Guidance Document Feedback Management Section
HE Feedback - Scope of the
Management BRE G scheme
Ease of use Aesthetics Achievability
Technical Content BRE G COMMENTS
Is there any
Did you find the How could the How could the Is the technical
function area we
Contributor’s guidance layout / content appearance of content and Were any of the credits totally unachievable for the assessed Is there any other issue, specific to the higher education section, that should be
would need to add / Could the technical content of any credits be improved?
Details documents user- be more user- the guidance coverage of credits building? addressed in this section and that we have not addressed?
alter in the list
friendly? friendly? be improved? appropriate?
College We will look into
I know this is
Falmouth it, however this
primarily for use
Director of is technical
Estates & guidance and we
Facilities have received
could some Appears
Management feedback in the Man 9 – I agree that some buildings on campus might have restrictions on public access
pictorial comprehensive, Technical content →
Tremough, Yes, past expressing OK imposed through for example, specific access restrictions imposed by licensing
representation of nothing to add at this generally very good. See comment below
Penryn, concern arrangements, e.g. Home Office licensing of biological facilities.
each section point.
Cornwall, TR10 because of cost
9EZ and ink waste
01326 213701 when having to
01326 254120 print colour
Clive Wilson Mandatory levels are the
University of same across all non -
Bradford domestic BREEAM schemes.
I think the
Director of They have been introduced
evidence schedule ←
Estates Man 1 item 8 add HEEPI LABS 21 (an to references at the end of the for the first time this year,
should go under Where there is a risk connected to
Richmond See comment section) therefore our intention is to
the credits Man 7 seems unfair as many buildings in HE contain (for sole use) the activities carried out in the
Road Bradford, above re: colour. To encourage the development/use of the Building User Guide a credit require for now only very See previous – the amount, type and activates carried out in HE cover almost all types
description to Colour would areas you would not want the community to go as they may be buildings (either to people,
West Yorks Yes, No I do not think so Yes should be given to VG as this is an over looked area and would strengthen basic, 'easy' credits to be of building need, whether that is for research, learning, social (eg. students Union) or
show what it will be help hazards or activities which are sensitive taking place. This type of property, information) this credit
01274 233110 Will look into the request for one. achieved. We will consider community engagement
looked at. building is by its nature excluded from these credits will be filtered out from the
01274 235450 formatting. Man 9 1c HEEPI reviewing them next year,
Then the detail can assessment and the weighting of
r.c.wilson@bra after feedback from
be crosschecked the remaining credits recalculated.
dford.ac.uk assessors; meanwhile we will
4th September take a note of your
Re: references, agreed.
Add researchers and staff (e.g. admin and maintenance) to the list of
‘Appropriate Stakeholders (Compliance Notes Table)
Service Yes (once familiar
N/A N/A No Yes Man 7 Agreed No
74 Trumpington with the layout)
Add Health & Safety requirements to the list of reasons why a building
cannot be open to the public (Compliance Notes Table)
Some more of the
Sean Woulfe ‘bubbles’ would be
We will look into
Kingston useful, particularly • I am unsure as to the achievability of providing, under MAN 4 – MAN 4 - All technical, i.e. FM, and
University explaining the way Building User Guide - ‘information relevant to the tenant / non-technical users should be able
Design and the table under • On the list of credits I occupants and non-technical building manager on the operation to use it, including students and
Programme point 1 of am not clear on the and environmental performance of the building’. Who do you see staff if the devices specified in the
The manual is
Manager ‘compliance distinction between as the customer for this guide? Staff? Students? The idea is a very building are to be occupant
The appearance fully explained in
River House, requirements’ ‘Specific HE criteria good one but we need to be very clear as to who the guide is controlled. It often happens that
is fine. I found it BREEAM
53-57 High translates into a or altered requirement aimed at. Clearly you don’t mean maintenance staff but if I use the devices such as presence
clear. The page training courses,
Street, total number of to a common credit’ example of a building that is predominantly centrally programmed detectors or temperature controls
numbering so it shouldn't be I’m afraid I couldn’t • On MAN 1 Commissioning; there is no mention of high containment
Kingston Upon points under point and ‘HE specific teaching rooms, who would the customer be in this instance? cannot be overriden because of MAN 7 Shared Facilities, while a good idea will have many restrictions.
In general yes. needs attention – a problem for find the list to which laboratories, which have very specific commissioning and validation Agreed
Thames, KT1 3. credit’. Surely it’s • It seems to me that Man 6 Consultation is not written with HE users ignoring how to do so. I think that a high proportion of applicants will be looking for an exemption on this one.
it is allegedly a 5 assessors to you refer. requirements.
1LQ Also, the final either a He specific customers in mind. Point B under ‘first credit’ for example, talks
page document understand the
D 020 8417 sentence credit, or an altered about a community still potentially under construction? Also, the MAN 6 - following feedback, we will
but there is no way points are
3618 beginning ‘The requirement to a consultation list under point 2 is extremely prescriptive. How do review this credit following more
page 5. calculated.
F 020 8417 calculator common credit? you measure building user productivity in any meaningful way? closely the standard practice of
However, if you
3144 considers….’ Apologies if I am Also, the requirement to consult on good and bad examples of consultation in HE buildings.
think there is a
s.woulfe@kings Under the heading missing something. buildings of the same type is not clear. This is the credit I found
mistake in there,
ton.ac.uk ’The Mat 1 the least clear. →
please let us
13.09.2008 calculator’ is MAN 7 - see comments above.
missing a word I
MAN 7 - Agreed, however the
consultation will need to include
representative of local residents,
MAN 1 – No comment at this time businesses, LA, etc. as per other MAN 7 – Credit 1.2. The ‘community’ of a “university” is very different from a school
MAN 2 – No comment at this time BREEAM schemes. community often because of the scale of operations. Communities may often be various
MAN 3 – Credit 3d. May wish to add further best practise policies with internal organisations rather than necessarily external.
respect to sound pollution. Contractor will often check and monitor sound MAN 8 - we would accept Compliance should be applicable if facilities are used to benefit wider community users
levels throughout the project to reduce impact on rest of operational strategies elaborated for a whole such as businesses and research.
campus. campus, rather than at the MAN 8 - Professional involvement is usually at a strategic level where University
MAN 4 – No comment at this time MAN 3 - This credit is a individual building level, provided Strategic Development seeks support from external independent advisors. Strategies,
FACILITIES Use of coloured
MAN 5 – No comment at this time standard credit for all that they are compliant with our developed at a high level, are often implemented university wide and would be
No comment at this MAN 6 – Credit 2. Whilst DQI has been bespoke for schools, it is only BREEAM non domestic requirements, i.e. they involve an incorporated into brief/specifications at a very early stage of project. Professional
EXION 27, might assist, but See comment
stage. We haven’t available in its generic form for other buildings. DQI does not generally schemes. We will take a note ALO or other trained officer. external involvement may not be necessary at a project level if earlier involvement can be
CROWHURST Yes generally the No comment above re: colour. Yes
seen the full scoping consider ‘Environmental Impact’ as a priority, it merely asks stakeholders, of this and consider inclusion evidenced at a strategic level.
ROAD, layout is
yet in advance, to apportion priorities and thus does not necessarily across all schemes. MAN 9 - Agreed MAN 9 – Recognition that some of this information listed may be deemed commercially
BRIGHTON, considered user-
encourage environmental responsibility. Until such time as DQI has been sensitive.
BN1 8AF friendly.
developed for HE sector (presumably in consultation with BRE) it would be MAN 6 - Agreed MAN 10 - This credit is not
01273 - 643366
preferable to leave DQI out of the criteria/credit system and simply ask for prescriptive, and any feature, MAN 10 - Significantly, green roofs should, in our view, achieve some credit. The
01273 - 643149
evidence of independent consultation methods. including green roofs, used as a incorporation of green roofs for environmental benefit restricts the ability to harvest and
Might suggest that this is changed to details of independent consultation learning resource would do. recycle rainwater meaning a “double whammy” of loss of points for recycling water and no credits for green roofs.
agency. This could also be an internal agency within a University’s However, the green roof issue
corporate services (who would be deemed independent of the respective user/stakeholder group). (connected to the rainwater credit) MAN 11 – No comment at this time.
has been already flagged up, so
we will review it. Green Roof should MAN 12 – No comment at this time.
also help gaining credits under the
Land use and Ecology section.
