ammanford ccd - arcc · final report this report is the final report for the betws washery,...

AMMANFORD CCDClimate Change Design for Betws Washery, Ammanford

A Project Funded by

TSB ref: 400256issue 2 - July 2013

Final Report

Climate Change Design for Betws Washery, Ammanford

issue 2 - July 2013 page 2

Final Report

This report is the Final Report for the Betws Washery, Ammanford project (ref: 400256) under the

Technology Strategy Board’s (TSB) D4FC: Adapting Buildings2 competition. The report is structured as set

out in section 7 of the TSB’s contract.

It has been compiled by Kassanis+Thomas as team leader on behalf of the team responsible for this

Climate Change Design Study. The team comprises:

Client Quadrant Estates 71 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9QY 020 7534 7910 Contact: Chris Daniel

Lead Kassanis+Thomas 458 Upper Richmond Road West, Richmond, Surrey, TW10 5DY 07899 710142 Contact: Philip Kassanis

Sustainability Daedalus Environmental PO Box 1268, Maidstone, Kent, ME14 9NH 0777 9333543 Contact: Philip Jackson

Cost Davis Langdon 3rd Floor, Portwall Place, Portwall Lane, Bristol BS1 6NA 0117 9277832 Contact: Owen Hewlett

Envelope CA Group Evenwood Industrial Estate, Copeland Road, Evenwood, Co.Durham, DL14 9SF 01388 830204 Contact: Stuart Brown

Landscape Parkwood Consultancy Services/RGA 4 Regent Place, Rugby, Warwickshire, CV21 2PN 01788 540040 Contact: Simon Watkins

Engineering Waterman International (London) Pickfords Wharf, Clink Street, London SE1 9DG 020 7928 7888 Contact: Hugh Docherty

Issue 1: June 2013 - Philip Kassanis

Issue 2: July 2013 - Philip Kassanis - general amendments in accordance with TSB comments

preface

© Kassanis+Thomas Limited 2013



Final Report

Executive Summary

The study investigates opportunities for improving the resilience of frame and lightweight clad buildings

to climate change through adaptation measures. It uses a mixed used scheme in South Wales as the case

study because it contains a number of buildings with different uses all constructed in this way. The study

includes the spaces between buildings because many of this type include large areas of land for car parking

and servicing (eg foodstores and distribution warehouses) and because many development opportunities,

such as the case study site, are more extensive than just a single plot of land.

1. Buildingprofile

The mixed use scheme is on 5.5Ha in Ammanford, Carmarthenshire. It comprises a foodstore; petrol

filling station; drive-thru restaurant; a retail terrace; starter units; doctors surgery; retirement complex; and a

residential scheme. The study focuses on the foodstore, the retail terrace, and the land as a whole, whose

estimated cost is £14.72M.

2. Risk exposure to the projected future climate

Weather trends were analysed mainly by using the outputs of the PROMETHEUS weather generator

work done by the University of Exeter. This is based on the UKCP09 probabilistic data, which is grouped in

various scenarios. Several scenarios were compared to gauge the potential shape and size of the trends. The

2050 high emissions scenario with a 90% confidence interval was chosen because it has the right order of

magnitude compared with the control data for assessing risk to this type of property. The main consideration

being that the estimated lifespan for the buildings might not be more than 40 years and statistically the desire

was to avoid the masking of risk with a scale of data that was too fine grain - better to exaggerate the effect

for the purposes of teasing out vulnerabilities and opportunities for adaptation.

This suggested that the most significant weather impacts from climate change at the case study

location are as shown in box 1.

box 1: SUMMARY OF WEATHER TRENDS WITH AN IMPACT ON CASE STUDY

• increased average temperatures throughout the year

• higher peak temperatures for part of the year

• lower relative humidity during the summer

• potentially less rainfall during the summer but more in the winter

• increased frequency of storms that have an “extreme” intensity

The effect these weather trends would have on the foodstore, retail units and the external areas was

then examined using a number of techniques. This exposed vulnerabilities in three thematic areas: thermal

comfort and energy use; water management; and green infrastructure.

Thermal comfort and energy use. The impact of climate change is an overall increase in temperature

throughout the year (2/3ºC in 2030) and exaggerated summer peak temperatures (7ºC more than control



Final Report

peaks in 2050). In theory this should cause buildings to require lower levels of heating in the winter but

require higher levels of cooling in the summer to maintain comfort conditions with two potential undesirable

consequences:

» the strategy for cooling is unable to cope with certain summer peaks to a degree where inhabiting the building is unpleasant or occasionally intolerable; and

» the energy demand for cooling outstrips the energy saved from less heating in the winter leading to increased energy costs for the user - in this case the retailers. There may come a point when, combined with rising energy prices, that the overall energy bill threatens the viability of the retailer’s business.

Management of water. The impacts of climate change are an increase in the frequency and intensity

of severe storm events and an increase in the amount of precipitation during winter months, giving rise to the

following threats to the case study:

» the roofs to this sort of building are low pitched (typically 4°) and formed of sheet material making them vulnerable to water ingress from wind driven rain, particularly at the ridge and sheet laps; and

» disruption to the function of the car parks has a direct impact on trading and therefore flooding is a risk that must be avoided if at all possible.

Green infrastructure (GI). GI is strategically planned and managed networks of natural lands, working

landscapes and other open spaces that conserve ecosystem values and functions and provide associated

benefits to human populations. The presence of GI is an environmental benefit to human populations. Climate

change threatens to diminish and degrade the amount and type of this resource, particularly in urban situations.

Thus, while the ecosystem is conducive to human survival at the moment, when changed, human survival

becomes more difficult. GI climate change adaptation measures aim to restore equilibrium to tolerable levels.

This theme was developed as an additional theme to those in the Gething Report1 with the endorsement

of the TSB2. Like the other themes it has three subsections as shown in box 2.

box 2: GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

• Microclimate modifi-cation

measures that can directly affect the microclimate

• Avoid depletion measures that resist any destruction of vegetation by a change in climate

• Maximise to alleviate stress on ecosystem

measures that can maximise the quantity of GI as a strategy to offset the degradation of ecosystem by climate change (NB these tend to be dual purpose because in most circumstances it is not viable to trade development land for vegetation)

The main impacts of climate change in this respect are the effect of the increased summer temperatures

and altered rainfall patterns, with drier summers and wetter winters including the potential for deluges as

noted in the water section above. The case study is vulnerable to this in several respects:

1 GETHING, B., 2010. Design for future climate: opportunities for adaptation in the built environment. Swindon: Technology Strategy Board.2 correspondence summed up by email from Mark Wray dated 29 Nov 12 - see Appendix 2 - 7

executive summary



Final Report

» alteration of the microclimate of the car parks and entrances to the buildings with large areas of hard surfaces exacerbating the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, making it unpleasant to come and use the buildings and potentially deterring people from making shopping trips, which in turn effects the economic viability of the retailers;

» with a significant amount of urban land contained in the case study, its GI has a relatively important influence on the health of its urban context through its eco-system. It is more susceptible to variation because of the large areas of car park magnify the effect (ie the previous point). The consequences to the locale of degradation or depletion are more serious because of its size.

3. Adaptation strategy

23 potential adaptations were explored during the study. Most were conceived at the risk assessment

stage as part of the process of understanding the vulnerabilities but others emerged as the work progressed in

more detail. The impact of each was assessed and cost benefit analysis carried out. This process generated

46 separate conclusions, which became the material for shaping the strategy. Unsurprisingly it was found that

the main benefit of many of the measures lay outside the sphere of climate change. This potentially makes

it easier to justify its inclusion and the cost benefit analysis framework was designed to accord these other

benefits their due weight.

All adaptations produced some benefit, admittedly in several cases just marginal. If all were to be

adopted it would add nearly £1.5m to the capital cost of the project, increasing from £14.72M to £16.3M (10%).

This is too large a step to even consider trying to justify and therefore requiring a more nuanced strategy.

The next step was to apply some filters. The first was to remove the marginal benefit measures unless

they were cost neutral. Additional blockwork in the foodstore to increase its thermal mass and additional wall

insulation in both buildings were among those that had little effect and considerable cost. The second filter

was to remove the greatest cost items unless they had justifiable benefits. Solar glazing in the foodstore and

blockwork in the retail units could not be justified.

For the strategy to have any traction it needs to take into account the way buildings are procured and

the interests of the various parties involved in that process. As the case study is set firmly in the commercial

sector its outputs are tailored around the dynamics of property investment and the developer’s (the client) role

in it. Although the physical findings are equally as relevant to the public sector more work would be needed

to shape an equivalent strategy applicable to that sector. A closer look at the workings of property investment

showed that the developer is surprisingly constrained when it comes to introducing features into a project that

are out of the ordinary and carry a significant cost. It can only supply what the market demands. The dynamics

of valuation mean that the market is conservative. Until innovation becomes mainstream it tends not to be

reflected in the investment value of the property, which effectively caps the amount the developer can spend

and still make a profit.

Commercial property distinguishes very markedly between building users and building owners, each

sitting on opposite sides of a lease agreement. The owners are interested in the investment value and users

executive summary



Final Report

(tenants) are interested in operating efficiency. The owners are responsible for providing a “shell and core”,

which the tenant’s “fit out” according to their needs. Some features of the shell and core effect operational

efficiency and are therefore of mutual interest. Other features are more to do with protecting the owner’s risk

and future proofing the investment and therefore of little interest to the tenant. Climate change adaptations

fall into one or other or both these categories. Other adaptations purely affect the tenant’s fit out and are of no

interest to the developer and investor.

The strategy comprises five recommendations formulated to address this environment.

Recommendation 1 is designed to appeal directly to the developer without any need to refer to

other demand side parties because practically all the adaptations produce added value with a negligible

cost implication therefore not needing justification via cost benefit analysis. They represent good design and

should become standard practice throughout the industry.

Recommendation 2 has adaptations that do incur cost, which although modest as a proportion of the

total capital cost, would be sufficient to make them vulnerable to cost engineering. Again the recommendation

is designed to appeal to the developer without reference to other demand side parties because the two

adaptations make it easier to obtain statutory consents.

Recommendation 3 reflects adaptations that solely affect fit-out and of no financial interest to the

developer or investor. The benefits are very direct because they affect the operational costs of the building.

The question is not so much whether they should be done but when. The vulnerabilities exposed by climate

change are in the long term and, because the major re-fit cycle is approximately 10 years, it makes no sense

to implement them now unless there are co-benefits to warrant it.

Recommendation 4 has adaptations that have potential but need to be explored with more R&D to

see whether this is the case. Although initially directed at the developer client, these are more focussed on

the supply side of the industry - designers/engineers, and manufacturers. Can good solutions be developed

to offer to investors and tenants? The development and take up of these potential adaptations in this category

is not simply a technical matter because they straddle the divide between: passive built in measures that the

investor pays for; and the fit-out plant side that the tenant is responsible for. Therefore the solutions also need

to address procurement, financing and lease questions.

Recommendation 5 is a set of measures which all bring so many benefits that they cannot be ignored

but they, either raise difficult issues, or are too expensive to be easily recommended. They all therefore

fall into a position where the developer would need to champion the cause. As such they are presented as

optional extras.

executive summary



Final Report

D4FC contract checklist

The way in which the components of the strategy relate to the D4FC contract checklist is summarised

box 3.

box 3: SUMMARY OF STATUS OF ADAPTATIONS

status of opportunity: C=considered; R=recommended; I=implemented

D4FC checklist 3 heading status Project heading

Keeping cool - internal

Shading - manufactured C B3a/ B3b - internal and external blinds

R B12 - PV shading devices

Glass technologies C M1 - solar glazing retail units

R B1 - solar glazing foodstore

Green roofs R C8 - green roof retail units

Reflective materials R B4/ M4 - reflective roofs

Conflict between maximising daylight and overheating (mitigation vs adaptation)

R B10 - omit rooflights

Enhancing thermal mass in lightweight construction

C B5/ M5 - blockwork

Energy efficient/ renewable powered cooling systems

R B11/ M11 - PVB13 - SolarwallB14 - CHPB15 - earth ducts

Keeping cool - spaces around buildings

Access to external space -overheating relief

R A4/C1/C5/C6 - SuDSC3 - productive landscape

Shade from planting R

Keeping warm at less cost

Building fabric insulation standards C B2/ M2 increasing insu-lation

Fixingandwatherproofing

Fixing standards - wall, roofs R X1 - robust envelope fixings

Detail design for extremes - rain -thresh-olds/ joints

I A1 - curved ridge



Final Report

box 3: SUMMARY OF STATUS OF ADAPTATIONS

Drainage - external

Drain design R A4/C1/C5/C6 - SuDSA5 - permble car pk + storageB15 - earth ducts (backfill dual use)

Soakaway design R

SUDS design R

Drainage - building related

Gutter/ roof/ upstand design R A2 - storm only downpipes

Flood - Avoidance

Combination effects -wind + rain + sea level rise

R A5 - permble car pk + storage

GI – avoid depletion

Plant selection - drought resistance vs cooling effect of transpiration

R C2 - resistant vegetation

Plant selection – disease resistance R

GI – maximise to alleviate stress on eco-system

Water features/SuDS design as natural processes


SuDS features – adapt design for all weather events

R

Plant selection – biodiversity value R

Areas for food production including com-munity involvement

R

Foundations/services/drainage design & protection that allows future tree planting

I G1 - robust plot structure

GI–microclimatemodification

Hard and soft surfaces - micro climate modification & heat island effect


Shade from planting R

4. Learning from this project

The D4FC study had the benefit of being introduced into the project at the beginning of RIBA stage

C which, because it is the stage where the design is at its most fluid, offered a perfect environment for

developing the adaptation ideas. Moreover, because of the weak commercial market owing to the economic

climate, the client has not been able to engage an anchor tenant and therefore the project has remained in

RIBA stage C. This left the D4FC work to run unhindered by the day to day necessities of the live project,

which, while allowing time for proper development, had the disadvantage that propositions were more difficult

to test within a live set up.

The project plan (box 4) as a structure worked well, but the timing did not. This was mainly because

the team who, come from the consultancy world were not used to working through an unfamiliar methodology.



Final Report

box 4: PROJECT PLAN

A - LAUNCH D – COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS

B - RISK ASSESSMENT E – APPLY OPTIONS TO CASE STUDY

C1- DESIGN (stage 1) F - REVIEW

C2- DESIGN (stage2) G – NEXT STEPS

This meant a lot of reliance on detailed project management, the amount of which had been underestimated.

For each team member the work was also not easy to delegate because of its bespoke nature. As a result

there was a lot of setting the work aside to allow other work in the office to be done which was very disruptive

in all sorts of ways.

Within the project plan the methodology for assessing risk went well. It combined the use of checklists

with the team members’ individual expertises and experience and refined the findings using the detail that

emerged during the course of the project. Likewise the methodology for producing an adaptation strategy (box

5) went well.

box 5: METHOD FOR PRODUCING ADAPTATION STRATEGY

step 1 • option appraisal

step 2 • detail design and testing of chosen options

step 3 • cost benefit analysis

step 4 • industry testing

step 5 • discussion and conclusions

step 6 • recommended strategy

Tools and resources recommended are: Exeter University’s PROMETHEUS weather files; literature

review; TSB’s knowledge sharing; and IES VE dynamic thermal modelling. Those to avoid are gModeller plug

in to SketchUp for transferring the architectural form into an IES ready model; and slavish use of the checklist

associated with the contract.

5. Extending adaptation of other buildings

An assessment of how to apply the findings of this project across its sector has several strands:

» Awareness and value The parties involved in the ownership, leasing, procurement, design and construction of these buildings need to be convinced that this work would add value.

» Generalisation The conclusions and recommendations were specific to the case study. Some aspects are transferable but others depend on size, volume and sensitivity of internal environment.

» Methodology The project was tailored to a specific case study and therefore the methodology in its current form is not necessarily transferable.

» Sector Peculiarities What have the findings in common with other building types in other sectors and what are the differences?

There are many types of building that frequently made from frame and lightweight cladding. Some

executive summary



Final Report

examples are shown in box 6. All of these can be found in the commercial sector but also many in other

sectors: eg military, utilities, and transport. The discussion in this report mainly addresses the commercial

sector and the operation of the market. Some of the work will be applicable to the public sector versions of

these types. However the issues surrounding procurement are somewhat different and require some analysis

before any attempt is made to engage with the parties responsible for this.

box 6: TYPES OF BUILDING

• Supermarkets • Industrial units

• Non-food retail units • Car show rooms

• Logistic and distribution centres • Research and development units

• Warehousing and storage • Data centres

• Business units • Call centres

• Trade park units • Workshops

• Factories and production • Studios

• Starter units • Processing

The adaptations associated with “shell and core” are particularly suited to the new build market or the

first major overhaul at about 20 years. Those associated with “fit out” will be more applicable to new build in

the future or to existing stock on the major refit cycle of about 10 years.

It is estimated that the amount of existing stock built in this way could be in the region of 475M m2 and

the amount coming on stream in the coming years between 2.5 and 3.0M m2 /a.

15 potential workstreams have been identified, which can build on the opportunity provided by this

D4FC project to extend the work into the industry.

executive summary



Final Report

Contents

1.0 Building Project ..................................................................................................15

(a) Description ............................................................................................15(b) Project stage.........................................................................................16(c) Cost ......................................................................................................16(d) Project progress ...................................................................................16(e) Sustainability ........................................................................................17(f) D4FC project aim ..................................................................................17

2.0 Climate Change Risks ........................................................................................18

2.1 Climate change scenarios ....................................................................18

(a) Which data-set?....................................................................................18(b) Weather trends 2030 ............................................................................18(c) Weather trends 2050 ............................................................................19(d) Weather trend conclusions ...................................................................21

2.2 Risk exposure of case study.................................................................21

(a) Scope of assessment ...........................................................................21(b) Risk to whom? ......................................................................................22(c) Method ..................................................................................................22

2.3 Vulnerabilities of case study .................................................................23

(a) Designing for comfort ...........................................................................23(b) Management of water ...........................................................................25(c) Green Infrastructure (GI) ......................................................................25(d) Risk summary .......................................................................................27

3.0 Adaptation strategy ............................................................................................28

(a) Introduction ...........................................................................................28(b) Method ..................................................................................................28(c) Potential components of the adaptation strategy .................................33(d) Cost benefit analysis ............................................................................51(e) Discussion ............................................................................................54(f) Recommendations................................................................................66

4.0 Learning from the work on this contract ..........................................................71

(a) Approach ..............................................................................................71(b) The team ..............................................................................................72(c) Project Plan ..........................................................................................75(d) Tools and resources .............................................................................77(e) Review of approach ..............................................................................80(f) Decision making. ..................................................................................82

5.0 Extending adaptation to other buildings ..........................................................83

(a) Further application ................................................................................83(b) Limitations of further application ...........................................................86(c) Suitable buildings for applying findings ................................................86(d) Resources, tools and materials developed...........................................88(e) Future work-streams & associated needs ............................................88

Appendix 1 - The buildings

Appendix 1 - 1: site photographsAppendix 1 - 2: scheme drawings (baseline)Appendix 1 - 3: site layout amended as an adaptationAppendix 1 - 4: brief specification for thermal modellingAppendix 1 - 5: cost model



Final Report

Appendix 2 - risk assessment

Appendix 2 - 1: 2030 medium emissions weather dataAppendix 2 - 2: 2030 and 2050 90% medium & high comparedAppendix 2 - 3: assessment framework for vulnerabilitiesAppendix 2 - 4: assessment resultsAppendix 2 - 5: team member submissionsAppendix 2 - 6: provisional conclusions on vulnerabilities & opportunities for designAppendix 2 - 7: correspondence with TSB on Green Infrastructure

Appendix 3 - adaptation strategy

Appendix 3 - 1: SWOT analysis of early potential adaptationsAppendix 3 - 2: Full analysis of all potential adaptationsAppendix 3 - 3: Davis Langdon’s cost benefit analysis reportAppendix 3 - 4: Correspondence with British Gas SolarAppendix 3 - 5: Waterman’s report on drainageAppendix 3 - 6: D4FC checklist 3 as modified by this project

Appendix 4- learning from the work on this contract

Appendix 4 - 1: team member biographiesAppendix 4 - 2: questionnaire response from clientAppendix 4 - 3: bibliography

Appendix 5 - extending adaptation to other buildings

Appendix 5 - 1: draft slide presentationAppendix 5 - 2: dissemination plan report Feb 2013

Listoffigures

figure 1 site layout.......................................................................................................................................................................15

figure 2 site location .............................................................................................16figure 3 frame & lightweight cladding building - subject of the D4FC study .........17figure 4 retail unit annual energy usage (MW/h) ..................................................24figure 5 foodstore annual energy usage (MWh)...................................................24figure 6 extract from introduction to Gething report (2010, 11) ............................26figure 7 foodstore - % improvement in the hours over 28°C by each adaptation measure . 33

figure 8 retail unit mezzanine area - % improvement in hours over 28°C by each adaptation measure ................................................................................33

figure 9 foodstore - energy saved per year per measure .....................................34figure 10 retail units - energy saved per year per measure ...................................34figure 11 baseline scheme .....................................................................................35figure 12 re-configured with sub-divisible plots ......................................................35figure 13 solar radiation through glass ...................................................................36figure 14 thermal mass principle ............................................................................36figure 15 internal shading.......................................................................................37figure 17 principle of reflective roof ........................................................................37figure 16 external shading......................................................................................37figure 18 Twin-Therm Vertical Wall exploded .........................................................38figure 19 typical smoke ventilation product ............................................................39



