Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Developing A Strategic Approach To Construction Waste 20 Year Strategy Draft For Comment
Developing A Strategic Approach To Construction Waste 20 Year Strategy Draft For Comment
Contents
Developing a strategic approach to construction waste 20 year strategy
Background
Overview
12
14
17
Glossary
22
www.bre.co.uk
Background
Construction, demolition and refurbishment accounts for around 100 million tonnes
of waste in the UK each year (see Figure 1). About half of this waste is recycled, from
the demolition sector and parts of the construction sector. Over 400 million tonnes of
resources are also consumed by the construction industry each year, suggesting that
greater scope for waste reduction, reuse and recycling exists.
Data relating to the composition, cause and amount of waste relating to construction
is fairly limited and does not promote long term assessment of how waste can be
prevented or more effectively managed into the future. Rather than let a lack of data
hold things up, an alternative approach is to identify what the industry could be
aiming for, i.e. a target, and then set up/reinforce the mechanisms needed to achieve
the target and monitor progress towards it.
Due to the high amounts of waste generated by construction activity, the sector has
become a priority for Defra and the BREW (Business Resource Efficiency and Waste)
programme in terms of diverting waste from landfill and reducing the costs of waste
and resource management. This means that the BREW delivery partners are providing
increasing levels of support for this sector. These delivery partners include:
Carbon Trust
DTI Technology Programme
Environment Agency
Envirowise
Market Transformation Programme (MTP)
National Industrial Symbiosis Programme (NISP)
Regional Development Agencies (RDAs)
Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP).
Model the way to achieving these targets short/medium term actions (these
will be cross referenced to existing/planned programmes in BREW and outside
of BREW)
Agriculture (<1%)
A longer term goal is to identify activities and drivers that will dictate the future direction
of the construction sector. The threats and opportunities presented by changing
practices will be mapped out in relation to resource efficiency. The final outcome of this
work will be a 20 year strategy (in the form of a road-map) that will model the way to
achieving reductions in waste, environmental impact and primary resource use. This will
be available in March 2007.
Commercial (11%)
Industrial (14%)
Construction and demolition (32%)
Climate change
Low carbon buildings required at new build
The design of new building types (probably off site fabricated) offers opportunities to embed resource efficiency into
their life cycle. However, waste reduction, reuse and recycling becomes less important unless clearly aligned to the low
carbon agenda. This requires construction material flows and options to be fully quantified and evaluated.
Greater amounts of waste arising from refurbishment and the provision of replacement products/materials. Unless
aligned to low carbon, as detailed above, this will be considered an acceptable consequence of achieving reduced
carbon emissions from the operational phase of buildings.
This is a likely consequence, especially in the drive to fit more homes on existing built land. Currently the bulk of C&D
waste is related to demolition (though we dont know what the proportion is). Demolition rates are around 20,000
homes/year today. Estimates of 4 times this amount to meet the 60% carbon emission reduction have been suggested.
This would significantly increase the amount of C&D waste from 100 MT/year to anything between 200 300 MT/year.
Unless reprocessing facilities/markets are developed at a similar rate, resources will be lost/devalued and the percentage
landfilled will increase.
For example, opportunities need to be provided for planned re-use of demolition products at local plan level, such as
use of masonry components for internal thermal mass in lightweight buildings.
Global/Climate Change
Rapidly changing climate, both in physical and
political sense.
This could make it difficult to stick to targets and systematic approaches to resource efficiency i.e. crisis management
rather than agreed, long term solutions. It is also difficult for industry to invest in new technologies and infrastructure if
there is uncertainty into the future e.g. the long running debate over energy from waste v. recycling.
As above, potential for inside-out buildings of lightweight insulated frames with interior thermal mass. Potential fit with
carbon/climate agenda and resource efficiency, but needs evaluation.
The effects of climate change and unpredictable demographics could lead to a generation of buildings that are better
equipped to change e.g. heating to cooling, home to office space. This would be beneficial in terms of waste reduction.
The absence of adaptable buildings will increase construction activity to provide change of use/performance. This would
in turn increase waste.
Legislation/policy
Price of wasted products/materials, labour and
disposal/recycling increases higher than inflation
levels
Cost of waste and potential to reduce costs through waste reduction should increase accordingly. More transparency
could be derived through whole life costing techniques that correctly value this element. Environmental crime will
increase unless producers are complying with their Duty of Care obligations.