Preston Yes, reasonably. The
Institution BREEAM 2008
atelier ten ltd manuals are clearer Man 6 – Consultation
Position than the Compliance note re: appropriate stakeholders: It is not clear whether the
BREEAM 2006 versions, but note is saying only ex-students are to be consulted.
Assessor there is still some Representatives of current students should also be consulted, e.g. the MAN 6 - Agreed - also see
Man 9 – Publication of building information
Address 19 inconsistency about students’ union of the institution, the union society/societies relevant to comments above
Perseverance where the function of the building, staff-student committee members, the
· HEEPI, specifically the Green Gown Awards pages;
Works information is NUS? MAN 7 - We consider typical
· The BRE site that will be used for BREEAM Outstanding case
38 Kingsland provided, e.g. Highlight key Man 7 – Shared facilities shared facilities halls,
Road definitions are compliance The compliance note regarding exempted buildings could be worded conference facilities, sports
· The Association of University Leaders for a Sustainable Future
London sometimes provided requirements so better, e.g. “Buildings that for safety, security or confidentiality reasons facilities. Retail facilities will
The Scope section MAN 9 - Agreed (ULSF);
E2 8DD in the they stand out cannot be opened to the public/community may be exempted from not count as such. Security
Will look into it. has not been · People & Planet’s Green League;
Telephone Compliance Notes from the text. compliance with this credit.” towards people, property and
provided. MAN 10 - Agreed · Student union websites.
Number 020 table, sometimes in The target figures What does the security exemption refer to: security of staff and information contained in the
Man 10 – Development as a learning resource
7749 5950 the Additional can be hard to find students, that of university property, or national security (e.g. nuclear building, but also security of
Presumably a learning resource appropriate for an HE institution is not
Fax Information among the text. reactors, radioactive materials, microbiology labs)? the community using the
the same as one appropriate for a primary school.
E-mail Address section. The Credit It might be useful to define the minimum proportion of a building that facilities, when e.g. there is
Could a phrase such as this be included: “The resource should be
ian.preston@at Criteria box should be shared, and under what circumstances those who aren’t research on
appropriate to the range of expertise likely to be found among the
elierten.com sometimes has brief staff or students can use the facilities. infectious/hazardous
building’s users.” ?
Manual details of the For example, does a library that belongs to the SCONUL Access materials.
sections compliance service qualify? I.e. very restricted access to specific non-members of
reviewed requirements, which the institution.
Management, are useful, but is
Energy, sometimes a bit
Transport and vague.
HE Feedback - Guidance Document Feedback Health and Safety Section
Health and Scope of the scheme
Ease of use Aesthetics Achievability
Wellbeing Technical Content
How could the Is there any other issue,
Did you find How could the Is there any function
layout / Is the technical content Could the technical Were any of the credits totally specific to the higher education
Contributor’s the guidance BRE G appearance of the area we would need BRE G
content be and coverage of credits content of any credits unachievable for the assessed section, that should be
Details documents COMMENTS guidance be to add / alter in the COMMENTS
more user- appropriate? be improved? building? addressed in this section and
user-friendly? improved? list provided?
friendly? that we have not addressed?
London A comment is made regarding daylight and
Sustainability view out. Both these are very important,
Consultant particularly for education buildings.
Silcock Dawson & However the constraints on design and
Partners Ltd These two are building form are, in my experience, more
8 Hinde Street however the commonly influenced by wider issues and
notes for new
London W1U 3BQ I’m familiar with first thing so this credit is rarely pursued. If it is
T +44 (0)20 7535 BREEAM people would achieved then it is more by coincidence.
buildings would We will consider
1090 guidance look for. We'll
be better at the this approach.
F +44 (0)20 7535 documents so consider I therefore suggest that 2 credits are made
bottom of the
1099 this helped reviewing after available, to raise the importance of
table as they
gnash@silcockdaw feedback from compliance, and the they are stepped so
son.co.uk assessors. that , for example, if, say, 60% of the space
is adequately daylit then a credit may be
Energy awarded with 2 for 100%. Similar principle
reading of the
Health and is suggested for view out.
HE Feedback - Guidance Document Feedback Energy Section
Scope of the scheme
Energy Ease of use Aesthetics Consultation Technical Achievability
Did you find the How could the How could the Is there any function Have the relevant
Is the technical content and Were any of the credits Is there any other issue, specific to the higher education
Contributor’s guidance layout / content appearance of area we would need to issues identified in the Could the technical content of
coverage of credits BRE G COMMENTS BRE G COMMENTS totally unachievable for BRE G COMMENTS section, that should be addressed in this section and that
Details documents user- be more user- the guidance be add / alter in the list consultation process any credits be improved?
appropriate? the assessed building? we have not addressed?
friendly? friendly? improved? provided? been addressed?
When a swimming pool is
not specified, the credit
Michael Bienias Ene 1: Reduction of CO2 emissions
will be filtered out and the
University of Compliance notes - Accredited External Renewables
Cambridge The wording concerning the accreditation of external
among all the remaining
Director of Estate renewables is not clear and should be redrafted to avoid any
Management & ambiguous interpretation.
Building Service Ene 3: Sub metering
74 Trumpington Compliance notes - Relevant Function Areas
ENE 1 - What is not clear
Street Add animal accommodation?
Ene 12: Swimming Pool about this? Please
Cambridge Ene 5: Low or zero carbon technologies
Yes No Yes ventilation and heat loss - suggest alternative
CB2 1RW Compliance notes - List of recognised LZC technologies
no swimming pool. wording.
01223 337806 Add Anaerobic Digestion CHP and Air Source Heat Pumps?
01223 766486 Ene 10: Free Cooling
ENE3 - Agreed
email@example.com. Credit Criteria
ac.uk Consider increasing the number of Credits Available in view of
ENE 5 - Air source heat
Energy, Materials and the possibility of combining several technologies in a single
pumps are already in the
Land Use & Ecology building (e.g. night time cooling/ thermal mass and ground
list, we will consider
11 September 2008 coupled (labyrinth) cooling).
anaerobic digestion CHP.
ENE 10 - we will consider
PMD, River House,
53-57 High St,
Thames, KT1 1LQ Ene 3, sub metering. Should ‘high containment suites within
020 8417 3618 Yes No No laboratories’ be added to the list of relevant function areas /
020 8417 3144 departments?
Land Use and
6th October 2008
ENE 11 refers to the requirement
of a study but then describes
requirements of following a GPG.
Greg Nash This is confusing.
London Comments are made in the free-
Sustainability cooling section requiring
Consultant clarification of technical definition One of the issues commented upon is that of energy intensive
Notes’ are pretty
Silcock Dawson & of free-cooling. equipment. It would seem that the requirements of research
Partners Ltd ← over-rides any aspirations for sustainability and low emissions
standard notes for
8 Hinde Street There appears to be many ENE 11 - this credit will and little regard is paid to them. Therefore it is rare for
London W1U 3BQ I’m familiar with prescriptive lists for compliance undergo considerable alternatives or the opportunity for any imagination to be applied
T +44 (0)20 7535 BREEAM guidance which restricts innovation and restructuring, and will be to improve the equipment or its usage.
buildings would be
1090 documents so this slows progress as solutions will possibly split in a number The dilemma is that if this is included in the building and
better at the bottom
F +44 (0)20 7535 helped be installed to achieve the Credit of credits. Will analyse it services design in order to be influenced by the BREEAM the
of the table as they
1099 as opposed to being the best again on the Lab expert energy use of that building becomes unfairly high to achieve
are almost always
gnash@silcockdaws possible solution. I would meeting in November. other credits. If it is not incorporated the opportunity to improve
on.co.uk suggest that in some instances, the sustainable credentials is lost.
for example, fume cupboard
reading of the table
Energy energy performance, that a
Health and Wellbeing baseline performance is set for a
06.10.08 typical installation and credits
awarded for improvements on
this baseline, however met. This
will allow innovation and progress.