Final Report

figure 20 distribution of smoke vents in foodstore roof ..........................................39figure 21 disposition of low level natural vent louvres ............................................39figure 22 typical store prior to fit out showing effect of rooflights ...........................41figure 23 typical appearance of PVs ......................................................................42figure 24 sketch of PV rooflight shading system ....................................................42figure 25 how Solarwall® works ..........................................................................43figure 26 CHP rationale ..........................................................................................43figure 27 potential location of CHP options ............................................................44figure 28 M&S Ellesmere Port general view ..........................................................45figure 29 M&S Ellesmere Port typical section ........................................................45figure 30 initial design for Betws Washery foodstore .............................................46figure 31 adapted roof - section and massing .......................................................46figure 32 detail of storm-only downpipe .................................................................47figure 33 permeable paving extent for adaptation A5 ............................................48figure 34 permeable paving in conjunction with biofiltration planters .....................48figure 35 SuDS strategy .........................................................................................49figure 36 productive landscape to north of highway...............................................50figure 37 Initial project plan stage proportions .......................................................76figure 38 Project plan as delivered stage proportions ............................................76figure 39 CHP profile for option (a) - foodstore ......................................................X3/38figure 40 CHP profile for option (b) - whole site .....................................................X3/38figure 41 emissions for option (a) - foodstore ........................................................X3/39figure 42 emissions for option (b) - whole site .......................................................X3/39figure 43 typical foodstore design ..........................................................................X3/43figure 44 roof vulnerabilities ...................................................................................X3/43

List of boxes

box 1: SUMMARY OF WEATHER TRENDS WITH AN IMPACT ON CASE STUDY .........3box 2: GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE ..................................................................................4box 3: SUMMARY OF STATUS OF ADAPTATIONS ..........................................................7box 4: PROJECT PLAN ......................................................................................................9box 5: METHOD FOR PRODUCING ADAPTATION STRATEGY ......................................9box 6: TYPES OF BUILDING ...........................................................................................10

List of tables

table 1:SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL ADAPTATIONS .................................35table 2: ADAPTATION MEASURES ARRANGED BY COST .............................................54table 3: FUTURE WORK-STREAMS .................................................................................88



Final Report

box 7: COMPONENTS OF SCHEME .................................................................................15box 8: WEATHER PARAMETERS .....................................................................................19box 9: WEATHER TREND FINDINGS FOR 2030 & 2050 MED & HIGH SCENARIOS .....19box 10: EXAMPLES OF EXTREME STORMS NOW .........................................................20box 11: SUMMARY OF WEATHER TRENDS WITH AN IMPACT ON CASE STUDY ........21box 12: METHOD FOR DETERMINING VULNERABILITIES ............................................22box 13: SUMMARY OF BROAD AREAS OF VULNERABILITY .........................................23box 14: IMPACT ON COMFORT LEVELS - OVERHEATING ............................................24box 15: GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................26box 16: RISK SUMMARY ...................................................................................................27box 17: METHOD FOR PRODUCING ADAPTATION STRATEGY ....................................28box 18: POTENTIAL COMPONENTS OF ADAPTATION STRATEGY ...............................29box 19: HOW IES MODELLING WAS USED .....................................................................30box 20: CBA STEPS ...........................................................................................................51box 21: CBA SUMMARY ...................................................................................................52box 23: CHP OPTION (b) ISSUES .....................................................................................58box 24: SUMMARY OF PROVISIONAL RECOMMEND’NS FOR ADAPTATION STRATEGY 61box 25: SUMMARY OF PROVISIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADAPTATION STRATEGY 64box 26: BARRIERS TO CLIMATE CHANGE INNOVATION ...............................................65box 27: RECOMMENDATION 1 .........................................................................................66box 28: RECOMMENDATION 2 .........................................................................................67box 29: RECOMMENDATION 3 .........................................................................................67box 30: RECOMMENDATION 4 .........................................................................................68box 31: RECOMMENDATION 5 .........................................................................................68box 32: TIMESCALES FOR ADAPTATION ........................................................................69box 33: PROJECT PLAN ....................................................................................................75box 34: BROAD CATEGORIES OF CLIMATE CHANGE INVESTMENT RISK .................84box 35: TYPES OF BUILDING .........................................................................................86box 36: CBA FOR ROBUST PLOT RE-STRUCTURING ...................................................X3/10box 37: HOW SOLARWALL® WORKS ...............................................................................X3/33box 38: HOW CHP WORKS ..............................................................................................X3/36box 39: HOW EARTH DUCTS WORK ...............................................................................X3/41box 40: GEOCELLULAR STORAGE SYSTEM ..................................................................X3/47box 41: SuDS STRATEGY .................................................................................................X3/49box 42: PRODUCTIVE LANDSCAPE ................................................................................X3/53



Final Report

1.0 Building Project

(a) Description

The project is a 5.5Ha mixed use development in Ammanford, Carmarthenshire. It is made up of the

components shown in box 7.

1

2

3 4

5

7

68

5

A 4 7 4 T O W N C E N T R E

R I V E R A M M A N

P E N T W Y N R O A D

MA

ES

QU

AR

RE

RO

AD

0 80604020 100

figure 1 site layout

box 7: COMPONENTS OF SCHEME

No component qty unit size total floor space m2 GEA

1 foodstore* 1 7450

2 petrol filling station

3 dive thru restaurant

4 retail units* 4 604 2415

5 starter units* 13 65 to 165 1140

6 doctors surgery* 1 740

7 retirement complex (28 units)

1

8 residential 10

The site is at the eastern “gateway” to Ammanford (figure 2) close to a new residential extension to

the town, which is being developed on the land of the former Betws Colliery. It is adjacent to the River Amman

but on terrain about 7.5m higher than the river. The site was used to wash the coal from the colliery and hence

its name Betws Washery. Most of the site is currently used for bulk storage and packaging of a rare grade of

Anthracite, which is exported all over the world for water filtration. Other parts of the site have miscellaneous

ancillary uses - mainly warehousing & workshops. Some photographs are included at Appendix 1 - 1.



Final Report

000m62

2

63 64

000m65

2

262000m

63 64

265000m

000m122

000m132

212000m

213000m

000m62

2

63 64

000m65

2

262000m

63 64

265000m

000m122

000m132

212000m

213000m


R I V E R A M M A N


MA

ES

QU

AR

RE

RO

AD

0 80604020 100

figure 2 site location

(b) Project stage

The client, Quadrant Estates, is a developer. It has an agreement with the landowners to purchase the

land when planning permission is granted. The development is anchored by a supermarket. The scheme that

forms the “baseline” for this D4FC study was put together in a period between October 2010 and April 2011.

It is portrayed in the form of sketches, which represent a level of detail commensurate with the project moving

from RIBA stage B to stage C. Although presented as sketches, the layouts are based on CAD drawings

because the imperative to maximise the use of all the land requires precision in setting out. The baseline

scheme drawings are contained at Appendix 1 - 2 and outline specification at Appendix 1 - 4. Appendix 1 - 3

shows the site layout revised as a result of the D4FC study.

(c) Cost

The cost of the foodstore and retail part of the scheme has been estimated as £14.72M (foodstore

£12.87M and retail terrace £1.85M). The cost model is contained at Appendix 1 - 5.

(d) Project progress

Since April 2011 the market has collapsed and the client has not been able to interest any of the

supermarket operators in the opportunity. Coupled with this other planning applications were made on

rival sites, which would have led to an oversupply of food retail in the area. In the last eight months these

applications have been withdrawn. This again indicates the state of the market and to some extent re-opens

the door for this site. Having said that there is already one sizeable foodstore in the town and, given the tight

state of the economy, it is possible that even this would make the present scheme unviable. In any event, this

unfolding story showed that the 80,000ft2 (7,420m2) store was too big for the area and that 60,000ft2 (5,575m2)

would be the appropriate size. However this was after the team had committed to thermal modelling the

building project



Final Report

buildings and it was decided that the difference between the two would not affect the D4FC project outcomes

in any significant way and therefore the 80,000ft2 was pursued.

From the time the client is able to “sign up” an anchor tenant it will take about 9 months to move the

project to RIBA stage D as a planning application. The application could take another 9-12months and then

the overall project would be built in phases over a period of 3-4 years.

(e) Sustainability

In terms of sustainability an overarching aim for the original project had been to be demonstrably the

best in class for this property type but without resorting to “green wash” - a project with integrity. An objective

was to make the rationale, design, cost and decision making for sustainability completely transparent, so

whatever the outcome it could be seen that the best had been done. It recognised that in a strictly commercial

environment there would be no room for anything that was not rigorously justified and integrated with the

processes by which commercial property is procured. The target is to achieve a BREEAM very good or

excellent score. As yet the project has not reached the stage at which a BREEAM assessment can be

commissioned. Therefore it is not possible to say whether this objective has been met.

(f) D4FC project aim

However when the D4FC competition arrived it provided an ideal platform to carry out work within

these ideals. The purpose of this D4FC study is to focus on the buildings constructed with a frame and

lightweight cladding (figure 3) because they represent a large swathe of the commercial property market,

which, because they are un-glamorous, tend to be overlooked in serious studies. The climate change project

therefore focuses on the buildings marked with * in box 7 because they are constructed this way. A feature

associated with many of these uses is the adjacency of large areas of car parking, which is another theme

the study tackles.

figure 3 frame & lightweight cladding building - subject of the D4FC study

building project



Final Report

2.0 Climate Change Risks

This section sets out the findings from an analysis of what impact the predicted changes in climate, in

the locality of the case study, would have on the development. This involved assessing what those changes

might be and, in light of these, what the particular vulnerabilities of the case study are.

2.1 Climate change scenarios

(a) Which data-set?

In line with current best practice the study uses the Government’s UKCP09 3 probabilistic data.

The University of Exeter’s PROMETHEUS project4 has produced probabilistic future weather files

derived from UKCP09 for many locations around the UK. Through the good offices of the Technology Strategy

Board (TSB) Exeter provided our team with a bespoke data-set for the Ammanford location.

In the thermal modelling of the buildings the Test Reference Year (TRY) files were used rather than

the Design Summer Year (DSY) files. Whilst DSY files are in the present used for design and addressing

overheating issues, and although the TRY files do not take into account natural weather variation, the TRY

files appear to offer a better, more rounded representation of the predicted weather years, suitable for a

general understanding of risk/impact. Taking this argument further, if the overheating impacts are significant

at this stage with TRY data, then the DSY data will only reinforce this argument.

The 2050 high emissions scenario with a 90% confidence interval was chosen as the basis. This

decision was arrived at by, first examining several different scenarios to identify general trends, and then

selecting the one whose data would have the right order of magnitude when compared with the control data

for assessing risk to this type of property. The main consideration for this type of property is that the estimated

lifespan would not normally exceed 30 to 40 years. The main statistical consideration was to avoid the masking

of risk with a scale of data that was too fine grain - better to exaggerate the effect for the purposes of teasing

out vulnerabilities and opportunities for adaptation.

(b) Weather trends 2030

In the first instance the weather parameters in box 8 were examined for 2030 medium emissions

scenario and all the confidence intervals (10, 33, 50, 66, and 90%) were compared because of the apparent

correlation of this year with the anticipated lifespan of these buildings. The detailed results are included

at Appendix 2 - 1. It appeared to show trends of rising temperature by several degrees and redistribution

3 UK CLIMATE IMPACTS PROGRAMME, 2009. UK Climate Impact Programme’s 2009 (UKCP09) climate change projections . London: Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. [online] Available at: http://ukclimate-projections.defra.gov.uk/ [accessed: 28 March 2013]4 UNIVERSITY OF EXETER, 2008. PROMETHEUS. [online] Available at: http://emps.exeter.ac.uk/research/en-ergy-environment/cee/projects/prometheus/ [Accessed: 28 Mar 2013].



Final Report

of rainfall from summer to winter. Some parameters proved to be less of a concern to the question under

consideration and therefore not taken forward as shown in box 8.

On the basis that the best way of triggering design solutions and adaptation measures is to understand

the worst case scenario, the 90% confidence interval figures for the medium emissions scenario were then

compared with the equivalent figures for 90% figures for high emissions scenario. This appeared to show

that there is little difference between the high and medium emissions scenarios within this relatively short

timescale - 20 years from the present.

box 8: WEATHER PARAMETERS

take forward

• average daytime temperature • peak monthly temperature • relative humidity • predominant wind direction • average monthly wind speed; • monthly precipitable water • annual precipitable water

(c) Weather trends 2050

The data for the year 2050 was then examined because a good outcome for climate change design

solutions and adaptation measures would be to ensure that the end of life for these buildings was extended

beyond the 30 years mentioned above. The results are shown at Appendix 2 - 2, which not only compare the

90% confidence interval figures for medium and high scenarios in 2050 but also show them alongside the

previous results for 2030. The trends observed above were mostly confirmed. The findings for both medium

and high scenarios are summarised in box 9.

box 9: WEATHER TREND FINDINGS FOR 2030 & 2050 MED & HIGH SCENARIOS

• 90% confidence the average temperature will rise by at least 2/ 3ºC through-out the year by 2030.

• by 2050 the average summer rise will be in the order of 5ºC

• a trend for peak monthly temperatures to be up to 7ºC higher than the base-line scenario in 2050

• relative humidity is significantly lower during the summer in all 4 cases

cont...../

climate change risks



Final Report

box 9: WEATHER TREND FINDINGS FOR 2030 & 2050 MED & HIGH SCENARIOS

• generally in all 4 cases there appears to be some increase in the hours for wind direction from:

» between S and SW » direct W » WNW

• and a decrease in hours for wind direction from: » WSW

• However, the wind direction and wind speed data is largely inconclusive and at best weak in terms of predicting impact.

• The absence of trends was observed in the following instances: » the 2050 rainfall data appeared to be erratic and in itself does not

fully bear out the redistribution from summer to winter finding from the 2030 scenarios;

» average wind speed appeared to be unchanged from the present.

Intense storms

Analysis of the probabilistic data-sets does not produce any usable evidence of other effects of climate

change, notably extreme weather events. Anecdotal evidence indicates this is already happening, for instance

the event encountered by a team member as part of his business activity in box 10. The effect is well covered

in the literature for example:

Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become more intense in a warmer and more energised world, as the water cycle intensifies, but changes to their location and overall numbers are less certain. There is growing evidence the expected increases in hurricane severity are already occurring and beyond natural decadal cycles. (Stern, 2007)5 .

box 10: EXAMPLES OF EXTREME STORMS NOW

Wind damage to grandstand roof at Epsom racecourse in 2012

“ Over the years we have seen some spectacular changes in weather patterns, especially where wind and rain have been involved, nor-mally they come together. Our experience has seen a need for larger gutters for buildings in the South East and South West where storms are more in-tensive. Even though annual rainfall is low when there is an intensive storm the volume of water flowing to the gutter as a result of the storm demands bigger drainage to ensure the building design can cope. With the rain comes the wind and the images below should be self-explanatory. The high bay warehouse was designed and installed by CA. At the time of construction there was no other building in the vicinity. Afterwards, another building was constructed nearby and shortly after completion the building was hit by a storm which created a vortex between the two structures which resulted in the damage. To say the least this is extremely unusual, but not unique.

Brian Watson, Group Development Director, CA Groupcont..../

5 STERN, N. H., 2007. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.




Final Report

box 10: EXAMPLES OF EXTREME STORMS NOW

Ellesmere 2008 storm damage

This weather trend is particularly relevant to the type of property in question as will be shown ahead

and is therefore included as one of the main weather trends to be used to generate adaptation measures.

(d) Weather trend conclusions

The weather patterns arising from climate change that would be of most significance to the case study

are summarised in box 11.

box 11: SUMMARY OF WEATHER TRENDS WITH AN IMPACT ON CASE STUDY

• increased average temperatures throughout the year

• higher peak temperatures for part of the year

• lower relative humidity during the summer

• potentially less rainfall during the summer but more in the winter

• increased frequency of storms that have an “extreme” intensity

2.2 Risk exposure of case study

(a) Scope of assessment

One of the outcomes of this piece of work is to gain an understanding of the different ways that

the climate change risks manifest themselves between the different types of building that use frame and

lightweight cladding. This would examine the effects of varying sizes of building and occupancy criteria. The

case study presents the opportunity to do this because within it there is a foodstore, a retail terrace, starter

units and a healthcare unit all constructed in this way. However limitations of time and resource have restricted

the scope to the foodstore and retail terrace only.




Final Report

(b) Risk to whom?

This section assesses the risks in terms of the direct effect on occupiers of the building - the frontline.

This is the only realistic basis for generating a set of potential adaptations. The uptake of the adaptations

however is in the hands of the building owners and investors who are rarely the same party as the occupiers

for buildings of this type. Risk is perceived in a different way by investors, where the direct risks - physical

risks - are only one of several other considerations: e.g. regulatory risk, litigation risk, competitiveness risk and

reputational risk (Carbon Trust, 2005, 10)6. The adaptation strategy is mindful of the constraints to “uptake”,

which are discussed more fully in the section ahead “Property investment rationale” p62.

(c) Method

The weather trend conclusions from the previous section were brought forward and used to help

determine the vulnerabilities within the case study. The method followed the steps in box 12.

box 12: METHOD FOR DETERMINING VULNERABILITIES

step 1 • an assessment framework based on tables within the Gething report was used as a checklist and scored

step 2 • team members were asked to identify the most salient issues and opportunities directly using their existing knowledge and fields of expertise

step 3 • the results of steps 1 and 2 were collated, synthesised and col-lapsed into key themes

step 4 • the results of step 3 were added to and refined during the course of the study as a by-product of more detailed investigations

Step 1 assessment framework

A comprehensive assessment framework was compiled based on the tables in the Gething report

(similar to table 1 in section 7 of the D4FC contract) summarising interrelationships between anticipated

changes in climate and opportunities for design, with indications on the timescales to consider when developing

design strategies. It was tailored to this project with some non-relevant items on the checklist removed and

with a bespoke scoring system. See Appendix 2 - 3 for detail of the framework template. The framework was

independently scored by two team members and the results synthesised. See Appendix 2 - 4 for the results

of the synthesis.

Step 2 team members knowledge

Alongside step 1 team members identified the most salient issues and opportunities directly using their

existing knowledge and fields of expertise. This took the form a joint free ranging discussion at a workshop

followed by written submissions which are included at Appendix 2 - 5.

6 Carbon Trust, 2005. A climate for change: a trustees guide to understanding and addressing climate risk. Lon-don: Carbon Trust. Available at http://www.iigcc.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/262/A_climate_for_change.pdf [accessed April 2013]




Final Report

Step 3 synthesising steps 1 and 2

The outcome of this step was a provisional series of conclusions about the vulnerabilities of the case

study which could give opportunities for designing adaptation measures. The broad areas are summarised

in box 13.

box 13: SUMMARY OF BROAD AREAS OF VULNERABILITY

• summer overheating: the internal environment is all too easily adversely affected by changes in the external climate and thus, in this case, will readily suffer from summer overheating

• water ingress: water entering the building during and after storms through the roof owing to insufficient capacity of the rainwater disposal system at any point from gutter to site outflow

• urban heat island effect increased: large car parks that tend to add to the urban heat sink, exacerbating the summer overheating problem, thus requiring more mitigating vegetation which is at the same time is more difficult to irrigate.

To target these broad areas of vulnerability, eight specific categories under the theme of Designing

for Comfort were identified and four under the theme of Managing Water. There were several “minor” issues

under the theme of Construction but it was felt that these would be dealt with as part of the regular design

process and did not particularly represent fruitful areas for innovative approaches. They are captured further

ahead as part of the adaptation strategy but did not form part of the design studies. A full record of the

provisional conclusions from step 3 is contained at Appendix 2 - 6.

Step 4 improving the risk assessment

As the project moved forward the team was drawn deeper into all the issues. This process caused the

provisional conclusions to be challenged, refined and added to. The consolidated results of the whole process

are discussed next in this section, which ends with a final summary of the vulnerabilities.

2.3 Vulnerabilities of case study

(a) Designing for comfort

The impact of climate change (using our chosen scenario) is an overall increase in temperature

throughout the year (2/3ºC in 2030) and exaggerated summer peak temperatures (7ºC more than control

peaks in 2050). In theory this should cause buildings to require lower levels of heating in the winter but

require higher levels of cooling in the summer to maintain comfort conditions with two potential undesirable

consequences:

» the strategy for cooling is unable to cope with certain summer peaks to a degree where inhabiting the building is unpleasant or occasionally intolerable; and

» the energy demand for cooling outstrips the energy saved from less heating in the winter leading to increased energy costs for the user - in this case the retailers. There may come a point when, combined with rising energy prices, the overall energy bill threatens the viability of the retailer’s business.




