Target Zero Supermarket Guidance Doc v2

GUIDANCE ON THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF SUSTAINABLE, LOW CARBON SUPERMARKET BUILDINGS
REPORT V2.0 JUNE 2011

WWW.TARGETZERO.INFO
The European operations of Tata Steel comprise Tata Steel is one of the world’s top ten steel
Europe’s second largest steel producer. producers. The combined group has an aggregate
With main steelmaking operations in the UK and the crude steel capacity of more than 28 million tonnes
Netherlands, they supply steel and related services and approximately 80,000 employees across
to the construction, automotive, packaging, material four continents.
handling and other demanding markets worldwide.
www.tatasteeleurope.com
The British Constructional Steelwork Association The principal objectives of the association are to
Limited (BCSA) is the national organisation for the promote the use of structural steelwork, to assist
steel construction industry. Member companies specifiers and clients, to ensure that the capabilities
undertake the design, fabrication and erection of and activities of the industry are widely understood
steelwork for all forms of construction in buildings and to provide members with professional services in
and civil engineering. Associate Members are those technical, commercial, contractual, quality assurance
principal companies involved in the direct supply to and health & safety matters.
all or some Members of components, materials
www.steelconstruction.org
or products.
AECOM, the global provider of professional technical investigating how operational energy use can be
and management support services to a broad range reduced through good design and specification of
of markets; including transportation, facilities, low and zero carbon technologies. It is also applying
environmental and energy, is project managing BREEAM to each of the solutions and advising how
the Target Zero initiative. ‘Very Good’, ‘Excellent’, and ‘Outstanding’ BREEAM
ratings can be achieved at the lowest cost.
It is leading on the structural, operational energy
and BREEAM elements of the project. AECOM is www.aecom.com
Cyril Sweett is an international construction In Target Zero, Cyril Sweett is working closely with
and property consultancy offering expertise in AECOM to provide fully costed solutions for all aspects
quantity surveying, project management and of the project, and analysis of the optimum routes to
management consultancy. BREEAM compliance.
Our wide knowledge of the costs and benefits of www.cyrilsweett.com
sustainable design and construction, combined with
expertise in strategic and practical delivery enables
us to develop commercial robust solutions.
SCI (The Steel Construction Institute) is the leading, The SCI is supporting AECOM with the operational
independent provider of technical expertise and energy and BREEAM work packages and is
disseminator of best practice to the steel construction responsible for developing design guidance
sector. We work in partnership with clients, members based on the research.
and industry peers to help build businesses
www.steel-sci.org
and provide competitive advantage through the
commercial application of our knowledge. We are
committed to offering and promoting sustainable
and environmentally responsible solutions.
Part of the Wal-Mart family since 1999, ASDA occupies With over 350 stores across the UK and over 160,000
a leading position in UK grocery retailing and the employees, ASDA is a vital part of many communities
UK clothing market with its George clothing brand. in the UK. The ASDA reputation for friendly service
ASDA is also making increasing inroads into the is as inextricably linked to the ASDA brand as their
UK’s General Merchandise sector. reputation for quality and service.
Disclaimer
Care has been taken to ensure that the contents of this publication are accurate, but the BCSA
TT-COC-002633
and Tata Steel Europe Ltd and its subsidiaries do not accept responsibility or liability for errors
or information that is found to be misleading.
03
TARGETZERO GUIDANCE ON THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF SUSTAINABLE, LOW CARBON SUPERMARKET BUILDINGS TARGETZERO.INFO
CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION 04
2.0 BACKGROUND 05
3.0 SUSTAINABLE SUPERMARKET BUILDINGS 06
4.0 TARGET ZERO METHODOLOGY 07
5.0 THE STOCTON-ON-TEES ASDA FOOD STORE 08

5.1 BASE CASE SUPERMARKET BUILDING 09
6.0 KEY FINDINGS 10
7.0 ROUTES TO LOW AND ZERO OPERATIONAL CARBON 12

7.1 WHAT IS ZERO CARBON? 12
7.2 BUILDING REGULATIONS PART L 13
7.3 ENERGY EFFICIENCY 15
7.4 LIGHTING AND SHELVING/RACKING 23
7.5 ROOFLIGHTS 24
7.6 ON-SITE LZC TECHNOLOGIES 27
7.7 WIND TURBINES 29
7.8 DIRECTLY CONNECTED HEAT 30
7.9 ALLOWABLE SOLUTIONS 32
7.10 THE IMPACT OF PART L 2010 33
7.11 OPERATIONAL CARBON GUIDANCE 35
7.12 IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE 40
8.0 ROUTES TO BREEAM ‘OUTSTANDING’ 41

8.1 BREEAM RESULTS AND GUIDANCE 43
9.0 STRUCTURAL DESIGN 57

9.1 IMPACT OF STRUCTURE ON OPERATIONAL CARBON EMISSIONS 59
9.2 FOUNDATION DESIGN 62
10.0 EMBODIED CARBON 63

10.1 EMBODIED CARBON GUIDANCE 67
APPENDICES 68
A NATIONAL CALCULATION METHODOLOGY (NCM) 68
B METHODOLOGY USED TO ASSESS LOW AND ZERO OPERATIONAL 69
CARBON SOLUTIONS
C ENERGY EFFICIENCY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 70
D LOW AND ZERO CARBON (LZC) TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 72
E ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND LZC TECHNOLOGY COSTING 74
F CLEAR LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT MODEL 76
ENERGY EFFICIENCY PACKAGES 77

A ENERGY EFFICIENCY PACKAGE A 77
B ENERGY EFFICIENCY PACKAGE B 78
C ENERGY EFFICIENCY PACKAGE C 79
BREEAM MEASURES 80
REFERENCES 81
04
1.0 INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
Target Zero is a programme of work, funded by Tata Steel and the British
Constructional Steelwork Association (BCSA)¹, to provide guidance on the
design and construction of sustainable, low and zero carbon buildings in
the UK. Five non-domestic building types have been analysed: a school,
a distribution warehouse, a supermarket, a medium to high rise office
and a mixed-use building.
Using recently constructed, typical buildings as benchmarks,

Target Zero has investigated three specific, priority areas of
sustainable construction:
Operational carbon - how operational energy use and associated
carbon emissions can be reduced by incorporating appropriate and
cost-effective energy efficiency measures and low and zero carbon
(LZC) technologies
BREEAM² assessments - how ‘Very Good’, ‘Excellent’ and
‘Outstanding’ BREEAM (2008) ratings can be achieved at
lowest cost
Embodied carbon - quantification of the embodied carbon of
buildings particularly focussing on different structural forms.
The work has been undertaken by a consortium of leading organisations

in the field of sustainable construction including AECOM and Cyril Sweett
with steel construction expertise provided by Tata Steel RD&T and the
Steel Construction Institute (SCI).
This document presents guidance for the third of the five building types
covered by Target Zero, the supermarket. The information will be useful
to construction clients and their professional advisers in designing and
constructing more sustainable buildings. More results, information and
guidance from Target Zero are available at www.targetzero.info
The images in this guide showcase the Asda food store,

Stockton-on-Tees, a steel-framed supermarket.
1 The BCSA is the representative organisation for steelwork contractors in the UK and Ireland.
2 BREEAM (BRE Environmental Assessment Method) is the leading and most widely used environmental
assessment method for buildings. It has become the de facto measure of the environmental performance
of UK buildings [1].
05
2.0 BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The UK Government has set an ambitious and legally binding target

[2] to reduce national greenhouse gas emissions¹ by at least 80% by
2050 with an intermediate target of a 34% reduction by 2020 (against
a 1990 baseline). The operation of buildings currently accounts for
around half of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions and therefore
significant improvement in new and existing building performance
is required if these targets are to be met.
The Government has announced its aspiration for new

non-domestic buildings to be zero carbon in operation by 2019
and is currently consulting on the definition of ‘zero carbon’ for
non-domestic buildings.
Although the definition is still to be resolved, the direction of travel is

clear and, via Part L of the Building Regulations, a roadmap of likely
targets is in place to provide guidance to the construction industry
to enable it to develop solutions to meet future low and zero carbon
targets. See Section 7.2.
It is against this background that the UK steel construction sector

is supporting Government and the construction industry by funding
research and providing guidance in this important and challenging
area through the Target Zero programme.
ASDA FOOD STORE, STOCKTON-ON-TEES
1 These include carbon dioxide and emissions of other targeted greenhouse gases. In the context of embodied
impacts, GHG emissions are correctly expressed in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). In the context
of operational impacts, emissions are generally expressed in terms of carbon dioxide. In this report, the terms
operational carbon and operational carbon dioxide emissions have the same meaning.
06
3.0 SUSTAINABLE SUPERMARKET BUILDINGS
SUSTAINABLE SUPERMARKET BUILDINGS
In the competitive world of food retailing, sustainability is high on To be sustainable, supermarket chains must remain profitable.
the agenda and supermarket chains face many emerging issues In the context of their stores therefore, implementing sustainability
including carbon and climate change, car dependency, consumer measures should not detract from their customers’ shopping
labelling, fair trade and localism. These issues are recognised by experience. For example poor lighting, poor air quality and
responsible retailers as elements of a complex jigsaw that require overheating are not acceptable in new supermarket stores.
a comprehensive sustainable development strategy.
While the economic downturn has heavily impacted most
Sustainable supermarket buildings must form part of any such development in the UK, the performance of the major retailers
strategy and leading UK supermarket chains are designing and continues to be strong. Supermarket chains procure large
building new stores which address many aspects of sustainable out-of-town stores, large distribution centres and are increasingly
construction including: involved in the redevelopment of our town and city centres.
improved operational energy efficiency There are also signs of retailers moving into housing and
use of sustainable construction materials mixed-use (living and leisure) developments. Major retailers
therefore have an important role in delivering sustainable and
introduction of new technologies such as LZC technologies low carbon buildings and communities.
and efficient refrigeration systems
BREEAM assessment of new supermarket stores
metering of energy and water consumption
rainwater harvesting and sustainable urban drainage.
07
4.0 TARGET ZERO METHODOLOGY
TARGET ZERO METHODOLOGY
The Target Zero methodology is based on recently constructed It is important to differentiate between operational carbon
buildings that are typical of current UK practice. For each building compliance and operational carbon design modelling. Part L
type considered, a ‘base case’ building is defined (see Sections 5 compliance is based on the National Calculation Methodology
and 5.1) that just meets the 2006 Part L requirements for operational (NCM) which includes certain assumptions that can give rise
carbon emissions and this base case is used as a benchmark for to discrepancies between the predicted and actual operational
the assessment. It is important to note that the base case building carbon emissions. Actual operational carbon emissions may
differs from the actual building and that all operational carbon be more accurately assessed and reduced using good thermal
reductions are reported relative to the performance of the base design software that is not constrained by the NCM. Appendix A
case building not that of the actual building. summarises some of the limitations of the NCM with respect to
supermarket buildings.
This approach was chosen in preference to fundamentally
The aim of Target Zero is to assess the most cost-effective ways
redesigning buildings from first principles for the following reasons:
of meeting future Building Regulation Part L requirements, and
fundamental redesign would introduce significant uncertainties
therefore the NCM has been used as the basis of the operational
concerning accurate construction costing into the analyses
carbon assessments assisted, where appropriate, by further
construction clients are, in general, reluctant to adopt untried design modelling.
and untested solutions that deviate from current practice
Alternative structural designs for each building were also
solutions that meet reduced operational carbon emissions
developed to:
targets are required now and in the near future, i.e. 2013;
investigate the influence of structural form on operational
the Target Zero findings suggest that these likely targets
energy performance
are relatively easily and cost effectively achievable using
current, typical construction practice and proven low and provide the material quantities for the embodied
zero carbon technologies. carbon assessment
The base case building is then modelled using the following tools, compare capital construction costs.
to assess the impacts and costs of introducing a range of specific
sustainability measures:
Operational carbon – Integrated Environmental Solutions (IES)
Part L compliant software (version 5.9)
BREEAM 2008
Embodied carbon – CLEAR Life Cycle Assessment model
developed by Tata Steel RD&T.
The complexities of sustainable construction assessment inevitably

mean that there is overlap between these measures. Where relevant,
impacts have been assessed consistently under Target Zero.
For example the operational carbon assessment is consistent
with this aspect of BREEAM. Guidance is provided where a low and
zero carbon target and a BREEAM rating are jointly or individually
pursued on a project.
The results of the modelling and associated costing¹ are then
used to develop the most cost-effective ways of achieving low and
zero operational carbon buildings and buildings with ‘Very Good’,
‘Excellent’ and ‘Outstanding’ BREEAM ratings. See Appendix E.
Sustainable construction is a rapidly evolving science. In the UK,
designers face a plethora of new and changing initiatives that
impact on their decision-making. These include Part L revisions,
the definition of ‘zero carbon’, LZC technology development,
BREEAM updates, feed-in tariffs, renewable heat incentive, etc.
The Target Zero methodology was developed in 2009 and, as such,
is based on the state-of-the-art and on regulations in place at that
time. Where appropriate and practical, the methodology has been
adapted over the programme of research for example this guide
includes the impacts of the feed-in tariffs introduced in April 2010.
1 Project costing of the base case supermarket building was based on UK mean values current at 4Q 2009.
08
5.0 THE STOCKTON-ON-TEES ASDA FOOD STORE
THE STOCKTON-ON-TEES ASDA FOOD STORE
The building on which the supermarket research was based, is the The building is oriented with the glazed front façade and store
Asda food store in Stockton-on-Tees, Cleveland. This supermarket, entrance shown facing north west.
built adjacent to the site of a former Asda store, was completed in
May 2008. The main retail space is heated and cooled using an air system
whilst the non-retail space is serviced using a variety of different
The building has a total floor area of 9,393m² arranged over two systems. For example the warehouse is served by radiant heaters
levels. The retail floor area, which includes a 1,910m² mezzanine and warm air blowers; the WCs and food preparation areas have
level, is 5,731m². The remaining (back-of-house) accommodation extract systems with limited supply and no heat recovery, heating is
includes offices, warehousing, cold storage, a bakery and a provided to these spaces via radiators. Dining areas, the pharmacy
staff cafeteria. and the CCTV rooms have heating and cooling provided by local heat
pumps and the first aid room has a local mechanical ventilation
The supermarket has a steel frame supported on CFA concrete system. Hot water is provided to the whole via a gas-fired system.
piles and a suspended concrete ground floor slab. The roof is a
monopitch, aluminium standing seam system and the external The store is open for 24 hours a day from Monday to Saturday.
walls are clad with steel-faced composite panels. Windows and Sunday opening hours are 10am to 4pm.
the main entrance elevation to the store comprise aluminium
curtain walling with argon-filled double glazing units.
The retail area is based on a 12m x 12m structural grid.

Back-of-house, the grid reduces to a 6m x 12m grid increasing to
a 16m x 16m grid in the warehouse area, at the rear of the building.
The upper floor (back-of-house) comprises structural metal decking

supporting in-situ concrete. The retail mezzanine floor comprises
plywood boarding on cold-rolled steel joists.

09
5.1 BASE CASE SUPERMARKET BUILDING
5.1 BASE CASE SUPERMARKET BUILDING
For the purposes of the Target Zero supermarket study, a base case
building was defined based on the Asda food store described in
Section 5, i.e. based on the same dimensions, specification, etc.
as the real building. Changes were then made to the fabric and
services of the actual building to provide a base case supermarket
that is no better than the minimum requirements under Part L (2006).
These changes included:
the levels of thermal insulation were reduced until these were
no better than required by Criterion 2 of Part L (2006)
HVAC system efficiencies were altered to industry standards
the air leakage value was increased to 10m³/hr per m² @50Pa.
The base case building model was then fine-tuned to pass Part L2A
(2006) to within 1% by altering the energy efficiency of the lighting
system to 3.90W/m² per 100lux.
More detail on the specification of the base case supermarket is given

in Appendix B.

10
6.0 KEY FINDINGS
KEY FINDINGS
This section provides key findings from the Target Zero supermarket Thirty three on-site solutions (compatible combinations of energy
study and directs readers to the relevant sections of the report. efficiency and LZC technologies) were identified. Two of these are
predicted to achieve true zero carbon however they incur a minimum
The 2010 Part L compliance target of reducing operational carbon capital cost increase of 26.5%. Furthermore they both include a
emissions by 25% (relative to the 2006 requirements) is achievable large 330kW wind turbine and biogas-fired CCHP. As such, they are
by using a package of compatible, cost-effective energy efficiency unlikely to be viable on most supermarket sites. See Section 7.6
measures alone, i.e. without the need for LZC technologies. These and 7.7.
measures are predicted to yield a 35% reduction in regulated carbon
emissions relative to the base case supermarket, save £56,345 in Based on the assessment of this supermarket building, the most
capital cost and yield a 25-year net present value¹ (NPV) saving of cost-effective routes to likely future low and zero operational carbon
-£973,545 relative to the base case building. See Section 7.3. targets are as shown in Figure 1. Likely future targets are discussed
in Sections 7.1 and 7.2.
Two, more advanced, packages of energy efficiency measures were
selected that are predicted to reduce regulated carbon emissions by BREEAM [1] is the leading and most widely used environmental
51% and 58%. Both packages are predicted to be cost-effective over assessment method for buildings in the UK. The estimated capital
a 25-year period, i.e. yield a negative NPV (relative to the base case cost uplift of the base case supermarket was (see Section 8.1):
building) however the more advanced package is less attractive both 0.24% to achieve BREEAM ‘Very Good’
in terms of capital and NPV cost. See Section 7.3. 1.76% to achieve BREEAM ‘Excellent’
Lighting was found to be the most significant energy demand in the 10.1% to achieve BREEAM ‘Outstanding’.
supermarket building studied, accounting for around a half of the
The base case building capital construction cost was estimated by
total operational carbon emissions. Consequently efficient lighting
independent cost consultants to be £15.8m (£1,682/m²) – 4Q 2009.
systems coupled with optimum rooflight design were found to be
See Section 9.
key in delivering operational carbon reductions. The complexity of
the interaction between building orientation, rooflight design, The impact of the structure on the operational carbon emissions
lighting systems and daylight dimming lighting controls in of the base case supermarket was found to be small; the Building
supermarket buildings requires detailed dynamic thermal Emission Rate (BER)³ varying by less than 1% between a steel
modelling in conjunction with good lighting design to develop framed (base case) and a glulam structure (Option 1). A steel
an optimum lighting solution. See Sections 7.4 and 7.5. frame with northlights (Option 2), was predicted have a 3.8%
higher BER than the base case supermarket. See Section 9.1.
The proportion of operational carbon emissions from heating
and cooling of the supermarket building studied are very similar. Relative to the steel portal frame base case building, a glulam
Energy efficiency measures which impact this heating/cooling structure supermarket had a 2.4% higher embodied carbon impact
balance are difficult to optimise. Measures to reduce heat loss or and a steel portal frame with northlights had a 5% higher impact.
increase solar gains, reduce emissions from space heating but See Sections 9.2 and 10.
increase those from cooling. Similarly measures that increase heat
loss or reduce solar gains, increase emissions from space heating
and reduce those from cooling. See Section 7.3.
Several of the assumptions in the National Calculation Methodology

(NCM) were found to cause difficulties in developing optimal low
and zero operational carbon solutions for the supermarket building.
These are identified in subsequent sections of this report and
summarised in Appendix A.
The research found no single, on-site LZC technology that is

predicted to achieve true zero carbon, i.e. a regulated carbon
emissions reduction of 127%². The greatest on-site reduction was
94% of regulated emissions which was achieved using biogas-fired
CCHP combined with a package of advanced energy efficiency
measures. This solution is expensive however incurring a 17% capital
cost increase and is not expected to save money over a 25-year
period. See Section 7.6 and 7.7.
1 The NPVs of energy efficiency measures and LZC technologies combine the capital, maintenance and operational
costs of measures and the net operational energy savings (relative to the base case) that they yield over a 25-year
period – see Appendix E. A negative NPV represents a saving over the 25-year period, relative to the
base case building.
2 127% is the reduction required to achieve true zero carbon for the case study supermarket building since
unregulated small power demands contribute 21% of the total operational carbon emissions –
see Figure 5. Therefore to achieve true zero carbon a reduction of in regulated emissions of 127% is required.
3 The Building Emission Rate (BER) is defined by the National Calculation Methodology (NCM) as the amount of carbon
dioxide emitted per square metre of floor area per year as the result of the provision of heating, cooling, hot water,
ventilation and internal fixed lighting.
FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1 SUMMARY OF THE MOST COST-EFFECTIVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND LZC OPERATIONAL CARBON ROUTES FOR THE BASE CASE SUPERMARKET
BUILDING (FOR EXPLANATION OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY, CARBON COMPLIANCE AND ALLOWABLE SOLUTIONS, SEE SECTION 7.1)
ADDITIONAL 25-YEAR NET

% IMPROVEMENT (REDUCTION) IN CO2 EMISSIONS1 ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES LZC TECHNOLOGIES CAPITAL COST³ PRESENT VALUE³
6.0 KEY FINDINGS
(£) (£)
Package B (see below) 330kW wind turbine 4,179,318 -517,963
Biogas-fired CCHP [26.5%]
127% (TRUE ZERO CARBON)
3,500m² array of
photovoltaics
Package B (see below) Reverse cycle air source 2,336,493 -2,367,946
heat pump [14.7%]
330kW wind turbine
Refrigeration heat
recovery
100% BER = 0 3,500m² array of
photovoltaics
Package A Reverse cycle air source 652,141 -2,496,463
ALLOWABLE Composite internal floor4 heat pump [4.1%]
SOLUTIONS High efficiency lamps and luminaires5 330kW wind turbine
Specific fan powers reduced by 20%
Motion sensing controls throughout
70% Improved chiller efficiency SEER = 6
Improved boiler efficiency to 95%
TARGETZERO GUIDANCE ON THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF SUSTAINABLE, LOW CARBON SUPERMARKET BUILDINGS
CARBON Building oriented so that glazed façade faces South

