Since BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) was introduced in 1990, it has no stopping to gaining in popularity as a support to delivering environmentally friendly buildings. Last year, about 7000 projects were assessed using BREEAM.
But there is more to BREEAM than just providing businesses with the means to demonstrate their environmental commitments. It’s can be used add value to a project through, for example, achieving a building that is cheaper to run for little, if any, extra cost.
Lots of people in the industry have their own views on BREEAM which have been brought together in a report commissioned by BSRIA. The report offers an insight into the discussions around the cost of BREEAM to businesses and whether this is a major factor in the choice to opt into having a BREEAM-accredited building.
Overall, the responses to the survey were positive. The large majority though that the concept is good, but that there was room for improvement. It was also found that a lot of businesses would invest in BREEAM accreditation again and saw value beyond the economic benefits.
Thinking about BREEAM at project inception gives most value and has the potential to make the process cheaper. Many people felt that some improvement could be made by making the scheme simpler and more flexible.
Despite the economic climate, count the cost of BREEAM isn’t on the agenda. The main reasons for organisations opting for BREEAM included company policy and to boost CSR (Corporate and Social Responsibility) credentials , to meet planning requirements and for procurement purposes.
A major positive finding was that there doesn’t appear to be a significant link between the amount of cost increase and the level of BREEAM rating sought. A factor that influenced the cost of a project was when BREEAM was included in the design process that the earlier a decision is made, the better chance there is of keeping costs down.
Despite perceptions by many that achieving a BREEAM rating can be an expensive choice, the findings of the report show that less than half of recipients incurred significant extra costs on their latest BREEAM project. 40% said that they did not incur extra charges compared to a non-BREEAM project. For some respondents the additional costs were not an issue since BREEAM is seen as an investment for the future – with a payback coming from the reduced running costs of the building.
Acknowledging the importance of not losing sight of a building’s performance after construction, businesses also rated improved comfort and satisfaction for occupants, enhanced productivity and staff retention and internal social benefits.
Evidence that organisations working towards a BREEAM rating also think outside the box was discovered during research into compiling the report. All businesses said that they had installed building technologies and active energy management in their latest project and less than a third did this for gaining credits. For the majority it was for both operational savings and gaining credits – a clear sign that organisation think beyond the initial BREEAM accreditation process to how they will use the building in the longer term.
Two major conclusions emerged from the research.
The first one is that every building can benefit from controls and technologies to deliver a long-term benefits. Whereas not all can achieve ratings for the building’s location or position, which can often be outside the control of the business.
The second one is that energy-efficient solutions can become less efficient and effective over time if there is no-one to manage and monitor them and ensure they continue to be used to maximum performance.