Final Report

In order to understand the scale of these issues in relation to the case study, the thermal performance

of the foodstore and retail terrace was analysed using IES dynamic thermal simulation. It uses the baseline

specification and compares the current (control) with the 2050 scenario (90%, high emissions) - our chosen

scenario as outlined earlier.

Overheating

The results are shown in box 14. It uses the current industry standard for measuring “discomfort” - the

number of occupied hours per annum where the temperature in a given space is over 28°C (see discussion

ahead in section “Potential components of the adaptation strategy” p33).

box 14: IMPACT ON COMFORT LEVELS - OVERHEATING

building occupied hours per annum over 28ºC

current 2050

foodstore - sales area 38 559

retail terrace - mezzanine 297 428

It shows that both buildings are vulnerable without adaptation. It is noted that the retail units are

already vulnerable, a point that will be taken up in the section on adaptation strategy ahead.

Energy use

The comparison of annual energy used for heating and cooling for the buildings (baseline specifications)

currently and in 2050 is shown in figure 4 and figure 5.

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

J F M A M J J A S O N D

retail unit energy usage MWh

CURRENT 2050

figure 4 retail unit annual energy usage (MW/h)

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

J F M A M J J A S O N D

foodstore energy usage MWh CURRENT 2050

figure 5 foodstore annual energy usage (MWh)

This shows that climate change reduces the energy demand in winter and increases it in summer as

expected. However the scale and amplitude of the effect is dramatically different for each building. Climate

change is a net benefit to the foodstore where the winter savings more than outweigh extra demand in the




Final Report

summer. According to the modelling the saving is estimated as 128MWh. It is the other way around in the

case of the retail unit, where the model estimates the building will be 9MWh/yr worse off in the 2050 climate.

Climate change is thus the driver of a quest for adaptation measures in one case but not the necessarily

the other. However the study pursued adaptation measures that would be applicable to both on the basis that,

while they would help to stop the situation becoming worse for the retail units, they would help the foodstore

reduce its energy load, which just adds to the scale of the benefit

(b) Management of water

The impacts of climate change are an increase in the frequency and intensity of severe storm events

and an increase in the amount of precipitation during winter months, giving rise to the following threats to the

case study:

» the roofs to this sort of building are low pitched (typically 4°) and formed of sheet material making them vulnerable to water ingress from wind driven rain, particularly at the ridge and sheet laps; and

» disruption to the function of the car parks has a direct impact on trading and therefore flooding is a risk that must be avoided if at all possible.

The scale of the impact of the severe storm has already been illustrated in box 10, p.20. These

examples occurred within the last five years and the situation is predicted to only get worse in the future as

the climate changes. With regard to car park flooding, the design standards in use at the moment allow for

the current 1 in 100 year event to be contained within designed pipes and manholes without causing any

flooding on the site. Based on the data from our chosen 2050 scenario, we estimate an extra storage capacity

of 290m3 capacity is needed to cater for the 2050 version of the 1 in 100 year event (refer to Appendix 3 - 5:

Waterman’s report on drainage).

(c) Green Infrastructure (GI)

It quickly became clear that the three themes (Designing for Comfort , Managing Water, and

Construction) from the Gething report were not sufficient to capture all the vulnerabilities presented by the

case study. The Gething report and the D4FC competition tend to casue a focus on individual buildings. The

case study however comprises several buildings on several plots of land. Additionally the two retail uses

(food store and retail terrace) necessarily require large plots of land to accommodate car parking. Therefore

the land between the buildings is a significant component of the scheme and demands an examination of the

effects of climate change on it and how it could be adapted in response.

The team started with the vulnerabilities giving rise to the opportunities noted under the section:

keeping cool - spaces around buildings contained in Table 1 of section 7 of the D4FC contract, but expanded

the scope of the checklist to include Green Infrastructure (GI) and its issues.

GI is strategically planned and managed networks of natural lands, working landscapes and other

open spaces that conserve ecosystem values and functions and provide associated benefits to human




Final Report

populations. The presence of GI is an environmental benefit to human populations. Climate change threatens

to diminish and degrade the amount and type of this resource, particularly in urban situations. Thus, while

the ecosystem is conducive to human survival at the moment, when changed, human survival becomes more

difficult. GI climate change adaptation measures aim to restore equilibrium to tolerable levels.

A proactive approach to its preservation/creation is both a means of adapting to and mitigating the

threat. The relevancy of GI to climate change is well rehearsed in the literature (for example: The Landscape

Institute, 20087; Gill et al., 20078; Hamin & Gurran, 20089).

One result of this work is an extension to the Table 1 checklist, which was agreed with the TSB (Mark

Wray email dated 29 Nov 12 - Appendix 2 - 7). Table 1 is based on the themes from the Gething report with

each broken down into three subsections (figure 6).

Design for future climate 11

The main sections of this report are colour coded to help you navigate through them easily (see below).

They are followed by appendices on UK climate change projections, further information and references.

Designing for comfort Construction Managing water

Keeping cool – building design 13

Keeping cool – external spaces 16

Keeping warm 18

Structural stability – below ground 21

Structural stability – above ground 24

Weatherproofing, detailing and materials 26

Water conservation 31

Drainage 34

Flooding 35

Introduction

figure 6 extract from introduction to Gething report (2010, 11)

The extension adds the theme GI with three subsections as shown in box 15.

box 15: GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

• Microclimate modifi-cation

measures that can directly affect the microclimate

• Avoid depletion measures that resist any destruction of vegetation by a change in climate

• Maximise to alleviate stress on ecosystem

measures that can maximise the quantity of GI as a strategy to offset the degradation of ecosystem by climate change (NB these tend to be dual purpose because in most circumstances it is not viable to trade development land for vegetation)

The main impacts of climate change in this respect are the effect of the increased summer temperatures

and altered rainfall patterns, with drier summers and wetter winters including the potential for deluges as

noted in the water section above. The case study is vulnerable to this in several respects:

» alteration of the microclimate of the car parks and entrances to the buildings with large areas of hard

7 The Landscape Institute, 2008. Landscape architecture and the challenge of climate change: Landscape Institute Position statement. London: Landscape Institute. Available at http://www.landscapeinstitute.org/PDF/Contribute/LIClimateChangePositionStatement.pdf [accessed April 2012]8 Gill, S.E. et al., 2007. Adapting Cities for Climate Change: The Role of the Green Infrastructure. Built Envi-ronment. 13 March 2007, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 115-133(19). Available at http://gis.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/urban-forests/docs/Gill_Adapting_Cities.pdf [accessed April 2012]9 Hamin, E. & Gurran, N., 2008. Urban form and climate change: Balancing adaptation and mitigation in the U.S. and Australia. Habitiat International. Vol.33, Issue 3, July 2009, pp 238-245. Available at http://people.umass.edu/em-hamin/Research/hab_778%20with%20corrections.pdf [Accessed April 2012]




Final Report

surfaces exacerbating the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, making it unpleasant to come and use the buildings and potentially deterring people from making shopping trips, which in turn affects the economic viability of the retailers;

» with a significant amount of urban land contained in the case study, its GI has a relatively important influence on the health of its urban context through its eco-system. It is more susceptible to variation because of the large areas of car park magnify the effect (ie the previous point). The consequences to the locale of degradation or depletion are more serious because of its size.

(d) Risk summary

The risk areas arising from the vulnerabilities discussed above are drawn together in box 16. At this

stage it is considered sufficient only to identify the presence of a significant risk without the need to calibrate

the scale or compare relative severities. This is a complex process involving not only weighing up different

climate change scenarios but also the factors affecting investment decision making. The proposed adaptation

strategy, in the next section, however necessarily takes these factors into account in order to have merit.

Discussion is therefore deferred to that part of the report.

box 16: RISK SUMMARY

climate change theme

vulnerabilities impact potential consequencs

designing for comfort

overheating internal environment unpleasant and oc-casionally intolerable

• loss of trading• stock damage

energy use increased energy consumption for cooling

• increased running cost for business potentially threat-ening viability

construction severe storms wind damage to walls and roof

• cost and incon-venience of repair


managing water

severe storms water penetration through roof

• cost and incon-venience of repair


severe storms and intense and prolonged winter rain

flooding of car parks and entrance to buildings

• loss of trading

green infra-structure

UHI exagger-ated

external environ-ment unpleasant and occasionally intolerable

• loss of trading

depletion and degradation

health of eco-system • human habitation less tolerable

These areas of risk are taken forward as opportunities for designing adaptation measures. The

process of identifying the opportunities, examining them in more detail and then arranging them into a coherent

strategy is covered in the next section. (NB as discussed earlier the construction risk is not developed in this

study as an area for adaptation).




Final Report

3.0 Adaptation strategy

This section sets out a strategy derived from the results of examining in detail the relative merits of a

range of opportunities for adaptation.

(a) Introduction

23 potential adaptations were explored during the study. Most were conceived at the risk assessment

stage as part of the process of understanding the vulnerabilities but others emerged as the work progressed in

more detail. The impact of each was assessed and cost benefit analysis carried out. This process generated

46 separate conclusions, which became the material for shaping the strategy.

For the strategy to have any traction it needs to take into account the way buildings are procured and

the interests of the various parties involved in that process. As the case study is set firmly in the commercial

sector its outputs are tailored around the dynamics of property investment and the developer’s (the client)

role in it.

Commercial property distinguishes very markedly between building users and building owners, each

sitting on opposite sides of a lease agreement. The owners are interested in the investment value and users

(tenants) are interested in operating efficiency. The owners are responsible for providing a “shell and core”,

which the tenant’s “fit out” according to their needs. Some features of the shell and core effect operational

efficiency and are therefore of mutual interest. Other features are more to do with protecting the owner’s risk

and future proofing the investment and therefore of little interest to the tenant. Climate change adaptations

fall into one or other or both these categories. Other adaptations purely affect the tenant’s fit out and are of no

interest to the developer and investor.

The strategy comprises five recommendations formulated to address this environment.

(b) Method

The method followed the steps set out in box 17.

box 17: METHOD FOR PRODUCING ADAPTATION STRATEGY

step 1 • option appraisal

step 2 • detail design and testing of chosen options

step 3 • cost benefit analysis

step 4 • industry testing

step 5 • discussion and conclusions

step 6 • recommended strategy

Step 1 option appraisal

One of the tools used to aid understanding of the vulnerabilities of the case study at the risk

assessment stage was a checklist of design opportunities of adaptation. Thus at a relatively early stage there

was an indication of what the opportunities would be. To prepare for detailed design and analysis the list was



Final Report

reformulated and subjected to a SWOT analysis. The checklist (modified version of table 1 of section 7 of the

TSB contract conditions) is included at Appendix 2 - 3 and the results of the SWOT analysis are included at

Appendix 3 - 1. It was this package that was carried forward to the next step.

Step 2 detail design and testing chosen options

The list remained under constant review as the opportunities were pursued in more depth, which

meant additions, subtractions and reformulation. The result was the list of elements in box 18, which are the

potential components of the adaptation strategy. A full analysis of each measure is contained at Appendix 3 - 2

with a summary of each measure is included in section (c) Potential components of the adaptation strategy

- p.33 ahead.

The water, GI and general measures were mostly developed by design work and expressed in the

form of drawings, although headline calculations were carried for drainage capacity. The thermal measures

shaded green in the IES column of box 18 were developed by comparing the parameters of the baseline

specification with the adaptation specification through IES modelling. SBEM modelling was also carried out in

parallel to test the impact in relation to the buildings performance for Part L of the Building Regulations, and

to ensure it complied at all times. The remainder were explored qualitatively.

box 18: POTENTIAL COMPONENTS OF ADAPTATION STRATEGY

project ref

adaptation measure key feature IES

general

G1 robust plot structure site infrastructure positioned to allow future flexibility

thermal

B1/M1 solar glazing radiation

B2/M2 blockwork thermal mass

B3a internal blinds shading

B3b external blinds shading

B4/M4 reflective roof radiation

B5/M5 wall insulation conductivity

B6/M6 smoke vents for natural ventilation

ventilation to reduce heat build up

B7/M7 lighting energy efficiency and reduce heat generation

B8 mechanical cooling cooling

B9a/M9 B/M1-7 together

B9b B1-8 together

B10 remove rooflights reduce solar gain

B11 PV reduce imported energy

adaptation strategy



Final Report

box 18: POTENTIAL COMPONENTS OF ADAPTATION STRATEGY

B12 PV shading devices ditto + shading

B13 Solarwall® shading and reduce imported energy

B14 CHP reduce cost of energy

B15 earth ducts ventilation and reduce imported energy

water

A1 curved ridge avoid water ingress into building

A2 storm only downpipes avoid over-topping gutters

A5 permeable car park with subsurface storage

avoid flooding public areas

GI

A4 C1/C5/C6

SuDS maximise vegetation

C2 resistant vegetation avoid depletion of vegetation

C3 productive landscape maximise vegetation

C8 green roof maximise vegetation/ thermal insulation

Some detail on how IES was used is shown in box 19.

box 19: HOW IES MODELLING WAS USED

Control data vs 2050Control weather data was first used on the baseline specifications for the foodstore and retail units and then on the adapted specifications to give an idea of the effect of the measures in current weather conditions. Then the 2050 weather data set (90%, high emissions) was used to compare the baseline specifications with the adaptations under future climate conditions. The results were analysed in terms of both thermal comfort and also energy use because these were identified as the two areas of risk (“Designing for comfort” p23).

Thermal comfort criterionThermal comfort was assessed by how many occupied hours in a year in a given space are over 28°C. Current practice considers the criterion for ac-ceptability for a retail unit is 1% of occupied hours. Typically for a supermar-ket 1% could be in the region of 50 hours and for non-food retail perhaps 35.

As indicated in box 14, p.24 the supermarket’s sales area, in current weather conditions, is within this limit at 38 hours with the baseline specifi-cation but, at 559 hours, exceeds it severely without adaptation in 2050. For the non-food retail units the corresponding figures are 297 currently and 428 in 2050 in the mezzanine sales area.

Apparent retail unit anomalyThe current situation appears not to work in the mezzanine area and indi-cates that assumptions about how the mechanical cooling installation (which is a baseline inclusion) operates need to be further adjusted with detailed M&E design in the IES model. However the important thing to note from this is not so much the absolute values but the increase between now and 2050, which is 131 hours. Thus the comfort criterion is exceeded by a significant margin.

adaptation strategy



Final Report

Step 3 cost benefit analysis (CBA)

The original scheme was costed as the baseline scenario - see Appendix 1 - 5. Each adaptation

measure was then costed and compared with the baseline to produce the additional cost for its incorporation.

The baseline was also the basis for the comparison of benefits. The CBA is captured in an assessment

framework specifically designed for this project. This “measuring tool” was seen from the outset as an

important project outcome in itself because there is not yet any industry standard for carrying out this sort of

evaluation. So the project, as well as using the CBA to evaluate the adaptation measures, is also testing it in

action to give feedback about the quality of the framework itself. The design of the framework includes:

» devising the most appropriate performance dimensions;

» how each dimension is calibrated;

» how to weigh up and mediate between the different expressions of value;

» how to create a simple and effective interface with the commercial property decision making.

Davis Langdon’s full CBA report with narrative is contained at Appendix 3 - 3, with a summary in the

Adaptation Strategy subsection (d) Cost benefit analysis - p.51. The merits of the CBA tool are contained in

the Learning from this contract subsection “Cost benefit analysis” p82.

Step 4 - industry testing

The results of the CBA were used to formulate a provisional adaptation strategy, which was presented

to the client as a recommendation for incorporation into the project. As discussed in “Project progress” p16,

the client who is a developer has not yet reached the stage of signing up an anchor tenant in the form of a

foodstore operator. Several aspects of the strategy fall in the realm of tenant works and therefore cannot be

directly tested through the case study at this point in time. However an important part of the plan for future

work-streams (table 3, p.88) is to take the findings out to all the major operators in the sector for feed

back. In addition several individual measures were discussed with leading commercial suppliers in the field

on the basis that because they are doing everything they can to sell into the market they are well placed to

understand the barriers to uptake, see “Others within the industry who were consulted on aspects of the

project - p.73.

Step 5 discussion and conclusions

The major learning from this project is drawn out through a reflection on the findings from the detail

design stage and industry testing stages. This is summarised by drawing up a series of conclusions, which

are posted alongside the report on each individual measure in the next section, “Potential components of the

adaptation strategy”. These are then drawn together in the section “Discussion” p54.

Step 6 recommendations

The provisional version of the adaptation strategy is then reformulated in light of the discussion and

adaptation strategy



Final Report

conclusions. This forms the central outcome of our work. The recommendations are expressed specifically

for the case study. Section 5, “Extending adaptation to other buildings” p83, of the report suggests how this

could lead to a more generic form of the strategy that can be used for other property in this class.

Status of recommendations

The status of adaptations in relation to table 1 in section 7 of the D4FC contract (checklist 3) is

included at Appendix 3 - 6 and summarised in box 3 (in the Executive Summary section). This also cross-

relates the D4FC headings to the project headings but because the recommendations are formulated in

way that reflects the specific flow of the project the correlation is sometimes approximate. The status of the

adaptations is more clearly expressed in the preamble to the recommendations - box 24, p.61.

adaptation strategy



Final Report

(c) Potential components of the adaptation strategy

This section summarises the findings from examining each potential adaptation listed in box 18 above.

Before this however is first a note on how the cost of energy has been illustrated; and second a summary of

the findings for the adaptations that were modelled with IES.

Illustrative cost of energy

Discussion ahead on the effects of the measures on energy consumption are illustrated with energy

costs. For this purpose current prices are used as follows. The standard cost per kWh of electricity according

to the Energy Saving Trust10 is 15.32p/kWh. This is a domestic rate, and it is likely that commercial energy

rates are proportionally lower based on quantity purchased. On this basis we have assumed that the cost of

electricity for the purposes of modelling is 12p/kWh on average. From a gas cost perspective, the EST also

states that the cost per kWh of gas is 4.64p. We have simply rounded this up to 5p for the purposes of the

calculations within this project.

Summary of findings for those adaptations modelled in IES

An indication of the effectiveness of various measures is shown in figure 7 for the foodstore and figure

8 for a non-food retail unit. These demonstrate how much (%) each measure reduces the number of hours

over 28°C in 2050. These charts show the passive measures only. In the foodstore mechanical cooling to

the sales area (B8) was also modelled and was virtually 100% effective at reducing the hours. Although this

solves the problem it increases the electrical energy consumption, which has been identified as a risk in itself.

Therefore an imperative of the adaptation strategy is to maximise the number of passive measures that can

be deployed to minimise reliance on mechanical cooling. Also if a measure can save energy then the cost of

the saving can help offset the capital cost of installation.

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

adaptation measures sales area average all areas

figure 7 foodstore - % improvement in the hours over 28°C by each adaptation measure

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

M1 M2 M4 M5 M6 M7 M9

adaptation measures

mezzanine

figure 8 retail unit mezzanine area - % improvement in hours over 28°C by each adaptation measure

10 ENERGY SAVING TRUST, 2013. Our Calculations. [online] Available at: http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Energy-Saving-Trust/Our-calculations [Accessed: April 2013].

adaptation strategy



Final Report

In terms of energy use, it can be seen from figure 9 and figure 10 that, except for energy efficient

lighting (B7/M7), all other measures have at best a small impact on consumption when viewed across the

span of a year and in several cases there is no effect. The charts relate to 2050.

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

B1 B2 B3a B3b B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9b

adaptation measures

energy saved (MWh/a)

figure 9 foodstore - energy saved per year per measure

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

M1 M2 M4 M5 M6 M7 M9

adaptation measures

energy saved (MWh/a)

figure 10 retail units - energy saved per year per measure

For the foodstore, the combined effect of all the passive measures excluding lighting (B9a) is

10MWh/a. This is just over 1% of the overall annual energy load (880MWh/a) with a value, at current prices, of

approximately £1,200. Therefore the individual impacts of each measure on the energy load was not pursued

any further.

For the retail unit the individual passive measures have more significance with M1, M2 and M6 saving

4%, 1.8% and 2.6% respectively - 4% representing 2.3MWh/a as a proportion of the annual energy load of

59MWh/a.

adaptation strategy



Final Report

Summary of analysis for each adaptation measure

A full analysis of each measure is contained at Appendix 3 - 2 under three headings:

» rationale and description - what the item is and why it is included;

» impact - what effect it will have as an adaptation to climate change and whether there are any other benefits or disadvantages;

» conclusions - what conclusions can be drawn from these findings.

A summary is included in table 1 which contains all the conclusions and extracts from the material

under other headings.

table 1:SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL ADAPTATIONS

G1 - robust plot structure - p.X3/9

1

2

3 4

5

7

68

5


R I V E R A M M A N


MA

ES

QU

AR

RE

RO

AD

0 80604020 100

figure 11 baseline scheme figure 12 re-configured with sub-divisible plotsAdaptation at the scale of the whole building in contrast to just parts of it.

