Will government spending cuts help or hinder sustainable design?

Trish Andrews

architecture lecturer, Centre for Alternative Technology

Many construction industry views are polarised on the impact of spending cuts on the sustainability agenda. Yet a UK Green Building Council survey showed the “normal” building industry had suffered but the sustainable building sector had grown. Members were asked if the financial crisis had impacted on their tackling sustainability – 56% said sustainability was a bigger focus, and 18% said it had had the opposite effect.

All new buildings need to be of the best environmental standards. Sustainable building must be the core of our low-carbon economic recovery, spring-boarding growth and providing new green collar jobs, workers and industries.

As CAT states in the recent Zerocarbonbritain-2030 report, refurbishment is necessary to cut carbon emissions, reduce reliance on fossil fuels and reduce energy consumption. If we do not implement the use of sustainable design/sustainable technologies, will we have a built environment that will not perform when the post peak oil crisis hits? Will there be a working built environment for future users and societies to utilise? Not if we don’t adapt now.

Brian Mark

technical director, Mott MacDonald Fulcrum

I believe change will only be achieved if a sustainable solution has a positive business case. If it makes a profit it will proliferate, causing necessary structural change quickly. Cuts mean all players will be forced to think more profitably rather than relying on subsidy, potentially increasing the likelihood that we will achieve significant, sustainable change faster.

On the other hand, there are disadvantages to cuts. Government incentivisation to encourage renewable energy use has moved from capital grants to payment for renewable energy generated with finance raised by OFGEM allowing energy supply tariffs to rise. The Renewables Advisory Board, of which I am a member, promotes encouraging renewables without increasing the general tax burden while acknowledging this will increase fuel poverty at a time when the poor are under pressure. Fuel poverty alleviation measures such as the Warm Front grants, protect the poor from these negative effects and must survive. Energy prices will continue to rise as we decarbonise, and the need to protect the poor will only increase.

Alex Solk

associate, Sheppard Robson

Over recent years the sustainable agenda has become embodied in the procurement of government buildings with ambitious targets to reduce carbon emissions. Where the government does spend its reduced budget I do not anticipate them sacrificing these targets.

We are seeing government estates such as NHS Trusts pressing ahead with upgrade programmes to reduce operation costs. Sustainable design makes financial sense in a recession.

On major capital projects, the story can be similarly positive. Initial logic says that while those going ahead are reduced in scale, the ability to reduce emissions is diminished. But there is an opportunity for government to reconsider its estate as part of spending cuts with more efficient buildings. But public perception of civil servants moving into new offices may be too big an obstacle and the sustainable, efficient, common sense thing to do may be sidelined.

The Zero Carbon Hub has set an ambitious plan for all new homes to be zero carbon from 2016. This momentum must continue to ensure a low carbon built environment is achieved.