BCO Research Eco Offices Performance

IMPROVING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL
PERFORMANCE
OF OFFICES
MARCH 2014
ABOUT THE BCO
The British Council for Ofces (BCO) mission is to
research, develop and communicate best practice
in all aspects of the ofce sector. It delivers this by
providing a forum for the discussion and debate of
relevant issues.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
The BCO thanks the following people for their
contributions to this report:
David Richards, Arup
J onathan Ward, Arup
Neil Smith, Max Fordham
Tamsin Tweddell, Max Fordham
Victoria Peckett, CMS Cameron McKenna
Andrew Grudzinski, CMS Cameron McKenna
Mat Lown, Tufn Ferraby Taylor
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Members of the BCOs Environmental Sustainability
Group, chaired by Richard Francis, supported the
publication of this brieng note, and we would like to
thank them for their support and contributions.
IMAGES
COVER
Microsoft Ltd, London
Courtesy of tp bennett
PAGE 10
George Stephenson House, York
Courtesy of Squaredot
COPYRIGHT BRITISH COUNCIL FOR OFFICES 2014
All rights reserved by British Council for Ofces. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any
means without prior written permission from the British Council for Ofces. The BCO warrants that reasonable skill and care has been
used in preparing this report. Notwithstanding this warranty the BCO shall not be under liability for any loss of prot, business, revenues or
any special indirect or consequential damage of any nature whatsoever or loss of anticipated saving or for any increased costs sustained
by the client or his or her servants or agents arising in any way whether directly or indirectly as a result of reliance on this publication or of
any error or defect in this publication. The BCO makes no warranty, either express or implied, as to the accuracy of any data used by the
BCO in preparing this report nor as to any projections contained in this report which are necessarily of any subjective nature and subject
to uncertainty and which constitute only the BCOs opinion as to likely future trends or events based on information known to the BCO at
the date of this publication. The BCO shall not in any circumstances be under any liability whatsoever to any other person for any loss or
damage arising in any way as a result of reliance on this publication.
3
IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF OFFICES
BCO 2014
Foreword 4
Introduction 5
Why does performance matter? 6
Carbon, energy and water 6
Occupant satisfaction 7
Energy and water 9
Introduction 9
Gathering data 9
Benchmarking 11
Improvement 11
Case study: LED retrot 12
Case study: The value of adequate metering and
clear data 13
Case study: Portfolio improvements (2013) 14
Case sudy: A simple way of assessing heating
controls 16
CONTENTS
Occupant evaluation 17
Measurement 17
Popular survey tools 17
The BUS methodology 18
The Leesman Index 19
Case study: Elizabeth Fry building 20
Case study: Woodland Trust headquarters 22
Case study: MLC Centre t-out demonstrates
market-leading satisfaction 23
Further reading 24
Appendix A Glossary of terms 26
Appendix B An approach to energy and water
benchmarking 30
Appendix C Guidance on entering data to
Carbon Buzz 32
4
BCO 2014
When many real estate executives think about
sustainability, they have the uneasy impression that
the ground is shifting beneath their feet. They are
right. Uncertainty is everywhere, in new regulations,
changing market dynamics and constantly evolving
customer preferences.
However troubling these forces might at rst appear,
they are guided by a simple and easily understood
principle: performance is king. Whether it is lower
operational costs, better health or increased productivity,
we are expecting buildings to do more. Not on paper,
but in use.
As an industry we are becoming information rich. As
that happens, we are less trusting of the sustainability
standards and labels that have traditionally conferred
status. We want proof. This trend will only accelerate,
as building performance becomes more measurable,
transparent and, most importantly, expected. Potential
buyers and occupiers will want to see real numbers, not
just about energy consumption but about a whole host
of environmental impacts that buildings have on people.
Sustainability is changing in a remarkable way. It is
becoming as much about how the environment affects
us as how we affect the environment. This explains
the rise in the health, well-being and productivity
agenda, as well as sharpened inquiries about whether
certications or technologies actually yield cost savings.
If buildings do not deliver for their occupants they will
nd themselves unoccupied. The options are clear:
performance or obsolescence.
This guide is all about performance and delivery
and how BCO members can manage decisions to
improve actual outcomes the things that matter most.
Comprehensive in scope but specic in instruction, this
study answers that all-important question: Whats next?
It provides both the logic for action and the step-by-step
instructions BCO members need to measure,
benchmark and understand building performance.
The Environmental Sustainability Group is grateful to
the authors of this report and other BCO members who
have donated so much time and information to this
study. Once again, our members have demonstrated
that, even in an ever-evolving market, they remain one
step ahead in understanding change.
We hope you enjoy the report.
Richard Francis
Chairman, Environmental Sustainability Group, BCO
Director of Environment & Sustainability,
Gardiner & Theobald
FOREWORD
5
BCO 2014
The process of planning, designing and constructing
ofce buildings has been dominated for a number of
years now by a suite of environmental calculations and
metrics Part L of the Building Regulations, BREEAM,
EPCs to name a few. However, these are all metrics
that compare the potential for a building to be energy,
carbon or water efcient. They do not represent
reality. The focus is beginning to shift to a parallel
and if anything more important focus on the actual
performance of ofce buildings.
The environmental performance of buildings is
becoming an increasingly important issue for owners,
occupiers, design teams and contractors. Gone (or
going) are the days when design, construction and
operation were linked only by a room full of operations
and maintenance (O&M) manuals, and a more joined
up process is emerging, wherein measured high
performance is the target.
Measuring, benchmarking and then improving building
performance can seem a daunting prospect. This
document is intended to give an overview of the
methods available to dene and record performance
data, and where to look for further detailed guidance.
The paper focuses on operational energy, carbon
footprint, water consumption and occupant satisfaction.
These are the core building performance issues that
currently have the most correlation to landlord and
tenants business needs, and where data can be readily
recorded, evaluated and benchmarked.
Building performance is an exciting and emerging
area within the building industry. It is also one of the
fastest changing as ambitions, thinking and legislation
develop. The information in this document is current at
the date of writing. We expect to revise and update the
document as leading-edge practice evolves.
INTRODUCTION
6
BCO 2014
Building performance is important for a number of
reasons, some legislated and others driven by the
desire of many in the broader property industry to
do better. Building performance also sits against the
backdrop of the UKs commitment to an 80% reduction
in carbon emissions by 2050.
WHY DOES PERFORMANCE MATTER?
CARBON, ENERGY AND WATER
From a design perspective, increasingly more stringent
Part L Building Regulations in 2016 and 2019 should
lead to better performing buildings in the future, which
could impact on the value of poorly performing existing
buildings. The Energy Act 2011 includes a provision for
Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS) for
England and Wales, which require that buildings meet
a minimum target performance (currently assumed to
be an E rated Energy Performance Certicate (EPC) or
better) before they can be legally leased. Like Part L,
the EPCs benchmarks a buildings energy efciency not
its actual consumption.
Legislation regarding reporting actual energy and
carbon performance is still evolving. Examples include:
I
Mandatory Reporting. Under the Companies Act
2006 (Strategic and Directors Reports) Regulations
2013, quoted companies are required to report their
annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in their
directors report.
I
The Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy
Efciency Scheme (CRC). The CRC requires
all companies or organisations with an annual
electricity usage of 6000 MW h to report their carbon
emissions. For commercial ofce space this could be
converted to a portfolio area of approximately 30,000
to 50,000 m
2
. The scheme involves payment and
credit based on emissions and improvement.
I
Display Energy Certicates (DEC). Display
Energy Certicates are currently only required for