I am not sure there is any
Clive Wilson truly renewable energy
This is purely an
University of Bradford I think the evidence tariffs available – but I do
Yes, apart from the issues of if aspirational level credit, we
Director of Estates schedule should go think that buying “green”
you build an energy efficient are aware of the current
Richmond Road under the credits When a lift or swimming pool is Buildings which do not require ← power should at least
low rise building you lose absense of such a
Bradford, West Yorks description to show not specified, the credit will be lifts, cooling or heating (because Such buildings will obtain credits receive some credit – this
credits for not having energy service. It would apply to
01274 233110 Yes what it will be Colour would help No I do not think so filtered out and the weighting they are so thermally efficient) indirectly under several issues, should be over a Page 11 could also refer to Labs21 – HEEPI.
efficient boilers, cooling or lifts. the assessed building,
01274 235450 looked at. redistributed among the should be rewarded more than from Reduction of CO2 stipulated timeframe
You also lose credits for the new build or
r.c.wilson@bradford. Then the detail can remaining issues. energy efficient alternatives. emissions to thermal comfort. E5, Alternative credit –
swimming pool issues. This refurbishment.
ac.uk be crosschecked does this apply just to the
cannot be right.
3rd September 2008 new build or must it be for
the whole campus?
The two available credits, and
the single credit available
Name Ian Preston 2008 manuals are
Institution atelier ten clearer than the
Ene 11, are an insignificant
ltd 2006 versions, but
part of the total BREEAM
Position BREEAM there is still some
Assessor inconsistency about
considering the impact of
Address 19 where
these issues, particularly if a
Perseverance Works information is
38 Kingsland Road provided, e.g. The standard schemes are more
Highlight key includes a lot of lab space.
London definitions are Ene xx – Energy Efficient similar under BREEAM 2008 than
compliance There should be a way of
E2 8DD sometimes Laboratories previously, which means greater
requirements so weighting these ←
Telephone Number provided in the The Credit aim text is the comparability between
they stand out from The Scope section has issues more heavily, e.g. the Labs credits will be
020 7749 5950 Compliance Notes same as credit Ene 11. It assessments N/a
the text. not been provided. according to the proportion of rediscussed in the November
Fax table, sometimes in should refer to labs in of different building types, but I
The target figures the building’s expert meeting
E-mail Address the Additional general, not just fume don’t think this is the best way to
can be hard to find total floor area that comprises
ian.preston@atelierte Information cupboards. assess the impacts of each
among the text. laboratories.
n.com section. The Credit building type individually.
I would prefer an approach
Manual sections Criteria box
similar in principle to BREEAM
reviewed sometimes has
Management, brief details of the
where a large number of
Energy, Transport compliance
Energy credits were available
and Pollution requirements,
Date September which are useful,
functions such as cold storage,
2008 but is sometimes a
catering areas and laundry
ENE 2 - Agreed
ENE 3 - we will encourage Ene2 (compliance notes): It should not be regarded as
both sub-metering at a acceptable for Labs to have power and lighting sub-metered
departmental scale together. User power is significant in Labs and should be
Ene1 requirement to apply (although may consider separately assessed from normal building loads. A similar
assessment to whole of other way of submetering, argument can also possibly be made for workshops in some
→ extended buildings could given that departments cases.
ENE 1 will be calculated only on count heavily against small may change overtime) and Ene 3 (compliance requirements): Tenanted areas in HE are
Street Ene11 (compliance notes): fume
the assessed building, not the extensions to large at tenant level when rare and higher priority should be given to sub-metering along
Cambridge → cupboard face velocity on 5th line
Yes whole existing area. buildings. appropriate. Labs with high departmental lines.
CB2 1RW Agreed should read ’… 0.5m/s may not
Refurbishment benchmark scale consuming pieces of Labs should be monitored for separate power and lighting and
01223 766938 be feasible.’
will apply to the building (Doesn’t ‘Refurbishment equipment will be for specific items of high energy use equipment.
assessed if it is a refurbishment. benchmark scale’ only separately submetered. Ene 7: Do cold room criteria apply to Lab cold rooms used for
apply to housing?) scientific purposes? (Consider also Controlled Environment
ENE 7 - the cold room chambers?)
credit applies to any cold Ene 10: Consider adding Earth Tubes as a suitable free cooling
7 October 2008
room in the building. Will technology (similar in nature to Air Intake Labyrinths)
ENE 10 - will consider
In addition to the items on fume cupboard design Lab air control
in respect of VAV sash control, 2-position control, lab pressure
Credit aim: Refers only to control, etc. should be considered. (Low face velocity is already
fume cupboards systems. covered by Ene 11 but should be mentioned as relevant to the
There are various other → integrated solution).
systems in Labs that have Please see comment Design of ductwork systems can be important in determining
Please see comment above above control methodology – e.g. individual extract versus manifolded
an influence on energy
consumption. systems, local vs. central control, etc. type of fume cupboard
C. Lawrence can also influence design - e.g. bypass type vs. face control.
The aim should also refer
to ‘fume cupboards and
Cambridge Under ‘Other issues’:
associated make up air
M&E Services Item k should read ‘Re-use of waste water streams from water
systems’ (it is the make up
Project Manager treatment and purification plant’
air where the energy
savings will be realised)
Consideration should also
Cambridge Not entirely Needs possible
Energy efficient Laboratories section Yes be given to Microbiological
CB2 1RW development
Safety Cabinets, IVCs and Consider compliance of Lab rooms without fume cupboards or
general Home Office type low density of fume cupboards.
standards which also
affect energy use. Compliance notes:
Note re compliance notes: The data from the HEEPI meeting held in Warwick last year
Fume cupboards alone do show that there is a very wide spectrum of building types and
7 October 2008
not define a laboratory. variations in energy use. The table presented does not give an
There are some types of adequate breakdown of the various types and does not
labs without fume acknowledge the extent of uses within a particular building. The
cupboards or low benchmarks are therefore meaningless unless they are
densities of fume weighted to allow for the proportion of each building that put to
cupboards– e.g. physics specific uses. It is not possible to say that a building is
‘Biomedical’ or ‘Physical’ science as a category without clarifying
what proportion is general lab space, bio-facility, or equipment
rooms. This section needs to be much more detailed to allow a
fair distinction between different types of use.
Like the historic building ENE 5 - credit for green ENE 5 - will consider it
section, also fume energy supplier – couldn’t
cupboards, pools, free see more detail on this – this ENE 7 - the credit applies to
cooling. Overall excellent. should be a long term any cold storage in the
arrangement (ten years building, will reword if
plus), not part of the normal necessary
plus), not part of the normal necessary
tendering, this will not give
Martin Wiles additionality otherwise and
Energy and compared to actually having
Environmental renewables on site is far to
1-9 Old Park Hill
Bristol ENE 7 – second credit notes
BS2 8BB cold food storage – for many
tel. 01179288034 HE institutions far more cold
firstname.lastname@example.org. storage is for research and
uk teaching needs than for
food. Suggest the food bit is
taken out as it may allow
designers to ignore it, i.e.
this credit is for food storage
HE Feedback - Guidance Document Feedback Scope of the Transport Section
Transport Ease of use Aesthetics scheme Technical Content Achievability
Is there any
Did you find the How could the How could the
function area we Is the technical content and Were any of the credits totally Is there any other issue, specific to the higher education
Contributor’s guidance layout / content be appearance of the BRE G
would need to add coverage of credits Could the technical content of any credits be improved? BRE G COMMENTS unachievable for the assessed BRE G COMMENTS section, that should be addressed in this section and that
Details documents user- more user- guidance be COMMENTS
/ alter in the list appropriate? building? we have not addressed?
friendly? friendly? improved?