COMPLIANCE2 Package B - 141,821 -1,053,332
(on-site and connected heat)
Very high efficiency lamps and luminaires5 [0.90%]
44% Specific fan powers reduced by 30%
Rooflights 10% with daylight dimming
Improved chiller efficiency SEER = 7
Ventilation heat recovery (60% efficient)
25% Improved air tightness 7m³ per hr m² @50Pa
High efficiency lighting5 - 42,900 -758,082
2
ENERGY EFFICIENCY [0.27%]
0% (PART L 2006)
Base case building – see Section 5.1
1 The trajectory to zero carbon for non-domestic buildings is subject to further consultation
TARGETZERO.INFO
Figure is not to scale

2 The Energy Efficiency and Carbon Compliance standards for non-domestic buildings are subject
to further consultation
3 Relative to the base case building
4 Replacing the lightweight mezzanine retail floor with composite metal decking and
in-situ concrete
11
5 see Table C1 in Appendix C

12
7.0 ROUTES TO LOW AND ZERO OPERATIONAL CARBON
FIGURE 2
ROUTES TO LOW AND ZERO OPERATIONAL CARBON THE GOVERNMENT’S HIERARCHY FOR MEETING A ZERO CARBON
BUILDINGS STANDARD
The objective of this aspect of the work was to develop
cost-effective, low and zero operational carbon solutions
that meet the Government’s aspirations for ‘zero carbon’ ZERO CARBON
non-domestic buildings and the projected compliance targets
on the roadmap to ‘zero carbon’, i.e. the 2010 and the proposed
2013 Part L compliance targets. The approach taken to the
assessment of low and zero operational carbon solutions is Allowable
described in Appendix B. Solutions
CARBON COMPLIANCE
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Operational carbon is the term used to describe the emissions Carbon
of carbon dioxide during the in-use phase of a building. Compliance
Emissions arise from energy consuming activities including heating,
cooling, ventilation and lighting of the building, so called ‘regulated’
emissions under the Building Regulations, and other, currently Energy Efficiency
‘unregulated’ emissions, including appliance use and small power
plug loads such as IT. The latter are not currently regulated because
building designers generally have no control over their specification
and use and they are also likely to be changed every few years.
7.1 WHAT IS ZERO CARBON?
The Government has announced its aspiration for new non-domestic

buildings to be zero carbon by 2019 and is consulting on the
definition of ‘zero carbon’ for non-domestic buildings.
The Government supports a hierarchical approach to meeting a zero

carbon standard for buildings, as shown in Figure 2. The approach
prioritises, in turn:
Energy Efficiency measures - to ensure that buildings are
constructed to very high standards of fabric energy efficiency
and use efficient heating, cooling, ventilation and lighting
systems. The current proposal [3], following the precedent set
for domestic buildings¹, is to set a standard for energy efficiency
based on the delivered energy required to provide space heating
and cooling (kWh/m² per yr). The level for this standard has
currently not been set for non-domestic buildings
Carbon Compliance on or near site. This is the minimum level of
carbon abatement required using energy efficiency measures
plus on-site LZC measures or directly connected heat or coolth.
Possible carbon compliance targets for non-domestic buildings
have been modelled as part of the Government’s consultation
[3] using on-site and offsite (technology) rich scenarios and an
‘aggregate’ approach under which different carbon compliance
targets are set for different building types
Allowable Solutions – a range of additional beneficial measures
to offset ‘residual emissions’, for example exporting low carbon
or renewable heat to neighbouring developments or investing in
LZC community heating.
As a minimum, Government has stated [3] that the zero carbon

‘destination’ for new non-domestic buildings will cover 100% of
regulated emissions, i.e. a Building Emission Rate (BER) of zero.
1 The standards set for dwellings are likely to be fully implemented in 2016 with an interim step introduced in 2013 [4].
13
7.2 BUILDING REGULATIONS PART L
Part L of the Building Regulations is the mechanism by which

operational carbon emissions are regulated in UK buildings and
it has a key role to play in defining suitable intermediate steps on
the trajectory towards zero carbon buildings.
The 2006 revisions to Part L required a 23.5% saving over the 2002
standards for fully naturally ventilated spaces and a 28% saving
for mechanically ventilated and cooled spaces. Revisions to Part L
in 2010 suggest that a further 25% average reduction in regulated
carbon emissions over the 2006 requirements will be required for
non-domestic buildings. In recognition of the variation in energy
demand profiles in different non-domestic building types and hence
the cost effectiveness of achieving carbon emission reductions in
different building types, Part L (2010) adopts an ‘aggregate’ approach
for non-domestic buildings. Under this approach, it is expected that
large supermarkets will be required to contribute slightly greater
operational carbon emission reductions than the ‘average’ 25%;
results of recent modelling [10] suggest a possible target reduction
of 26%¹. However, this target is indicative only as it depends upon
many variables and therefore the actual reduction required will be
building specific. Section 7.10 shows the impact of the 2010 Part L
Regulations on the Target Zero results.
Changes in 2013 and beyond for non-domestic buildings will be the

subject of consultation but it is expected that further thresholds will
be set similar to those for dwellings. These are expected to include
an aggregate 44% improvement over 2006 requirements in 2013.
Figure 3 shows how the requirements of Part L have changed since

2002 and shows possible further reduction requirements on the
trajectory to zero carbon non-domestic buildings. The emission
rates shown relate to the base case supermarket building.
FIGURE 3
INDICATIVE GRAPH OF PAST AND POSSIBLE FUTURE PART L CHANGES
80
70
60
EMISSION RATE (kgCO2/m2yr)
50 25% 44% 70% 100% 127%
40
30
20
10
-10
-20
NOTIONAL TARGET BUILDING 2010 2013 2016 2019
EMISSIONS EMISSIONS EMISSIONS (PREDICTED) (POSSIBLE (ZERO CARBON)
RATE RATE RATE TARGET)
(NER 2002) (TER 2006) (BASE CASE) INCLUDES CURRENTLY
UNREGULATED SMALL POWER
1 Modelling of the 2010 reduction targets as part of the Part L [5] and Zero carbon [3] consultations suggested an 11-13% reduction (over
Part L 2006) for large supermarkets under the ‘aggregate’ approach. Subsequently revised modelling assumptions changed this target.
For supermarkets, the SBEM assumption of general sales retail area has been changed to chilled sales retail area and this has resulted
in the indicative 2010 reduction target for large supermarkets being increased to 26% [10].
14
Within Target Zero, the operational carbon emissions results for the
supermarket analysed are presented with the ‘flat’ 25%, 44%, 70%,
100% (BER =0) and 127% (true zero carbon) reduction requirements
in mind. Setting of these reduction targets predates the
Government’s consultation on policy options for new non-domestic
buildings [3] published in November 2009. The 70% reduction target
was based on the domestic building target. A reduction in regulated
carbon emissions of 127% is required to achieve true zero carbon for
the case study supermarket, i.e. one in which the annual net carbon
emissions from both regulated and unregulated energy consumption
are zero or less.
The 2010 Part L requirements stipulate that a prescriptive

methodology, known as the National Calculation Methodology
(NCM), should be used to assess the operational carbon emissions
from buildings. The aim of Target Zero is to assess the technical
and financial impacts of meeting future Building Regulation Part L
requirements, and therefore the NCM has been used as the basis
of this research – see Appendix A. The assessed total operational
carbon emissions for the base case supermarket building were
699 tonnes CO2 per year using the NCM.
15
7.3 ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Figure 4 shows the modelled reductions in operational carbon energy demand in the supermarket, i.e. lighting (see Figure 5).
dioxide emissions achieved by introducing the individual energy Most of the glazing, shading and building orientation combinations
efficiency measures defined in Appendix C into the base case of measures modelled were found to yield only small reductions in
supermarket building. The results show that the measures with carbon dioxide emissions with some predicted to cause an increase
the greatest predicted impact are those related to the greatest relative to the base case.
FIGURE 4
REDUCTION IN CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS ACHIEVED BY INTRODUCING ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES (RELATIVE TO THE BASE CASE BUILDING)
Composite floor throughout

Brick internal partition
Green roof
Air tightness = 7m3/hr per m2
MCRMA recommended thermal bridging
Wall U value = 0.25W/m2K
Roof U value = 0.20W/m2K
Floor U value = 0.15W/m2K
Glazing U value = 1.60W/m2K
Glazed canopy
Glazed canopy + SE orientation
No canopy
Glazed canopy + daylight dimming
Glazed façade facing SW
Glazed façade facing S
Glazed façade facing SE
Glazing g value = 0.7
Glazing g value = 0.7 + SE orientation
Glazing g value = 0.4 + SE orientation
Boiler efficiency to 95%
Chiller to SEER =6
Chiller to SEER =7
Chiller to SEER =8
SFP improved by 20%
SFP improved by 30%
SFP improved by 40%
Active chilled/heated ceiling
10% rooflights + daylight dimming
10% rooflights + without daylight dimming
15% rooflights + daylight dimming – alternative layout
15% rooflights + daylight dimming – alternative layout
15% northlights – typical layout
Improved efficiency lamps and luminaires
High efficiency lamps and luminaires
Very high efficiency lamps and luminaires
Motion sensing light controls on all lights
Daylight dimming controls on all lights in daylit zones
Heat recovery = 60%
Heat recovery = 0%
High reflectance paint
-5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

PERCENTAGE REDUCTION IN CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS
16
The energy efficiency measures which affect the heating/cooling

balance of the supermarket are difficult to optimise. This is because
the proportion of annual carbon emissions from space heating
and cooling are approximately equal - see Figure 5 which gives
the breakdown of carbon dioxide emissions by energy demand in the
base case building.
As a consequence, energy efficiency measures which tend to reduce

fabric heat losses or increase solar gains will reduce the emissions
from space heating, but also increase those from cooling.
FIGURE 5
BREAKDOWN OF CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS FOR THE BASE CASE SUPERMARKET BUILDING
UNREGULATED
CARBON
EMISSIONS
21%
7%
8%
3%
12%
49% Heating
Cooling
Hot Water
Lighting
Fans & Pumps
Small Power
17
Similarly measures which increase heat loss or reduce solar gain

will increase the emissions from space heating but reduce those
from cooling. This effect is illustrated in Figure 6 which shows the
impact of increasing the air-tightness of the building on annual
space heating and cooling carbon dioxide emissions. The figure
shows that predicted net savings in annual carbon dioxide
emissions (relative to the base case) do not vary substantially
as the air-tightness of the building is improved.
FIGURE 6
EFFECT OF CHANGING AIR TIGHTNESS ON CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS FROM SPACE HEATING AND COOLING
CHANGE IN CO2 EMISSIONS RELATIVE TO BASE CASE (kgCO2 /yr)
28,000
24,000
20,000
16,000
12,000
8,000
4,000 SPACE HEATING
0 SPACE COOLING
-4,000 NET CHANGE

FROM BASE CASE
-8,000
-12,000
-16,000
-20,000
-24,000
-28,000
AIR TIGHTNESS = 7m³/hr per m²

18
Based on the NCM, the predicted unregulated carbon emissions in Figure 7 shows that the energy efficiency measures involving
the base case supermarket represent 21% of total carbon emissions. an improvement to the fabric thermal insulation performance
The principal use of unregulated energy in supermarkets is chilled/ of building elements (green bars in the figure) are generally not
frozen food display units. In practice, the unregulated carbon very cost-effective, i.e. they have a high NPV cost per kgCO2 saved.
emissions in many supermarkets is likely to be much higher than This is largely because the addition of thermal insulation increases
this. Surveys have estimated that chilled food displays can account the cooling load in summer as well as reducing the heating load
for up to 50% of the buildings total carbon emissions. in winter. As with air tightness, the net carbon saving from such
measures is relatively small and their cost effectiveness is
The leakage of refrigerant greenhouse gases from chiller and therefore relatively low.
freezer cabinets in retail buildings is also a potentially significant
contributor to the overall carbon emissions. This issue is not
included in the NCM although it is addressed under BREEAM.
The results shown in Figure 4 take no account of cost and therefore

the energy efficiency measures have been ranked (see Figure 7)
in terms of their cost effectiveness, i.e. 25-year NPV per kg of
CO2 saved per year relative to the base case building performance
- see Appendix E.
FIGURE 7
COMPARISON OF NPV COST EFFECTIVENESS OF MODELLED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES
630
200
175
150
25 YR NPV/kg CO2/yr SAVED (£)
125
100
75
50
25
Photovoltaic Panels¹
-25
-50
Composite floor throughout
High efficiency lamps and luminaires
Improved efficiency lamps and luminaires
Very high efficiency lamps and luminaires
SFP improved by 20%
SFP improved by 30%
SFP improved by 40%
Motion sensing light controls on all lights
Chiller SEER = 6
Chiller SEER = 7
Chiller SEER = 8
Boiler efficiency = 0.95
Glazed facade facing S
Glazed facade facing SE
Heat recovery = 60%
15% Northlights – typical layout
Daylight dimming controls on all lights in daylit zones

Active chilled/heated ceiling
High reflectance paint
MCRMA recommended thermal bridging

Brick internal partition
Glazing value = 0.4 + SE orientation
Air tightness = 1m3/hr per m2s
Floor U value = 0.15W/m2K
Green roof
ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURE INVOLVING

AN IMPROVED U-VALUE
OTHER ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURE
1 This line represents the cost effectiveness of photovoltaic panels excluding the effect of the feed-in tariff.
19
The measures shown in Figure 7 were then grouped into three

energy efficiency packages, each one representing a different
level of additional capital investment; low, medium and high
(see Appendix C).
Packages were carefully checked to ensure that all of the

energy efficiency measures were compatible with each other;
however some measures were ‘stepped-up’ between packages.
For example Package A includes an improved chiller efficiency
(SEER = 6), whereas this measure is ‘stepped up’ in Package B
to an SEER of 7. A similar approach was adopted for the
lamps and luminaires, plant specific fan power, rooflights
and air tightness.
Note: Package B includes the measures in Package A or,

where relevant (e.g. lighting efficiency), supersedes them.
Similarly, Package C contains (or supersedes) the measures
in Packages A and B.
Figure 8 shows the individual measures included within the

three energy efficiency packages applied to the base case
supermarket building.
FIGURE 8
ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURE PACKAGES A, B AND C
PACKAGE A PACKAGE B PACKAGE C

20
PHOTOVOLTAIC PANELS
10
25 YR NPV/KgCO2 SAVED
0
COMPOSITE FLOOR THROUGHOUT
HIGH EFFICIENCY LAMPS

AND LUMINAIRES
VERY HIGH EFFICIENCY
LAMPS AND LUMINAIRES
SFP IMPROVED BY 20%
SFP IMPROVED BY 30%
SFP IMPROVED BY 40%
MOTION SENSING LIGHT CONTROLS ON ALL LIGHTS
10% ROOFLIGHTS +
DAYLIGHT DIMMING
15% ROOFLIGHTS +
DAYLIGHT DIMMING
20% ROOFLIGHTS +
DAYLIGHT DIMMING
CHILLER SEER = 6
CHILLER SEER = 7
CHILLER SEER = 8
BOILER EFFICIENCY = 0.95
GLAZED FACADE FACING S
HEAT RECOVERY = 60%
AIR TIGHTNESS
AIR TIGHTNESS
= 5m3/hr per m2 @50Pa
ACTIVE CHILLED/HEATED CEILING
MCRMA RECOMMENDED THERMAL BRIDGING
WALL U VALUE = 0.25W/m²K

= 7m3/hr per m2 @50Pa
-10
-20
3 levels of rooflight 3 levels of chiller
3 levels of specific fan area combined with efficiency are 2 levels of air
power are mutually daylight dimming are mutually exclusive so tightness are
2 levels of mutually exclusive and SEERs of 7 & 8 are mutually
lighting exclusive and so 30%
so 10% and 15% are moved to packages B exclusive so
efficiency are and 40% improvements moved to packages B & C respectively 5m³/hr per
mutually are moved to packages
-30 & C respectively m² @50Pa is
exclusive so B & C respectively 20% achieves less CO2 moved to
very high reduction than 15% package C
efficiency is
moved to
package B
-40
20
Figure 9 shows Energy Efficiency Packages A, B and C plotted on

axis representing carbon emissions saved per year (relative to the
base case) against 25-year NPV saving (relative to the base case)
and with reference to future likely Part L compliance targets.
FIGURE 9
RESULTS FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY PACKAGES A, B AND C
HIGH EFFICIENCY LIGHTING PACKAGE A PACKAGE B PACKAGE C

1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
25 YEAR NPV (£)
-500,000
-1,000,000
-1,500,000
0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000
kgCO2 SAVED PER YEAR
25% IMPROVEMENT OVER PART L 2006 (2010 REQUIREMENT)

44% IMPROVEMENT OVER PART L 2006 (EXPECTED STANDARD IN 2013)
70% IMPROVEMENT OVER PART L 2006
TRUE ZERO CARBON FOR THE BASE CASE BUILDING
The figure shows that the 25% reduction in regulated carbon dioxide
emissions, which is expected to be required to comply with the 2010
regulations, can easily be achieved through the use of Package A
energy efficiency measures alone. In fact the 25% reduction target
can be achieved by applying just the high efficiency lighting measure.
This measure alone achieves a 27% reduction in regulated emissions
at a capital cost of £42,900 and yields a 25-year NPV saving of £758k
relative to the base case. See also Section 7.10 which discusses
the impact of Part L 2010 on operational carbon emissions
reduction targets.
The current expectation is that in 2013, the Part L target will be

reduced by 44% beyond the 2006 requirement; Energy Efficiency
Packages B and C both achieve this target. However, this target can
be achieved more cost effectively using LZC technologies combined
with Package A – see Section 7.6. It should also be noted that
improved energy efficiency measures are likely to be applicable on
all sites whereas the effectiveness of LZCs can be highly
site specific.
The three energy efficiency packages are fully defined in Table 1

along with the modelled operational carbon emissions savings
(relative to the base case) achieved by their introduction into the
base case supermarket. The table also gives the capital cost and
25-year NPV of the three packages of measures relative to
the base case.
21
TABLE 1
OPERATIONAL CARBON EMISSIONS AND COST (CAPITAL AND NPV) FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY PACKAGES A, B AND C
OPTION ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES TOTAL CHANGE IN CHANGE IN 25

OPERATIONAL CAPITAL COST YEAR NPV FROM
CO2 FROM BASE BASE CASE
EMISSIONS CASE BUILDING BUILDING
(kgCO2 /yr) (£) [%] (£)
[CHANGE FROM
BASE CASE TOTAL
EMISSIONS]
[CHANGE FROM
BASE CASE
REGULATED
EMISSIONS]
Base case building - 699,289 - -

Package A Composite internal floor¹ 508,196 -56,345 -973,545
High efficiency lamps and luminaires² [-27%] [-0.36%]
Specific fan powers reduced by 20% [-35%]
Motion sensing controls throughout
Improved boiler efficiency to 95%
Building oriented so that glazed façade faces South
Package B Package A plus (or superseded by): 419,895 141,821 -1,053,332
[-40%] [0.90%]
Very high efficiency lamps and luminaires² [-51%]
Specific fan powers reduced by 30%
Ventilation heat recovery (60% efficient)
Improved air tightness 7m³/hr per m² @ 50Pa
Package C Package B plus (or superseded by): 379,548 805,773 -495,153
[-46%] [5.1%]
Specific fan powers reduced by 40% [-58%]
Highly improved air tightness 5m³/hr per m² @ 50Pa
Active chilled beam / radiant ceiling
Advanced thermal bridging (0.013W/m²K)
Improved wall U-value to 0.25W/m²K
1 Replacing the lightweight mezzanine retail floor with composite metal decking and in-situ concrete
2 Defined in Table C1 in Appendix C
The reduction in carbon dioxide emissions resulting from implementing the energy
efficiency packages ranges from 35% of regulated emissions (27% of total emissions)
with a reduced capital cost of 0.36% up to 58% of regulated emissions (46% of total
emissions) with an additional capital cost of 5.1%. All three packages are predicted
to save money over a 25-year period compared to the base case building, i.e. they
have a negative NPV.
It is noted that Energy Efficiency Package B has a lower (and therefore

more attractive) NPV than Package A. This implies that, in the long-term,
Package B is a more economical way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions,
although when combined with LZC technologies this is not always the case,
see Section 7.6.
Despite the greater reduction in operational carbon emissions afforded by Package C,

its economic performance is less attractive, i.e. it incurs a greater capital cost
and yields a less attractive NPV than Package B. Therefore to reduce operational
carbon emissions, beyond those achieved using Energy Efficiency Package B, LZC
technologies can be more cost-effective than implementing Package C measures
– see Section 7.6.
22
RECOMMENDATION
The targets for operational

carbon reduction in
supermarkets required from
2010 as a result of changes to
Part L can be achieved by using
energy efficiency measures only,
i.e. without LZC technologies.
The package of measures
predicted to have the best NPV
return was:
composite internal floor
(replacing the lightweight
retail mezzanine floor)
high efficiency lamps and
luminaires
specific fan powers reduced
by 20%
motion sensing controls
throughout
improved chiller efficiency
SEER = 6
improved boiler efficiency
to 95%
building oriented so that
glazed façade faces South.
PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY, ASDA FOOD STORE, STOCKTON-ON-TEES
RECOMMENDATION
Clients and their professional
advisers, need to assess (and
balance) both the capital and
whole-life costs of potential
energy efficiency measures.
Packages of relatively low
capital cost energy efficiency
measures can yield significant
long-term savings, particularly
those measures that are low
maintenance.
23
7.4 LIGHTING AND SHELVING/RACKING

RECOMMENDATION
Efficient lighting of large, low rise, open buildings such as
Although not currently included
supermarkets and warehouses is highly dependent on the
within the NCM, the effect of
presence and configuration of the shelving and racking
systems used. Where obstructions such as high bay racking high-bay racking in warehouse
are installed, the building is effectively split into a number of areas of buildings on the lighting
narrow, corridor-type spaces which require many more fittings, design is significant and should
and hence more energy, to achieve the same level and uniformity be considered by the designer
of lighting. [6].
As shown in the photograph, the height of the food display units

in the case study supermarket (and therefore in the bascase
supermarket) is low relative to the ceiling height, however, in the
warehouse area at the rear of the store, the effect of the high bay
racking on the lighting efficiency can be significant. For further
information on lighting and racking in warehouse buildings see
the Target Zero warehouse report [6].
MAIN ENTRANCE, ASDA FOOD STORE, STOCKTON-ON-TEES

