REPORT

OF THE SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW COMMITTEE

London Borough of Islington

June 2005

1

FOREWORD FROM THE CHAIR This review into the use of UPVC framed windows and alternative products in Islington's housing stock has been one of the most controversial investigations conducted by the Sustainability Review Committee. Many individuals and groups strongly object to the use of UPVC framed windows on both environmental and aesthetic grounds, whilst many council tenants and leaseholders like them as they are double glazed, need minimal maintenance and often a huge improvement on the quality of windows that they have been living with previously. Homes for Islington and other housing providers choose UPVC framed windows on the grounds of cost, as they believe they can deliver improvements to more housing units within their set budget by using the most cost effective product. Throughout the investigation it became clear that there is no easy answer in this debate. Research presented as evidence to the committee on the environmental impact of the production, use and disposal of different materials that are used to construct window frames and calculations of the "life time cost" of each material varied greatly. The committee, however, felt that on UPVC was clearly the least and that timber gained from sustainable sources was the most environmentally friendly of the products. On the basis of cost, UPVC is initially cheaper, but the committee felt that life time costs depended on a number of factors, which are discussed in detail within this report. The committee decided that there was a clear need for Homes for Islington to continue to use alternative materials to UPVC on a wider basis than at present and to work with the council and other partners to develop these alternatives into more financially viable material choices for the near future. With fluctuations in the cost of oil and rising cost for the disposal of materials such as UPVC, it may not remain the most cost effective product in the long term. The committee, however, did not feel that we could totally rule out the use of UPVC windows without the support of Homes for Islington who will be implementing, paying for, and providing subsequent maintenance for the window replacement programme and of the tenants and residents who will be receiving the new windows in their homes. We therefore propose that Homes for Islington continue with its use of mixed materials for window replacement in the borough, clearly respecting the nature of conservation areas and other aesthetic considerations. High quality products should be used, irrespective of the material, to increase the life span of the product, therefore reducing the amount of waste needed to be disposed of. We therefore recommend that UPVC is only used where there are clear and demonstrable benefits compared to other products and that clear moves are made to move towards the use of timber and other more environmentally friendly products as the preferred materials for replacement windows in the near future.

Cllr Lucy Watt

Chair

2

MEMBERSHIP OF THE SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW COMMITTEE Councillors: Lucy Watt (Chair) Wally Burgess Anna Berent (Vice- Chair) Mick O’Sullivan Angela Brook Stefan Kasprzyk Bruce Neave Doreen Scott

Substitutes: Graham Baker Richard Greening Donna Boffa Marisha Ray Fiona Dunlop Joe Trotter Mary Powell ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The sustainability review committee would like to thank all the groups and individuals who assisted the scrutiny process and helped to shape the recommendations in the report. The committee would also like to thank all the window manufacturers who have supplied us with technical information, and the tenants who took time to speak to the committee about their experience of the windows on their estate. OFFICER SUPPORT Scrutiny & Democratic Services: Peter Murphy and Gareth Jenkins Environment and Kevin O’Leary Regeneration: Peter Davies Alec Forshaw Greenspace and Leisure: Jane Wildblood Homes for Islington: Eamon McGoldrick and John Phillips Performance Improvement: Dave Sharp

3

THE COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATIONS In drawing up its recommendations, the committee has been concerned to ensure that the ability of Homes for Islington (HFI) to deliver the Decent Homes programme is not prejudiced. The committee has also noted that HFI is already using a mix of UPVC and other materials in its windows replacement programme. Nevertheless, in view of the environmental issues raised by the large scale use of UPVC, it is considered that more needs to be done to give practical effect to the council’s commitment to sustainable construction. The following recommendations aim to achieve this. 1. UPVC should be regarded as the “least preferred” material on environmental

grounds. UPVC windows and other UPVC products, such as doors, should only be used by the council where there are clear and demonstrable benefits, in terms of cost, performance, value for money or residents’ preferences, compared with alternative products.

2. To ensure that due regard is paid to the council’s planning policies, replacement

windows installed in council-owned properties should normally match the original windows as closely as possible in terms of design and materials, unless so doing would perpetuate inherent poor design, or result in a failure to achieve the required standards of security, safety, and insulation.

3. HFI should adopt a clear policy on sustainable construction that is consistent with

the council’s adopted planning guidance and Green Procurement Code. The adopted policy should be made available to all their prospective suppliers of building materials.

4. In applying this policy, HFI should: -

(a) develop comprehensive “output” specifications that include environmental criteria (as recommended in the Green Procurement Code). These specifications should be used as the basis for tendering window replacement contracts;

(b) maximise the use of more environmentally acceptable alternatives to UPVC, within the constraints of the available funding (for instance, on low-rise properties where future maintenance is generally less expensive than on high-rise buildings); (c) consider alternative solutions to the replacement of existing windows that are in reasonable condition on low rise properties (up to three storeys), where cyclical re-painting is a more feasible option;

(d) working in collaboration with the London Housing Consortium and other housing authorities, seek to develop the market for more environmentally sustainable alternatives to UPVC; for instance, by encouraging pilot or demonstration projects by manufacturers of pultruded glass fibre.

5. The council, in conjunction with HFI, should lobby the Office of the Deputy Prime

Minister (ODPM) and the Housing Corporation to have environmental criteria and whole life costing more explicitly taken into account in assessing value-for-money in

4

the Housing Capital Programme and other regeneration and development programmes. The council should liaise with other environmentally committed councils, the London Government Association, the Greater London Authority and other appropriate organisations to promote this.

6. All council managers and those in partner organisations who are responsible for

developing and maintaining buildings should be made fully aware of the council’s policies on sustainable construction.

7. To promote sustainable construction and development in the borough, the council

should: –

(a) seek to develop and publicise exemplar projects (both refurbishment and new build schemes) that use the most environmentally sustainable materials; and (b) publish simple guidance for householders and property owners on how to improve existing (traditional) windows and choose appropriate replacement windows.

