7 Final Recommendations

7.1 Tool Selection

The decision reached as a result of the selection process is to adopt the basic structure and interface of the Australian-based Green Star tool, which is already widely used by Green Building professionals in New Zealand.

This tool will need to be adapted and implemented to take account of the New Zealand-specific requirements of a building rating tool, to address the issues identified during the consultation process, and to meet the current needs of the New Zealand building and construction industry. To achieve this it is recommended that the technical weightings and additional measuring criteria of the New Zealand-designed Green Office Scheme, a tool developed by BRANZ, be incorporated into the Green Star framework.

7.2 A Graduated System

A significant issue arising from the analysis of some of the existing building rating tools is that of design certification versus certification of existing building stock, and the problem of fully accredited building designs that either fail to function as sustainably as desired, or that are not built to design specifications (Sustainable Insight – issue 0603, March 2006).

The issue outlined in the statement above, is one of considerable concern to those who design and manage rating tool systems. This has been discussed at length during the project and has lead the NZGBC to identify the possible areas for improvement to maintain the integrity of the entire suite or system of rating tools. The main issue identified is the gap between the building life-cycle phases and the ability to asses and understand the actual performance of the building.

To address this matter it is recommended that the solution for New Zealand is to take a phased approach to focus on continuous improvements to sustainability factors of new building design, construction and management while including the ability to assess and improve New Zealand’s existing building stock. It is anticipated that such an approach will improve the overall sustainability and urban design in New Zealand cities.

The structure proposed consists of four integrated phases as shown in Figure 7-1. In developing a new building that will rate highly with the NZGBC, preliminary certification can initially be granted in the design phase. Once the building has been constructed it can be certified through verification that the design was delivered to the same standard. A final commission period of around 1-2 years (estimate), is needed before a final performance certification is issued, once it has been established that the building performs as expected. The period of up to two years is suggested, to enable to building operator enough time to finalise the ‘building tuning’ process.

It is suggested that a certification timeframe such as five years (length to be decided), be given to each certified building. After that the certification will lapse and the building will be reclassified as an ‘existing building’. It will then be reassessed and certified using an existing building (in-use) rating tool. This certification is ongoing and re-evaluation can occur on a regular basis to ensure the building retains its level of efficiency and performance.

The approach is designed to avoid the problem that many international tools now face, where buildings receive a rating and keep this rating indefinitely, irrespective of it’s performance. This could lead to market confusion when comparing a new highly rated building with one constructed 5–10 years earlier, where the requirements to meet a “high” standard will be harder to achieve and therefore the efficiencies expected would be greater. This is a marketing and communication exercise and is the same for any standards where best practise benchmarks will continually get higher with experience, innovation and understanding.

Figure 7-1 Components of the Proposed Assessment Framework

New building assessment	Design Design Certification	Tool to rate the sustainability of a building before to construction Ensures impacts are considered at the design stage of building development Applies to designs of greenfield and brownfield sites (ie, includes major refurbishments) Used primarily by architects and designers
	Built Construction Certification	Rates the same sustainability initiatives as the design tool Verified in different ways Validates that the building conforms to initial design Results in a construction building certification
	Performance Final Certification	Applied two years (to be confirmed) after construction certification Final rating issued Rates the sustainability attributes of a building’s performance Measures whether the building performs as it was designed, and built to do.
	Existing (in-use)	Any building over two years old Or, if looking at a previously rated building: assess five years after performance certification (by now building is seven years old) Measures actual performance (current)

7.3 Additional Adaptations

Although the GBCA’s ‘Green Star’ and BRANZ’s ‘Green Office Scheme’ are the primary tools recommended for use in the New Zealand environment, the analysis identified aspects of other tools that are relevant to the objectives of the NZGBC.

Specifically, aspects of NABERS were identified as applicable for the assessment of existing buildings. It is recommended that the relevant aspects of this tool be considered and discussions be held with the tool owners.

7.4 Adaptation Process

Negotiation with the tool owners/designers is almost finalised in order to purchase/obtain permission for adaptation and implementation by the NZGBC for the New Zealand market. The Green Building Council of Australia has now formed a sub-committee of their current board to have a formal process to interact with the NZGBC.

A partnership has been formed with BRANZ to supply their considerable expertise, to help adapt Green Star using the data and resources that exist from the Green Office Scheme. This three way partnership is crucial to the success and speed of delivery of the first tool in the suite.

Draft Process for the Adaptation of Green Star and Green Office Scheme

Position: Green star will be used as the framework, with seven categories plus innovation. Each credit will be compared to the equivalent within the Green Office Scheme and only changed in the following situations:

if the language in Green Office Scheme is more appropriate for the New Zealand market
if the Green Office Scheme improves the robustness of the overall tool
if for any reason a change is viewed by the sub-committee to improve the end result of the tool
if the measure is more performance focused
many weightings will change for New Zealand regions (including bio-regions).

The end result needs to be that we have a product that is Green Star for New Zealand whereby buildings can be directly compared to those that have a similar star rating to those in Australia.

A rating tool sub-committee will be established as a board sub-committee. This will be made up of stakeholders from all major parts of the building value chain (approximately 15 members). The aim is to design the processes in an inclusive manner to involve multiple stakeholders to achieve a market-based solution that suits New Zealand. Each person represents the perceptions and needs of their part of the industry in the value chain. This will be a platform to discuss, debate and decide what we want the tool to deliver and how that can work technically, with a number of technical experts as part of the sub-committee, from New Zealand and Australia.

This process is aimed at covering the rationale and theory, as well as the topics and how they are pieced together, into a product – ‘a rating tool’. There is a considerable amount of work that BRANZ Ltd will be contracted to carry out as a result of the sub-committee meetings. BRANZ will work through the detail of the tool based on the higher level decisions made when covering each topic. After several one day sessions and other meetings BRANZ will then present back to the group an 80% finished version for the sub-committee to make further changes to and identify any issues that arise. Once the sub-committee is confident that the tool is 98% right, it will be released in a draft version to the market for 90 days. After this period there is an opportunity to make small changes based on the feedback received before the final tool will be launched and certification can begin.

[ Previous|Next