Subject to EU legislation below, might provide financial drivers towards local economies in construction materials:
1 High value materials with inherent reclamation value
2 Natural materials with low embodied carbon (minimal transport & processing) with zero waste options at end of
life.
Could lead to further waste if less time available to reduce, reuse, recycle. Incentives to retain and recruit good people
could reduce waste. Planning could be used to greater effect in achieving better levels of environmental performance.
Supply chain integration should reduce waste and promote continuous improvement. H & S requirements may preclude
some types of reclamation or recycling. More integrated services required for collection/segregation/consolidation of
construction waste.
1 M
ay restrict recycled content or the use of reclaimed products/materials on grounds of performance or local
emissions e.g. indoor air quality materials and the accumulation of hazardous materials.
2 Producer responsibility
reater reliance on life cycle data and verification, with further improvements in design, distribution and end-of-life
3 G
recycling.
Business
Business cost reduction
Performance based contracting procuring on
function rather than labour, plant and materials
Design, build and management of buildings should bring about improvements in terms of resource efficiency i.e. vested
interest to keep whole life costs, which includes cost of products/materials, construction, refurbishment and demolition
waste. Important that these elements are costed correctly in whole life costing techniques.
High levels of water and energy efficiency designed in. Reduction in traditional site waste with increase in packaging
waste. Shorter lifespan buildings increase in demolition waste, especially by volume. Changing composition of
demolition waste from highly recyclable to difficult to recycle.
For planned building programmes, such as schools and prisons, there is great scope to produce a optimum design based
upon standardised components. This improves predictability of the construction programme and should reduce costs.
Ideally, standardisation will have additional objectives of reduced waste and improved durability.
This could be beneficial if it means that buildings last longer i.e. less chance of failure through neglect. Alternative could
be that actual service life of building elements is reduced leading to greater levels of refurbishment/demolition waste.
New technologies, products and materials that increase recycled content and/or reduce waste are considered higher
risk until they have been proven. Demonstration, testing and third party approval will need to be accompanied by
demonstrable and financial benefits to developers. Increasingly stringent planning conditions will only work if the
financial returns are worth it.
Around 40% of construction is procured by government, which is bound by procurement rules that promote global
competition. Sustainable procurement will become increasingly important, both private and public, with haulage of
resources in and waste out becoming less acceptable. Reuse of on-site resources will be a possible way of satisfying
both procurement rules and proximity principles.
See above comments on local material economy predictions needed on future world energy scenarios and how this
might affect composition of construction materials sector.
Business capacity
Keeping up with new build requirements
The current rate of housing replacement is around 0.1% of the stock. At that rate, houses will have to last for a 1000
years. Although this is not likely to be the case, it is obvious that the buildings around in 20 years time will be mostly
those here today i.e. the building of the future is already built. In terms of resource efficiency, the main implications are
those of dealing with the current building legacy, for example hazardous materials.
Shifts in technology have also produced some radical changes. New materials
and ways of producing them have heralded the long anticipated switch from
construction being a primarily site-based industry, to an off-site one. Economies
of scale can now be generated, driving down the costs of building, as well as
ensuring that sustainability issues are addressed through using energy efficient,
clean materials. Todays buildings are able to monitor, clean and maintain
themselves, using smart cladding systems, nano technology and intelligent
computers. The predictability offered by manufactured components has
replaced the uncertainties of previous bespoke methods. On-site technology
has also introduced benefits. The use of robotic machinery to undertake work
in hazardous areas has improved constructions health and safety record to an
impeccable standard. The use of common ICT systems to coordinate work has
made the construction process more transparent, allowing clients to gain a better
understanding of construction methods, and to take a proactive role in design.
Education has played its part. The training of construction professionals is directed
at producing more flexible and adaptable people, who have an understanding
of the whole construction process, from design to FM and who are aware of the
benefits of using new materials and ICT enabled processes.
