s Code Level Six and then it is. And that is a nightmare,
there’s so few people in the industry understand that. They think
[unclear] a 100% reduction is zero carbon. No, it’s about 60% reduction,
because they’ve just moved the goal posts. That’s one particular - there
are other things like that but that’s one that’s quite easy to describe.
And why not include the appliances at Code Level Zero, Code Level
One, and just have smaller percentages on the way up. So a hundred is
then Code Level Six and maybe only, I don’t know sixty or seventy is
Code Level Five, or whatever. And it’s for historical reasons because of
the way they do SAP but it’s all a bit like - well, to take on an analogy
with buildings, since we’re talking about architects. It’s as if you’re trying
to come up with a state of the art building by taking an old building and
keep putting an extension on extension on extension, and that’s how
the regulations are being developed. And you have to do that to some
extent because people are familiar with what they know. If you jump too
far ahead that they’ll just not do it, because they don’t understand. But I
think there are opportunities missed to clarify stuff on route and in fact
it’s often more complicated. So Code Level Five, Code Level Six is one.
I think there’s all sorts of things in SAP, SBEM, Part L, DEFRA that are
all slightly contradictory. And not only that when you find the reasons
behind them, often the reasons aren’t known very well even by the
people who’ve written it, because it was done by so and so who’s left
now. And they’re fairly poor reasons like well we’ve always done it that
way. So those anomalies, I think - well, personally make my job much
harder because I have to - when I’m developing software I have to have
all sorts of exceptions in it. And to a large extent the software can take
care of that, but in some cases the users got to sort that out. You
cannot do it with the software, the users has to do it and they get
confused, because it’s confusing [interviewee laughs].

Q That obviously, with perhaps the lack of clarity on the commercial side
at the moment then, how do you think the industry is geared up for what
might be the definition of how we’re supposed to build the commercial in
terms of targets?
R I’m not sure what the target is for commercial because ...
Q I think it’s still under research and clarification at the moment.
R Well, because the equivalent of the appliances in houses is the process

energy in commercial. So if you build a steel foundry is it sufficient that it
doesn’t need much heating, which it shouldn’t if you’ve got a big smelter
in the middle of it. Or have you got to cover the costs of smelting steel
or whatever it is you do with steel. There’s some cases where - I know
some people who work with Cambridge City Council. The university was
putting up lots of buildings and - science buildings, and there was a
requirement for them to do the 10% Merton thing on. And it was
ambiguous as to whether that included the process energy or not, and
the council I think did manage to get them to include that, but it made a
huge difference to 10% of what, if you include the process energy so ...
Q [Over talking] So that does actually lead onto what you think the biggest
barriers are within the industry as a whole, and I’m guessing you’ve
slightly touched on that with planning and there must be other issues to
achieving these targets?
R Yes, I think it’s almost two sides of the same thing. You need regulation
but you need good regulation. If you haven’t got regulation you’re
relying on people doing the right thing, and as a business you don’t
really - it’s sometimes it’s worth sticking your neck out and doing the
right thing because you think that will set you apart and be a nice little
earner because people will like it. But often, particularly when times are
a bit hard, like at the moment, you want to be told to do it because then
you know every bodies got to do it, and you can just concentrate on
being the best at low carbon. So if suddenly the whole industries got to
do it and you’re in to it, you’ll do a really good job of it, effectively,
efficiently, cheaply whatever, and the clowns will make a mess of it. But
you want that level playing field. So you need the regulation and - but
it’s got to be well thought out, it’s got to be logical. And that leads into
there being able to communicate, where I started from. About the
different being able to talk to each other. The more mystique there is in
a certain discipline, and regulations can throw mystique in all over the
place, the harder it is to have that layman’s over view of what the guy
next door to you does. And the more you’ve got that, the more you
know what question to ask. So they might be an expert in their area,

you’re an expert in your area, where they over lap if you know enough
about their stuff to think oh is this likely to be a problem, you can ask
that question. And they may go no or they may go well I didn’t know you
were going to do that? Right well let’s sort it out then. But if you don’t
know to ask the questions the problems only emerge much later on
when they’re much harder to fix and you’re less likely to get your low
carbon solution. And good regulation, well thought out, helps that I
think. And I guess an area that I’m very interested in, and do, is making
it easier for people to follow the regulations by giving them software
tools and - which make it intuitive even. With which that’s pretty good
with regulation if you can actually make it intuitive. That’s maybe the
ultimate [interviewer laughs], but - so another little example. SAP is
effectively a calculation engine for how much energy you’re building’s
going to use. It’s a bit dodgy to use it for that because it’s not
particularly accurate, but given that everybody uses it for regulation,
everybody will do that calculation. And yet of all the versions of SAP
that are out there, software, none of them have any reasonable front
end to them that will show you the feedback. You make a change here
and get you some nice immediate feedback so you - that’s made it
worse, but why’s it made it worse. Is it because you’re losing more heat
through the walls, or because you’ve let more sun in through the
windows, or whatever, and by designing things like that better you - by
doing the process you have to do you can improve your knowledge as
well, rather than it just being a grind and the answers forty two or
whatever.
Q Have you, with respect to the economy at the moment, how are you
finding the influence of where we are financially on people or the
industry heading towards the targets?
R I guess - in the last few months I’ve been working on a couple of quite
big projects so I haven’t been working with that many different
companies, so I think it’s hard for me to say in too many cases but
certainly – well, I know one or two companies that I’ve worked with who
are struggling themselves quite a lot. They’re pretty eco companies and
they defiantly see that as what they’re doing but I guess that they’re
being forced to have to, well, possibly sell off some of their intellectual
property etc. And that all leads to money coming in from people who’ve
got other interests and it being much more about money I guess, and
lack of it, in one way or another. So - I’m just trying to think ...
Q And are you finding that the end client is as interested now as they were
perhaps say six months ago in achieving certain targets or trying to
achieve more greener sustainable architecture?

R Sort of, but then I’ve not been dealing that - I guess the most people
I’ve been dealing with is selling our software, which Sam does, and our
sales are pretty modest. But they’ve been slowly creeping up as the
word gets out if you like and they seem to be creeping up at the same
rate as they have been. So from that point of view we’ve not personally
taken much of a hit. From a consultancy point of view the horizons a lot
closer of available work to where it used to be. And from the people I
work with - not sure I can give you ever such a clear answer on that.
You’ll have to ask me in a couple of month’s time [interviewer and
interviewee laugh]. But defiantly there are signs that it is having an
effect on people, but I’ve yet to see an example of well we’re not going
to do any renewables stuff because we can’t afford to. I’ve not come
across that yet, but I’ve not really - it’s very much a very small straw poll
in my case.
Q And you touched on this slightly before with opinion of the large
architectural organisations and I was just wondering what you might
think the barriers would be for them to achieving the government targets
in the future? You mentioned communication before as being one
issue?
R So when we say the government targets - so like the, I don’t know, zero
carbon house by 2016 or whatever one of those is? Don’t know. I think
with - I don’t know - with large companies, and I used to work for a very
large company, like the PLC’s, and whatever, they do tend to be
obsessed by profit as being their product and everything else is on the
back. Which is not necessarily a good idea, because if you’re going to
get through things you have to take a long term view. But that will often
mean there’s less internal funding which can mean less time to look into
clever ways of doing things, whether it’s inventing something new or just
coming up with a better process and all that sort of thing. It’s all a bit -
not thinking about draining the swamp when you’re surrounded by
alligators or whatever it is. So I could imagine, this is more my
experience in the past in the railway industry which went boom, having
not been invested in for years, masses of money, and then that all dried
up and suddenly no one had got stuff. And the big companies do - they
tend to be led by profit rather than led by a vision of what they want to
do and then the profit follows as a sign that you’ve got the right vision.
So I could imagine it might be tricky but I’m - again I’m not directly
involved with too many so ...

R I think - I think the idea is good. I think we should have some hard
targets to achieve. I think there’s a lot of debate about them and they
get discredited because they’re not always very well thought out - like
even definitions. People say right zero carbon, they don’t even know -
it’s taken them, what, about eighteen months to work out what that
means. And so - but I think we absolutely need good strong regulations
to head for and we absolutely shouldn’t underestimate how hard it is to
put them together. It’s a bit like anything that has a human interface,
and there’s obviously a human interface with the regulation in that you
have to read it and understand it and make it happen. But take
something like a TV remote control. You can have a badly thought out
one and it’s just a pain in the neck and it just - or you can have a well
thought out one and it’s just obvious what to do, its intuitive. And you
want regulations that, having gone through them once, they actually
help your process. They’re not red tape getting in the way, they’re
helping you do a good job and from that point of view I don’t think they
do ever so well [interviewee laughs].
Q OK. So what if anything would you either change about the targets, or
change the way that we get to the targets?
R I suspect the time scales for things like zero carbon, or whatever, are
pretty unrealistic and there’s a balance there between pushing yourself
hard to meet something, but on the other hand they’ll be something
that’s so unrealistic that no one takes any notice of it because it’s a
joke. Not quite sure what the answer is there. Sorry, just - what was it
again?
Q It was just whether there was anything about the targets that you would
change or the way that perhaps that we are at the moment being
pushed - routes of heading down towards targets. Just standards like
the BREEAM ...
R [Over talking] I’d defiantly change the definitions of Codes Levels One
to Six [interviewer laughs]. So - It’s like measuring in centigrade from
Monday to Friday and Fahrenheit on Saturday and Sunday. It’s - and
just telling people how warm it is today, oh it’s about thirty. That’s either
really hot or really cold. It’s mad [interviewee laughs]. So yes, stuff like
that really does need - and - I mention Ian in that email. I know he’s
involved in some committees on that so it might be worth seeing if he’s -
he knows any more. The actual targets themselves, I don’t know I think
we should be led - there’s an argument that says zero carbon’s too far
and it’s – well, the argument is that if you spend a - say it costs twice as
much to get from sixty percent reduction to eighty, and twice as much
again to get from eighty to ninety, and twice as much - and so on. Is that

