Case Study – Urban Splash @ New Islington
  

• 12 Hectare Site 
• Part of Millenium Housing Sites 
• 1970’s Housing Estate dubbed the Worst Estate in Manchester 
• Assests retatined – 
• Canal Network 
• Community Spirit 
• Collaborative Workshops offered re-housing options to residents 
• Rebranding of estate 
• Will Alsop Masterplan, including “the Chips” 
• Mixed Use, including 
• 1700 new homes 
• Variety of Parks – Community Park, Wildlife Island, Orchard, Boardwalk, Beach 
• Revival of Waterway 
• Primary School 
• Primary Care Centre 
• Small Scale Retail 
• 180units/hectare 
• All dwellings to achieve Eco-Homes Excellent 
• Maximise use of natural sunlight 
• Use of low embodied energy materials throughout 
• Combined Heat and Power, future-proofed for bio-fuels 
• Jobs created for local people within the construction phase
    

Things you might forget, or things you might not know… 

• Integrate design at an early stage – ideally stage A/B, rather than at Stage C/D – consulting Energy Engineers / assessors. Check for Policy changes if the project has been on hold for a while.
    
• Recent UK Policy changes include PPS1 Addendum –
              Demonstrate how building regulations to be met at planning stage
    
• Passive Design – 
• Use the sun’s energy to reduce winter heating requirement 
• Orientate main façade within 30degrees of south 
• Avoid overshadowing 
• Utilise thermal mass to store heat 
• Minimise glazing to north façade 
• Add a glazed winter garden to south façade 
• Incorporating 2-3% Carbon Dioxide emission savings may reduce the “renewables” target – spray taps, smaller baths, energy efficient applicances + lights
• Remember to design in CHP Spaces into 1st phase of phased construction
  Use Thermal Analysis at scheme design stage to highlight potential overheating + design out prior to planning consent
    
• Check Planning Policy for correct wording –
  If 10% CO2 saving is required, target electrical – 3.5m2 Solar Thermal panels should achieve target saving
  If 10% Energy saving is required, target Gas – 2.2m2 Solar Thermal panels should achieve target saving
    
• Code for Sustainable Homes – Water
  Average UK use – 150 litres/person/day
  Typical Spec – 190 l/p/d
              6l Standard WC
              full flow taps
              standard bath – 200l
              shower – 15 l/minute flow
  Level 3 – 105 l/p/d
              Dual Flush 6/4 l WC
              Aerated taps
              Small bath – 150l
              6 litre shower 

Level 5 – 80 l/p/d 

Dual Flush 4/2 l WC 

Aerated taps 

Small bath 

Less than 6litre shower

Rainwater / Greywater harvesting for WC Flush 

 Products
   

• Pilkington “Optitherm” glazing controls heat loss and solar gain  
• “Ecoplay” grey water systems will treat + recycle grey water for use in WCs  
• “Dupont Energain” is a gypsum/paraffin Wax sealed board, which absorbs heat in lightweight construction by altering its state (effectively melts and solidifies) in hot temperatures. More info    
• Wind Turbines –  
• Swift (1.5kW, 2.1m diameter), £5250, provides approx 50% electricity needs of a 3bed house  
• Proven (15kW, 9m diameter), £40,000, provides all electricity needs of 7.5no. 3bed houses      

JM Architects is at the centre of a £4 million High Court battle over the alleged use of ‘entirely unsuitable’ rammed-earth walling in the construction of a children’s nursery in south London. Last year, soil walling to the partially built extension to the Bird in the Bush Centre on the Old Kent Road had to be demolished because the technique, recommended by the architect, was found to be ‘problematic’ and ‘unacceptable’, according to a High Court writ.

Now the client, Southwark Primary Care Trust, is suing JM Architects, along with consulting engineer Haskins Robinson Waters, building contractor YJL London and subcontractor In Situ Rammed Earth, for breach of contract and negligence.

Work on the nursery extension began in August 2003 but was stopped shortly afterwards when, it is alleged, it became clear that builders would not be able to construct load-bearing walls of ‘sufficient stability’ using compressed earth.

The High Court will hear that an inspection revealed the walls were cracked and bowed, with numerous defects. The walls were found to be structurally unstable and needed substantially more maintenance and repair than conventional brick and mortar walls would have done.

It is claimed that subsequent research showed the walls had been built using unsuitable soil contaminated with wood, masonry, concrete and leaves, and were not square because they had been allowed to dry without adequate propping, the writ continues.

JM Architects is alleged to have breached its duties by suggesting that the rammed-earth technique could shave some 30 per cent off the standard construction costs. In fact, this method carries a significant risk of higher costs, the writ says, and JM Architects should have flagged up the risks of this ‘novel’ construction at an early stage.

The practice is also accused of misleading Southwark Primary Care Trust into believing that the rammed earth was sourced on-site, helping to save costs. Instead the soil was dug off-site at Gallagher’s Quarry, Kent, where the earth was contaminated, it is claimed.

Other charges include failing to adequately prepare detailed proposals, and not compiling a feasibility study with due care and skill.

The writ concludes that the walls were entirely unsuitable for use in the project as a result of both their construction and design.