[1] The Big Ideas project is about helping the industry to be prepared for future change. Theyll do this
by first producing a range of possible future scenarios, and then use these to work with construction
organisations and professionals. Their aim is to assess the likelihood of different futures, and to think
about the steps that could be taken to prepare for and exploit future opportunities, and mitigate or avoid
less positive outcomes. www.thebigideas.org.uk
Obviously, there is scope to influence the future direction but this will be constrained
by other drivers. This suggests that there is limited value in setting targets and
agreeing a road-map unless there is a long term commitment to refine and adapt the
strategy in line with construction.
Shifts in technology have also produced some radical changes. New materials
and ways of producing them have heralded the long anticipated switch from
construction being a primarily site-based industry, to an off-site one pushing
site-based skills into terminal decline. This is causing severe difficulties in
maintaining and repairing older buildings. The increased use of manufactured
components has also allowed firms from outside the traditional construction
sector to enter and increase competition further and has meant a move away
from bespoke and individual buildings, much to the detriment of the built
environment generally. On-site technology has also brought about change. The
use of robotic machinery to undertake work in hazardous on-site areas has
sealed another nail in the coffin of the traditional trades. The use of common
ICT systems to coordinate work has led to even more standardisation of
process, at the expense of the subjective and creative abilities of construction
professionals. Novelty and innovation are severely stilted.
Education has played its part. The training of construction professionals is directed
at producing people with an understanding of construction as an IT driven
process, where accountability is directed towards standards and regulation rather
than the aesthetically driven architects and engineers of the past. Traditional
disciplinary distinctions have gone.
Legislation/policy
Producer Responsibility could be extended to all products and Integrated Product
Policy along the lines of the Energy Using Products Directive. The result of this would
be two fold firstly, the life cycle impacts of products will need to be evaluated
and possibly rated; secondly, that manufacturers will have to consider the resource
implications of their products across the whole life cycle. This should have a very
positive effect on waste production, and will also promote reuse and recycling where
they offer improved life cycle impact. Construction products are already assessing
their life cycle impact through Environmental Profiles[2], making improvements based
upon the results is the next step.
Conclusions
To be aligned with low carbon building material use, waste, reuse and recycling
should be quantifiable in terms of carbon. Improvements should result in carbon
savings.
Demolition and refurbishment waste are likely to increase. Traditional markets for
these materials are likely to decline. This will mean that current levels of reuse and
recycling will be hard to sustain.
Life cycle assessment is the basis for making robust decisions on improving the
environmental performance of products, elements and buildings. Although
adopted by some product manufacturers, this has not been applied across the
sector and default information has to be used for wastage rates and proportion
of waste that is reused/recycled. Impacts relating to material resource efficiency
should be accessible for a particular product within overall LCA, e.g. the net
environmental gain of making certain improvements could be move from one
rating to a higher one.
Views sought: Please comment on this forward look. Where you have
differing or additional points, supporting data/ information is very
welcome.
Standardisation will enable a more focussed approach to waste reduction and resource
efficiency to be developed, i.e. target the resource use of a few standardised products/
elements and the impact will be far greater than trying to influence several thousand.
This could be linked to sustainable procurement, in that better performing products/
elements become the standard, e.g. A rated in the Green Guide to Specification.
[2] Life Cycle Assessment methodology for construction products www.bre.co.uk
Waste is being produced and sent to landfill by the actions of the whole
supply chain manufacture, distribution, design, construction, maintenance,
refurbishment, demolition, (resource management).
Waste from manufacture, construction, refurbishment and demolition are
lumped together for reporting purposes but are different in terms of amounts,
composition, causes, levels of integration and separation.
However, different targets for each part of the supply chain or activity would be less
meaningful unless set against overarching, global targets i.e. each will have a role
to play in reaching the target but the actions and relative contribution may differ in
accordance with their ability to deliver. An example of this could be waste reduction
and demolition waste, whereby the only realistic way to prevent demolition waste
would be to have a longer lasting building this is not something the demolition
sector can achieve. It is more the design, durability of products/materials and
maintenance of the building that can achieve waste reduction in this instance.
Overview
Waste is being produced through manufacture, distribution, design, construction,
refurbishment and demolition. To illustrate how targets could be set across the
construction sector, the following have been expanded upon:
1 Construction waste new build housing
2 Refurbishment waste housing
3 Demolition waste all sectors
Following consultation, subject to having usable data and continued support, it
is planned to improve the confidence of the approach and targets, and include all
sectors for construction and refurbishment waste.
