Author: Gibson Laura

14 Aug 2023

GOVE VS M&S HAS SET A HIGH-PROFILE LINE IN THE SAND FOR RETROFITTING – NOW IT’S TIME FOR A PERMANENT MINDSET RESET

GOVE VS M&S HAS SET A HIGH-PROFILE LINE IN THE SAND FOR RETROFITTING –

NOW IT’S TIME FOR A PERMANENT MINDSET RESET 

By Matt Schaaf, Partner in Commercial Project Management at 3PM

Michael Gove’s recent decision to reject the redevelopment of the M&S site on Oxford Street has elevated the ongoing question of whether to demolish or refurbish existing buildings into arguably the highest profile case of its kind.

Supported by the likes of the 20th Century Society and SAVE, the case set a precedent by being the first of its kind – the first public inquiry that considered sustainability alongside heritage as a major deciding issue.

 

In the case of M&S, the decision hinged on Gove’s view that the development hadn’t sufficiently demonstrated that a refurbishment option wasn’t viable and that a full development scheme would produce less carbon in the future as green energy will be more readily available. 

 

The first point is a clear indication that developer’s and design teams will always need a robust process to review options to refurbish a building, before turning to new build options moving forward.  This can be done by examining the Minimum Viable Product a developer needs to be able to let a building and then looking for ways to add area, rationalise floor plates and refresh finishes to add value.  Not only will this help to reduce embodied carbon, but it has the potential to reduce the cost to the client and reduce time to market.

 

The second point lies at the heart of many refurbishment schemes.  When does the embodied carbon of a new build balance against the operational carbon of an in theory less efficient refurbishment?  Our understanding of carbon modelling as an approach is still in its infancy – many feel the science is new and the data not good enough but it’s 2023 and the concept of reducing the amount of embodied carbon now on the basis we will improve green technology in the future should be a sound one if the Government continues to invest in it.

 

How we assess the balance of embodied versus operational carbon will evolve moving forward: it has to! Whole life considerations need to be undertaken based on clear replacement cycles.The design life of different building elements are enshrined in British Standards but haven’t been revisited in the context of sustainability, which makes them archaic to say the least.  Why is the design life of a structure 60 years when the Tower of London has stood for almost 1,000?  Lengthening these periods would shift the balance between embodied and operational carbon, a key factor in deciding whether to rebuild or refurbish.

 

One of the criticisms of the Levelling Up Secretary’s decision is the economic impact it will have.  One of the key challenges in refurbishing existing buildings is a supply chain which is set up to carry out new build projects and views refurbishment schemes with caution.  There is huge potential for the UK to promote economic growth by developing new industries aligned to sustainable development and it’s crucial that both public and private bodies support this.

We recently worked as part of an extended team that agreed to forgo an existing planning permission for demolition and rebuild of a fairly high-profile central London office building and instead retrofit. The decision was the right one – not just environmentally – but economically too: we delivered a project that will be low carbon, saving two blue whales worth of embodied carbon while also saving six months on the build programme, delivered 2,000 sq ft extra NIA and a £10m capital cost saving.

It can be done, and it should be.

My personal view is that we need to respect our heritage buildings and give them a new lease of life wherever possible – they’ve earned their right to survive with their sound original fabric and structure, remarkably built without the benefits of technology and knowledge we have today. The least we can do is apply the latter towards keeping them and working with what has survived longer than any of us! It won’t always be possible, but the approach should be retrofit first (rather than retrofit only).

 

The merits of the individual case of M&S will continue to be debated. What is certain is that project teams will have to make an extremely robust case to gain planning approval for a new build option from now on and this is absolutely crucial if we are to change the mindset of ‘it’s too difficult’ to ‘we can do this’. And that is a very promising and possible outcome from all of this.

 

14 Aug 2023

MIND OVER MATTER – THE REAL ESG OBSTACLE

MIND OVER MATTER – THE REAL ESG OBSTACLE

By Rana Rehman, Senior Project Manager at 3PM

 

Cost of materials, supply chain challenges, complicated design, lack of data, a lengthy planning process and heritage constraints are just some of the reasons given for favouring new construction projects over retrofitting ones.