public buildings. They are a certied statement
of a buildings energy performance and must be
displayed publicly in the buildings entrance lobby.
Although it has been discussed, there is currently
little political will to make DECs mandatory for
private buildings.
There are also a number of corporate indices and
reporting standards that require carbon and energy
metrics to be reported:
I
Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP)
I
Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark (GRESB)
I
Dow J ones Sustainability Index (DJ SI)
I
FTSE4Good Index
I
Global Reporting Index Construction and Real
Estate Sector Supplement (GRI CRESS)
I
EPRA Reporting Guidance European Public Real
Estate Association Best Practice Recommendations
on Sustainability Reporting
I
UN Global Compact.
Beyond legislation and indices, there are two further
factors to consider. First of these is the simple value.
While this remains difcult to quantify, there is a
demand in the market for more sustainable and high-
performance buildings, with occupants and investors
paying far closer attention to these issues at the pre-
purchase and occupation stage. While much of the
UK property market is still focused on an approach to
building design based around BREEAM and Energy
Performance Certicates (EPCs), the leaders in
the market are now looking beyond this simplistic
approach to a more sophisticated measurement and
understanding of true performance.
Secondly, there is a wider cities agenda. As our cities
continue to expand the power network will become
7
BCO 2014
increasingly stressed, and it is likely that electricity
companies will reward customers who can control
their peak and overall power use. This correlates very
directly with carbon footprint and performance.
Beyond carbon and energy comes water use, which
is the next big issue as climate change begins to take
hold and expanding cities, in particular in the south
east, become water stressed.
The UK government considers actual environmental
performance and occupant satisfaction important
enough to make Soft Landings mandatory on all
publically funded projects from 2016 via a bespoke
government scheme.
Soft Landings is a new approach to the handover
of buildings, in which the feasibility, brieng, design
and construction phases of a new building or
refurbishment are carried out with the operational
management and end-users of the building always in
mind. After construction is complete, the design team
and contractors remain involved with the building to
ensure that handover becomes a smooth process, with
operators being trained, and optimum performance
outcomes becomes a focus of the whole team.
OCCUPANT SATISFACTION
Understanding ofce performance is becoming
ever more important to occupiers as the combined
pressures of new working practices and the desire to
enhance productivity increase. It is worth considering
Figure 1 A virtuous
circle the potential
inuence of occupant
feedback on performance
Closing the
performance
gap
Engaging
with
occupants
Revealing
valued
features
Addressing
technical
building
performance
Improving
productivity
A happier
workforce
Targeting
investment
Measurement
and
comparison
8
BCO 2014
that energy and water costs usually amount to little
more than 1% of business costs, whereas staff costs
account for around 90%. So a 1% improvement in
productivity swamps utility costs, and may represent a
saving of as much as 50 per square metre.
Measurement and interpretation of occupant
satisfaction is undoubtedly harder than that of energy
or water use, but when done well it can facilitate
signicant improvements in occupant well-being and
productivity, and address a broader range of concerns
(Figure 1).
I
The rst positive dynamic is that of engaging with
occupants. The intent to better understand the
performance of a workplace is benecial in building
relationships and opening a dialogue with the
building users.
I
Surveys can often reveal features of a building that
are particularly valued, as well as highlight the top
issues affecting the occupants of the ofce.
I
This understanding can then help technical
building performance issues to be addressed. For
example, simple complaints of glare could lead to a
recommissioning of a lighting control system.
I
The cost of making changes to the ofce
environment can often be small in proportion to the
potential for direct productivity improvements. With
high overheads associated with providing ofce
space, and indeed employment, savings may come
from improved business output.
I
Satisfaction improvement will also lead to a happier
workforce, potentially reducing sick leave and other
absences and improving staff retention. Some of
these metrics can be harder to measure than others,
but nevertheless can return signicant reductions in
overheads.
I
As potential savings are identied for a series of
measures, occupant satisfaction surveys improve
targeting of investment.
I
Improved use and understanding of performance
metrics provides better measurement and
comparison of new building or refurbishment
programmes, new ways of working and new
technologies.
I
Finally, building feedback and lessons learned can
be used to close the gap between the project brief,
design and performance in use.
9
BCO 2014
Improving energy and water performance requires
a systematic and iterative approach. Consumption
data are collected and compared against appropriate
benchmarks to assess performance; opportunities for
improvement are identied and action is taken, and
then performance must be assessed again.
Managing energy and water data can initially seem
overwhelming but if organisations start with a simple
approach based on the data most readily available
then further detail can be built up over time. This is the
graduated approach originally recommended by the
Usable Buildings Trust.
The Better Buildings Partnership is a collaboration of
the UKs leading commercial property owners working
together to improve the sustainability of existing
commercial building stock. It publishes a range of
guidance documents which BCO members will nd
useful, including BBP Managing Agents Sustainability
Toolkit and BBP Better Metering Toolkit. Other
guidance is available from a range of organisations,
including the Carbon Trust.
The advice given below is mostly aimed at energy
performance but much of it is also applicable to water
performance.
It should be noted that actual performance is distinct
from metrics such as EPCs and BREEAM, which deal
with a buildings potential for energy efciency rather
than its real performance.
This section sets out the range of options available,
from the simplest to the more complex, and points to
further guidance to develop each approach.
Whole buildings
The easiest approach is to collate annual energy and
water consumption data for the whole building. This is
a good starting point for most organisations, requiring
no specialist skill or infrastructure, and using utility bills
as the data source. Whole-building consumption can
be used for basic benchmarking against the rest of
the sector or to compare year-on-year performance.
This can act as a motivator for change but does not
inform what change is needed: it does not distinguish
between energy used by the landlord and energy used
by tenant(s), and does not identify when or where the
energy is used.
Making adjustments for occupancy density or vacant
spaces is important. An empty oor can make a
building look far more efcient than it actually is, while
a densely occupied ofce can appear to be poorly
performing on an area basis but be highly efcient on a
per person basis.
Landlords or bill holders currently participating in the
statutory CRC Energy Efciency Scheme will already
be familiar with managing annual energy data, and their
existing reporting processes can be simply adapted for
benchmarking purposes.
Although DECs are not mandatory for the private
sector (they currently apply only to buildings over
500 m
2
visited by the public), members may choose
to display a voluntary DEC to demonstrate the energy
performance of a building. Most commercial ofces will
have an F or G rating, so perhaps it is not surprising
that few are displayed voluntarily.
The Better Buildings Partnership has questioned the
value of an energy rating that does not distinguish
INTRODUCTION
GATHERING DATA
ENERGY AND WATER
10
BCO 2014
between energy used by the occupier(s), shared
services and common parts, and whether the DEC
benchmarks are appropriate for private commercial
ofces. Their proposed alternative is discussed below.
For further information see BBP Position Paper:
Voluntary DECs and Landlord Energy Certicates.
Landlord and tenants
It is preferable to segregate landlord and tenant energy
consumption. This enables each party to understand
how they are performing in relation to the energy they
have inuence over. The way in which utility supplies
are set up may facilitate this approach, or sub-metering
may be required.
The Landlords Energy Statement and Tenants Energy
Review (together known as LES-TER) were developed
by the British Property Federation for use in multi-
tenanted ofces. The methodology is available online
and is free to use. The Better Buildings Partnership is