Manufacture
Distribution
Design
Construction
Refurbishment
Hospitals
Housing
Offices
Schools
12
20
14
22
Demolition
Timber
Concrete
Inert
Ceramic
Insulation
Plastic
Packaging
Metal
Plaster & Cement
Miscellaneous
Total EPI
The average amount of waste produced across these sites is 19.2m3 waste per
100m2 floor area (the environmental performance indicator EPI). Taking this figure
and applying it to a typical semi of 80m2 gives an average material waste generation
of 15.36m3 of waste per house. When adding in an average 50% void space in the
skips that would collect this waste this equates to around 30m3 of skipped waste.
A typical skip has a volume of 6.125m3, so around 5 skips will be needed to contain
the waste from 1 house. Based upon the Environment Agency conversion factors, the
weight of waste from our generic house is 9.6 tonnes.
D = Demolition
E = Excavation
G = Groundworks
M = Mainframe
S = Services
P = Partitions
F = Fit-out
Health Care/
Hospitals
Residential
Office
Education/
Schools
E,G, M
G, M,
S, P, F
G, M,
S, P, F
G, M,
S, P, F
G, M,
S, P, F
G, M,
S, P, F
Key Performance
Indicator (KPI)
=m3/100,000
project value
52.3
6.1
7.9
17.3
8.4
13.2
Environmental
performance Indicator
(EPI) =m3/100m2
61.7
3.7
11.7
19.2
14.1
22.2
Civil
engineering
Leisure
Benchmarks
6715
[3] Environmental Performance Indicators and other waste benchmarking in construction is subject to
development through the National Benchmarking Project contact adamsk@bre.co.uk
Studies[5] have shown that a typical construction skip costs around 1343 when you
add the cost of the skip to the cost of labour and materials that fill it. The breakdown
of this is:
Skip hire 85 (quite low compared to current prices) 6.4% of cost
Labour to fill it 163 12.1% of cost
Cost of materials in skip 1095 81.5% of cost
Around 190,000 houses were built 2004/05 financial year[8]. If this continues to be
the case, the impact for new housing alone is very approximately:
Therefore, the financial cost of waste for our generic house is for 5 skips, around
6715, and rising.
6715 per house 5439 cost of materials, 812 labour, 430 skip cost
Per year:
2,918,400 m3 of waste
1,824,000 tonnes or 950,000 skips
1,275,850,000 (includes 1,039,817,750 cost of wasted product)
1,033,600 tonnes CO2 equivalent. This amount is the same amount of CO2
emitted from driving a Ford Focus Ghia 1.6 from earth to the sun and back 20
times. Or represents 0.18% of UK CO2 emissions for 2004.
If these figures are anywhere near reality, they are very good reasons to reduce them,
as illustrated next.
15% reduced
5% reused
60% recycled
20% landfilled
50% reduced
40% recycled
10% landfilled
[6] Ecopoints are a combination of 13 impacts that feed into the BRE environmental profile of products and
materials i.e. a life cycle assessment.
[9] Zero net waste principle the amount of waste sent to landfill is balanced with an equal amount of
recycled content
[7] Minimising CO2 emissions from new homes 2nd edition AECB 2006
[10] Please note these figures are illustrative and speculative, based on minimal data.
10
Allocation of targets
Big reductions in waste will not be possible unless they are accrued throughout the
supply chain. Therefore, it would be useful to be able to allocate the target of 50%
waste reduction across the relevant supply chain i.e. distributed in accordance with
the ability to deliver those savings. Unfortunately little data exists that would support
this approach. An idea of what this might look like is given in Figure 4 below please
note the given allocations are only for illustration and have little basis of evidence.
Target
Baseline
6
4
2
0
Manufacture
Distribution
Design
Site practice
Total
11
650,956m3
368,850m3
3,624,353m3
504,121m3
Total
5,148,280m3
Arisings
Capital refurbishment works to local authority dwellings in England are currently
generating an estimated 470,000m3 of waste from around 750,000 refurbishment
packages per year. Decent Homes refurbishments are expected to continue into
the future on a rolling programme at similar levels until 2025 and beyond (although
there may be some acceleration towards the 2010 Decent Homes target year).
Table 4 summarises expected arisings of principal waste categories by refurbishment
package.
