Appendix H: Summary of Outcomes from Second NZGBC Workshop, June 2006

SUMMARY OF GREEN BUILDINGS RATING SCHEME PRESENTATIONS

Auckland, 20 June 2006

Wellington, 21 June 2006

Dunedin, 22 June 2006

Christchurch, 23 June 2006

26 June 2006

Presented by: Jane Henley, Establishment CEO and Rachel Hargreaves, BRANZ Ltd.

Overview of NZGBC

The aim of the New Zealand Green Building Council is to: transform New Zealand’s building and construction industry by providing market driven solutions to improve environmental performance buildings and reduce the impact of development.

Features of the NZGBC:

Facilitate the process with multiple stakeholders with a non-prescriptive focus, and to share the knowledge amongst the wider building and construction industry.
It’s a non-profit-organisation. It aims to be a World Green Building Council member by the end of 2006.
Full board will be appointed by the end of next week.
Membership-based from the start of July – membership is expected to range from $300-$15,000.
Industry-led and market driven.
Sponsors include (amongst others): Dow, Gib, Beacon Pathways Ltd, Massey University, the Defence Force, the Sustainable Business Network, and Jasmax.
Functions and processes of the Council are transparent and accountable.
Produce a commercially viable rating tool (for office buildings) by the end of 2006.
Position in marketplace: concentrates on the top 25% of buildings – not for your average barely code-compliant box.

Benefits of developing a rating tool framework:

All members have access to a standard tool.
Managed and owned by a credible and independent third party.
Process to help achieve best practice.
Speed up the transition for occupiers, design and build, developers and investors to specify/want green buildings.

NB: All tools will be designed to work together and compliment one another. The Council are working in partnership with HERS and EECA, BRANZ and Beacon Pathway.

Overview of the Rating Tool Research Project (funded by Ministry for the Environment)

Project aims:

The aim of this project was to present a solution for the development of a sustainable building assessment system for New Zealand. The solution will be consistent with tools across the Tasman (and thus use the Greenstar tool as a base / starting framework).

The solution focuses on:

creating market drivers
the performance of the building, including the existing building stock
creating a user friendly interface.

The proposed solution for New Zealand includes four key elements:

The Design Phase tool is to rate the sustainability of building before construction. It ensures that impacts are considered at the design stage of building development, and assesses the sustainability of a new design. Major retrofits are included.
The Built Phase tool validates the design was built in accordance with specifications so that contractors are unable to do detrimental shortcuts that affect the performance of the building, for example, and make the designer’s work less effective than it otherwise may have been.
A Performance tool would be done after a period of time (eg, two years) after the building is built. This would be the building’s final rating and it rates the building’s actual performance in real conditions after the fine-tuning period post-construction. This could be valid for five years.
An existing building tool applies to any buildings over two years old that did not go through the other rating tools, or after the five year certification period on buildings that did go through the other rating tools. This can be done as a whole building or by a tenancy basis so apartment dwellers, for example, can have their apartment rated without fear of wasteful neighbours bringing down their own rating. This is hoped to be a driver for retrofit so that buildings can re-enter the rating process.

The layout of the tools as it is planned is flexible and receptive to new/additional tools. Broad types of buildings are covered, and the rating scheme can be used to track the performance of a building over time.

Current plans for tool development:

Tool 1: Design and Build Assessment

Tool 2: Performance Assessment

Tool 3: Existing Building Assessment

Key points from the regional sessions:

We fielded a number of queries relating to the scope of the proposed solution and whether or not broader issues such as urban design, industrial ecology, multiple-site stormwater management issues would be taken into account.
Answer: While some of the categories / credits in the proposed tool apply to land use and ecology issues, the capacity to go beyond the immediate footprint of the building is limited. However, it is recognised that the current paradigm that rating tools exist in has it limitations. The idea of a new generation of tools that look at wider sustainability issues needs to be continually considered as the NZGBC evolves.
We fielded many queries about the relationship between the NZGBC solution and the role of the building code (and to a lesser extent – where tools such as TUSC fit in).
Answer: the Building Code covers ‘minimum compliance’ with building sustainability issues – whereas the NZGBC solution is positioned at the ‘top’ end of the market (clarification: ‘top’ does not mean the most expensive, but the most innovative). Over time, it is hoped that the drive towards best practice (aspirational goal) will pull the building code minimum standards (regulatory bottom line) along with it (thus the bar is continually raised).
Ongoing concerns that the NZGBC solution is too ‘soft’ – many sustainability architects have been doing this for years and now will ‘have to prove’ that they are sustainable (by fitting the mould).
Answer: Rating tools are just one ‘expression’ of what makes a building sustainable. Categories and credits will ‘ramp up’ over time and as the rating tool paradigm evolves.
What if sprinklers were installed into a building that did not necessarily require them? Would they be given points for the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and pollution that may be prevented in the lifetime of the building in case of fire?
Answer: The fine definitions have yet to be worked out, however this is likely to fall under the “Innovation” category of the rating tool where consideration is given to innovative ideas when making the rating.
Is it available for DIYers to use?
Answer: Yes, but for certification you have to go through professionals.
What if a building receives a lower rating than what the architect designed it for due to contractors substituting inferior materials to reduce costs for the developers, for example?
Answer: Due to the differing certification stages, each certificate stands even if a consequent rating is lower than expected. This means that designers are still able to take all credit due for their original design and are not persecuted for the actions of others.

Summary of other areas of discussion:

It is important for a robust framework to be developed first, from which the rating tools evolve from – rather than the other way around.
There was a question surrounding whether the value of non-green-rated buildings will fall. This is why we are looking to have a tool that addresses the existing building stock to lessen the potential gap that will develop between new and existing building performance.
Dealing with embodied energy in rating tools: difficult to achieve and remain non-discriminatory. A key aspect of the success of the tools is to NOT discriminate materials using embodied energy results – rather promote ‘best’ choice via the sustainability performance (or otherwise) of the manufacturer.
Implementation issues: Many questions reflected a strong interest in implementation issues, for example policing and certification.
There was a question raised about the use of building information models (BIM). Apparently use of international rating tools is driving uptake of BIM into green building design. This will be one for the tool design / technical working group to resolve!

In each centre there were also panel discussions that were made up of members of the Project Consultation Group:

Michael Field – URS NZ Ltd
Wayne Sharman – Building Research
Marko den Breems – Jasmax
Chris Wood – Ministry for the Environment
Geoff Banks – (ACENZ) Structex
Justin Lees – Connell Mott
David Kernohan – Department of Building and Housing
Jason Happy – Kiwi Income Property Trust
Hans Buwalda – Fletcher Building
Chris Mason – New Zealand Institute of Architects
Mark Sigglekow – Pragmatix
Graeme Finlay – Warren & Mahoney

[ Previous|Next