Present: Chairman - Cllr R R Dray (RD), D S Efde (DE), Cllr A H Eves (AE), Cllr Mrs J Lumley (JL), Cllr D J Sperring (DS), Cllr C M Stanley (CS), Cllr M J Steptoe (MS), Matt Harwood-White (MHW), Andrew Rowson (AR) and George Farley (GF).
Apologies: Duncan Blackie, Dawn Tribe, Nikki Hopkins
Notes: Julie Jakes (from recording)
Duration: 10:00 to 10:49
Note 63/21
Notes of meeting held on 15 June 2021 and matters arising
The Chairman opened the meeting and reminded Members that the content of the meeting was private and confidential in nature. The notes of the meeting would, however, be made public. A warm welcome was extended to George Farley (GB Partnerships) and Andrew Rowson (East of England Local Government Association).
The Notes of the previous meeting were agreed as an accurate record.
There were no matters arising.
Note 64/21
Summary of Environmental Proposals at the Freight House
With the aid of a slide presentation, MHW reminded the Panel about the Output Specification, which had been approved by Council. The document did not provide solutions, but did state how we wanted the building to work, i.e. an energy efficient, low maintenance building with a BREEAM rating of ‘Very Good’
As there were new Members on the Panel, GF provided some background information on progress to date. It was noted that BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology) was an independent assessment methodology for projects and buildings, with reports being received by the Council.
Expertise was available to the partnership to ensure that the sustainability work was on target and to advise accordingly. GF advised that over time the assessment criteria changes and flexes to reflect emerging technologies and emerging priorities, however the rating was recognised throughout the UK..
GF advised that, essentially, there were two different buildings at the Freight House; a refurbishment building and a new building. A decision had already been taken to target the higher BREEAM level of ‘Excellent’ for the new building and the ambition is to achieve a ‘Very Good’ rating in the refurbished building. It was noted that improving the building’s environmental performance would also lead to lower operational costs.
The Panel noted that the ambition for the new build had certain aspects in common with the refurbished building, i.e. reducing operational costs, enhancing the building’s economic value at the same time as mitigating any environmental impact on the area. A better environment would also ultimately enhance the marketability of the community spaces.
The targets that have been set are monitored as the project progresses. The independent assessor had been on board for about six months and had been monitoring progress and ensuring that any opportunities were not missed.
GF reported that the Conservation Officer that provided services to the Council’s planning department was looking at the proposals and was very keen to maintain the appearance and aesthetics of the existing building. There would be certain planning restrictions on what could be done and there were sometimes tensions between planning and environmental credentials, such as the photovoltaic panels (solar panels). It was noted that the existing building was a non-designated heritage asset. Therefore, photovoltaics could (subject to planning) be put on the new building as long as the two buildings blend together appropriately. External glazing performance would also be improved. The Panel also noted that the existing building does have challenges with acoustic transmission and absorbency and it was important that this performance was improved. This has been discussed in detail at Previous Panel meetings.
The basic principle in sustainability was to retain and only if it were not viable to retain, would you look to replace and possibly reuse any of the existing structure. In this case, the proposal is to retain and reuse the existing building.
The new building would be designed to use robust, locally sourced materials and have a low carbon footprint over its lifetime. Material selection would be specified to have low Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) to benefit the internal air quality of the building and the glazing would be optimised to bring daylight into the building. Intricate modelling was taking place to see how the building would operate with regard to solar glare, etc.
GF reported that some other areas that were still being looked at, such as sustainable travel, including encouraging cycling and providing showers, improving how the building responds to changes in temperature and removal of any gas-fired appliances. PV panels would reduce overall electrical consumption, together with air source heat pumps. ASHP for heating/cooling occupied spaces and LED lighting could also be installed.
A Building energy Management System (BeMS) would also be introduced to enable easier management of the building and waste-water management/rainwater harvesting would be considered as the design progressed.
GF advised that some of the elements mentioned above would be developed in the stage 4 design, whilst the planning application was with the planning department and the Mechanical and Electrical Engineers would work with the Structural Engineers.
The Chair thanked GF for an interesting presentation on an important subject.
Note 65/21
Member Issues and Questions
In response to a question from RD regarding the flexibility of the refurbishment and new build with regard to enhancement of environmental sustainability proposals, GF advised that although it was difficult to look too far ahead, certain issues could be anticipated, such as potential for the reduced use of gas and, therefore electric solutions were being contemplated.. All the different components would come with the standard warranties and guarantees. The BREEAM system also took into account the life cycle assessment of the building. The proposed systems are being installed with all of the best industry knowledge that we have now about what is coming in the future.
In response to a query from CS, GF confirmed that the various sensors being installed in the new building, would also be installed in the refurbished building.
MS said it was important to ensure that there was an element of inbuilt redundancy because new things would need to come into operation.
In response to a further question from CS regarding adequate ventilation, GF advised that the overall strategy was to use passive ventilation. CS queried the size of the BeMS system proposed and how it would be stored. In particular he queried whether the storage area would require ventilation and whether this had all been taken into account in the planning and space utilisation. GF reported that this had not been flagged as an issue and he was not sure whether this system would be located in the same room as the Council’s other electrical systems. He agreed to take this issue away and report back at the next meeting. (GF)
In response to questions from DS and MS regarding the other sites within the programme, MHW advised that there was a difference in the level of detail with the retained sites and the non-retained sites. He agreed to include a summary on all sites at a future meeting. (MHW)
GF advised that it had previously been agreed that as we approached the period of time when the designs were getting close to final, they would be brought back to this Panel ahead of any formal planning submission for final feedback. He reminded the Panel that this is what had happened with the 3-15 South Street site. The other sites are all being developed at various stages in the background. Currently having discussions with planning, conservation and urban design officers around all of the sites. Need to ensure that these discussions have been concluded before bringing specific sites back to the Panel.
In response to a question from DE, the Chair advised that the issue of appointing a Vice-Chair was still to be considered by the Partnership Board and was on the Agenda for the next meeting.
MS queried whether all of the flooding issues at the 57 South Street site had been resolved with the planners and when a planning application would be brought forward. MHW advised that various planning matters were being addressed by GB. GB hoped to be able to bring an update to the Panel in 4/6 weeks time.
MS asked whether 57 South Street could be a stand-alone site and MHW responded that there was a programme approach, with cross funding of the whole programme, all sites would go forward to a go or no go decision.
Note 66/21
Items for next Partnership Board
- Building Energy Management System and Adequate Space for Ventilation (GF)
- Progress update on all other sites (MHW/GF)
Note 67/21
Any Other Business
The Chair advised that he was unable to attend the next planned meeting on 10 August 2021. Therefore, an alternative date would be identified and further contact would be made with the Panel in due course.