24
7.5 ROOFLIGHTS
The effect of rooflight design on the operational carbon emissions The distribution of both natural daylight and artificial light within
of a building is complex. Rooflights impact both the heating and a building will be highly dependent on the presence and nature of
lighting requirements in different ways and at different times internal equipment or furniture. A building such as a sports hall with
of the day and year, they also affect overheating. The base case a wide open space and evenly spaced mid-slope rooflights will have a
supermarket building does not have rooflights which is typical fairly uniform light intensity. However, the installation of tall internal
of most supermarket buildings however some retailers have equipment, for example high bay racking in a warehouse, will create
introduced rooflights into some of their newer stores in an effort areas of full and partial shadow causing much lower light intensities.
to reduce operational carbon emissions. In this case, the available natural daylight will not be fully realised
and high levels of additional artificial lighting will be necessary.
The key advantage to increasing the rooflight area is that it can However, most new supermarkets in the UK have high ceilings
substantially reduce the amount of energy used for lighting. and food display units and other furniture are generally not tall
However for each building there will be a point where this enough to cause a significant obstruction to the diffusion of light.
improvement will be cancelled out by the increased requirement
for space heating as rooflights let out more heat than opaque As the rooflight area increases, the overall light intensity within the
cladding elements. The optimal solution will vary depending on building will increase, however this will also increase the shadow
the final use and layout of the building among many other variables. effects in areas which are not directly lit. There may also be some
areas, which are in direct sunlight and may be subject to glare.
The arrangement of rooflights should aim to give an even distribution
of light. In some circumstances additional or reduced areas of
rooflight could be considered for areas of different activity within the
building. However, this approach could be counter productive if there
is a future change of use of the building so, in general, rooflights are
distributed uniformly over the roof area.
CANOPY DETAIL, ASDA FOOD STORE, STOCKTON-ON-TEES

25
The hours of operation of the supermarket will also have a

significant impact on the effectiveness of rooflights. At night,
rooflights serve only to release heat; releasing more heat through
conduction than the opaque roof panels around them. Therefore the
more hours of darkness during which the supermarket operates,
the lower the optimal rooflight area will be. The National Calculation
Methodology (NCM) defines that supermarkets should be assessed
with occupancy from 8am to 7pm Monday to Friday, 9am to 7pm
on Saturdays and from 9am to 5pm on Sundays and Bank holidays.
Therefore although many large supermarkets will operate 24 hours
a day, this usage profile is not currently assessed under Part L.
In summary, the impact of rooflight area, layout and specification

affects a number of variables including space heating and cooling
requirements and the energy requirement of lighting systems.
Given the complex interaction of these variables, rooflights were
considered separately to all the other energy efficiency measures.
Each energy efficiency package was modelled with three rooflight
areas (10%, 15% and 20% of available roof area)¹ and the most
effective area selected for each package.
FIGURE 10
MODELLED EFFECTS OF CHANGING ROOFLIGHT AREAS
kgCO2 SAVED PER YEAR & CAPITAL COST (£)
480,000 12
25YR NPV/kgCO2/yr SAVED (£)

400,000 10
COST EFFECTIVENESS
320,000 8
240,000 6
160,000 4
80,000 2
0 0
-80,000 -2
-160,000 -4
0% 10% 15% 20% 15%
NORTHLIGHTS
PERCENTAGE OF ROOF TAKEN UP WITH ROOFLIGHTS
CO2 SAVED PER YEAR CHANGE IN CAPITAL COST EFFECTIVENESS

RELATIVE TO BASE CASE COST RELATIVE TO 25 YR NPV/kgCO2/yr SAVED (£)
BASE CASE (£)
Figure 10 shows the modelled impact of changing the supermarket

rooflight area on total predicted operational carbon dioxide
emissions for the building. It shows the carbon emissions saved
per year, relative to the base case building, (in red) together with
the capital cost of the measure (green) and its long-term cost
effectiveness, i.e. 25-year NPV per kg of CO2 saved per year (purple).
All data in Figure 10 reflect the combined cost and effect of changing
the rooflight area and the inclusion of daylight dimming lighting
controls. The base case model does not have daylight dimming.
This analysis was based on the following key assumptions:

rooflight U-value: 2.20W/m²K
rooflight G-value: 0.5
roof U-value: 0.25W/m²K
supermarket operating hours: 8am to 7pm six days a week
reduced to 9am to 5pm on Sundays and Bank holidays
lighting efficiency: 3.9W/m² per 100lux
illumination level: 600 to 800lux
daylight dimming lighting controls.
1 These rooflight areas were based on industry advice and detailed modelling under Target Zero [6].
26
Figure 10 shows that there is little variation in cost effectiveness of

flat rooflight area between 10% and 15% of roof area. Although the RECOMMENDATION
northlight solution yields similar carbon dioxide emissions savings,
In general it is not practical to
its greater capital cost means that it is far less cost-effective than
design the rooflight positions
the flat rooflights of an equivalent area.
based on the internal layout
Prismatic skylights are a relatively new form of rooflight for which of the building. It must also be
excellent light transmittance and diffusion performance is claimed. considered that the internal use
In addition to providing good natural daylighting, studies from the or layout of the building may
US suggest that prismatic skylights can improve sales when used change during the service life
in retail buildings. In the UK however, there is no test data on the of the building invalidating any
performance of prismatic skylights and it is not currently possible rooflight optimisation.
to model this variant of rooflight under the NCM or using accredited
dynamic thermal simulation models such as IES.
RECOMMENDATION
The design team should consider
and balance all heating, cooling
and lighting factors associated
with rooflights, along with the
aspirations of the client, on a
project-specific basis.
TROLLEY STORAGE AREA, ASDA FOOD STORE, STOCKTON-ON-TEES

27
7.6 ON-SITE LZC TECHNOLOGIES
Thirty seven on-site LZC technologies were individually modelled Table 2 demonstrates that significant reductions in operational
on each of the three energy efficiency packages defined in carbon dioxide emissions can be achieved using combinations of
Section 7.3 – see Table D1 in Appendix D. Some technologies were energy efficiency measures and on-site LZC technologies, however
modelled as both large and small-scale installations, for example the additional costs of doing this begins to become restrictive.
CHP systems were modelled as large-scale to supply space heating For example, to achieve a 100% reduction in regulated emissions
and hot water to the whole building and as small-scale, sized to relative to the 2006 Part L requirements incurs a minimum capital
supply hot water only. The methodology used to assess and compare cost increase of 14.7%. This does not account for the currently
LZC technologies and different combinations of technologies, is unregulated emissions associated with the energy used by small
described in Appendices B and D. appliances such as IT equipment and white goods and, particularly
in supermarkets, freezers and chiller cabinets.
The research found that no single, on-site LZC technology
(in conjunction with appropriate energy efficiency measures) is
predicted to achieve true zero carbon, i.e. a 127% reduction in
regulated emissions. The greatest on-site reduction, using just
one on-site technology, is 94% of regulated emissions (74% of
total carbon emissions) achieved by using large¹ biogas-fired
CCHP combined with Energy Efficiency Package C. Therefore, an
assessment of a range of viable combinations of LZC technologies
was undertaken to identify the most cost-effective packages of
compatible measures to achieve the likely future compliance targets.
Selected packages of measures which meet these targets are
illustrated in Figure D1 in Appendix D and fully defined in Table 2.
TABLE 2
MOST COST-EFFECTIVE ON-SITE SOLUTIONS TO MEET FUTURE LIKELY PART L COMPLIANCE TARGETS
TARGET MOST COST-EFFECTIVE ROUTE BER ADDITIONAL CAPITAL 25-YEAR NPV COST
(kgCO2/m² yr) COST (RELATIVE (RELATIVE TO
TO THE BASE CASE THE BASE CASE
BUILDING) BUILDING)
(£) (£)
Base case building - 55.5 - -
2010 revision to Part L requiring

High efficiency lighting
a (flat) 25% improvement over 42,900
40.4 -758,082
Part L 2006 [0.27%]
See Table C1 in Appendix C
See Section 7.10
Likely 2013 revision to Part L requiring
Energy Efficiency Package B 141,821
a 44% improvement 27.6 -1,053,332
(see Table 1) [0.898%]
over Part L 2006
Solution A1 comprising:
Possible on-site Carbon Compliance
Energy Efficiency Package A 652,141
threshold: 70% improvement over 12.65 -2,496,463
Reverse cycle air source heat pump [4.1%]
Part L 2006²
330kW wind turbine
Solution B1 comprising:
Energy Efficiency Package B
100% improvement over 2006 Part L Reverse cycle air source heat pump 2,336,493
-5.41 -2,367,946
(excludes unregulated emissions) 330kW wind turbine [14.7%]
Refrigeration heat recovery
3,500m² array of photovoltaics
True zero carbon (expected standard
Energy Efficiency Package B
for non-domestic buildings in 2019) 4,179,318
330kW wind turbine -21.28 -517,963
i.e. 127% improvement on Part L 2006 [26.5%]
Biogas-fired CCHP
for this building
1 CCHP plant sized to supply space heating (excluding radiant systems), hot water, cooling and electricity to all areas.
2 This compliance target was based on the domestic target and predates the Government’s consultation on policy
options for zero carbon new non-domestic buildings [3]. It was chosen as an appropriate target in the Target Zero
methodology and is retained for consistency between the five building types considered.
28
There are a number of technologies that are not compatible this is 26.5% (relative to the base case building cost). Also these
with each other; these are all LZC technologies which supply heat. solutions will not be practical on most sites as they include a 330kW
If surplus electricity is generated on-site then this can be sold to the wind turbine and biogas-fuelled CCHP. Not all sites will be able to
national grid for use in other buildings. However the infrastructure accommodate such a large turbine (see Section 7.7) and biogas
for doing this with heat is more complex and expensive and relies on CCHP fed by anaerobic digestion will not be viable or practical
having a close neighbour(s) with an appropriate heat requirement. on many sites (see Section 7.8). Both solutions are however
Therefore the normal approach is to either size or operate the predicted to save money over a 25-year period, relative to the
system so that surplus heat will not be produced, or to dump any base case building.
surplus heat using heat rejection plant. The use of multiple LZCs
which provide heat increases the risk of surplus heat being Combinations of on-site LZC technologies were modelled without
produced and therefore reduces the whole-life cost effectiveness a 330kW wind turbine however the best performing solutions were
of the technologies. not predicted to achieve true zero carbon. The greatest carbon
dioxide reduction without wind power were achieved by using
When combining LZC technologies to create a package of solutions comprising biogas CCHP as the primary heating and
compatible on-site measures, care must be taken to avoid the cooling source coupled with extensive arrays of photovoltaics.
selection of technologies which are less cost-effective than viable These solutions achieve a 100% and 109% reduction beyond the
energy efficiency measures, as well as avoiding the combination of requirements of Part L 2006, in conjunction with Energy Efficiency
incompatible technologies. Applying these principles, the analyses Packages B and C respectively. Table 3 shows the most cost-effective
identified 36 viable on-site solutions (combinations of compatible on-site solutions to achieving a 70% and 100% improvement over
energy efficiency and LZC technologies). Part L (2006) requirements on-site where large wind turbines
are not viable.
Two of these are predicted to achieve true zero carbon, i.e. both
regulated and unregulated emissions are predicted to reduce to
zero, however the minimum capital cost increase required for
TABLE 3
MOST COST-EFFECTIVE ON-SITE SOLUTIONS (WHERE WIND TURBINES ARE NOT VIABLE) TO MEET FUTURE LIKELY PART L COMPLIANCE TARGETS
TARGET MOST COST-EFFECTIVE ROUTE BER ADDITIONAL 25-YEAR NPV COST

(kgCO2/yr) CAPITAL COST (RELATIVE TO
(RELATIVE TO THE BASE CASE
THE BASE CASE BUILDING)
BUILDING)
(£) (£)
Possible on-site Carbon Compliance Energy Efficiency Package B 1,666,993
threshold: 70% improvement over Reverse cycle air source heat pump 14.6 [10.6%] -927,339
Part L 2006 Refrigeration heat recovery
3,509,818
100% improvement over 2006 Part L Energy Efficiency Package B
-1.10 [22.2%] -994,044
(excludes unregulated emissions) Biogas-fired CCHP 3,500m²
array of photovoltaics
29
7.7 WIND TURBINES

RECOMMENDATION
A range of sizes of on-site wind turbines was modelled. For offsite
Wind monitoring should be
solutions, the purchase of a share of a large on-shore turbine
undertaken to establish a site’s
was assumed. The most cost-effective solution was found to be a
2.5MW wind turbine which was predicted, in conjunction with Energy wind resources to enable the
Efficiency Package B, to achieve a 463% reduction in regulated output of wind turbines to be
emissions beyond the requirements of the current (2006) Part L. accurately predicted.
A turbine of this size would achieve zero carbon for the supermarket
whilst also providing a substantial income to its owner for example
via the feed-in tariff. However, the size and capital cost of such
a large turbine means that it is unlikely to be viable on the vast
majority of sites.
A 2.5MW wind turbine should be sufficient to enable three buildings

the size of the case study supermarket building to achieve zero
carbon. In future, retail park developers may wish to install large
wind turbines in order to make their sites more attractive to
developers needing to comply with revisions to Part L.
The largest on-site wind turbine modelled was a 330kW turbine.

A detailed review of the case study site in Stockton-on-Tees and
the potential to erect an on-site wind turbine, found that it is not
possible to erect a 330kW turbine due to site constraints.
Wind turbines should not be positioned within the ‘topple distance’
of any occupied building or within 300m of residential buildings [7].
Therefore planning and other constraints will make the installation
of such a large turbine impossible or impractical on many sites.
Many supermarkets are however located in large open areas
away from residential buildings and therefore it was considered
appropriate to model a 330kW on-site turbine.
It should be noted that offsite wind turbines have been modelled

as if they were erected on the same site as the supermarket
(as required in the NCM). However, in reality, their output would
probably be higher than the results show. See Appendix A.
Local obstructions are important factors in determining the

wind resource at the precise location that the wind turbine is to
be installed; turbulence and wind-shadows develop down-wind
of obstructions, both reducing the performance of the turbine. ON-SITE WIND TURBINE
30
7.8 DIRECTLY CONNECTED HEAT
The Carbon Compliance target discussed in the consultation on

policy options for zero carbon non-domestic buildings [3] allows for
‘directly-connected heat’ as well as on-site generation. This can be
provided by LZC technologies such as district CHP heating networks
or heat networks from Energy from Waste (EfW) plants. The following
technologies were modelled¹:
fuel cell-fired CHP
natural gas-fired CHP
biomass-fired CHP
biogas-fired CHP fed by an anaerobic digester
district heating fuelled by energy from waste
district heating fuelled by waste heat.
None of these systems is predicted to achieve true zero carbon.

The greatest modelled reduction in carbon dioxide emissions is 84%
using biogas-fired CHP combined with Energy Efficiency Package C.
The most cost-effective directly connected heat route to achieving a

70% reduction below the requirements of Part L 2006 is predicted to
be a biomass-fired district CHP system in conjunction with Energy
Efficiency Package B. However most supermarkets will not be in
an area where district heating schemes such as these are viable.
District heating schemes are most viable in dense urban

areas where the heat demand is concentrated. By definition,
large out-of-town supermarkets are located away from town
centres and therefore the thermal load is unlikely to be
sufficiently large to justify establishing a local heat network.
The suitability of a retail business park to the use of a district heating

network is likely to depend on the nature of the buildings within it.
There are a number of adjacent building types which would increase
the viability of different types of district heating system, Table 4
describes these. As most new-build supermarkets are located
on retail parks where neighbouring buildings are most likely to
be other retail buildings, it is unlikely that district heating will be
a cost-effective option on most sites.
TABLE 4
ADJACENT BUILDING TYPES WHICH AFFECT THE VIABILITY OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF DISTRICT HEATING SYSTEM
CHARACTERISTICS OF ADJACENT BUILDINGS SUITABLE DISTRICT HEATING NETWORK TYPE
Manufacturing process which produces a large Waste heat system

amount of waste heat
Manufacturing process which produces a Anaerobic digestion (AD)

significant amount of organic waste or
Energy from waste (EfW)
Buildings with large constant heat demand Combined heat and power (CHP)
Buildings with large seasonal heat demand District heating supplying heat only
1 CCHP has not been modelled as a potential ‘directly connected heat’ technology. This is because although district cooling systems
are proven technologies in some climates, they are not well suited to the UK climate. Furthermore district cooling is only likely to
be potentially viable in city centres and therefore has not been considered as suitable for a supermarket.
31
Almost all existing Anaerobic Digestion (AD) schemes have, to date, The cost effectiveness of a district heating system supplying
been located in either rural areas supplied with agricultural waste a supermarket will be improved if the supermarket operates
or in industrial areas. The reasons for this are mainly down to poor 24 hours a day as the annual space heating load will increase.
public image; the perception is that anaerobic digestion will cause
unpleasant odours and health risks. It should be noted that these Table 5 summarises the main offsite technologies that
are merely the perception; a well designed and managed AD scheme could provide directly-connected heat to the supermarket.
should not raise health risks or excessive odour. An alternative use The modelled results of savings in carbon emissions, capital
of waste material is incineration (energy from waste - EfW); however costs and NPV values are presented. The results are based
the predicted carbon savings from this technology were found to on the technology used in conjunction with Energy Efficiency
be less than for all other forms of district heating system modelled. Package B (see Table 1).
Waste incineration also faces public resistance due to the perceived
health risks.
Another potential barrier to the implementation of district AD CHP

systems is the availability of suitable feedstuffs. Common inputs
to AD schemes include food waste, animal slurry and sewage.
As large producers of food waste, AD schemes based on food
waste may be viable for supermarkets particularly where waste from
several supermarkets can be consolidated to feed a suitably located
AD CHP scheme. Most existing district CHP schemes are set up to
supply public sector buildings with adjacent private customers being
connected to the system once it has already been proved to be viable.
District heating schemes are most viable when supplying buildings
with a large and fairly constant thermal (heat and potentially cooling)
demand, buildings which fall into this category include:
industrial sites (requiring heat for industrial processes)
swimming pools/leisure centres
hospitals
universities
hotels
apartment buildings.
TABLE 5
DIRECTLY CONNECTED HEAT RESULTS (BASED ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY PACKAGE B)
OFFSITE OPERATIONAL CO2 EMISSIONS CHANGE IN CAPITAL COST FROM CHANGE IN 25 YEAR NPV¹
TECHNOLOGY (kgCO2/yr) BASE CASE¹ (RELATIVE TO THE BASE CASE
BUILDING)
(£) (£)
[CHANGE FROM BASE CASE]
[%]
Biomass-fired CHP 302,864 139,520 -1,241,263

[-57%] [0.9%]
Fuel cell-fired 342,780 139,520 -1,409,278

CHP [-51%] [0.9%]
Natural gas-fired 352,737 139,520 -1,340,494

CHP [-50%] [0.9%]
Energy from waste 388,157 139,520 -1,102,181

[-44%] [0.9%]
Waste process heat 363,577 139,520 -1,102,181

[-48%] [0.9%]
Biogas-fired 254,912 139,520 -1,102,181

anaerobic digestion [-64%] [0.9%]
CHP
1 These are connection costs only and exclude the capital cost and NPV of Energy Efficiency Package B measures.
32
7.9 ALLOWABLE SOLUTIONS

RECOMMENDATION
The consultation on policy options for zero carbon non-domestic
To achieve regulated carbon
buildings [3] proposes the following Allowable Solutions:
emission reduction targets
further carbon reductions on-site beyond the regulatory
greater than 70% (relative to
standard (increased Carbon Compliance) to abate residual
emissions, to account for circumstances where going further Part L 2006) for new
on Carbon Compliance is more cost-effective than other supermarkets where on-site
Allowable Solutions wind turbines are not viable,
energy efficient appliances meeting a high standard. designers should consider
This could incentivise IT focused businesses towards Allowable Solutions. This
using low-energy hardware approach is likely to provide
advanced building control systems which reduce the level the most cost-effective routes
of energy use to zero regulated and true zero
carbon supermarkets.
exports of low carbon or renewable heat from the development
to other developments (renewable heat imported from near
the development would be included as part of the
Carbon Compliance calculation)
investments in low and zero carbon community
heat infrastructure.
Other options also remain under consideration.
The potential for cost-effective Allowable Solutions needs to be

considered alongside the Energy Efficiency and Carbon Compliance
solutions. For instance, it would be expected that large-scale offsite
Allowable Solutions would be more efficient than smaller-scale
on-site LZCs. The choice may be limited, however, by the need to
meet some of the carbon reduction target by on-site LZCs as
Carbon Compliance measures. In addition, the NPV for the offsite
wind (and other offsite LZCs) is dictated by the values assumed
for current and future energy imported/exported across the
site boundary, and these energy import/export values for use in
evaluating Allowable Solutions may be established by regulation.
Assessment of this Asda food store has demonstrated that the

use of on-site LZCs can achieve true zero carbon; however the
capital cost of achieving this becomes substantially greater as the
carbon reduction targets become more challenging. The analysis
has demonstrated that it may often be necessary to make use of
Allowable Solutions for supermarket buildings to achieve net zero
carbon emissions.
This study found that there are a wide range of solutions to

reducing the carbon dioxide emissions by up to 44% using
on-site LZCs. The research could only identify 57 on-site
routes to a 70% improvement over the 2006 Part L requirement,
18 solutions which achieve a 100% improvement and only two
on-site solutions which achieve true zero carbon, i.e. 127%
improvement over the 2006 Part L requirement.
Almost all of these on-site routes to the lower targets, i.e.