8. The sustainability review committee will review what has happened as a result of the

above recommendations in 12 months time.

5

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Sustainability Review Committee was tasked with reviewing the use of

UPVC framed windows by the council, and assessing the comparative advantages and disadvantages presented by alternative materials. The scrutiny initiation document (see Appendix A) was agreed by the committee on 1 November 2004, and the committee commenced taking evidence at its meeting on 18 November 2004.

Objectives of the Review

1.2 The agreed objectives of the review were as follows:

• To examine the costs and benefits of using alternative materials e.g. wood,

metal, aluminium or other composite materials.

• To review the council’s position on the use of UPVC windows in the context of Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Green Construction and how the continued use of UPVC accords with the overall objectives of the SPG.

• To consider the Conservation Area status of many parts of the borough and the impact that the use of UPVC has particularly in adjacent locations.

• To consider the council’s position in respect of achieving the Decent Homes standard. In particular, to understand the impact of procuring windows made from UPVC or alternative products.

• To consider the whole life cost in using UPVC or alternatives, in order to assess true best value over time.

• To consider the durability of UPVC windows versus the alternatives.

• To consider the repair and maintenance of UPVC versus the alternatives.

• To consider longer term issues as such as re-use and disposal of the materials. • To consider the performance of UPVC windows versus alternatives

Methodology and Timetabling 1.3 Commencing in November 2004, the committee took written and oral evidence

from a variety of sources, from within and outside the council. These included officers from the council’s Environment and Regeneration Department, senior staff and directors from Homes for Islington, the Sustainability Manager from a neighboring borough and the Director of the London Housing Consortium. Windows manufacturers/suppliers were also invited to submit evidence.

1.4 As part of this process, the council considered a detailed report commissioned by

the council’s own sustainability manager, which included the results of surveys of

6

windows manufacturers and of local housing authorities and registered social landlords throughout the country. The committee also had available to it a report of a similar scrutiny review undertaken by the L B Hackney.

1.5 The chair and vice-chair spent a day visiting a range of housing developments in

the borough where replacement windows have been fitted or existing windows refurbished. In addition, the vice-chair visited a manufacturer of pultruded fibreglass windows in order to gain a better understanding of this product and its potential for use in Islington. Information from these events was fed back to the committee.

Background

1.6 UPVC (sometimes referred to as uPVC or PVC–u) stands for unplasticised

polyvinyl chloride. To make windows, UPVC is extruded to produce long sections which can then be assembled and cut to make the frames. The market for UPVC windows has grown substantially over the past 25 years. Overall, UPVC is now used for about 45% of all windows installed in the UK. In particular, UPVC windows have been used by many local authorities and registered social landlords to replace single glazed timber and metal windows. In the private sector market, UPVC windows account for 90% of all replacement windows fitted.

1.7 The UPVC windows have invariably been double glazed, thereby bringing

benefits in improved thermal and noise insulation. However, there have been growing concerns about the adverse environmental consequences of using UPVC as a material.

1.8 At present the council does not have a policy on the installation of UPVC

windows. It does however have a policy of promoting sustainable construction. The council also has a commitment to bringing all council homes in Islington up to the Decent Homes standard. Replacing poorly performing single glazed windows with double glazed windows in order to provide improved insulation is a key part of this.

1.9 The committee wishes to ensure that, wherever possible, the council and other

organisations undertaking building construction and improvement projects in the borough use materials that have the least adverse impact on the environment. The review has therefore explored the arguments for and against the use of UPVC and the potential costs and benefits of using comparable windows made from alternative materials. This has included consideration of the environmental consequences in terms of the use of energy and source materials (including oil) involved in the manufacture, transportation and use of alternative products. The committee has also considered the end-of-life treatment of window products, in particular, the potential for re-cycling and the implications for waste disposal.

1.10 Another key consideration has been the need to ensure that the financial

resources available to the council are used in the most cost-efficient manner to deliver key corporate programmes such as the Decent Homes Programme.

1.11 The committee has sought to balance these considerations in coming to its

recommendations.

7

2. KEY ISSUES 2.1 A substantial proportion of the replacement windows fitted in the borough by HFI,

RSLs, other organisations and private property owners are made from UPVC. This situation is also widely reflected elsewhere in London and other parts of the UK. However, there are growing concerns about the adverse environmental consequences of continuing to use UPVC as a material.

2.2 In addition, because of the difficulties of accurately replicating with UPVC the

design and appearance of windows manufactured from more traditional materials, the use of UPVC replacement windows is often opposed on planning grounds. This is a recurring issue in a borough like Islington which has substantial numbers of listed buildings and conservation areas.

2.3 On the other hand, HFI regard the use of UPVC windows as the most cost-

effective way of achieving the council’s commitment to the Decent Homes standard for all the tenants and leaseholders by 2010. Therefore, whilst HFI uses other materials, such as wood and metal, where there are compelling planning or other reasons for so doing, UPVC windows remain the basis of its programme. HFI would be concerned that a policy which ruled out the use of UPVC on environmental grounds would prevent them from achieving the objective of bringing all homes up to the Decent Homes standard by 2010.

3. PERFORMANCE OF UPVC WINDOWS AND ALTERNATIVES 3.1 The main alternatives to PVC windows are high performance timber, aluminium

clad timber, aluminium and steel. Pultruded fibreglass is another potential alternative. Pultruded fibreglass window frames are made from long strands of fibreglass in polyester resin (an oil-based substance). Although relatively new to the UK3 it has been widely used in North America and Scandinavia.

Durability/Life Expectancy

3.2 Evidence and claims regarding the durability of different window materials vary widely. It has been estimated that UPVC windows are on average being taken out after only 18 years. This may reflect a number of factors, in particular, the poor performance of some UPVC windows installed in the 1980s. It is also the case that many timber windows in the 1960s and 1970s proved to be of limited durability, as a consequence of which timber windows acquired a poor reputation. It is considered unwise to base estimates of the durability of modern high specification windows in UPVC, timber and composite materials on earlier, more inferior products. The evidence suggests that continuing improvements in the quality of design, fabrication, materials and preservatives is gradually extending anticipated life spans of window products of all materials.