Mixed waste is generated in small quantities with little or no site space available
for storage and segregation, and little or no on-site reprocessing or reuse
potential. Waste containers used will generally be smaller and more costly perm3
capacity than for new construction.
[12] This assumes a similar ratio of refurbishment packages to overall stock levels.
[13] Decent Homes analogues exist in these countries, such as the Welsh Housing Quality Standard (target
date 2012).
[14] Based on 2003 tenure profile, but not allowing for different refurbishment profiles.
Waste Group
Timber
Concrete
Inert
Ceramic
Insulation
Plastic
Packaging
Metal
Plaster & cement
Miscellaneous
Totals
Rewiring
12026
4672
9345
9345
9345
32707
18039
24068
* Based on actual work carried out 2004-5, data from local authority Business Plan statistical returns to DCLG.
12
13224
3967
50253
11283
28013
70033
14006
21111
31666
56414
112052
94999
Bathrooms
7661
22984
15322
15322
22983
84272
These factors will tend to increase the direct costs of waste disposal from
refurbishment compared to that from new construction, and at the same time to limit
towards zero opportunities for on-site segregation. At the same time, the financial
value of materials skipped will be lower than for construction, assuming that 80%
of these are end-of-life materials whose costs have already been apportioned over
their purchase and use. Factoring in the above inefficiencies and material values, we
propose a true cost of 562 per 6.125m3 skip, broken down as:
Skip hire 150 plus added 20% for increased voids = 180
Labour to fill 163
Cost of new materials in skip (20% by volume) 219
Given the small scale of many refurbishment projects, this figure of 562 may
represent a minimum waste disposal cost. This needs to be established empirically.
A major caveat is that refurbishment drivers in the owner-occupied and private rented
sectors are very different, and the profiles of refurbishment work and waste arisings
will also differ. Extension and renovation works by owner-occupiers will produce
significant quantities of inert, concrete, ceramic, cement and plaster waste not
predicted by the Decent Homes refurbishment pattern. This will affect overall waste
volumes and composition of relative material masses and carbon impacts. This needs
further investigation.
There is a lack of data concerning the recycling and disposal routes for refurbishment
waste; the situation being further complicated by the fact that a significant but
unverifiable proportion of segregation currently takes place off site.
At present, there is insufficient confidence in the baseline data to consider future
options and targets.
13
[16] Based on the Decent Homes refurbishment profile, and not taking conversion/extension works into
account
Concrete (54%)
Masonry (32%)
Metals (3%)
Timber (4%)
Other (7%)
Recycled (80%)
Reclaimed (13%)
Landfilled (7%)
Percentage
Data source
Hardcore
21 million tonnes
81%
NFDC Annual
Returns 20052
6.5%
NFDC Annual
Returns 2005
12%
BigRec Survey
19983
Type
Reclaimed
materials
14
Hardcore used
on-site (16%)
Hardcore removed
off-site (27%)
Hardcore crushed on-site
for use on-site (37%)
Hardcore crushed on-site
for off-site sale (20%)
Disposal (4%)
Recycling (68%)
Reclaimed (28%)
Therefore, currently 21,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions are saved by recycling materials
on site through savings in transportation. By currently transporting materials from
site this generates 24,400 tonnes of CO2 emissions with an additional 3,100 tonnes
created from transporting this waste to landfill.
For the best practice scenario the amount of CO2 emissions increases this is
because the amount of material salvaged for reuse increases requiring the movement
of materials offsite. However, it should be noted that reclaimed materials can travel
much further (between 100 to 7,500 miles[17]) before their environmental benefit is
lost against new materials.
Impact of materials
Embodied energy has been calculated from the demolition materials and is shown
in Table 8 below[18]. The figures do not show the environmental impacts from the
different waste management options. These figures will also take into account
transportation impacts. It should be noted that the equivalent CO2 tonnes contained
in these materials will be lost when landfilled and a high proportion will be lost when
the materials are recycled as the materials are used in low grade applications (the
exact amount is currently unknown). In terms of reclaimed products, the equivalent
CO2 is not lost as the product is used again as a product.