Bus services are provided by commercial
Park and Ride can
Compromises are necessary organisations and therefore are often
be added in the
where developable land is at a beyond the control of the organisation.
travel plan credit.
premium and limited funding To lose credit because an operator is
(particularly where funding is ← unwilling to provide levels of service the
provided from the public purse) is A travel plan written for the whole University deems necessary seems unfair
BREEAM tries to
used for refurbishment or new campus will be acceptable, provided it and not all HE establishments can
Dawn Dewar buildings. On a compact campus is compliant with the credit provide their own services. ←
University of East such as UEA it is relatively easy to requirements. Cyclist facilities:
Park & Ride is not social advantages of
Anglia gain credits for proximity to Yes although in respect of Tra 5 Travel Plan, the credit criteria states “a Cyclist Facilities BREEAM strives constantly to have
featured and many location, although
Transport Co- amenities, transport nodes etc. travel plan has been developed and tailored to the specific needs of the → Compliant Showers & Drying Rooms the best possible facilities, and this
Improved section organisations rely on some of the issues
ordinator however our edge of city location, building users”. The UEA Travel Plan is site specific not building Like for other BREEAM schemes, and The number of cycle parking spaces includes having an adequate
Overall yes. The titles and perhaps this arrangement to are in some cases Car Parking
University of East staff catchment area and listed specific, would there be a requirement to produce a Plan for each as said before, some of the issues should not determine the number of number of showers associated to
consistency of the colour coding of the reduce on-site not dependant on the Planning Guidance 13 (PPG 13) is used to determine car
Anglia Norwich building status along with tight building? On a compact campus such as UEA this feels somewhat may not be entirely dependant on the showers & drying rooms available. The other cyclist facilities. This will
layout helps the tables to indicate See previous parking and local institution. We have parking spaces and this may conflict with BREEAM
NR4 7TJ budgets make meeting the unnecessary. Indeed it is likely each building specific plan would be a institutions, however considering these use of the building and number of encourage people to travel by bike.
reader to move easily which compliance network congestion. discussed, during requirements. PPG13 requires only 1 space to 15 students.
01603 593754 criterion for some aspects difficult. replication of previous plans and therefore the value would diminish. issues early would increase the occupants should be taken into account Said that, we will review the number
between sections. requirement & This could be the expert meeting,
It would be disappointing lose Comment (VC3) the percentage of 15% is reasonable as a minimum possibility of agreement with the bus when determining number of cycle of showers, lockers and cycle racks
guidance notes. included under the relaxation of
email@example.com. credits for being unable to meet requirement. companies or the LA, in addition let's parking spaces and facilities. It is also as a consequence of feedback.
“public transport” or some of these
uk compliance requirements for a not forget the aim of the credit: a good our experience that shower are under
“car parking”. criteria to try and
particular building where the site public transport network reduces the utilised. A survey at UEA showed the →
recognise the most
as a whole demonstrates the need to use private cars and therefore priority for cyclists was: covered parking, Car parking: OK, we will review this.
highest standards of creating an has a huge impact on the environment. locked parking – showers were 5th on the
environment which supports and list for staff and 9th on the list for
encourages use of sustainable students. Where budget and internal
modes and where its users are space are limited good cycle parking
from edge of
central to determining the facilities facilities should out weigh the need to
they require. provide showers at this level.
than the building
TRA1 - Please see other comments on
the subject in this document.
Typical day is a term day, obviously if
Wednesday is an exception, that day
TRA 1 compliance requirements - The definition of students “living on is not going to be taken as a measure
campus” does not reflect what happens as many student halls may of occupancy.
Clive Wilson boarder the campus and to all intense and purpose be on campus but
University of this statement would not reflect this. I would therefore have an issue TRA2 - agreed
Bradford with this section.
I think the evidence
Director of Estates TRA1 Typical day – most universities have Wednesday afternoon TRA3 - visitors will be able to use the
schedule should go
Richmond Road designated for sport and no teaching takes place. facilities but in terms odf calculations,
under the credits
Bradford, West TRA2 1,amenities could also include sports provision and medical only students and staff are going to be
description to show
Yorks facilities/doctors practice. taken into consideration.
Yes, what it will be Colour would help No I do not think so See next Achievable No
01274 233110 TRA3 credit one should also include visitors
01274 235450 TRA4 Cycle lanes onto the campus can not be controlled by the TRA4 - only the construction zone will
Then the detail can
r.c.wilson@bradfo university. be affected.
rd.ac.uk Credits should be available for dedicated parking spaces for electric
4th September cars. Additional credits if they are provided by PV cells to charge the Parking spaces for electric cars can
2008 car whilst parked. be an item in individual universities'
Demonstration of added ease for DDA over and above the legal travel plan.
requirement should receive additional credits
DDA are regulatory requirements,
therefore not included in BREEAM,
also because not strictly environmnetal
issues. Other tools can be used to
improve DDA arrangements other than
Cambridge Tra 2
Director of Estate It is unlikely that many buildings will fall within 500m of a leisure / sports
Management & centre - this requirement should be removed or the distance extended
There will be a choice of items.
Building Service (Compliance Notes Table)
74 Trumpington Tra 3
Please see considerations on showers
Street, Yes (once familiar The number of compliant showers (1 shower per 10 cycle spaces) is
N/A N/A No Yes in other comments. No
Cambridge, CB2 with the layout) higher than necessary to meet likely demand given the mostly short
The size has been changed across all
1RW cycle journeys that the majority of students are likely to take.
schemes and it's the same you see in
01223 37806 (Compliance Notes Table)
01223 766486 Why is the size of lockers higher for HE than that required normally for
firstname.lastname@example.org Offices? (Compliance Notes Table)
29 August 2008
←TRA4 - related to construction
• For TRA 4 – Pedestrian and Cyclist TRA5 - The same document as the
Some more of the
Safety’ it seems to me that the provision rest of the campus would be fine so
of cycle lanes is more a strategic issue long as it fulfil all requirements set
‘bubbles’ would be
←Suburban location may have a for a campus and is often not associated in the manual.
Sean Woulfe useful, particularly
transport situation which is different with any single development. This is
Kingston explaining the way
TRA8 - when there are central • I have some concerns about some aspects related to the
from the two extremes of city centre going to make this credit irrelevant to
University the table under
facilities fulfilling the scope of the achievability of the requirements of TRA 3 – Cyclists facilities for
and rural, the former being likely to many applications.
Design and point 1 of
credit this would be acceptable. a HE environment. Firstly, I assume the text associated with
have really good and frequent • Likewise TRA 5 – Travel Plan is often a
Programme ‘compliance credit 2 should say ‘building user use’ rather than ‘staff use’?
The appearance is transport services, the latter, on the strategic issue associated with a campus
Manager requirements’ There is a general point associated with this credit. In a
fine. I found it clear. opposite, having very scarse public / a number of campuses. The compliance →
River House, 53- translates into a On page 13, TRA 3 – Cyclists facilities reference is made to ‘city university campus environment, many students will cycle, but
The page numbering I’m afraid I couldn’t transport links. requirements try to relate the travel plan We are going to reset the cycle
57 High Street, total number of centre locations’ and ‘rural locations’. What about suburban locations? will not expect to use changing facilities / lockers. I think it is
In general yes. needs attention – it is find the list to which In these two cases we recognise that to a particular development. If an existing racks numbering looking at a lower
Kingston Upon points under point Surely the distinction should be between ‘rural’ and ‘non-rural’ necessary to think about different criteria for staff and students
allegedly a 5 page you refer. our requirements can be relaxed over-arching travel plan exists, and is percentage of racks than 15% (and
Thames, KT1 1LQ 3. locations? otherwise this credit will become too onerous.
document but there because in the first instance, the public regularly revisited, would another consequentely of showers/lockers).