The list of problems is long but the main thing holding us back from #Net Zero trumps all others – mindset. And that matters.

Data is a good example. At a recent event I listened to a discussion whereby those partaking were bemoaning the lack of data that means they cannot benchmark or use existing data to showcase what can be done, or that the information designers have today is already two years old and therefore not live – because live information most often only comes in once the development is post construction, in RIBA stages 4-6. This raised the question of when the live information should be tied to the project – at what point on its timeline is best?

There’s an easy answer to this. RIBA Stage 1. The earlier the focus on net zero with any project the better, but especially when retrofitting. The building is already largely built – we are already working backwards so the earlier we factor in ESG the better.

We, as stakeholders in the future of our built environment, all must agree to plug the massive knowledge gaps across the industry, not accept them. And this requires a change of mindset from day one.

If sustainability focussed PMs and designers are brought in at concept stage there is simply no reason not to retrofit and reach net zero. It can still be done later, it’s just harder.

The experts start with embodied carbon, looking at passive principles, the circular economy – yes steel can be recycled, stored and reused – and biobased materials. Operational carbon also should be factored in early to predict and control live data. This stage includes designing and planning in the maximisation of efficiency and reduction in energy, the practice of energy harvesting and use of renewables. Finally, we move towards energy storage and, as an absolutely last resort, offsetting which together take us to net zero and eventually the panacea of absolute zero.

At 3PM, we work with our own mindset route map which factors in these various stages to win over the 100s of reasons why a retrofit to net zero can’t be done, focussing instead on how to cut through and deliver the lowest carbon intervention. This can be applied to every building, no matter how heritage – to restore, retrofit and future proof.

This has seen us through the decarbonisation and degassing of some of the most heritage and oldest Universities in the UK so there’s absolutely no reason it can’t be applied to a post war office buildings.

After all, if a building has lasted hundreds of years, why shouldn’t we commit to giving it a new lease of life?

 


06 Aug 2023

AMID THE HEATWAVES SHOULD COME GREATER THINKING ABOUT THE FABRIC AND MATERIALS OF PROPERTY

As people all over the UK basked in the glory of the June heatwave, few would have been thinking about the impact on buildings – both new and heritage alike.

Then came more serious incidences across Europe, where focus understandably turned to the wildfires and health concerns associated with the soaring temperatures.

As Project Managers striving to build, future proof and retrofit sustainable buildings, ‘heat’ is a topic that occupies our thought processes rather disproportionately.

Today, there’s just no reason for not considering climate change – not just in terms of the impact of construction and operation of a building on the environment – but the impact of climate change on the building.

The recent high temperatures (whilst positive for those on the beach) are just a reality of our collective future. We have already exceeded the 1.5deg rise and global warming is only increasing, yet capital projects are still being developed without this fact being recognised.

Inadequate benchmarks and limited exposure to progressive fabric first, low carbon, practical strategies within the design world are holding us back. As project managers with significant expertise and experience in sustainability, we know that energy savings of up to 90% are perfectly achievable. We have also proven e/o costs can be delivered well within a normal design development allowance. While air conditioning may give an immediate respite (for buildings and people), burning coal to provide the power required is just illogical.

So why hasn’t this knowledge reached the design or strategy phase of a building project yet?

Why do commercial developers, Higher Education institutions and other stakeholders in the build environment – AND their project teams – still appear so reluctant to change and develop facilities that will actually be fit for the next decade, to weather the weather and deliver a more sustainable option for those interacting with their buildings?

There are any number of reasons that we could point to but in 2023, these don’t carry much weight. A simple solution for all of this is to bring in the sustainability experts from stage one – vision. This will enable knowledge sharing for designers, planners and all other partners in the extended team. It also builds in ‘live data’ from the start of the process, making it ultimately easier to measure, benchmark, report and share best practice. This would be a real step change for all rather than bemoaning data that is readily accessible for designers but decreases in relevance day by day.

The earlier the better. The later the more expensive, complex and risk prone the project will be.