currently developing a Landlords Energy Rating (LER),
which will replace the LES.
As a rough rule of thumb, the landlords services
(including lifts, ventilation, heating, cooling and
common area light and power) account for half of the
energy consumption, with the tenants light and power
(including ancillary cooling) making up the remainder.
When and where?
Whole building or landlordtenant energy ratings
allow benchmarking against comparable buildings
or tracking performance over time, but proactive
energy management, identifying possible savings and
evaluating progress, requires a greater understanding
of when and where energy is being used. This involves
energy monitoring, such as sub-metering of individual
systems and, potentially, automatic data collection
covering shorter time frames in other words, ner
granularity by area or by time.
To do this in a way that is appropriate to the building
and businesses it supports it is necessary to develop
a strategy for sub-metering to ensure that meters are
placed appropriately, commissioned and that data are
harvested systematically. This may require specialist
consultancy or the development of an appropriate
in-house skill.
Increased frequency of data collection
Manual meter readings can be taken monthly or even
weekly to build up a more accurate picture of when
energy is used. Alternatively, organisations may switch
to smart metering, which allows utility meter data to
be collected automatically on a half-hourly basis and
viewed via an energy management software package.
The utility provider can provide further information.
Many utility meters are half-hourly meters, and these
can provide a very useful indication of energy-saving
opportunities by visually showing any excessive energy
use on evenings and weekends.
Sub-metering
Sub-metering helps inform where energy is being used.
This can be by area, such as a oor plate, or by end
use, such as lighting or heating. In existing buildings,
sub-metering options will be limited by the conguration
of existing services. An ideal time to consider installing
sub-meters is during a major refurbishment. A specialist
will be needed to advise on what is feasible.
Sub-meters can be read manually, but with automatic
meter reading (AMR) half-hourly data can be collected
very efciently, and this provides the highest resolution
of when and where to identify effectively opportunities
for improvement.
Analysing and interpreting these data can be done by a
specialist consultant.
Guidance on an overall approach to energy and water
benchmarking is set out in Appendix C.
11
BCO 2014
Whole-building annual consumption data can be used
to assess performance against a range of benchmarks.
There are two good sources for benchmarks. The
Chartered Institute of Building Service Engineers
(CIBSE) TM22 provides a methodology for measuring
energy use and associated benchmarks, and is widely
used by the building assessment profession. The Real
Estate Environmental Benchmark produced by J ones
Lang LaSalle and the Better Buildings Partnership
provides energy, water and waste benchmarks for
both naturally ventilated and air-conditioned ofces
based on actual operational data. Benchmarks are
provided for both typical and good practice, allowing
organisations to see how well their building is doing.
A benchmark of 100 kg CO
2
e/m
2
of gross internal
area (GIA) for a whole building can be considered
a reasonable starting point using emission factors
from the Department for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs (Defra) Corporate Reporting guidelines
(approx. 0.6 kg CO
2
e/kW h for electricity and
0.2 kg CO
2
e/kW h for natural gas). This is approximately
the E/F boundary of the Display Energy Certicate
rating scale. We also recommend that members
upload their annual consumption data to Carbon Buzz,
a free platform developed by the Royal Institute of
British Architects (RIBA) and CIBSE for the purpose
of collecting and sharing building energy-performance
data. Data are anonymous unless you choose to
publish it. Energy data are grouped by sector, such as
ofces, to enable useful comparisons to be made.
Carbon Buzz is likely to become an increasingly valuable
source of benchmark data if more organisations use it.
Over time, it will be possible to create more bespoke
benchmarks from the data collected.
Guidance on using Carbon Buzz is given in Appendix D
and can be found on their website.
Benchmarking annual consumption against comparable
buildings, either on a whole-building basis or separately
for landlord and tenanted areas, and then making
this performance visible and understandable, can
be a motivator for change and can be used to set
improvement targets. Identifying how improvements
can best be achieved often requires ner granularity, as
described above.
Degree-days are a measure designed to reect the
amount of energy needed to heat a building in a given
location. Weekly gas meter readings can be compared
with degree day data to determine how effectively the
heating system is controlling the internal environment
in response to external temperatures. This approach
can also be used to assess the effectiveness of a
heat-saving initiative. An example is given in the case
studies.
Further information is given in Monitoring and
Targeting: Techniques to Help Organisations Control
and Manage their Energy Use (Carbon Trust, 2010)
and on the Degree Days website.
Many organisations will be surprised to discover how
much energy they use outside normal occupied hours.
This can be determined by analysing half-hourly
data, obtained either from utility meters or individual
sub-meters. Some out-of-hours consumption will be
necessary that associated with servers for example
while other consumption may be associated with
lighting or equipment left on unnecessarily. While each
organisation will need to decide what is appropriate for
it in the context and culture of its business, out-of-hours
consumption is often a good starting point for energy
reduction. This may be achieved via a combination of
management practice, behaviour change and custom
settings on equipment.
Any behaviour-change initiative, such as asking staff
to turn off computers or lights, is best accompanied by
feedback data (i.e. making energy performance visible)
that demonstrates the effect of their efforts. The Carbon
Trust has a range of guidance on engaging employees
in energy-efcient behaviour.
BENCHMARKING
IMPROVEMENT
12
BCO 2014
CASE STUDY: LED RETROFIT
LED lighting improves efciency by 30% at The Crown Estates 1 Vine St ofce development.
The Crown Estates redevelopment of 1 Vine Street
was completed in 2007 and provides high-quality
ofce accommodation at the south end of Regent
Street. One of the original ofce tenants vacated in
late 2012, and this triggered a refurbishment of the
third and fouth oors. An analysis of meter data for
tenant lighting (separately sub-metered) indicated
an annual consumption of 27 kW h/m
2
. While this is
a good performance from a T5 installation, analysis
demonstrated that signicant savings were possible by
a switch to LED lighting.
Using an LED product reduced the power density
by 30%, which in turn produced a projected annual
carbon saving of 9 tonne CO
2
, and an energy cost
saving to the tenant of 1200/year, making it easier to
let. Savings in maintenance are also forecast, as the
LED lamps offer a signicantly longer service life than
uorescent lamps. In addition to the energy benets,
agents reported that the aesthetics of the new lighting
have made a positive contribution to the look and feel
of the space, and the change was well received by
prospective tenants.
This project is part of a programme of improvements
to operational buildings across The Crown Estates
London portfolios, targeting a reduction in annual
carbon emissions of over 200 tonne CO
2
in year 1.
Occupier: The Crown Estate
Building Performance Consultant: Arup
13
BCO 2014
CASE STUDY: THE VALUE OF ADEQUATE METERING AND CLEAR DATA
Separate metering of lighting energy allows targeting of increased daylight linking.
In a central London ofce separate metering of electricity use for lighting allows a clear measure of monthly
consumption. Much of the building is well lit by daylight and there is a full lighting control system, including
daylight linking features. Inspection of the data is sufcient to identify the fact that the lighting energy use does
not vary over the year. Despite the increased availability of daylight in the summer, the data provide a simple
indication that the design and commissioning of the control system should be adjusted to achieve summertime
energy savings. The annual lighting electricity use is approximately 25% of the total, so a tightening up of the
lighting control system to give 20% lighting savings would achieve a 5% reduction in total energy use. These
data have provided an increased incentive to implement a full recommissioning of the lighting control system,
improving the daylight linking and providing better sensing of light levels.
Occupier: Arup
Electricity consumption by usage type
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 Jan-13 Feb-13 Mar-13 Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
i
t
y