3.3 Most authorities estimate the life of UPVC windows to be about 25 years. Timber

windows and timber windows with an aluminium cladding are expected to last 35

3 The only public authority thus far to have installed pultruded fibreglass windows is a housing association in Scotland.

8

years. However, some authorities consider 60 years to be a realistic estimate for modern, properly maintained, high specification softwood windows. Many Victorian timber windows have, of course, lasted for well in excess of 100 years. Steel and aluminium windows are also estimated to have a life of 35 years. Pultruded fibreglass is very durable and expectations are that frames made from this material should last at least 50 years.

3.4 The Chief Executive of the London Housing Consortium advised the committee

that lifespan is more dependent on the quality of the product than the material used. He considers that there is no reason why a good UPVC, timber or aluminium window should not last for 60 years.

Maintenance and Repair UPVC 3.5 UPVC windows are not entirely “maintenance free”. They require regular

cleaning to prevent the build-up of dust and pollutants that can lead to premature discolouring or brittleness of the material. Special stain removers and paints for UPVC windows are now on the market. However, current products have superior performance and durability compared with the first generation of plastic windows, which have tended to discolour after a few years.

3.6 Although UPVC windows are relatively low maintenance, they are difficult to

repair. If damaged, they are more likely to require specialist repair or complete replacement than would timber or glass fibre windows. The committee received evidence that some housing authorities have encountered repair and maintenance problems with UPVC window frames and ironmongery (handles and hinges). However, HFI informed the committee that the council had installed UPVC windows in its housing stock over a long period without experiencing any significant problems.

Timber

3.7 Timber windows require a regular maintenance cycle. Some sources suggest a 3 to 5 year repainting cycle, although modern, high specification timber windows may only require re-painting every 7 years. Even longer cycles have been suggested where factory finished coatings are applied.

3.8 Timber windows are more easily repairable than windows made from other

products. Nevertheless, the evidence from Homes for Islington and other sources generally indicates that the costs of maintaining timber windows throughout their life will continue to be significantly higher than those of other materials – particularly where re-painting requires the use of scaffolding (such as on high rise blocks).

3.9 Aluminium clad timber cuts out the need for a maintenance cycle (other than

periodic cleaning and oiling), and extends the life expectancy of the window. For these reasons, despite being more expensive than unclad timber, aluminium clad timber windows are being installed by a number of housing authorities and housing associations as a sustainable alternative to UPVC.

9

Aluminium

3.10 Aluminium does not rust or rot and thus the frame requires little maintenance. It is, however, difficult to repair.

Pultruded fibreglass

3.11 This material needs minimal maintenance and is very durable, and would appear to be easily repairable. It is more “UV stable” than PVC, and therefore less prone to discolouration. It also has the advantages compared with UPVC of requiring no metal reinforcement and therefore conserving heat better, and having a thinner profile and thus being better for replication of metal-framed windows.

Other Considerations Fittings 3.12 All types of windows incorporate fittings such as handles, locks, ventilators,

glazing and weather strips, which need to be maintained and if necessary replaced. It is therefore essential for all window types that appropriate manufacturer’s guarantees are negotiated and that replacement parts are available from identified sources.

Thermal Efficiency

3.13 The most important part of a window’s insulating properties is the glazing. The relative insulation properties of UPVC and timber frames are similar. Aluminium and metal have the highest heat loss, while fibreglass has the least. The new Part L of the Building Regulations, which comes into force in late 2005, increases the thermal efficiency requirements of buildings. This will have an impact on the design of windows frames and may result in thicker sections. This will have implications for all windows manufacturers.

Security

3.14 It has been suggested that UPVC windows are less secure than timber windows. However, it is understood that all window types are capable of being designed to meet the appropriate British Standard (BS7950). This requirement should be included in all council specifications for replacement and new windows. “Secure by Design” accreditation should also be sought, where appropriate.

Performance in Fire

3.15 UPVC and aluminium windows melt in fires. Timber windows are also combustible. However, they retain their structural integrity longer. All types are not reusable after a serious fire. All window types are required to have acceptable surface spread rating.

Conclusions

3.16 Despite some conflicting evidence, it is possible to produce high quality windows in a range of different materials, including UPVC, timber, aluminium and

10

composite materials. Standards of product design, fabrication and installation are probably more important determinants of overall performance than the choice of a particular frame material.

4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 All construction products such as windows have some environmental impacts in

terms of their consumption of natural resources, manufacture, transportation, use, disposal and recycling. To be set against these impacts are the positive environmental benefits in terms of lower carbon dioxide emissions and reduced domestic fuel usage that result from the replacement of poorly performing single glazed windows by high specification double glazed units, of whatever material. There have however been growing environmental concerns about the use of PVC products.

UPVC

4.2 UPVC is made from chlorine and ethylene (composed of hydrogen and carbon, which is obtained from crude oil). Key concerns raised about UPVC are that hazardous chemicals (notably dioxins) are released during manufacture and disposal. PVC contains stabilisers to stop it deteriorating, made from compounds containing heavy metals, including lead and cadmium, which are toxins. Re-cycling is also relatively difficult and expensive. The Building Research Establishment’s Green Guide to Housing Specifications gave UPVC a relatively poor environmental rating due to the high energy intensity of manufacture and the very low proportion of material that was recycled.

4.3 Most of the PVC made so far is in ‘long life’ building products which have not yet

become waste, but when they do they will present difficult disposal problems, which will have to be dealt with by public authorities. PVC is not degradable, is difficult and expensive to recycle, and when incinerated it leads to the creation of more hazardous wastes. A study by the European Commission (published in June 2000) found that around 82% of total PVC waste goes to landfill, 15% to incineration, and only around 3% is recycled. It is not technically possible to make a PVC window from 100% recycled PVC. Recycled material can only be used as a separate layer in new products.