25%, 44% and 70% ‘flat’ regulated emissions reductions
(see Section 7.2), are expected to be suitable for all
supermarket sites. Carbon emissions reductions above 70%
are only likely to be economically viable in areas where either
large wind turbines can be erected, or where the local area/
community is suitable for a district heating scheme. This will
not be the case for the majority of supermarket sites.
33
7.10 THE IMPACT OF PART L 2010

Part L 2010 has an overarching objective of reducing total Using Part L 2006, the TER for the supermarket is 55.7kgCO2/m²yr.
operational carbon dioxide emissions from all new buildings by The base case building specification just meets this target, i.e.
25% compared to the 2006 Part L regulations. To achieve this target BER = 55.5kgCO2/m²yr. Using the new Part L 2010 carbon emission
in the most cost-effective way, an ‘aggregate’ approach has been factors, the 2006 TER increases to 63.1kgCO2/m²yr and the BER
developed to reflect the likely number/floor area of non-domestic of the base case building increases to 66.1kgCO2/m²yr.
building types expected to be constructed over the next ten years
The flat 25% improvement on Part L 2006 using the 2006 emissions
and the cost effectiveness with which carbon reductions can be
factors (the 2010 target used in the Target Zero analysis) yields a TER
made within each building type. For example, it is considered [5]
of 41.8kgCO2/m²yr. Using the 2010 emissions factors gives a TER of
that it is more cost-effective to reduce operational carbon
47.3kgCO2/m²yr. Applying the aggregate approach, the TER becomes
emissions in new industrial buildings than in new hotels.
32.6kgCO2/m²yr with 2006 emissions factors and 38.9kgCO2/m²yr
Under this ‘aggregate’ approach, the new 2010 notional buildings with 2010 emissions factors, i.e. more challenging than the flat
and the Target Emission Rates (TERs)¹ are defined in terms 25% target.
of revised:
Energy Efficiency Package A was expected to pass Part L 2010
plant efficiencies
by 12% when assessed with the 2006 carbon emission factors.
U-values Applying the 2010 emissions factors, Energy Efficiency Package A
lighting passes by 10% using the flat method but fails the TER by 10%
using the aggregate approach.
glazed areas
carbon dioxide emission factors. The assessment indicates that rather than the intended 11%
reduction in operational carbon emissions for 2010 Part L
When the Target Zero operational carbon analysis was undertaken, compliance [3,5], the case study supermarket would need
the 2010 Part L requirements had not been implemented in the to reduce its CO2 emissions by around 40%.
dynamic simulation models used for Part L compliance and
therefore the proposed 2010 changes to the notional supermarket
building were manually implemented in the IES model. Whereas
these results should be considered as approximate, they do provide
generic guidelines. The impact of these changes on the supermarket
operational carbon emissions results, focussing particularly on the
three packages of energy efficiency measures (see Section 7.3),
is illustrated in Figure 11.
FIGURE 11
THE IMPACT OF CHANGES TO PART L 2010
USING PART L 2010 CO2 EMISSION FACTORS
USING PART L 2006 CO2 EMISSION FACTORS (RESULTS PRESENTED IN REST OF REPORT)
70
EMISSION RATES (kg CO2/m²yr)
60
PART L 2006 TER
(2006 EMISSION FACTORS)
50 PART L 2010 TER-FLAT METHOD
(2010 EMISSION FACTORS)
PART L 2010 TER AGGREGATE

40 METHOD (2010 EMISSION FACTORS)
30
20
10
63.1 55.7 47.3 41.8 38.9 32.6 66.1 55.5 42.6 36.6 39.6 27.6 34.6 23.5
0
PART L 2006 TER
(AGGREGATE METHOD)
BASE CASE BUILDING
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
PART L 2010 TER
PART L 2010 TER

(FLAT METHOD)
PACKAGE B
PACKAGE C
PACKAGE A
1 The Target Emission Rate (TER) is defined by the National Calculation Methodology (NCM). The TER is
based on the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per square metre of floor area per year by a notional building
as the result of the provision of heating, cooling, hot water, ventilation and internal fixed lighting.The notional
building has the same geometry, orientation and usage, etc., as the evaluated building. The TER is calculated
by applying improvement and LZC factors to the notional building emissions. The check for compliance with the
CO2 performance requirements is that BER ≤ TER.
34
FIGURE 12
GUIDANCE FLOWCHART FOR DELIVERING LOW AND ZERO OPERATIONAL CARBON SUPERMARKET BUILDINGS
ZERO CARBON
Determine planning policy and client requirements

Allowable
Solutions
CARBON COMPLIANCE
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Carbon
Compliance Review experience of project team to deliver carbon targets
Energy Efficiency
Estimate energy demand based on benchmarks

ALLOWABLE SOLUTIONS
CARBON COMPLIANCE
(ON-SITE + CONNECTED HEAT)
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Determine a CO2 emissions Determine a target for contribution Review whether client is prepared
reduction target from on-site LZC to connect to offsite LZCs
Review brief requirements against CO2 Determine a budget for Review potential to contribute to
target (e.g. comfort conditions etc) LZC technologies local heat infrastructure fund
Optimise rooflight area (balance Include refrigeration heat recovery Establish availability of
solar gain, heat loss and daylight) to provide hot water if possible offsite LZC generation
Optimise lighting spec and strategy (esp. Establish amount of solar access and Determine practicality of connecting
controls to make best use of daylight) roof area available for photovoltaics to local offsite LZC generation
Optimise insulation levels Establish potential for wind (e.g. size Determine opportunity to export
of site, proximity to housing, wind heat to neighbouring buildings
resource etc)
Determine duct and air handling unit Establish potential for
sizes to minimise fan energy Consider biogas CCHP or air source Allowable Solutions
heat pumps (if sufficient local supply
of organic waste)
Choose design and construction
method to minimise cold bridging
Determine practicality of connecting
Ensure design can deliver to local offsite LZC (to provide directly
advanced air tightness connected heat)
Establish reduction in CO2 Establish likely contribution from

emissions from energy efficiency on-site LZCs
Carbon
Energy Efficiency Compliance Allowable
Solutions
35
7.11 OPERATIONAL CARBON GUIDANCE

RECOMMENDATION
Figure 12 sets out a flowchart providing guidance on how to develop a cost-effective
The client brief for a low carbon
route to low or zero operational carbon buildings. Guidance on the steps presented
supermarket must set out clearly
in the flowchart are given below.
the targets and the contributions
Client and brief to be made from energy
Client commitment to achieving sustainable and low and zero carbon targets should efficiency, LZC technologies
be captured in terms of a clear brief and target(s), for example, a 70% improvement (on- and offsite) and Allowable
in regulated carbon emissions or an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) A rating. Solutions. Integration of low
carbon technologies must be
The brief, and any operational carbon targets, should specify the contribution to be considered from the start of the
made from on-site LZC technologies and whether the client is prepared to connect design process.
to offsite technologies. This should also take account of any funding or local planning
requirements, such as a policy requiring that a minimum proportion of a building’s
energy needs to be met using renewable energy.
Undertaking the relevant analyses and integration of design early on a project is key
to ensuring that the design is maximising its potential for low carbon emissions at
minimum cost.
Cost
The provision of easy-to-understand, accurate cost advice early in the design
process is key to developing the most cost-effective low and zero carbon solution
for any new-build supermarket.
When looking at the costs of energy efficiency measures and low and zero carbon
technologies it is important that:
lifecycle costs are investigated
benefits from energy cost savings are taken into account
benefits from sales of renewable obligation certificates (ROCs), feed-in tariffs
(see Appendix E) and potentially the renewable heat incentive (RHI) are considered
potential savings from grants are considered and the potential costs of
Allowable Solutions are taken into account
the cost implications to the building structure/fabric are considered.
For example, a PV array installed on a flat roof requires additional
supporting structures whereas PV laminate on a low-pitch roof does not.
It is essential to set aside a budget to reduce operational carbon emissions.

The Target Zero research results can be used to provide an indication of likely
capital cost uplift for a range of carbon reduction targets - see Figure 1.
Design team
All members of the design team should understand the operational carbon targets set RECOMMENDATION
for a project and their role in achieving them. Targets should be included in their briefs/
contracts with a requirement to undertake their part of the work necessary to achieve Where the occupancy schedule of
the target. It can be useful to appoint a ‘carbon champion’ on the project who would be the building is known, this should
responsible for delivering the target. This is often the role taken by either the building be taken into account in any
services engineer or the BREEAM assessor. thermal simulation modelling
rather than relying on the Part L
It is important to understand the breakdown of energy use within the building so that compliance software alone.
measures can be targeted where the greatest reductions are achievable. For example, This is particularly relevant to
in the base case supermarket building, lighting is the dominant contributor and, as the optimisation of rooflight
shown in Figure 4, improvements in lighting efficiency provide the greatest reductions
areas, see Section 7.5.
in carbon dioxide emissions.
The likely occupancy pattern of the building should also be considered early on in the
design process since this will affect the energy demand profile of the building. For
example, a large supermarket operating 24 hours a day, will have a far higher lighting RECOMMENDATION
and heating demand than a supermarket with normal shop opening hours only. The
National Calculation Method (NCM) applies a standard activity schedule to different On all projects where a carbon
building types and therefore cannot take into account different occupancy schedules. reduction target is set, a ‘carbon
This is a limitation of the NCM. champion’ should be appointed
to oversee the process.
36
Site factors
Site constraints, including building orientation, can have a major effect on a RECOMMENDATION
building’s operational energy requirements and on the viability of delivering
The availability of offsite LZC
LZC buildings and therefore site selection is a key issue.
technologies and renewable
The ability to introduce large wind turbines or integrate into (or initiate) a sources of energy should be
low-carbon district heating system, for example, may have a large positive investigated. These are often
impact on the cost effectiveness of constructing low and zero carbon the most cost-effective means
supermarkets and therefore should be given due consideration early of reducing carbon emissions
in the design process. when integrated with appropriate
energy efficiency measures.
The design team must therefore be fully aware of the viability of available LZC
technologies and the constraints imposed by the site. They will also need to look
beyond the site boundary for opportunities to integrate with other LZC technologies
and other buildings and networks.
Building form and fabric and 7.5, good dynamic thermal simulation modelling should enable
Although all energy efficiency measures are important, lighting the natural and artificial lighting systems to be optimised and hence
was found to be most important in delivering cost-effective carbon reduce actual operational carbon emissions. The effect of rooflight
savings in the base case supermarket. Lighting contributes almost area on the overheating risk within supermarkets should also
half of the operational carbon dioxide emissions of the base case be investigated.
building – see Figure 5. Optimising the lighting design in conjunction
with the rooflight design can reduce operational energy use Although the base case supermarket is mechanically cooled and was
significantly without major capital cost implications and is not designed to allow natural ventilation, the research investigated
predicted to yield very good payback periods for supermarkets. whether the supermarket could operate without mechanical
cooling or ventilation. This was done using the IES dynamic thermal
This research has established that improved lighting efficiency modelling package utilising the Macroflo module to simulate natural
can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 27% and that careful ventilation. Part L2A (2006) does not provide specific thresholds
rooflight design in combination with daylight dimming to control over which temperatures must not rise; rather it states that an
electrical lighting can reduce emissions by a further 10%. assessment should be carried out and that the conditions within
the building should be within limits specified by the client and the
The optimum rooflight solution depends on a number of variables, design team. The Chartered Institute of Building Service Engineers
and therefore dynamic thermal simulation modelling should be (CIBSE) recommend that a working environment should not exceed
carried out to identify the optimum area and configuration of 28°C for more than 1% of occupied hours [8]. It is probable that
rooflights for each individual supermarket. Where known, it is also most supermarket chains would require a more stringent threshold
recommended that the actual or likely hours of operation of the than this; however, in the absence of any firm definition, the CIBSE
supermarket are taken into account when optimising the rooflight threshold has been used in this research.
and lighting design. Although this will not affect the current Part L
compliance assessment using the NCM, as discussed in Sections 7.3

37
Different strategies to promote natural ventilation by increasing the area of existing

openings were modelled. It was found that the risk of overheating could be significantly RECOMMENDATION
reduced through the use of high level openings with a free area equivalent to 1.35%
of the floor area. However, the need for mechanical cooling could not be completely
The use of dynamic thermal
avoided in the case study building. modelling can help to establish
the optimal solutions with regard
The glazing strategy of the building will have a significant impact on the risk of to the following architectural
overheating, requirement for artificial lighting and energy for space heating. East and features of supermarket
West facing glazing should be minimised with an emphasis on North and South facing buildings:
glazing. Glazing with a sill height less than around 1m does not generally provide area of rooflights
much useful daylight, but does increase the risk of overheating in summer and heating
glazing strategy for back-of-
requirements in winter. South facing glazing should have an overhang above it to
block high-angle sunlight in summer whilst allowing the useful low-angle sunlight house accommodation
into the building in winter. Finally, although the building layout has not been varied, solar shading for all glazing
consideration of reducing the plan depth to maximise daylight and the potential for
natural ventilation as well as optimising the orientation should be investigated where opening areas required
possible. The following is a guide based on the analysis undertaken for this research: for effective natural ventilation
North facing rooms – have low solar heat gain without shading, rooms with cooling strategy
will benefit from reduced energy usage (such as rooms with high IT loads and
server rooms). Rooms which can be kept cool without the need for mechanical
levels of insulation in the
cooling would also benefit from being located on a north elevation (narrow plan various envelope components.
cellular office etc.).
South facing rooms – have high useful winter solar heat gain and, when shaded,
low solar heat gain in summer. Offices are ideally suited with suitable shading
(it should be noted that blinds will be required to block glare from low angle sun
in winter).
East/West facing rooms – have high solar heat gain without solar control glazing
or adjustable shading to block out low angle sun. Rooms without large levels of
external glazing are ideally suited here such as toilets, etc.
See also Section 7.12 on the impact of climate change
It should be noted that a number of the LZC technologies that were found to be most
cost-effective will increase the plant space requirements over and above that assumed
for the base case and some will also require access for fuel delivery. Once technologies
have been selected they should be integrated into the design at the earliest opportunity
to reduce capital expenditure.
38
Low and zero carbon (LZC) technologies saved). The cost effectiveness of LZC technologies is based on their
Once energy demands have been reduced and efficient baseline use in conjunction with Energy Efficiency Package A. Although each
HVAC systems selected, the introduction of LZC technologies supermarket building will be different and the precise ranking of LZC
should be considered. Table 6 ranks the Energy Efficiency Packages technologies will vary, the table provides the generic ranking of cost
and LZC technologies based on the assessment of the supermarket effectiveness of technologies applicable to a building of this type
building (most cost-effective at the top in terms of 25-yrNPV/kgCO2 and size.
TABLE 6
LZC TECHNOLOGIES MODELLED – IN DESCENDING ORDER OF COST EFFECTIVENESS (25-YEAR NPV/KG CO2 SAVED (£))
LZC TECHNOLOGY ON-SITE OFFSITE NOTES
Energy Efficiency Package A See Table 1
On-site medium 330kW wind turbine Enercon 50m tower. 33.4m rotor diameter. May not be suitable on many sites
Fuel cell district CHP Space heating excluding radiant heating systems, hot water and electricity
Gas district CHP Space heating excluding radiant heating systems, hot water and electricity
Large 2.5MW wind turbine on-shore Nordex 100m tower height. 99.8m rotor diameter
Large 5.0MW wind turbine off-shore Repower 117m tower height. 126m rotor diameter (Largest commercially available)
On-site medium 50kW wind turbine Entegrity 36.5m tower height. 15m rotor diameter. May not be suitable on all sites
Reverse cycle air source heat pump (ASHP) Providing all space heating and cooling
Biomass district CHP Space heating excluding radiant heating systems, hot water and electricity
Energy from waste district heating Space heating excluding radiant heating systems and hot water
Energy Efficiency Package B See Table 1
Single cycle air source heat pump (ASHP) Space heating excluding radiant heating systems
Waste process heat district heating Space heating and hot water excluding radiant heating systems
Refrigeration heat recovery large Recovering waste heat from space cooling, fridge and freezer cabinets to supply hot water
Biogas district CHP Space heating excluding radiant heating systems, hot water and electricity
Small 20kW wind turbine Westwind 30m tower height. 10m rotor diameter
Refrigeration heat recovery small Recovering waste heat from space cooling to supply hot water
Photovoltaics Roof-integrated amorphous PV 4,000m²
Gas CHP large Space heating excluding radiant heating systems, hot water and electricity
Energy Efficiency Package C See Table 1
Gas CHP small Space heating excluding radiant heating systems, hot water and electricity
Biogas CCHP large Space heating excluding radiant heating systems, hot water, cooling and electricity
Biomass CCHP large Space heating excluding radiant heating systems, hot water, cooling and electricity
Biomass boiler Space heating and hot water excluding radiant heating systems
Biomass CCHP small Space heating excluding radiant heating systems, hot water, cooling and electricity
Biomass CHP small Space heating excluding radiant heating systems, hot water and electricity
Biogas CCHP small Space heating excluding radiant heating systems, hot water, cooling and electricity
Solar water heating 23.2m² sized to provide as much hot water as is practical
Biogas CHP large Space heating excluding radiant heating systems, hot water and electricity
Fuel cell CCHP small Space heating excluding radiant heating systems, hot water, cooling and electricity
Biogas CHP small Space heating excluding radiant heating systems, hot water and electricity
Small 1kW wind turbine Futurenergy 6.2m tower. 1.8m rotor diameter
Fuel cell CHP small Space heating excluding radiant heating systems, hot water and electricity
Single cycle open loop ground source heat pump Space heating excluding radiant heating systems
Reverse cycle open loop ground source heat pump Space heating and cooling excluding radiant heating systems
Gas CCHP small Space heating excluding radiant heating systems, hot water, cooling and electricity
Single cycle closed loop ground source heat pump Space heating excluding radiant heating systems
Reverse cycle closed loop ground source heat pump Space heating and cooling excluding radiant heating systems
Fuel cell CCHP large Space heating excluding radiant heating systems, hot water, cooling and electricity
Fuel cell CHP large Space heating excluding radiant heating systems, hot water and electricity
Ground duct small Supplying retail space
Ground duct large Supplying all air systems

39
Structural design considerations

It is important to consider the impacts of introducing LZC technologies and RECOMMENDATION
certain energy efficiency measures on the building design. Examples include:
To counteract inaccuracies in the
changes to the roof or cladding elements, such as increases in insulation or the
manner in which the National
introduction of a green roof may require enhancement to the building foundations
Calculation Methodology
or structure
calculates the impact of some
the impact on space planning, for example, variation in plant space requirements
LZC and offsite low carbon
programming implications: both on-site and supply, CHP systems, for example, technologies, it is recommended
may have a long lead in time. that their performance should
be assessed using a suitable
Plant room size will vary according to the LZC technologies that are to be used in dynamic thermal model.
the building. For example, biomass boilers will require additional storage space for For example, a dynamic
wood chip fuel and for ash as well as access for fuel deliveries and waste collections.
thermal simulation model
For buildings connected into district heating schemes, plant room size could be much
not constrained by the NCM
smaller than required for traditional plant particularly if no backup plant is required.
Similarly, the use of on-site technologies such as ground source heat pumps can or technology specific design
result in smaller plant rooms, if no backup or supplementary heating or cooling software.
plant is required.
The influence of the structure on the operational carbon emissions of the

supermarket building was found to be small, less than 4% - see Section 9.1.
Rooflights and northlights

Figure 13 compares the BERs of the base case supermarket (with and without
rooflights and daylight dimming lighting controls) with the equivalent BERs for
the same building with a northlight roof.
FIGURE 13
IMPACT OF ROOFLIGHTS AND DAYLIGHT DIMMING ON BERs
60
BUILDING EMISSION RATE (kgCO2/m2 yr)
57.6
55.5
50
48.8 47.9
40
30
20
10
NO ROOFLIGHTS ROOFLIGHTS ON 15% NO DAYLIGHT DIMMING DAYLIGHT DIMMING

OR DAYLIGHT DIMMING OF ROOF AREA AND
DAYLIGHT DIMMING
BASE CASE BUILDING – STEEL PORTAL FRAME STEEL PORTAL FRAME WITH NORTHLIGHTS EQUAL
TO 15% OF AREA OF FLAT ROOF – SEE SECTION 9
The results show that, when the effect of daylight dimming is taken into account, the
supermarket with northlights performs marginally better than the base case. The key
difference is that northlights achieve a lower cooling load, but incur a higher heating
load. The net effect of this is a small overall benefit from the northlight option albeit
at an increased capital cost – see Figure 10.
Some supermarket chains prefer not to use space cooling in their stores. In this case,
the use of flat rooflights is likely to be more effective than northlights although the risk
of overheating increases with flat rooflights.
40
The location and hence climate of the supermarket site is also a

factor in determining the relative sizes of the annual heating and
cooling loads. High temperatures or clear skies are likely to favour
northlights, whereas cooler temperatures or overcast skies will
favour flat rooflights.
The choice of roof structure affects the surface area and volume
of buildings. Buildings with a greater external envelope area will
experience relatively more heat loss; this will increase the heating
energy requirement in winter, but may also reduce the risk of
overheating in summer.
The use of both rooflights and northlights increases heat loss from
buildings and reduces the need for artificial lighting. Northlights
also reduce the cooling load. In buildings where the cooling load
is relatively large, northlights are likely to yield lower operational
carbon dioxide emissions. See also Section 9.1.
Where the potential viability of rooflights and photovoltaics is jointly

considered on a project, it should be remembered that rooflights
reduce the roof area available for photovoltaics. It is therefore
recommended that detailed studies, such as those performed
under Target Zero, are undertaken to optimise these measures
on a project specific basis.
7.12 IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
Modelling the effects of climate change on the supermarket, using