money better spent on building off shore wind farms, and all that sort of
thing? Possibly. But then if we don’t get all new buildings really zero
carbon, and knock down the worst ones or refurb' we don’t really stand
much of a chance. So I guess there’s a cost benefit thing there but - I
don’t know.
Q And possibly if, for example, if you were to change the definition of what
we were trying to achieve, so perhaps not going for the targets, the
specific targets set out by the government, whether you think there were
perhaps any better ways of creating the architecture of the future? I’m
trying to explain this - so possibly not going down even the carbon
route, what if there was anything else [unclear] ...
R [Over talking] OK. Yes, one thing that does come to mind. I think I said
something earlier about - or maybe I didn’t - anyway the North East
Assembly measuring things in terms of reduction of energy, which is -
you soon realise that’s a very short sighted way of doing it and gets you
in to all sorts of trouble and really you should be doing it in terms of
CO2. So you think right I’m doing it in CO2. Great, job done. But one big
anomaly there is in lots and lots of projects the answer is to put in a
biomass boiler. And then what you realise quite quickly there - you don’t
have to do too many calculations to realise that we run out of wood. And
so there is actually a level beyond CO2 which is resource, or global
footprint, or whatever you want to call it. And in fact that is what we
should be doing it’s just a harder one to measure. Energy was easy to
measure, CO2’s harder but we’ve got the hang of that now. The
footprint side is harder still but as we’re starting - we’re starting to
impinge on that because the way everyone’s interpreting the regulation
there’s biomass going in everywhere and I did some work where we
worked out how much biomass is available per head of population
sustainably and the answers in my book somewhere.
Q It’s in your book. I’m sure I’d read that somewhere [interviewer and
interviewee laugh].
R It wasn’t very much. It was enough if four people put there’s together
they could keep a Zed Fabric house going for a year, heated and hot
water. As long as you’ve got solar hot water doing most of it, you could
do that, but you’d have a very cold work space and cold school and all
that sort of thing. So there’s not a lot. So yes, I think as our
sophistication improves we’re going to improve.
Q Is there anything that you think is important within this debate that I
haven’t touched upon?

R Can’t think of anything [interviewer and interviewee laugh]. I feel I’m a

bit - I’m probably not the best person to interview because I’m in a
niche and I don’t deal with a huge number of customers. Although I
quite often deal with some quite key people, but maybe not ever so
regularly. So I think - response you get from me will be a bit moment in
time across a small group. Which might be relevant at one point but not
another. So - so no I can’t think of anything, but there may well be stuff
which will occur to me later.
Q OK. I’ll switch this off. END OF INTERVIEW.

A22-SBPC-M-S13-16122009-B1&2-KS-KS
Interviewee ID: A22
Interviewee Subgroup ID: SBPC
Location: S13
Short Description: Interviewee is a Director within a Sustainability Buildings

Physics Consultants.
Q So can you describe how your organisation is working towards the

R Yes, we - as an organisation we have the contract with government

working alongside Faber Maunsell to develop the future building
regulations for 2010, 2013 and 2016 for Part L Conservation of Fuel
and Power, and Part F which is ventilation. The main aspect of our work
is to develop the building envelope standards, so the sensible
progression on plain element U-values. Where we should go from 2006
to 2016. Where we should go with developing air tightness standards
from the level of ten - highest level of ten that you can achieve now
through to what would be sensible for industry to achieve for 2016 and
also to develop enhanced construction details for reduction of thermal
bridges.
Q Can you describe the support systems that you’ve got in your
organisation to help staff to work towards the targets?
R Sorry, towards the government targets?
Q Towards the government targets, sorry.
R Low or zero carbon, 2016? It’s a difficult question actually. I think - our
core business is air tightness testing. So that is assisting with creating

databases on existing building stock and new building stock. To see

how they are performing in air tightness terms, which is a significant
energy loss. Particularly in low energy buildings. And also working with
industry through the construction manufacturers to help them develop
their products and their application in construction. To sensibly improve
things incrementally and in an economic way. So they’re not
overburdened with the cost of redeveloping materials, as that may have
a certain limited shelf life because of the way standards are heading. So
it’s more consultancy to industry as well as providing post construction
testing.
Q And what are the benefits, or what do you see as the benefits, to your
company for achieving the low and zero carbon targets?
R The benefits to our company for achieving low and zero carbon targets?
Well, firstly it’s - with the contract we have it gives us security
[interviewer and interviewee laugh]. So in the current economic climate
we have the security of work to help government achieve that aim. And
from an organisational point of view we have - we often like to practice
what we preach. And so we are making lots of changes within our
organisation, operationally, to ensure that our company is doing its bit
as well.
Q In your experience do you think architects have a sufficient level of

knowledge required to achieve the governments low and zero carbon
building targets?
R Sufficient level? Currently no. That’s a very generalistic answer, but no.
One of my other projects that I run on behalf of the AECB is building
physics course. That was intended specifically - the target audience
being Building Control officers and - or technician level of the industry.
However, our feedback, having run the pilot now five times, is that we’re
getting more and more architects onto the course, and the analysis of
the feedback from each of those courses has made it - given a clear
indication that architects are significantly lacking in a knowledge base
for designing with energy in mind. One of my fundamental conclusions
that I’ve drawn from that architects in the UK tend to be educated
through the School of the Arts in university faculties. And we’re the only
country in the world that teaches architectures in that way. All other
countries, to my knowledge, teach architects in the school of science.
And so therefore architects in the UK are very well versed at designing
buildings with daylight, and form, and space, and so on, to make very
nice buildings, but they don’t understand the energy impacts of their
decisions.

Q OK. And in your opinion what do you think architectural practices need
to be doing then to achieve the low and zero carbon targets?
R I think there needs to be a programme, industry wide programme that

either through CPD modules or by further academic modules for
architects to understand what the impacts are on energy use, heat
losses and heat gains. And just be able to piece the jigsaw together in a
different way. I think there’s a fundamental knowledge gap which can
never be realised through experience in the field. I think it is a case of
back to school in some cases.
Q And you said industry wide programme. So do you think that should be
government backed or do you think there’s any benefit for individual
companies trying to train?
R I think there’s benefits in both. The professional side of the construction

industry is increasingly aware and quickly getting up to speed with the
need to make a shift. The danger at the moment is that it’s - everyone
knows - there’s lots of buzz words in the industry about eco this, green
that. And it’s all very, very positive, but without understanding the
fundamental principles then we are going to be creating – well, don’t
know what we’re going to be creating. We going to be creating buildings
that have got these eco labels but they’re not actually performing as
architects or clients intended. So they’ve got great aspirations, but
they’re not actually being realised. And there does seem to be a small
shift from where we were say six months ago, and for the twelve to
eighteen month period before that, when there was lots of talks about
micro wind turbines on buildings and solar hot water systems,
photovoltaic cells. There seems to be less press about that now and I
think people are realising that actually there not all they’re stated to be.
They don’t yield the energy benefit that’s stated on the tin. And that
longer term benefits are going to be realised by ensuring that the
building itself is well designed, well maintained. And as much as the
building itself can also do, there needs to be a shift in how users use
their buildings. They need to understand how they use their buildings.
Whether it be a home through to a complex prestigious office building.
There’s still a fundamental lack of knowledge at the user level, either
through ignorance or because they haven’t been adequately trained on
the systems that have been provided in their house. A good and simple
example of that is the triple ventilator in someone’s house. Many of the
surveys I do on triple ventilators are incorrectly used. People just
perceive them to be a problem. They don’t understand what they’re for.
They create drafts so they’re closed. Whereas actually they should be
open all the time unless there’s a problem. And that’s just a simple

control, it’s a flap. It’s not a button with lots of options and that it’s a very
simple devise and people don’t understand how to use it. So we’re at
that level of user understanding. We need to spend a lot of time
educating users and we have some vehicles for that such as a home
information pack. They’re needs to be a level of hand over of
information materials to home owners about what’s in their home. And
that should include operation and maintenance procedures for all the
systems in their home and how to use them in an energy efficient way.
But in terms of training for architects and professionals I’d say there has
been a very positive shift, but we don’t understand exactly what we are
creating at the moment. And that does need to come from - it needs to
be led from government. I do think in academia there should be further
courses. I think there’s a short fall of courses and the over subscription
of CAT is testimony to that. So - and there are more courses becoming
available. There’s many universities now running some very relevant
courses, but we do need to ensure that architects and other industry
professionals are encouraged to take up these courses. Whether that
be either a carrot or a stick approach. I think there’s a market transition
at the moment that will determine how much government involvement is
needed. But for instance in 2006 was - well, April 2006 saw the
introduction of the latest Part L and building regulations. And April 2008
saw the introduction of the energy performance certificates and within -
between April 2008 and where we are now there have been huge
industry retraining for energy assessors. That has been very successful,
for be it the many flaws in both the methodology and the way trainers
are being trained, but none the less they show that with an accreditation
scheme that can be added on to any aspect of construction design, any
accreditation can be implemented that does require government to
support a competent persons Scheme and provide [unclear] changes to
the building regulations. But there does need to be a shift in how
architects are trained that are - all universities now, and those that are
existing architects that need to be encouraged to go back and, not
retrain, but enhance their training.
Q OK. Have you observed any differences in knowledge between the

small and the large architectural practices?
R Not specially. My own anecdotal, if you like, evidence is that I’ve noticed
whenever I do some level of CPD training to architects that does tend to
be smaller practices because they don’t tend to have their own in house
training. So - and they are very enthusiastic. They seem to want to
learn. They want to understand what it is they need to be doing. They
realise they haven’t got the tools they need to do that right now. And
with larger architects practices there does seem to be a mixture of skill

base so you do tend to have a greater skill mix within a team. So you
might have a recently trained architect, or one that’s got a specific skill
in designing for energy, that will be able to feed into other teams, and
that will itself drip feed through the company.
Q Just let me know if you don’t think this is relevant. Within your
organisation what do you think are the potential barriers to achieving
R Within our organisation specifically? When you are talking about that
are you talking about what our company needs to do to achieve low and
zero carbon for their own facilities?
Q I think maybe however, for example, you’re saying your organisation is