4.4 In response to growing public concerns and the prospect of more stringent

regulations, the UPVC industry is seeking to “improve its act”. The European PVC industry has signed up to a voluntary 10 year programme to reduce waste and increase the percentage of material re-cycled. However, the re-cycling targets are currently modest (7% of post- consumer PVC waste by 2010). Even allowing for significant improvements in recycling in the future, it seems inevitable that increasing amounts of PVC waste will go to incineration or landfill. The long term environmental consequences of PVC in landfill are unknown, although there is a risk that PVC additives may leach out increasing the toxicity of landfill leachate. A further consideration is that landfill is likely to become increasingly costly as a result of the reduced availability of sites and new EU regulations.

11

Timber and other alternative materials

Timber windows 4.5 Made from a renewable material. Sustainably managed, forests have many

environmental benefits. They act as “carbon sinks”, reducing greenhouse gases and helping to mitigate the effects on global warming. Softwood windows – which do not require much energy in manufacture – score particularly well on environmental ratings, provided that the timber used is from sustainable sources (such as those accredited by the Forestry Stewardship Council). Currently, most high specification timber windows are imported from the continent, with the attendant transportation costs and energy use.

4.6 Timber windows are more easily re-cyclable than UPVC. Although the use of

timber treatments (paints and toxic preservatives) can inhibit recycling and re-use, modern non-toxic preservatives are much less problematic. There is a market for the re-use of timber, although supply of reclaimed timber is often sporadic. At present a good deal of timber is disposed of by incineration, releasing toxic dioxins into the atmosphere. The market for re-cycled timber could, however, be developed. HFI is setting re-cycling targets as part of its contracts with companies who are installing replacement windows.

Aluminium

4.7 Although aluminium used in windows contains about 30% recycled metal, the high energy input into manufacturing processes still results in a high overall environmental impact.

Pultruded Glass Fibre

4.8 The energy used in the manufacture of pultruded fibreglass is less than that required for the manufacture of aluminium and similar to that required for UPVC. However, pultruded fibreglass has less environmental impacts over its life cycle than UPVC since it produces fewer hazardous substances either as by-products during manufacture and disposal, or as additives in the frame itself. It is also likely to be a more durable product. Pultruded fibreglass cannot be recycled and reused as fibreglass, but there are options for its re-use in other construction projects (for example, as road fill).

Life Cycle Assessments

4.9 An EU-funded comparative study of life cycle assessments of PVC, published in 2004, concluded that there is no “winner” in terms of a preferable material for windows. The study indicated that the most promising potential for lowering environmental impacts of windows was through improvements in design. This study has however been criticised for not making clear that the majority of the individual life cycle assessments found timber to be the best material on most environmental criteria, whereas PVC generally came out worst. Aluminium also rated poorly in most studies. The Building Research Establishment (BRE) concluded on the basis of its own studies that UPVC windows perform poorly due

12

to the high intensity of the materials used in manufacture and the shorter lifespan, and that pre-treated softwood frames perform the best.

4.10 Life cycle assessments generally do not take full account of the toxicity of the

substances which are released into the environment when PVC is made, used and disposed of, or their impacts on human health and the environment. As a result, PVC waste presents additional environmental issues, particularly disposal problems, many of which will need to be dealt with by local authorities, as the quantities of this waste increase in the future.

Future regulations

4.11 Future EU regulations to restrict the use or incineration of hazardous substances such as dioxins, could impact on the future performance and cost of PVC products. Such regulations could also affect the use of and disposal of other materials, although to a lesser extent. This consideration adds weight to the environmental case for using alternatives to UPVC.

4.12 Because of the adverse environmental effects associated with PVC products, a

growing number of companies, government authorities and other organisations, including some large private companies have decided to phase out PVC. The section below gives further information on the policies and practices of other councils and registered social landlords.

Conclusions

4.13 Overall, the weight of evidence strongly supports the view that UPVC has more

adverse environmental consequences than timber or other alternative windows materials. Despite the efforts being made by the PVC industry to reduce the use of toxic substances, improve recycling and produce better designed products with greater durability, it is concluded that UPVC represents the least environmentally sustainable option.

5. PLANNING POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 The planning policies in Islington’s Unitary Development Plan (UDP) reflect the

council’s commitment to sustainable development and improvement of the borough’s environment. The UDP seeks to encourage energy conservation, and forms of development that use environmentally friendly building materials, minimise waste and consume resources in an ecologically efficient manner.

5.2 Amongst the design policies in the UDP, Policy D4 aims to ensure that proposals

for new and altered buildings relate properly to their surroundings. Windows and window arrangements on buildings are one of the matters that the policy indicates should be given particular attention. Policy D24 indicates that in conservation areas the council will normally require the use of traditional materials in refurbishment schemes.

5.3 The council has also adopted and published more detailed supplementary

planning guidance on green construction. This guidance is also taken into account in the assessment of planning applications.

13

5.4 Members of the committee have looked at a variety of residential buildings and

estates in the borough where different window materials have been used. On close inspection, some of the UPVC windows installed in the past in older buildings have poor detailing and appear incongruous. However, the committee members also saw a recent example which demonstrated that, with careful design, replacement UPVC windows can represent an aesthetically acceptable alternative to wood, metal or other materials.

6. COMPARATIVE COSTS OF UPVC AND ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS Purchase and Installation Costs

6.1 Comparative figures on the initial purchase and installation costs of UPVC windows and those made from alternative materials vary significantly. Even where such comparisons are made on a strictly “like for like” basis in terms of specifications, the respective figures can be influenced by a number of factors, such as prospective size of orders (which can significantly influence unit cost); the state of the market and the variable price of raw materials (such as oil, in the case of UPVC). However, a survey of various window manufacturers, undertaken as part of the background research for this report, indicated that UPVC is the cheapest option, followed by high performance timber (both with & without aluminium cladding), fibreglass and aluminium.