The primary-care trust was forced to flatten the nursery extension in 2006 and replace the walls with blockwork. The authority says its losses include the original cost of the project, remedial work, money paid to the nursery’s operators – the Catholic Children’s Society and Tower Homes – and legal and professional fees.

Architects Journal 29 March 2007

Architects with a project that would benefit from a bio-energy installation should note that Defra has just announced a 10-week grant application window for biomass-fuelled heat and CHP projects. Grants are intended to help bridge the cost differential between bio-energy and a fossil fuel alternative and range from £25,000 to £1m.

This is the third funding round of the £10-15m Bio-energy Capital Grants Scheme, which was announced by the government last year as part of its response to a report from its Biomass Task Force, and is open to the industrial, commercial and community sectors (including local authorities and schools).
The grant application window will close on 9 March 2007.

For more information 

Code for Sustainable Homes signals the future for Building Regulations

At the end of December 2006 the government formally published its long awaited Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH), which becomes effective in April 2007.  This is widely regarded as an important tool for achieving ‘zero carbon’ status in housebuilding, building homes which are both thermally efficient and which generate locally their own low energy requirements (eg using solar panels on the roof). 
The government has made it clear that the Code signposts the direction that future changes to Building Regulations will take.  In other words, the concepts, tools and standards in CSH will be encompassed in future changes to Part L.
The CSH is a voluntary tool for both public and private housing developers.  To access central government funding, however, all public housing will need to achieve at least the minimum rating (1 star).
As we all know, achieving carbon reduction has been one of the government’s top priorities for some time – and it is using three main ‘levers’ to effect change:

The government also hopes that the Code, with its maximum 6 star rating scheme, will provide a marketing tool for private developers.  Consumers have responded very well to energy rating schemes for electrical white goods and the government hopes that by informing customers of the overall energy ratings of houses it will lead to the same positive changes in spending decisions.

How will the scheme work?

Developers can achieve ratings from one to six stars.  The lowest level, 1 star, demands an improvement on the minimum requirements given in Part L1A, calculated on a ‘points out of 100′ basis across nine categories (see table below).  The higher star ratings naturally require higher point scores.  There is flexibility in how points are achieved, but some performance aspects are compulsory, as the chart below simply summarises.

Certification for Code compliance

To gain certification for code compliance there is a four-part process:

1. The developer produces an initial design for appraisal
2. A trained and certified Code Assessor conducts an initial assessment on the design, recommends a sustainability rating and issues an interim Code Certificate.  This is carried out for each house type (but not each dwelling)
3. The assessor performs a post completion check on a sample of the development to verify the rating
4. The assessor produces a final Code Certificate of compliance.

The concept of the Code is a positive move towards improving sustainable housing and should promote the greater use of sustainable materials.  Further details of this will be laid out in a revised Green Guide, scheduled to be ready by this April.  The guide will provide sustainability ratings for generic materials and products with a methodology for appraising specific manufacturer’s products.
 

For full details of the Code – visit this site 

GREEN GRANTS FOR HOMES

Funding to subsidise domestic installation of renewables has failed to meet demand, leading the government to divert cash set aside for other programmes.The DTI set up the Low Carbon Buildings programme to replace its Clear Skies programme. The programme allocated £80m over the next three years to boost the use of technologies such as solar and wind power. However, the £3.5m allocated for homes over the 2006-07 financial year was fully allocated within just five months.

BIOMASS

The greatest CO₂ saving is from CHP fuelled by biomass
This second part of the AJ renewables series explores biomass and combined heat and power (CHP). Today, CHP is typically gas-fired, while a biomass boiler usually generates just heat, but there may be an overlap in multi-fuel projects and also in the future we may see biomass-fired CHP, operating at a larger scale with the heat going to district heating. So looking at them together now seems sensible.

Low and zero-carbon technologies, such as CHP, and renewable energy sources, such as biomass fuels, will increasingly be used to improve building performance beyond the current Building Regulations.

Architects Journal. 16 November (Pg. 38-40)

Ground Source Heat Pumps

The third part of the AJ renewables series looks at ground-source heat-pump (GSHP) systems and their rising popularity.  The rapid increase in the use of ground-source energy for building heating and cooling systems in the UK is a relatively recent phenomenon; however, there are more than 900,000 installations in the US and 500,000 on the continent.

The fuel efficiency of a GSHP system in heating mode can be 50-70% higher than the most efficient gas boiler and cooling efficiency can be 20-40% greater than alternative air-cooled technologies. This produces corresponding year-round carbon emission reductions and accounts for the current intense interest in GSHP systems.

Installation costs tend to be higher than with more conventional systems, hence the historic market resistance to the technology, but the value equation has recently shifted considerably as legislators have moved to target CO₂ reduction.

Article looking, in depth, at this method of achieving a reduction in CO₂ generation.
Architects Journal. 23 November (Pg. 44-46) 
 

CIBSE green guide
‘TM38: Renewable energy sources for buildings’, gives guidance to developers, planners, designers and building owners to enable them to consider integrated renewable energy systems at this early stage. The guidance helps to identify the most appropriate low or zero carbon (LZC) energy solutions for buildings and/or developments based on users requirements.

TM38: Renewable energy sources for buildings. CIBSE, 2006. http:///www.cibse.org/index.cfm?go=publications.view&PubID=348&S1=y&L1=0&L2=0