helping to help - so what do you think the barriers might be?
R From our point of view I guess there’s still a lack of knowledge because
we’re always looking forward to what changes might be and what their
impact will have, and so it’s crystal ball situation. We are going to
suggest to industry that there needs to be a change in the way - let’s
take an example. Industrial buildings, large warehouses. We are
currently discussing with the manufacturers of encapsulated insulated
panel systems about how they need to ratchet up their insulation
standards to perhaps meet future building regulation standards. There’s
been a lot of resistance from those groups, from manufacturers of these
systems, to spend what they have indicated will be in the billions to
achieve those standards we are suggesting. And it’s unreasonable for
us to suggest they should be doing that without understanding fully
what the impacts are. Whether they do, or whether they don’t. And
those costs - we do need to have a full impact assessment. And for
instance, taking the industrial building, a lot of the energy used or
energy lost, is not to do with the quality of the construction it’s to do with
the operation of the building. There’s no point in building an industrial
building shed that’s going to achieve zero carbon design standards if
they’ve got deliveries all the time that require fork lift trucks to go in and
out of sectional doors all the time and loading bays. And the doors
going to be open for most of operational hours. Well, we have to be
sensible about how we take that approach.
Q What do you think are the biggest - what do you think the barriers are
within the industry as a whole to achieving the government low and zero
carbon targets?
R I think there’s a general lack of impetus within industry to go much

further than they already have. The feedback we’re getting around

building reg’s changes is that industry were encouraged between the

2002 and the 2006 changes to Part L to make an awful lot of changes
to their products. One example there would be windows. Window
manufacturers saw the changes that were proscribed in the 2006
change to be a huge barrier and a huge cost to them. For instance,
going to very high performance double glazing units with low e
emissivity coatings, that was a huge cost. However, they realised that
once there is a regulation that requires that they do make a change that
between 2006 and where we are now there has been a massive
development in window technology that wouldn’t have come about if it
wasn’t for regulatory change. And so windows are now available on the
market that pretty much meet the target we are looking for setting at
2010 and beyond. The glazing industry have confirmed that that would
not have happened had government had not enforced that change. So -
but that’s just one example of how almost a stick can help push things
along. A carrot can do so much. But there are still - there’s still quite a
lot of reluctance from the manufacturers side to do a lot more.
Particularly in the current climate where a lot of their stock is being
stock piled rather than being delivered to clients. And they’re laying off
lots of staff. From the construction industry side, the home builders and
the commercial builders, again there’s a reluctance almost to take that
further because everything that’s been worked towards for zero carbon
is perceived as cost, even though it can be demonstrated that - maybe
to achieve zero carbon there will certainly be a cost. And that is still
largely unknown as to what that cost will be on a specific development.
But the cost for achieving 2010, or is it 2013, which is twenty five
percent and then a forty four percent reduction from the 2006 standards
is not going to have a great burden on the capital costs on construction.
With 2016 with zero carbon, given now that the 2016 zero carbon
definition is now out for consultation and until that comes back from
consultation and we analyse the responses to that consultation then
Britain’s economists will be at work to find out exactly how we do
implement the 2016 [unclear].
Q Yes OK. What do you think the barriers are within large architectural
organisations to achieving these targets?
R I would say barriers within an architect’s - again it’s an issue of training.

but I think also there’s a - as well as training - CPD’s are obviously part
of training, but my feedback from my own observations within architects
is that even if there’s information available to them unless they have a
specific requirement they don’t actually tend to go and find out the
information. And for instance, the zero carbon definition that I’ve just
mentioned, we know at this stage initial feedback. We know the

subgroups that we are receiving the initial responses from and

architects represent the smallest group. So either that is they’re not
reading information that is going to have an impact on what they are -
on their work. Or they are simply unaware of those impacts even if they
are reading the documents. I don’t think architects tend to pick up on a
lot of information that is already available to them. Which is where
probably CPD type style training might come in because that’s what
CPD’s about.
Q What do you personally think about the government low and zero
R I think given that I have identified my role within government I probably

shouldn’t say too much [interviewee laughs]. I think their very ambitious.
I think there’s no reason why they can’t be achieved, but I’ll be surprised
if 2016 we do achieve the government’s ambitions. That will not
necessarily be always fault of the government, but the - it needs to - the
target will never be realised if what we’ve just talked about, training, not
just to architects, we talked specifically about architects, but if we are -
I’m talking - really when I say architects I guess I should carry on talking
about structural engineers, civil engineers, building services engineers
and architects. The professional side of the industry that are talking
about zero carbon targets. And there’s a mixture of opinions about how
we should achieve that and training is certainly the common thread in
the professional side, but also in our commercial work. We are post
construction testing regularly and our feedback from the site operative
level - they’re not even talking zero carbon at this stage. They’re talking
about how can we comply with 2006. They still, in 2008, two years on
almost from the implementation, they are still trying to grasp how they
can comply with current standards and failing in many respects.
Q Why do you think that is?
R Dare I say it again? Lack of training. But it’s a lack of training and also a
- it’s an almost an inbred attitude within the site operative part of our
construction industry. We have a lot of trades that have been carrying
out the task they’ve been carrying out for many years and now we’re
telling them they’ve got to build differently. And so there’s a reluctance
to shift. There’s also - there’s general concern that improving standards
further may see a change in the way we do build. For instance modern
methods of construction, how many bricklayers are going to be laid off
as a result of that? So site operatives are not keen on - again I’m being
very generalistic. But our anecdotal feedback from sites that we visit,
just to turn up with an air leakage testing equipment, they’re still
standing around looking at our testing in amazement at such wonderful

new scientific tests. And they’re still grasping the idea of - bearing in
mind that commercial air leakage tests were introduced in 2002.
Q I was thinking shortly they’ve been [unclear] [interviewer laughs].
R And we still test - last week we had a lot of the site just standing around
with their arms folded around the fan going oh look at this [interviewer
laughs]. So..!
Q That’s interesting [interviewer laughs]. What if anything would you

change about the governments low and zero carbon targets?
R I don’t know how I can answer that [interviewee laughs].
Q You don’t have to [interviewer laughs].
R No, I don’t know how I can. All I can say is that I, in my work, am trying
to, as best as I possibly can, ensure that the work that I am to ensure
that the government tries and at least realises this target it started.
When I first got involved with improving building reg’s standards as one
of the technical advisors to government, my initial thought was we need
to improve things now. We need to improve things quickly. And we can’t
- we need to be - 2010 say, we need to be improving the building
envelope standards to the point that 2016 is aspiring to. We need to get
there, from 2006 to the 2016 standard, for the building envelope. So
that is the insulation levels in walls, floors, roofs and glazing. However, I
realised that that - it’s not sensible to take that approach. We do need to
have step changes. We will over burden the industry far too quickly if
we make the changes that I still, from a personal point, feel that we
should be making those changes. But they just simply unrealistic to
make them in one change to the building reg’s. We do need to - we
need to increment. And we do have a programme for the next eight
years to get us there. So the shelf life of these steps is going to be
relatively short. But I’m - the team that are working with government to
develop these standards - I am reassured that what we are proposing
for the built environment is sensible. And I don’t see there’s any reason
why it can’t be achieved. From a regulatory point of view how that
translates into reality we’ll have to wait and see.
Q Right OK. And again, from your personal point of view, if you thought
there were any, do you have any opinions about whether there are any
alternative ways possibly to the way the governments currently going
down the low and zero carbon route, or the way that they’re doing the
targets? Whether you think there is any alternatives out there that would
be another way of doing it?

R Another way of achieving the same target?
Q Or whether even the target should be different?
R OK. I think the target is probably right. What the target doesn’t set out
are the - and it probably never will, not by government anyway, other
organisations. There’s an organisation being set up called the Zero
Carbon Hut that will be working closely with government to develop
methodologies for achieving the target. What I would hate to see is that
the zero carbon target means that all individual houses in this county
become power stations, mini power stations, because that’s
inappropriate investment in technology. What we should be moving
towards and what government should be encouraging is a mixture of
micro generation but also regional power distribution. As we’ve got
great examples of community generation schemes, and so on, within
Scandinavia and parts of Europe that have been very successful and
very reliable. But certainly in terms of achieving energy efficiency and
reduced emissions they’ve been very successful at that. But we do
need to obviously make sure that any targets that are set don’t impact
on any other issues such as security of fuel supply. So switch over to -
we could achieve zero carbon very quickly by saying well let’s just burn
wood and have lots of biomass generators. Which is fine, but then how
much land do we need to take away from food agriculture to then fuel
crop agriculture. And so that does need to be balanced.
Q You touched briefly before on the economic situation. Have you seen
much of an impact because of the economic downturn on the industry
as a whole, where they’re going towards the targets, and their attitude
R The impacts that I’ve seen really so far - from our own point of view the
impacts on us, our bread and butter work if you like, is doing the post
construction testing and we’re not feeling the impacts yet. However, the
work that I’m involved with industry on the development of the
standards, we have representatives all the heads of the trade
associations and the construction projects association and the situation
is much worse than I originally expected it ever would be. There are a
number of manufacturers who are closing down plants. One block,
major block manufacturer I spoke to just before Christmas, they’ve
closed down four out of five plants. They’ve stock piled pretty much all
of their stock. The glass and glazing industry they have - they’re in a
similar situation. And the house builders - I met was one of their
representatives just yesterday and their stories still the same there. How
things are in a very diare situation and they’re are looking for a
government rescue plan now because they’ve had to lose so many

operatives on so many of their sites that should be coming out about

now. They haven’t even started mobilisation. So yes it’s - the economic
down turn has had a much wider impact on the construction industry
than I originally anticipated it would.
Q And finally are there any topics within this subject area that are
important that I haven’t considered within this interview?
R The only thing that I would probably add is to achieve our zero carbon
target is we do have the means to be able to meet any target. I think the
technologies there. I think the knowledge is there, within some groups,
and I think there are two issues to realise that. One is the design of
buildings so that the products that can achieve the zero carbon are
available, through super insulation, or be it through renewable
technologies, or other technologies. But those are there. How those
pieces get put together to make a low energy target building or zero
carbon building is another thing. And some of the tools to enable
architects and designers to put that jigsaw puzzle together at the
moment are probably inappropriate. I.e. SAP, SBEM, those are the
national calculation tools. They are not sufficiently advanced at this
stage to realise those targets. But let’s see what their future
developments might bring. And also there are, possibly as a result of
the inadequacies of SAP and SBEM, that there has been an
introduction of further tools. And that might be tools that have been
brought in from Europe such as the Passivehaus planning package and
there’s other calculation tools available, and that has also led to
confusion. Because there’s far too many tools and people don’t know
which tool to use.
Q Brilliant. Thank you very much. END OF INTERVIEW.