Table1. Summary of survey of windows suppliers 2004 Type of Window

a) Life Expectancy b) Guarantees

Average cost of window a) 600 X 900 b) 1200 X 1200

PVC windows

a) Life expectancy – 25 – 60+ years

b) Guarantees – 10 years

a) £93.75 b) £191.00

Timber windows (including aluminium clad timber)

a) Life expectancy - 35 – 100 years

b) Guarantees - 5 – 30 years (against rot & fungal attack)

a) £152.09 b) £287.24 * the lower figure was used in calculating averages.

Fibreglass windows summary

a) Life expectancy 50 – 60 years

b) Profile guarantee – 20 –35 years

a) £175.66 b) £290.00

Aluminium windows summary

a) Life expectancy 25 – 35 years

b) Guarantees (profile) 10 years

a) £179.67 b) £334.67

Source: “PVC Windows and Alternatives”, Research Report for Islington Council. October 2004. 6.2 Based on tender returns for window contracts in Islington, HFI has stated that the

comparable initial costs are:-

UPVC 0% Timber +19% Steel +29% Aluminium +67%

14

6.3 However, a recent Hackney Council report comparing the costs of installing UPVC and timber windows as part of their Decent Homes Programme calculated that timber windows would be about 70% more expensive than UPVC.

6.4 The Director of the London Housing Consortium in his evidence to the committee

reported that in his experience timber windows were about 30% more expensive than equivalent UPVC windows, and metal about 20% more expensive. As this is based on wider tendering experience than simply one authority it is considered that these figures give a more reliable indication of current cost differences. However, it is possible that the cost differentials could be reduced in future as the market for high quality timber windows continues to grow and manufacturers are able to reduce their unit costs and offer more competitive prices.

Whole Life Costs and Best Value

6.5 The main factors that determine the long term, or whole-life, costs of a window

(excluding the wider environmental costs) are: initial purchase and installation costs; the costs of maintaining the window in good condition; and how long the window will last before needing to be replaced. Lower priced products which need to be replaced more frequently than more expensive alternatives may thus prove to be more costly in the long term.

6.6 The committee has found the evidence on initial installation costs, maintenance

costs and longevity of the different window materials to vary widely. For instance, a life cycle assessment undertaken by the former Department for Transport Environment and the Regions (DETR) estimated the cost of timber windows to be 26% higher than UPVC. Yet on the other hand, a study by the Building Research Establishment concluded that high performance timber and pultruded fibre glass were cheaper than UPVC. There is thus no unanimity of view as to which material offers the best value for money in the long term.

6.7 The issue of durability is particularly critical to the question of long term costs.

Calculations of whole life costs for four different window types undertaken at Camden Council indicated that UPVC is significantly more costly than both timber and aluminium clad timber over 60 years, even though maintenance costs of timber windows are higher. However, the Camden analysis assumed only a 20 year life for UPVC windows, compared with at least 60 years for timber and aluminium-clad timber. On this basis, UPVC windows would need to be replaced twice during a 60 year period and for this reason emerged as the most expensive option.

15

Table 2. Camden: whole life costs over 60 years for a typical 1.5m2 window Timber sash Aluminium-clad timber UPVC Aluminium

Expected life 60 years 60 years 20 years 30 years

Renewal Cost £500 £625 £420 £570

Renewal Cost over 60 years 0 0 £840 £570 Maintenance Cost over 60years

£787 £696 £460 £435

Whole life cost over 60 years £1,287 £1,321 £1,720 £1,575 Whole life cost compared toPVCu

-25% -23% 0% -8%

6.8 In contrast, Hackney Council has concluded that UPVC is a significantly cheaper

long term option than timber, for both low rise and high rise housing blocks. Their calculations assume that UPVC windows would need to be replaced once during this period, whereas timber would last for at least 60 years. Nevertheless UPVC emerges as the cheaper option because of its lower installation and maintenance costs. On the basis of Hackney’s figures timber would be about 35% more expensive. Steel and aluminium were considered to be uneconomical.

Table 3. Hackney: 60 year Lifecycle costs

UPVC Wood Capital Cost (£45m) Capital Cost (£90m)

60 year Capital Cost (£90m) 60 year Capital Cost (£90m) Maintenance every 7 years (£1.4m) Maintenance every 7 years (£9.8m)

60 year maintenance cost (£11m) 60 year maintenance cost (£78m) Scaffolding Cost (18m) Scaffolding Cost (18m)

60 year Scaffolding Cost (36m) 60 year Scaffolding Cost (18m)

60 year Lifecycle Cost (£137m) 60 year Lifecycle Cost (£186m) +36%

Source: Hackney Council 6.9 HFI’s own calculations of whole life costs, presented to the committee in

November 2004, only looked at a 28 year lifespan (four 7 year maintenance cycles). It was assumed that each type of window would have at least this lifespan. On this basis, UPVC came out as significantly cheaper than the three alternatives examined: -aluminium was 42% more expensive, timber +48% and steel +80%. However, by choosing a relatively short lifecycle period, the comparison took no account of the greater longevity of high specification timber and the other alternatives to UPVC.

6.10 Apart from durability, the other major long term costs factor is maintenance. All

types of window require maintenance if they are to remain serviceable and in good condition. Maintenance costs for timber windows are generally higher than for other types of window, because of the need to re-paint them every 5 to 7 years, or re-stain every three/five years. Maintenance costs are a major consideration on buildings where scaffolding is required. Scaffolding costs to a high-rise block can account for over 35% of the whole cost of a maintenance

16

contract. Although timber windows are inherently easier to repair than UPVC windows, the evidence does not suggest that this makes a significance difference to the overall maintenance cost comparisons.