c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

(
k
W

h
)
Other (remaining not metered/assigned)
Cooling
Mixed use
Mixed use (basement)
Catering electric
Auxiliary energy fans and pumps
Small power
Lighting
Total electric
14
BCO 2014
CASE STUDY: PORTFOLIO IMPROVEMENTS (2013)
Energy survey work resulted in annual savings of over 120,000 in
operating costs, 800 tonnes of CO
2
and 10,000 in CRC liabilities.
A post-occupancy appraisal was carried out on three
principal buildings in a large portfolio. Energy surveys
were carried out to identify measures to improve
building performance and to lower carbon emissions.
The operational performance of the buildings was
poor. The priority for the client was to get better
transparency of how the buildings used energy.
Changes to the implementation of automatic metering
were recommended, linked into effective energy-
management procedures; this resulted in renement
in the control of major plant items to essential
operation only, and better management of small
power. By implementing the recommended changes
signicant operational cost savings were achieved.
The solutions are being extended to the rest of the
portfolio.
Davidson building
No. 1 Olivers Yard
J ohnson building
15
BCO 2014
Key facts Three buildings with complex service requirements were surveyed. Better management of
out-of-hours lighting and data-room energy use has reduced energy consumption.
The energy savings on the previous year (not adjusted for degree days) were:
Olivers Yard: 17% electricity, 35% gas
J ohnson building: 6% electricity, 34% gas
Davidson building: 9% electricity, 1% gas

Occupier: Derwent London
No. 1 Olivers Yard IES energy model
J ohnson building maximum demand, J anuary 2007 to October 2006
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
27 Dec 06 06 Apr 07 15 Jul 07 23 Oct 07 31 Jan 08
Time (days)
D
e
m
a
n
d

(
k
V
)
10 May 08 18 Aug 08 26 Nov 08
16
BCO 2014
CASE STUDY: A SIMPLE WAY OF ASSESSING HEATING CONTROLS
Manual weekly meters readings enabled us to assess the impact of retrot insulation.
Max Fordhams London ofce is within a converted Victorian
industrial building. The company wanted a simple and cheap
method of establishing how well its gas use responded to the
weather and of assessing the impact of new insulation.
The building manager took readings from the gas meters
every Monday morning, and plotted a graph of the weekly gas
use against the number of heating degree-days above 15.5C
in that week (freely available from www.degreedays.net). After
installing insulation and secondary glazing, a new graph was
plotted and the results compared.
The graph showed a signicant reduction in gas use for a
given number of degree-days, showing that the insulation was
having a positive effect.
The range of scatter shows how effectively the heating is
responding to external temperatures. The building manager is now trying to improve control by iteratively
adjusting radiator valves and thermostats to take into account feedback given by building users.
Occupier: Max Fordham
Building Performance Consultant: Max Fordham LLP
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
W
e
e
k
l
y

g
a
s

u
s
e

p
e
r

f
l
o
o
r

(
k
W

h
)
Heating degree-days
Gas consumption against degree-days
Pre-insulation
Post-insulation
17
BCO 2014
Collecting and evaluating feedback from occupants is a
very different process from collecting and evaluating
data on energy and water use. It begins with surveying
occupants via a series of subjective questions, and
then interpreting the results to drive change and
improvement.
Surveys should be carried out as part of an agreed
programme of assessment and improvement. It is
important to obtain buy-in to the process at a leadership
level. The programme should acknowledge the potential
for the ndings to identify a range of improvements to
the building systems, facilities management or human
resources process. It is an obvious statement, but an
organisation or employer should not start a review
process without acknowledging that it is likely to point
out the need for changes. Committing to making
changes at the outset will avoid the syndrome which
sees enthusiasm for a post-occupancy survey and then
the results being sunk without a trace.
Surveys should be done after a reasonable period of
occupation to allow occupants to become familiar with
their workplace. A year is usually considered to be
adequate because it allows an occupier to experience
the building through all four seasons.
Surveys can be carried out online or via a paper-based
questionnaire. An electronic version can be very
practical, simple to use and generate the data in a form
that is easily analysed. However, the survey invite can
get lost in the daily ood of emails. A paper version
has been found to generate higher levels of response,
having the appeal of a more personal invite and
request for engagement. A paper survey also means
that the assessor has to visit the building and talk to
the occupants, which gives valuable context when
interpreting the data.
When introduced with a personal invite from the
leadership of an organisation, a survey is given more
authority and is likely to receive a greater level of
participation. The invite should include a statement on
why the information is being collected and what will be
done with it. Equally, a follow-up message is important
to thank participants for their responses. (Even at
this level, proactive engagement with occupants
can improve workplace satisfaction, but this guide
is not intended to give advice on staff engagement
management techniques!)
A range of survey methods is available, and indeed
individual questionnaires may be tailored to suit a
particular business, workplace or range of workplaces.
The outcome of a survey is easier to understand when
put in the context of similar buildings. It is difcult to get
all aspects of a building or workplace right, but
comparison of aspects between peers allows better
understanding of features that are above average and
those where improvement is required. Two established
methods for post-occupancy evaluation and
comparison are the Building Use Studies (BUS)
methodology and the Leesman index.
The BUS methodology primarily addresses the
performance of the ofce building and its installed
systems, and summarises the feedback from
occupants, providing comparison with similar buildings.
MEASUREMENT
POPULAR SURVEY TOOLS
OCCUPANT EVALUATION
18
BCO 2014
The Leesman method, like BUS, also uses a
standardised questionnaire but focuses more on the
workplace and its effectiveness as an environment for
the particular business of the occupier.
THE BUS METHODOLOGY
The Building Use Studies (BUS) methodology is an established process for assessing occupant satisfaction.
Using a standard paper or web-based questionnaire, a range of aspects of comfort and occupation are rated
by occupants. The results are presented on a scale from bad to good, and a comparison is made against a
benchmark pool of similar buildings. BUS methodology reviews the performance of the building from the point of
view of the occupant. The BUS methodology has been developed over the last 30 years, allowing benchmarking
levels of occupant satisfaction within buildings against a large database of results for similar buildings.
The method was developed and rened during the 1990s, when it was used for the government-funded
PROBE building performance evaluation studies. It has been used on the Carbon Trusts Low Carbon
Accelerator and Low Carbon Building Programme and also on the Technology Strategy Boards Building
Performance Evaluation Programme. Delivered by a trained partner network, the BUS methodology uses
a structured questionnaire designed to extract as much information as possible from as few questions as
possible. Respondents rate various aspects of performance on a scale of 17 and can also provide comments,
so both quantitative and qualitative feedback is obtained.
Over 45 key variables are evaluated, covering
aspects such as thermal comfort, ventilation, indoor
air quality, lighting, personal control, noise, perceived
productivity, space, design, image and needs.
Customised questions can also be added to address
concerns associated with a specic building.
Standard BUS methodology results are presented
as an anonymised web-based report and two sets of
data (benchmarked variables and comments). The
BUS methodology partner can then provide additional
interpretation of the results and put them in context
for the building.
Temperature in
summer overall
Air in summer
overall
Temperature in
winter overall
Air in winter
overall
Lighting overall
Noise overall
Comfort overall
Design
Uncomfortable: 1 7: Comfortable Tsover
Twover
Airsover
Airwover
Ltover
Nseover
Confover
Design
Needs
Health
Image
Prod
7: Comfortable
7: Satisfactory
7: Satisfactory
7: Satisfactory
7: Satisfactory
7: Satisfactory
7: Satisfactory
7: Very well
7: More healthy
7: Good
Uncomfortable: 1
Unsatisfactory: 1
Unsatisfactory: 1
Unsatisfactory: 1
Unsatisfactory: 1
Unsatisfactory: 1
Unsatisfactory: 1
Very poorly: 1
Less healthy: 1
Poor: 1
Increased:
+40%
Decreased:
40%
Needs
Health
Image to visitors
Perceived
productivity
B
U
S