If this were to happen, the main thing that would give the land the most flexibility for future options would be to make sure that the large plots associated with this sort of development are sub-divisible to cater for other uses, primarily res-idential. The main characteristic of this approach would be that underground infrastructure and trees are routed along lines that anticipate future sub-division

Conclusion 1

For awkwardly shaped sites, a purely commercially driven scheme can tend to generate a layout that does not lend itself to future subdivision, which would be beneficial if climate change (and/or other influences) create a need to change the use of the site to a use that has a different building form. Site planning with a more robust plot layout, to counteract this, will inevitably reduce the developable area and hence the real estate value. Using the case study to generate an illustration shows the effect to be somewhere between £7,000 and £13,000 - an almost negligible figure when compared with the value of the overall development.

Conclusion 2

A more rationalised layout means that the irregular pieces of land will tend not to be used for car parking and are available to increase the GI. Thus creating a more robust plot layout not only has the benefit of allowing more flexibility for the future but it also helps with the other climate change adaptation - to increase the amount of GI (see discussion under SuDS, p.X3/49 ahead).

adaptation strategy



Final Report


B1/M1 - solar glazing - p.X3/12

figure 13 solar radiation through glass

Solar control glass can reduce the radi-ation

Glass transmits solar radiant energy into the building by direct transmission and re-radiation. This makes it more difficult to keep the interior cool when the outside conditions are hot. Solar control glass can reduce the radiation (figure 13).

Conclusion 3

The adaptation benefits of solar glazing increase as the size of the building diminishes.

Conclusion 4

In 2050, for the foodstore, solar glazing can make a useful impact on thermal comfort but none on energy use. Howev-er it would still leave the foodstore wildly adrift from the accepted standard for comfort, 50 hours.

Conclusion 5

In the foodstore, up until 2050 the solar glazing is an energy liability by preventing the energy benefit of solar gain in the winter and increasing the quantity of PVs needed to offset carbon emissions meet building regulations standards.

Conclusion 6

In the retail units solar glazing can by itself bring the building from well beyond the standard for comfort, 35 hours, to well within. It does also reduce the energy use by small amount, which will become more significant as energy prices increase.

B2/M2 blockwork

night day night

tem

pera

ture

figure 14 thermal mass principle

Thermal mass to control temperature peaks.

Compared with many other building types the frame and lightweight cladding type has less thermal mass within its construc-tion. Using concrete blockwork in the walls is the only practical way of introducing thermal mass into the construction. In the baseline specification for the foodstore blockwork is already used as the internal leaf of the external wall in the back up are-as and for the back of house area dividing walls. None is used in the sales area and none in the retail units.

Conclusion 7

The impact of blockwork increases as the size of the building diminishes.

Conclusion 8

In 2050, for the retail units, blockwork can make a useful impact on thermal comfort. However it would still leave the foodstore wildly adrift from the accepted standard for comfort, 35 hours.

Conclusion 9

In general terms blockwork is not an effective measure for either thermal comfort or energy saving and has wider negative impacts.

adaptation strategy



Final Report


B3a internal blinds/ B3b external blinds - p.X3/16

figure 15 internal shading figure 16 external shading

Reduce the effect of solar gain by reflecting part of the solar energy.

External blinds (figure 16) are more effective than internal (figure 15) because the reflected heat is not trapped within the building.

These features would normally be included in the tenant’s fit out works but have been introduced into this exercise to gauge what potential effect they could have. Detailed specifications were not produced but the IES model was set to assume that blinds would operate when incident irradiation exceeds 500W/m2, and were tested only for the supermar-ket, back-of-house areas.

Conclusion 10

In general terms blinds are not an effective measure for either thermal comfort or energy saving unless used more ‘in extremis’ as described above.

B5/M5wallinsulationB4/M4reflectiveroof

figure 17 principle of reflective roof

Increasing the amount of solar reflectance from roof.

With a reflective roof more solar energy is reflected and less enters the building as shown diagrammatically in figure 17, which should help control overheating in the summer.

The adaptation for both the foodstore and retail units was to change the specification of the outer sheet to Hamlet RAL 9002 from the Colorcoat HPS Ultra® range, which reduces absorbance of solar radia-tion from 0.7 to 0.26.

There is no cost to this adaptation.

Conclusion 11

Although in general terms increasing the solar reflectivity of the roof only has a small effect on thermal comfort or none on energy saving, it costs nothing to implement and it does contribute to a reduction of the UHI effect.

adaptation strategy



Final Report


B5/M5 wall insulation - p.X3/18

figure 18 Twin-Therm Vertical Wall exploded

Reduce energy gain during summer to control overheating by increasing level of insulation in walls.

The adaptation was to improve the U-val-ue from 0.22 to 0.17W/m2K.

Conclusion 12

Increased wall insulation beyond a certain level is not an effective measure for either thermal comfort or energy sav-ing, when dealing with climate change.

Conclusion 13

Climate change diminishes the already small benefit of increasing the level of insulation.

Conclusion 14

Improving airtightness should be considered as cost effective alternative to increasing levels of insulation, noting that construction detailing and site management practices become critical.

adaptation strategy



Final Report


B6/M6 smoke vents for natural ventilation - p.X3/21

figure 19 typical smoke ventilation product

Most major retailers already employ the use of Smoke Ventilators within their buildings as part of the Fire Safety Strategy.

Typical Smoke Ventilation products (figure 19) with a comparatively simple addition to the control system can be adapted to operate at given climatic conditions and thus be used for purging warm stale air in the sales area of both the Foodstore and the Retail Units. This can therefore be used as a measure to control internal overheating and air quality.

The adaptation was simulated in the model by setting the vents to open when the internal temperature reaches 23°C and a rate of 5 ac/h was used. One (but not the only) way to achieve this rate is to have the “make up” air delivered through low level louvres in the external wall.

It is recognised that this configuration is problematical in terms food retailers’ operational preferences as well as aesthetically. However it was pursued to draw out the impacts of this approach. There is further discussion about other ways of achieving the 5 ac/h in the section on earth ducts ahead p.56.

13No rooflights 20.4x1m @ 4m ccs 11No rooflights 20.4x1m @ 4m ccs 2 rows of 7No roofloights 8x2m @ 6m ccs

1 row of 7No and 1 row of 9Noroofloights 8x2m @ 6m ccs

27No smoke vents 2.85x1.4m

FOODSTORErevised rooflight layoutBETWS WASHERY SITE

AMMANFORD

1:500@A319 Nov 2012

0101-SK-NOV01A

N

REVISED ROOFLIGHT LAYOUT CURRENT ROOFLIGHT LAYOUT

Rev A: smoke vents shown 20 Nov 12

figure 20 distribution of smoke vents in foodstore roof

FOODSTOREelevations with vents

BETWS WASHERY SITE AMMANFORD

1:200@A319 Nov 2012

0101-SK-NOV02

SIDE ELEVATION (S.E. ON SK-OCT01)

SIDE ELEVATION (N.W. ON SK-OCT01)

FRONT ELEVATION (N.E . ON SK-OCT01)

figure 21 disposition of low level natural vent louvres

Conclusion 15

Using the smoke vents for natural ventilation makes enough inroads into reducing overheating to warrant having a role to play especially as it can be achieved at a comparatively low cost.

Conclusion 16

Designing the required level of make up air to achieve the air change rate that makes Conclusion 15 possible, is prob-lematical and in practice the full potential effect of this measure might be compromised.

adaptation strategy



Final Report


B7/M7 lighting - p.X3/23

Lighting represents a huge proportion of the energy use of retail buildings: supermarket 80% and retail units 92%. Due to a lack of natural daylight generally in such buildings, artificial light becomes increasingly important. In addition, there is the restriction on specification imposed by operators who see lighting as a key feature of the shopping experience. Very high lux levels are the norm.

The large amount of energy used for lighting ends up heating the internal environment. As such it contributes the sum-mer overheating scenario. It represents a wide target for reduction with the potential to have a significant impact. This not only applies to the climate change vulnerability of overheating but also the vulnerability of energy use per se.

The adaptation is to replace the baseline lighting specification with an approach using LED technologies. The chal-lenge is make sure that they provide the same lux levels as alternative baseline approaches such as the use of T5s.

Conclusion 17

In the foodstore a change in the lighting specification has a considerable beneficial effect on overheating, an enormous effect on energy consumption and can pay for itself in a very short time frame.

Conclusion 18

In the retail units a change in lighting specification can by itself control the overheating in 2050 to target levels; and make a great improvement in energy consumption.

B8 mechanical cooling - p.X3/25

The standard M&E specification for supermarket buildings does not include mechanical cooling for the sales area.

Mechanical cooling to the sales area is included as an adaptation measure because the predictions from the 2050 scenario show that the overheating in the sales area is so severe - 559 occupied hours over 28°C (box 14, p.24) and this is a way of combating it with certainty. Notwithstanding this it is regarded as a measure of last resort because it increases energy the energy use of the building.

Any mechanical cooling installation in the foodstore would be carried out by the tenant as part of its fit out works, but is included in this study because it plays such an important part in the way the building deals with changing climatic conditions.

The retail unit includes mechanical cooling as part of the baseline specification. The system modelled is a VRF/VRV heat pump system with split heating and cooling capability. Heat and cooling is assumed to be distributed through the space via means of cassettes at high level.

Modelling the cooling system for the foodstore, we assumed a similar system would be installed to the sales floor area.

Conclusion 19

Mechanical cooling is the most effective way of controlling the internal environment in the 2050 climate scenario, reducing the overheating to well within current 1% hours over 28°C standard, with a comparatively small use of extra energy.

Conclusion 20

The barrier to the adoption of mechanical cooling is not so much the additional energy it will use when the climate changes but its high capital cost even though it can save a modest amount of energy in the current situation.

B9a/M9 all passive measures (B/M1-7) combined - p.X3/26

The study examined the effect of combining all the passive measures together.

Conclusion 21

The effects of the measures aggregate more than they overlap to a degree that produces a substantial improvement in 2050 overheating.

Conclusion 22

The cost of carrying out this combination is prohibitive but there is a possibility that removing those with least benefit and greatest cost might provide a combination that is almost as effective.

Conclusion 23

There are no compelling energy arguments derived from combining the measures.

adaptation strategy



Final Report


B9b All passive measures (B1-B7) and mechanical cooling (B8) together - p.X3/27

The study examined the effect of combining all the foodstore measures together.

Conclusion 24

The effect of the combination is no greater than the most effective of its components (mechanical cooling B8) and there would be no commercial reason to do any more than that one component.

Conclusion 25

Even though all the measures considered by this study when put together makes no immediate sense, Conclusion 22 (best performing combination of passive measures) and Conclusion 19 (the ability of mechanical cooling to eliminate overheating by itself) point to the potential for a “winning” combination. In this a range of best performing passive measures would act together with a reduced mechanical specification that would together eliminate the overheating problem but cost less than the current mechanical specification.

B10removerooflights-p.X3/28

figure 22 typical store prior to fit out showing effect of rooflights

As noted in solar glazing (B1, p.X3/13) - rooflights are a major culprit for summer overheating. They are not generally used to contribute to the lighting levels in the store because of the difficulty of con-trolling the internal lighting system to re-spond to varying levels of daylight, which can change minute upon minute. However retailers consider daylight as very impor-tant for the customer experience (figure 22): it is viewed as a key contributor to an overall feeling of wellbeing. To explore the cost of this benefit and to potentially advance the climate change resilience of the building, removing the rooflights from the specification for the foodstore was considered as a potential adaptation.

Conclusion 26

Removing the rooflights solves the current overheating problem identified in the building regulations SBEM calcu-lations and is a very effective passive measure in the 2050 scenario for controlling overheating and it produces a significant saving in capital costs.

Conclusion 27

With the daylight benefit prized so highly and environmental and monetary considerations weighing so powerfully on the other side, the use of rooflights is one of the most difficult conundrums with this sort of retail space.

adaptation strategy



Final Report


B11/M11 Photovotaics (PV) - p.X3/29

figure 23 typical appearance of PVs

The SBEM modelling carried out for the current situation showed that even with a very good thermal specification, the build-ing will require measures to offset carbon emissions in order to pass building regula-tions emissions standards. PV (figure 23) was chosen by the team as the measure (instead of, say, a biomass boiler or ground source heat pumps) because the commercial market is well developed; the costs of PV has dramatically reduced in the past 24 months; and it is very reliable in terms of installation and maintenance.

PV in its own right do not have any impact on thermal comfort. However, it is so tightly bound up with the cost and supply of energy, contributing to energy security and thus addressing the energy vulnerability identified in the risk assessment. As such it is included as an adaptation measure.

Conclusion 28

The increasing standards required by Building Regulations – which are due to be tightened again later in 2013 – will continue to require the implementation of renewable energy technologies on buildings of this type. If PV continues its dramatic cost reduction and continued improvements in efficiency, then this will remain a viable technology for years to come.

B12 and B6 PV shading and natural vent - p.X3/31

PV PANEL

1.7m

ROOFLIGHTS

figure 24 sketch of PV rooflight shading system

In light of Conclusion 27, highlighting the conundrum posed by the rooflights, a proposal was generated to ameliorate the negative effect of the rooflight with “dual use” measure. This is to shade the rooflights with some of the PV panels, al-ready in the scheme (see previous item), mounted on a frame that holds them in an appropriate shading position over the rooflight (figure 24).

Recognising that measures act better in combination than alone, it was tested in the IES model in conjunction with the smoke vent natural ventilation adaptation, B6, (p.X3/21).

Conclusion 29

B12 + B6 is an effective combination of passive measures whose effects appear to aggregate rather than overlap and begins to rival the effect of all the passive measures together (B9a) while being a fraction of the cost. It has the poten-tial to form the basis of the “winning combination” referred to in Conclusion 25.

adaptation strategy



Final Report


B13 Solarwall® - p.X3/32

figure 25 how Solarwall® works

SolarWall® has the potential to address two aspects of the changing climate: (a) it provides ‘free’ heat into the building space during the winter heating season, which addresses concerns over availability/affordability of energy in the future; and (b) in the summer it shades the wall and dissipates heat away from the structure, venting the heated air to high level exter-nally reducing the capacity of the wall to absorb and transmit heat into the building.

The adaptation is to cover the top third of the south facing elevation (approximately 360m2) because the lower section will be shaded by the wooded embankment rising land to the south.

Conclusion 30

Solarwall® is a strong passive measure for dealing with good use of energy and is affordable because of its short pay-back period. Although this benefit diminishes as the climate warms it allows it effectively to be a “free” cooling measure even though its impact in that respect is small.

Conclusion 31

The HVAC equipment associated with the system has the potential for dual-use with other adaptation measures.

B14 CHP - p.X3/35

figure 26 CHP rationale

CHP was qualitatively examined with some illustrative sizing and costing because:

(i) robustness of energy supply - CHP does not reduce the demand for energy as such but it makes the supply more effi-cient. It is therefore a means of contribut-ing to energy security thus addressing the energy vulnerability identified in the risk assessment.

(ii) low carbon and renewable energy technology options - as discussed in PV (B11, p.X3/29) the baseline requires a renewable source of energy to meet build-ing regulations emissions targets and our study chose PV for that purpose. Some supermarkets are starting to look towards CHP too, often renewably fuelled.

(iii) right mix of uses - this kind of mixed use development has good CHP potential based on the likely combination of heat and power loads over a typical operating year. All buildings are in relatively close proximity meaning density is high, transmission distances are low, and therefore so are heat losses. There are also a small number of end users for a given output, so connection costs / metering costs / billing costs / maintenance are reduced accordingly.

There are two broad options for the case study : (a) the supermarket as a standalone installation; and (b) whole site assuming district heating.

In option (a) the supermarket would provide the CHP as part of its fit out package. As such it would be tenant led. This option would allow the tenant to reap the cost savings associated with its introduction.

In option (b) an Energy Service Company (ESCo) would usually be engaged to, provide a turnkey design, installation, maintenance and billing service underpinned by a long term energy services contract to provide heat and/or power to the end users on the site.

adaptation strategy



Final Report


a

b

a

b

stand alone CHP for foodstore only

CHP for whole site and district heating

figure 27 potential location of CHP options

This option would more likely be devel-oper/ land owner led. Heat and/or power would be delivered at a competitive rate with alternative supply options for the length of the energy services contract, measured against prevailing market rates for heat and electricity. A standing charge would also be introduced to cover plant replacement, in the form of a sinking fund.

The ideal scenario would be for option (b). It is estimated that a footprint of approx-imately 200m2 of site area would be required for an energy centre, which may need to be double height to enable addi-tional floor area for plant via a mezzanine. How either of the two options could be incorporated is shown in figure 27.

Conclusion 32

Preliminary calculations for a stand alone foodstore CHP installation suggest that the cost saving is negligible, and although this could change with moment in energy prices, the degree of movement required would be too much of a commercial gamble.

Conclusion 33

Altering the CHP from stand alone foodstore (option a) to also providing district heating for the other uses (option b) has the advantage of increasing the base heat load, thus increasing the system size, and increasing the amount of electricity generated accordingly. However this advantage does not necessarily accrue to the end users who will be paying close-to-market rate for their energy anyway. Preliminary calculations suggest that there is still a modest advantage. There also appears to be scope for looking at the cost/benefit of moving to a more electricity led CHP installation, although this does not then fall within the requirements of “good quality CHP”.

Conclusion 34

With a heat led CHP installation the benefit outlined in Conclusion 33 decreases as climate warms and the proportion of electricity it can generate diminishes correspondingly. In light of this there appears to be scope for looking at the cost/benefit of moving to a tri-generation system should mechanical cooling be introduced.

adaptation strategy



Final Report


B15 Earth ducts for the foodstore

figure 28 M&S Ellesmere Port general view

figure 29 M&S Ellesmere Port typical section

This potential adaptation was introduced late in the study after reflecting on a number of findings and how they could be taken forward. It is an outline qualitative review.

Earth ducts are a method of pre-cooling or pre-heating air and have come to prominence recently with the opening of the new M&S superstore at Ellesmere Port (figure 28 & figure 29)

The work on natural ventilation (adaptation B6, p.X3/21) showed that it is a passive adaptation with the one of the best cost benefit ratings (Conclusion 15) but not sufficient in itself and with the drawback of needing a large area of inlet openings in the walls at low level and that the inlet air is at ambient external temperature, which may already too high to make a meaningful difference.

The work on mechanical cooling (adaptation B8, p.X3/25) found that it is completely effective at eliminating internal overheating in the 2050 scenario and is not particular energy hungry (Conclusion 19) but it has a very high capital cost (Conclusion 20). However because there is no other measure that can be relied upon to control the overheating scenario completely the necessity of installing mechanical cooling will naturally increase. The question becomes by how much can it be reduced with other measures alongside it?

This potential adaptation would link the earth ducts to the inlet side of the air handling unit within the building. The way that it could be incorporated would have to be assessed by testing what the effects are in different scenarios but would lie between two possibilities: (a) the ducts connected to the inlet side of the AHUs without cooling coils, which repre-sents this adaptation coupled with natural vent - B15 + B6 - and is what was achieved in the Luton case study (box 39, p.X3/41); and (b) the same but with cooling coils, effectively this coupled with mechanical cooling - B15 + B8.

One of the reasons why earth ducts are possible with this building type is that they invariably sit within large plots of land to accommodate the car parking. Thus there is sufficient land to contain the long runs of earth ducts needed to make this work. Furthermore the water adaptation: permeable car park with sub-surface storage (A5, p.51 ahead), can use the backfill area of these ducts to locate a significant proportion of the water storage crates. It therefore serves to make the other adaptation more viable.

Conclusion 35

There is sufficient potential for the earth ducts, by acting in combination with other thermal comfort measures to aggregate their effects; and to also increase the viability of other measures, to warrant further R&D in association with manufacturers and designers involved in this sector.

adaptation strategy



Final Report


A1 curved ridge - p.X3/43

figure 30 initial design for Betws Washery foodstore

Many buildings in the frame and light-weight cladding category are designed to have the simple box aesthetic. An example of a leading high end operator’s recent sensitive design for a conservation area is shown in figure 43, p.X3/43 and is not visually uncommon in this sector.

The initial design for this project is no exception (figure 30).

This form of roof is usually at a low pitch of about 4° and involves ridges, hips, valley gutters and boundary wall gutters behind a parapet (figure 44, p.X3/43).

Construction details and components have been developed that work satisfactorily for current climatic conditions. However increasing storm intensity renders: (a) the ridges and hips, which are made of cover flashings, prone to the ingress of wind driven rain; and (b) the outflow of the gutters insufficient leading to over-topping the inside rim and water entering the interior of the building.

figure 31 adapted roof - section and massing

The adaptation is to have a curved roof with a “natural” curve on a profiled sheet over the apex (c.14m) lapping over a flat sheet at 4º that runs out to the eaves (figure 31). The eaves over-sail the edge of the building.

There is no cost for either the foodstore of the retail units.