CIBSE weather tapes based on UKCIP climate predictions for the
UK¹, showed that the heating requirements of the supermarket
will progressively reduce over time while the cooling requirements
are predicted to increase. Analysis of the case study supermarket
showed that heating loads are expected to decrease by 9% between
2005 and 2020 and by 26% between 2005 and 2050. Conversely
cooling loads increase by between 9% and 11% between 2005 and
2020 and by between 32% and 38% from 2005 to 2050. These ranges
are a function of the different supermarket structures modelled –
see Section 9.
The effect on carbon dioxide emissions from these changes in 'WELCOME TO ASDA', STOCKTON-ON-TEES
heating/cooling demand is to increase total building emissions
marginally (0.1% to 0.25%) by 2020 and by 0.7% to 1% between
2005 and 2050.
The choice of building structure makes little difference to the overall

operational carbon emissions under the current and future weather
scenarios considered. See Section 9.1.
Climate change is predicted to raise temperatures and so the risk

of overheating is also likely to rise in future. Testing of a number
of different approaches found that the risk of overheating in the
supermarket could be reduced by a number of relatively simple
measures including:
careful optimisation of the area of rooflights
inclusion of high-level openings
use of an efficient lighting system
use of northlights rather than standard rooflights.
The rise in temperature caused by climate change will also reduce

the heating requirements of the supermarket in winter. This will have
the effect of reducing the benefits of many LZC technologies which
supply heat.
1 In light of new global greenhouse gas evidence, since the development of the CIBSE/UKCIP weather tapes,
the ‘high’ scenario has been modelled.
41
8.0 ROUTES TO BREEAM ‘OUTSTANDING’
ROUTES TO BREEAM ‘OUTSTANDING’
The objective of this aspect of the study was to determine the most cost-effective
routes to achieving a ‘Very Good’, ‘Excellent’ and ‘Outstanding’ BREEAM Retail (2008)
rating for the base case building modelled on the Asda food store in Stockton-on-Tees.
To provide a benchmark for the BREEAM assessment, a base case building was
defined as described in Section 5.1 and using the following five principles:
1. If there is a regulatory requirement for building design that is relevant, then this
is used for the base case, e.g. Building Regulations Part L provides a requirement
for the operational energy performance of the building.
2. If it is typical practice for supermarkets, then this is used for the base case,
e.g.the average score under the Considerate Constructors scheme at the time
of writing was 32, therefore, it was assumed that this is standard practice
for contractors.
3. For design specific issues, such as materials choices, then the current
specification for the supermarket is applied as the base case.
4. Where a study is required to demonstrate a credit is achieved, e.g. day lighting
and thermal comfort for the office areas, and the required standards are achieved,
then only the cost of the study has been included. Where a study determines that
the required standard is not achieved, e.g. view out for the office areas, then a cost
for achieving the credit has not been included as this would require a redesign of
the building. Instead, the credits that are based on fundamental design
decisions are identified in the guidance.
5. For site related issues, e.g. reuse of previously developed land, urban and rural
scenarios are proposed and tested to determine the likely best and worst case
situations – see below.
Reflecting the influence of location and other factors on the achievable BREEAM
score, six scenarios were modelled with different site conditions and different design
assumptions as follows:
two site-related scenarios: urban and rural (greenfield).
These scenarios represent best and worst cases in terms
of the likely site conditions
two scenarios relating to the approach to early design decisions:
poor approach and best approach. These scenarios also include
factors relating to the performance of the contractor on
the project
two scenarios related to the approach to zero operational
carbon, with and without wind turbines being viable on the site.
The key inputs for these six scenarios and the base case supermarket
are set out in Table 7.
42
TABLE 13
KEY ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE SIX BREEAM ASSESSMENT SCENARIOS AND THE CASE STUDY BUILDING
ASSUMPTION CASE SITE CONDITIONS APPPROACH TO DESIGN ZERO CARBON TARGET

STUDY
Approach to Approach to
Best Poor
zero carbon zero carbon
Urban Greenfield approach to approach to
(wind not (wind
design design
viable) viable)
Biomass feasible Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Public transport links Good Excellent Poor Good Good Good Good
Within 500m of shop, post box and
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
cash machine?
Has ≥ 75% of the site been developed
No Yes No No No No No
in the last 50 years?
Ecological value Low Low High Low Low Low Low
Zero carbon pursued? No No No No No Yes Yes
Emerging technologies feasible? No No No No No Yes Yes

Best Best Best Exemplar Poor Best Best
Type of contractor
practice practice practice practice practice practice practice
Potential for natural ventilation Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Indoor air quality¹ 1 1 1 1 2 1 1
On-site wind viable? No No No/Yes No No No Yes
Design best practice followed? Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Compliant recycled Aggregates to
Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
be used
Exemplar daylighting No No No Yes No No No
Exemplar energy performance No No No Yes No No No
Exemplar materials specification No No No Yes No No No
¹ 1= Natural ventilation opening ›10m from opening; 2 = Air intake/extracts ‹10m apart
The base case scenario was based on the actual location, site cost effectiveness. These rankings were then used to define the
conditions, etc. of the Asda Stockton-on-Tees food store and is most cost-effective routes to achieving ‘Very Good’, ‘Excellent’ and
used as the basis for comparison with the above six scenarios. ‘Outstanding’ BREEAM ratings for each of the proposed scenarios.
Each BREEAM credit was reviewed to determine the additional work

that would be required to take the building design beyond the base
case supermarket to achieve the targeted BREEAM ratings.
The costing exercise showed that there were five different types
RECOMMENDATION
of credits:
1. Credits that are achieved in the base case and so incur no BREEAM is a useful assessment
additional cost. These credits should be achieved as part of method to identify ways that the
legislative compliance or as part of ‘typical practice’. environmental performance of
2. Credits that are entirely dependent on the site conditions, e.g. a building can be improved. It
remediation of contaminated land, and so may or may not be is also a useful benchmarking
achieved and, in some cases, may incur additional cost. tool which allows comparison
3. Credits that have to be designed in at the start of the project and between different buildings.
therefore have no additional cost, e.g. Hea 1: Daylighting Levels However, the overall purpose
and Hea 2: View Out. If they are not designed in at the start of the of a building is to meet the
project, then these credits cannot be obtained later in the occupants’ requirements.
design process. Therefore, project teams
4. Credits that require a study or calculation to be undertaken should aim to develop holistic
which may incur an additional cost, but may not achieve solutions based on some of the
the credit if the design does not comply, principles of BREEAM rather
e.g. Hea 13 Acoustic performance.
than rigidly complying with the
5. Credits that only require a professional fee or incur an credit criteria. The benefits and
administrative fee to achieve, but do not then incur a capital consequences of the various
cost on the project, e.g. Man 4 building user guide. solutions should be carefully
considered to avoid counter-
All the credits that required additional work to achieve were assigned productive outcomes that can be
a capital cost with input from specialists and cost consultants with driven by any simple assessment
experience of supermarket projects. Credits were then assigned a tool if applied too literally and
‘weighted value’ by dividing the capital cost of achieving the credit, without question.
by its credit weighting, and the credits ranked in order of descending
43
8.1 BREEAM RESULTS AND GUIDANCE
Figure 14 sets out a flowchart providing guidance on how to develop a cost-effective

route to a target BREEAM rating. Guidance on the steps presented in the flowchart
is given below.
FIGURE 14
BREEAM GUIDANCE FLOWCHART
Determine planning policy and client requirements
Determine the target rating
Determine site factors and influence on credits
Review minimum standards for target rating

(e.g. Energy Performance Certificate rating)
Review potential rating Review experience of design and construction

against original target team relating to BREEAM
Review strategic design credits

(e.g. depth of floorplate, frame type)
Review potential costs of highest-cost credits
Review potential innovation credits and opportunities
Propose a route to the target rating
BREEAM SCORE 45% 55% 70% 85% 100%
BREEAM RATING GOOD VERY GOOD EXCELLENT OUTSTANDING

44
THE TARGET RATING

RECOMMENDATION
The target BREEAM rating that is required for the project will
The project team should review
depend on:
the opportunities and constraints
the requirements in the brief
of the site against the BREEAM
any targets set as a condition of funding criteria as a prelude to setting
the local planning policies, which sometimes include targets for BREEAM ratings. out a route to the required target
rating.
MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR BREEAM RATINGS
The minimum standards required to achieve BREEAM ‘Very Good’,

‘Excellent’ and ‘Outstanding’ ratings are shown in Table 8.
TABLE 8
MINIMUM BREEAM REQUIREMENTS
BREEAM CREDIT MINIMUM STANDARDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MINIMUM STANDARDS

FOR VERY GOOD FOR EXCELLENT FOR OUTSTANDING
Man 1 Commisioning 1 1 2
Man 2 Considerate Constructors - 1 2
Man 4 Building user guide - 1 1
Hea 4 High frequency lighting 1 1 1
Hea 12 Microbial contamination 1 1 1
Ene 1 Reduction in CO2 emissions - 6 10
Ene 2 Sub-metering of substantial energy uses 1 1 1
Ene 5 Low or zero carbon technologies - 1 1
Wat 1 Water consumption 1 1 2
Wat 2 Water meter 1 1 1
Wst 3 Storage of recyclable waste - 1 1
LE 4 Mitigating ecological impact 1 1 1
The majority of these ‘mandatory credits’ are relatively simple and cost-effective to achieve, with the exception of
the Ene 1 credits, which can be costly and difficult to achieve for the ‘Outstanding’ rating, as shown in Table 9.
Most of the minimum requirements are considered to be typical practice and hence attract no additional capital cost.
TABLE 9
COST OF ACHIEVING MINIMUM BREEAM REQUIREMENTS
BREEAM CREDIT CAPITAL COSTS CAPITAL COSTS CAPITAL COSTS

FOR VERY GOOD FOR EXCELLENT FOR OUTSTANDING
[£] [£] [£]
Man 1 Commisioning 0 0 20,000
Man 2 Considerate Constructors - 0 0
Man 4 Building user guide - 3,750 3,750
Hea 4 High frequency lighting 0 0 0
Hea 12 Microbial contamination 0 0 0
Ene 1 Reduction in CO2 emissions - 118,850 980,973
Ene 2 Sub-metering of substantial energy uses 0 0 0
Ene 5 Low or zero carbon technologies - Costs included in Ene 1 above Costs included in Ene 1 above
Wat 1 Water consumption 0 0 6,400
Wat 2 Water meter 0 0 0
Wst 3 Storage of recyclable waste - 0 0
LE 4 Mitigating ecological impact 0 0 0

45
CREDITS ASSOCIATED WITH SITE FACTORS
The location of the building has the most impact on:

Transport (Tra) credits in terms of connections to public transport
and proximity to amenities
Land Use and Ecology (LE) credits including whether the site is
re-used, and whether it is of low or high ecological value.
Figure 15 shows the balance of credits required to achieve a BREEAM ‘Outstanding’

rating. The radial axis represents the proportion of available credits achieved under
each section of BREEAM for each site scenario using the case study building. It shows
the most cost-effective routes under the urban, greenfield and case study scenarios to
achieve BREEAM ‘Outstanding’. The case study results are coincident with the urban
scenario for the Transport and Materials categories and coincident with the greenfield
scenario for Land Use and Ecology.
FIGURE 15
COMPARISON OF URBAN AND GREENFIELD SITE SCENARIOS TO ACHIEVE A BREEAM ‘OUTSTANDING’ RATING
Management
100% Health and

Pollution well-being
80%
60%
40%
Land use 20% Energy
and ecology
0%
Waste Transport
Materials Water
KEY
CASE STUDY
URBAN
GREENFIELD (WIND NOT VIABLE)
Figure 15 shows that under the greenfield scenario, Transport (Tra) and Land Use
and Ecology (LE) credits are lost relative to the other scenarios, requiring credits to
be obtained in other BREEAM sections. In this case, the most cost-effective credits
are in the Pollution (Pol) and Materials (Mat) sections.
46
FIGURE 16 Figure 16 shows the change to the credit distribution of the

GREENFIELD SCENARIO, WITH AND WITHOUT WIND TURBINES BEING greenfield scenario when wind energy is and is not viable on-site.
ACCOMODATED ON-SITE
Under the ‘wind viable’ scenario additional credits are achieved
Management in the Energy section which means that some of the costly
additional Materials and Land use and Ecology credits do not
100% Health and
need to be targeted. On suitable out-of-town sites therefore,
Pollution well-being developers may wish to consider the viability of a large wind
80%
turbine – see Section 7.7.
60%
40%
An ‘urban’ site is more likely to achieve the following credits:
Land use
LE 1 - Re-use of land
20% Energy
and ecology LE 3 - Ecological value of site and protection of
0% ecological features
Tra 1 - Provision of public transport
Tra 2 - Proximity to amenities.
Waste Transport
All of these credits are zero cost as they are based on the location
of the development.
The total capital cost uplifts for the two location scenarios
Materials Water considered and the case study building are shown in Figure 17.
KEY
The results for the case study building show that the capital cost
GREENFIELD (WIND NOT VIABLE)
uplift is 0.24% for ‘Very Good’, 1.76% for ‘Excellent’ and 10.10% for
GREENFIELD (WIND VIABLE)
the ‘Outstanding’ rating.
FIGURE 17
COMPARISON OF COST UPLIFT FOR URBAN AND GREENFIELD SITE SCENARIOS
BREEAM RATING
CAPITAL COST OF CREDITS (£)

1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
3,500,000
500,000
£3,249,523
Greenfield
(20.57%)
‘OUTSTANDING’
Urban £1,417,023 (8.97%)
Case study £1,595,523 (10.10%)
Greenfield £331,405 (2.10%)

‘EXCELLENT’
Urban £226,405 (1.43%)
BREEAM CATEGORY
Case study £278,405 (1.76%)
Management
Health & Well-being
Energy
Greenfield £53,150 (0.34%)
Transport
‘VERY GOOD’
Water
Urban £24,950 (0.16%) Materials
Waste
Landuse & Ecology

Case study £37,150 (0.24%)
Pollution
47
CREDITS ASSOCIATED WITH OPERATIONAL CARBON REDUCTION

RECOMMENDATION
There may be an operational carbon emissions reduction target on a project, in which
The project team should
case, the necessary BREEAM energy credits (for a particular rating) may be gained by
establish the number of
achieving that target.
site-related credits that can be
If a ‘zero carbon’ target is set on a project, then there is the potential to achieve an achieved as early as possible in
‘Outstanding’ rating relatively easily and cost effectively. The Target Zero research the design process. This will help
explored the relationship between achieving a zero carbon target and BREEAM. to set the starting point for the
optimum route to the targeted
Figure 18 shows the capital and NPV cost of two potential routes to achieving a zero BREEAM rating.
carbon target; one where wind technologies are viable and one where they are not.
To achieve the necessary reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, packages of
measures are required which are a combination of LZC technologies and
energy efficiency measures. RECOMMENDATION
These packages were devised on the basis that they achieve the maximum If there is a requirement to
possible reduction in carbon emissions while acknowledging practical and achieve a BREEAM ‘Excellent’ or
economic constraints, for example, where photovoltaics are included, the ‘Outstanding’ rating on a project
total area of the array is limited by the available roof area. and there is no corresponding
carbon emissions reduction
target, then it is recommended
that the potential cost
implications of the mandatory
energy credits are established
and budgeted for early in the
design process since they are
likely to be significant.
FIGURE 18
CAPITAL COST UPLIFT AND NPVS OF ACHIEVING BREEAM ‘OUTSTANDING’ AND TARGETING ZERO CARBON

1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
0
APPROACH TO ZERO CARBON 25-YEAR NPV COST

(WIND NOT VIABLE) £2,462,923 (15.59%)
APPROACH TO ZERO CARBON 25-YEAR NPV COST

SCENARIO
(WIND VIABLE) £2,022,894 (12.80%)
APPROACH TO ZERO CARBON CAPITAL COST

(WIND NOT VIABLE) £4,539,490 (28.73%)
APPROACH TO ZERO CARBON CAPITAL COST

(WIND VIABLE) £5,188,990 (32.84%)
BREEAM CATEGORY
Management Energy Water Waste Pollution
Health & Wellbeing Transport Materials Landuse & Ecology
The bottom bar in Figure 18 represents the capital cost of the scenario where on-site
wind technologies are viable (a 330kW turbine was assumed), the next bar up reflects a
scenario in which on-site wind technologies are not viable either as a result of low wind
availability or other issues such as spatial or planning constraints.
The top two bars represent the same two scenarios, but include the NPV benefit of
the energy efficiency measures and LZC technologies selected, i.e. accounting for the
operational and maintenance costs of the LZC technologies, feed-in tariff income and
the utility cost savings over a 25-year period.
48
It is only possible to achieve zero carbon under the scenario where on-site wind
technology is viable. The predicted reduction in carbon emissions where wind is viable RECOMMENDATION
is 144% whereas the maximum possible reduction achievable where wind technologies
are not viable on the site is 109%. The zero carbon target for this development is a If a ‘zero carbon’ (or very low
127% reduction in total carbon emissions. It is noted that the capital cost of the carbon) target is set for a project,
‘zero carbon’ scenario where wind is not viable is less than where wind is viable it should be relatively easy and
however in terms of NPV, the package of measures including the on-site turbine cost-effective to also achieve a
provides the better return. BREEAM ‘Outstanding’ rating.
This graph focuses only on the ‘Outstanding’ rating as it is reasoned that if a zero
carbon target was set for a supermarket building, then it would be logical to also
pursue an ‘Outstanding’ rating since, by far, the most significant costs associated with
attaining of an ‘Outstanding’ BREEAM rating relate to the operational energy credits.
CREDITS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXPERIENCE OF THE DESIGN

AND CONSTRUCTION TEAM RECOMMENDATION
The experience of the design team in delivering BREEAM-rated buildings and

The project team’s experience
their early involvement in the design process is important to achieve high BREEAM in delivering BREEAM ratings
ratings cost effectively. By doing so, the requirements of many BREEAM credits can should be included in the criteria
be integrated into the fundamental design of the building. for selecting the design team
and the consultants’ briefs and
Design teams that have worked on other BREEAM projects are more likely to have
contractor tender documents
specifications that are aligned with the credit requirements and will have template
reports for the additional studies that are required under BREEAM, e.g. lift efficiency
should include requirements to
studies. Project managers who are experienced in delivering BREEAM targets are deliver the required rating.
more likely to raise issues relating to additional expertise that may be required, such
as input from ecologists. Equally, quantity surveyors will have cost data relating to the
achievement of BREEAM credits.
Contractors who have delivered BREEAM Post-Construction Reviews will have set up
the required systems and processes to do this efficiently. This will help to achieve the
Construction Site Impact credits (monitoring energy, water and waste on-site) and the
Responsible Sourcing credits, as well as being able to monitor the procurement
of materials and equipment that complies with the credit requirements.
In this study, the credits related directly to the contractor’s experience were costed,
as shown in Table 10. It was assumed that an ‘exemplar’ contractor would be able
to achieve all of these credits, which are all relatively low cost.
TABLE 10
BREEAM CREDITS (AND COSTS) RELATING TO CONTRACTOR’S EXPERIENCE
BREEAM CREDIT CREDIT NUMBER CAPITAL COST (£)
Man 2 Considerate Constructors First credit 0
Second credit 0
Man 3 Construction site Impacts First credit 2,000
Second credit 5,000
Third credit 9,000
Fourth credit 0
Wst 1 Construction site Waste Management First credit 0
Second credit 0
Third credit 0
Fourth credit 0
49
CREDITS ASSOCIATED WITH STRATEGIC DESIGN
Early design decisions about the fabric and form of the building will have an impact
on the following BREEAM credits:
Hea 14 Office Space: View out, in terms of depth of floor plate of the office areas
Hea 14 Office Space: Potential for natural ventilation, in terms of the depth of
floor plate and whether the occupied areas have been designed to be naturally
ventilated. An occupied area is defined as a room or space in the building that is
likely to be occupied for 30 minutes or more by a building user.
Typically this is the office areas of the building
Hea 8 Indoor air quality, in terms of avoiding air pollutants entering the building
Hea 14 Office Space: Acoustic performance, which includes the performance of
the façade
Pol 5: Flood risk, assuming that the building has been designed to comply with
Planning Policy Statement 25 and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems have
been included in the design.
Figure 19 shows the balance of credits required to achieve a BREEAM 'Outstanding'

rating most cost effectively under the typical ‘best’ and ‘poor’ approaches to design
assumed for the supermarket building.
FIGURE 19
COMPARISON OF ‘APPROACH TO DESIGN’ SCENARIOS TO ACHIEVE A BREEAM ‘OUTSTANDING’ RATING
Management
100% Health and

Pollution well-being
80%
60%
40%
Land use 20% Energy
and ecology
0%
Waste Transport
Materials Water
KEY
CASE STUDY
BEST APPROACH TO DESIGN
POOR APPROACH TO DESIGN
It shows that a ‘poor approach to design’ implies that less credits are achievable in the
Management, Health and Well-being, Materials and Waste sections and consequently
that more credits have to be achieved in other sections: the Energy, Water, Land Use
and Ecology and Pollution sections. Credits in these sections are more costly to
achieve than those achieved through the ‘best approach to design’ scenario.
For the case study building, the results show that to achieve an ‘Excellent’ rating there
is a cost uplift of 4.58% if a ‘poor’ design approach is followed compared to 1.13%
where ‘best practice’ approach is adopted. In terms of capital cost, this is a £546,400
saving. To achieve an ‘Outstanding’ rating there is a capital cost uplift of 36.13% if a
‘poor’ approach is adopted compared to 7.59% for a building on which a ‘best practice’
approach is followed. In terms of capital cost, this represents a substantial difference
of £4,509,467.
50
The total capital cost uplift of the two ‘design approach’ scenarios considered
are shown in Figure 20.
FIGURE 20
COMPARISON OF COST UPLIFT FOR DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO DESIGN SCENARIOS

BREEAM RATING
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
Poor approach
‘OUTSTANDING’
£5,708,990
(36.13%)
Best approach £1,199,523 (7.59%)
Case study £1,595,523 (10.10%)
Poor approach £724,405 (4.58%)

‘EXCELLENT’
Best approach £178,005 (1.13%)
BREEAM CATEGORY
Case study £278,405 (1.76%)
Management
Health & Wellbeing
Energy
Poor approach £219,550 (1.39%)
Transport
‘VERY GOOD’
Water
Best approach £14,900 (0.09%) Materials
Waste
Landuse & Ecology