So next time the barometer hits the late 20s – and apparently that will be soon – remember that the increase in severity and frequency of our ‘heatwaves’ is a visible reminder of climate change. And, it should also be a reminder that we should be acting now, bringing in the experts in sustainability from day one to lead the brief, support the design and drag the naysayers into the 21st century.

 

18 Jul 2023

Never has the need to validate Life Sciences data been more crucial

Never has the need to validate Life Sciences data been more crucial

by Rob Burborough, Partner at 3PM

 

What do these statements all have in common?
The Great Wall of China can be seen from Space.
Humans have five senses.
We only use 10% of our brain capacity.*

The answer is that they are all false but widely believed to be true. Why? Because enough people have presented them as facts over
time and people never really researched the original presentation source.

We are at a critical point in the Life Sciences evolution where there is a lot of the same data flying around – the highest demand for
lab space, no space available, too much space in the pipeline.

Is there really a lack of R&D space or is it more the wrong kind of space in the wrong areas? Or is there, however, a lack of
understanding and experience propagating this statement as fact because it’s too complex to imagine space being freed up from
other sectors to plug the gap?

When it comes to conversion and retrofitting, Life Sciences is really no different from other sectors: it seems difficult but, coupled
with genuine insight into the sector at a macro level, the right building and adaptable /flexible fit-out is possible. On the flip side,
some are oversimplifying the conversion of offices to labs – a large proportion simply wouldn’t work for the sometimes unique and
intricate requirements of different science occupiers future undefined needs.

Thus – on the occupier requirement need – the smart thing to do is question where the data comes from, validate it and question how
it is captured in a timely manner and deployed successfully as an investment decision making tool.

For example on the demand side an agent may be looking for lab space of between 50,000 sq ft to 100,000 sq ft for a tenuous client over
18 months to 3 years but the client isn’t fully bought in to moving and the initial demand requirement may of course change, disappear,
shrink or grow as technology adapts. If those compiling the total demand figures have, say three or four of these included in their figures,
the demand total – presented as research – could be as much as 50% inaccurate. But, as it’s research, the market takes it and uses it again
and again thereby validating the need as fact. When in fact the need is a culmination of many moving parts held by many different organisations.
It’s not a unified approach.

While on the supply side, we may have a scheme with a variety of tenure sizes, complete with ancillary services and common areas. Generally,
these are marketed as spaces available to suite the science need from 1,000 to 50,000 sq ft but some might not include the total of shared or
flexible space and some will which leads to confusion over the common baseline. To an agent or researcher crunching figures over total supply,
that’s quite a discrepancy to factor in when assessment total independent validatable demand.

These examples work the other way around too of course: I’m not implying that demand isn’t there and supply is but pointing out that it’s
important to check the data when financing, developing and determining the strategy is important along with more tangible business case
and projects decisions involved.

We must also challenge what is being included and how it is being measured in these requirements: gross vs net, core vs common areas,
plant v floor plate, what is the chargeable structure for tenants on this basis?

The truth is, there are few genuinely experienced professionals in life sciences who see all the data from all sources with many experts entering
the market post-Covid. Usual real estate knowledge doesn’t automatically translate, and it takes a tried and tested practitioner in both science
and property to know what to ask and how to plan for any number of workspace idiosyncrasies different SciTech or bio pharma firms want
incorporated in their bespoke space.

And that’s without the curve ball of balancing conflicting needs of, for example, a biological occupier who needs constant and regulated
environment for part of the space, against operational sustainability that will ultimately deliver net zero.

That’s not to say that it’s too complicated to convert existing property into lab space for example. But suffice to say that it’s more complicated
than designing standard commercial space and expecting a one size fits all for a variety of lab fit out needs.

Those who recognise this will be the ones who question the data. It’s crucial that they do to facilitate the evolution of the sector to accommodate
the right space being delivered and avoid market dislocation.

27 Jun 2023

I set foot at Footprint+ to see who else was walking the talk

I set foot at Footprint+ to see who else was walking the talk

by Rana Rehman, Project Manager and Sustainability Expert at 3PM

 

I was eager to attend the recent Footprint+ conference to share knowledge and discuss ways to accelerate the built environment’s
emphasis on net zero, amongst other things.