Conclusion 36

A simple, cost neutral measure that is completely effective at removing a considerable vulnerability inherent with the typical form of this building type.

adaptation strategy



Final Report


A2 storm only downpipes - p.X3/44

f -FACTOR = 0.954Ψ-VALUE = 0.019 W/mKNB. DOES NOT INCLUDE STUB STEEL

TWIN-THERM® ROOF OVERHANGING EXTERNAL EAVES DETAIL

DEPTH AS PERSPECIFICATION

DRAWING TO SUITREQUIRED U-VALUE

DEPTH AS PERSPECIFICATIO

N

DRAWING

TO SU

IT

REQU

IRED U-VALU

EDOUBLE PLATE TO STEEL STUBCOMPLETE WITH THERMAL PADBETWEEN

LINER PANEL CUT TO SUIT STEELSTUB AND SEALED USINGTHERMA-FOIL PLUS 80

LINER PANEL FILLER SEALED WITH GUNGRADE BUTYL SEALANT TO INTERNALCLOSURE FLASHING FIXING IN EVERY PAN

2 or 3mm PPC COATEDALUMINIUM FASCIAFLASHINGS FROMCA BUILDING PRODUCTS

30mm TIMBER PACKERTO ALLOW FOR INSTALLATIONOF GUTTER JOINTS

CA 15 910WS SOFFITCLADDING

*1 RAIL

*1 PURLIN

THERMA-QUILT

THERMA-QUILT

MAIN FIXVENTED PROFILED FILLER

SEALED ALONG BOTTOM WITHGUN GRADE BUTYL SEALANT

CASKADE® PREMIERSINGLE SKIN GUTTER FROMCA BUILDING PRODUCTS

FREEBOARD AREA (75mm)

'STORM CAPACITY'

'NORMAL CAPACITY'

SECONDARY DOWNPIPES

f -FACTOR = 0.959Ψ-VALUE = 0.000W/mK

DRIP DETAIL

THERMA-QUILT

*1 - RAIL

BACKFILL WITH GUN GRADE BUTYLMASTIC TO CREATE AIR SEAL

DRIP FLASHING0.7mm THICK

MAIN FIXING

MATRIX BRACKETAND BAR

LINER PANEL FILLER SEALED WITHGUN GRADE BUTYL SEALANT FIX INEVERY PAN

0.7mm THICK CLOSURE FLASHINGLAPPED AND SEALED WITH T-FOILPLUS 80

MIN

10m

m

HEIGHT AND DISTANCEFROM BUILDING TO SUIT

LANDSCAPE DESIGN

AJBDRAWN:

SYSTEM:

TITLE:

DRAWING No: REV:

CHECKED: DATE: SCALE:

T: 01388 834242 F: 01388 834711E: [email protected]: www.cagroup.ltd.uk

CA Building ProductsEvenwood Industrial EstateCopeland Road, EvenwoodCo. Durham. DL14 9SF

METAL GUTTERMANUFACTURERS

ASSOCIATIONTHE METAL CLADDING & ROOFINGMANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION ROOFING CONTRACTORS LIMIT

THE NATIONAL FEDERATION O

REVISIONS:

EN 14782:2006

TMSB I

ISO 9001FS 10446

Twin-Therm® Overhanging Eaves DetailAmmanford CCD Project

Twin-Therm® Roof

12 Oct 2012 1:10 @ A3

Ammanford - Detail 2

*1 - Refer to TIP-406 on 'Thin gauge purlins' for the minimum thickness ofpurlins / cladding rails.

SB

Refer to relevant specification drawing for appropriate main fix and stitcherreference relative to guarantee requirements.

All stub steel work penetrations must be calculated separately to projectspecific details whether thermally broken or not.

Additional structural support (Continuous edge/side/base support) will berequired for larger gutters over 400mm sole/1000mm length.

Refer TO STD-GUTTER-01 for further information regarding gutter desgin

Minimum f-factors should be checked against building type to limit the riskof condensation, in accordance with BS 5250: 2002 Table B.5, as detailed;

Humidity Class Building Type / Use Min. f-factor1 Storage buildings, etc 0.302 Offices, retail, etc 0.503 Dwellings with low occupancy 0.654 High occupancy, sports halls, etc 0.805 Swimming pools, etc 0.90

Linear thermal performance in accordance with Building RegulationsApproved Document L2 & MCRMA Technical Paper No 18

figure 32 detail of storm-only downpipe

The curved roof with overhanging eaves (adaptation A1, p.X3/43) takes the water away from the roof. The intense storm scenario is then liable to cause a lesser but nonetheless troublesome problem. When the downpipes together with under-ground surface water drainage system reaches its flow capacity the gutter will fill up and over-top as mentioned above. In this case it leads to an additional deluge externally around the perimeter of the building. This not only puts extra stress on the wall to retain its water tightness but also adds to the amount of water falling in an area where pedestrians are walking. Connecting more downpipes into the underground surface water system is not only expensive but is still subject to the flow capacity limitations of that system.

The adaptation is to include more down-pipes that are not connected into the surface water system but discharge over the ground. The discharge can then be channelled across the ground appropriate-ly by suitable detailing at the point of exit. The other feature of these pipes is that they act like a weir at gutter level so that water does not enter them until the water rises to that level. The proposed detail is shown in figure 32. In this way they only operate in certain storm conditions.

Conclusion 37

A cost effective way of managing storm water, marshalling its effects to low level where it can be less troublesome.

adaptation strategy



Final Report


A5 permeable car park with sub-surface drainage - p.X3/46

figure 33 permeable paving extent for adaptation A5

With the previous two adaptations suc-cessfully transferring the impact of a storm all to ground level, the question becomes: how prone to flooding will the extremal areas used by shoppers be?

The retained volume generated during the 1 in 100 year event is accommodated within the designed pipes and manholes without causing any flooding on the site. This shows that the current extreme event can be accommodated tolerably well - but how would this change in 2050?

An analysis of what the 2050 version of a 1 in 100 year storm would look like suggests that an extra 290m3 storage capacity should to be created to avoid flooding. Refer to the engineer’s report at Appendix 3 - 5 for more detail on how the baseline and 2050 scenarios were calculated.

The adaptation is to remove the rain from the majority of the car park surface as soon as it falls on it with permeable paving. Below this is a drainage mat which the conveys the water below the surface to the mat’s edge where it is picked up by a drain (figure 33).

The extra 290m3 capacity is either added to the underground attenuation tank, which is part of the base scheme, or it can be in the form of a zone of sub-surface storage crates (geocellular storage system) (box 40, p.X3/47).

figure 34 permeable paving in conjunction with biofiltration planters

The SuDS adaptation (A4/C1/C5/C6, box 41, p.X3/49 ahead) has some capacity to contribute to alleviating the 2050 version of 1:100 storm event with its system of biofiltration planters. As such it can reduce the extent of this adaptation and there-fore its cost if used in conjunction with it. However because it is necessary to avoid large areas of the car park without per-meable paving the saving ends up being comparatively small (figure 34).

Conclusion 38

There are several ways of providing additional water storage, all of which make the site more robust in coping with storm events.

adaptation strategy



Final Report


A4/C1/C5/C6 SuDS - p.X3/48

1 1a

1

2

2

2

3

4

45

5

6

3

87

2

figure 35 SuDS strategy

Sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) have an important role in any strategy for sustainability. The benefits in this respect are largely outside the scope of a study on climate change and therefore will not be rehearsed in any great detail here. However the previous adaptation (A5 permeable paving and storage, p.51) showed it can contribute additional capac-ity to cater for worsening storms caused by climate change.

As discussed in the GI section (p.25) of the risk analysis stage, climate change will adversely affect the ecosystem. Increasing the amount of GI is one way of offsetting the degradation. A SuDS for this site with a major emphasis on green features - swales, attenuation ponds, biofiltration planters etc - would provide a major opportunity for increasing the amount of GI. Alongside this,and perhaps more tangibly, GI will reduce the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect.

The proposed SuDS scheme is outlined in figure 35 and elaborated further in box 41, p.X3/49.

Conclusion 39

Adding SuDS components is a way of significantly increasing the amount of GI on the plot and could probably be justified totally by sustainability benefits outside the remit of climate change.

Conclusion 40

The adaptation would appear to have a sufficient order of magnitude for it to be claimed that it is more than just tinker-ing with the amount that can: (a) offset the overall degradation through climate change; and (b) have an influence on reducing the UHI effect.

C2/C7 resistant vegetation/ new management model - p.X3/51

With warmer temperatures, annual rainfall redistributed more into the winter months and drier summers, vegetation becomes more susceptible to threats from vegetation pathogens and diseases. The adaptation is to select species for inclusion in planting mixes which are known to tolerate a wider range of conditions. This usually means maximising the indigenous species in a scheme, creating diverse plant mixes and increasing the area covered by “woody” vegetation.

Conclusion 41

An important measure because it is necessary to ensure flourishing vegetation as the climate changes and therefore all the other GI adaptations rely on it.

Conclusion 42

Although it should have no capital cost implications some experimentation may be required over time.

adaptation strategy



Final Report


C3 productive landscape - p.X3/52

9

figure 36 productive landscape to north of highway

Although there is a climate change benefit to be gained from increasing the amount of GI it always has a land take, which as discussed earlier usually has commercial value.

In any commercial scheme it is most unlikely that the land plot will contain any area that could be justified in this way. However surrounding the site there are often pieces of urban land unusable for development.

As the land (figure 36) could currently be already considered as GI, this measure actually has no climate change impact for the case study but is included because of the opportunities it models for other sites. It is expected that unused land suitable for this purpose would usually already be GI as in the case study but it can be imagined that often it will be a case of improving low grade GI.

Conclusion 43

Food production offers a way of increasing GI for land outside, but close to, a project’s site and in so doing bring a climate change adaptation benefit, which is combined with a multiplicity of social benefits.

Conclusion 44

Delivering this adaptation requires a willingness to adopt practices outside typical commercial transactions but for which there are numerous emerging models.

Conclusion 45

Scope to reduce cost through contributions of local partners

C8 green roofs - p.X3/55

Like SuDS, green roofs have well recognised sustainability credentials. The benefits in this respect are largely outside the scope of a study on climate change and therefore will not be rehearsed in any great detail here. As a climate change adaptation they (a) increase GI; (b) lessen the UHI effect; (c) have a small role in the containing the effects of the intense rain storm; and (d) lessen the possibility of internal overheating by preventing the absorption of solar radiation (although in the short term it prevents the benefit of solar radiation in the winter.

However the added weight on the frame (additional 95kg/m² saturated) would increase the cost of the frame. The roofing would have to be changed to the more expensive aluminium standing seam system and it would preclude the use of rooflights. There are also perceived issues with maintenance, health and safety risk, management costs. Green roofs are therefore rarely seen in this sector comprising frame and lightweight cladding building. When they are incor-porated it is usually on the roof of an ancillary area that is not part of the main space.

It was considered impractical as a proposal for the foodstore but has been included as an adaptation option for one side of the retail terrace as shown in the SuDS strategy (box 19, p.X3/49).

Conclusion 46

Adding a partial green roof to the retail units makes a useful addition to the overall GI on the site, and it comes with many co-benefits, but is expensive as a capital cost and will increase the running costs.

adaptation strategy



Final Report

(d) Costbenefitanalysis

Davis Langdon’s full CBA report with narrative is contained at Appendix 3 - 3. Some key features are

picked out here.

Objectives

The intention of the proposed methodology for the CBA was:

» To ensure that any proposed ideas are compared robustly to a ‘baseline’ scenario; e.g. the development as it would be were no interventions proposed.

» To provide a measurable outcome that can be compared across climate change interventions.

» To take into account both cost and benefits/impacts .

» To provide a tool that can be extended to assess other case studies with results that can be compared across project and design interventions.

Baseline

Importance was attached to ensuring, as far as possible, that the baseline reflected “business as

usual”. This includes doing what is necessary to meet: current legislative requirements; industry standard

practice; benchmark/exemplar specifications for similar developments.

Assessment steps

The process is outlined in box 20.

box 20: CBA STEPS

PART 1 Cost comparison between the proposed intervention and it’s corresponding baseline scenario.

PART 2 Comparison of performance of intervention with its baseline in relation to specific climate change risk. For example is the proposed drainage intervention better equipped to deal with 2050 climate change rainfall than it’s baseline.

PART 3 Co-benefits Analysis; while it was recognised the primary driver for instigating an intervention was to adapt to climate change impact it was clear that a tool for comparing co-benefits was also required. This allowed the team to quickly assess whether an intervention option was ‘better’ than another in terms of its costs and benefits. It also allowed cross-comparison of interventions focussing on different climate change impacts. Co-benefits were focussed on environmental and ‘in use’ characteristics.

Scoring

Benefit analysis was based upon a series of criteria (performance dimensions) informed by industry

standard assessment tools (BREEAM/LEED). Each criteria was rated as follows:

» -2 Major, direct negative impact

» -1 Minor or indirect negative impact

» 0 Neutral impact

» +1 Minor or indirect positive impact

» +2 Major, direct positive impact

adaptation strategy



Final Report

The assessments were made in terms of the intervention vs baseline. Where a baseline specification

was considered a major negative (-2) and the intervention a major positive (+2) the overall score assigned

was +4.

Results

The results of the CBA are summarised in box 21. The full version is at Appendix 3 - 3.

The climate change benefit score has been isolated in the yellow column and the co-benefits listed

under 3 headings and totalled in the green column. Each of the 3 co-benefits columns represents a total of

scores under several further sub-headings not shown here and hence in certain cases can amount up to 10

when it scores well under the sub-headings. The first cost column is the total cost (in £1,000’s) and the second

column shows the cost per benefit point (£/pt) - a ratio effectively measuring the cost of the benefit.

box 21: CBA SUMMARY

project ref

adaptation measure

LEI - local environmental impactEA - energy and atmosphereHW - health and well-being

clim

ate

chan

ge

bene

fit sc

ore

all benefits score (including climate change benefit)

cost(£1,000)

LEI EA HW

tota

l

o/a

cost £/pt

general

G1 robust plot structure

7.1

designing for comfort (foodstore)

B1 solar glazing 2 0 0 2 2 67.4 33.7

B2 blockwork 1 0 1 0 1 299.1 299.1

B3a internal blinds 1 0 0 1 1 40 40

B3b external blinds 1 0 0 1 1 40 40

B4 reflective roof 1 0 1 0 1 0 0

B5 wall insulation 1 0 1 0 1 60.1 60.1

B6 smoke vents for natural vent

3 0 0 3 3 13.5 4.5

B7 lighting 4 0 2 2 4 83.5 20.9

B8 mechanical cooling

3 0 -1 3 2 293.1 146.5

B10 remove roof-lights

2 0 0 1 2 -40 -40

B11 PV 2 0 2 0 2 35.8 17.9

adaptation strategy



Final Report

box 21: CBA SUMMARY

project ref

adaptation measure

LEI - local environmental impactEA - energy and atmosphereHW - health and well-being

clim

ate

chan

ge

bene

fit sc

ore

all benefits score (including climate change benefit)

cost(£1,000)

LEI EA HW

tota

l

o/a

cost £/pt

B12 PV shading devices

3 0 0 3 3 24.3 8.1

B13 Solarwall® 3 0 3 0 3 22.1 7.4

B14 CHP 4 0 4 0 4

B15 earth ducts 4 0 2 2 4 116.8 29.2

designing for comfort (retail terrace)

M1 solar glazing 3 0 0 3 3 6.1 2

M2 blockwork 3 0 1 2 3 47.1 15.7

M4 reflective roof 2 0 1 1 2 0 0

M5 wall insulation 2 0 2 0 2 20.7 10.4

M6 smoke vents for natural vent

3 0 0 3 3 5.6 1.8

M7 lighting 4 0 2 2 4 22.8 5.7

M11 PV 2 0 2 0 2 22.1 11

water

A1 curved ridge 2 2 0 0 2 0 0

A2 storm only downpipes

2 2 0 0 2 6 3

A5 permeable car park with sub-surface storage

4 4 0 0 4 210.9 52.7

GI

A4 C1/C5/C6

SuDS 5 4 3 4 11 85.8 7.8

C2 resistant vege-tation

5 10 8 4 22 0 0

C3 productive landscape

5 8 0 2 10 54 5.4

C8 green roof 4 3 3 3 9 95.7 10.6

adaptation strategy



Final Report

(e) Discussion

In this section the findings from these previous sections are brought together to create the rationale

for an adaptation strategy:

» (c) Potential components of the adaptation strategy - p.33

» (d) Cost benefit analysis - p.51

All adaptations together

On investigation all adaptations produced some benefit, admittedly in several cases just marginal. If

all the adaptations are adopted it would add nearly £1.5m to the capital cost of the project, increasing it from

an estimated £14.85m to £16.3m (10%). This is too large a step to even consider trying to justify and therefore

a more nuanced strategy is required.

Adaptations with marginal benefit

The first step in creating a strategy would be to eliminate measures that only have marginal benefit

unless they are cost neutral. This test removes the following measures and reduces the overall cost of all

measures by £466,000 to just over £1M (a 6.5% increase over baseline):

» B2 blockwork in foodstore

» B3a/b internal and external blinds

» B5/M5 wall insulation in foodstore and retail units

Adaptations with greatest cost

Next the adaptations with the greatest cost are examined. Those with little benefit to show for the cost

can also be eliminated. Measures with an individual cost exceeding 0.05% (£7,400) of the capital cost, are

arranged in order of magnitude in table 2 with some preliminary notes about justification and an assessment

summarised with ,?, or . (NB the benefits scores and costs from box 21: CBA SUMMARY - p.52 are

reproduced in the table.)

table 2: ADAPTATION MEASURES ARRANGED BY COST

no description benefit score o/a cost

cost

ben

efit r

atio

(£/p

t)

comments

clim

ate

chan

ge

othe

r inc

l. cl

imat

e ch

ange

B8 mechanical cooling

3 2 293.1 146.5 • the only measure that can be totally successful in reducing overheating (Conclusion 19, p.X3/26)

• its major disadvantage is its capital cost (Con-clusion 20, p.X3/26) but it is likely that this can be reduced by being used with other adaptations (Conclusion 25, p.X3/27)

A5 permeable car park with subsurface storage

4 4 210.9 52.7 • a necessity if flooding in customer areas is to be avoided in future years

• some cost offsetting may be possible if done in conjunction with earth ducts

?

adaptation strategy



Final Report


B15 earth ducts 4 4 116.8 29.2 • has the potential to act in combination with other adaptations aggregating their effects (Conclusion 35, p.X3/42) and also offset costs

?

C8 green roof 4 9 95.7 10.6 • its many disadvantages and the unfamiliarity of it within this sector should rule it out but it does have so many benefits that it must be considered in more depth

?

A4 C1/C5/C6

SuDS 5 11 85.8 7.8 • multiple other benefits (Conclusion 39, p.X3/51) with significant climate change benefit (Conclu-sion 40, p.X3/51) and apart from cost the only drawback is land take and additional mainte-nance

• exceptionally good cost benefit ratio

?

B7 lighting 4 1 83.5 83.5 • has a considerable effect on overheating and ma-jor energy savings gives realistic payback period (Conclusion 17, p.X3/24)

B1 solar glazing 2 2 67.4 33.7 • although this has a noticeable benefit (Conclu-sion 4, p.X3/14) it is a liability in the short term (Conclusion 5, p.X3/14) and scores poorly on the cost benefit ratio

B14 CHP option (a) 4 4 50 12.5 • as a standalone for the foodstore it is of marginal benefit (Conclusion 32, p.X3/39)

• a more interesting solution with cross-site bene-fits is again difficult to justify although there are various permutations that would need to be con-sidered (Conclusion 33, Conclusion 34, p.X3/40)

• good cost benefit ratio

?CHP option (b) 4 4 not

costed


5 10 50 22.7 • multiple benefits (Conclusion 43, p.X3/54) with scope to reduce cost through use of sweat and other equity brought by local partners (Conclu-sion 45, p.X3/54)

?

M2 blockwork 3 3 47.1 15.7 • noticeable effect especially when compared with the foodstore (Conclusion 7, Conclusion 8, p.X3/15)

• not sufficient effect to justify the cost (Conclusion 9, p.X3/15)

B11 PV 2 2 35.8 17.9 • a necessary ingredient of the scheme to achieve current building regulations standards for carbon emissions (Conclusion 28, p.X3/30)


3 3 24.3 8.1 • allows the PV to bring additional benefit and subject to R&D on the support framework and aesthetics has potential

• good cost benefit ratio ?

M7 lighting 4 4 22.8 5.7 • comment as B7 above B13 SolarwallTM 3 3 22.1 7.4 • climate change benefit small but good payback

from its heating credentials (Conclusion 30, p.X3/34)

?

M11 PV 3 5 22.1 11 • see B11 above ?

adaptation strategy



Final Report


B6 smoke vents for natural vent

3 4 13.5 3.4 • moderately good impact on overheating (Conclu-sion 15, p.X3/23)

• potential to more be effective is used in con-junction with other adaptations (Conclusion 29, p.X3/32 & Conclusion 35, p.X3/42)

• excellent cost benefit ratio - however cost of vents for make up air adds in the order of £34K

A2 storm only downpipes

2 2 8 4 • completely effective at what it sets out top do• only marginally over the 0.05% threshold

B10 remove roof-lights

2 1 -40 -40 • very effective at combating overheating produc-ing a cost saving (Conclusion 26, p.X3/28)

• removes daylighting the prized quality for retailing (Conclusion 27, p.X3/29)

?

In broad terms adaptation strategy will include all the items that fall below the 0.05% threshold together

with those achieving a from the above assessment. No further attention needs to paid to those achieving

a but the ? items are contestable and demand further examination. So, the contestable measures are

taken in turn. (N.B. all the and ? are taken together now cost just over £900K - giving a 6.1% increase over

baseline).