Conclusions

6.11 Cost comparisons vary widely and can reflect a variety of circumstances and

assumptions, particularly about the durability and maintenance of alternative materials. Figures therefore need to be treated with some caution. Nevertheless, it is concluded that at present UPVC is a cheaper option than timber or other alternatives, in terms of both initial installation costs and future maintenance. Thus the adoption of a policy of switching entirely to other materials would have significant financial implications given the scale of HFI’s window replacement programme, quite aside from various other practical issues (such as future replacement of existing UPVC windows that have become worn out or seriously damaged). However, changes in the costs of fuel and raw materials as a result of rising oil prices, the effects of new regulations on toxic materials and the increasing costs of waste disposal, could make UPVC a much less financially attractive option in the future. In addition, the developing market for alternative windows products may well result in more competitively priced alternative products.

7. RESIDENTS’ VIEWS 7.1 There is little doubt that the key concern for residents living in properties with

poor quality, single glazed windows is to have these replaced with new double glazed units. Consultation with council tenants and leaseholders residents in Summer 2002 revealed that the replacement of windows in poor condition was the top priority for many. A questionnaire completed during 2004/5 by tenants due to receive improvement works to their properties indicated that 89% of those with single glazed windows considered their glazing to be 'poor'. 78% of these said that they suffered from 'external' noise. In contrast, only 9% of those with double-glazed windows considered their windows to be “poor”.

7.2 HFI have also reported that residents’ surveys undertaken where UPVC double

glazing has been installed have shown high levels of satisfaction. The particular benefits referred to are improved insulation and reduced condensation. The fact that UPVC windows require relatively little maintenance (internally and externally) compared with timber windows is seen as another factor in their favour.

7.3 During site visits, members of the committee also received positive comments

from residents of a block where the original metal framed windows had (for planning reasons) been replaced by double glazed steel windows.

7.4 Window replacement often forms the largest single element of work undertaken

to residents’ homes. The costs of these works are reflected in the charges to leaseholders. Currently around 26% of HFI-managed property is of leasehold tenure. This is likely to rise to over 30% within the next year. Some blocks have a majority of leaseholders as occupants. HFI has pointed out that they have a legal duty to ensure value for money for leaseholders. This has implications for the choice of windows. Whilst some leaseholders may be willing to pay a premium

17

for what is perceived to be a superior product, most have a prime interest in keeping costs to a minimum, both at the initial installation stage and in terms of future maintenance. HFI have expressed concerns that a policy of discontinuing the use of UPVC in favour of more expensive products could lead to leaseholders challenging the additional costs at leasehold valuation tribunals.

7.5 Somewhat in contrast, a quick survey of local estate agents suggests that in the

private housing sector replacement UPVC windows are not necessarily regarded as a positive selling point, particularly on older houses, and may indeed be a negative factor.

8. HOMES FOR ISLINGTON’S PROGRAMME 8.1 HFI has obtained government funding to bring its all its properties up to the

Decent Homes Standard (the minimum target set for all social housing to achieve by 2010) and to tackle other priority issues (such as security, environmental works, lifts and cyclical maintenance). The HFI investment strategy reflects residents’ priorities as well as the condition of the housing stock. Therefore, with the funding available, the objective is to maximise the number of properties benefiting from double glazing. Some 65% of low/ medium rise properties (totalling about 11,000 dwellings) have single glazing. The plan is to that all these properties should have double glazing fitted by 2010. On tall blocks, where scaffolding is a major element in the overall costs of improvement works, double glazing will be installed where the existing windows need replacing or where other major works to the building requires the use of scaffolding.

8.2 The strategy and costings are based on using UPVC because of its lower

installation and maintenance costs compared with the alternative materials. The estimated cost of the window replacement programme up to 2010 is £92.4 million, based on 100% use of UPVC. HFI has stressed that if timber were to be used instead of UPVC, the additional cost would be in the order of £51 million. Such additional costs would have to be met from HFI’s overall £500 million budget by reducing expenditure on other works outside of the Decent Homes’ requirements such as, external repairs, redecoration and lift renewal.

8.3 HFI have also expressed concern that if they were to reject the use of UPVC

solely on environmental grounds and use costlier alternatives, it would be difficult to demonstrate that their programme was meeting Audit Commission requirements to deliver best value. Despite the Government’s expressed commitment to sustainable development, the environmental costs associated with the use of UPVC and alternative materials do not seem to be explicity taken into account in assessing whether programmes will deliver genuine value for money. In contrast, housing associations require an EcoHomes accreditation4 for their development projects in order to obtain funding from the Housing Corporation.

8.4 In practice, however, for a number of reasons, such as planning considerations,

the 2005/06 window replacement programme is using a mix of materials. Indeed, 46% of the properties in the current year’s programme will receive timber

4 EcoHomes accreditation is based on the ratings given for various products in the BRE’s Green Guide to Housing Specification.

18

or aluminium windows (see table 4). Although the composition of future years’ programmes is not yet determined, HFI has indicated that these are also likely to comprise a mix of materials.

8.5 This “mixed economy” approach has clear benefits in terms of reducing the

degree of reliance on UPVC, supporting the market for alternative products and reducing the eventual scale of the recycling and disposal problems associated with UPVC. However, it clearly has implications for the funding of HFI’s overall programme; for instance, based on the London Housing Consortium’s figures for the relative costs of the various materials, this year’s window replacement programme will cost over 10% more than would be the case if UPVC windows were fitted on all properties. It is understood that inflation in the cost of building materials has also been higher than was forecast when the original estimates were produced. Both these factors are likely to impact on the overall scope and content of HFI’s future programme.

Table 4. HFI Window Replacement Programme 2004/05

Area Product No. of Properties

Holland Walk & Isledon Rd UPVC 567 Metal 72 Timber 118Upper St & Boleyn Rd UPVC 178 Metal 51 Timber 186Central Street UPVC 0 Metal 129 Timber 76Total (All Areas) UPVC 745 (54%) Metal 252 (18%) Timber 380 (28%)

9. EXPERIENCE IN OTHER AUTHORITIES 9.1 As part of the study commissioned by the council’s sustainability manager, a

survey of 20 local authorities, housing associations, and other organisations, was conducted to find out about their experiences and practice. The survey found that although several councils (particularly large urban authorities) continue to use UPVC as the primary material in their window replacement programmes, a growing number of housing authorities and associations are now using timber and other more environmentally sustainable alternatives. Evidence was collected from a number of neighbouring London boroughs where a similar debate has been taking place to that which has prompted this scrutiny review.