D 020 8417 3618 Also, the final • TRA 6 – Maximum Car-Parking Capacity has been written in
is no page 5. transport will be so reliable that people document be required? This seems We still believe all facilities should
F 020 8417 3144 sentence beginning the recognition that most developments happen on a campus
will anyway have an alternative to unnecessary. be accessible to everyone, students
s.woulfe@kingsto ‘The calculator that provides facilities to a number of buildings. In my view, all
private car usage, in the second case, • Likewise TRA 8 Deliveries and and staff. In any case, we will pilot it
n.ac.uk considers….’ Under credits should be constructed to allow for this possibility.
the distances will be greater than Manoeuvring is prescriptive in that it asks and decide which way to go after
13.09.2008 the heading ’The
average, making travelling by bike not for …….’space for refuse skips and the pilot.
Mat 1 calculator’ is
a feasible option in most cases. pallets’. This is a facility that is usually
missing a word I Where there are shared facilities on
think. centrally provided on a campus, as is
goods in / deliveries. Does one loose the campus, these will count towards
credit in this instance, ie where these the achievement of the credit,
facilities can’t be associated with a provided they are compliant with our
particular development? requirements.
TRA 2 - BREEAM is an assessment
TRA 2 – Again, the measure of 500m distance to amenities can
done on individual buildings, and
be at odds with the way campuses work in that the facilities may
although we are trying and
be available within the campus but not necessarily within 500m
accommodate any difference that
of the assessed building.
comes from buildings using
TRA 3 – Compliant cycle storage spaces. We are of the view
common campus facilities, we still
that 15% is too high. The nature of the way universities are
Assessment should take account of the have to concentrate on the building
used by staff and students suggests to us that even if 11% of
wider availability of facilities in adjacent assessed. We are expanding the list
see above. staff and students cycle to the campuses, they will not all be
buildings across a campus. Recognition of items that should be within easy
seeking to park their bikes on site at the same time. There
NEIL should be given to the way staff, students reach of the building, but facilities
TRA 1 - Agreed needs to be a realism to avoid creating cycle storage that is
HUMPHREYS and visitors use a university campus for like a food outlet would be expected
UNIVERSITY OF several different purposes. to be found in almost any building
Assessment of cycle storage should be considered “in the
BRIGHTON Specifically anyway, as almost no-one would be
round” taking account of other and existing cycle storage
DEPUTY TRA1 - Public transport generally willing to walk more than 500m to
DIRECTOR OF services university campuses rather than buy a sandwich.
Compliant facilities need to available to building users, but not
ESTATE & individual buildings on that campus. The We plan to leave the credit as it
necessarily within the assessed building. It is reasonable that
FACILITIES Use of coloured proposal is that the accessibility stands at the moment and pilot it to
the assessment considers compliant facilities in adjacent
MANAGEMENT headings/sections No comment at this calculator will measure from the main verify its suitability.
EXION 27, might assist, but stage. We haven’t entrance of the assessed building but this
Yes No comment Yes See below
CROWHURST generally the layout seen the full scoping doesn’t fully recognise that university TRA 3 - see above.
ROAD, is considered user- yet buildings will rarely be used in isolation
BRIGHTON, BN1 friendly. with staff, students and visitors routinely
8AF accessing several buildings for different
01273 - 643366 purposes in one visit. Although it may be
01273 - 643149 more difficult to specifically measure, the
Compliant drying facilities is not a
n.humphreys@bri campus the building is located on and
compulsory choice and it may be
ghton.ac.uk how the campus operates in respect of
feasible for some institutions. Compliant drying facilities for specifically wet clothes can
9 September 2008 use of the site should be a consideration
We have reduced the % of cycling present security implications within a university environment and
in the way the accessibility measure is
facilities, this will in turn reduce the we suggest that this should be removed.
arrived at rather than simply assessing
number of showers. Cycle racks located within 50/100m of the assessed building
the building in isolation.
We say the majority of cycle racks entrance does not take account of the way buildings on campus
should be within 100/50m, we are used.
believe this is an acceptable target, Proportions for numbers of compliant showers seems too high
and again we will pilot it and verify
how achievable is it. TRA 5 – Recognition that Travel Plans will be generally campus-
wide rather than on an individual building basis
TRA 5 and 7- agreed, but the
shared facilities would need to TRA 7 – Again, recognition that this is a campus wide issue
comply with our requirements set by rather than individual building.
TRA1 - After discussion with the
expert group, we decided to set two
Tra 3 – Cyclist facilities
separate targets for '25% or more
The reasonableness of the percentage depends how building
students living on campus or within
Name Ian Preston users are
Yes, reasonably. The 1km radius' and where 'less than 25% Occupancy will be estimated
Institution atelier defined. The existing definition doesn’t seem adequate to cover
BREEAM 2008 of students lives on campus or within a looking at number of staff and
ten ltd HE.
manuals are clearer km radius from it'. It will apply to all students present in the building at
Position BREEAM Tra 1 – Provision of public transport Presumably it is the concurrent usage that is relevant. There is a
than the students of the university, as any one time during term, not full
Assessor It does make sense to differentiate between more and less residential reference to occupancy or NLA in the Schedule of Evidence, but
2006 versions, but presumably it would be difficult to time equivalent.
Address 19 sites, but perhaps it would be better to make more credits available to it is
there is still some predict exact numbers for the specific This has been modified in the text.
Perseverance sites with <25% of students living on campus than to those with >25%? not specified in this credit issue how the occupancy should be
inconsistency about building. The evidence needed would
Works More detail is needed to define the percentage of students living on estimated from the floor area.
where only be confirmation from
38 Kingsland campus. Presumably this means ‘on the same campus as the
information is statistics/surveys. The London PTAL
Road assessed building’?
provided, e.g. Highlight key map is not used directly, it's only the
London Some of the Does this apply to any students living on campus, or only those who
provided, e.g. Highlight key map is not used directly, it's only the
London Some of the Does this apply to any students living on campus, or only those who
definitions are compliance basis of the system used to calculate as above
E2 8DD Compliance Notes will use the assessed building?
sometimes provided requirements so the number of credits, which are going I suspect the usage of many HE buildings is more like that of
Telephone tables are too long The Scope section What evidence is needed in support of this?
in the they stand out from to be determined with a calculator. retail
Number 020 7749 for the page has not been How should the London PTAL map be used? In particular, how can the
Compliance Notes the text. TRA2 - agreed buildings than schools and offices, i.e. relatively small numbers
5950 margins, e.g. credit provided. assessor identify the location of the assessed development location on
table, sometimes in The target figures of fulltime
Fax Tra 1 on p. 6 of the the map? This last question applies to all BREEAM 2008 schemes, not
the Additional can be hard to find users but large numbers of occasional users for an hour or two
E-mail Address Transport section. just HE.
Information among the text. at
ian.preston@atelie Tra 2 – Proximity to amenities
section. The Credit a time.
rten.com This seems a strange choice of amenities to assess, particularly the
Criteria box Tra 5 – Travel plan
Manual sections post box. How many students regularly use mail?
sometimes has brief Item h. under Compliance requirement 3 has no content. A
reviewed Distance from other university amenities would be more relevant, e.g.
details of the Higher Education building is less likely to be standalone and
Management, student union, refectory, a library whose holdings are relevant to the
Energy, Transport assessed building.
requirements, which likely to be closely linked to other buildings within a wider site
are useful, but is than most other building types covered by BREEAM.
sometimes a bit The Transport section in particular, but other sections too,
address this, but I’m not sure they do at the moment. BREEAM
more similar to other BREEAM schemes than I was expecting.
I think the rest is good – Tra 3 – For city centre HE sites two tier bike racks are often TRA3 - The reason for exclusion
location to public the only way to get the number of bike racks in a shed. I think is the impossibility to lock the
transport/amenities is always BRE should reconsider making these non-compliant, unless bikes' wheels and frame at same
going to be a hit and miss they have a reason for exclusion. time.
thing and I don’t think Tra 3 – 15% target is good – when is this calculated some
BREEAM will influence this guidance on variation would be good – some departments TRA3 - further to general
decision much. That said the have large student and staff bodies but do not have them in feedback, we have decided to cut
environmental impact of all the time. So is it the total or a percentage of that total – the number of cycle racks
transport is important so we guidance on this would be good. following what other BREEAM
can’t reward this. Tra 3 – Often 15% is not possible, maybe 10% for example schemes do. The number of
Martin Wiles – with no credits on offer, there is little incentive for the students and staff for the
Energy and design team to put anything in. Could there be a percentage purpose of this calculation will be
Environmental score to recognize this – it would help to get some bike the ones present in the building
Manager facilities in every project. For me the key thing here is to have at any one time, not full time
1-9 Old Park Hill some bike facilities – this credit can contradict this. equivalent.