A23-SBTC-M-E01-26052009-NA-KS-KS
Interviewee ID: A23
Interviewee Subgroup ID: SBTC
Location: E01
Data Storage ID: NA
Short Description: Interviewee is a Technical Manager within a Sustainability

Buildings Research Consultants.
Q Can you describe how your company/organisation is working towards

the Governments low and zero carbon building targets?
R We work closely with various branches of the Welsh Assembly

Government to assist in the delivery of the 2011 aspirational zero
carbon targets for Wales. We sit on planning committees appointed to
develop Sustainable Building policy in Wales. We assist manufactures
in developing products which are compatible with the CfSH and zero
carbon targets. We assist developers and architects in the design and
realisation of developments aiming to achieve higher levels of the Code
and BREEAM.
Q Could you please describe what support systems your

organisation/company has in place to support staff work towards these
targets?
R We have internal training courses (BREEAM/ CfSH) and also send staff
to courses and conferences abroad, e.g. PassivHaus. We attend a lot
of meetings and consult widely with key stakeholders in the industry.
Q What do you see as the benefits to your company for achieving low and
R We see the future of our work in this area, so the demand for higher

standards reinforces the demand for our skills, training courses and
technical expertise.
R Not in the UK! Or at least not without making a lot of costly mistakes.
By collaborative working using the knowledge which we collectively
share these skills shortages can be overcome.
Q Have you observed any differences in knowledge between small and

large architectural organisations?
R Yes but not enough to draw solid conclusions. In general smaller

organisations seem to be better acquainted with these issues but not
always, some large multi disciplinary practices have good in house
expertise.

ensure they can produce low and zero carbon buildings?
R Go on PassivHaus training courses in Austria and Germany! Failing

that take AECB modules 5 and 6 as a minimum. Sign up to the Welsh
Green architects register, join Carbon Buzz (RIBA). Employ external
consultants such as BRE Wales to work collaboratively alongside them
on their initial projects!
Q Within your organisation what are the potential barriers to achieving low
or zero carbon buildings?
R Poorly designed policy, e.g. SAP and the Code which don’t necessarily
encourage good low carbon design principles.
Q Within the industry what do you think are the potential barriers to
achieving low or zero carbon buildings?
R Lack of policy addressing the existing building stock. Lack of a clear

and comprehensive zero carbon definition which includes embodied
energy also.
Lack of skills to design and deliver zero carbon buildings that meet their
design targets in practice.
Q Within large architectural organisations what do you think are the

potential barriers to achieving low or zero carbon buildings?
R Lack of good up to date training, poor engineering skills and a lack of

basic building physics in most UK architects.
you?
R They are aspirational or notional political targets as opposed to a

genuine attempt to reduce carbon from the entire built environment.
Q What, if anything, would you change about the governments low and
R 1) Tighten the definition of zero carbon and completely rewrite SAP to

create an absolute measure of carbon, which incentivises good design
practices.
2) Include embodied carbon in the definition of zero carbon
3) Alter Code level 5 and 6 to allow for embodied carbon in the rating
and avoid in appropriate use of micro renewables by setting
performance thresholds. Avoid wasting biomass by not allowing CHP
heat dumping.
Q Can you describe any alternative ways of producing buildings whilst still
addressing the UK’s carbon emissions?
R 1) Produce carbon negative buildings using bio materials coupled with

appropriate renewable technologies

APPENDIX 5: TRANSCRIPTION CODING

Heading Name Sample Type Sample Characteristic Verbatim Articulation I ID
Values
Positives\Opinion of Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS I think they’re a good thing actually. A08
Government Targets Practice
Positives\Opinion of Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS legislation will always be the way to A03
Government Targets Practice hit people over the heads to get
them to go forward
Positives\Opinion of Group 2 - Large Non-management, I think it’s a good – I think we A12
Government Targets Practice APLNS should all be aiming to do as much
as we can to save the environment
Positives\Opinion of Group 2 - Large Non-management, Well personally it’s a good thing. A11
Government Targets Practice APLNS It’s our future, the world... Make the
world a better place
Positives\Opinion of Group 2 - Large Non-management, Well it’s obviously good for the A11
Government Targets Practice APLNS environment first of all.
Positives\Opinion of Group 3 - Clients Management, APC They are good to drive us in a good A02
Government Targets direction really.
Positives\Opinion of Group 3 - Clients Management, APC The only thing that I would probably A22
Government Targets add is to achieve our zero carbon
target is we do have the means to
be able to meet any target. I think
the technologies there.
Positives\Opinion of Group 3 - Clients Management, APC regulation required the A22

Government Targets window industry to step
up its products for 2006.
Whilst initially resistant
they now predict that
their products may
actually be 2010
compliant already. "The
glazing industry have
confirmed that that would
not have happened had
government had not
enforced that change."
Positives\Opinion of Group 4 - Management, APLS the idea of a target even if it’s A13
Government Targets Architect unobtainable is terribly powerful...
we shouldn’t get rid of the targets
even though we might argue the
toss about whether they’re realistic.
Positives\Opinion of Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC I think they’re well intentioned, A20
Government Targets consultants somewhat misguided.
Positives\Opinion of Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC The new Climate Change and A20
Government Targets consultants Energy Bill is a good, very good bit
of progress and it’s amazing that
that has actually been passed and
the government are going to have
to be setting the targets, Five year
targets, and reporting on progress
towards that. There’s no way you
can manage something that you’re
not measuring... You can’t do
everything at the last minute and
hope to get away with it.
Positives\Opinion of Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC We do need to have step changes. A22
Government Targets consultants We will over burden the industry far
too quickly if we make the changes
that I still, from a personal point,
feel that we should be making those
changes. But they just simply
unrealistic to make them in one
change to the building reg’s.
Positives\Opinion of Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC I think the target is probably right. A22
Government Targets consultants
Positives\Opinion of Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC I think we absolutely need good A21
Government Targets consultants strong regulations to head for and
we absolutely shouldn’t
underestimate how hard it is to put
them together.
Positives\Opinion of Group 8 - Management, APMS as a practice, we would suggest A14
Government Targets Architect that we look to exceeding the
governments low and zero carbon
targets.
Values
Negatives\Opinion of Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS Building Bulletins in schools, I can’t A04
Government Targets Practice speak for the rest of the sectors,
have kind of narrowed your options
rather than widened them as if to
say it has to be like this. It forces
you down certain environmental
solutions which may or may not be
the best
Negatives\Opinion of Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS in a lot of cases sustainability is just A05
Government Targets Practice a tick box on a planning form that
you need to get passed
Negatives\Opinion of Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS unachievable A05
Negatives\Opinion of Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS it’s good to have a system there to A06
Government Targets Practice follow, but just how effective is it
Negatives\Opinion of Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS I’ve heard of these zero carbon A07
Government Targets Practice targets but I don’t for one moment
believe that you can ever achieve
zero carbon. I think that’s a fallacy.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS I think someone needs to make it A07
Government Targets Practice clear, make it known, of the
relevance of this kind of thing.
Because as we are we’re busy,
we’re too busy, and it’s just another
complication. It’s another set of
forms to fill in and another
bothersome movement of the goal
posts
Negatives\Opinion of Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS I’m saying I’m more interested in A04
Government Targets Practice real initiatives than targets.
Because any one can set a target
and explain it all away when you fail
to do it.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS zero carbon is a good catch word A08
Government Targets Practice but it’s not really achievable so why
not just admit that.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS the likes of a biomass boiler, there’s A08
Government Targets Practice renewable energy for that. But the
actual process contradicts what
we’re trying to achieve, but it ticks
the box of the BREEAM calculation.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS the other big gap is that of climate A18
Government Targets Practice change adaptation which we
haven’t really begun to look at
Negatives\Opinion of Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS promoting design now that can be A18
Government Targets Practice easily retrofitted later.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS They need to be relaxed so that that A05
Government Targets Practice people can start building again.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS I think we’ve got to have - always A06
Government Targets Practice have a subjective look at the –
these guidelines
Negatives\Opinion of Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS We should be pushing the A05
Government Targets Practice boundaries a bit further really
Negatives\Opinion of Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS So if you are looking at BSF A08
Government Targets Practice academies that only two building
generations away and they are
supposed to be zero carbon. Well,
how’s that going to happen.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS Proper consultation takes time, but A04
Government Targets Practice you’ve got a government on the one
hand saying you’ve got to do all this
and another saying oh we want it on
site in eight months. Same
government, same - mixed
messages
Negatives\Opinion of Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS a knee jerk A03
Negatives\Opinion of Group 2 - Large Non-management, I don’t want the buildings to be A09
Government Targets Practice APLNS looked at – or zero carbon or
energy efficient. I want it to be, as
an architect, I want it to be looked
at aesthetically with innovative
designs and practicality of the
building
Negatives\Opinion of Group 2 - Large Non-management, People should be aware of it and be A09
Government Targets Practice APLNS able to do it freely rather than
imposing on them that they have to
go zero carbon.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 2 - Large Non-management, Totally unachievable A10
Government Targets Practice APLNS
Negatives\Opinion of Group 2 - Large Non-management, I don’t think the government should A09
Government Targets Practice APLNS be going for any targets
Negatives\Opinion of Group 2 - Large Non-management, they need to give companies and A10
Government Targets Practice APLNS things like that incentives to do this.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 2 - Large Non-management, there possibly should be more A12