9.2 Camden is one authority that is taking steps to implement a sustainable

construction programme. Although Camden Council has made significant use of UPVC in the recent past, it is now considering the use of sustainably sourced timber and aluminium-clad timber windows. However, it is understood that window replacement is not a major element in Camden’s future Decent Homes programme. Consequently, the adoption of a policy of discontinuing the use of

19

UPVC windows would not appear to have significant consequences for the delivery of their programme.

9.3 Lambeth Council have produced a series of sustainable construction advice

notes and a database of sustainable alternatives to common building elements, such as window renewal. Softwood (Forestry Stewardship Council accredited) boron impregnated timber windows are recommended as first choice, with aluminium and timber/aluminium composites as second choices. These materials have been used in some “flagship” new build sustainable housing developments. UPVC is not recommended for environmental reasons. Nevertheless, it is understood that on grounds of cost UPVC is still used by the council in window renewal programmes.

9.4 Hackney Council have decided to adopt a policy of using high-performance

UPVC windows as a first choice for their Decent Homes Programme. Although timber was the preferred environmental choice it was not recommended because of the high capital and maintenance costs and concerns about the ability of the timber window manufacturers to meet the requirements of the programme. Hackney are requiring certain commitments from the selected UPVC manufacturers regarding re-cycling and disposal.

10. THE CURRENT MARKET FOR WINDOWS 10.1 There is likely to be a substantial increase in the overall demand for replacement

windows over the next few years as a consequence of the Decent Homes standard and the changes to the Building Regulations. Aside from issues of sustainability and cost, the availability of products will be critical to the success of these programmes.

10.2 Supply chain arrangements for UPVC windows are well established and robust,

reflecting the fact that they have been the first choice window replacement product for many housing authorities and associations over the last 20 years or so. There are a significant number of UPVC window companies capable of providing a complete window replacement service (survey, consultations with residents, design, manufacture, installation etc).

10.3 Over the past few years there has been something of a revival in the timber

window industry, and there is a growing public sector market for its products. However, these developments are from a low base. There are currently few manufacturers of high performance windows and the capacity within the “purpose made” industry in the UK still appears limited.

10.4 Consequently, HFI are concerned that a policy of complete or substantial

reliance on timber windows would put the efficient delivery of the Decent Homes programme at risk. Although some suppliers have indicated their ability to provide the sorts of volumes required, there would appear to be a significant risk attached to implementing such a policy in the present circumstances. Similar concerns apply at the present time to the ability of pultruded glass fibre to make a significant contribution to meeting the demand for replacement windows.

20

10.5 Looking to the future, however, it seems likely that the capacity of the “non-

UPVC” sector of the industry to provide quality products in large volumes will improve. This in turn should result in lower unit costs. The committee would therefore wish to see HFI continue to develop its mixed materials approach, progressively shifting the balance away from UPVC to more environmentally sustainable materials. This could be achieved by giving manufacturers of timber or pultruded glass fibre windows the opportunity to tender for significantly sized contracts, on the basis of a common performance-based specification, as recommended in the council’s green procurement code. This approach could be developed in conjunction with the London Housing Consortium who, as a procurement agency working on the behalf of a wide range of housing authorities, are particularly well placed to develop more robust supply chains and negotiate competitive prices.

11. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 11.1 Replacing poorly performing single glazed windows with double glazed windows

is a high priority for residents. For many, the type of double glazed window is probably a less important consideration. Improving the performance of existing single glazed windows by fitting draught excluders and secondary glazing may provide a practicable alternative to double glazing on low rise properties where cyclical re-painting can be undertaken without incurring significant scaffolding costs. However, it is recognised that many tenants would consider this to be a much less desirable solution than having new windows.

11.2 Although the environmental issues are complex, the weight of available evidence

points strongly to UPVC having more significant adverse impacts on the environment than alternative materials, in particular timber.

11.3 Estimates of comparative costs vary widely. But overall, the evidence is that

UPVC windows are currently cheaper to install than comparable timber windows or other alternatives. Despite some contrary evidence, it seems likely that modern well-designed windows of all types, properly installed and maintained, should have a life of at least 25 -30 years. Modern timber and aluminium windows and pultruded glass fibre have the potential to last much longer than this. However, to be set against the probable greater longevity of timber compared with UPVC are the greater maintenance costs arising from the need for a 5 -7 year re-painting/ re-staining cycle. In terms of direct costs over say a 60 year period (ie. purchase, installation and maintenance and replacement costs), it therefore seems likely that UPVC remains the cheapest option. However, these assessments do not take proper account of environmental costs, including re-cycling and disposal costs, which largely fall on public authorities. These costs are likely to increase in future.

11.4 Aside from the issue of cost, there remain doubts about the ability of

manufacturers and suppliers of timber windows and alternative products to be able to meet the full requirements of the windows replacement programme. Consequently, until there are assured capacity and robust supply chains in place, adopting a policy of no longer using UPVC would carry significant risks. Furthermore, to cease using UPVC on estates or buildings where a substantial proportion of properties already have UPVC windows would make little practical

21

sense and would probably be unpopular with the residents affected. For these reasons, a blanket policy of ceasing to use UPVC is not recommended.

11.5 However, factors such as the increasing price of oil and other raw materials,

more stringent EU or national regulations on recycling and waste disposal, and the continuing development of markets for less environmentally damaging alternatives, could well change the picture. UPVC windows may well become a much less attractive option in the future. For this reason, and in view of the compelling evidence about the long term environmental impacts of UPVC, the council and HFI should adopt a policy of using UPVC only where there are clear financial or other benefits for so doing.