B15 earth ducts

An advantage of this D4FC project in relation to its case study is, as explained in the first section of the

report, that it is still at RIBA workstage C and therefore can still be adapted to accommodate any compelling

influences. The ability of earth ducts to make a meaningful and cost effective contribution is still subject to

R&D. In light of the project stage, while the potential remains for this adaptation to be effective it should be

included within the strategy and steps taken to move the R&D forward.

C8 green roof

This adaptation would make a reasonably significant and realistic addition to a sustainability strategy

with a moderate climate change component to it. However it comes at a large cost and with an increased

maintenance commitment. As such it cannot be automatically be recommended as part of a climate change

adaptation strategy but, as part of a responsible approach, should be offered as a choice for the client to

make. For example the client may consider it worth paying for the PR and CSR benefits it brings along with

physical benefits or the ability to enhance a BREEAM rating.

A5 permeable car park paving

The client advised that flooded car parks are more than just a nuisance and would adversely affect

trading. This premise still needs to be checked with the major foodstore chains. Our calculations show that the

2050 version of the 1 in 100 storm would only be 25mm deep if spread out over the whole car park. On the

face of it this would be veering more towards a nuisance than a serious issue. However in practice the depth

would vary with the falls to the ground. Thus there are still several reasons to prevent the arguments for the

adaptation to be unequivocally compelling.

adaptation strategy



Final Report

Generally it is more costly and disruptive to make changes to parts of the substructure than it is to

buildings. Therefore an adaptation strategy should err on the side of caution when it comes to substructure

considerations. Furthermore the problems of flooding arising from exceptionally inclement weather in the

UK are very topical, which, although more anecdotal than empirical, tends to assuage the doubts. For these

reasons this adaptation should be a recommendation, but at the same time, while commitments to specification

in the case study can be deferred pending a change in the market conditions pushing the project forward,

steps should be taken to:

» poll the foodstore chains on the subject, which might reveal the issue is not as serious as imagined; and

» probe the SuDS design more to see how much additional capacity could be created within the GI components of SuDS, which would lessen the amount of underground storage necessary and therefore cost; and

» pursue the earth duct potential, which could create storage in the backfill area.

A4 C1/C5/C6 SuDS

This adaptation brings so many benefits that it would be an automatic recommendation apart from

the overall cost.

The local authority, Carmarthenshire, has earmarked SuDS for inclusion in the LDP. The baseline

scheme was drawn up in early 2011 and reflects the planning policy framework at that time. As the prospect of

making a planning application continues to be delayed, it is almost certain that SuDS will become a condition

of planning. Therefore the cost of SuDS will not be an “extra” but part of the baseline. This tips the adaptation

into becoming a recommendation.

B14 CHP

The two options for CHP, (a) standalone for the foodstore and (b) whole site with district heating (refer

to p.X3/36), are not only very different configurations and have very different benefits (see Conclusion 32 to

Conclusion 34, p.X3/40) but also are very different in the way they present for incorporation into an adaptation

strategy. Option (a) would be carried out as part of the tenant’s fit out and the developer does not carry the

financial burden. However the developer would have to be completely involved, both financially and project

managerially, in setting up the site-wide system - option (b). There are many barriers as explained in more

detail in box 23. It would be much easier to have a strategy that highlighted the benefits to a tenant and

relegated the decision to the tenant, leaving any works as just one among many tenant requirements for the

developer - essentially a reactive role. Option (b) is completely the opposite requiring a proactive commitment

by the developer.

Although the procurement of option (a) is easier its benefits are marginal and therefore cannot go

forward as a recommendation. However option (b) can be presented as a more difficult choice in much the

same way as the green roof is offered (see p.X3/28 above).

adaptation strategy



Final Report

box 23: CHP OPTION (b) ISSUES

Reluctance of foodstore operators to share energy services

In general, a maze of inappropriate and insensitive regulation, which creates bureaucratic barriers and imposes extra costs.

Administrative complexity of setting up the arrangements for tenants on the site to connect to the DH system, and ideally to take the power.

While the theoretical logic for CHP is very compelling, developers objectives are not aligned with achieving the lowest operational cost and minimum car-bon footprint, especially when it is often somewhat speculative at the time of the build as to who will take up the space and for how long.

cont..../

A leading supplier of CHP to the market (ENER-G, p.73) has found an increasing number of CHP installations due to planning requirements in the commercial building arena, but the systems may never run due to sporadic or inadequate occupancy and therefore load profiles. In simple terms the people interested in the original project CAPEX are not the same people interested in the on-going OPEX. As lower OPEX invariably means higher front end CAPEX there is an obvious conflict arising.

Upfront capital investment and phasing. The capital investment is upfront creating an imperative to sell heat/power as quickly as possible and suc-cess depends on phasing. The anchor tenant is required straight away, and others brought on line as quickly as possible. An operator will have clauses in the contract that they would invoke about voids (and payment in lieu of connections). This would also apply when companies went bust, space was not taken, etc.

There will also need to be a long term agreement in place – 25 years or more like 40 in practice – which ties in well with the lifetime of the develop-ment. However, that also comes with a requirement to replace equipment and maintenance too – and this all has to be paid for. The end user will do this through a sinking fund paid for by a monthly charge on the bill. Care has to exercised to make sure that this didn’t mean energy costs were higher than alternatives.

This system removes choice of energy supply for the tenants. This would be acceptable as long as the offer is always competitive.

Supermarkets may feel that, because they need to guarantee certain levels of power, heat etc., they could not to afford to be beholden to an energy provider that is not the main DNO/gas operator. In addition they will probably have purchase agreements with certain energy providers, that may also pro-hibit use of CHP DH in their building.


This falls into the same category as green roofs (p.56) and CHP option (b) above. The benefits

are undeniable but the cost is large. Moreover in the case study it doesn’t actually increase the amount of GI

because it is replacing GI that is already there. As such the only climate change rationale for this measure in

the case study is that it models the adaptation for use on other schemes elsewhere. It is therefore not possible

to automatically include it as a recommendation within the climate change adaptation strategy. However it can

be offered to the client as an optional measure.

adaptation strategy



Final Report


This adaptation potentially has many benefits. It falls into the same category as earth ducts (p.56

above). While the project is still at a stage where it can accommodate any compelling influences, and there

remains the potential for R&D to validate the theoretical effect of this adaptation, then it should be part of the

strategy. The recommendation necessarily includes an imperative to carry out the R&D.

B13 SolarwallTM

This measure is theoretically affordable because of its good payback. However harnessing this

advantage is not straightforward because it is capital expenditure by the developer whereas it is the tenant

who reaps the cost saving (refer also to the discussion “Property investment rationale” p62). In practice, CA

Group’s experience with developer’s who have carried this out is that they have been able to raise the rent

and it has made the buildings easier to let. In addition, although its heating advantage is excellent, its climate

change benefit is small. For these reasons it is not possible to automatically include it as a recommendation.

It must be an optional choice in the same way as green roofs, CHP option (b), and productive landscape.

B10 remove rooflights

This adaptation has a considerable benefit and reduces capital cost but strikes out daylighting

altogether which is thought to be very important in retail space. Although this advice comes across very

strongly it is noted that historically most supermarkets built over the last 10 years have suspended ceilings

and no access to rooflighting. There are therefore major considerations on either side of the balance. For this

reason it is another adaptation to be offered in the optional category.

Summary of provisional recommendations for an adaptation strategy

From the discussion so far it can be seen that the proposed adaptations fall into distinct categories.

At one end of the spectrum are those that can be dismissed. At the other end are those that make compelling

recommendations to the client, noting that the strategy ultimately has to be endorsed by the client. Within

this category several of the most major items fall within the remit of the tenant’s works. The strategy will

therefore require a “soft” and “hard” side. The hard side are those recommendations which are in the gift of the

developer client to implement. The soft side are those where, at the most, it can only present good arguments

to the tenant for adoption. One outcome from this study will be to give the client a “tenant friendly” framework

by which it can easily assess the value of the suggested adaptations. Some of the issues surrounding the

barriers to change for the various parties involved in creating and using real estate are discussed in “Property

investment rationale” p62.

In between the adaptations that are in and out are two other categories. The first are several

adaptations that this study shows have strong theoretical potential but need to be substantiated through

further work. As this project is “delayed” because of market conditions, the opportunity exists to develop these

adaptation strategy



Final Report

further in the interim and therefore the recommendation is to keep the possibility “alive” as long as possible

while undertaking the necessary R&D.

The second are a series of adaptations that have very significant benefits (sometimes in spheres

outside climate change) but at the same time very serious drawbacks, usually, but not always, cost. These

cannot easily be dismissed but neither can they be automatically be included in a strategy. They have to

become the focus of specific choices by the client.

Summary

This is all brought together in a summary in box 24 on the next page. The benefits scores and costs

from box 21: CBA SUMMARY - p.52 are reproduced in this summary. The adaptations are grouped together

in categories to reflect the preceding discussion. Under each category the adaptations are ranked in order of

cost and, where costs are equal, in order of cost per benefit point (£/pt). The last category lists those that are

not to be included in a strategy.

This shows a range of scenarios from some adaptations costing little to nothing (e.g. A1 curved ridge),

to others with great cost and no benefit (e.g. B2 blockwork costing £299K and with cost per benefit point of

£299). In between there are mid cost items with an unexceptional cost benefit ratio (e.g. B11 PV costing

£35.8K with ratio £17.9K/pt) and high cost items with good ratio (e.g. A4 SuDS costing £85.8K with ratio

£7.8K/pt).

The summary is effectively the basis for an adaptation strategy and is also a review of the status if each

potential adaptation that was examined. Following the summary is a discussion of how property investment

works which is the final “layer” necessary to complete the strategy.

adaptation strategy



Final Report

box 24: SUMMARY OF PROVISIONAL RECOMMEND’NS FOR ADAPTATION STRATEGY

No description c c benefit

o/a benefit incl cc

cost £/pt

recommendations for strategy - TENANT LED

M7 lighting 4 4 22.8 5.7

B7 lighting 4 4 83.5 20.9

B8 mechanical cooling 3 2 293.1 146.5

recommendations for strategy - DEVELOPER LED

B4 reflective roof 1 1 0 0

M4 reflective roof 2 2 0 0

A1 curved ridge 2 2 0 0

C2 resistant vegetation 5 22 0 0

M6 smoke vents for natural vent 3 3 5.6 1.8

A2 storm only downpipes 2 2 6 3

M1 solar glazing 3 3 6.1 2

G1 robust plot structure 3 4 7.1 1.8

B6 smoke vents for natural vent 3 3 13.5 4.5

M11 PV 2 2 22.1 11

B11 PV 2 2 35.8 17.9

A4 A4 C1/C5/C6 - SuDS 5 11 85.8 7.8

recommendations for strategy subject to successful R&D - DEVELOPER LED

B12 PV shading devices 3 5 24.3 8.1

B15 earth ducts 4 4 116.8 29.2

A5 permeable car park + storage 4 4 210.9 52.7

optional inclusion in strategy - DEVELOPER LED

B10 remove rooflights 2 1 -40 -40

B13 Solarwall® 3 3 22.1 7.4

B14 CHP option (b) 4 4 n.c. n.c.

C3 productive landscape 5 10 54 5.4

C8 green roof 4 9 95.7 10.6

not taken forward

B3a internal blinds 1 1 40 40

M5 wall insulation 2 2 20.7 10.4

B3b external blinds 1 1 40 40

M2 additional blockwork 3 3 47.1 15.7

B14 CHP option (a) 4 4 50 12.5

B5 wall insulation 1 1 60.1 60.1

B1 solar glazing 2 2 67.4 33.7

B2 blockwork 1 1 299.1 299.1

adaptation strategy



Final Report

Property investment rationale

The decision to adopt recommendations for an adaptation strategy is in the hands of the client.

However as a developer what influence does it have in practice to vary the specifications for the “product”?

The market dictates the Value (V) of real estate as a combination of its Yield (Y) and Rent (R) according

to V=R/Y. This in turn constrains the developer’s Budget Cost (C) for the project according to V=C+P, where P

is the developer’s Profit. The budget can only be increased if either the yield is improved (i.e. lower) or the rent

is increased. Therefore for climate change innovation to be affordable it has to affect the yield or rent or both.

If the project is speculative the main driver for the standard of the “product” is the investor. In this

scenario the developer is aware of the key requirements of investors for the product and arranges for a

valuation with this in mind for the project from a valuer. This sets the project cost budget and the developer

attempts to get the best deal from an investor on the basis that he is providing what he knows they want.

However if the project is hinged around a deal with a tenant (as with the foodstore), the specification will

be centred around the anchor tenant’s specific requirements. In the former case the specification will tend

towards institutional “norms”. In the latter scenario, the tenant will obviously tailor the specification to be

favourable to operational efficiency/ cost.

The provisional recommendations for an adaptation strategy fall into two further categories to some

degree or other: (a) those where the rationale is based on an operational benefit (e.g. efficient lighting); and (b)

those where the rationale is based on protecting the value of the investment (e.g. robust plot structure). Of the

23 proposed adaptations, 18 have a major operational consideration. This would seem to point to the tenant

being the major driver of the adaptations. However the climate change benefits of the measures do not kick

in until the long term. An ideal length of lease for a foodstore tenant would be 20 years and within that period

there would be one major refit. Therefore there would be no financial incentive for a tenant to be interested

in any measure that does not also have a co-benefit that occurs within the lease period. The situation is even

more nuanced than this. With a major re-fit at, say, 10 years there would be little point committing in the short

term to any feature where the benefits tend to accrue beyond 10 years and where deferring implementation

could benefit from improved and cheaper technologies that could be available in the future. The only other

consideration from the tenant’s point of view may be CSR that could change the balance of certain decisions.

Of the 23 proposed adaptations 9 have a major investment value consideration. Some of these also

have operational benefits. So, in these instances, if the case for the tenant is not compelling in the short term

this can be over-ridden in terms of a recommended strategy by the investment value argument.

Where the tenant is the driver, the developer will be procuring a product to the tenant’s requirements.

It might seem that a tenant could go on adding features to the specification. However the ability of a developer

to meet the additional cost is still governed by the market value of the product. So, either the yield has to

improve (i.e. decrease) as a result of the measures, which is less likely to happen when it is an operational

adaptation strategy



Final Report

rather than investment value consideration, or the tenant would have to pay higher rent. Generally speaking

the operational savings would have to outweigh the increased rent for this to work. There is not much room for

manoeuvre. Therefore in practice there is only limited scope for the tenant to be the driver with all calculations

generally constrained by the market according to V=R/Y (see above).

When the investor is the driver, if location and rent are fixed, then measures can be incorporated if

they can improve yield. Such factors are: the ability to get a good covenant; lease length; and ease of sale

(influenced by such things as robustness in terms of “wear and tear” and versatility in face of changing tenant

requirements, technology, legislation, energy costs). Many of the proposed adaptations would appear to do

quite well in these terms. However, generally speaking, valuation of yield is based on historical data such as

local comparables, and resources such as the IPD (Investment Property Databank). Therefore until the whole

industry adopts a position it is very difficult anyone at the valuation stage to gamble with yield. So although

there is a lot of theoretical evidence and compelling arguments it is only over time that it gets reflected in the

pricing. As Bernet et al., 2010,4 11, point out:

The RICS has recently issued a Valuation Information Paper (VIP 13) (RICS, 2009) to valuers advising them to take account of sustainability factors when conducting valuations but the paper does recognise that the role of the valuer is to reflect markets – not to make markets and it recognizes that there is a lack of data transparency.

Several of the measures have reasonably good payback periods. This is an obvious advantage when

the party incurring the capital expenditure (CAPEX) is the same as that responsible for operational expenditure

(OPEX). In the case study efficient lighting (p.X3/23) is an example of this as both are firmly in the remit of the

tenant. However in the case of Solarwall®, CAPEX installation is by the developer whereas OPEX is a tenant

matter. This is not insurmountable but does create a difficulty.

Drawing all the strands of discussion together the potential measures for the adaptation strategy are

shown in box 25 with an indication of where they fit on scales of operational benefit (O) and investment value

(V), with the range: █ (nothing), █ (minor), █ (full).

It is effectively the previous summary (box 24) with this extra property investment “dimension” added.

As before, the benefits scores and costs from box 21: CBA SUMMARY - p.52 are reproduced. Under each

category the adaptations are ranked in order of cost and, where costs are equal, in order of cost per benefit

point (£/pt).

11 Bernet, J.R., 2010. Winning in the Long Run – a quantified approach to the risk of sustainable financial value on real estate: Working Paper 1: Barriers and A Route Map. Paper for SPT/RICS Cutting Edge Conference 2010, London. [online] Available at http://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/15718/1/Sayce-S-15718.pdf [Accessed April 2013]

adaptation strategy



Final Report

box 25: SUMMARY OF PROVISIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADAPTATION STRAT-EGY

No description c c bnfit

o/a befit

incl cc

cost £/pt O V

recommendations for strategy - TENANT LED

M7 lighting 4 4 22.8 5.7

B7 lighting 4 4 83.5 20.9


recommendations for strategy - DEVELOPER LED





M6 smoke vents for nat vent 3 3 5.6 1.8




B6 smoke vents for nat vent 3 4 13.5 4.5

M11 PV 2 2 22.1 11

B11 PV 2 2 35.8 17.9

A4 A4 C1/C5/C6 - SuDS 5 11 85.8 7.8

recommendations for strategy subject to successful R&D - DEVELOPER LED


B15 earth ducts 4 4 116.8 29.2

A5 permble car pk + storage 4 4 210.9 52.7

optional inclusion in strategy - DEVELOPER LED


B13 Solarwall® 3 3 22.1 7.4



C8 green roof 4 9 95.7 10.6

Therefore in summary the developer can only go where investor and tenant market relations will allow.

Within that process there are considerable barriers to innovation that the production of a climate change

strategy should be aware of as it is being formulated. These barriers are summarised in box 26 with an

indication on how they could be overcome for this project. This forms the rationale for the shape of the

recommendations ahead.

adaptation strategy



Final Report

box 26: BARRIERS TO CLIMATE CHANGE INNOVATION

barrier how to overcome

additional capital cost is not fundable by develop-er unless yield or rent is raised

avoid the issue by promoting those adaptations that cost nothing or little (say, 0.3% of the total)

increase the likelihood of the investment valuation producing an improvement in yield by promoting those adaptations that reduce statutory risk. Even if unsuccessful at improving yield then developer’s ease of obtaining statutory consent is improved which by itself lessens cost

developer has no control because adaptation is part of tenant’s fit out

package these adaptations so that the develop-er can pass them on to the tenant in a way that makes it easy for the tenant to “take up the ba-ton”. E.g. some expertise/knowledge transferred through the landlord and tenant design team interaction and/or building log book.

cost incurred by landlord/ developer and benefit by tenant

provide enough knowledge and quantification of the costs at a pre-design stage so that it can be resolved through the lease agreement

design and analysis insuf-ficient for sound decision making

promote these adaptations as a good opportunity for further study

adaptations require “effort” to set up; or are a long way outside the norms for this sector; or whose climate change benefit is com-paratively small but other benefits are significant and cost more than marginal

separate these adaptations from the rest in a way that allows the developer to choose which one he will “champion”

adaptation strategy



Final Report

(f) Recommendations

All recommendations will help with PR, CSR and BREEAM rating.

Recommendation 1 Marginal cost with investment value

There would be no reason not to do any of these (box 27) because they are effectively cost neutral -

together less than 0.3% of the total - and, with good climate change benefits and co-benefits, should add value

to the investment. Six of them also produce significant operational benefits in the long term with climate change.

Although this may not concern the tenant in the short term it will help with the occasional peak temperatures/

storms already being experienced. Therefore they can potentially be used to aid negotiations with tenants.

The smoke vents for natural ventilation and solar glazing also provide a strong “passive” foundations ensuring

that mechanical ventilation can be smaller in size , when it is introduced (see Recommendation 3).

box 27: RECOMMENDATION 1


o/a befit

incl cc

cost £/pt O V





M6 smoke vents for nat vent 3 3 5.6 1.8




B6 smoke vents for nat vent 3 4 13.5 4.5

Recommendation 2 Modest cost with investment value

The measures in box 28 are also only modest in cost terms, together only 0.8% of the total. They

meet the criteria for improving yield (SuDS more so than PV) and therefore can theoretically be afforded from

increased investment value. Each is either necessary, or soon likely to be necessary, for gaining statutory

consents - PV building regulations and SuDS planning. There may be other ways oB5/ M5B12f gaining the

consents but almost certainly they would be more difficult than these.