Table 8 Embodied energy
Type of
demolition
arisings
Transportation
Emissions of CO2 have been calculated for the distances travelled for the demolition
arisings; obviously if material is being reused on site only a tiny fraction of CO2 will
be attributed to transportation impacts. Therefore, assuming the maximum distance
for transportation of demolition arisings is 20 miles then the following CO2 emissions
from transportation apply, see Table 7.
Reduction of
62,000 tonnes
Reduction of
72,000 tonnes
Hardcore materials
Increase of
3,900,000 tonnes
Increase of
3,300,000 tonnes
Based on a split
between concrete
and masonry
Increase of
870,000 tonnes
Increase of
514,000 tonnes
Based on a split
between timber
and other
materials
Reclaimed
materials
Current practice
Best practice
A saving of 21,000
tonnes
A saving of 18,200
tonnes
18,400 tonnes
14,560 tonnes
Reclaimed materials
6,000 tonnes
12,740 tonnes
Landfilled
3,100 tonnes
1,820 tonnes
Data sources
Current practice
Total
15
Costs
The assumed total cost of current and best practice waste management routes from
demolition are shown in Table 9 below.
Table 9 Assumed total cost of current and best practice waste management routes
Type of demolition
Total value
arisings
current practice
Total value
best practice
Data sources
Reclaimed materials
+ 389 million
+819 million
Based on BigRec
Survey data
Hardcore materials
recycled on site
+ 35 million
+30 million
Based on a cost
saving of 3/tonne
Hardcore materials
recycled off site
+ 20 million
+16 million
Based on a cost
saving of 2/tonne
58 million
25 million
Based on
50/tonne
Landfill hazardous
waste
50 million
50 million
Based on
100/tonne
+ 344 million
+ 790 million
Total
13% reclaimed
(3.3 million tonnes)
80% recycled
(21 million tonnes)
7% landfilled
(1.7 million tonnes)
Due to the changes in practices for construction such as the higher use of
modern methods of construction, more use of composite materials etc it is likely
in the longer term that it will be harder to achieve these levels of reclamation and
recycling.
Factors affecting the demolition industry and the amount of materials that can
be recovered include:
an increasing move towards more mechanized ways of operating (largely
due to health and safety requirements) which means the removal of more
bulk material rather than higher value products
less time to demolish buildings and therefore realise the true value of
demolition arisings
the interpretation of the waste legislation especially related to the recycling
of waste on and off site.
These options are based on current practice in terms of the types of buildings being
demolished and the techniques used. The following issues should be noted when
implementing a strategy for demolition waste:
The costs in Table 9 are for illustrative purposes only. It is important to note that
demolition contracts are usually priced lower as the savings made through material
recycling are factored in.
16
17
Table 12 Actions that could be taken across and within the supply chain to improve resource efficiency in the short to medium term.
Actions needed across the supply chain Construction
1 Designing out waste manual that relates to product selection and wastage, whole life costing, optimal use of MMC & standardisation, and design for deconstruction
(links to work areas of Envirowise, WRAP, MTP and DTI Be Aware project).
2 Case studies and guidance that clearly and consistently define the business case and opportunities for resource efficiency (links to work areas of Envirowise, WRAP and
RDAs)
3 Site waste management plans to include waste prevention targets and a system of collecting data from them (links to work areas of Envirowise, WRAP, RDAs, EA and
BREs SMARTWaste)
4 Explore use of enhanced capital allowances to promote construction resource efficiency
5 Quantifying the effects of different types of contracts and procurement on resource efficiency, also exploring the use of incentives and penalties to reach targets (links to
work areas of Envirowise and WRAP)
6 Greater use of consolidation centres to maximise resource use, minimise over-ordering and surplus materials (links to work areas of Envirowise and WRAP)
7 Producer responsibility voluntary agreements with manufacturers and other stakeholders that are based upon reducing the life cycle resource impacts of products (links
to work areas of MTP and DTI Be Aware project)
8 Promote compliance with Duty of Care certification of resource management sites (possibly leading to a BREEAM type system for transfer stations), provision of
recycling facilities for SMEs at Household Waste Recycling Centres (links to work areas of BRE Certification, EA, WRAP and RDAs)
9 Local collections or milk rounds for surplus products and materials, with resulting local supplies of small/part packages of products/low impact materials possibly with
community sector but health and safety risks would need to be mitigated.
