Whilst your Scribe can safely be thought to be ‘out of touch’ in most things, he senses a continuing scepticism amongst many, perhaps most building owners about the ‘green’ agenda; it is widely seen as just one more impediment for landlords. At our Lunch on 19th May 2011, George Fowkes, Co-Founder of Low Carbon Workplace, sought to convince an audience that was by no means as sceptical as I have suggested that greenness can be seen in a positive light.
The Government has set ambitious carbon targets: an 80% cut in emissions by 2050. There is no doubt that property, contributing 20% to current emissions, is seen as a soft, as well as a necessary target. Perhaps justifying a negative perspective, potential taxes are in place to bully, and ‘Display Energy Certificates’ will be seen as a tool to shame. However, the real driver for change will lie in energy-pricing and the anxiety of occupiers, who ultimately meet energy charges, to minimise a growing threat to their bottom line.
Whilst BREEAM assessments and debates about ‘embodied carbon’ address important issues, George expressed the view that these are unlikely to be real drivers of value in the market place. He suggested four headings that might be:
1. Access to public transport. If Government continues to squeeze the cost of motoring, which it is likely to do to the bounds of political possibility, less dependence upon it will be attractive to occupiers in attracting staff and customers.
2. Buildings that offer ‘smart passive systems’ – not too much glass, high ceilings, open spaces etc. These will offer tangible advantage to occupiers.
3. Efficient active systems, particularly good zonal controls so that energy use matches closely actual building use, mitigating waste. (Your scribe has just bought a kettle that boasts its ability to boil ‘only the amount of water you need’ – but he still overfills it!)
4. Landlord engagement with occupiers. For example contractual parameters for energy use, with costs and benefits being shared. The equipment of buildings with extensive metering and monitoring systems will be a selling point of value.
Rather than an incidental, George sees energy use and cost as becoming an active, and perhaps disputatious, component of the landlord/tenant relationship. If this is correct, landlords need to develop strong ‘test as you go’ methods, not only in developing and refurbishing buildings, but in their continuing running.
One questioner raised the implicit conflict between building conservation and listing, and energy efficiency. It was George’s view that the latter is now the louder voice, and English Heritage will have bend to meet that reality. Another questioner, whilst accepting George’s argument in high cost/high demand London, wondered whether the value issue will prove so real in the provinces. George refuted this view, arguing that growing energy costs will prove painful wherever they are incurred.
In some cases, reducing energy consumption may have quite high initial costs, but George left us with the view that most buildings present opportunities for short payback with basic and simple stuff - a positive message to end a lucid and entertaining presentation.
Michael Mallinson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)