s
u
m
m
a
r
y

i
n
d
e
x
Percentile
0
0
1
2
3
1
2
3
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
20
40
60
80
Further information on this method is available from http://www.busmethodology.org.uk.
19
BCO 2014
THE LEESMAN INDEX
The Leesman Index (Lmi) measures the effectiveness of corporate workplaces. The Lmi benchmark is
generated from the largest contemporary database of workplace satisfaction surveys available. It was created
to offer easy access to vital, empirical evidence to inform the design and management of commercial ofce
environments. The simple survey and analytics tools provide an inexpensive and systematic approach to the
collection, analysis and benchmarking of workplace satisfaction data, and generate a single, universal measure
of effectiveness the Lmi.
The survey questions focus on four main areas. The rst determines which work activities are important to
employees and how well these are supported by the workplace. Then satisfaction with the important physical
features and the important facilities services of the ofce environment are addressed. Finally, an assessment is
made of the impact of workplace design on corporate image and culture, sense of pride, enjoyment, community
and productivity at work.
The information is gathered via a condential online questionnaire, which takes employees around 11 minutes
to complete. The survey uses a standardised core of simple, easily understood questions which do not vary,
and an optional array of additional, exible modules. This gives clients and their consultants the ability to
compare their results with thousands of others and, at the same time, collect detailed and insightful diagnostic
data. The data are then housed in an online environment called Leesman Analytics.
My workplace enables me to work productively
The design of my workplace is important to me My workplace creates an enjoyable environment to work in
My workplace is a place I am proud to bring visitors to
Agree strongly (8.8%)
Agree (25.1%)
Slightly agree (21.2%)
Neutral (16.7%)
Disagree slightly (14.8%)
Disagree (9.1%)
Disagree strongly (4.4%)
Agree (21.7%)
Neutral (19.5%)
Disagree (10.3%)
Agree (41.9%)
Neutral (9.3%)
Disagree (0.6%)
Agree (25.5%)
Neutral (15.7%)
Disagree (8.0%)
Further information on this method is available from http://leesmanindex.com.
20
BCO 2014
CASE STUDY: ELIZABETH FRY BUILDING
Many buildings fail to live up to expectations with regard to energy performance and user comfort, but good
buildings can maintain their performance.
In 1998, the BUS methodology was used to evaluate the Elizabeth Fry building at the University of East
Anglia as part of the CIBSE Post Occupancy Review of Buildings and their Engineering (PROBE) studies. The
building was evaluated again in 2011. The BUS methodology provided a robust benchmarked solution with
qualitative comments against which the original evaluation took place; the building scored signicantly above
the benchmark. The same method could then be used when the building was re-evaluated against current BUS
methodology benchmarks 13 years later.
Multiple changes took place during 1995 and 2011. The BUS methodology allowed the assessor to
demonstrate that, despite these changes, the Elizabeth Fry building remained a good building in relation to its
peers, with only small changes from the original results being found. Occupant comfort was exceptional and
remains so after a long period.
Building performance expectations received a high level of attention during the original brief, design and
construction period, and 2 years post-occupancy. This clearly inuenced the outcomes that the BUS
methodology was used to validate. Initial results were also used to inform improvement where required.
For example, there was a responsive action where winter comfort temperatures were on the cool side, and
perimeter panel heaters were subsequently installed in some affected rooms to overcome this problem.
Temperature in
summer overall
1998
Air in summer
overall
Temperature in
winter overall
Air in winter
overall
Lighting overall
Noise overall
Comfort overall
Design
Twover
Airsover
Airwover
Ltover
Nseover
Confover
Design
Needs
Health
Prod
7: Comfortable
7: Satisfactory
7: Satisfactory
7: Satisfactory
7: Satisfactory
7: Satisfactory
7: Satisfactory
7: Very well
7: More healthy
Uncomfortable: 1
Unsatisfactory: 1
Unsatisfactory: 1
Unsatisfactory: 1
Unsatisfactory: 1
Unsatisfactory: 1
Unsatisfactory: 1
Very poorly: 1
Less healthy: 1
Increased:
+20%
Decreased:
20%
Needs
Health
Image to visitors
Perceived
productivity
Temperature in
summer overall
2011
Air in summer
overall
Temperature in
winter overall
Air in winter
overall
Lighting overall
Noise overall
Comfort overall
Design
Twover
Airsover
Airwover
Ltover
Nseover
Confover
Design
Needs
Health
Image
Prod
7: Comfortable
7: Satisfactory
7: Satisfactory
7: Satisfactory
7: Satisfactory
7: Satisfactory
7: Satisfactory
7: Very well
7: More healthy
7: Good
Uncomfortable: 1
Unsatisfactory: 1
Unsatisfactory: 1
Unsatisfactory: 1
Unsatisfactory: 1
Unsatisfactory: 1
Unsatisfactory: 1
Very poorly: 1
Less healthy: 1
Poor: 1
Increased:
+20%
Decreased:
20%
Needs
Health
Image to visitors
Perceived
productivity
21
BCO 2014
The second evaluation showed the impact of changes
to the building over a longer period of time. The
BUS results show how comfort was affected by the
conversion of cellular space to open-plan ofces,
particularly acoustically owing to the higher occupant
density, reective exposed concrete ceilings and
a new bus route outside the building. The variable
most affected by increasing occupancy levels and
a proliferation of computer equipment was the
temperature in summer, where the average score fell.
This is reinforced by a loss of perceived control in the
open-plan areas
The key benet that the BUS methodology provided
was to reect changes and reveal features of the
building which impact occupant satisfaction. The
results are used to improve the efciency of the
building and occupant satisfaction, and thereby effectiveness of the workplace. These lessons or features of
the building can then be used to make improvements to, or avoid pitfalls in, new building designs.
Owner: University of East Anglia
Building performance consultant: Usable Buildings Trust, Bill Bordass and Adrian Leaman
22
BCO 2014
CASE STUDY: WOODLAND TRUST HEADQUARTERS
An understanding of occupant feedback allowed the building to be
reorganised for better perceived productivity.
The 2700 m
2
Woodland Trust Headquarters in
Grantham, Lincolnshire, was completed in October
2010. It is a timber composite frame, naturally
ventilated building providing ofce and meeting space
for up to 200 staff and thin client IT facilities for the
organisations staff in the eld.
Under the Technology Strategy Boards Building
Performance Evaluation programme, a BUS occupant
survey was carried out half way through the second
year of occupation by Bill Bordass of the Usable
Buildings Trust. There was a 90% response rate from
the 180 full- and part-time staff.
Overall results were relatively good, apart from noise
in the open-plan spaces. Scores for summer-time
temperatures and perceived health were only at
the midpoint of the ofce dataset, and the air was
perceived to be dry. There were some complaints
about draughts, from the front doors and atrium in
particular. There were some concerns about unisex
WC cubicles.
Acoustics Some steps had already been taken
prior to the survey date. The call centre operators
needed high speech intelligibility and were moved
away from the reception area to a quiet corner of the
oorplate. Signage has also been put up in this area.
Anecdotal complaints have not been reported since.
Air quality and summer-time temperature Both
of these relate to ventilation and window operation;
air quality in the winter and temperature in the
summer. The survey also picked up some occupants
experiencing headaches. Winter air-quality
improvements have been measured with wider use
of manually opening windows and moving sensitive
occupants away from sources of draught. A study
of the soft thermal mass has allowed automated
window controls to be improved for both situations.
The temperature in the past summer has been
anecdotally reported as improved.
Woodland Trust Headquarters Peter Cook
Owner/occupier: The Woodland Trust
Building performance evaluation: FeildenCleggBradleyStudios/Max Fordham/Bill Bordass
Temperature in
summer overall
Air in summer
overall
Temperature in
winter overall
Air in winter
overall
Lighting overall
Noise overall
Comfort overall
Design
Twover
Airsover
Airwover
Ltover
Nseover
Confover
Design
Needs
Health
Image
Prod
7: Comfortable
7: Satisfactory
7: Satisfactory
7: Satisfactory
7: Satisfactory
7: Satisfactory
7: Satisfactory
7: Very well
7: More healthy
7: Good
Uncomfortable: 1
Unsatisfactory: 1
Unsatisfactory: 1
Unsatisfactory: 1
Unsatisfactory: 1
Unsatisfactory: 1
Unsatisfactory: 1
Very poorly: 1
Less healthy: 1
Poor: 1
Increased:
+40%
Decreased:
40%
Needs
Health
Image to visitors
Perceived
productivity
23
BCO 2014
CASE STUDY: MLC CENTRE FIT-OUT DEMONSTRATES
MARKET-LEADING SATISFACTION
I really enjoy our new work environment and the exibility it offers (Ofce worker, MLC Centre)
Thirty-three years after construction, refurbishment
of the world-renowned MLC Centre provided an
opportunity to turn an existing older building into a new
work environment. giving staff leading-edge facilities
with work-friendly technologies.
Staff were surveyed on several occasions to ensure
that the brief met the needs of a diverse workforce.
The focus on ecologically sustainable development
improved the quality of the environment and ensured
operational cost saving.
Staff felt ownership of their environment, embracing
the new ofce and the ways of working it brought. A
post-refurbishment evaluation showed that the ofce
had a higher occupant satisfaction rating than any
other ofce measured in Australia.