Government Targets Practice APLNS incentives for doing environmental
design
Negatives\Opinion of Group 2 - Large Non-management, they still need to have a bit more A10
Government Targets Practice APLNS relaxation on design to achieve
what we’re trying to achieve.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 3 - Clients Management, APC I don’t think the government even A19
Government Targets understands what it is asking
people to do. If you’re building a
small out of town green field
development where you can
orientate things, you can make use
of the lie of the land and build it in
to cliffs and hills, perhaps put up a
local wind turbine - you might have
a chance. If you’re building thirty
five storeys of London office block,
five hundred thousand square feet
based on a small footprint, four
mega watt electricity demand - you
cannot make it zero carbon.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 3 - Clients Management, APC We’ve gone through a whole raft of A02
Government Targets bits - energy legislation that have
been – we’ve spent more time
dealing with verification and things
like that than actually doing the
change.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 4 - Management, APLS You can go to the land registry and A13
Government Targets Architect find out how much somebody paid
for their house but you can’t find out
what their utility bill is.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 4 - Management, APLS it’s absolutely clear that A13
Government Targets Architect decarbonising the grid is absolutely
fundamental. So if you – and how
you decarbonise the grid has a
huge influence on what resources
you’ve got to apply to new build and
existing stock.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 4 - Management, APLS I’m not sure I believe you can get A13
Government Targets Architect zero carbon non domestic buildings
Negatives\Opinion of Group 4 - Management, APLS as far as I know that’s the only zero A13
Government Targets Architect carbon office building. But that
requires a five hectare field of
Miscanthus to do so, and a 225
kilowatt wind turbine. So that’s what
you need to do so I think it’s all a bit
of nonsense.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 4 - Management, APLS Well, it’s a very challenging target. A13
Government Targets Architect It’s dubious as to whether we will in
the end - whether it’s sensible.
I have noted that the ones with the
experience are the ones suggesting
that maybe zero carbon isn't the
right target.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 4 - Management, APLS lack of exisitng housing stock A13
Government Targets Architect approach. "And everyone always
says this and never does anything
about it, including ourselves."
Negatives\Opinion of Group 4 - Management, APLS Not a sign of the treasury, it was A13
Government Targets Architect absurd.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 4 - Management, APLS off site renewables. Better bang per A13
Government Targets Architect buck.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 4 - Management, APLS Now it’s more difficult to be ahead A13
Government Targets Architect of the game because the game has
risen. And to the point where the
economic case for doing things
better is less clear.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 4 - Management, APLS the feeling you get is there isn’t a A13
Government Targets Architect big plan. So everyone’s doing
things that sort of make sense
within their little sphere.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 4 - Management, APLS Code for Sustainable Buildings A13
Government Targets Architect which is the thing that I was doing
yesterday. Which is a different
problem. It clearly can’t work
without offsite renewables so you
have to, some of us have to grip
that problem.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 4 - Management, APLS when refering to the lack of energy A13
Government Targets Architect data "one of David MacKay’s
mantras is numbers not adjectives
and they’re not quite there on the
numbers yet.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 4 - Management, APLS So it’s very difficult to make an A13
Government Targets Architect argument for building Code Six
houses, for example, because
people don’t value the potential
future costs of energy. ...The whole
systems is based upon cheap
energy and no one quite believes
that energy will get expensive or
short.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC I think they’re well intentioned, A20
Government Targets consultants somewhat misguided. Particularly
things like the requirements for
onsite renewable, that’s by far not
the best way to be meeting targets.
Secondly, if they’re not looking at
the existing stock, they’re not
looking at the problem.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC I suspect the time scales for things A21
Government Targets consultants like zero carbon, or whatever, are
pretty unrealistic and there’s a
balance there between pushing
yourself hard to meet something,
but on the other hand they’ll be
something that’s so unrealistic that
no one takes any notice of it
because it’s a joke.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC I’d defiantly change the definitions A21
Government Targets consultants of Codes Levels One to Six
[interviewer laughs]. So - It’s like
measuring in centigrade from
Monday to Friday and Fahrenheit
on Saturday and Sunday.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC there’s an argument that says zero A21
Government Targets consultants carbon’s too far and it’s – well, the
argument is that if you spend a -
say it costs twice as much to get
from sixty percent reduction to
eighty, and twice as much again to
get from eighty to ninety, and twice
as much - and so on. Is that money
better spent on building off shore
wind farms, and all that sort of thing
Negatives\Opinion of Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC But one big anomaly there is in lots A21
Government Targets consultants and lots of projects the answer is to
put in a biomass boiler. And then
what you realise quite quickly there -
you don’t have to do too many
calculations to realise that we run
out of wood.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC footprint side A21
Government Targets consultants
Negatives\Opinion of Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC Tighten the definition of zero A23
Government Targets consultants carbon and completely rewrite SAP
to create an absolute measure of
carbon, which incentivises good
design practices.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC Include embodied carbon in the A23
Government Targets consultants definition of zero carbon
Negatives\Opinion of Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC need to move towards regional A22
Government Targets consultants power disctribution "What I would
hate to see is that the zero carbon
target means that all individual
houses in this county become
power stations, mini power stations,
because that’s inappropriate
investment in technology. "
Negatives\Opinion of Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC we could achieve zero carbon very A22
Government Targets consultants quickly by saying well let’s just burn
wood and have lots of biomass
generators. Which is fine, but then
how much land do we need to take
away from food agriculture to then
fuel crop agriculture. And so that
does need to be balanced.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC They are aspirational or notional A23
Government Targets consultants political targets as opposed to a
genuine attempt to reduce carbon
from the entire built environment.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC Alter Code level 5 and 6 to allow for A23
Government Targets consultants embodied carbon in the rating and
avoid in appropriate use of micro
renewables by setting performance
thresholds.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC Avoid wasting biomass by not A23
Government Targets consultants allowing CHP heat dumping.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC Produce carbon negative buildings A23
Government Targets consultants using bio materials coupled with
appropriate renewable technologies
Negatives\Opinion of Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC I think we absolutely need good A21
Government Targets consultants strong regulations to head for and
we absolutely shouldn’t
underestimate how hard it is to put
them together.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC some of these targets are very A21
Government Targets consultants poorly thought out and they sound
straight forward at first
Negatives\Opinion of Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC And crazy things like Code Level A21
Government Targets consultants Five is a hundred percent reduction
in carbon, but it’s not zero carbon...
you’re only about 60% of the way
there when you get to a 100%
reduction.. there’s so few people in
the industry understand that
Negatives\Opinion of Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC And for instance, taking the A22
Government Targets consultants industrial building, a lot of the
energy used or energy lost, is not to
do with the quality of the
construction it’s to do with the
operation of the building.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC It’s as if you’re trying to come up A21
Government Targets consultants with a state of the art building by
taking an old building and keep
putting an extension on extension
on extension, and that’s how the
regulations are being developed.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC there are so many definitions A21
Government Targets consultants floating around now of what a zero
carbon house is
Negatives\Opinion of Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC And as much as the building itself A22
Government Targets consultants can also do, there needs to be a
shift in how users use their
buildings.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC Lack of policy addressing the A23
Government Targets consultants existing building stock. Lack of a
clear and comprehensive zero
carbon definition which includes
embodied energy also.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC the best way to meet your energy A21
Government Targets consultants demand, ten percent of your energy
demand with renewables is to burn
lots of wood in the garden. Big
bonfire. As long as it’s big enough
you’re hitting ten percent of your
energy. No one says it has to be
useful.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC we have the contract with A22
Government Targets consultants government working alongside
Faber Maunsell to develop the
future building regulations for 2010,
2013 and 2016 for Part L
Conservation of Fuel and Power,
and Part F which is ventilation. The
main aspect of our work is to
develop the building envelope
standards
Negatives\Opinion of Group 6 - Management, LPA actually the down side of those A18
Government Targets Planning assessment methodologies it that
you can constrain to the lowest
common denominator of the design.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 6 - Management, LPA So I think you need a more A18

Government Targets Planning measured approach and I think you
need interim targets. There was a
road map wasn’t there for the zero
carbon between here and 2016 but
I think actually again 2016 is too far
off to be easily useable.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 6 - Management, LPA If you were to look at the life cycle A18
Government Targets Planning of carbon emissions from that then
you’ve got really far too much on
the construction.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 6 - Management, LPA lot of building’s we’re building now A18
Government Targets Planning are very just single purpose and
can’t be reconfigured so they have
to be demolished which is hugely
costly in terms of carbon and
natural resources.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 6 - Management, LPA I think that they were hugely over A18
Government Targets Planning ambitious to start with and now they
are hugely under ambitious
Negatives\Opinion of Group 6 - Management, LPA I think they’ve done that classic A18
Government Targets Planning thing of going two prong without
really thinking it through properly.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 6 - Management, LPA making Code Level Six include total A18
Government Targets Planning emissions and not regulated
emissions was a huge mistake
because how can you do that with a
building really? That’s about
lifestyle.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 6 - Management, LPA People are going to start saying the A18
Government Targets Planning only solution to do now is demolish
these buildings because their
energy performance is so poor.
Then you lose – there’s a huge
issues around community cohesion
and the design.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 6 - Management, LPA there is a bit of uncertainty A18
Government Targets Planning developing around whether BRE
are taking the lead on this or
whether the UK Green Building
Council are taking the lead, and
that needs to be resolved...
developers like certainty.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 6 - Management, LPA Level Playing field "Where the A18
Government Targets Planning social housing is being delivered for
a housing association they are
having to build to Code Level Three
and for the private housing nothing
at all. And then the market changes
and they can’t sell those private
houses. They can’t then sell them to
the housing associations because
they don’t meet the standard."
Negatives\Opinion of Group 6 - Management, LPA we haven’t done enough around A18

Government Targets Planning retro fitting of existing buildings.
That’s the big gap.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 8 - Management, APMS we question whether or not actually A18
Government Targets Architect Code Six is the best way to go.
Because after you get to Code Five
maybe it’s more about lifestyle
change.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 8 - Management, APMS Idea The more experienced A14
Government Targets Architect practices tend to
challenge the targets.
"We’ve been there and
we’re actually stepping
back and saying why are
the government targets
are flawed in many ways.
"
Negatives\Opinion of Group 8 - Management, APMS We never take things at face value. A14
Government Targets Architect We always look to question why we
have to get to certain targets.
Values
Positives\Familiarity APLNS Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS Familiar A05
Mission Statement Practice
Positives\Familiarity APLNS Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS Yes, I hear it at every seminar to do A06
Mission Statement Practice with Capita Architecture [interviewer
laughs]. So yes, I’m familiar with
what we’re trying to achieve.
Positives\Familiarity APLNS Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS I have read it before on here. I must A07
Mission Statement Practice admit I skated over it. I remember
thinking seventy percent zero
carbon hmm.
Positives\Familiarity APLNS Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS very familiar about it obviously A03
Positives\Familiarity APLNS Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS I am familiar with it. A04
Heading Name Sample Type Sample Characteristic Verbatim