10 Changing culture and raising awareness develop consistent and linked training packages, from on-site induction to various professions, from school through to relevant
vocational and higher educational courses (links to DfES programme, CITB, BRE, CIRIA, RDA, WRAP and Envirowise activities)
11 Quantification of material resource efficiency potential through adopting lean construction techniques (links to CLIP and Envirowise)
18
Produce case studies and guidance on reduction, reuse and recycling of refurbishment waste
Focus on future growth area of low-carbon refurbishment to help users better evaluate material resource impacts of options
Incorporate the resource efficiency of predicted maintenance schedule into the Home Information Pack
Work towards legislation for a housing maintenance manual which sets out predicted maintenance and refurbishment schedules, specifications, options and
impacts.
Product labelling with recommended service life effectively a best before date which allows clients and specifiers to better predict service life, design for
scheduled replacement and compare options on the basis of long-term cost
Involvement of builders merchants and DIY chains in promotion of resource-efficient refurbishment products and systems
9 Develop resource efficiency action plans for social housing refurbishment programmes by local authorities and registered social landlords.
10 Design for adaptable buildings to minimise material wastage for foreseeable refurbishment and improvement phases including loft conversion, extension, knockthrough, kitchen & bathroom refit (some of this will be explored in the DTI TZERO project).
19
Research and development into technologies that aid deconstruction and the associated increased value of materials e.g. the use of remote controlled robotics,
microwave technology, laser technology and other suitable technologies
Design buildings for future reuse and recycling by using techniques that aid deconstruction .e.g. lime mortar, simplified fixing systems and use products/materials
which aid this with the avoidance of hazardous materials
Provide information including as build drawings and maintenance logs including identification of components and materials and associated points for disassembly
Develop the skill base for deconstruction and ensure adequate training
6 Work with designers and architects to encourage the flexible use and adaptation of property at a minimal future cost and maximise the lifespan of buildings.
7 In terms of supporting higher levels of reclamation the following actions are recommended:
Stimulate the reclamation market through increased access to products which are cost effective, available, aesthetically pleasing and perform technically.
Assess the potential for incentives the use of reclaimed materials e.g. lower VAT
Recognised training and accreditation programmes for the reclamation sector to ensure access on demolition sites (links to, CITB, NFDC and SALVO)
Provision of localised storage centres for reclaimed materials for the short term and possibly longer term i.e. storage of key demolition products to aid procurement
options and logistical requirement
8 Develop alternative markets for demolition arisings particularly related to products that are being used currently which may prove difficult to recover (some of this work
is being done by WRAP)
9 Investigate new treatment technologies for hazardous waste arising from demolition activities (some of this work is being done by DEFRA)
10 Provide a better linkage between the demolition and new build phases of the project through planning requirements and project management i.e. through the use of
tools such as pre-demolition audits, ICE demolition protocol and SWMPs (links to work being carried out by WRAP)
11 Promote the positive image of both the demolition and the reclamation sectors (links to NFDC, IDE and SALVO)
12 Provision of guidance, best practice case studies to inform the supply chain in terms of the cost and environmental benefits and technical requirements for using
reclaimed and recycled materials from demolition (some of this work is being done by WRAP).
Views sought: These actions will be refined and further actions added through this consultation and associated workshops. It is also likely that
links to existing work have been missed. Any comments on the actions listed, additional actions or missed links will be very welcome.
Industry and other stakeholder views are very important to developing the strategy. As detailed at the beginning of this document, please send in
your views and comments by 10 November 2006. We will also be organising several workshops to capture industry views, please email or phone
if you would like to attend one of these workshops.
Contact details for consultation responses:
Gilli Hobbs
BRE, Garston, Watford WD25 9XX
T: +44 (0) 1923 664856
E: hobbsg@bre.co.uk
20
Glossary
Be Aware Built environment Action on waste awareness and
resource efficiency
BRE
FM
Facilities management
H & S
ICE
IDE
BREW
LCA
C/CO2
Carbon/carbon dioxide
MMC
MT
Million tonnes
MTP
NFDC
NISP
RDA
Salvo
SME
SWMP
TZERO
WRAP
CITB
CLIP
DCLG
Defra
DfES
DTI
EA
Environment Agency
21
www.bre.co.uk