Environmental Preference Schedule Of Construction Elements, page 1
Criteria for selection:
Design for low energy use (superinsulation etc)
Minimising new resources (seconds/reclaimed etc)
Using whole unprocessed materials first (solid timber, natural materials)
Using low embodied energy materials (locally sourced, unprocessed etc)
Using materials for a healthy environment (organic paints, no formaldehyde glues etc)
Preferences grades:
ultimate aim
good practice
acceptable solution
to be avoided
U values to be achieved including all openings bridging etc:
Roofs
0.15 W/m2K
Walls
0.25 W/m2K
Floors
0.20 W/m2K
Windows/glazed doors
1.5 W/m2K
The works carried out in the refurbishment and new construction at The Fold can be broken down into 27 categories and we have assessed each of these to illustrate the environmental decision-making process that affected all parts of the project. Firstly the specific treatment or material that we consider qualifies for each of the grades is identified for each category. The choice of material or treatment we made at The Fold is then presented and the reasons behind that choice are then explained.
A summary of the categories, the grading and choices made in The Fold is provided in tabular format at the end.
Builders Waste
no export at all from site
sorted into recyclable rubble/timber/metals etc
burn waste
indiscriminate use of skips
Choice: 2. Most of our waste material was eventually sorted but not without some confrontation. Reason: The building trade are used to having skips to throw all their waste into without consideration and getting builders to sort the waste required the development of a new mind set.
Foundations
Local stone foundations with land drains around perimeter. Reduce thermal bridging to a minimum
Reused brick or block with recycled aggregate on minimal strip footing
new conc. block or new bricks on strip footing
Trench fill or reinforced slab/raft foundation with new aggregate.
Choice: 4. Trench footing Reason: The considerable additional cost of labour and material in a strip footing.
DRAINAGE
earthenware
spun concrete
-
UPVC
Choice: 1. Principally earthenware drain pipes with PU manholes. Also PU pipe on a long 150mm run for surface water. Reason: Best choice and whilst more expensive than UPVC still affordable.
Design, Convert And Build Work contd.
Environmental Preference Schedule Of Construction Elements, page 1
Criteria for selection:
Preferences grades:
U values to be achieved including all openings bridging etc:
The works carried out in the refurbishment and new construction at The Fold can be broken down into 27 categories and we have assessed each of these to illustrate the environmental decision-making process that affected all parts of the project. Firstly the specific treatment or material that we consider qualifies for each of the grades is identified for each category. The choice of material or treatment we made at The Fold is then presented and the reasons behind that choice are then explained.
A summary of the categories, the grading and choices made in The Fold is provided in tabular format at the end.
Builders Waste
Choice: 2. Most of our waste material was eventually sorted but not without some confrontation.
Reason: The building trade are used to having skips to throw all their waste into without consideration and getting builders to sort the waste required the development of a new mind set.
Foundations
Choice: 4. Trench footing
Reason: The considerable additional cost of labour and material in a strip footing.
DRAINAGE
Choice: 1. Principally earthenware drain pipes with PU manholes. Also PU pipe on a long 150mm run for surface water.
Reason: Best choice and whilst more expensive than UPVC still affordable.
Next >> Environmental Preference Schedule Of Construction Elements, page 2
Designers and Engineers | Builders and Contractors | Specialist Suppliers