The ofce was redesigned and refurbished with a 21st century t-out.
The ofce now provides a sustainable and productive environment for staff.
An occupant satisfaction evaluation conducted one year after occupation provided a unique before and after
evaluation of occupant perception.
The results clearly demonstrated that the goals of a sustainable, productive workplace were met.
U
n
s
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
o
r
y
S
a
t
i
s
f
a
c
t
o
r
y
Percentile
0
4
3
2
1
5
6
7
Comfover
2009 survey results
2012 survey results
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
20
40
60
24
BCO 2014
The Better Buildings Partnership (BBP)
Landlord Energy Rating. Available at: http://www.betterbuildingspartnership.co.uk/working-groups/landlord-energy-rating
(accessed 21 February 2014).
BBP (2010) Green Building Management Toolkit. Translating Words into Action. Available at:
http://www.betterbuildingspartnership.co.uk/download/bbp-green-building-managment-toolkit-1.pdf
BBP (2010) Sustainability Benchmarking Toolkit for Commercial Buildings. Principles for Best Practice.
Available at: http://www.betterbuildingspartnership.co.uk/download/bbp-sustainability-benchmarking-toolkit.pdf
BBP (2011) Better Metering Toolkit. A Guide to Improved Energy Management through Better Energy Metering. Available at:
http://www.betterbuildingspartnership.co.uk/download/bbp-better-metering-toolkit.pdf
BBP (2011) Managing Agents Sustainability Toolkit. Available at:
http://www.betterbuildingspartnership.co.uk/download/bbp-managing-agents-sustainability-toolkit.pdf
BBP (2012) Voluntary DECs and Landlord Energy Certicates. BPP Position Paper. Available at:
http://www.betterbuildingspartnership.co.uk/download/bbp-position-paper---voluntary-decs-and-ler-%28nal%29.pdf
British Council for Ofces (BCO)
BCO/CABE (2006) The Impact of Ofce Design on Business Performance. Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.
uk/20110118095356/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/les/impact-ofce-design-full-research.pdf (accessed 21 February 2014).
BCO (2011) British Council for Ofces Guide to Post-Occupancy Evaluation. London. BCO.
BCO (2011) British Council for Ofces, Designing for Biodiversity, Productivity and Prot. London.
BCO (2013) British Council for Ofces Guide to Lighting. London.
BCO(2013) British Council for Ofces Building Information Modelling for Commercial Ofce Buildings. London.
Building Research Establishment (BRE)
Lewry A (2012) Energy Management in the Built Environment: A Review of Best Practice. BRE, London.
Carbon Trust
Carbon Trust (2011) Green Gauges. Lessons Learnt from Installing and Using Metering and Monitoring Systems in Low Carbon
Buildings. Available at: http://www.carbontrust.com/media/81353/ctg037-green-gauges-metering-monitoring-systems.pdf
Carbon Trust (2010) Monitoring and Targeting: Techniques to Help Organisations Control and Manage their Energy Use.
Available at: https://www.carbontrust.com/media/31683/ctg008_monitoring_and_targeting.pdf (accessed 21 February 2014).
FURTHER READING
25
BCO 2014
Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE)
CIBSE (2012) Guide F: Energy Efciency in Buildings. CIBSE, London.
Degree Days
Weather data for energy professionals. Available at: http://www.degreedays.net (accessed 21 February 2014).
Department of Communities and Local Government
DCLG (2008) The Governments Methodology for the Production of Operational Ratings, Display Energy Certicates and Advisory
Reports. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-methodology-for-producting-operational-ratings-
display-energy-certicates-and-advisory-reports (accessed 21 February 2014).
DCLG (2013) A Guide to Display Energy Certicates and Advisory Reports for Public Buildings. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/display-energy-certicates-and-advisory-reports-for-public-buildings
Landlords Energy Statement/Tenants Energy Review (LES-TER)
An industry initiative led by the British Property Federation, with technical assistance from the Usable Buildings Trust and
nancial support from the Carbon Trust. Available at: www.les-ter.org (accessed 21 February 2014).
26
BCO 2014
Performance has a host of terms and acronyms of its own. Those used in this report, together with some additional
terms commonly used in this arena, are explained here.
Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) Technology allowing the automatic collection of electricity, gas or water usage
information from respective meters on a periodic basis or in real time to help both consumers and suppliers to
review and control their use/supply of energy and/or water.
Better Buildings Partnership (BBP) A collaboration of the UKs leading commercial property owners who are
working together to improve the sustainability of existing commercial building stock. More information is available at
www.betterbuildingspartnership.co.uk.
Building Information Modelling (BIM) BIM is a digital representation of the physical and functional characteristics
of a building, its construction and systems. A BIM model is a shared knowledge resource that contains information
about a building and forms a reliable basis for decision-making during the buildings life cycle (dened as the period
from earliest conception to demolition). More information is available at www.bimtaskgroup.org.
Biodiversity (or biological diversity) A term used to describe the number, variety and variability of living
organisms; essentially a synonym of life on Earth. More information is available at the United Nations Environment
Programme, World Conservation Monitoring Centre: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/what-is-biodiversity_50.html.
BUS (Building Use Studies) methodology An established process for assessing occupant satisfaction, using a
standard questionnaire that is completed by occupiers to rate a range of aspects of comfort and occupation. More
information is available at http://www.busmethodology.org.uk.
Carbon Buzz A free platform developed by the RIBA and CIBSE for the purpose of collecting and sharing building
energy-performance data. Data are anonymous unless you choose to publish them. Energy data are grouped by
sector, such as ofces, to enable useful comparisons. More information is available at: www.carbonbuzz.org.
Carbon Disclosure Project An international, not-for-prot organisation providing the only global system for
companies and cities to measure, disclose, manage and share vital environmental information. More information
isavailable at: www.cdproject.net.
Carbon Trust A not-for-prot company, primarily funded by government, with the mission to accelerate the
move to a low-carbon economy.It publishes a wide range of guidance, covering topics from energy metering and
monitoring to energy savings, through lighting, heating and other infrastructure technologies. Further information is
available at: http://www.carbontrust.com.
CIBSE (Chartered Institute of Building Services Engineers) CIBSE has been involved in many initiatives
around environmental performance. Its technical memoranda are often quoted, notably TM22: Energy Assessment
and Reporting Methodology. CIBSE is one of the core collaborators in Carbon Buzz.
Display Energy Certicate (DEC) DECs were introduced to raise public awareness of energy use and to inform
building users/visitors about the energy use of buildings. They provide an energy rating (on a scale of A to G) based
on the actual amount of metered energy used by the building over a 12-month period. Any building with a oor area
APPENDIX A
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
27
BCO 2014
of more than 500 m
2
occupied wholly or in part by a public authority must prominently display a DEC. The building
owner must also hold an advisory report, which sets out recommendations for improving the energy performance of
the building. More information is available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/display-energy-certicates-and-
advisory-reports-for-public-buildings.
Degree-days Degree-days are a measure of the severity and duration of cold weather, usually calculated by
reference to a base temperature of 15.5C, at which most buildings in the UK do not need supplementary heating.
Degree-days are calculated as the difference between the baseline and the actual outdoor temperature multiplied
by the number of days. Degree-days are usually used as a measure of heating but are also applicable, in principle,
to cooling. More information is available at: www.carbontrust.com/resources/guides/energy-efciency/degree-days.
Dow Jones Sustainability Index A set of indices, compiled jointly between S&P Dow J ones Indices and
RobecoSAM, that lists companies by a total sustainability score, allowing investors to target sustainable
companies. The sustainability score is calculated using an annual corporate sustainability assessment prepared
by RobecoSAM, taking into account sustainable business practices critical to creating long-term stakeholder value,
and sustainability factors representing opportunities and risks for the company to address. More information is
available at: www.sustainability-indices.com.
Embodied carbon The amount of carbon emitted during the full life cycle of a building, component or material.
It includes the carbon emitted during the process of extracting raw materials, processing them into components,
transporting them to site, installation, maintainance throughout their life and disposing of them after demolition.
Like many measures of carbon, it is more often stated as a weight of carbon dioxide (the gas actually emitted to the
atmosphere during any of these processes).
EPRA Reporting Guidance Guidance issued by the European Property Real Estate Association with the aim of
enhancing the nancial reporting of listed property companies and attracting investment in the listed property sector
by way of key performance indicators. More information is available at: www.epra.com/regulation-and-reporting/bpr.