Case study £37,150 (0.24%)
Pollution
Table 11 shows the credits that relate to the form and fabric of the building. These should be considered
at an early stage in the project so that they can be cost effectively integrated into the design.
TABLE 11
BREEAM CREDITS RELATING TO THE FORM AND FABRIC OF THE BUILDING
CREDIT TITLE AND REFERENCE COMMENTS ON POTENTIAL TO ACHIEVE CREDITS CAPITAL COST (£)
Daylighting factors of at least 2% are easier to achieve with shallow
floor plan retail areas, this needs to be considered when deciding the
Hea 1 Daylighting depth and orientation of the sales and common spaces to ensure at 3,000 (to undertake day lighting study)
least 35% of the floor area meets the criteria.
Daylighting factors of at least 2% are easier to achieve with shallow
floor office areas, this needs to be considered when deciding the
Hea 14 Office Space - Daylighting depth and orientation of the office areas to ensure at least 80% of Costs included in Hea 1 above.
the floor area meets the criteria.
This credit needs desks in the office areas to be within 7m of a
Hea 14 Office Space – View Out window which needs to be considered when deciding the depth 0
and orientation of the office wing.
Openable windows equivalent to at least 5% of the floor area in the

Hea 14 Office Space – Potential for Natural
office area or a ventilation strategy providing adequate cross flow of 10,500
Ventilation
air for office areas.
Fabric performance in terms of: air tightness Cost varies depending on energy package:
Ene 1 Reduction of CO2 emissions (5m³/hr per m² @50Pa); glazing performance £118,850 for Excellent and £980,973 for
(1.79W/m²/100 lux); area and position of rooflights. Outstanding for case study scenario.
51
To achieve the Hea credits in Table 11, a narrow floor plate in the office areas RECOMMENDATION
would have to be used to allow desks to be less than 7m from a window and to
allow cross-flow ventilation. The approach to ventilation and cooling would have
Consideration should be given
to be integrated with the structural and building services design. to factors such as daylight
calculations, use of rooflights
The location and design of the office area of the building will have an impact on the and natural ventilation early
above credits. Offices could be incorporated into the main building on the ground floor in the design process. They
or as a mezzanine which could reduce the potential to achieve Hea 14 Office space: can have a significant effect on
Daylighting, Hea 14 Office space: View out and Hea 14 Office space: Potential for certain credits which, in the right
natural ventilation. circumstances, can be easily
achieved.
The design of the rooflights is a key parameter in the energy and carbon
performance for the supermarket. The impact of rooflight specification, area and
configuration affects a number of variables including space heating requirements,
space cooling requirements in summer and the energy requirement of lighting
systems. In the case study building, lighting is the largest single source of regulated
carbon dioxide emissions.
As the rooflight area is increased, the overall light intensity within the building will
increase, however this will also increase the shadow effects in areas which are not
directly lit. There may also be some areas, which are in direct sunlight and may be
subject to glare. In general it is not always practical to design the rooflight positions
around the internal layout. It must also be considered that the internal material use
or layout of the building may change during the service life of the building.
Table 12 gives the credits that relate specifically to the space and layout of the
building and its site.
TABLE 12
BREEAM CREDITS RELATING TO THE SPACE AND LAYOUT OF THE BUILDING AND ITS SITE
CREDIT TITLE AND REFERENCE COMMENTS ON POTENTIAL TO ACHIEVE CREDITS CAPITAL COST (£)
Central facilities for the storage of the building’s recyclable waste

streams will need to be provided in a dedicated space. This will
Wst 3 Storage space for recyclables 0
need to store at least 6 waste streams and with good vehicular
access to facilitate collections.
Space will need to be allocated for either an industrial waste
compactor or baler to be installed for compacting/baling waste 0
Wst 4 Compactor baler
materials generated on-site and a water outlet is provided
for cleaning.
Space will need to be allocated for a vessel on-site for composting
Wst 5 Composting food waste and adequate storage for such waste generated by the 0
building's users and operation.
Secure, covered cycle racks have to be provided for 10% of full
33,500 for the first credit.
time equivalent staff and the equivalent of 1 rack per 20 car
Tra 3 Cyclists facilities parking spaces for customers. There also needs to be showers,
7,500 for the second credit
changing facilities and lockers along with drying space for
staff use.
Site layout has to be designed to ensure safe and adequate cycle
35,000
Tra 4 Pedestrians and cyclists safety access away from delivery routes and suitable lighting has to
be provided.
Parking and turning areas should be designed to avoid the need 0
Tra 8 Deliveries and manoeuvring
for repeated shunting.
0 (for both credits if land of low ecological value
or for the first credit if land is of medium / high
Some ecological credits can be obtained through retaining and ecological value)
LE 4 Mitigating ecological impact
enhancing ecological features, which may have a spatial impact.
50,000 (for the second credit if land is of medium /
high ecological value)
60,000 (for the first two LE5 credits if land of low
ecological value).
230,000 (for the first two LE5 credits if land of
Further enhancing the site ecological value may require additional
medium / high ecological value)
LE 5 Enhancing site ecology space for ecological features such as wild flower planting or the
creation of a pond. For the third credit it would cost an additional
275,000 if land of low ecological value and
1,150,000 if land is of medium / high
ecological value
52
Plant room size will vary according to the LZC technologies that are to be used
in the building. For example, biomass boilers will require additional storage space RECOMMENDATION
for wood chip fuel and for ash as well as access for fuel deliveries and waste
Low and high cost credits should
collections. Plant room sizes for offsite solutions that provide district heating could
be established by working closely
be considerably less if no backup plant is required for the building. Similarly, the
use of on-site technologies such as ground source heat pumps can result in smaller with an experienced BREEAM
plant rooms, if no backup or supplementary heating or cooling plant is required. assessor and using this research
to inform the assumptions that
are made at early stages in the
design process.
POTENTIAL COSTS OF BREEAM CREDITS
Figures 21 to 23 show the most cost-effective routes to achieve a BREEAM ‘Very Good’,
‘Excellent’ and ‘Outstanding’ respectively for the case study supermarket building.
They show the cumulative credits, and costs, required to achieve the target rating
and taking into account mandatory and scenario-related credits, e.g. relating to site
location. Credits are ranked in terms of their weighted cost (capital cost of the credit
divided by the credit weighting).
The routes are based on the case study supermarket building design with a set
of assumptions that have been made to establish the capital cost of each credit.
Therefore, these routes can be used as examples of the potential capital cost uplift
and lowest cost routes to high BREEAM ratings, rather than as definitive guides
that are applicable to all projects. As each situation varies, it is likely that the different
opportunities and constraints on a project will influence and alter both the optimum
route and the capital cost uplift.
Working from the bottom up, the graphs identify (in red) the mandatory credit
requirements. Above these the zero cost optional credits are listed (in black). These are
not ranked in any particular order. Above these (in blue) are the non-zero cost optional
credits. Collectively, these credits identify the most cost-effective route to achieving the
required BREEAM target rating based on the case study supermarket building.
The graphs show that there are a number of credits that are considered zero cost for
the case study supermarket building. These credits will be low or zero cost on similar
supermarket buildings and can therefore be used as a guide to selecting the lowest
cost credits on other projects. The graphs also identify the potentially high cost credits
which need to be specifically costed for each project.
53
FIGURE 21
LOWEST COST ROUTE TO BREEAM 'VERY GOOD' RATING
5,000
6,000
7,000
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
0
Tra 5 Travel plan
Ene 3 Sub-metering of high energy load areas & tendency
Wat 4 Sanitary supply shut off
Wat 3 Major leak detection
Man 3.2 Construction site impacts
Hea 14.2 Office space
Man 4 Building user guide
Wat 1.3 Water consumption
Hea 1.1 Daylighting
Hea 14 Office space
Wat 7.1, 7.2 Vehicle wash
Wat 6 Irrigation systems
Mat 2 Hard landscaping and boundary protection
LE 4.2 Mitigating ecological impact
Pol 7.1 Reduction of night time light pollution
Mat 5.1 Responsible sourcing of materials
Pol 5.3 Flood risk
Man 8 Security
Tra 2 Proximity to amenities
Wat 2.1 Water meter
Pol 6.1 Minimising watercourse pollution
Pol 5.2 Flood risk
Pol 5.1 Flood risk
Wst 5.1 Composting
Wst 4.1 Compactor/baler
Wst 3.1 Recyclable waste storage
BREEAM Credit1
Mat 7 Design for robustness

Mat 6.2 Insulation
Mat 6.1 Insulation
Tra 4.2 Pedestrian and cycle safety
Ene 4 External lighting
Hea 10 Thermal comfort
Hea 5 Internal and external lighting levels
Ene 1, Ene 5, Pol 4 Reduction of CO2 emissions
Wst 1.4 Construction site waste management
Man 2.2 Considerate constructors
Tra 1.3 Provision of public transport
Mat 1.2 Materials specification (major building elements)
Ene 2 Sub-metering of substantial energy uses
Wat 2 Water meter
Hea 12 Microbial contamination
Hea 4 High frequency lighting
Man 1.1 Commissioning
0
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
1,000
2,000
3,000
1 Ranking of credits is based on their weighted cost (capital cost of the credit divided by the credit weighting),
whereas the values shown in the figures are the actual (non-weighted) cost of achieving the credit.
54
FIGURE 22
LOWEST COST ROUTE TO BREEAM 'EXCELLENT' RATING CAPITAL COST OF CREDITS (£)
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
5,000
0
LE 6.2 Long term impact on biodiversity
Ene 7.1 Cold storage
Tra 3.1 Cyclist facilities
Hea 8 Indoor air quality
LE 3 Ecological value of site and protection of ecological features
Tra 7 Travel information point
Pol 8.1 Noise attenuation
Wst 2 Recycled aggregates
Hea 9 Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
Tra 5 Travel plan
Ene 3 Sub-metering of high energy load areas and tenancy
Hea 1.1 Daylighting
Hea 14 Office space
Mat 2 Hard landscaping and boundary protection
Pol 5.3 Flood risk
BREEAM Credit1
Man 8 Security
Wat 2.1 Water meter
Pol 5.2 Flood risk
Pol 5.1 Flood risk
Wst 5.1 Composting
Mat 7 Design for robustness
Mat 6.2 Insulation
Mat 6.1 Insulation
Tra 1.1 Provision of public transport £118,855
Wat 1 Water consumption
Wat 2 Water meter
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
1 Ranking of credits is based on their weighted cost (capital cost of the credit divided by the credit weighting),
whereas the values shown in the figures are the actual (non-weighted) cost of achieving the credit.
55

FIGURE 23
LOWEST COST ROUTE TO BREEAM 'OUTSTANDING' RATING
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
0
Pol 3.1 Refrigerant GWP – Cold storage
Pol 2 Preventing refrigerant leaks
Wat 5.1, 2 Water recycling
Ene 8.2 Lifts
LE 5.1 Enhancing site ecology
Ene 6 Building fabric performance & avoidance of air infiltration
Pol 1.1 Refrigerant GWP – Building services
Ene 9.1 Escalators and travelling walkways
LE 5.2 Enhancing site ecology
Ene 8.1 Lifts
Hea 8 Indoor air quality
LE 3 Ecological value of site and protection of ecological features
Tra 7 Travel information point
Pol 8.1 Noise attenuation
Wst 2 Recycled aggregates
Hea 9 Volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
Tra 5 Travel plan
Ene 3 Sub-metering of high energy load areas and tenancy
Hea 1.1 Daylighting
Hea 14 Office space
Mat 2 Hard landscaping & boundary protection
BREEAM Credit1

Pol 5.3 Flood risk
Man 8 Security
Wat 2.1 Water meter
Pol 5.2 Flood risk
Pol 5.1 Flood risk
Wst 5.1 Composting
Mat 7 Designing for robustness
Mat 6.2 Insulation
Mat 6.1 Insulation
Tra 8 Deliveries and manouvering
Tra 1.1 Provision of public transport £980,973
Wat 2 Water meter
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
1 Ranking of credits is based on their weighted cost (capital cost of the credit divided by the credit weighting), whereas the values
shown in the figures are the actual (non-weighted) cost of achieving the credit. (non-weighted) cost of achieving the credit.
56
EXEMPLAR PERFORMANCE AND INNOVATION CREDITS

RECOMMENDATION
There are two types of innovation credits within BREEAM:
Design teams should explore
those that represent ‘exemplary performance’, such as increasing the area
opportunities to gain innovation
achieving a daylight factor of 2% from 35% to 50% of the retail area
credits. By ranking credits in
credits that provide additional recognition for a building that innovates in terms of cost, the thresholds
the field of sustainable performance, above and beyond the level that is
between achieving an ‘Excellent’
currently recognised and rewarded by standard BREEAM credits.
and ‘Outstanding’ rating can be
identified to help decide whether
It may be cost-effective to propose an innovation credit instead of one of the more the proposed innovation credit
costly credits to achieve the ‘Excellent’ or ‘Outstanding’ ratings. If an innovation credit is cost-effective compared to
can be proposed that has a lower capital cost than credits close to the ‘Excellent’ and other credits.
‘Outstanding’ threshold score, then they should be pursued. These credits can be
defined by ranking the weighted cost of credits and identifying the credits that take
the cumulative score over a threshold.
For the case study scenario considered, the weighted value (the capital cost divided
by the credit weighting) of the credit next to the ‘Excellent’ threshold is £16,666, so an
innovation measure that is cheaper than this would achieve the ‘Excellent’ rating at a
lower cost. Similarly, for the ‘Outstanding’ rating, the weighted value of the credit next
to the threshold is £78,000.
GUIDANCE ON MATERIALS SELECTION
The research showed that there is an inherent weighting within the tool used
to calculate the score under credit Mat 1 in the materials section of BREEAM.
This inherent weighting is used in addition to weighting each element by area.
The inherent weightings are shown in Table 13.
TABLE 13
ELEMENT WEIGHTINGS WITHIN THE BREEAM MATERIALS ASSESSMENT TOOL
ELEMENT EXTERNAL WALLS WINDOWS ROOF UPPER FLOORS
Weighting 1.00 0.30 0.85 0.28
The table shows that external walls and roofs are highly weighted.
An assessment of alternative materials specifications showed that:
the external walls achieve an A rating in the Green Guide to Specification [9]
using steel composite profiled panels, with an opportunity to achieve an
A+ rating by using cedar boarding
the aluminium curtain walling only achieves a Green Guide D rating and
requires a different glazing solution to achieve higher ratings, e.g. uPVC
windows or timber, which is likely to be considered impractical on this
type of building
the aluminium standing seam roof construction achieves an A rating.
This could be raised to an A+ rating by substituting the outer skin of the roof
build-up with coated steel sheet
the upper floor slab achieves an A (back-of-house) or A+ (mezzanine retail floor)
rating for the case study building.
For the case study building, the first two (of four) Mat 1 credits were achieved by
using the base case building specification. To achieve the third credit the windows
would need to be upgraded for example, using timber to achieve an A+ rating.
This is estimated to incur an increased capital cost of £20,000. The fourth Mat 1
credit can be easily achieved by substituting the aluminium standing seam roof
with a steel-based construction.
For the case study building, the full four Mat 1 credits can be achieved by selecting
A+ materials for the external walls and the roof with all the other elements achieving
only an E rating.
57
9.0 STRUCTURAL DESIGN
STRUCTURAL DESIGN
Three alternatives for the supermarket building were assessed as shown in Figure 24.
The figure shows typical structural sections through the building.
FIGURE 24
ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURAL OPTIONS
BASE CASE: STEEL PORTAL FRAME
OPTION 1: GLUE-LAMINATED TIMBER RAFTERS AND COLUMNS
OPTION 2: STEEL PORTAL FRAME WITH NORTHLIGHTS
Full building cost plans for each structural option were produced using mean values,
current at 4Q 2009. These costs are summarised in Table 14.
58
TABLE 14
COMPARATIVE COSTS OF ALTERNATIVE STRUCTURAL DESIGNS
STRUCTURAL DESCRIPTION STRUCTURE UNIT TOTAL BUILDING TOTAL BUILDING DIFFERENCE

OPTION COST¹ COST UNIT COST RELATIVE TO
BASE CASE
BUILDING
(£/m² of GIFA) (£) (£/m² of GIFA) (%)
Base case Steel frame 107 16,400,000 1,746 -

building Suspended concrete floor slab
CFA piles
Upper floor concrete slab on metal deck
Mezzanine: light gauge steel supporting timber decking
Option 1 Glulam frame 141 16,800,000 1,789 +2.4
Suspended concrete floor slab
CFA piles
Mezzanine: Glulam beams supporting timber decking
Option 2 Steel frame 117 16,300,000 1,735 -0.6

Suspended concrete floor slab
Steel H- piles
Mezzanine: light gauge steel supporting timber decking
Northlight roof profile in retail area
¹ Frame and upper floors
With reference to external published cost analyses, such as the RICS Building Cost
Information Service (BCIS), the typical benchmark cost range for steel-framed
supermarkets within the range of 7,000m² to 15,000m² gross internal floor area
(GIFA) is of the order of £400/m² to £700/m² for the shell building, with a further
cost of £800/m² to £1,200/m² for fitting out; giving a notional cost range for the
complete building of between £1,200/m² to £1,900/m². The base case building
cost model is positioned in the upper half of this range.
The cost of site works, car parking, landscaping, services, lighting etc., is clearly
project specific. As a broad rule of thumb for large retail supermarkets, however,
a budget allowance in the order of 15% to 20% of the total construction cost is
typical, and the cost plan reflects this, with the estimate of £3.0m equating to
18% of the total cost.

59
9.1 IMPACT OF STRUCTURE ON OPERATIONAL

CARBON EMISSIONS
Dynamic thermal modelling of the supermarket building showed

little variation in operational carbon emissions; the Building
Emission Rate (BER) varying by only 2.1kgCO2/m²yr, or 3.8%, between
the three structural alternatives considered. The predicted annual
CO2 emissions for each of the three buildings are shown in Table 15.
The small predicted difference between the base case building and
Option 1 is a function of the supermarket volume. Although both
buildings were designed with the same internal clear height, the
depth and pitch of the glulam rafters in Option 1 increased the
height of the building slightly increasing the space heating
requirement marginally.
Option 2 is a fundamentally different design from the base case

building. The inclusion of northlights allows diffused light to enter
the middle of the supermarket while reducing the amount of direct
solar radiation; this improves the consistency and uniformity of the
light and reduces the risk of overheating. A secondary effect is to
increase the surface-to-volume ratio of the supermarket which also
reduces the risk of overheating but requires more space heating.
The net effect of this approach is to increase the Building Emission
Rate (BER) by 2.1kgCO2/m²yr i.e. 3.8% relative to the base case.
TABLE 15
BUILDING EMISSION RATE (BER) FOR THE BASE CASE BUILDING AND OPTIONS 1 AND 2
BER (kgCO2/m² yr)

BUILDING DESCRIPTION
Base case Steel portal frame 55.5
Option 1 Glulam rafters and columns 55.7
Option 2 Braced steel portal frame with northlights 57.6

60
Figure 25 shows the variation in energy demand between the base case supermarket
and the alternative structural options. Note that the energy required for lighting in
Option 2 is the same as for Option 1 and the base case since daylight dimming lighting
controls were not included in these models. Had daylight dimming lighting controls
been included, the northlight solution may have yielded a lower BER than the
base case building. See Figures 13 and 26.
Another benefit of northlights is that they are orientated to avoid high solar gains
and therefore they are ideal for buildings where temperatures must be kept low
and/or mechanical cooling is included. Furthermore the south-facing side of
northlights provides an ideal series of façades on which photovoltaic panels can
be installed. In the UK, the optimum orientation for solar panels is south-facing
with an elevation of around 30°- 35° above the horizontal. This elevation can
increase the annual output of solar panels by around 10% compared to
horizontally-mounted panels.
FIGURE 25
VARIATION IN OPERATIONAL ENERGY DEMAND
900
BASE CASE:
STEEL PORTAL FRAME
800
STRUCTURAL OPTION 1:
700
ENERGY DEMAND (MWh/yr)
GLUE-LAMINATED TIMBER
RAFTERS AND COLUMNS
600
STRUCTURAL OPTION 2:
STEEL PORTAL FRAME WITH
500
NORTHLIGHTS EQUAL TO 15%
OF AREA OF FLAT ROOF
400
300
200
100
0
HEATING
COOLING
HOT WATER
LIGHTING
FANS AND PUMPS
SMALL POWER
61
Figure 26 illustrates the effects of introducing rooflights and daylight dimming into
the base case and Option 2 building models. It shows that the use of northlights
rather than flat rooflights (both combined with daylight dimming) increases the
demand for lighting by 1% and heating by 35%. However the supermarket with
northlights avoids peak solar gains in summer and as a consequence,
the cooling load is predicted to reduce by 29%. This explains the marginal
operational carbon benefit of the northlight solution as shown in Figure 13.
FIGURE 26
IMPACT OF ROOFLIGHTS AND DAYLIGHT DIMMING ON OPERATIONAL ENERGY DEMAND
900
800
700
ENERGY DEMAND (MWh/yr)
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
HEATING
COOLING
HOT WATER
LIGHTING
FANS AND PUMPS
SMALL POWER
BASE CASE: STRUCTURAL OPTION 2:

STEEL PORTAL FRAME STEEL PORTAL FRAME WITH
NORTHLIGHTS EQUAL TO 15%
BASE CASE STRUCTURE, FLAT OF AREA OF FLAT ROOF
ROOFLIGHTS ON 15% OF ROOF
AREA AND DAYLIGHT DIMMING STRUCTURAL OPTION 2
WITH NORTHLIGHTS AND
DAYLIGHT DIMMING
62
9.2 FOUNDATION DESIGN
To explore the influence of the substructure on the cost and embodied carbon of
the Asda Stockton-on-Tees food store, the foundations for the alternative building
options were redesigned. The base case supermarket has CFA concrete piled
foundations. The weight of the superstructure in building Option 1 was 14% greater
than the base case supermarket however this extra load did not require additional
foundations and therefore the same foundation design was used for Option 1.
Option 2 was redesigned using steel H-piles. Table 16 defines the different
foundation solutions assessed.
TABLE 16
FOUNDATIONS ASSESSED IN EACH BUILDING OPTION
BUILDING FOUNDATION TYPE AND NUMBER
Base case CFA concrete piles