Bristol We want our buildings to be truly
BS2 8BB excellent, and in some instance
tel. 01179288034 Tra 3 – The bike facilities have to be covered and secure – this means having aspirational
m.r.wiles@bristol. For crowded city centre sites this also poises real challenges, credits. This is what the covered
ac.uk could there be again a lower percentage credit for providing sheds, in some cases, are.
stands, which are not secure of covered. For our city centre
sites we do offer bike sheds often not at the door of the
building, these can remain half empty where as our front door
free standing hoops are fully utilized.
HE Feedback - Guidance Document Feedback Water Section
Scope of the scheme
Water Ease of use Aesthetics Technical Content Achievability
Is the technical
Did you find the How could the layout / How could the Is there any function area we Were any of the credits Is there any other issue, specific to the higher
Contributor’s content and coverage Could the technical content of any credits be
guidance documents content be more user- appearance of the would need to add / alter in the BRE G COMMENTS totally unachievable for education section, that should be addressed in
Details of credits improved?
user-friendly? friendly? guidance be improved? list provided? the assessed building? this section and that we have not addressed?
Wat 4 – sanitary shut off – agree with the We will consider
thrust of this, but have had problems with these suggestions.
clerks of works saying they have to flush
through unused holiday areas to avoid
Martin Wiles legionella issues – creating more water use.
Energy and The issue is Urinals – when they flush
Environmental generally they atomize water. Usually on a
Manager urinal control there is a sanitation flush
1-9 Old Park Hill every 24 hours. The credit needs to
Bristol recognize this by identifying a sanitation
BS2 8BB opening for the urinal, or to specify urinals
tel. 01179288034 that don’t atomize – if there is such a thing.
ac.uk Wat 5 - this can clash with green roofs –
you don’t tend to have both – reducing the
credits you can get.
HE Feedback - Guidance Document Feedback Material Section
Scope of the scheme
Materials Ease of use Aesthetics Technical Content Achievability
Did you find the How could the How could the Is there any function Is the technical
Were any of the credits Is there any other issue, specific to the higher
guidance layout / content appearance of the area we would need to content and coverage
Contributor’s Details Could the technical content of any credits be improved? BRE G COMMENTS totally unachievable for the BRE G COMMENTS education section, that should be addressed in this
documents user- be more user- guidance be add / alter in the list of credits
assessed building? section and that we have not addressed?
friendly? friendly? improved? provided? appropriate?
Director of Estate
Yes No Yes No No
Energy, Materials and
Land Use & Ecology
11 September 2008
The category 'floor finishes' is
being ultimated in the green
guide and will be available
MAT5 - the difference we
make here is between
'reused' materials. i.e. Mat 1 - Correct, in both cases
materials that can be reused our mistake
Mat 1 – Materials specification (major building elements). The without further processing
Liz Prowse ‘Compliance requirements’ state that Floor Finishes/Coverings (Tier 1) and 'recycled' No other issues to include.
Vivid Interiors need to be rated using the Green Guide to Specification. materials, materials diverted
Environment Manager I had a look through the www.thegreenguide.org.uk, but couldn’t from waste that require Minor comments:
1-2 Berners Street, find information on floor finishes. I found tables that said this significant processing before Mat 1, page 5, ‘Compliance Notes’ – under
London, W1T 3LA Yes, they are Relevant issues have section existed, but I couldn’t find it. they can be used again (Tier Refurbishment it refers to MW1 calculator. I assume
0207 307 9528 aligned with been addressed. 3 - see definitions in All credits are relevant and
No alterations to the this is actually the Mat 1 calculator and that the name
BREEAM 2008 and No comments. Technical content and Mat 5 – Responsible Sourcing of Materials. The guidance on Additional Info section). achievement should be strived
scope of BREEAM has not been updated.
liz.prowse@vividinteri therefore familiar to credit coverage is this credit was a bit confusing, particularly in the case of Recycled aggregates, in spite for. Mat 1, page 7, ‘Using the Green Guide to Specification’
ors.com existing assessors good. products with recycled content. of the name, are considered – the “Schools” category is referred to in this section, but
In the ‘Compliance Notes’ it states recycled content products are as reused materials as they on www.thegreenguide.org.uk it is referred to as
Materials considered equivalent to materials covered by certification don't need processing to be “Education”. This needs to be made consistent.
1/10/2008 schemes that fall within tier 1 of table 1. used again.
However, table 1 also classifies recycled materials in tier 3 and
requires certification scheme/EMS evidence for the key process.
Perhaps a bit more of a detailed explanation is needed about
MAT 6 - internal walls don't
what evidence is needed for recycled content materials and how
have a big an impact as other
they are scored.
elements like external walls,
because they tend to contain
Mat 6 – Insulation. Insulation is frequently placed within internal
less insulation; a choice has
walls, but ‘internal walls’ are not a building element included
been made to analyse the
within this credit.
elements causing the biggest
Internal walls are one of the key elements affected by
refurbishments, so perhaps consideration could be given to
including them within the scope of this credit (and therefore in
the Additional information section).
University of Bradford I think the evidence
Where there are not external
Director of Estates schedule should go
areas associated to the
Richmond Road under the credits
assessed development, the
Bradford, West Yorks description to show Mat 2 – credits in an urban area for landscaping may not be
credit is awarded by default
01274 233110 Yes what it will be Colour would help No I do not think so Yes achievable in a city centre where properties feed directly onto the Achievable No
on the basis that no new
01274 235450 looked at. pavement. This disadvantages these developments.
materials are used. This is
email@example.com Then the detail can
explained in the compliance
c.uk be crosschecked
3rd September 2008
HE Feedback - Guidance Document Feedback Waste Section
Scope of the scheme
Waste Ease of use Aesthetics Technical Content Achievability
Did you find the How could the Is there any other issue, specific to the
How could the Is there any function area we Is the technical content Were any of the credits
Contributor’s guidance appearance of the Could the technical content of any higher education section, that should
layout / content be would need to add / alter in and coverage of credits BRE G COMMENTS totally unachievable for the
Details documents user- guidance be credits be improved? be addressed in this section and that
more user-friendly? the list provided? appropriate? assessed building?
friendly? improved? we have not addressed?
Director of Estates
& Facilities I know this is primarily for
Management use of trained assessors
Tremough, but could some pictorial
Penryn, Cornwall, Yes, representation of each Technical content good OK No
nothing to add at this point.
TR10 9EZ section assist in
01326 213701 promoting the key points
01326 254120 covered?.
4 September 2008
Bradford Where there are large
I think the evidence
Director of Estates amounts of deliveries, a
schedule should go Occupancy waste seems to only focus on
Richmond Road compactor would help sorting
under the credits waste from construction and refurb. It
Bradford, West WST 44 why should a compactor gain the packaging, ready to be
description to show would be good to get benchmark figures in
Yorks credits? The emphasis must be on recycled in the designed Achievable but innovation very
Yes, what it will be looked Colour would help No I do not think so here for good occupancy waste/building
01274 233110 sorting and designated recycling areas. challenging
at. user – ie designing in recycling into the
01274 235450 points.
Then the detail can building and driving down waste when in
r.c.wilson@bradfor →The Storage of Recyclable
be crosschecked use.
d.ac.uk Waste credit has been
4th September created for this purpose.
