When it comes to sustainability certifications, the devil is often in the details. This was the central theme of my recent conversation with Sarah Thompson, a seasoned sustainability consultant with over a decade of experience in the field. Over a cup of coffee in a cosy corner of her office, Sarah shared her insights on the complexities and nuances of the BREEAM certification process, particularly focusing on the Accessibility Index (AI) and its implications for post-construction assessments.
Air quality is vital in planning. See how Focus360 Energy can assist.
Kenneth George (KG): Sarah, thank you for taking the time to speak with me. Let’s dive right in. Could you explain the significance of the Accessibility Index within BREEAM’s framework?
Sarah Thompson (ST): Absolutely, Kenneth. The Accessibility Index (AI) is a crucial metric in BREEAM’s New Construction scheme, especially under the UK criteria. Essentially, it measures the ease of access to sustainable transport options from the development site. This index is used to award points for the project’s transport-related sustainability measures.
KG: I understand that the AI is calculated during the design stage. Why is it important that this benchmark should not be updated at the post-construction stage?
ST: Great question. The AI is calculated based on current transport services and any planned, publicly-notified changes at the time of the design stage transport analysis. The rationale for not updating this benchmark post-construction is to ensure that assessments are not unfairly disadvantaged or advantaged by changes in transport services that occur after the design stage. This maintains a level playing field for all projects and ensures that the design phase decisions are based on reliable, current data.
KG: Can you give me an example of how this plays out in practice?
ST: Certainly. Let’s say a project team designs a building with the understanding that a new bus route will be operational by the time the building is completed. This planned route is included in the AI calculation, influencing various design decisions such as the number of parking spaces and the integration of transport facilities. If, for some reason, the bus route is delayed or cancelled post-construction, updating the AI would unfairly penalise the project, despite the team’s efforts to design sustainably based on available information.
KG: That makes sense. How do unforeseen changes in public transport services impact the certification process?
ST: Unforeseen changes can be tricky. If there are significant changes to public transport availability before the post-construction certification, those changes do not affect the AI benchmark initially set during the design phase. This ensures that projects are evaluated based on the conditions and data available when crucial design decisions were made. It’s about fairness and consistency in the assessment process.
KG: What about improvements in transport services? Shouldn’t projects benefit from positive changes?
ST: While it might seem logical for projects to benefit from improvements, the principle of consistency still applies. Allowing updates for improvements would necessitate allowing them for reductions as well, which could lead to an unpredictable and unstable benchmarking process. The goal is to ensure that every project is assessed on an equal footing with the same set of known variables at the time of design.
KG: In your experience, how do project teams typically handle the AI calculations and subsequent transport-related design decisions?
ST: Most project teams conduct thorough transport assessments during the design phase. They consider existing transport services and any publicly-notified changes to ensure their designs are robust and sustainable. They also document these assessments meticulously, knowing that this data will form the basis of their AI benchmark. This documentation is crucial because it provides the evidence needed if any discrepancies or challenges arise during the post-construction certification.
KG: Are there any exceptions or special cases where the AI benchmark might be reconsidered post-construction?
ST: Generally, the AI benchmark is fixed post-design stage. However, there are exceptional cases where significant, unforeseen changes to transport services might warrant a review, but these are rare and would require substantial justification. The key is to have clear, documented evidence from the design phase to support any claims or requests for reconsideration.
KG: It sounds like meticulous planning and documentation are vital. What advice would you give to teams embarking on a BREEAM certification process?
ST: My advice would be to start early and be thorough. Engage with transport planners and local authorities to get the most up-to-date information on transport services. Document everything meticulously and ensure that all decisions are based on reliable data. Also, be prepared for unforeseen changes but understand that the AI benchmark is there to provide a stable and consistent measure of your project’s transport sustainability.
KG: Thank you, Sarah. This has been incredibly enlightening. Any final thoughts?
ST: Just that sustainability is a journey, not a destination. Every project contributes to a broader goal of creating more sustainable built environments. By adhering to rigorous standards like BREEAM and understanding the intricacies of metrics like the AI, we can ensure that our developments are not only compliant but genuinely contributing to a more sustainable future.
Kenneth George
Be the first to comment