As briefly discussed in the risk assessment section (p.23 and p.27) there are some vulnerabilities

under the theme of Construction that were not pursued because they are not so much innovative approaches

as part of the normal design process. This group of vulnerabilities is represented by the susceptibility of the

building envelope to damage from violent storms. The solution is more robust fixing systems, which are

available now and just need to specified and clearly there is a cost. Recommendation 2 captures this aspect

even though it was not specifically developed within the body of the work.

adaptation strategy



Final Report



o/a befit

incl cc

cost £/pt O V

M11 PV 2 2 22.1 11

B11 PV 2 2 35.8 17.9

A4 A4 C1/C5/C6 - SuDS 5 11 79.5 7.2

X1 Robust envelope fixings

Recommendation 3 Developer recommendation to tenant

The measures in box 29 are of no benefit to the developer or investor but of enormous significance to

the tenant. The recommendation is that the developer makes the knowledge gained from this study available

to the tenant, possibly as part of the building manual. Lighting and CHP are measures that can reap benefits

immediately as well as providing a good foundation for climate change. The payback periods are good so can

be afforded before the first re-fit in 10 years. Mechanical cooling is a measure that could be deferred until the

first re-fit or possibly to the lease renewal in 20 years.



o/a befit

incl cc

cost £/pt O V

M7 lighting 4 4 22.8 5.7

B7 lighting 4 4 83.5 20.9


Recommendation 4 With potential but subject to further R&D

The study produced a range of measures in box 30 that appear to have the potential to have significant

impact. While the market conditions are delaying the progress of the project, the opportunity exists to test the

ideas further to see if they can work and if so what difference they could make. The permeable paving and

sub-surface storage differs slightly. It is more a question of validating the assumptions and the engineering

on the basis of known technology than the others, which are more to do with innovative combinations. The

stakes are higher because if the assumptions about flooding are valid then a way has to be found to increase

the budget. The PV shading and earth ducts are also difficult because they are front end capital costs for

the developer while the benefits are definitely beyond the first re-fit and possibly even beyond the end of

the first 20 year lease. The arguments for the benefits would have to be particularly strong because only

an effect on the yield would make theme affordable. In terms of pragmatic decision making on project costs

and specification, these are heading in the wrong direction. However the only commitment required in the

short term is to carry out R&D where there is little to lose and enough to gain and, moreover, it advances the

knowledge base for the benefit of the industry as a whole.

adaptation strategy



Final Report



o/a befit

incl cc

cost £/pt O V


B15 earth ducts 4 4 116.8 29.2

A5 perm’ble car pk + storage 4 4 210.9 52.7

Recommendation 5 Developer choice

The measures in box 31 all bring so many benefits that they cannot be ignored but, either raise difficult

issues, or are too expensive to be easily recommended. They all therefore fall into a position where the

developer would need to champion the cause. As such they are presented as optional extras.

The rooflights would produce a saving and considerable benefits but challenge the prevailing retailing

orthodoxy for daylighting but as noted earlier this appears to be a slightly anomalous position.

Solarwall®’s climate change benefit is small but its co-benefit saves enough energy for a good

paypack. As this is strictly a climate change adaptation study it cannot be an automatic recommendation.

Coupled with this is the problem that the payback all goes to tenant but the cost of the facade components

falls on the developer, which adds complexity (difficulty) into the lease. Its ability to affect investment value is

also compromised because the system straddles the shell and fit-out divide.

The remaining measures are well known and strong options within the sustainability agenda that will

also help considerably with climate change adaptation. They will all involve processes that are outside the

usual commercial conventions and would therefore require exceptional commitment from the developer.



o/a befit

incl cc

cost £/pt O V


B13 Solarwall® 3 3 22.1 7.4



C8 green roof 4 9 95.7 10.61

Status of adaptations

The status of adaptations in relation to table 1 in section 7 of the D4FC contract is included at Appendix

3 - 6, with a summary in box 3 in the Executive Summary section. This is an approximate guide because the

study has followed a similar but not exactly dovetailing framework.

adaptation strategy



Final Report

Timescales

The five recommendations are couched in a time frame particular to this project. To aid generalisation

of the findings the adaptations are now examined according to the property investment scenarios discussed

in the earlier section: Property investment rationale - p.62. Depending on what they are, adaptations could

theoretically be introduced at 3 points: the outset, mid-lease, end of lease.

» Outset (O) - Major infrastructure measures can only realistically be incorporated at the outset.

» Mid lease (M) - the tenant will carry out a major re-fit not involving the landlord/ investor - the actual time depends on each property and each lease agreement but for a supermarket it could typically be 10 years.

» End of lease (E) - the property is updated by the landlord/ investor as necessary to suit market conditions at the time. Typically for a supermarket this could be 20 years.

The adaptations are listed in box 32 to show how possible they are to be introduced at the given

stages. (N) represents no choice but to be installed at the stage; (P) represents a preference to be introduced

at the stage because the benefits are compelling; (O) represents an option to install if the preference is

avoided; (D) represents that the measure can be deferred as long as possible within the cycle for evidence of

climate change to act as a trigger; (X) represents that it is not possible to at the given stage.

box 32: TIMESCALES FOR ADAPTATION

No description O M E

recommendation 1

B4 reflective roof P X O

M4 reflective roof P X O

A1 curved ridge P X O

C2 resistant vegetation P X O

M6 smoke vents for nat vent P O O

M1 solar glazing P X O

G1 robust plot structure N X X

A2 storm only downpipes P X O

B6 smoke vents for nat vent P O O

recommendation 2

M11 PV P O O

B11 PV P O O

A4 A4 C1/C5/C6 - SuDS N X X

X1 Robust envelope fixings P X O

recommendation 3

M7 lighting P O O

B7 lighting P O O

B8 mechanical cooling O D D

adaptation strategy



Final Report

box 32: TIMESCALES FOR ADAPTATION

No description O M E

recommendation 4

B12 PV shading devices P O O

B15 earth ducts N X X

A5 perm’ble car pk + storage N X X

recommendation 5

B10 remove rooflights P X O

B13 Solarwall® P O O

B14 CHP option (b) N X X

C3 productive landscape P O O

C8 green roof P X O

adaptation strategy



Final Report

4.0 Learning from the work on this contract

(a) Approach

This section outlines the approach used to carry out the adaptation design work, focussing on the way

the D4FC study related to the live project work of the case study.

The D4FC project was brought to bear on the case study scheme at RIBA stage C. The design

comprised a series of sketches (refer to section 1.0 and Appendix 1 - 2) together with a cost plan and formed

the baseline condition for the study. Using a combination of analysis, working experience in specialist areas,

and design skills, a range of realistic adaptation options were generated to contrast with the baseline. RIBA

stage C is the stage with the greatest fluidity in the design process. It is when different design solutions are

weighed up and climate change adaptation thus became one of several considerations.

The adaptation study was carried out by the same core design team as the live project with some

additional members whose sole purpose was to contribute to the study. It was expected that work on the

study would be done in parallel with design development of the case study itself with the D4FC feeding into

the live project. As both teams comprised virtually the same membership, and under the same leadership, the

interfacing would be relatively straightforward. The live project would generate milestones that would dictate

the pace of the D4FC work. In practice the delay to the live project meant that the D4FC could proceed at its

own pace without the need for continual interfacing and then present findings as a total package in an orderly

manner for the live project to adopt or not.

The aim was to make the team working method as collaborative as possible. So while each team

member developed their own strand of work (as outlined below) many of the fields overlapped hence affording

plentiful opportunity for collaboration. Much of this was done remotely using exchange of emails to collaborate

but meetings were held on average every 7 weeks and most of these took the form of a workshop.

A feature of the delay to the live project was that the client gave the team freedom to explore all

potentially fruitful avenues in great detail. Its role therefore became more one of receiving findings and

responding to them than as part of the collaborative process.



Final Report

(b) The team

Thus section outlines who was involved in the work and what they brought to the project. It includes

not only the core team but others from the industry who were consulted. Biographies of the team members

are included at Appendix 4 - 1.

Philip Kassanis of Kassanis+Thomas - team leader Kassanis Thomasarchitectural and urban consultants

Philip is an architect, masterplanner and urban designer. He was responsible for the baseline design.

He provided the D4FC plan of work and guided the direction of the project as it unfolded. He acted as the

collaborative hub: initiating and reacting to work and making connections. He is also design team leader of the

live project and oversaw the interfacing of this with the D4FC work-stream.

Philip Jackson of Daedalus Environmental

Philip is an energy consultant with a career background including services

engineering. Involved in two other D4FC projects, he provided an overview of the climate change themes and

as such acted as the deputy, providing strategic and detailed advice to the project. He took the lead in analysing

the future weather patterns. He was responsible for identifying all the potential adaptations concerning energy

and thermal comfort, fleshing them out and then analysing them, quantitatively with thermal modelling and

qualitatively where that was not possible. Philip was supported by his colleague Jerry Diccox, an accredited

energy assessor and low-carbon consultant, who was responsible for the thermal model simulations.

Owen Hewlett of Davis Langdon an Aecom Company

Owen is an emissions and climate change specialist program manager and a project manager with

major experience in the retail sector. He was responsible for the coordination of costing of the adaptations,

devising a suitable bespoke framework for the CBA and applying the CBA to the scheme. He was assisted

by James Morrison, a cost manager in the retail and mixed use sector, who was responsible for providing the

cost information to support assessment.

Roger Griffiths and Simon Watkins of Roger Griffiths Associates

(now Parkwood Consultancy Services - PCS)

Roger and Simon are landscape architects with a strong focus on sustainability. Roger started the

project but retired in 2012 at which point his company was taken over by PCS. Simon, whose specialist

expertise includes sustainable drainage and permaculture completed the project. With a track record of leading

the sustainability output of major commercial companies, such as Gazeley, their experience was invaluable

in understanding the environmental issues arising from major re-configurations of urban land. This helped

to identify that the three themes from the Gething report needed to be expanded to ensure the benefits of a

learning from the work on this contract



Final Report

holistic environmental approach could be secured. They were responsible for identifying potential adaptations

concerning water and green infrastructure and bringing them together in the form of strategy and details.

Stuart Brown of CA Group

CA Group is a leading UK manufacturer of cladding and rainwater products with

a keen focus on R&D including the field of sustainability. Its portfolio contains world leading renewable

energy technology, Solarwall®, for which it is the UK partner. Stuart is a project development engineer in the

group. With the study focussing on frame with lightweight cladding buildings, Stuart’s experience was vital

to understanding the performance of these buildings; the practicalities of installation and maintenance; the

properties of all components of fabric; and the onward development of technology in these respects. He was

responsible for designing fabric the innovations under the theme of water and providing a wealth of data in

this field. He was supported by Brian Watson, the Group Development Director, who amongst other things

is Chairman of the MCRMA (Metal Cladding Roll Form Manufacturers Association). He has worked with

Government since 1996 on all Part L changes.

Hugh Docherty of Waterman Group

Hugh is a structural/ civil engineer and director at Waterman. He was responsible for designing

the baseline site drainage scheme and understanding how this should be adapted for future climate. He

carried out the engineering underpinning the SuDS strategy. He was assisted by Chris Bychawski, director at

Waterman International Poland.

Others within the industry who were consulted on aspects of the project

• Chris Shepherd, National Sales Manager at Adeksi UK,

helped with the sizing of the natural ventilation system and how to integrate this with smoke ventilation

and controls for the building. Adexsi Group are leading providers of Global solutions for Smoke,

Natural, Access, Daylight and Ventilation Systems. With a vast experience in this field the company

are keen to explore the potential arising from the findings of this project.

• Robert Barker, Commercial Support Manager, British Gas Solar, a division of

British Gas New Heating Limited,

helped with an overview of the uptake of PV within this sector of the industry. The company are keen

to continue exploring the potential raised by this project.

“British Gas Solar has a near two decade pedigree in the design, installation and maintenance of commercial solar energy solutions in the UK and has been responsible for a number of landmark projects. Clients can be assured that they not only have the expertise to design a solution that will suit your requirements but also the capacity to fulfil every aspect of your renewable energy project, from design and procurement to installation, commissioning and maintenance.” (BGS, June 2013)




Final Report

• Ian Hopkins, Sales Director at ENER-G Combined Power Limited,

helped with an overview of the CHP potential.

• Geoff Stevenson, Sales Manager at Ambirad

who supply the warm air system that Solarwall® fits onto internally. He helped to explore the possibilities

of combining this with a feed from the earth ducts.




Final Report

(c) Project Plan

This section outlines the project plan and how it changed. The plan is shown in box 33.

box 33: PROJECT PLAN

ACTIVITY MILESTONE NUMBERING

MILESTONE DELIVERABLE

A - LAUNCH

Step 1: pre-start meeting and complete review of project in light of progress to case study project since bid submission.

A1 Re-worked project plan and pro-gramme

B - RISK ASSESSMENT

Step 2: establish an authoritative typology of frame and cladding property

B1 Matrix/ drawings

Step 3: devise a climate change risk assessment framework .

B2 Framework

Step 4: use framework as a coarse sieve to assess typology

B3 Data/ graphs etc

Step 5: review conclusions and review scope of options to be considered in next stages

B4 Internal report

C1- DESIGN

Step 6a: using the result from step 3, preliminary design options with further resilience features or adaption strategies and review

C1 Interim report

C2- DESIGN

Step 6b: continue work on design options C2 Drawings, data and thermal models

D – COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS

Step 7: appraise options together with the stage C scheme, using a more comprehensive framework than step 3.

D1 Report to client

E – APPLY OPTIONS TO CASE STUDY

Step 8: using analysis from step 7, client to decide on which options to. Process concluded with team workshop.

E1 Decision

F - REVIEW

Step 9: conclusions about (a) cost and benefit; (b) risk and fundability. Discuss applicability of case study evidence to the whole field of similar property and make recommendations.

F1 Report

G – NEXT STEPS

Step 10: develop recommendations for a wiki-style knowledge centre.

G1 Dissemination ma-terials & report

The structure of the plan did not change during the course of the project but the amount of work within

each stage fluctuated as could be noted if one were to examine of the quarterly reports. Despite this by the

end the relative proportions of the stage content as delivered was remarkably close to the initial conception as




Final Report

can be seen in figure 37 and figure 38.

A - LAUNCH, 7.4%

B - COARSE SIEVE RISK

ASSESSMENT, 9.1%

C1 - DESIGN, 16.0%

C2 - DESIGN, 21.1%

D – COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS, 16.9%

F - REVIEW, 18.7%

G – NEXT STEPS, 7.0%

figure 37 Initial project plan stage proportions

A - LAUNCH, 7.4%

B - COARSE SIEVE RISK

ASSESSMENT, 9.1%

C1 - DESIGN, 15.8%

C2 - DESIGN, 21.0%

D – COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS, 19.4%

F - REVIEW, 19.0%

G – NEXT STEPS, 5.8%

figure 38 Project plan as delivered stage proportions

However there were some changes to scope and detailed methodology.

Typology of frame and lightweight cladding buildings

Scope

The initial ambition was to examine the effect of climate change on a range of buildings that use this

form of construction, which have different uses, sizes, volumes and sensitivities of internal environment. In

this way conclusions could be also drawn about the comparative effects as well as “absolute” effects. The

case study is well suited for this purpose because it has a range of buildings from a small starter unit to a very

large foodstore within the mix. This proved to be too wide a scope primarily because of the resources needed

to carry out multiple modelling for each building type (each requiring many “runs” to test the effect of about 10

separate variables for both the baseline and the 2050 scenario). The scope was therefore limited to examining

the foodstore and the terrace of retail units.

Methodology

A part of the methodology associated with the above aim of looking at a spread of buildings was

also abandoned. This was, at a very early stage, to establish a typology for this class of building using a

process akin to literature review and cataloguing a set of differences in properties of the buildings across the

typology that would be worth tracking as part of the study. All these would then be put through a course sieve

to establish which features were “better” rather than “worse” and then the best in class could be used as the

starting point for generating further climate change resilience features. This would have been an attempt to

capture the state of industry early in the study but would have involved a disproportionate use of resources

just to get to a starting point. Instead the starting point was the baseline scheme that had been developed




Final Report

by the design team to RIBA stage C. This exercise could of course be a useful piece of follow on research to

spread the findings from this case study more widely into the sector.

Apply options to case study

The delay to the live project has meant the climate change adaptations have run ahead of it in the

level of design evaluation - a situation which is the reverse of that anticipated at the start. So, they have moved

through RIBA stage C whereas everything else has remained at the start of stage C. A consequence is that the

client does not have an actual base, constrained by tenant, investor and planning negotiations, against which

the options can spar. The baseline used for the climate change study is more of a notional position where

everything remains a possibility.

Therefore the process of engaging the client was modified. As a first step the client attended a

workshop with the design team where its experience of the commercial relations with tenants and investors

was integrated with the emerging components of a strategy. This was then developed into an essay on the

relevant considerations, which formed the basis of earlier section “Property investment rationale” p62. A

questionnaire was completed by the client to formalise its response to the recommendations, see Appendix

4 - 2.

As the study has shown the tenant is integral with the adaptation strategy and if the project had

been more advanced the prospective tenant could have engaged with propositions for adaptation via the

client. Attempts were made via Kassanis+Thomas’s contacts for one of the national operators to engage

on a theoretical basis. However none were prepared to be involved unless the prospects were real, which

in current economic climate was not the case. As a substitute various players in the industry, whose fields

coincided with the adaptations, and who have a vested interest in selling their products to the major foodstore

operators, and therefore should have a keen handle on the issues of concern to the operator, were consulted

(refer to sub-section: “Others within the industry who were consulted on aspects of the project” p73).

(d) Tools and resources

This section lists the resources and tools used in the study, with a review their strengths and limitations,

and whether they could be recommended to others.

Weather data

The PROMETHEUS weather files produced by the University of Exeter were an invaluable resource

for the study and are recommended. Its strengths included:

» providing raw data files allowing customisation of outputs

» the granularity of the data sets, which are 5km grids ;

» continuing the probabilistic approach of UKCP09, which helps to counteract the tendency to regard modelling as reality as opposed to being an illustrative tool;

» providing data which helps elucidate the various scenarios in an illustrative way;




Final Report

» providing datasets for the thermal modelling;

» allowing the potential scale of problem to be assessed in a quantitative way.

Its weaknesses were:

» some anomalous data;

» inability to capture the scale and frequency of extreme weather events;

» poor representation and general unreliability of some parts of the weather system eg wind

» raw data requiring serious manipulation to achieve clear outputs in a presentable form outside of IES software.

Literature

A full literature review was not considered the correct priority for using the part of the available resources

in light the D4FC aims for the project, which are more about finding realistic ways forward and overcoming

barriers than an exhaustive coverage of the field. However a selection of interesting and useful sources

was uncovered particularly in the fields of green infrastructure and property investment. Many of these have

been recorded as footnotes in the text but the complete list of these and several others, which were useful

background, are gathered together in a bibliography at Appendix 4 - 3. The bibliography is recommended.

TSB Knowledge sharing

The TSB’s online “Connect” facility, publications and events were invaluable and are recommended.

The strengths are the very quick feed back loop from ongoing studies and its width of coverage. The weakness

is that, like the internet itself, the quality and relevance of information is undifferentiated. It is therefore time

consuming to extract useful information and some aspects of the work may not have realised their full potential

because salient material may have been missed.

Contract checklist

The checklist provided by the TSB as table 1 in section 7 of the contract is useful. Its strengths are that

it is a useful tool to envisage the impacts at early stage and helps to frame the scope of the study. However it

is also far too prescriptive and a study of any quality would draw on the tables in the Gething Report for that

purpose in any event. As with all tools, it carries the danger of restricting innovative thinking and encourages

“tick-boxing”. As noted in an earlier section (“Green Infrastructure (GI)” p25) it precluded a whole area of

adaptation. Our team assisted the TSB with an extension to the checklist to include GI. This represents a

qualified recommendation of this report.

IES VE

IES VE was used for the thermal modelling of the buildings, with associated modules to model certain

elements, such as Macroflo for air flows. It was invaluable and is recommended. It provides industry standard

outputs that can be repeatedly tested using different assumptions and under different scenarios.




Final Report

The application of such methodology is also recognised as standard in the industry, and as such

carries weight in its conclusions. It was a core part of the assessment process, and we were able to gain a

comprehensive understanding of the impacts of the measures as a result. Clearly an in-depth assessment

of modelling software is not an aim of the study, and any user needs to be aware of its limitations. That said,

it is a very good tool for demonstrating impacts visually and this is vital in relation to influencing any client.

The range of outputs available (not all of which were used here) also gives great flexibility in being able to

demonstrate different issues and ultimately complex ideas in an appealing way.

However, IES does have a number of weaknesses:

» As with any model, the quality of the outputs is directly proportional to the quality of the inputs and associated assumptions. The large number of input variables causes a challenge for a study of this size where it was not practical to test the large number of permutations. Many assumptions therefore came down to intuition and experience.

» Surprisingly though, given this inbuilt diversity, the software required additional modules to deal with certain issues where the results of modelling led to conclusions that gave rise to more questions. Again for a study of this size it was not possible to justify the additional expense and turned out to be a frustrating limitation.

» The outputs are in .txt files and conversion and manipulation of data was required to create the .xlsx format for analysis in a spreadsheet. This was time consuming.

» One output of the modelling relates to the % of people dissatisfied because the building is either too hot or too cold. The results proved to anomalous for type of environment areas where people are moving around handling deliveries. The model data shows a large amount of time is spent ‘being dissatisfied’ in the warehouse and loading are – primarily because this space is too cool. It seems as though software does not seem to take this into account.