Director of Estate
Building Service Wst 5
74 Trumpington Add Anaerobic Digestion as an
Yes (once familiar
Street, Cambridge, N/A N/A No Yes alternative to composting (Whole Agreed No
with the layout)
CB2 1RW Section)
29 August 2008
WST1 - OK
Some more of the
commentary WST3 - OK
• In the text associated with the 3
‘bubbles’ would be
Sean Woulfe credits in Wst1 – Construction site
useful, particularly WST4 - achieving the credit
Kingston University waste Management the / is omitted in • Can the credit for Wst 5 –
explaining the way for recyclable waste would
Design and tonnes 100m2 Composting be achieved by
the table under point ensure there is enough
Programme • The heading section is missing from the provision of a central
1 of ‘compliance space to store the
Manager Wst 3 Storage of Recyclable Waste facility, rather than by
requirements’ The appearance is fine. I compacted waste before
River House, 53- • Why does the BREEAM credit for associating the facility with a
translates into a total found it clear. The page collection.
57 High Street, recyclables storage have to be particular development?
number of points numbering needs I’m afraid I couldn’t find the list
Kingston Upon In general yes. achieved before you can get the credit Where the use of the building Not that I can think of.
under point 3. attention – it is allegedly to which you refer. →
Thames, KT1 1LQ for Wst 4 Compactor / Baler? In a is not relevant to the
Also, the final a 5 page document but WST5 - Yes, a central facility
D 020 8417 3618 situation where storage space is at a production of organic waste
sentence beginning there is no page 5. would be acceptable so long
F 020 8417 3144 premium, compaction / baling of (centrally programmed
‘The calculator as it complies with our
s.woulfe@kingston recyclable material would be a benefit, teaching building for instance)
considers….’ Under requirements.
.ac.uk and material could be regularly what happens with this credit?
the heading ’The Mat If the development does not
13.09.2008 collected from site rather than stored, Is the development penalised?
1 calculator’ is produce any organic waste,
should storage be an issue.
missing a word I the credit will be filtered out
think. and the weighting associated
will be redistributed among
the remaining issues.
FACILITIES Use of coloured
No comment at this stage. We
EXION 27, might assist, but
Yes No comment haven’t seen the full scoping Yes No comment No comment at this time
CROWHURST generally the layout is
ROAD, considered user-
BRIGHTON, BN1 friendly.
01273 - 643366
01273 - 643149
9 September 2008
HE Feedback - Land Guidance Document Feedback Scope of the Land Use and Ecology Section
Use and Ecology Ease of use Aesthetics scheme Technical Content Achievability
How could Is the Is there any other issue,
How could the Is there any Were any of the
the technical specific to the higher
layout / function area we Could the technical credits totally
Did you find the guidance appearance content and education section, that
Contributor’s Details BRE G COMMENTS content be would need to add / BRE G COMMENTS content of any credits BRE G COMMENTS unachievable for
documents user-friendly? of the coverage of should be addressed in this
more user- alter in the list be improved? the assessed
guidance be credits section and that we have not
friendly? provided? building?
improved? appropriate? addressed?
Mainly ok once you are used to the requirements 2. The final
format however the calculations re 2 bullet points need to
have their distances
species loss/increases were very ←
confusing and the table isn’t specified, for example
We don't take into
Katy Boom how far from the hedge
complete. Check lists were also not account animal species
University of should the barriers be
available. for the following
Worcester placed. If they are too
Some of the language is heavy going reasons: No information yet for LE7 and
Head of Sustainability
e.g. page 24 ‘timing of ecologist close the erection of the ←
1. it complicates LE8 although they both look to
and Development Make barriers could damage a LE3 - will consider it
report ‘It is recommended that the Concentrates on plant calculations be useful for HE. Would like to
Henwick Grove, Apologies for not statements such hedge. LE4 - thanks for the
suitably qualified ecologist is species should be considerably; see context of student and staff
Worcester, WR2 6AJ sending the checklists. as the previous See previous broadened to include 2. We assume that a LE4 table 1: general suggestion, we will
appointed to carry out site consultation and local wildlife
01905 855243 more reader landscape types consider this.
surveys of existing site ecology, animals and insects rich flora biodiversity is partnerships. Perhaps could
01905 855324 We will welcome any friendly Urban mosaic – too
also a good habitat for add stakeholder engagement
firstname.lastname@example.org on which their report is based, or suggestions on how to general whilst →
animals and insects, so and education on campus
Land use and ecology to provide verification where the improve the section; also acknowledging this Agreed
report is prepared by others, at indirectly it will enhance
25th September 08 as explained during the landscape type should
animal and insect
the feasibility stage (RIBA Stage expert meeting, we are only be used where no
B or equivalent) in order to going to review other landscape type in
facilitate and maximise potential completely this section the table is more
ecological enhancement." soon. Meanwhile, any appropriate perhaps a
feedback is very city and rural split.
Director of Estate
74 Trumpington Street
CB2 1RW Yes No Yes No No
Energy, Materials and
Land Use & Ecology
11 September 2008
I think the
University of Bradford
Director of Estates LE2 the credit
go under the
Richmond Road → is usually a
Bradford, West Yorks The credit is in to requirement of
description to Colour would
01274 233110 Yes No I do not think so encourage use of planning – also see comment above LE8 not included? No
show what it will help
01274 235450 contaminated land over land which is
be looked at.
email@example.com uncontaminated. uncontaminate
Then the detail
3rd September 2008
HE Feedback - Guidance Document Feedback Pollution Section
Scope of the scheme
Pollution Ease of use Aesthetics Technical Content Achievability
How could the How could the
Is there any function area we Is the technical content Could the technical Were any of the credits Is there any other issue, specific to the higher
Did you find the guidance layout / content be appearance of the
Contributor’s Details would need to add / alter in and coverage of credits BRE G COMMENTS content of any credits totally unachievable for the education section, that should be addressed in this
documents user-friendly? more user- guidance be
the list provided? appropriate? be improved? assessed building? section and that we have not addressed?
Name Ian Preston
Institution atelier ten
Yes, reasonably. The
BREEAM 2008 manuals are
clearer than the
2006 versions, but there is still
Address 19 Pol 5 – Flood risk
some inconsistency about
Perseverance Works There are a number of
38 Kingsland Road Highlight key HE-specific functions
information is provided, e.g. Some of the
London compliance that should also be at
definitions are sometimes Compliance Notes
E2 8DD requirements so least 600mm above
provided in the tables are too long
Telephone Number they stand out from The Scope section has not been design flood level, e.g.
Compliance Notes table, for the page Agreed
020 7749 5950 the text. provided. storage and use of
sometimes in the Additional margins, e.g. Pol 5
Fax The target figures radioactive materials,
Information on p. 21 of the
E-mail Address can be hard to find microbiological facilities,
section. The Credit Criteria box Pollution section.
ian.preston@atelierte among the text. server rooms, libraries
sometimes has brief details of
n.com and archives of rare
Manual sections documents.
which are useful, but is
sometimes a bit
Date September 2008
BRE G COMMENTS
We haven’t seen the energy section yet, presumably this is in drafting but it may be helpful if we provide the following Facilities provided centrally will be acceptable
NEIL HUMPHREYS observations whilst providing the feedback here. so long as they are compliant with our
UNIVERSITY OF BRIGHTON It is a theme noted in the feedback above that the available criteria do not generally accommodate the possibility of a
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF 'district' 'campus' or 'site' of buildings. The assessments are generally set up to relate to the new building being assessed
ESTATE & FACILITIES under the BREEAM as ‘stand alone’. This is not entirely logical in the context of how universities may operate across
MANAGEMENT several buildings.
EXION 27, CROWHURST
ROAD, BRIGHTON, BN1 8AF As an example, and within the context of a wider campus, it can (under certain circumstances) be justified that utilisation
01273 - 643366 of an existing quasi-district type heating system already established and in use (and with spare capacity) and relatively
01273 - 643149 efficient in operational terms is a way forward, particularly within the framework of a clear maintenance and replacement
firstname.lastname@example.org strategy (i.e. when elements become inefficient it will be replaced). Our experience shows that this has a significant
9 September 2008 negative BREEAM impact compared with purchasing a wholly new one-off system. Given that with the inclusion of
‘centrally located” sustainable energy sources it is better (and more efficient) to be able to utilise the energy ‘gained’ over
a wider area and across several buildings – it seems a sensible and sustainable approach but any diversion from the
norm is not easily recognised within the BREEAM assessment.