FTSE4Good Index An index prepared by FTSE to allow the performance of companies that meet globally
recognised corporate responsibility standards to be measured using transparent management and criteria, to allow
the assessment of investment products. More information is available at:
www.ftse.com/Indices/FTSE4Good_Index_Series/index.jsp.
Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark An industry-driven organisation committed to assessing the
sustainability performance of real-estate portfolios (public, private and direct) around the globe. The dynamic
benchmark is used by institutional investors to engage with their investments, with the aim of improving the
sustainability performance of their investment portfolio, and the global property sector at large. More information is
available at: www.gresb.com.
Global Reporting Index Construction and Real Estate Sector Supplement A construction and real estate
sector-specic sustainability reporting framework developed by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). The GRI aims
to drive sustainability reporting by all organisations through a comprehensive Sustainability Reporting Framework
that is widely used around the world, to enable greater organisational transparency. The framework, including
the Reporting Guidelines, sets out the principles and indicators that organisations can use to measure and report
their economic, environmental and social performance. More information is available at: www.globalreporting.org/
resourcelibrary/CRESS-Summary-Document.pdf.
Graduated Approach An approach developed by the Usable Buildings Trust for use by organisations that are
initially overwhelmed by the management of energy and water data. The approach proposes that organisations
start with a simple approach based on the data most readily available, and then go on to use further detail and
more sophistication as they develop a greater understanding of occupier behaviour and the monitoring process.
28
BCO 2014
Landlord Energy Rating (LER) A replacement for the Landlords Energy Statement currently being developed by
the Better Building Partnership (BBP), further to the ndings of the UKGBC Task Group Report Carbon Reductions
in Existing Non-Domestic Buildings (March 2011). The BBP is seeking to use the LER to differentiate energy-efcient
ofce space in the marketplace, and to create the potential to feed this through into market valuations. More
information is available at: www.betterbuildingspartnership.co.uk/working-groups/landlord-energy-rating.
Landlords energy statement and tenants energy review An industry initiative led by the British Property
Federation, with technical assistance from the Usable Buildings Trust and nancial support from the Carbon Trust.
It is a set of tools and a process designed to enable landlords and tenants to measure, understand and reduce
their emissions from their ownership and occupancy of commercial buildings. More information is available at:
www.les-ter.org
Leesman Index (Lmi) An effectiveness measurement benchmark, produced by Leesman, that calculates an Lmi
score for each workplace, based on a survey of a clients staff, seeking to understand the activities that people are
doing and the physical features and the facilities services provided around them.
LES-TER See: Landlords energy statement and tenants energy review.
Low Carbon Accelerator An initiative launched by the Carbon Trust in 2006 that focuses on the gathering of
data and demonstrating expertise in the energy-efcient refurbishment of non-residential buildings. The aim of
the initiative is to accelerate the take-up of cost-effective, low-carbon initiatives during non-residential-building
refurbishment.
Low Carbon Building Programme (LCBP) Now closed, the programme provided grants for the acquisition and
installation of microgeneration technology in homes, schools, public buildings and other not-for-prot projects. The
LCBP was a major government grant funding programme that provided approximately 131 million in grants for
around 20,000 projects between 2006 and 2010. More information is available at: www.bre.co.uk/page.jsp?id=1332.
Minimum Energy Performance Standards (MEPS) A set of minimum performance requirements for buildings
under the Energy Act 2011. The UK government currently intends to make a minimum building energy performance
rating of E mandatory for all letting residential and non-domestic buildings by 2018.
PROBE (Post-occupancy Review of Buildings and their Engineering) Between 1995 and 2002 this project,
under the UK governments Partners in Innovation scheme, attempted to improve access to feedback from users
through a number of post-occupancy evaluations of completed non-domestic buildings. The results were published
as a series of case studies in the journal of the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, the Building
Services Journal (BSJ). More information is available at: www.cibse.org/index.cfm?go=page.view&item=2481.
Real Estate Environmental Benchmark This comprises a set of energy, water and waste benchmarks for both
naturally ventilated and air-conditioned ofces, based on actual operational data, produced by a collaboration
between J ones Lang LaSalle and the Better Buildings Partnership (BBP). Further information is available at:
http://www.joneslanglasalle.co.uk/UnitedKingdom/EN-GB/Pages/Real-Estate-Environmental-Benchmark.aspx.
Real time A term often used to describe systems. Real-time systems react to information on receipt, and are thus
able to adjust to conditions and occurrences at the time when they change/occur.
RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects) The professional body of the architectural profession in the UK. It is
one of the core collaborators in Carbon Buzz.
Service life/life-cycle carbon A measure of the inputs and outputs with regard to materials, energy and waste
ows associated with a building (or any other product) over its entire life cycle. It is often used as a measure of a
buildings whole-life environmental impacts.
29
BCO 2014
Soft Landings Soft Landings is used to describe a new approach to the handover of buildings, in which the
feasibility, brieng, design and construction phases of a new building or refurbishment is carried out with its
operational management and end-users always in mind. After construction is complete, the design team and
contractors remain involved with the building to ensure that the handover process is smooth, with operators being
trained, and optimum performance outcomes become a focus of the whole team. More information is available at:
https://www.bsria.co.uk/services/design/soft-landings.
Technology Strategy Board The UKs innovation agency, which has the aim for the UK to be a global leader
in innovation. Its role is to stimulate innovation, working with business and other partners, in order to accelerate
economic growth. It has funded a number of performance-related research projects, including research into the
implementation of Soft Landings principles in schools. More information is available at: www.innovateuk.org.
UN Global Compact A strategic policy initiative for businesses that are committed to aligning their operations
and strategies with ten universally accepted principles in the areas of human rights, labour, environment and
anti-corruption. By doing so, business, as a primary driver of globalisation, can help ensure that markets,
commerce, technology and nance advance in ways that benet economies and societies everywhere. More
information is available at: www.unglobalcompact.org.
Usable Buildings Trust A UK educational charity dedicated to improving the performance of buildings in use.
More information is available at: www.usablebuildings.co.uk.
30
BCO 2014
APPENDIX B
AN APPROACH TO ENERGY AND WATER
BENCHMARKING
STEPS OPTIONS GUIDANCE NOTES
Dene scope for
measurements
Whole building
Landlord areas only
Whole building subdivided
into landlord and tenanted
areas
The available options will depend on how energy is
supplied to your building.
Tenants may have their energy supplied direct, it may
be sub-metered from the landlords supply, or there
may be a single supply to the whole building with no
sub-metering.
Where tenants are supplied direct, the landlord may or
may not have access to these data.
Where data exist to report separately on landlord and
tenant areas, this is the best option.
Identify available data Energy and water utility bills
Manual meter readings
Automatic meter readings
Sub-meter readings
Many buildings now have advanced metering systems
that provide more accurate energy data.
Where utility bills are based on estimated consumption
rather than actual meter readings, manual meter
readings should be taken on a monthly basis, as this
will be more accurate than estimated consumption.
The majority of buildings will have gas and electricity
supplies. Where there is on-site renewable energy
generation, these data should also be collected.
Floor area Floor area should align with the scope determined
above, e.g. whole building, landlord and/or tenanted
areas.
The gross internal area (GIA) should be used as the
measurement of oor area, as this aligns with Display
Energy Certicates (DECs) and Carbon Buzz.
See the RICS Code of Measuring (6th edition) for the
full denition of GIA.
An approximate conversion from net lettable area (NLA)
can be achieved by multiplying by 1.25.
Understand occupancy Determine if the building is fully occupied to allow
comparison against benchmarks. An empty building has
a better energy rating (based on energy per m
2
) than a
full one.
Determine hours of use DEC methodology allows for this.
Collect data Data should be collated on an
annual basis
Decide whether reporting against calendar years or tax
years is more appropriate. The latter will align with CRC
reporting.
31
BCO 2014
STEPS OPTIONS GUIDANCE NOTES
Process data Annual consumption to
be reported in kW h/m
2