Values
Negatives\Familiarity APLNS Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS I haven’t actually read the mission A08
Mission Statement Practice statement that often to even know
what it says actually [interviewer
laughs].
Negatives\Familiarity APLNS Group 2 - Large Non-management, We’ll I think I heard a mention of A09
Mission Statement Practice APLNS that once. I think in one of the
Capita day out or something like
that. Other than that there has been
no mention in the office or anything.
Negatives\Familiarity APLNS Group 2 - Large Non-management, Not very [interviewee laughs]. I A10
Mission Statement Practice APLNS don’t know how common that is
Negatives\Familiarity APLNS Group 2 - Large Non-management, No, I’ve never seen this. A12
Mission Statement Practice APLNS
Negatives\Familiarity APLNS Group 2 - Large Non-management, We’ve been told once that A11
Mission Statement Practice APLNS statement and that’s it. No other
information.
Values
Positives\Achieving the Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS A07 whos response is A07
APLNS Mission Practice generally quite negative
Statement\Opinion of comments that CA are
Mission Statement "quite pro-active in things
like that."
Positives\Achieving the Group 2 - Large Non-management, I would say that it’s achievable. A12
APLNS Mission Practice APLNS
Statement\Opinion of
Mission Statement
Positives\Achieving the Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS I think from a marketing point of A06
APLNS Mission Practice view it puts us up there, where we
Statement\Opinion of should be
Mission Statement\Mission
Statement as USP
Positives\Achieving the Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS green sells at the moment actually, A08
APLNS Mission Practice so it’s a good marketing - we tend
Statement\Opinion of to use it quite a lot marketing on the
Mission Statement\Mission LSC bids. Well, all the bids
Statement as USP basically.
Positives\Achieving the Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS it gives us a USP A05
APLNS Mission Practice
Statement\Opinion of
Mission Statement\Mission
Statement as USP
Positives\Achieving the Group 2 - Large Non-management, I would have thought they’d try and A12
APLNS Mission Practice APLNS compete with the market and try
Statement\Opinion of and better anyone else. And get as
Mission Statement\Mission many environmentally friendly
Statement as USP buildings out there. We may as well
to make a statement that we are
getting good clients
Values
Positives\Achieving the Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS What it means generally to me is A03
APLNS Mission Practice more of a direction, focus. What we
Statement\Opinion of Mission are trying to do is set the way
Statement\Mission Statement forward for the practice and
as Company Target basically to help navigate the
practice.
Positives\Achieving the Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS it gives a vision. It gives a target, A05
APLNS Mission Practice something to aim for.
Statement\Opinion of Mission
Statement\Mission Statement
as Company Target
Positives\Achieving the Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS if you don’t aim for the stars then A03
APLNS Mission Practice you’ll never get to the moon
as Company Target
Positives\Achieving the Group 2 - Large Non-management, I think they’ve got the right words A10
as Company Target
Positives\Achieving the Group 2 - Large Non-management, I would say that it’s achievable. A12
as Company Target
Positives\Achieving the Group 7 - Capita Management, EPLNS It’s quite a good challenge. A16
APLNS Mission Symonds Because even if we don’t get to
Statement\Opinion of Mission Management Staff zero carbon, if we’re ninety percent
Statement\Mission Statement there or eight percent there, at least
as Company Target we’re there or there about.
Values
Positives\Achieving the Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS when I approach a building to A06
APLNS Mission Practice design it’s something I’m always
Statement\Opinion of Mission conscious of. So it reinforces a
Statement\Reaffirms Standard belief that maybe clients have in us.
CA Practice
Positives\Achieving the Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS It’s a fundamental aspect of A08
APLNS Mission Practice education.
Statement\Reaffirms Standard
CA Practice
Positives\Achieving the Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS So it would be about making sure A04
APLNS Mission Practice that every element of the process –
Statement\Opinion of Mission every person is really fighting for it
Statement\How to Achieve rather than a target we’re dodging
Mission Statement
Positives\Achieving the Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS maybe the actual BIG leader who is A05
APLNS Mission Practice responsible for sustainability should
Statement\Opinion of Mission perhaps go around each of the
Statement\How to Achieve offices and do a bit of a road show
Mission Statement and make people aware exactly
what the statement means and what
we’re actually doing to try and
achieve this.
Positives\Achieving the Group 2 - Large Non-management, I don’t know. 50% maybe, [unclear] A11
APLNS Mission Practice APLNS below 40%.
Statement\How to Achieve
Mission Statement
Positives\Achieving the Group 2 - Large Non-management, I would say that it’s achievable. I A12
APLNS Mission Practice APLNS would probably say that they need
Statement\Opinion of Mission to invest in more training for the
Statement\How to Achieve staff if they want to achieve that.
Mission Statement
Positives\Achieving the Group 7 - Capita Management, EPLNS I think Capita, as a large A16
APLNS Mission Symonds organization as well, can start to put
Statement\Opinion of Mission Management Staff workshops into place to try and see
Statement\How to Achieve how they can achieve that. And
Mission Statement then come up with some golden
rules or some type of guide book on
how they can achieve that. But that
will not be done jus
Positives\Achieving the Group 7 - Capita Management, EPLNS I think they should say that seventy A16
APLNS Mission Symonds percent of its buildings should
Statement\Opinion of Mission Management Staff aspire to be zero carbon.
Statement\How to Achieve
Mission Statement
Positives\Achieving the Group 7 - Capita Management, EPLNS I’d much rather have a tighter A17
APLNS Mission Symonds definition of the standard we’re
Statement\Opinion of Mission Management Staff aiming at and a more realistic
Statement\How to Achieve target.
Mission Statement
Values
Positives\Tools\BREEAM/CfS Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS And also understand the different A03
H/DREAM Practice sustainability approaches to take
such as BREEAM, DREAM and
others. Again I think we should be
more engaged in that process.
Positives\Tools\BREEAM/CfS Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS If a client particularly wants to go for A05
H/DREAM Practice BREEAM Excellent building he’ll
look at us and think they’re the
experts, they’re the people I want to
use to do my building and hopefully
that’s what will happen.
Positives\Tools\BREEAM/CfS Group 2 - Large Non-management, But obviously when they start doing A10
H/DREAM Practice APLNS all the BREEAM assessments and
this and that and the other we have
to ask to bring in onboard. Make
sure we get the targets that we are
trying to achieve. Excellent or Very
Good I think is what we have to
achieve
Positives\Tools\BREEAM/CfS Group 3 - Clients Management, APC a very good process. A13

H/DREAM
Positives\Tools\BREEAM/CfS Group 3 - Clients Management, APC with most of the projects we’re A02
H/DREAM doing BREEAM. And we’re using
that as the framework to do all the
energy saving type of things.
Negatives\Tools\BREEAM/CfS Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS there’s still some resistance around A18
H/DREAM Practice form filling [interviewer laughs].
Things like BREEAM and the
amount of paper that you have to
gather together for your evidence to
get your sign off.
Negatives\Tools\BREEAM/CfS Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS it does seem quite onerous for the A18
H/DREAM Practice small practice ... I think it can be
done but perhaps the evidence
gathering is more difficult for a
small firm.
Negatives\Tools\BREEAM/CfS Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS actually the down side of those A18
H/DREAM Practice assessment methodologies it that
you can constrain to the lowest
common denominator of the design.
Negatives\Tools\BREEAM/CfS Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS I think there are a lot of things that A18
H/DREAM Practice aren’t considered by the Code. So,
for example, two big issues for me,
longevity and flexibility.
Negatives\Tools\BREEAM/CfS Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS I have some criticisms with certain A04
H/DREAM Practice aspects of BREEAM but I think it’s
not a bad first pass at trying to
grapple with the whole of an
environmental picture, and I think
its best thing is it’s not narrow. So
it’s not just looking at energy alone
and not thinking about how a
building sits in the community.
Which is to my mind is equally
important.
Negatives\Tools\BREEAM/CfS Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS the likes of a biomass boiler, there’s A06
H/DREAM Practice renewable energy for that. But the
actual process contradicts what
we’re trying to achieve, but it ticks
the box of the BREEAM calculation.
Negatives\Tools\BREEAM/CfS Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS It isn’t currently reflected in the LSC A08
H/DREAM Practice cost model and the LSC cost model
calculating so many pounds per
square metre. And there is an
allocation for BREEAM rather than
zero carbon for life but they assume
that a certain amount of that is for
energy saving. But yes, that can
vary from nothing to ten, twenty
percent.
Negatives\Tools\BREEAM/CfS Group 2 - Large Non-management, Bit of a funny thing with BREEAM. A11
H/DREAM Practice APLNS Some of the things in there are a bit
pointless, like specifying a recycling
bin in every office or something like
that.
Values
Positives\Are Architects Able Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS to a degree I think they now have A04
to Produce Zero Carbon Practice to. So the answer probably is
Architecture becoming yes.
Positives\Are Architects Able Group 2 - Large Non-management, It depends on individuals really. A09
to Produce Zero Carbon Practice APLNS
Architecture
Positives\Are Architects Able Group 2 - Large Non-management, I think some do. I wouldn’t say all A12
to Produce Zero Carbon Practice APLNS do.
Architecture
Positives\Are Architects Able Group 2 - Large Non-management, Depends on the age. I think its age A10
to Produce Zero Carbon Practice APLNS orientated. Where – my age now
Architecture you have to learn about it because
you’ve got no choice what so ever
Positives\Are Architects Able Group 3 - Clients Management, APC I think some do, some don’t. A02
to Produce Zero Carbon
Architecture
Positives\Are Architects Able Group 3 - Clients Management, APC There are some that do and some A15
to Produce Zero Carbon that don’t.
Architecture
Positives\Are Architects Able Group 4 - Management, APLS I’ve got a lot of faith in people being A13
to Produce Zero Carbon Architect able to pick these things up.
Architecture
Positives\Are Architects Able Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC I think some do A21
to Produce Zero Carbon consultants
Architecture
Positives\Are Architects Able Group 6 - Management, LPA Not always. It’s hugely variable. A18
to Produce Zero Carbon Planning
Architecture
Heading Name Sample Type Sample Characteristic Verbatim