Feedback made on actual manual document - no contact details given
Health and Wellbeing - G Nash
Personal experience has shown that this Credit Issue is often defaulted as wider issues bring the design nowhere near the
Would it be better to allow 2 Credits – to raise its importance – and split, ie;
Hea 1 1 Credit for, say, 60%
2 Credits for 80%
This will help encourage designers to achieve at least one credit rather than one being achieved through coincidence. We will consider this approach
Daylight is particularly important in education and so a greater encouragement would be beneficial.
Ditto the comments regarding daylight, personal experience show this Credit is not attempted but sometimes achieved by
Suggest:70% <7m for 1 Credit
100% <7m for 2 Credits.
Tinting won't be acceptable, the main concern is
Hea 3 What is the performance criteria for glare control? Is tinting acceptable, if so w much is required for a Credit?
that the glare control device is occupant controlled.
Hea 5 Wondered if there were any specific lab or workshop design criteria which are beyond the scope of CIBSE lighting guide.
Would welcome any more info on the issue
Is it possible to make this more specific to class/teaching spaces rather than offices. ie "1. Zoning of lighting control allows
Hea 6 for varying occupancy and/or uses within each space, appropriate to the usage of that space. In particular, lighting is
zoned to allow separate user-control as follows:"
we will probably rephrase this to include more
specific wording for teacvhing areas, however we
will still have similar wording for office areas
This is under a section entitled compliance requirements but does not demonstrate compliance of a nat vent scheme to
Hea 7 performance criteria. Ie "4. For mechanically ventilated buildings/spaces, all mechanical actuators are silent in operation,
can be overridden by the building user and are fully modulating rather than the open/closed type" I am unsure I get the mistake, can you be more
Appears to be no requirement for the modelling to be carried out at a time to influence the design. ie "1. Thermal
modelling has been carried out using software selected and applied in accordance with CIBSE AM11 “Building Energy and
Environmental Modelling” ." If the results of the assessment is ignored is the credit still awarded? ie "3. The software
used to carry out the simulation at the detailed design stage must provide full dynamic thermal analysis. For smaller and
more basic building designs an alternative less complex means of analysis may be appropriate (such methodologies must No, the credit cannot be awarded unless the
still be selected and applied in accordance with CIBSE AM11)" modelling demonstrates compliance.
Implementation in the building will be verified at
post construction stage
Why is it necessary for water points to be coolers? A requirement for accessible location would be a benefit to avoid being
only placed in eating areas with limited access times (or one in the staff room being included in the calcs!) It has been demonstrated that cool water appeals
more than room temperature one, so people are
more likely to drink it, and to have a better
Is this not mandatory in any case? Ie "Where evidence provided demonstrates that fume cupboards and microbiological
safety cabinets (where specified) have been designed in accordance with the appropriate British Standard."
This credit is going to be redesigned.
Hea 18 Are these not the result of good practice required by any client and produced by any good engineer? - ref first credit
See comment above
Feedback made on actual manual document - no contact details given
Energy - G Nash
This is an onerous report for Stage C (Outline Design). At this stage the building shape, orientation and massing are
We never had feedback stating that this credit is
onerous because of the stage. The reason for being
It is therefore possible for a –ve carbon emission to be achieved - ref "Energy exported to the grid Any electricity from implemented at this stage is that the design can be
an onsite LZC energy source that is exported to the grid may be included in the calculations as if it were used within the influenzed and changed according to the
building" Main Comment on ENE 1 modelling.
Ene 1 A dilemma: Research requirements will override any low energy/BREEAM aspirations but the academics need to be
encouraged to look for ways of achieving their ends with the lowest possible energy consumption. It is therefore desirable Not sure about the next comment. Please clarify.
to have energy for energy intensive experiments or lab equipment measured as part of the building. However this is
rather unfair on the building facilities manager as they take the burden of energy which would point towards the energy for We are looking into a way of recognising labs in
this section. We will be having a meeting with the
this equipment being uncoupled.
experts on the subject in November.
Metering of specialist and research equipment should be encouraged/rewarded. Perhaps rather than prescribing metering
Ene 2 of equipment the metering of out going ways from a distribution board above a certain capacity should be metered Non-
categorised lab equipment ref note "Other major energy-consuming items". Agreed
Is PIR of no benefit? We recognise daylight sensors. PIR are often
activated by leaves moving because of wind and
animals, and therefore are likely to consume more
HE buildings are more likely to have community type energy networks but are also bound by strict capital expenditure It is acceptable to use community energy, this is
caps and so need much encouragement to make use of the energy networks. recognised in various parts of the guidance.
Why should this be? If the ‘deadline’ for the study has passed LZC should still be encouraged.ref "If the feasibility was
Again, the issue of carrying out the study early is
Ene 5 commissioned at the outline proposals stage or earlier and in the unlikely event the study concludes that the specification linked to the possibility to implement the findings in
of any local LZC technology is unfeasible, the first credit can still be awarded. Subsequent credits for installing LZC the design without extra costs due to value
technology that meets a percentage of building energy demand will not be achievable." engineering fixes.
Can this include waste heat from refrigeration ref note " Waste heat from a building related operational process"
Yes, waste heat from refrigeration would be
These are prescriptive. Is there another method of measurement? Ref "1. Installation of personnel door(s) between
Ene 6 internal and external areas within proximity of any adjacent openings for goods delivery / workshop access; AND a
draught lobby between office areas (where present) and the external building access."
We welcome any suggestions.
Again, prescriptive ref "2. Where the cold storage refrigeration plant complies with the following minimum
requirements:…. " As above.
It would be possible to select the lift desired for cost/size/programme/finishes etc and then justify this by finding another
Ene 8 This is what in fact it should be done, provided all
lift which has a higher energy consumptiuon.
elements listed in point 4 are taken in consideration.
In order to work this requires the necessary controls and equipment. Ref "• Night-time cooling (requires fabric to have a
high thermal mass". Agreed.
This is not free cooling on its own ref "• Displacement ventilation". Agreed.
Does this include chp? Ref "• Absorption cooling, using waste heat" Can include.
A study is good but there is no wording here requiring implementation. Providing evidence of compliance with the GPG
is not carrying out a study. A low pressure drop air handling system could be one hat is not poorly designed. N place of
Ene 11 attempting an exhaustive and prescriptive list would it be better to provide a baseline performance (say, in this case, a This credit will be redesigned after having a
simple, sashed constant volume fume cupboard with recirculation and then evidence will be required to show meeting with the experts on the subject in
improvements in performance November.
Should this also be included in the Credit Criteria as it is not directly related to pool covers. ref. 3. Where the air
Ene 12 temperature in the pool hall can be controlled so that it is 1˚C above the water temperature. It's part of the compliance req. and as such
mandatory.However we will consider revision.
This may also be achieved by use of an energy intensive cooling system.
Feedback made on actual manual document - no contact details given
Water - G Nash
This regards sanitaryware but the use of lab equipment is also relevant. Compliance regards use of low flow devices.
Reference to recycling appears only as a definition.
Has the calculator been dropped? Measurement of flow is better than prescribed use of certain fittings. Will there be no
Wat 1 Agreed.
opportunity to reduce the water flow in labs? Although the taps are difficult to restrict water can be easily wasted in
constant flow rinses or cooling when water is allowed to flow to waste for long periods. Recycling will be looked at in another credit
No calculator is required here, only type of fittings.
The amount of collected water is not relevant. This credit could be gained with a roof catchment area too small to be any
value. Better to relate to water use than catchment from a chosen area of roof. Why have these three conditions when
the important thing is to offset the use of mains water ref compliance choices. Suggest meeting a percentage of the total
water consumption from means other than mains water in whatever is most appropriate for the building. Perhaps a
cooling ad other non-potable use for constant flow uses in labs would be appropriate from recycled water.
We give the choice to design teams of having either
catchment areas or quantity of water for flushing.
Wat 6 Is a timer effective so that irrigation is carried out at night time when evaporation is at a minimum?
may be considered.