(1,144 Nr 13m x 380mm nominal diameter)
Option 1 CFA concrete piles

(1,144 Nr 13m x 380mm nominal diameter)
Option 2 Steel H-piles

(641 Nr of various sizes)
The comparative costs for these different foundation options are shown in Table 17
and represent an estimate of the cost for a piling subcontractor to carry out the works,
including materials supply and installation, sub-contractor’s preliminaries, overheads
and profit. The piling costs include the pile materials, installation and testing.
The foundation costs include the pile caps and ground beams. Notional allowances
have been made for the piling mat, contamination, site obstructions etc.
TABLE 17
BREAKDOWN BY COST OF THE DIFFERENT FOUNDATION SOLUTIONS
BASE CASE AND OPTION 1 OPTION 2

CFA PILES H-PILES
COST (£) COST (£/m² GROUND COST (£) COST (£/m² GROUND
SLAB) SLAB)
Bulk excavation, disposal 341,120 51 378,300 57

and backfill; including
piling mat
Piling 685,460 103 366,890 55
Pile caps and ground 204,740 31 168,430 25

beams
Ground floor slab 461,830 70 537,820 81
Total 1,693,150 255 1,451,440 218
The reduced number of piles and pile caps in the H-pile solution leads to a significant
cost saving of 40% for the piling, pile caps and ground beams compared to the CFA
option. This saving is partially offset by the thicker slab and associated excavation
works required in the H-pile solution. Overall the total sub-structure cost of the
H-pile solution is estimated to be 14% less than for the base case (and Option 1)
CFA solution.
63
10.0 EMBODIED CARBON
The embodied carbon of the different substructure options were assessed using the
CLEAR model (see Section 10 and Appendix E). Table 18 summarises the amounts of
materials used for the piles, pile caps, ground beams and ground floor slab and the
total embodied carbon for each option. These results have been included in the whole
building embodied carbon assessments described in Section 10.
TABLE 18
EMBODIED CARBON RESULTS AND BREAKDOWN OF MASS OF MATERIALS FOR EACH SUBSTRUCTURE OPTION
BUILDING NUMBER AND NUMBER OF PILE CONCRETE GROUND FLOOR MASS OF EMBODIED
TYPE OF PILES CAPS GROUND/EDGE SLAB VOLUME MATERIALS CARBON
BEAMS
(m) (m³) (tonnes) (tCO2e)
Base case and 1,144 CFA 193 800 1,417 16,795 1,750
Option 1 concrete piles
Option 2 641 steel H-piles 128 800 2,059 14,554 1,869
The embodied carbon of the piles, pile caps, ground beams and ground floor slab
represents between 48% and 50% of the total embodied carbon footprint of the
supermarket (3,528 to 3,706 tCO2e). The base case and Option 1 buildings have the
heavier substructure and the lowest embodied carbon footprint. Relative to the H-pile
solution (Option 2), the base case and Option 1 substructure is 15% heavier and has a
6% smaller embodied carbon footprint.
Steel piles have the major advantage that they can be easily retracted and reused
leaving the site uncontaminated for redevelopment. This important benefit is
generally not factored into the appraisal of foundation solutions.
TROLLEY STORAGE AREA CANOPY DETAIL, ASDA FOOD STORE,

STOCKTON-ON-TEES
64
EMBODIED CARBON
As the operational energy efficiency of new buildings is improved, The CLEAR model has successfully undergone a third party critical
the relative significance of the embodied impacts of construction review to the relevant ISO standards on Life Cycle Assessment
materials and processes increases. In recognition of this, one by Arup. This review concluded that the CLEAR methodology and
objective of Target Zero was to understand and quantify the its representation in the GaBi software has been undertaken in
embodied carbon emissions of supermarket buildings accordance with the requirements of ISO 14040 (2006) and ISO 14044
focussing particularly on different structural forms. (2006). Furthermore Arup are also confident that the data quality
rules used to select the material lifecycle inventory data in the
The term ‘embodied carbon’ refers to the lifecycle greenhouse gas CLEAR GaBi model are also consistent to these standards and
emissions (expressed as carbon dioxide equivalent or CO2e) that goals of the methodology.
occur during the:
manufacture and transport of the construction materials Each building was assumed to have the same façade, glazing and
construction process drainage and therefore the embodied carbon of these elements was
identical. Maintenance issues were excluded from the analysis as
demolition and recovery or disposal of the building materials there is sparse data on this and any impacts are likely to be similar
at the end-of-life. between the different building options assessed.
It is important that all lifecycle stages are accounted for in embodied Figure 27 shows the total embodied carbon impact of the base case
carbon assessments. For example the relative benefits of recycling supermarket building and the two alternative structural options
metals compared to the methane emissions from timber disposed of studied. Relative to the base case, the glulam structure (Option 1)
in a landfill site are ignored if end-of-life impacts are ignored. This is has a 2.4% higher embodied carbon impact and the steel frame
a common failing of many embodied carbon datasets and analyses with northlights (Option 2) has a 5% higher impact.
that only assess ‘cradle-to-gate’ carbon emissions i.e. studies that
finish at the factory gate or the construction site. Normalising the data to the total floor area of the building, gives the
following embodied carbon emissions of 376, 384 and 395 kgCO2e/m²
The embodied and operational carbon emissions from the for the base case and structural Options 1 and 2 respectively.
building together make up the complete lifecycle carbon
footprint of the building.
The embodied carbon impact of the three structural options

considered (see Section 9) was measured using the lifecycle
assessment (LCA) model CLEAR - See Appendix F.
FIGURE 27
TOTAL EMBODIED CARBON EMISSIONS OF THE BASE CASE BUILDING AND STRUCTURAL OPTIONS 1 AND 2
TOTAL EMBODIED CARBON (tCO2e)
6,000
OFFICE HOTEL
5,000
5,598
4,981
4,644
4,000
3,711
3,000 3,349
2,706
2,000
1,000
0
BASE CASE OPTION 1 OPTION 2
STRUCTURAL OPTION
65
Figures 28 and 29 show the mass of materials used to construct each of the three
supermarket buildings, broken down by element and material respectively. The total
mass of materials used to construct the supermarket was estimated to vary between
24.4kt (Option 2) and 26.6kt (Option 1).
The figures show that most of the materials (60% to 63%) are used in the foundations
and floor slab, comprising mainly concrete and fill materials. The external site works
and drainage also take significant quantities of materials, dominated by concrete, fill
and tarmac. A relatively small proportion (1.5%) of the total building materials is used
in the bearing structure.
FIGURE 28
MASS OF MATERIALS - BREAKDOWN BY ELEMENT
18,000
16,000
14,000
MASS OF MATERIAL (t)
BASE CASE
12,000
OPTION 1
10,000
OPTION 2
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
FOUNDATIONS
& GROUND
FLOOR SLAB
BEARING
STRUCTURE
UPPER
FLOOR
WALLS
ROOF
DRAINAGE
SITE WORKS
FIGURE 29
MASS OF MATERIALS - BREAKDOWN BY MATERIAL
16,000
14,000
BASE CASE
MASS OF MATERIAL (t)
12,000
OPTION 1
10,000
OPTION 2
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
CONCRETE
FILL MATERIALS
TARMAC
STEEL
TIMBER & GLULAM
BRICKS & PLASTER
INSULATION & PLASTICS
OTHERS
66
Option 1 is the heaviest of the three building options due to the the reduced concrete embodied impact in Option 2 is due to
use of a glulam structure. The base case and Option 2 have lighter the substitution of the CFA piles with fewer steel H-piles
superstructures due to the use of structural steel frames however despite its large volume, the embodied carbon contribution
the increase in the height of the eaves for the use of northlights in from fill materials is small
Option 2 results in an increase of the use of steel for this structural the results for the base case and Option 2 are quite similar
option compared to the base case. Option 2 also has steel H-piles although Option 2 has more structural steelwork and more
instead of concrete CFA piles. cladding because of its northlight roof construction
the walls, drainage and external site works impacts are
Figures 30 and 31 show the breakdown of embodied carbon in
identical for each alternative
the three buildings by material and building element respectively.
The following points are noted from the figures: there is little variation in the transport impact between the
the largest contribution in all three structural options comes three alternatives. The impact being around 9% of the total
from concrete, most of which is used in the foundations and floor although based on less robust data, the estimate of embodied
slab. Even though on a per tonne basis concrete is relatively low carbon from on-site construction activity is relatively small at
in embodied carbon, the amount of concrete used in the building around 0.7% of the total impact.
makes its contribution significant
the impact of substituting the steel frame in the base case with
glulam (Option 1) is evident in both figures. This is mainly due
to the release of methane emissions resulting from the current
common practice of landfilling timber demolition waste
FIGURE 30
BREAKDOWN OF EMBODIED CARBON BY MATERIAL
EMBODIED CARBON (tCO2e)
2,500
BASE CASE
2,000
OPTION 1
1,500
OPTION 2
1,000
500
0
CONCRETE
STEEL
TIMBER
PLASTICS &
INSULATION
FILL MATERIALS
TRANSPORT
OTHERS
FIGURE 31
BREAKDOWN OF EMBODIED CARBON BY ELEMENT
2,000
1,800
1,600
EMBODIED CARBON (tCO2e)
BASE CASE
1,400
OPTION 1
1,200
OPTION 2
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
FOUNDATIONS &
FLOOR SLAB
BEARING
STRUCTURE
UPPER
FLOOR
WALLS
ROOF
DRAINAGE
SITE WORKS
ON-SITE
ENERGY
67
10.1 EMBODIED CARBON GUIDANCE

RECOMMENDATION
The quality and consistency of embodied carbon emissions factors are key to
All carbon foot printing
undertaking robust, comparative whole building studies. It is important that the
exercises should ensure that
assessor fully understands the scope and pedigree of the data being used and
uses consistent data. they encompass demolition and
end-of-life recovery/disposal.
Many embodied carbon datasets are ‘cradle-to-gate’ values, i.e. they exclude all This is where significant impacts
impacts associated with that product after it has left the factory gate, e.g. transport, and/or credits can often accrue.
erection, site waste, maintenance, demolition and end-of-life impacts including reuse,
recycling and landfill. Such impacts can be significant and therefore it is important that
all lifecycle stages are accounted for in a thorough assessment.
Accounting for the end-of-life impacts of construction products is important in RECOMMENDATION

embodied carbon assessments, for example the end-of-life assumptions relating to
the disposal and treatment of timber products can significantly influence their whole Recommendation: Embodied
lifecycle impacts¹. Similarly the benefits of highly recyclable products such as metals, carbon assessments can be very
needs to be understood and quantified. The assessor needs to understand these issues sensitive to the assumptions
and account for them accurately and fairly in comparative assessments. made and methods used for
data sourcing and analysis.
A summary of the main embodied carbon emissions factors used in the supermarket When undertaking embodied
assessment are given in Appendix F. carbon assessments therefore
transparency is crucial so that all
Although carbon is a current priority, it is important to remember that there are many
other environmental impacts associated with the manufacture and use of construction
assumptions are clearly set out
materials. A more comprehensive approach would be to undertake a more thorough alongside the results. It is good
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) study that includes other environmental impacts practice to undertake sensitivity
such as water use, resource depletion, ecotoxicity, eutrophication, ozone depletion, analyses on key assumptions
acidification, etc. in addition to embodied carbon. and methodological decisions
used in the embodied carbon
Embodied carbon assessments can be very sensitive to the assumptions made, assessments.
for example in the areas described above. When undertaking embodied carbon
assessments therefore transparency is crucial so that all assumptions are clearly
set out alongside the results.
Each assessment should be accompanied by sensitivity analyses on key assumptions

and methodological decisions used in the embodied carbon assessments.
1 There is significant uncertainty over calculating carbon emissions from timber, particularly at end-of-life.
Carbon emissions are affected by the methodology, data and assumptions used in the assessment.
68
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
THE NATIONAL CALCULATION METHODOLOGY (NCM)
The National Calculation Methodology (NCM) must be used for Small power energy consumption & heat gains
Part L compliance assessment. The NCM strictly defines the way For thermal modelling purposes, each room template contains
in which building use is modelled in terms of temperature set predefined heat gains for equipment such as IT; these are defined
points, lighting levels and use, internal heat gains from people in terms of magnitude and variation over time by the NCM and
and equipment, etc. cannot be changed. When the features such as high efficiency
chilled cabinets have been incorporated in the building or when
The NCM was devised primarily as an assessment tool to measure retailers have specified cabinets with doors rather than open
comparative operational carbon emissions between a proposed fronted units, the variation between actual and (NCM) modelled
building and the requirements of the Part L regulation rather than emissions from small power loads can be large. Similarly the
as a design tool. It is widely agreed that several assumptions in the magnitude of the heat gains from these small power loads will
NCM can give rise to discrepancies between the prediction of energy affect cooling and heating loads.
uses and those which are likely to occur in reality. Several of these
assumptions can make a significant impact on the assessment of
operational carbon performance of large supermarket buildings.
The most significant of these are briefly discussed below.
It is likely that, as Part L is modified over time, the NCM itself will
also be improved, however it is not possible to predict what these
modifications might be and so the current NCM has been used
within Target Zero on the assumption that the generic approach
to Part L assessments will remain constant.
Hours of operation
The hours of operation of supermarkets have a significant impact on
the usefulness of rooflights and daylight dimming lighting controls.
At night, rooflights serve no useful purpose but they release more
heat through conduction than the opaque roof elements around
them. Therefore the more hours of darkness during which the
supermarket is in operation, the lower the optimal rooflight area
will be. Similarly the effectiveness of daylight dimming controls is
diminished if supermarkets are open 24 hours a day.
The NCM defines that supermarkets should be assessed with

occupancy from 8am to 7pm Monday to Saturday and from 9am
to 5pm on Sundays and Bank holidays. Therefore although many
large supermarkets will be in operation 24 hours a day, this
occupancy schedule is not currently assessed under Part L (2006).
During unoccupied hours, the NCM defines that the heating set
point reduces to 12°C (from the occupied set point of 20°C). In
practice the night time temperature of supermarkets rarely falls
to 12°C and so the effect of night time heat losses is delayed until the
following morning when the supermarket is brought back up to 20°C.
Offsite wind turbine output

Larger wind turbines are unlikely to be suitable for many
supermarkets sites due to planning and other restrictions
however they may be permitted as an allowable solution under
future revisions to Part L. The output of wind turbines modelled
using the NCM is currently based on the wind speeds in the weather
tape selected for the simulation, i.e. the weather tape for the location
of the building. Large wind turbines are generally located in exposed
areas with high wind-speeds and therefore their output predicted
using the NCM is likely to be much less than their actual output.
It is recommended therefore that if the use of offsite turbines

through allowable solutions is permitted in future versions of Part L,
calculations of their output should be carried out separately from the
Part L modelling software.
69
APPENDICES
APPENDIX B
METHODOLOGY USED TO ASSESS LOW AND ZERO
OPERATIONAL CARBON SOLUTIONS
The approach taken to develop low and zero operational carbon 4. This base case building was then modified to have two
solutions was as follows: alternative structures to investigate the influence of the
structural form on the operational carbon emissions
1. In order to produce a building which is more typical of current
practice, the Stockton-on-Tees supermarket building was 5. Around 50 energy efficiency measures were then introduced
amended as follows: individually into the base case model. The results of the
operational carbon analysis, combined with the cost data, were
the levels of thermal insulation were reduced until these were
then used to derive three energy efficiency packages that utilise
no better than Criterion 2 of Part L2A (2006) requires;
different combinations of compatible energy efficiency measures
HVAC system efficiencies were altered to industry standards; which were found to be cost-effective (see Appendix C).
the air leakage value was increased to 10m³/hr per m² @50Pa. 6. Thirty seven low and zero carbon technologies were then
2. A dynamic thermal model of the building was then developed individually incorporated into each of the three energy efficiency
using the IES software suite. This Part L approved software packages (see Appendix D). The results from these models,
is capable modelling the annual operational energy/carbon together with the associated cost data, were then used to
performance of the building. derive a number of low and zero carbon supermarket solutions.
3. The model was then fine-tuned to just pass Part L2A (2006) This approach has been devised to reflect the carbon hierarchy
by altering the energy efficiency of the lighting system. This was shown in Figure 2 and the likely future regulatory targets
done to ensure that the base case was no better than the current (see Figure 3).
minimum regulatory requirements, i.e. within 1% of the
Target Emission Rate (TER). The base case building was
defined in terms of elemental U-values, air-tightness, etc.
shown in Table B1.
TABLE B1
BASE CASE BUILDING FABRIC PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS
U-VALUE (W/m²K)
ELEMENT
External wall 0.35
Ground floor 0.25
Composite intermediate floor 3.19
Composite intermediate floor + false ceiling 0.34
Blockwork partition 0.35
Insulated partition 0.37
Standing seam roof 0.25
Membrane roof 0.25
External doors 2.20
Docking doors 1.50
Curtain walling 2.20
Rooflights 1.80
Building air tightness 10m³/hr per m² @50Pa
Thermal bridging 0.035 W/m²/K

70
APPENDICES
APPENDIX C
ENERGY EFFICIENCY ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
For the purposes of this research, energy efficiency measures are defined as changes
to the building which will reduce the demand for operational energy and, in so doing,
reduce carbon emissions. The energy efficiency measures modelled on the base case
building are shown in Table C1.
Dynamic thermal modelling, using IES software, was used to predict the operational
energy requirements of the supermarket building for each energy efficiency measure
and the predicted energy costs coupled with the capital and maintenance costs to
derive a net present value (NPV) for each measure over a 25-year period. This period
was selected to represent the maximum likely timescale after which full asset
replacement would have to be considered for the LZC technologies analysed.
These NPVs were expressed as a deviation from that of the base case supermarket,
thus some energy efficiency measures have negative NPVs as they were found to
save money over the 25-year period considered.
The cost data and the energy modelling results were then combined to provide each
energy efficiency measure with a cost effectiveness measure in terms of 25-yrNPV/
kgCO2 saved relative to the base case. The measures were then ranked in terms of
this cost effectiveness measure. At this point, some energy efficiency measures
were rejected on one or more of the following bases:
the measure was found to increase carbon emissions
the measure was incompatible with more cost-effective measures
the measure was found to be highly expensive for very little carbon saving.
Three energy efficiency packages were then selected from the remaining measures
by identifying two key thresholds:
Package A where the measure was found to save money over the 25-year
period being considered, i.e. it has a negative NPV
Package C where the measure is less cost-effective than photovoltaic panels,
excluding the effect of feed-in tariffs.This was chosen since PV is generally
considered to be one of the more capital intensive low or zero carbon
technologies which can be easily installed on almost any building.
Package B contains measures which fall between these two thresholds.