SBEM

Using the National Calculation method option in IES was used to ensure that the proposals met the

current Building Regulations standard, and also as a sense check against the outputs from the full thermal

modelling exercise. SBEM and the NCM make a number of assumptions about a range of issues for the

particular building type that cannot be altered. This means the accuracy of the outputs is not necessarily as

good as it can be, Therefore the outputs need to be considered in that regard: for example the overheating

aspect is more rudimentary. It is a useful exercise to go through, and helps clients understand baseline

requirements because it is something that they are more used to being involved with, and indeed is needed

for Building Control sign off. Any study of this type should be running SBEM modelling to ensure the building

is compliant with regulations so it is a necessity in that regard

gModeller

IES VE uses a model file of the building in gbXML format. The IES modeller would normally construct

this using the design team’s CAD drawings. However such CAD files were not available because the case

study was at the beginning of RIBA stage C. It was not considered a good use of the D4FC funding to create

these drawings ahead of schedule and, because they would have been for one purpose only [D4FC], would

probably have to be redrawn again later anyway. However it was perfectly appropriate at this stage for the




Final Report

project design work to be handled in SketchUp. A plug-in, gModeller12, was used and is not recommended.

Theoretically this should have had multiple benefits: (a) its close relationship with the software medium

[SketchUp] being used by the designers; and (b) it would save the IES modeller having to construct the model

“manually” from CAD files, allowing more resource to be available for model runs.

Despite charging a monthly subscription on par with well established software houses the product

appears to be insufficiently developed. A “Lite” version is now available, which may be more appropriate in

terms of cost. Although the models can be created quickly, unless they are simple shapes, the software is not

robust enough to handle the edges of surfaces and connections. So what is gained in speed is lost in repeat

runs trying to eliminate the error messages. This caused additional time at both ends - the designer end and

the IES modeller end - where often a model would be sent by the designer, which as far as could be detected

was error-free, only for the modeller to try and use it and then find it throwing up model errors.

Additionally the model for gbXML is a notional representation of the building with the external envelope

represented by a single plane along the inside face and internal walls represented by a single plane along the

centreline. This does not correlate with the way that SketchUp is used for developing the design and meant

that a separate model had to be created by the designer for gbXML purposes.

(e) Review of approach

This section describe what worked well and what worked badly in the approach, and any

recommendations about methodology for others.

RIBA work stage C

As discussed earlier the D4FC work was applied to the case study at the start for stage C. The

advantages were:

» a relatively free hand was accorded to the team to explore all avenues;

» the study was unencumbered with the continual interfacing with the live project;

» time could be taken to fulfil the potential of lines of enquiry rather than having to make decisions that were “good enough”;

» the team could focus almost exclusively on the adaptation work;

» an adaptation can be assessed on its own merits rather than also having to carry the costs of abortive design and production work

The disadvantages were:

» the baseline condition had to be notional rather than real;

» it is was more difficult to test the propositions in practice;

» the lack of live project deadlines led to delay to many of the D4FC project plan milestones;

» no access to key “actors” (tenant and investors)

12 GREENSPACELIVE, 2012. gModeller. [online] Available at: https://greenspacelive.com/web/gsl/modeller [Ac-cessed: April 2013].




Final Report

On balance an adaptation project injected into a live project at this stage would be recommended.

Bespoke project work

The working methods for the adaptation project are more akin to research than to professional practice

and therefore unfamiliar to the team even though they are experienced practitioners in their respective fields.

Therefore the team required a lot of leadership and management in a way that wouldn’t be necessary for

normal familiar project work. There are several consequences:

» Management time consumes resource, which then becomes unavailable for the content of the study. The allowance in this team’s project plan was insufficient. It was decided not to sacrifice content. As a result the project has not been profitable for the team leader and the project overran by over six months.

» It was difficult for team members to delegate parts of the work because its nature is not a matter of routine practice. This made it difficult to manage the competing demands of other projects in the office with a tendency for the D4FC project to be put aside temporarily.

» Resuming work that is put aside is not efficient because it take time to retrace thinking especially since it is so non-routine, all of which compounds the tendency for delays.

The recommendation is to restrict the scope to be as narrow as possible to reduce the number of team

members necessary to undertake the work and thereby reduce the burden of management and leadership.

Workshops

The use of workshops is closely related to the previous item. It was the most effective way for

collaborative working but also very expensive with team members coming from Bristol, Durham, Rugby,

Maidstone and London it meant taking a whole day of everyone’s time.

Monthly workshops are recommended to keep up the tempo of the project but as with the previous

item seek to reduce scope and team numbers as much as possible to make this good value.

Project management techniques

Even without the difficulties mentioned above arising from the bespoke nature of the project, the

techniques for assessing scope and cost of work for team members, monitoring, and the continual adjustment

that is necessary to fit in with the “voyage of discovery” are complex. It was not possible to even think about

negotiating lump sum contracts with the team members as subcontractors, nor would it have been viable to

pay on a time basis. Every quarter the subcontractor amounts were reassessed and agreed prior to invoicing.

This was all done via a complex set of spreadsheets that integrated with the project plan. It did what was

required but was certainly not efficient.

For the team leader this whole process interfered with the “real business” of leading the team in

creating content to the extent that, if done again, a dedicated project manager would be considered. This

leads to reiterating the above recommendations to limit the scope of work to reduce the management content

as well as being able to more properly resource the management function.




Final Report

Project plan

The project plan as a whole worked well and can be recommended. Within this:

» the methodology for assessing risk (box 12: METHOD FOR DETERMINING VULNERABILITIES - p.22) went well; and

» the methodology for producing an adaptation strategy (box 17: METHOD FOR PRODUCING ADAPTATION STRATEGY - p.28) went well.

Cost benefit analysis

Overall it was felt that the implementation of the methodology was a success, albeit with a number of

areas to review and resolve if it is to be made useful in further studies.

The intention of the methodology was to provide a clear, simple method of comparing interventions

with each other to establish the cost/benefit position. In turn this was intended to inform business decision

making so that monies could be targeted where they are most impactful.

The key benefits provided by the methodology were considered as follows:

» Focussed team on providing ‘genuine’ interventions by giving consideration to the baseline condition. An intervention would generally13 only be considered for assessment where it could be demonstrated to be suitably differentiated from ‘business as usual’.

» Drove the team to identify current industry practice and highlight flaws in terms of climate change the reasons that this might be the case. An example was the extensive review and investigation into the use of roof lights by supermarket operators despite the challenges associated with potential over-heating.

» Focussed the team on proving that the impact of the interventions should make a measurable improvement to the scheme (by metrics to be ascertained on an individual basis).

» Allowed a cross-comparison of interventions and an overall scoring matrix that would otherwise not have been implemented. By assigning a value to an interventions performance, even in a subjective measure sparked a great deal of discussion and debate.

» It was instrumental in the process of arriving at recommendations for the adaptation strategy (eg box 24, p.61).

(f) Decision making.

As discussed in several places earlier, the decision making process turned out to be theoretical for the

client because the live project remained stuck at the start of RIBA work stage C. However the “workarounds”

outlined in “Apply options to case study - p.77 have produced useful evidence. The way to influence the

process is covered in Property investment rationale - p.62. The results of the client questionnaire are

included at Appendix 4 - 2.

13 A useful outcome of this project is to encourage the use of certain solutions already on the table (and discour-age solutions that are becoming flawed in light of climate change). Some of the interventions like the curved roof might not stand up to a strict “not business as usual” scrutiny. However it does point the way forward and therefore forms part of the adaptation strategy.




Final Report

5.0 Extending adaptation to other buildings

This section outlines how the findings of the study can be applied elsewhere and how questions the

project has raised can be followed up.

(a) Further application

An assessment of how to apply the findings of this project across its sector has several strands:

» Awareness and value The parties involved in the ownership, leasing, procurement, design and construction of these buildings need to be convinced that this work would add value.

» Generalisation The conclusions and recommendations were specific to the case study. Some aspects are transferable but others depend on size, volume and sensitivity of internal environment.

» Methodology The project was tailored to a specific case study and therefore the methodology in its current form is not necessarily transferable.

» Sector Peculiarities What have the findings in common with other building types in other sectors and what are the differences?

Awareness and value

One thing clear from this D4FC project is that the client, as a developer, is surprisingly constrained

when it comes to introducing features into a project that are out of the ordinary and carry a significant additional

cost. In the same way that professional valuers should reflect the market, the developer’s main function is to

supply to the market rather than make the market. This suggests that, for the work of this project to become

applicable to other buildings, it should be targeted at the demand side of the market.

Buildings of frame and lightweight cladding are generally created for investment purposes and rented

out. For the developer, in simplistic terms, this creates two sources of demand: the tenant and investor. As

the case study illustrates, buildings tend to fall into either pre-let or speculative categories; where the former

creates “tenant’s requirements” type of demand and the latter responds to the institutional norm form of

demand; but in practice the tenant’s demands are constrained by market norms comprising the valuation

process. Therefore on a project by project basis the tenant has only a slender influence on “the product”

created by the developer. However it does have complete control over its “fit out” within which, as we have

seen, are major items that are amenable to climate change adaptation although these tend to be more

applicable for “major re-fits” in the future. In the long run if enough tenants are “demanding” the same thing

then the investment community will adjust it “norms”. This probably does not improve yields but degrades

yields of property that does not comply.

The other major party on the demand side of a building, the investor, is similarly constrained by

market forces. It cannot justify increased capital expenditure on the building unless it is reflected in the yield

or rent. Theoretically many of the climate change adaptations meet the criteria for improving the yield but

market valuations reflect historical data and comparables, so until the features become main stream they

will not affect the yield. Two factors that can break this impasse are legislation and risk. Legislation means

that products not meeting statutory standards are unmarketable. Possible future legislation is also a factor

because it registers as a risk to the investment value: a building will have a better yield if it is future-proofed.



Final Report

Risk to investment value also manifests in other ways. The Carbon Trust highlighted the areas shown

in box 34.

box 34: BROAD CATEGORIES OF CLIMATE CHANGE INVESTMENT RISKCarbon Trust 2005

Regulatory risk as discussed in preceding paragraph

Physical risk the subject of this D4FC report

Litigation risk This is probably not a major concern for this sector but for example the US’s largest power companies had to face a lawsuit demanding a cut in emissions because of its effect on global warming

Competitiveness risk

“Companies that take positive and proactive measures to mitigate climate risk may create a competitive advantage for themselves relative to the rest of their sector. These ad-vantages may take the form of lower costs and higher profit margins and/or enhanced reputation and customer loyalty.” (Carbon Trust , 2005,10)

Reputational risk “Companies that are viewed negatively with respect to climate change (either for their politics or their pollution) may face backlash from consumers in markets where the public is concerned about climate change. At present climate change is not a material consumer issue, but precedents show that this can change rapidly.” (ibid)

In light of this discussion what could be done to develop the five specific recommendations (p.66)

of the adaptation strategy into being something of value for the demand side of this sector?

Recommendation 1 is designed to appeal directly to the developer without any need to refer to

other demand side parties because practically all the adaptations produce added value with a negligible

cost implication therefore not needing justification via cost benefit analysis. They represent good design and

should become standard practice throughout the industry. Having said this tenants and investors should be

aware of what can be done and not settle for anything less. The main barrier would be that the vulnerabilities

the adaptations are designed to overcome are not taken seriously. So the main activity to assist take up

is awareness raising amongst all players within the sector which should influence the market by making

buildings without these features have weaker yields.

Recommendation 2 has adaptations that do incur cost, which although modest as a proportion of the

total capital cost, would be sufficient to make them vulnerable to cost engineering. Again the recommendation

is designed to appeal to the developer without reference to other demand side parties because the two

adaptations make it easier to obtain statutory consents. In the short term while legislation is not universal the

motivation to carry out the measures is more one of expediency than of being the right thing to do. This is

not sustainable because development has to be profitable to be viable. Therefore it needs to be supported

through stronger yields, which means that investors should be motivated to pay more for these investments.

Therefore the main activity to assist take up is to raise awareness amongst the investment community of the

benefits. This task should be made easier because what is desirable to deal with legislation at the moment is

extending adaptation to other buildings



Final Report

likely to become mandatory in the future and therefore is a clear legislative risk with clear bearing on valuation

of yield.

Recommendation 3 reflects adaptations that solely affect fit-out and are in the complete control of

the tenant. For this type of property these features are of no financial interest to the developer or investor.

The benefits are very direct because they affect the operational costs of the building. The question is not

so much whether they should be done but when. The vulnerabilities exposed by climate change are in the

long term and, because the major re-fit cycle is approximately 10 years, it makes no sense to implement

them now unless there are co-benefits to warrant it. The main activity to assist take up is to engage with the

tenant community to help it develop assessment and evaluation tools enabling smart decisions about optimal

investment in plant at the same time recognising that this is just one of many overlapping considerations,

such as the future of retailing itself in the case of supermarkets. An obvious follow on from this case study is

engaging with the major foodstore chains. However there are other major sectors that use this form of building

such as logistics and distribution, which have well formed tenant bodies.

Recommendation 4 although initially directed at the developer client, is more focussed on the supply

side of the industry - designers/engineers, and manufacturers. Can good solutions be developed to offer

to investors and tenants? The development and take up of these potential adaptations in this category is

not simply a technical matter because they straddle the divide between: passive built in measures that the

investor pays for; and the fit-out plant side that the tenant is responsible for. Therefore the solutions also need

to address procurement, financing and lease questions.

Recommendation 5 is the one category of recommendations where the investor component of the

demand side needs to take the biggest step to secure implementation. While the developer may have a big

part to play, putting in the commitment to champion the cause, it needs to be pushing at doors that can open.

For this to happen the investment community needs to co-operate. This may take the form of an approach

that is based on securing one-off funding for pilots that can be evaluated. This would be well suited to the

comparatively slow-burn nature of the climate change question that allows a good period for monitoring and

evaluation. So, as with recommendations 1 and 2, the main activity to assist in take up is to raise awareness

amongst the investment community, but in this case going further such as brokering the funding for pilot

schemes.

Generalisation

How can the specific findings of this study be turned into knowledge that is more universally applicable

across the frame and lightweight building segment? A powerful first step would be to: carry out the taxonomy

of the segment that was removed from the scope of the D4FC project; and from this a desktop analysis can

be done with some IES testing as necessary - refer to “Typology of frame and lightweight cladding buildings”

p76. This would generate sufficient propositions to enable engagement with the various communities as




Final Report

discussed in the previous section. Some of the propositions may be more akin to “hypotheses” that need to

be tested but it allows the opportunity for interested parties to sponsor the testing.

Methodology

This D4FC study as well as generating a specific adaptation strategy, which can be used for an

awareness raising approach to the industry as outlined above, also modelled a process for arriving at a

strategy for other projects. The process contains “hard” facets, such as broad procedures and specific tools,

and “soft” facets, such as understanding the field of probabilistic data and its application. A certain amount can

be captured in a “toolkit”, but this can only have limited application because: although parts of the methodology

can be generalised much will be project specific; and it is not a suitable way for dealing with the “soft” facets.

Consultancy based on the learning from this project will therefore be another way of facilitating the take up of

the learning from this project.

Sector Peculiarities

All the ways of applying the findings noted above need to be contextualised within the whole field of

climate change across all sectors in order to be authoritative. As discussed in section 4 the scope of work

within this study only had limited room for this. This would be done as a literature review starting with all the

published reports from D4FC competition. One branch of this work follows the versions of this building type in

the public sector. This is covered further in the next section ahead.

(b) Limitations of further application

Covered in the previous section.

(c) Suitablebuildingsforapplyingfindings

Type

The aim is to establish a comprehensive typology as part of the piece of work described in

“Generalisation” p85. An initial assessment is shown in box 35.

box 35: TYPES OF BUILDING

Supermarkets Industrial units

Non-food retail units Car show rooms

Logistic and distribution centres Research and development units

Warehousing and storage Data centres

Business units Call centres

Trade park units Workshops

Factories and production Studios

Starter units Processing

All of these can be found in the commercial sector but also many in other sectors: eg military, utilities,




Final Report

and transport. The discussion in this report mainly addresses the commercial sector and the operation of the

market. Some of the work will be applicable to the public sector versions of these types. However the issues

surrounding procurement are somewhat different and require some analysis before any attempt is made to

engage with the parties responsible for this.

The adaptations are clearly relevant to these as new buildings but they are also relevant to existing

stock. Adaptations affecting the fit out (similar to Recommendation 3, p.67) are applicable at every major

refit, which for a typical foodstore, is on a 10 year cycle. End of lease will also involve a change in the fit out.

This could be on a 10 year cycle for the retail terrace and 20 for the foodstore. A proportion of the existing

stock is extremely poor and has no value looking forward, however many buildings would benefit from being

upgraded to enhance the building life and extend the Return On Investment (ROI) to the investors. The 20

year mark approximately represents the point when the capital costs of the investment have been covered

and the investor will seek to upgrade the fabric of the building, which can be as drastic as re-roofing and re-

cladding the building. The aim would be to make the building fit for another 20 years. A large number of the

adaptations could be introduced at this point.

Scale of potential target for application

Comprehensive figures are hard to find but the information from several sources give clues about the

scale of the market.

Interpreting data from the Department of Communities and Local Government14 the amount of existing

stock could be in the order of 475M m2.

An interpretation of a piece of market research for the roofing industry15 suggests the amount of new

build in 2015 could be in the order of 2.75M m2 . This compares with a peak in 2007 of 3.35Mm2 and a low of

2.55Mm2 in 2010. An interpretation of data from British Council of Shopping Centres (BCSC)16 suggests the

figure for 2007-12 was in the order of 3.00Mm2/a and returning to these levels after 201517.

14 Department of Communities and Local Government, 2008. Statistical Release: Floorspace and rateable value of commercial and industrial properties - 1 April 2007, England and Wales. [online] Available at: http://webarchive.nation-alarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/705278 [Accessed: April 2013].15 AMA Research, 2011. Roofing Market - UK. [online] Abstract available at: http://www.marketresearch.com/AMA-Research-v175/Roofing-UK-6404073/ [Accessed: April 2013].16 Blake, N., Morley, S., & Bach, M.,2007. Future of Retail Property: How Much Space? [Brochure] BCSC: Lon-don. Available at http://www.bcsc.org.uk/research/forp/reports/FORP_Report08_ES.pdf [Accessed April 2013].17 Lunson Mitchenall, 2012. Shopping centre development pipeline 2012. [Brochure] BCSC: London. Available at http://www.bcsc.org.uk/media/downloads/2012PipelineBrochure.pdf {Accessed April 2013]




Final Report

(d) Resources, tools and materials developed

• Techniques for interpreting, handling and applying the UKCP09 projections. These are in-house

spreadsheets.

• CBA tool designed for climate change adaptation. Refer to: “Cost benefit analysis” p51 for an

outline; “Cost benefit analysis” p82 for discussion; and Appendix 3 - 3 for detail.

• Draft questionnaire for engaging with the industry (powered by Survey Monkey). Refer to

Appendix 4 - 2. The draft is a particular version for one target audience. It contains most of the

components needed for other audiences and will be re-arranged accordingly.

• Draft slide presentation with graphics. Refer to Appendix 5 - 1. The draft is a particular version

for one target audience. It contains most of the components needed for other audiences and

will be re-arranged accordingly.

(e) Future work-streams & associated needs

The table below collates the future work-streams arising from this D4FC project that we would like to

pursue and the needs associated with each.

table 3: FUTURE WORK-STREAMS

report cross reference description needs

1 “Adaptation strategy”“C3 productive landscape” pX3/52

Develop new management model for GI Funding

2 “Learning from the work on this contract”“Cost benefit analysis” p82

More development of the CBA tool Funding

3 “Further application”Recommendation 1 p.84

Awareness raising within sector generally Self funded as business development


Awareness raising amongst investment community

Self funded as business development


Engage with major foodstore chains to help it develop assessment and evaluation tools



Engage with other the major tenant bodies occupying other types of frame and light-weight cladding building (eg logistics and distribution sector)

Understand the differences and similarities between these and the case study


Carry out the R&D for the recommendation 4 adaptations

Harness manufacturer’s R&D budget and broker extra funding sources as necessary

8 “Further application” Recommendation 5 p.85

Seek out opportunities for pilot schemes that can deploy the adaptations and broker additional funding to create compelling propositions for investors and developers

Pilot research funding sources




Final Report

table 3: FUTURE WORK-STREAMS

9 “Generalisation” p85 & “Ty-pology of frame and lightweight cladding buildings” p76

Taxonomy and desktop analysis Funding

10 “Methodology” p86 Develop toolkit Self funded as business development

11 “Methodology” p86 Develop consultancy offer Self funded as business development

12 “Sector Peculiarities” p86 Literature review Funding

13 “Suitable buildings for applying findings” p86

Understand public sector procurement Self funded as business development

14 Appendix 5 - 2 Develop website to be a repository of knowledge and advance knowledge though wiki-style engagement with the interested community

Self funded as business development initially to get it up and running and then develop it more with additional funding

15 Appendix 5 - 2 Develop strategy for linking green infra-structure findings with the work of sister company Open Urbanism which is a not-for-profit company doing research and development in the field of urbanism.



ammanford ccd - arcc · final report this report is the final report for the betws washery,...

Documents