Values
Negatives\Are Architects Able Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS I don’t believe so, no
to Produce Zero Carbon Practice
Architecture A05
Negatives\Are Architects Able Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS No. It’s quite straight forward.
to Produce Zero Carbon Practice Unfortunately when architects go
Architecture through college there’s a lot of
emphasis on design - and on the
conceptual architectural design, but
very, very little is put onto the
science and understanding how the
buildings actually function A03
Negatives\Are Architects Able Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS Probably not. I think there’s still a
to Produce Zero Carbon Practice lot to learn
Architecture A06
Negatives\Are Architects Able Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS No
Architecture A07
Negatives\Are Architects Able Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS No
Architecture A08
Negatives\Are Architects Able Group 2 - Large Non-management, No. I don’t think they do.
Architecture A11
Negatives\Are Architects Able Group 3 - Clients Management, APC I think architects, the way that we
to Produce Zero Carbon procure our construction, have
Architecture other priorities forced upon them
that make them focus on different -
on things other than low carbon
design. A01
Negatives\Are Architects Able Group 3 - Clients Management, APC Some of them may have the
to Produce Zero Carbon knowledge but it’s well hidden
Architecture A19
Negatives\Are Architects Able Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC Not in the UK! Or at least not
to Produce Zero Carbon consultants without making a lot of costly
Architecture mistakes. By collaborative working
using the knowledge which we
collectively share these skills
shortages can be overcome. A23
Negatives\Are Architects Able Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC No [interviewee laughs].
Architecture A08
Negatives\Are Architects Able Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC Currently no.
Architecture A22
Negatives\Are Architects Able Group 7 - Capita Management, EPLNS No. But not through any fault of
to Produce Zero Carbon Symonds theirs.
Architecture A17
Negatives\Are Architects Able Group 7 - Capita Management, EPLNS Not just yet. Not just yet.
to Produce Zero Carbon Symonds
Architecture A16
Negatives\Are Architects Able Group 8 - Management, APMS I would say no.
to Produce Zero Carbon Architect
Architecture A14
Values
Positives\Architectural Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS Specialist sustainability low energy A08
Practice Size\Large Practice practices tend to be small practices.
There the people – well, other than
people like [BDP] I suppose where
they really role it out.
Positives\Architectural Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS I think in the larger architectural A05
Practice Size\Large Practice practices there is probably more
emphasis on trying to achieve the
targets. Probably because we have
the bigger clients who are prepared
to pay for it
Positives\Architectural Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS I feel the benefit of Capita being a A06
Practice Size\Large Practice large organisation means that we
do have the engineers there
Positives\Architectural Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS The big ones like Capita - one of A04
Practice Size\Large Practice the great things about Capita, at its
best, is that it’s big enough to really
grapple with the big issues. We’ve
got a little bit of slack space to do
the R and D that’s necessary
Positives\Architectural Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS You can have large organisations A03
Practice Size\Large Practice which are very focussed on this.
You can also have large
organisation that are totally
oblivious.
Positives\Architectural Group 2 - Large Non-management, I worked for a small one who were A10
Practice Size\Large Practice APLNS totally ignorant towards it, I worked
for a medium one who are slowly
getting around to doing it and now I
work for this company who are
focusing on doing it more.
Positives\Architectural Group 2 - Large Non-management, Probably less because here A11

Practice Size\Large Practice APLNS obviously we got more people to
talk to about it.
Positives\Architectural Group 3 - Clients Management, APC You look at the really big people A02
Practice Size\Large here. The Richard Rogers? He
works with an engineering company
and he’s worked with them a lot and
they work together on the design.
And I don’t feel at times that
architects do that enough
Positives\Architectural Group 3 - Clients Management, APC we probably tend to work with some A19
Practice Size\Large of the larger ones, and there are
ones that seem to be better than
others.
Positives\Architectural Group 4 - Management, APLS Then the larger practice like A13
Practice Size\Large Architect Fosters, like Aedas, once they get
the idea they buy expertise in.
Positives\Architectural Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC with larger architects practices A22
Practice Size\Large consultants there does seem to be a mixture of
skill base so you do tend to have a
greater skill mix within a team.
Positives\Architectural Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC Yes but not enough to draw solid A23
Practice Size\Large consultants conclusions. In general smaller
organisations seem to be better
acquainted with these issues but
not always, some large multi
disciplinary practices have good in
house expertise.
Positives\Architectural Group 7 - Capita Management, EPLNS No. I think the small practices we’ve A17
Practice Size\Large Symonds dealt with are a mixed bag. There
are some who are basic architects
who design a building and there are
others, who because of the nature
of the service we’re offering, have
developed a niche designing
sustainable buildings. And so in
terms of the technical ability it really
cuts across all levels.
Values
Negatives\Architectural Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS But the size of an organisation does A07
Practice Size\Large Practice – it’s just a filtered down thing.
Passing on information, passing on
ideas. It just – it automatically takes
longer in a large organisation.
When you got a small office with
one lead architect and a few
assistants it can be a very quick
thing. You can transmit your ideas.
Quick exchange of ideas and there
you are, you done. But when you’ve
got an organisation with thousands
of people in, however many offices,
it’s just a bit slow and a bit more
difficult.
Negatives\Architectural Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS it’s a bit more of a juggernaut that A07
Practice Size\Large Practice you have to slowly steer round.
Negatives\Architectural Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS So the biggest problem there is A03
Practice Size\Large Practice whilst there seems to be a lot of
emphasis that smaller practices -
there’s a lot of people with a great
focus on environmental
sustainability, it’s the bigger
practices which really need to focus
on what is important because
they’re the ones that carry the
bigger legacy generally
Negatives\Architectural Group 2 - Large Non-management, You have someone that does know A11
Practice Size\Large Practice APLNS what they are doing and other
people that don’t and as always
happens the bigger it is the worse
the communication is.
Negatives\Architectural Group 2 - Large Non-management, office politics. A09
Practice Size\Large Practice APLNS
Negatives\Architectural Group 2 - Large Non-management, we do a lot of government and A12
Practice Size\Large Practice APLNS again a lot of value engineering
goes on within the government
work. A lot of PFI jobs. And a lot of
the time it’s the contractor calling
the shots really and they just want
to make as much money as they
possibly can. And in doing so they
can ruin the design in a lot of ways
and stop the designer getting those
low carbon [unclear].
Negatives\Architectural Group 3 - Clients Management, APC in a larger firm the architect will A01
Practice Size\Large probably defer to specialists for
sustainable and carbon
management issues.
Negatives\Architectural Group 3 - Clients Management, APC what we tend to find is the smaller A15
Practice Size\Large practices have less knowledge that
maybe some of the larger practices
but they are more open to
suggestion.
Negatives\Architectural Group 3 - Clients Management, APC we probably tend to work with some A19
Practice Size\Large of the larger ones, and there are
ones that seem to be better than
others.
Negatives\Architectural Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC Small practices to one or two man A20
Practice Size\Large consultants bands. And I find my experience of
those ones is much more towards
the eco end of things. So they’re
often really, really good. And some
of the bigger ones are good but
they seem quite glossy in a lot of
places. It seems what’s really there
is a surface dressing
Negatives\Architectural Group 6 - Management, LPA on if there is a differnce A18
Practice Size\Large Planning in knowledge between
large and small "I think
there is"
Negatives\Architectural Group 7 - Capita Management, EPLNS we’re tending to see that there’s A16
Practice Size\Large Symonds sustainability consultants which -
they were into sustainability at the
very beginning.
Values
Positives\Are Architects Able Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS We’ve got to be seen to do the right A03
to Produce Zero Carbon Practice thing
Architecture\Reasons for
Architects Achieving Zero
Carbon
Architecture\Professional
Interest
Positives\Are Architects Able Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS Well, in the first sense we would A03
to Produce Zero Carbon Practice obviously take the commercial
Architecture\Reasons for angle. It’s going to be the first one
Architects Achieving Zero at the end of the day, we’re a
Carbon business.
Interest
Positives\Are Architects Able Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS to a degree I think they now have to A04
Carbon
Architecture\Government
Legislation
Positives\Are Architects Able Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS So the advantage to the business is A04
to Produce Zero Carbon Practice you wouldn’t get any business if you
Architecture\Reasons for didn’t do it.
Carbon Architecture\Job
Requirement
Positives\Are Architects Able Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS to a degree I think they now have to A04
Requirement
Positives\Are Architects Able Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS we are trying to establish a unique A05
to Produce Zero Carbon Practice selling point for the company which
Architecture\Reasons for we don’t have.
Carbon Architecture\Marketing
Positives\Are Architects Able Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS I think from a marketing point of A06
to Produce Zero Carbon Practice view it puts us up there, where we
Architecture\Reasons for should be.
Positives\Are Architects Able Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS If we show ability in the areas then A07
to Produce Zero Carbon Practice I’m sure it will open up
Architecture\Reasons for opportunities.
Positives\Are Architects Able Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS green sells at the moment actually, A08
to Produce Zero Carbon Practice so it’s a good marketing - we tend
Architecture\Reasons for to use it quite a lot marketing on the
Architects Achieving Zero LSC bids. Well, all the bids
Carbon Architecture\Marketing basically.
Positives\Are Architects Able Group 2 - Large Non-management, I think there would be lots of A09
to Produce Zero Carbon Practice APLNS benefits like innovative design and
Architecture\Reasons for innovation in a lot of construction
Architects Achieving Zero techniques and things like that.
Carbon
Interest
Positives\Are Architects Able Group 2 - Large Non-management, save the world sort of thing. A10
Carbon Architecture\Personal
Conviction
Positives\Are Architects Able Group 2 - Large Non-management, Well personally it’s a good thing. A11
to Produce Zero Carbon Practice APLNS It’s our future, the world... Make the
Architecture\Reasons for world a better place
Conviction
Positives\Are Architects Able Group 2 - Large Non-management, Good marketing I suppose A11
Positives\Are Architects Able Group 2 - Large Non-management, Well, that’s the way the future’s A12
to Produce Zero Carbon Practice APLNS going really isn’t it so if we can
Architecture\Reasons for achieve that now especially in the
Architects Achieving Zero current climate. If you can keep on
Carbon getting clients which are willing to
Architecture\Professional achieve that sort of standard then it
Interest sets a good example really.
Positives\Are Architects Able Group 4 - Management, APLS I think there’s sort of an assumption A13
to Produce Zero Carbon Architect that you create skills. and I think
Architecture\Reasons for you do, but then we’ve just learnt by
Architects Achieving Zero looking what other people have
Carbon done and copying, trying things,
Architecture\Professional finding out about stuff. It’s not that
Interest difficult. And you see how fast the
profession has been learning.
When – I mean in Bristol there’s
Stride Treglown who are not noted
for sustainable – there a big
commercial practice and - I think
they’re the biggest in the west
country? ... And then suddenly they
produce a scheme of ecohouses
from nowhere, apparently.
Positives\Are Architects Able Group 4 - Management, APLS Understanding the truth is a real A13
to Produce Zero Carbon Architect preoccupation of ours.
Carbon
Interest
Positives\Are Architects Able Group 4 - Management, APLS I don’t think there’s anyone in the A13
to Produce Zero Carbon Architect practice who doesn’t give a shit
Architecture\Reasons for about sustainability and will just do
Architects Achieving Zero anything they can.
Conviction
Positives\Are Architects Able Group 4 - Management, APLS a numer of capita staff A13
to Produce Zero Carbon Architect mentioned about the
Architecture\Reasons for reason for doing zero
Architects Achieving Zero carbon is to "save the
Carbon Architecture\Personal world". I wasn't sure how
Conviction sincere a number of
them were but it's
interesting that Bill
Gething does the same
"so we feel a very strong
commitment because it’s
a massive problem for
humanity and actually
[interviewee laughs] and
actually we need to try
and do it."
Positives\Are Architects Able Group 3 - Clients Management, APC we’ve been doing low energy A13
to Produce Zero Carbon buildings for a long time. Right from
Architecture\Reasons for the start of the practice.
Requirement
Positives\Are Architects Able Group 4 - Management, APLS So I suppose you could say that if A13
to Produce Zero Carbon Architect you can demonstrate that you can
Architecture\Reasons for do it then you ought to get more
Architects Achieving Zero work because it’s difficult to make.
Positives\Are Architects Able Group 8 - Management, APMS White Design’s quite strange A14
to Produce Zero Carbon Architect because it’s actually set up, Craig
Architecture\Reasons for set it up – it was to make
Architects Achieving Zero sustainable buildings. So it’s part of
Carbon our business plan really
Interest
Positives\Are Architects Able Group 8 - Management, APMS Interviewee from A14