I found a number of likeminded people who were there, like me, to discuss innovative approaches on incentivising the circular
economy and cradle-to-cradle practices. What’s more, these experts were there to collaborate and share best practice and lesson learned.

However, there were also delegates that needed to do a lot more in this area in order to actually put their money where their mouths
were, particularly when it came to retrofitting.  There were a lot of ‘cannot’s not as many ‘can do’s which was a little disappointing.

For businesses in the built environment that are starting their net zero journey, there are two crucial principals that are central to
success. Firstly, you must foster an environment where stakeholders demonstrate openness and enthusiasm for sustainable practices.
Mindset is one of the biggest obstacles in this entire space and so culture needs to support and nurture people to where we want to get to.

The second principal is the attitude and agility of designers who play a vital role in driving sustainability. By focussing in on design,
we can encourage designers to adopt a proactive and adaptable mindset which could lead to innovative and sustainable solutions.

These principals are supported by putting in place performance-based design over prescriptive measures; and encouraging a
streamlined approvals process and a proactive approach to risk assessment in order to facilitate the implementation of sustainable
practices.

Over the coming months I’ll be exploring other thought-provoking points on this subject – many of which were raised at the
conference but not so many answered concisely. Partly because we don’t have the answers yet, and partly because there weren’t
enough can do’s across the industry.

I’ll be addressing the importance of wellbeing and absenteeism in sustainable building design, especially in commercial buildings;
the use of sustainable plant and machinery on construction sites, the debate between pushing circular economy in a project brief
rather than a brief targeting low embodied carbon, discussing the fact that designers often rely on supply chain knowledge that
may already be two years old; exploring the concept of materials such as appreciating assets; asking how early is too early to engage
with a supply chain in a project; and why and when you could and should challenge any brief if there’s more that can be done.

11 Nov 2020

Remembrance – Lest We Forget

Remembrance - Lest We Forget

by 3PM

3PM were pleased to support the Normandy Trust in their project arrangements for this truly inspiring memorial overlooking Gold Beach.

Due to open in June 2021 unique projects like these need unique solutions and we are proud to have played our small part. The memorial will be dedicated to the British men & women, who lost their lives in Normandy. We will remember them.

Memorial Construction Update: The Final Stages

01 May 2018

CGT Catapult Manufacturing centre opening!

CGT Catapult manufacturing centre opening!

by Rob Burborough

3PM are very proud to be involved in this significant game changing science project. It is the first in the world of its kind and will significantly change the landscape for Cell and Gene therapy in the future across the globe. 

We were commissioned to  Project Manage and Contract Administer this complex GMP compliant collaborative cleanroom facility from inception through to completion and into operational readiness on.

We were trusted advisors to the CGT leadership team and provided a full turnkey Project and Cost Management service with our design team partners. The success of this Innovate UK funded industry recognised project for CGT is due to the cohesion of this turnkey offer.

The grand opening  took place in Stevenage last week and was attended by over 100 guests from academia and science industry, including the Business Secretary Greg Clark and Science Minister Sam Gyimah.

For more details on the project, you can view our project profile here . If you would like to find out more, you can see CGT press release here.

05 Feb 2018

APM – Contracts and Procurement

APM - Procurement Strategy

by 3PM

At 3PM our team members are actively involved in the wider construction and property industry; including representations on expert panels, sitting on industry committees and holding volunteer positions within varied organisations. These roles contribute our combined wealth of experience to the industry knowledge pool, as well as providing the benefit of experience gained from these forums back into our business for the development of the 3PM Team.

3PM Partner James Buckley-Walker is a Committee Member and Secretary of the APM’s Contracts & Procurement Special Interest Group (SIG), who represent a wide group of APM members from many industries and sectors coming together to share their knowledge and experience in the world of procurement and contracting.

The SIG recently released their Guide to Contracts & Procurement, which is the APM’s bible for all you need to know to set up your project for success. The Guide covers all the key stages throughout the project life cycle from concept and feasibility stage; devising the project procurement strategy and contracting strategies; selection of providers, preparing, awarding & managing the contract; and through to contract closure, operations and support.