11.6 HFI is already using a mix of UPVC and other materials in its windows

replacement programme. The committee supports the development of this approach, reinforced by measures to change the balance progressively in favour of more environmentally acceptable alternatives to UPVC. This should include the adoption of a clear policy on sustainable construction and using “output” specifications that include environmental criteria, as recommended in the council’s green procurement code.

11.7 The committee were impressed with the potential of pultruded glass fibre to offer

a durable, low maintenance and more environmentally friendly alternative to UPVC. The committee would therefore urge HFI to seek the agreement of LHC to investigate further the viability of using this material.

11.8 At present, despite the Government’s expressed commitment to sustainable

development, the environmental costs do not seem to be adequately taken into account in assessing whether programmes will deliver genuine value for money. The council should work with other environmentally committed authorities and organisations, including the GLA and the ALG, to lobby the ODPM to take more explicit account of environmental factors (such as, re-cycling and disposal costs).

11.9 There are also a number of other steps which could be taken to give practical

effect to the council’s commitment to sustainable construction: such as, ensuring that all council managers involved in construction projects and other stakeholder organisations in the borough (such as housing associations) are made fully aware of the council’s policy; and looking to develop, promote and publicise exemplar projects.

11.10 These conclusions are reflected in the committee’s recommendations.

22

APPENDICES TO THE REPORT APPENDIX A UPVC Windows – Scrutiny Initiation Document (SID)

APPENDIX B List of persons who gave evidence to the committee

23

UPVC Windows – Scrutiny Initiation Document Appendix A Scrutiny Initiation Document (SID)

Scrutiny Panel: Sustainability Scrutiny Committee

Portfolio holder: Bridget Fox Assistant Director leading this project: 1 Objectives of the Review 2 Overall To consider the use of UPVC windows by the Council against alternative products. To explore the range of environmental and financial arguments put forward for and against UPVC.

• To examine the costs and benefits of using alternative materials e.g. Wood, metal or aluminium or other composite materials.

• To review the Council’s position on the use of UPVC windows in the context of Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Green Construction and how the continued use of UPVC accords with the overall objectives of the SPG.

• To consider the Conservation Area status of many parts of the borough and the impact that the use of UPVC has particularly in adjacent locations.

• To consider the Councils position in respect of achieving the Decent Homes standard. In particular to understand the impact of procuring windows made from UPVC or alternative products.

• To consider the whole life cost in using UPVC or alternatives, in order to assess true best value over time

• To consider the durability of UPVC windows versus the alternatives.

• To consider the repair and maintenance of UPVC versus the alternatives.

• To consider longer term issues as such as re-use and disposal of the materials.

• To consider the performance of UPVC windows versus alternatives. • To consider the best value to residents in terms of home security of UPVC compared to the

alternatives • To consider the affordability of conservation area appropriate UPVC windows available

compared to the alternatives

• To consider the best value to resident in terms of energy efficiency of UPVC compared to the alternatives

• To consider the wider impacts on the environment in terms of insulation and energy

efficiency of UPVC compared to the alternatives • To consider how the replacement of windows can be minimised through the effective

maintenance of existing windows.

24

3 Scope of the Review The council wants to fully understand the arguments for and against the use of UPVC as a construction material, particularly as a substitute for wood or metal. In terms of sustainability the council wants to be confident that it is utilising those materials that have the least impact on the wider environmental agenda. The review will endeavour to understand the arguments represented for and against the use of UPVC and the alternatives. In particular, investigating the environmental consequences in terms of energy usage, material usage (including oil extraction) and transportation costs. The review will also consider the manufacturing processes in particular where there may be concerns over the use of toxic chemicals and or harmful by-products. The review should also consider end of life treatment and the implications of re-use, incineration and landfill. The review should also consider the wider environmental consequences of the use UPVC and the alternatives in terms of energy efficiency in homes and in relieving fuel poverty. The council also wants to ensure that scarce resources are used in the most cost efficient manner, particularly in respect of the Housing Capital programme. The key objective of achieving the Decent Homes standard will also be a key driver for this review. The review will endeavour to establish the most environmentally acceptable option available to the council whilst at the same time allowing the delivery of key corporate objectives. The council also wants to find out what tenants want on their homes in terms of aesthetics, security and insulation properties. The review will also consider the “whole life” cost associated with the main alternatives. How the review is to be carried out: 1.

2.

Who is to be involved? ● E & C Staff - Lucy Padfield - Jane Wildblood - Graham Loveland - Alec Foreshaw - Caroline Brimblecombe/new Head of Waste Management when appointed or senior manager from North London Waste. ● Homes for Islington - John Phillips Who is to be consulted? ● All of the above ● Dave Sharp, LBI Procurement Team ● Residents & tenants groups

• Leaseholders

25

3.

● Other local authorities ● OPDM ● Regeneration Department’s Design Panel ● Selected manufacturers of UPVC windows and alternative products (list given in Appendix A) ● Chit Chong, London Borough of Camden, Green building Expert • Jason Bingham, Chair of the (ALMO’s) Investment Delivery Committee

• Conservation Advisory Panel

• Twentieth Century Society

• Peabody Housing Association

Who will give evidence? ● As above (as required)

4 Programme Key Output: 1. Scrutiny Initiation Document 1st November 2004 2. Timetable November 2004 – May 2005 3. Interim Report 28th March 2005 4. Final Report 3rd May 2005 This SID had been approved by the Sustainability Review Committee. Signed: Date: Chair

26

Appendix B List of people who gave evidence to the committee Planning: Alec Forshaw Greenspace and Leisure: Jane Wildblood, Lucy Padfield Homes for Islington: Eamon McGoldrick, John Phillips, Aidan Stapleton Performance Improvement: Dave Sharp Street Management: Jean Hughes Dr Eli Kienwald, Director, London Housing Consortium Chit Chong, Sustainability Manager, Camden Council HFI Board Members: Cllr Richard Greening, Theresa Coyle, Claire Bonham Carter, Carol Johnson