to Produce Zero Carbon Architect specialist practice
Architecture\Reasons for suggests they wouldn't
Architects Achieving Zero see any specific benefits
Carbon Architecture\Job to their company because
Requirement that is what they were set
up to do.
Positives\Are Architects Able Group 6 - Management, LPA it’s changed a lot in the last few A18
to Produce Zero Carbon Planning years. I think things like BREEAM
Architecture\Reasons for and the Codes, while there’s been
Architects Achieving Zero some resistance to more regulation,
Carbon have actually forced us, pushed us
Architecture\Government to engage with that agenda.
Legislation
Positives\Are Architects Able Group 6 - Management, LPA They position themselves, A18
to Produce Zero Carbon Planning particularly White Design, to market
Architecture\Reasons for themselves as a green and
Architects Achieving Zero sustainable practice.
Values
Positives\Industry Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS I think it’s an education thing isn’t A07
Drivers\Client Buy in Practice it? With us, as well as the
professions, with the normal public,
everyone needs to understand the
importance of this, the relevance of
this. Once everyone understands
that or at least has taken it in we’ll
find that our clients, end users, fund
holders, are more receptive to the
idea.
Positives\Industry Group 3 - Clients Management, APC The benefits to us are in whole A01
Drivers\Client Buy in terms really and low carbon design
normally supports low cost in use
design which is still a significant
objective of the organisation.
Positives\Industry Group 3 - Clients Management, APC There are some barriers about A02
Drivers\Client Buy in people saying it costs more and it
doesn’t need to if it’s properly
designed it shouldn’t cost any more.
Positives\Industry Group 4 - Management, APLS I think probably their client base as A13
Drivers\Client Buy in Architect it tends to be rapacious developers
who are only interested in turning
over large sums of money. ... So if
the main stream changes they
ought to be able to – it’s interesting
these conversations because I
hadn’t really registered that before
but it’s interesting.

Values
Negatives\Are Architects Able Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS The other is going to be client A03
to Produce Zero Carbon Practice pressures, people only looking for
Architecture\Reasons for quick profit.
Architects Not Achieving Zero
Carbon Architecture\Lack of
Client Buy in
Negatives\Are Architects Able Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS clients and construction partners A04
to Produce Zero Carbon Practice will choose whether they do or not
Architecture\Reasons for and we won’t be able to stop them.
Client Buy in
Negatives\Are Architects Able Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS I think the potential barriers comes A05
to Produce Zero Carbon Practice down to funding and get the
Architecture\Reasons for message to clients
Client Buy in
Negatives\Are Architects Able Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS I think has a lot to do with the client A06
to Produce Zero Carbon Practice and his budget and what values he
Architecture\Reasons for actually sees with the end product.
Client Buy in
Negatives\Are Architects Able Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS So try and push it with the client but A08
to Produce Zero Carbon Practice generally the funding envelope isn’t
Architecture\Reasons for there for zero carbon at the
Architects Not Achieving Zero moment.
Client Buy in
Negatives\Are Architects Able Group 2 - Large Non-management, I think it’s more of the client side of Kir B
to Produce Zero Carbon Practice APLNS it where – because at the moment
Architecture\Reasons for we’re working on schools and we
Architects Not Achieving Zero were free to do - on this school we
Carbon Architecture\Lack of were free to do – give a totally zero
Client Buy in carbon, sustainable design for the
school. And in the end the budget
that was approved wouldn’t allow
for anything that – it would just
allow for standard construction.
Brick and block construction. So in
the end it wasn’t in our hands.
Negatives\Are Architects Able Group 2 - Large Non-management, The client sometimes they want A11
to Produce Zero Carbon Practice APLNS different things. It comes down to
Architecture\Reasons for cost at the end of the day mainly.
Client Buy in
Negatives\Are Architects Able Group 2 - Large Non-management, I suppose cost to the client – wants A12
to Produce Zero Carbon Practice APLNS to spend on the project. I would
Architecture\Reasons for have thought that would have a
Architects Not Achieving Zero large impact.
Client Buy in
Negatives\Are Architects Able Group 3 - Clients Management, APC there is enough knowledge out A15
to Produce Zero Carbon there we could actually be building
Architecture\Reasons for zero carbon buildings today but
Architects Not Achieving Zero people don’t want them. Because
Carbon Architecture\Lack of they either can’t afford them, no
Client Buy in one’s making them do it.
Negatives\Are Architects Able Group 5 - Sub Management, AIC From the construction industry side, A22
to Produce Zero Carbon consultants the home builders and the
Architecture\Reasons for commercial builders, again there’s a
Architects Not Achieving Zero reluctance almost to take that
Carbon Architecture\Lack of further because everything that’s
Client Buy in been worked towards for zero
carbon is perceived as cost, even
though it can be demonstrated that -
maybe to achieve zero carbon there
will certainly be a cost.
Negatives\Are Architects Able Group 7 - Capita Management, EPLNS investing capital upfront is going to A17
to Produce Zero Carbon Symonds become – it has become a lot more
Architecture\Reasons for difficult and is going to become a lot
Architects Not Achieving Zero more difficult still.
Client Buy in
Negatives\Are Architects Able Group 8 - Management, APMS The pressures on the budget and A14
to Produce Zero Carbon Architect [unclear] it’s much more difficult to
Architecture\Reasons for get these sort of issues considered.
Client Buy in
Values
Positives\Achieving the Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS We are trying to set a new bench A03
APLNS Mission Statement Practice mark and with our Environmental
Research Group we have now set
new standards in terms of getting
70% of our buildings to a zero
carbon status by 2012. And also
trying to make sure that we source
materials sustainably, together with
ensuring that best practice is
pushed through.
Negatives\Opinion of Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS a knee jerk A03
Positives\Achieving the Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS it gives us a USP A05
Statement
Negatives\Opinion of Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS unachievable A05
Positives\Achieving the Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS I think from a marketing point of A06
APLNS Mission Practice view it puts us up there, where we
Statement\Opinion of Mission should be
Statement
Positives\Achieving the Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS A07 who is generally quite negative A07
APLNS Mission Practice about the whole thing says CA are
Statement\Opinion of Mission "quite pro-active in things like that."
Statement
Negatives\Opinion of Group 1 - Large Management, APLNS I’ve heard of these zero carbon A07
Government Targets Practice targets but I don’t for one moment
believe that you can ever achieve
zero carbon. I think that’s a fallacy.
Positives\Achieving the Group 2 - Large Management, APLNS I think they’ve got the right words A10
Statement
Negatives\Opinion of Group 2 - Large Non-management, Totally unachievable A10
Government Targets Practice APLNS

Barriers and Drivers Within Large Architectural Practice To Low and Zero Carbon Architecture

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Barriers and Drivers Within Large Architectural Practice To Low and Zero Carbon Architecture

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Barriers and Drivers within Large Architectural Practice to Low and Zero Carbon Architecture

BARRIERS AND DRIVERS WITHIN LARGE ARCHITECTURAL

Masters of Science: Architecture: Advanced Environmental and Energy Studies

Graduate School of the Environment

Centre for Alternative Technology

Tel: 01654 705981

School of Computing and Technology

University of East London

4-6 University Way

Tel: 0208 2233000

Celia Beeson - Bristol City Council

Jamie Bull - Carbon Plan

Colin Campbell – Capita Architecture

Paul Davis - Wates Group

Dave Farebrother - Land Securities

Bill Gething - Fielden Clegg Bradley

Bobby Gilbert - Bobby Gilbert and Associates

Gavin Harper – Author of relevant environmental texts

Karl Hutchison – White Design

Ian Mawditt - Building Sciences

Hugh Nettelfield - Quattro Architects

Rob Scot McLeod – Building Research Establishment

Rebecca Tregarthen – Capita Architecture

Martin Wiles – University of Bristol

CONTENTS PAGE NO.

3.1 Chapter Introduction ................................................................................................30

LIST OF FIGURES PAGE NO.

Figure 1 Timeline to zero carbon …………….……………………………………......22

BREEAM Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method

CEO Chief Executive Officer

CSH Code for Sustainable Homes

CIC Construction Industry Council

CIH Chartered Institute of Housing

CLG Department for Communities and Local Government

CPRE Campaign to Protect Rural England

DEC Display Energy Certificate

EMAS Eco Management and Audit Scheme

EPBD Energy Performance of Buildings Directive

EPC Energy Performance Certificate

GHG Green House Gas

IET Institute for Engineering and Technology

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

LDF Local Development Framework

NCM National Calculation Methodology

PPA Planning Performance Agreement

PPS Planning Policy Statements

SAP Standard Assessment Procedure

SBEM Simplified Building Energy Model

SPD Supplementary Planning Document

TCPA Town and Country Planning Association

TER Target Emissions Rate

UK GBC UK Green Building Council

UNEP United Nations Environmental Program

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

WHO World Health Organization

1.1 CHAPTER INTRODUCTION

1.2 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS CONTEXT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEBATE

Kate Stewart – July 2009 10

1.4 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

• Undertake a literature review to clarify historic/current legislative policies and standards

• Undertake a mixed method approach including; a case study of Capita Architecture as a

Kate Stewart – July 2009 11