for energy or m
3
/m
2
for
water. Make sure that the
consumption and oor area
are consistently measured
usually primary energy
consumption and gross
internal area (GIA).
Data are reported in line with the scope agreed above.
Be careful with conversion factors used to convert
metered energy consumption into primary energy
or kg CO
2
. Make sure they are consistent with the
benchmarks used.
Benchmark compare
annual consumption
against benchmark
data to determine how
well your building is
performing
Benchmark against real-
estate environmental
benchmarks
Commission a voluntary
DEC
Produce a Landlords
Energy Statement and/or
Tenants Energy Review
Upload annual energy and
water data to the Carbon
Buzz website
Report performance Report to board members
Include in the annual
corporate, social and
environmental responsibility
report
Display the energy rating
Make the report highly visual and easy to understand
for decision-makers and occupiers if you want to
motivate and encourage change.
Dene scope for
measurements
Whole building
Landlord areas only
Whole building subdivided
into landlord and tenanted
areas
The available options will depend on how energy is
supplied to your building.
Tenants may have their energy supplied direct, it may
be sub-metered from the landlords supply, or there
may be a single supply to the whole building with no
sub-metering.
Where tenants are supplied direct, the landlord may or
may not have access to the data.
Where data exist to report separately on landlord and
tenant areas, this is the best option.
32
BCO 2014
APPENDIX C
GUIDANCE ON ENTERING DATA TO CARBON BUZZ
www.carbonbuzz.org
STEP GUIDANCE NOTES
Register your
organisation
Once registered, use the Company home page to set up user accounts for all staff who may be
involved in uploading and analysing the data.
Create building
proles
Use Add new project to set up a prole for each building in your portfolio.
There are a small number of mandatory elds, including Gross Internal Area and whether the
building is single or multi-use (if it is all ofces, this counts as single use, regardless of the
number of tenants).
Of the optional elds, we recommend you also provide:
Section 1: Building/project type; completion date if recent.
Section 2: Sector; category and subcategory (use Commercial ofce unless this is inappropriate).
Section 3: Tenancy; landlords area; number of tenants.
Section 4: Property owner.
In the Comments section, please state BCO member, as this may be used in future to group
members data together. Please also state here whether you are providing whole-building data,
landlord-only or landlord and tenanted areas separately.
Add users to
projects
Once a project has been set up, the Users tab can be used to specify which of your registered
users can access the project.
Create energy
records
An energy record will be added for each building each year.
Open a project prole and select Add new record. There are a large number of optional entry
elds. We recommend the following as a minimum:
Overview 1
Source: Measured +meter readings or bills as applicable; enter start and end dates for
metering period.
Record name: eg Annual consumption 2013.
Number of zones.
Overview 2:
Water consumption in litres per person per day.
Save the record overview.
Select the Zones tab and enter zone names and areas.
Select the Energy details tab and enter total electricity and non-electricity for the rst zone. You
may need to use the expand icons before entering data.
If you have renewable energy sources, these should be entered here.
Select Energy details for each other zone and enter the energy data.
Further details can be added (e.g. to describe the buildings operating conditions) but this is optional.
Review results Review results
33
BCO 2014
Future developments
Once sufcient BCO members have uploaded data to
Carbon Buzz, it may be possible to create a BCO group
within the platform so that individual buildings can
be benchmarked against other BCO members rather
than against the whole ofce sector. Possible future
developments could also look at how landlord and
tenant areas are benchmarked.

BCO Research Eco Offices Performance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BCO Research Eco Offices Performance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IMPROVING THE

Olivers Yard: 17% electricity, 35% gas

J ohnson building: 6% electricity, 34% gas

Davidson building: 9% electricity, 1% gas

You might also like