At the launch event of the Guide last July, James presented the Project Procurement Strategy chapter, where he discusses the considerations of how to break a project down into different contract packages, determining the nature of the relationship sought with the Provider, which in turn forms the starting point for how you select the Provider, and then further outlines contracting strategies including allocation of risk & reward and obligations for each package.

This chapter is the third video released from the launch event, of which more chapter presentations will be progressively released over the year.

You can watch the video on the link below.

06 Nov 2017

At the Top in Cambridge

At the top in Cambridge

by Chris Garner

3PM have recently celebrate the Topping Out of the Chemistry of Health facility for the University of Cambridge.

Supplementing the world leading research and academia undertaken within the Department of Chemistry, this 2,640m² specialist facility will enable expansion of the existing office and lab provision.

The building will house the Centre for Protein Misfolding Diseases, as well as being a core base for the ‘Chemistry of Health incubator’ comprising research scientists from industrial partners and start-ups occupying laboratory and desk space alongside academics.

Navigating the site constraints of a live environment in the early project stages included the relocation of critical liquid nitrogen facilities and the management of electrical transformer replacement works, alongside the complexity of constructing on a heavily restricted site within the busy inner-City locale.

The team have successfully managed these issues by way of a significant consultation process, careful planning and utilising the strong relationships within the Project Team.

In short, a job well done by all.

Want to learn more about the project
30 Aug 2017

Audit – Critical friend or foe

Audit – Critical friend or foe

by Patrick Watson

We have all experienced that dreaded situation – the auditor is here…! He / she arrives armed with a tick box check list, and all too often a similar mentality. The findings are presented on the basis of a pass / fail score with the inevitable negative residual impact on the team members.

So how can you turn this into a positive, lesson learnt experience aimed at feeding back to the team alternative approaches for consideration?

3PM have been engaged in a number of project and internal estate team reviews over the recent years and set out below the simple guidelines & ethos we adopt: We aim to change the audit process and make it more a positive experience.

Set the right Cultural Environment

The Auditor must adopt a facilitative mind set, the role should be to explore the available information, present back the facts in a clear and measured way. Listening is our biggest asset to ensure the team’s views are fully represented. We initially hold a pre-audit workshop where we seek from the key team members their views and engage them in the process from day one.  This gives the team a voice, creates the feedback loop and starts to break down the barriers.  We use this session to set out our approach and “tell them what we are going to tell them”.

Our stance is to seek solutions to each issue and not just identify the challenges.

Approach

We adopt the Pre-mortem concept – where the auditor initially takes the team (supplemented via desk top document reviews) through a period of reflection, drawing out the issues – no matter how big or small. From here we apply the worst case scenarios or a “brainstorm of doom” assuming what can go wrong and will go wrong.  This is undertaken by 3PM independent from the main team based on our findings and allows us to generate a picture of the challenges ahead and what could go wrong.

We then pick the Top 10 issues, drawing on our experiences of common project failures to ensure we pick up the areas where the biggest risk impacts on the project can occur.

Initial focus is on the “show-stoppers” and those areas where from experience problems are likely to occur. These areas are generally known by the project team but day-to-day pressures drive the team’s attention into other aspects.  One key role of the 3PM auditor is to highlight those concerns that are outside of the project delivery team’s control.  Typically these relate to lack of leadership, governance and clarity in the expectations of the desired outcome.

Following this phase we now do what 3PM does best: solve complex problems.

Our approach is always to keep the focus on the strategy and then dig into the detail to test and validate the approach. Once the problem is highlighted experience shows that the team will generally work to resolve it.

Feedback

We then phrase our feedback as a recommendation, explaining why we have concerns, what we believe is required and then summarising our specific recommendation and give each a priority (Immediate – longer term). This is tempered so that the reader to the report does not react to the ranking.  Traditional RAG status give an over emphasis on the RED issues.  Our feedback is delivered in the written form and then followed up by an open discussion to allow the team to acknowledge the actions proposed or to justify why they do not believe the recommendation is valid.