Lower carbon design and operation of buildings has become ever more important criteria for large scale institutional real estate investors, whose shareholders have increasingly stringent requirements around ESG. The challenge has the added dimension of life science being a comparatively energy intensive industry.
“It's the top issue from an investment perspective,” agreed Will Rohleder, as did Dr Sally Ann Forsyth OBE: “We're seeing the investors and the companies themselves saying we want to be as green as possible.”
Pictured: GSK Carbon Neutral Lab in Nottingham Delivered by Morgan Sindall, AECOM, FDG, Northcroft and Gleeds
Edward Joslin said Kadans worked with the same reality.
“Our tenants who would not go into our portfolio unless we were able to achieve certain sustainability targets. One added challenge is the fact that a lot of our buildings are multi-let. With the overall building everything runs through an efficient BMS system, which helps in terms of control.”
Tracy D’Souza, Building Engineering Science Sector lead at AECOM and specialist on energy use in life science buildings, was asked how much progress is being made in carbon reduction.
There are great movements by organisations which have really embedded low carbon principles. But there’s a need for others to set strategies and targets and implement a carbon reduction plan. Where are they now and where do they need to be in 2030, 2040, 2050? We are supporting our clients on their journey, so it’s really about embedding that objective into everything we do. It means having a deep look at our buildings and our assets and asking, how can we reduce our energy consumption? What energy monitoring data is available across client portfolios and how is the data being analysed? We need the data to create benchmarks, which are lacking in the life sciences sector. Those benchmarks can then be applied to future projects to monitor and measure improvements being made.
Given that life science is so energy intensive, she said lowering carbon required looking at the challenge from all angles. “Engineers, Architects and Contractors need to understand the embodied carbon and operational carbon in design and construction and track it from project inception to completion. Where 80% of our building stock is built, it’s looking at repurposing where possible and retrofitting.
It’s also worth considering the scientists, and what they're doing inside the labs – we need to challenge the brief and the processes that affect the ventilation and environmental control, which are the biggest energy consumers within a lab. We can do things differently. One of the approaches we took with GSK and University of Nottingham’s Centre for Sustainable Chemistry was to say, let's bring all of the stakeholders into this piece. Right from the outset. And let's bring everybody along this journey with us, so that every single decision was about embedding low carbon principles into the design and operation of the building, resulting in the UK’s first carbon neutral laboratory. It’s still a challenge that not all clients embrace so readily.
Tracy talked about the value of post occupancy evaluations and the challenge of securing buy in from occupiers and developers so that designers don't just finish a project and walk away.
Pivotal to understanding the operational energy, means coming back in and exploring, actually does this building perform in the way that we designed it, and is it being used in the way that it was modelled? When we look at modelling buildings there’s usually a huge performance gap. Our post occupancy evaluation of SBCat identified issues with commissioning and controls which were then able to be rectified. So having that post occupancy evaluation is key to unlocking opportunities to reduce energy consumption in practice.
The importance of longevity was stressed by Emily Slupek. “It often just gets swept aside, but the buildings that we are creating now need to have the inherent flexibility and quality so that they aren't going to be knocked down in a decade - because all the carbon saving that we make in that first building is completely undone if it gets flattened.”
SPECS, University of Hertfordshire
David Rowsell echoed the point: “During the design stage developers and end users need to focus on flexibility to make sure that buildings are fit for the future.”
He explained that the University of Hertfordshire’s estates team, led by Ian Grimes, had considered ‘retrofit in the future’ as a factor in the creation of the new laboratory building for the School of Physics, Engineering and Computer Science (SPECS) at the University of Hertfordshire.
Morgan Sindall Construction is delivering the project, which will complete in 2024. “The university has allowed for future use provision and hopefully others are doing the same.”
Advances in technology that allow building use to be remotely monitored are also important – especially if end-users and customers have an appetite for that data.
“The capability is there to see how the building is really performing operationally in terms of its energy usage, and then to take those lessons into future design,” said David Rowsell.
Tracy D’Souza of AECOM endorsed the point. “It's showcasing what's worked and what hasn't, seeing which innovations make a difference. We work with our professional body, the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers and other industry bodies to really explain what we've done and our learning from case studies in the different sectors.”
The panel was asked about evidence of practical progress towards lower carbon outcomes.
Brian Brooks, a design lead at Morgan Sindall Construction, said: “There are better tools available now. We're able to make informed decisions during the design process on the types of materials we're using, what impact they will have on the embodied carbon in the building.”
He cited CarboniCa, a tool Morgan Sindall Construction itself developed. It measures whole life carbon emissions, ensuring potential carbon outputs can be managed and reduced during the design, construction and entire building lifecycle.
Morgan Sindall are using CarboniCa to guide carbon calculation and design decisions at the £35m Life Science development for the Howard Group in Sawston, Cambridgeshire.
Supply chains are also stepping up to the mark and offering alternative materials and products that that will help with lowering both the embodied and operational carbon rate in a building,” added Brian Brooks. “Obviously, that is a big challenge with energy intensive life science buildings, and whilst there's quite an advance in terms of more efficient photovoltaic panels, there’s more to come from ground and air source heat pumps and other types of low energy systems.
Energy performance has long been a key metric for public sector building, said Ian Grimes, but he felt there was a danger of too much focus being placed on achieving an initial low EPC or an outstanding BREEAM rating, over the actual operational carbon in use.
“How is it going to be used? When it's going to be used? These are key considerations.”
He also spoke up for the idea of single source contractors. “Let's start with the design team and keep that same design team throughout the process from conception to completion.
I know of projects that have had three or four different design teams from various consultants and contractors on the scheme.” He also felt removing barriers in tendering could be a massive step forward.
The public sector has got to get better at procurement, and it all comes back to trust. It's trust in the industry.
Energy costs have also become a more of a factor. “Many businesses starting out in cash hungry life science have limited funds,” said Dr Sally Ann Forsyth OBE. “So we're all over this issue for them from a cost perspective.”
Policy disconnects are sometimes considered to be a hurdle to greener development. Emily Slupek felt that might be case with a big push towards BREEAM Excellent.
“It almost seems to be a prerequisite for planning, but the certification doesn't necessarily breed the best outcome.
If you actually look at what you want to get out of the process you’ve got to consider post occupancy evaluation if you want to achieve proper change.
There should be more of a drive to achieve the outcomes. What you do at the design phase is actually going to affect the the carbon impact.
From a developer and landlord’s perspective, they want to be able to hold a piece of paper up and say ‘Hey, occupiers, we've achieved this standard’.
But at the moment it's a little bit disheartening in a lab building because you can't really achieve an ‘Outstanding’ because all of the benchmarks are set to office buildings. It's difficult to get an Embodied Carbon A in a lab building, so you're stuck at C being a great outcome.
Historically, the sustainable technologies have often been the first thing to be value engineered out of a scheme, said Annabel Lait.
“In the absence of a clear mandate on what we have to deliver, that becomes a problem. It takes an enlightened client to stipulate an absolute commitment and to show that they are aware of any cost implications.”
Ian Grimes said the industry still lacks focus on life cycle costing. “There is a detailed focus on capital, and not enough attention to life time revenue costs."
In terms of lower carbon operations, Dan Mason floated the provocative idea of the industry moving to shift systems. “The vast majority of facilities are designed for a 40-hour working week. It’s obviously different in manufacturing when it's 24/7.”
He pointed out the during the pandemic, when social distancing reduced lab capacity, the industry did explore operating in shifts.
“I know it's probably not going to be very palatable, but it is that something that really forward thinking biotechs could explore.”