Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Sustainability is a concept that seems
capable of being all things to all people.
There are many definitions and a wide range of guidance
from a organisations and individuals
Such a range can be quite confusing for the home-owner who is seeking to
“do their bit” to contribute towards sustainable development.
The confusion can arise to the point where it actually
becomes stressful and it may act as a disincentive to the homeowner
to do anything more than simple actions such as
reducing the thermostat, taking the temperature down a couple of degrees
or changing the light bulbs so they are more energy efficient.
This webinar will look at the struggle faced by an individual homeowner
in the context of a 110 year old propertyin the North East of Scotland
in a rural location.
The problems that they encountered and some of the solutions they
had applied to the problems of achieving sustainability
within the context of their particular project.
All clients face the dilemma of how to get the most out of their budget.
Value for money has been a consistent
feature throughout almost all projects,
and is a particular concern where an individual is spending their own,
usually hard-earned, money.
Part of seeking to maximise value may,
for those individuals who are reasonably capable of a spot of DIY,
involve identifying the appropriate balance between paying a
contractor to carry out work and doing the work themselves for “free”.
There can be no doubt that a given budget can be
stretched further by increasing the
proportion of DIY work within a project,
but this has to be done in the context of
a realistic self-assessment of skill and ability,
along with an awareness of any legal constraints
(such as certification requirements)
on carrying out particular kinds of work.
This can be a particular constraint when considering the
use of specific technologies that attract grant support;
the requirement to use both specific hardware and
installers or contractors is a common feature of the
perhaps more desirable technologies such as ground
source heat pumps and wood pellet stoves.
Within the context of a limited budget,
the more exotic technologies may be discounted by an
individual solely because of a realisation that the cost,
even after allowing for any grant support,
represents a disproportionate amount of the
total budget and therefore reduces the range of “opportunities” available.
It is possible that the majority of those seeking
to “upgrade” to a more sustainable approach to the use of
their home are not solely focused on adding the latest technology.
There may also be a consideration of how to add more living space,
along with other factors that contribute to the
day-to-day quality of life in their home environment.
Consequently, the decision as to what represents
sustainability almost certainly varies between individual home-owners.
Ultimately, any steps, regardless of how small they may seem,
taken towards increasing sustainability with regard
to the use of the built environment,
have to be recognised and applauded if we are going
to achieve the objective of looking after our planet.
When the perspective of the home-owner is considered,
the project can appear to be much more daunting than
it does to an experienced contractor.
The majority of clients in this sector of the
construction industry are generally regarded as ‘naïve’;
they do not have sufficient understanding of the construction
process or the various possible routes to procuring construction
work to fully appreciate what they are actually undertaking.
Consequently, they will either overestimate or
underestimate the scope of the project.
They may not even have a fully-formed concept of the end product,
which may simply be the desire to become
more ‘sustainable’ with regard to their home environment.
There are, of course, some clients who have
considerable understanding of the construction process,
procurement possibilities and the range of sustainable technologies available.
However, such clients are a minority.
Naïve clients can be regarded as being potentially
vulnerable in that there are many questions to
be answered as part of procuring their desired product,
and they will inevitably seek answers from more
experienced individuals.
For many of these potential clients,
the internet is increasingly the first information
resource that they turn to and there is a
huge amount of information available from this source.
Unfortunately, the naïve client will, at least initially,
find it difficult to evaluate the quality of the
information identified and mistakes will be
made with regard to selecting materials,
technologies, suppliers and contractors.
Straw-bales, for example,
are generally seen as being a sustainable building material,
but would a naïve client have sufficient expertise to
realise when ‘false’ information about the use of this
material is presented?
Here we have an example of a deliberate attempt to deceive.
This may seem quite shocking initially but the author of this site will,
if contacted, be quite open that this was the intention,
and also inform you that the reason for this was that
he wanted to see how ‘unquestioning’ individuals would
be of material that appears on the internet.
Building a lighthouse from straw-bales? How many people
would immediately decide that such a proposal is a ridiculous one?
How long did it take you to decide that this could not possibly be true?
When seeking to determine the scope of the project unfolding in front of them,
the client will be faced with a range of questions.
The answers to these will ultimately lead the
client to certain potential contractors,
from which the client will have to select the “best”.
The less clear the answers to the questions are,
the greater the probability that the client will
contact the “wrong” contractors.
This proposition does have a basis in the assumption
that there are many contractors to choose from.
However, in a country such as Scotland with large
rural areas having relatively low population densities,
the situation may actually be one where there is,
from the perspective of integrating
sustainable technologies into the project,
a shortfall in the number of contractors available.
Depending upon the extent and nature of
sustainable technologies and materials that the
client would like to include in the project,
there may in fact be no “best” contractors readily available.
A typical question encountered in rural locations
would be ‘does the project involve a change of use?’
The conversion of disused and surplus farm buildings,
such as steadings,
has been quite a popular route to securing a
more ‘rural’ lifestyle for a number of years.
However, is it also a more ‘sustainable’ lifestyle?
These buildings were never intended for human habitation;
cows may well enjoy a centrally heated steading but how many farmers
would be of the opinion that the investment would be a good one?
A change of use from sheltering animals to providing a
habitat for humans raises a number of other questions,
some of which may already have been addressed if
the building comes with detailed planning consent.
However, a proportion of this kind of building are
marketed with outline consent only,
and some are marketed with no consent at all; they are
simply “believed” to be suitable for conversion.
With many rural buildings there may be an attendant
requirement to conserve aspects of the structure,
and from a cultural perspective this is perfectly reasonable.
However, it can require the client to find contractors
having specialist skills and further reduce the resource pool that the client has to work from.
If nothing else this can impact on cost;
competitive tendering only works if there is a level of competition.
In the absence of competition,
the client becomes vulnerable once more in that the
contractor becomes increasingly able to determine the
conditions of engagement.
There are SME contractors in NE Scotland who will
undertake quite large projects solely on the basis
of an estimated price, no formal contract,
and a vague indication of how long it will
take them to complete the project.
Asking them to also incorporate ‘novel’ technologies
into the project is unlikely to elicit an enthusiastic response.
A final point to clarify in this introduction
is that this study is not concerned with the issue of fuel poverty.
It is acknowledged that this issue represents
an increasing problem and is particularly problematic in rural areas,
given that there may only be a single energy
source available (usually oil),
but for this particular client fuel poverty
was not a motivating issue.
There was a desire to reduce energy consumption
and also an initial desire to move away from oil
as the primary heating fuel.
However, the difficulty of comparing fuels and
energy sources on the basis of CO2 emissions caused
the client to decide that a key objective would be
simply to reduce the amount of heating oil used,
on the basis that this would result in a
reduced level of CO2 production.