Package B also includes or supersedes Package A measures and Package C
includes (or supersedes) all Package A and all Package B measures.
In some cases an energy efficiency measure was not compatible with a more
cost-effective measure in the same package. Where similar, mutually exclusive,
cost-effective energy efficiency measures were available, the most cost-effective
was chosen for that package and the others moved into the next package for
consideration. An example of this is the chiller efficiency.
The results obtained for this assessment are shown in Figure 8.
The methodology used to cost the energy efficiency measures considered is

described in Appendix E.
71
APPENDICES
TABLE C1
ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES CONSIDERED
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AREA DESCRIPTION OF MEASURE
Heavyweight internal floors, changing internal mezzanine from timber slab to composite floor throughout
Construction materials (thermal mass) Heavyweight internal partitions, changing from lightweight plaster cavity partitions to plastered blockwork walls throughout
Green roof extensive, sedum type
Improved to 7m³/hr per m² @50Pa
Air tightness
Thermal bridging Enhanced thermal bridging details as specified in MCRMA & Tata Steel guidance
Improved to 0.25 W/m²K
External wall insulation
Roof insulation Improved to 0.15 W/m²K
Ground floor insulation
Improved external glazing
Transparent canopy to replace opaque canopy
South east orientation with transparent canopy to replace opaque canopy
Real orientation with no canopy
Original orientation with transparent canopy & daylight dimming
Main glazing facing South West
Building orientation & Solar shading
Main glazing facing South
& Solar control glazing
Main glazing facing South East
Non-solar control glass (g-value=0.7)
Non-solar control glass & South East orientation (g-value=0.7)
Solar control glass (g-value=0.4)
Solar control glass & South East orientation (g-value=0.4)
Improved boiler seasonal efficiency to 95%
Improve cooling efficiency to SEER = 6
Heating Cooling & Ventilation
Improved Specific Fan Power by 20%
Radiant ceiling heating and cooling throughout
Daylight dimming and rooflights covering 10% of the roof area
Rooflights covering 10% of the roof area

Northlights to achieve similar natural lighting levels to 15% rooflights
Improved lighting efficiency:
Single height warehouse 2.40 W/m² per 100lux
Double height warehouse 2.05 W/m² per 100lux
Single height retail: 2.50 W/m² per 100lux
Double height retail: 3.00 W/m² per 100lux
Office area: 2.50 W/m² per 100lux
Lighting & Rooflights
High efficiency lighting:
Very high efficiency lighting:
Occupancy sensing lighting controls
Lighting controls Daylight dimming controls
Heat recovery to all air handling & heat pump units (60%)
Heat recovery removed from all air handling & heat pump units (0%)
Miscellaneous
High reflectance paint to reduce sloar gain
72
APPENDICES
APPENDIX D
LOW AND ZERO CARBON (LZC) TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
For the purposes of this research LZC technologies have been against the change in 25-year NPV (relative to the base case)
broadly defined as technologies which meet building energy on the vertical axis. The figure shows just a subset of the many
demands with either no carbon emissions, or carbon emissions combinations of energy efficiency measures and LZC technologies
significantly lower than those of conventional methods. assessed. Figure D1 shows the on-site LZC solutions defined in
Tables 2 and 3 in Section 7.6.
Thirty seven LZC technologies were modelled (see Table D1) on
each of the three energy efficiency packages. Each of the LZCs Figure D1 shows three coloured circles representing the three
was applied to each energy efficiency package (see Appendix C) energy efficiency packages described in Appendix C. Straight
individually and, where relevant, was modelled as both a large and a lines emanating from these circles represent an LZC technology.
small-scale installation, for example the ground source heat pumps The gradient of each line represents the cost effectiveness of
were modelled as a large case sized to supply space heating and each measure. Having decided the carbon reduction target, as
cooling to the whole building and as a small case sized to supply represented by the dashed vertical lines in the graph, the most
space heating only. cost-effective technology-package will be the lowest intercept
with the selected target.
As for the energy efficiency measures, a 25-year NPV was
established for each LZC technology, taking account of the capital Where a technology was found to be less cost-effective than
cost of the technology and the operational energy savings that result moving to the next energy efficiency package then it was
from its use relative to the base case building. discounted. Similarly if a technology could not be combined
with one of those already selected then it was also discounted.
Initial results of the LZC modelling revealed that no single, An example of incompatible technologies would be biomass boilers
on-site technology is predicted to achieve zero carbon and therefore and CHP; both of these provide heat to the building and so would
further modelling was undertaken to combine a number of on-site be competing for the same energy load. This process identified 36
technologies. This was done using graphs similar to that shown in different combinations of compatible on-site technologies (based
Figure D1. on the three energy efficiency packages).
Figure D1 shows the relationship between carbon dioxide emissions The methodology used to cost the LZC technologies considered is
saved per year (relative to the base case) on the horizontal axis, described in Appendix E.
FIGURE D1
MOST COST-EFFECTIVE ON-SITE SOLUTIONS TO MEET FUTURE LIKELY PART L COMPLIANCE TARGETS
SOLUTION KEY
25YR NPV (£) RELATIVE TO THE BASECASE BUILDING
4,000,000 A1 – PACKAGE A + 330kW WIND + ASHP RC

+ REFRIGERATION HR MAX + PV
B1 – PACKAGE B + 330kW WIND + ASHP RC
3,000,000
B2 – PACKAGE B + 330kW WIND
2,000,000 + PV + BIOGAS CCHP MAX
B5 – PACKAGE B + ASHP RC
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
1,000,000 B6 – PACKAGE B + PV
+ BIOGAS CCHP MAX
kg CO2 SAVED PER YEAR C2 – PACKAGE C + 330kW WIND
0 + PV + BIOGAS CCHP MAX
C
0
C10 – PACKAGE C + PV
A + BIOGAS CCHP MAX
-1,000,000 B
-2,000,000
-3,000,000
Energy Efficiency Energy Efficiency Solution A1 achieves a Solution B1 is the most Solutions B2 and C2
package A exceeds the package B exceeds a 70% improvement over cost-effective route to a are the only routes to
25% improvement over 44% improvement over Part L 2006. 100% improvement over achieve true Zero Carbon.
Part L 2006. Part L 2006. (This can also be Part L 2006. (The cost effectiveness of
(This can also be (This can also be achieved without a wind (This can also be these solutions is similar
achieved by package B achieved by solution A1 turbine by solution B5). achieved without a wind although the capital cost
with a lower NPV and a with a lower NPV and a turbine by solutions B6 of solution B2 is lower).
higher capital cost). higher capital cost). and C10).
A ENERGY EFFICIENCY PACKAGE A 25% IMPROVEMENT OVER PART L 2006 (2010 REQUIREMENT)
44% IMPROVEMENT OVER PART L 2006 (EXPECTED STANDARD IN 2013)
B ENERGY EFFICIENCY PACKAGE B 70% IMPROVEMENT OVER PART L 2006
C ENERGY EFFICIENCY PACKAGE C
TRUE ZERO CARBON (2019)
73
APPENDICES
TABLE D1
LZC TECHNOLOGIES MODELLED
LZC TECHNOLOGY ON-SITE OFFSITE NOTES
Wind
Large 5.0MW wind turbine Repower 117m tower height. 126m rotor diameter (Largest commercially available)
Large 2.5MW wind turbine Nordex 100m tower height. 99.8m rotor diameter
Medium 330kW wind turbine Enercon 50m tower. 33.4m rotor diameter
Medium 50kW wind turbine Entegrity 36.5m tower height. 15m rotor diameter
Small 20kW wind turbine Westwind 30m tower height. 10m rotor diameter
Small 1kW wind turbine Futurenergy 6.2m tower height. 1.8m rotor diameter
Solar
Solar Thermal Hot Water (STHW) 23.2m² sized to provide as much hot water as is practical
Photovoltaics Roof integrated amorphous, area dependent on area of rooflights:

PACKAGE ROOFLIGHTS PV AREA (M²)
A 0% 4,000
B 10% 3,500
C 15% 3,300
Heat Pumps
Open-loop Ground Source Heat Pump Single Cycle Space heating excluding radiant heating systems
Open-loop Ground Source Heat Pump Reverse Cycle Space heating and cooling excluding radiant heating systems
Closed-loop Ground Source Heat Pump Single Cycle Space heating excluding radiant heating systems
Closed-loop Ground Source Heat Pump Reverse Cycle Space heating and hot water excluding radiant heating systems
Air Source Heat Pump Single Cycle Space heating excluding radiant heating systems
Air Source Heat Pump Reverse Cycle Space heating and cooling excluding radiant heating systems
Biomass Boilers
Biomass Heating Space heating and hot water excluding radiant heating systems
Combined Heat & Power CHP

Space heating excluding radiant heating systems, hot water and electricity to all areas
Small Biomass CHP
excluding corridors and storage spaces
Large Biogas CHP Space heating excluding radiant heating systems, hot water and electricity to all areas
Small fuel cell CHP
Large fuel cell CHP Space heating excluding radiant heating systems, hot water and electricity to all areas
Small gas-fired CHP
Large gas-fired CHP Space heating excluding radiant heating systems, hot water and electricity to all areas
Small anaerobic digestion CHP
Large anaerobic digestion CHP Space heating excluding radiant heating systems, hot water and electricity to all areas
Combined Cooling Heat & Power CCHP

Space heating excluding radiant heating systems, hot water, cooling and electricity to all areas
Small Biomass CHP
Large Biogas CHP Space heating excluding radiant heating systems, hot water, cooling and electricity to all areas
Small fuel cell CHP
Large fuel cell CHP Space heating excluding radiant heating systems, hot water, cooling and electricity to all areas
Small gas-fired CHP
Large gas-fired CHP Space heating excluding radiant heating systems, hot water, cooling and electricity to all areas
Small anaerobic digestion CHP
Large anaerobic digestion CHP Space heating excluding radiant heating systems, hot water, cooling and electricity to all areas
Waste
Energy from waste Space heating and hot water excluding radiant heating systems
Waste process heat Space heating and hot water excluding radiant heating systems
Miscellaneous
Small ground duct system Supplying retail space
Large ground duct system Supplying all air systems
Small refrigeration heat recovery system Recovering heat from space cooling to supply hot water
Large refrigeration heat recovery system Recovering heat from space cooling and chilled display cabinets to supply hot water
74
APPENDICES
APPENDIX E
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND LZC TECHNOLOGY COSTING
The objectives of the energy efficiency and LZC technology costings were:
to provide the net capital cost differential of each proposed energy efficiency
measure and LZC technology option considered; the costs being presented as
net adjustments to the base case building cost plan;
to provide an estimate of the through-life cost of the each proposed energy
efficiency measure and LZC technology option considered; these through-life
costs being presented net of the equivalent base case cost.
Capital costs
The base case supermarket building cost plan was developed by Cyril Sweett using
their cost database. UK mean values current at 4Q 2009 were used.
The capital costs for each energy efficiency and LZC technology option considered were
calculated on an add/omit basis in relation to the base case cost plan. The methodology
and basis of the pricing is as used for the construction costing. Where possible, costs
have been based on quotations received from contractors and suppliers.
It should be noted that capital costs for certain LZC technologies may vary considerably
depending on the size of the installation. It has not been possible to fully scale
applicable technologies within the limitations of the study.
Through-life costs
The through-life costs were assessed using a simple net present value (NPV)
calculation. The NPVs were calculated based upon the expected maintenance,
operational, i.e. servicing, requirements and component replacement over a 25-year
period; this period being selected to represent the maximum likely timescale after
which full asset replacement would have to be considered for the LZC technologies
analysed.
Fabric energy efficiency measures would generally all be expected to have a service life
in excess of 25 years.
All ongoing costs are discounted back to their current present value. A discount rate of
3.5% has been used, in line with HM Treasury Green Book guidance.
The benefits of each technology option were considered in terms of net savings in
energy costs in comparison to current domestic tariffs. For the purposes of this study,
the following domestic tariffs were used:
gas: £0.03 per kWh
grid-supplied power: £0.12 per kWh
district supplied power: £0.108 per kWh
district supplied cooling: £0.036 per kWh
biomass: £0.025 per kWh
district supplied heat: £0.027 per kWh.
The prices used for gas and grid-supplied electricity were derived from data published
by Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC).
Pricing assumptions for district supplies and biomass were derived from benchmark
figures provided by suppliers and externally published data.
75
APPENDICES
Where applicable, tariffs were adjusted to account for income from photovoltaic (PV) and wind projects up to a 5MW limit, with differing
Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs), the Climate Change Levy generation tariffs for different scales of each of those technologies.
and Feed-in tariffs (see below). The current feed-in tariffs for low and zero carbon electricity are
shown in Table E1¹.
Feed-in tariffs
In April 2010, the Government introduced a system of feed-in tariffs All generation and export tariffs are linked to the Retail Price Index
(FITs) to incentivise small scale, low carbon electricity generation by (RPI), and FITs income for domestic properties generating electricity
providing ‘clean energy cashback’ for householders, communities mainly for their own use are not taxable income for the purposes of
and businesses. income tax.
These FITs work alongside the Renewables Obligation, which Tariffs are set through consideration of technology costs and
will remain the primary mechanism to incentivise deployment electricity generation expectations at different scales, and are set
of large-scale renewable electricity generation, and the to deliver an approximate rate of return of 5 to 8% for well sited
Renewable Heat Incentive (RHI) which will incentivise generation installations. Accordingly, the tariffs that are available for some new
of heat from renewable sources at all scales. The first phase of installations will ‘degress’ each year, where they reduce to reflect
the RHI is expected to be launched in 3Q 2011. predicted technology cost reductions to ensure that new installations
receive the same approximate rates of return as installations already
The FITs consist of two elements of payment made to generators and supported through FITs. Once an installation has been allocated
paid for by licensed electricity suppliers: a generation tariff, that tariff remains fixed (though will alter with
1. A generation tariff that differs by technology type and scale, and inflation as above) for the life of that installation or the life of the
is paid for every kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity generated and tariff, whichever is the shorter.
metered by a generator. This generation tariff is paid regardless
of whether the electricity is used on-site or exported to the local
electricity network.
2. An export tariff which is either metered and paid as a guaranteed
amount that generators are eligible for, or is, in the case of very
small generation, assumed to be a proportion of the generation in
any period without the requirement for additional metering.
The scheme currently supports new anaerobic digestion, hydro, solar

TABLE E1
FEED-IN TARIFFS FOR LOW AND ZERO CARBON ELECTRICITY (DECC)
TECHNOLOGY SCALE TARIFF LEVEL FOR NEW INSTALLATIONS IN PERIOD (p/kWh) TARIFF LIFETIME
[NB: TARIFFS WILL BE INFLATED ANNUALLY] (YEARS)
YEAR 1: 1/4/10- YEAR 2: 1/4/11- YEAR 3: 1/4/12-

31/3/11 31/3/12 31/3/13
Anaerobic digestion ‹–500kW 11.5 11.5 11.5 20
Anaerobic digestion ›500kW 9.0 9.0 9.0 20
Hydro ‹–15kW 19.9 19.9 19.9 20
Hydro ›15-100kW 17.8 17.8 17.8 20
Hydro ›100kW -2MW 11.0 11.0 11.0 20
Hydro ›2MW-5MW 4.5 4.5 4.5 20
MicroCHP pilot* ‹2kW 10* 10* 10* 10*
PV ‹–4kW (new build) 36.1 36.1 33.0 25
PV ‹–4kW (retro fit) 41.3 41.3 37.8 25
PV ›4-10kW 36.1 36.1 33.0 25
PV ›10-100kW 31.4 31.4 28.7 25
PV ›100kW-5MW 29.3 29.3 26.8 25
PV Stand alone system 29.3 29.3 26.8 25
Wind ‹–1.5kW 34.5 34.5 32.6 20
Wind ›1.5-15kW 26.7 26.7 25.5 20
Wind ›15-100kW 24.1 24.1 23.0 20
Wind ›100-500kW 18.8 18.8 18.8 20
Wind ›500kW-1.5MW 9.4 9.4 9.4 20
Wind ›1.5MW-5MW 4.5 4.5 4.5 20
Existing microgenerators transferred from the RO 9.0 9.0 9.0 to 2027
* This tariff is available only for 30,000 micro-CHP installations, subject to a review when 12,000 units have been installed.
1 This data and the Target Zero operational carbon analyses pre date the FIT Amendment Order 2011 which came into effect on 30 May 2011.
76
APPENDICES
APPENDIX F
CLEAR LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT MODEL
The CLEAR model is a generic LCA tool that enables the user to In addition to material quantities, data on the following activities
assess the environmental impacts of a building over its full lifecycle. were input to the CLEAR model for each building product:
The user defines key parameters in terms of building materials, materials transport distances to site
building lifetime, maintenance requirements, operational energy waste transport distances from site
use and end-of-life scenarios. The tool can be used to gain an
understanding of how building design and materials selection construction waste rates including excavation material and
affects environmental performance of buildings and to compare the waste from materials brought onto the construction site
environmental impacts of different construction options for the same construction site energy use – diesel and electricity consumption
functional building. The model was built by Tata Steel Research end-of-life recovery rates.
Development & Technology using both construction and LCA
expertise, and follows the ISO 14040 and 14044 standards.
LCA data sources
CLEAR allows ‘cradle-to-grave’ LCAs of buildings to be generated. There are several sources of lifecycle inventory (LCI) data available
It allows all of the stages of a building’s existence to be analysed in that allow the calculation of embodied carbon (CO2e) per unit
terms of their environmental impact: from the extraction of earth’s mass of material. In this project, GaBi software was found to
resources, through manufacture, construction and the maintenance be the most appropriate. Most of the data was sourced from PE
and energy requirements in the building-use phase, to end-of-life, International’s ‘Professional’ and ‘Construction Materials’ databases.
reuse, recycling and disposal as waste. PE international are leading experts in LCA and have access to
comprehensive materials LCI databases.
A third party critical review of the CLEAR model has been
commissioned by Tata Steel, to confirm its alignment with the ISO The most appropriate steel data were provided by the World Steel
14040 standards for LCA. The initial review has found that the degree Association (worldsteel) which are based on 2000 average production
of alignment with the ISO 14040 standards is high. data. The worldsteel LCA study is one of the largest and most
comprehensive LCA studies undertaken and has been independently
reviewed to ISO standards 14040 and 14044. Table F1 gives the
embodied carbon coefficients for the principle materials used in
the supermarket assessment
.
TABLE F1
THE EMBODIED CARBON COEFFICIENTS FOR THE PRINCIPLE MATERIALS USED IN THE SUPERMARKET ASSESSMENT
MATERIAL DATE SOURCE END-OF-LIFE ASSUMPTION SOURCE TOTAL LIFECYCLE CO2

EMISSIONS (tCO2e/t)
Fabricated Steel sections Worldsteel (2002) 99% closed loop recycling, MFA of the UK steel 1.009
1% landfill construction sector¹
Steel purlins Worldsteel (2002) 99% closed loop recycling, MFA of the UK steel 1.317
Organic Coated Steel Worldsteel (2002) 94% closed loop recycling, MFA of the UK steel 1.693
Steel Reinforcement Worldsteel (2002) 92% recycling, 8% landfill MFA of the UK steel 0.820
construction sector¹
Concrete (C25) GaBi LCI database 2006 77% open loop recycling, Department for Communities 0.132
– PE International 23% landfill and Local Government²
Concrete (C30/37) GaBi LCI database 2006 77% open loop recycling, Department for Communities 0.139
Concrete (C40) GaBi LCI database 2006 77% open loop recycling, Department for Communities 0.153
Glulam GaBi LCI database 2006 16% recycling, TRADA³ 1.10
– PE International 4% incineration, 80% landfill
Plywood5 GaBi LCI database 2006 16% recycling, TRADA³ 1.05
– PE International 4% incineration, 80% landfill
Plasterboard GaBi LCI database 2006 20% recycling, 80% landfill WRAP4 0.145
– PE International
Aggregate GaBi LCI database 2006 50% recycling, 50% landfill Department for Communities 0.005
– PE International and Local Government²[a]
Tarmac GaBi LCI database 2006 77% recycling, 23% landfill Department for Communities 0.020
– PE International and Local Government²
1 Material flow analysis of the UK steel construction sector, J. Ley, 2001. 3 TRADA Technology wood information sheet 2/3 Sheet 59 ‘ Recovering and minimising
wood waste’, revised June 2008.
2 Survey of Arisings and Use of Alternatives to Primary Aggregates in England, 2005
Construction, Demolition and Excavation Waste, www.communities.gov.uk/publications/ 4 WRAP Net Waste Tool Reference Guide v 1.0, 2008 (good practice rates).
planningandbuilding/surveyconstruction2005.
5 Data excludes CO2 uptake or CO2 emissions from biomass.
[a] Adjusted for material left in ground at end-of-life.
77
ENERGY EFFICIENCY PACKAGES

78

79

80
BREEAM MEASURES
81
REFERENCES
1 www.breeam.org
2 Climate Change Act, 2008
3 Zero carbon for new non-domestic buildings; Consultation on policy
options. Department for Communities and Local Government
4 Defining a fabric energy efficiency standard for zero carbon homes.
Zero Carbon Hub, November 2009
5 Proposals for amending Part L and Part F of the Building Regulations
– Consultation. Volume 2: Proposed technical guidance for Part L.
Department for Communities and Local Government, June 2009
6 Target Zero guidance on the design and construction of sustainable,
low carbon distribution warehouse www.targetzero.info
7 Planning Policy Statement 22: Renewable energy.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
8 CIBSE Guide A – Environmental design (2006)
9 www.bre.co.uk/greenguide
10 Implementation Stage Impact Assessment of Revisions to Parts F and
L of the Building Regulations from 2010. Department for Communities
and Local Government, March 2010.
TARGET ZERO INFORMATION LINE
T +44 (0) 1709 825544
E INFO@TARGETZERO.INFO
WWW.TARGETZERO.INFO
DESIGNED BY OPTIMADESIGN.CO.UK

Target Zero Supermarket Guidance Doc v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Target Zero Supermarket Guidance Doc v2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Target Zero Supermarket Guidance Doc v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GUIDANCE ON THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF SUSTAINABLE, LOW CARBON SUPERMARKET BUILDINGS

REPORT V2.0 JUNE 2011

3.0 SUSTAINABLE SUPERMARKET BUILDINGS 06

4.0 TARGET ZERO METHODOLOGY 07

5.0 THE STOCTON-ON-TEES ASDA FOOD STORE 08

6.0 KEY FINDINGS 10

7.0 ROUTES TO LOW AND ZERO OPERATIONAL CARBON 12

8.0 ROUTES TO BREEAM ‘OUTSTANDING’ 41

9.0 STRUCTURAL DESIGN 57

10.0 EMBODIED CARBON 63

ENERGY EFFICIENCY PACKAGES 77

Using recently constructed, typical buildings as benchmarks,

The work has been undertaken by a consortium of leading organisations

The images in this guide showcase the Asda food store,

The UK Government has set an ambitious and legally binding target

The Government has announced its aspiration for new

Although the deﬁnition is still to be resolved, the direction of travel is

It is against this background that the UK steel construction sector

ASDA FOOD STORE, STOCKTON-ON-TEES

3.0 SUSTAINABLE SUPERMARKET BUILDINGS

SUSTAINABLE SUPERMARKET BUILDINGS

4.0 TARGET ZERO METHODOLOGY

TARGET ZERO METHODOLOGY

The complexities of sustainable construction assessment inevitably

5.0 THE STOCKTON-ON-TEES ASDA FOOD STORE

THE STOCKTON-ON-TEES ASDA FOOD STORE

The retail area is based on a 12m x 12m structural grid.

The upper ﬂoor (back-of-house) comprises structural metal decking

ASDA FOOD STORE, STOCKTON-ON-TEES

5.1 BASE CASE SUPERMARKET BUILDING

5.1 BASE CASE SUPERMARKET BUILDING

More detail on the speciﬁcation of the base case supermarket is given

ASDA FOOD STORE, STOCKTON-ON-TEES

6.0 KEY FINDINGS

Several of the assumptions in the National Calculation Methodology

The research found no single, on-site LZC technology that is

ADDITIONAL 25-YEAR NET

CARBON Building oriented so that glazed façade faces South

Figure is not to scale

5 see Table C1 in Appendix C

7.0 ROUTES TO LOW AND ZERO OPERATIONAL CARBON

7.1 WHAT IS ZERO CARBON?

The Government has announced its aspiration for new non-domestic

The Government supports a hierarchical approach to meeting a zero

As a minimum, Government has stated [3] that the zero carbon

7.0 ROUTES TO LOW AND ZERO OPERATIONAL CARBON

7.2 BUILDING REGULATIONS PART L

Part L of the Building Regulations is the mechanism by which

Changes in 2013 and beyond for non-domestic buildings will be the

Figure 3 shows how the requirements of Part L have changed since

50 25% 44% 70% 100% 127%

7.0 ROUTES TO LOW AND ZERO OPERATIONAL CARBON

The 2010 Part L requirements stipulate that a prescriptive

7.0 ROUTES TO LOW AND ZERO OPERATIONAL CARBON

7.3 ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Composite floor throughout

-5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

7.0 ROUTES TO LOW AND ZERO OPERATIONAL CARBON

The energy efﬁciency measures which affect the heating/cooling