A recent visit to Sherwood Energy Village in Ollerton has set me thinking about design and sustainable development. The RICS have also recently published some research from the USA studying the effect of what they term ‘eco-labelling’ on office occupancy rates.
There are a variety of ratings around the world for energy labelling buildings, but the two most well known are BREEAM (BRE Environmental Assessment Method) and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design). BREEAM is the European standard, LEED the USA version. Both are fairly similar in nature and are in effect best practice for sustainable design.
Both in principal aim to provide the following:
market recognition for low environmental impact buildings
assurance that best environmental practice is incorporated into a building
inspiration to find innovative solutions that minimise the environmental impact
a benchmark that is higher than regulation
Its implementation attempts to;
use a straightforward scoring system that is transparent, easy to understand and supported by evidence-based research
has a positive influence on the design, construction and management of buildings
sets and maintains a robust technical standard with rigorous quality assurance and certification
Consequently as agents we would look to promote a BREEAM building as more attractive to occupiers due to its lower carbon footprint, lower running costs etc. The question however is – does the market see this as a benefit, and is it shown through occupancy and voids data?
This is not been easy to assess, particularly in a poor market. So the RICS data is interesting (despite it being US based). The data suggests that there is an 8% difference in occupancy for LEED buildings (in their favour). At this time this is not particularly ‘definative’ in my view. It suggests a trend but perhaps no more.
If green issues remain at the forefront of peoples thinking this type of building may well become more popular. But there is a cost factor which will deter developers. Yes a BREEAM building may win awards, but it will cost a lot more to build and may not be as attractive to the market due to certain ‘design’ features. There is another angle as well – the desire of the developers and architects to make a statement, this may have a detrimental effect on the scheme in my opinion.
Sherwood Energy Village demonstrates this I believe;

E Building, Sherwood Energy Village
Sherwood Energy Village had a ‘difficult birth’ being born out of the sudden closure of the Ollerton Pit (even by the standards of the day) and the locals desire to help prevent the death of the town. Initially seen as a bunch of lunatics the town created an Industrial Provident Society to manage the site. Against all the odds they managed to purchase the site from British Coal for £50,000 and then proceeded to fund a £4.2M clean up of the site before agreeing a planning strategy for the development with the local council.
They have through careful management retained overall control of the site and therefore kept speculative developers at arms length. Consequently any development has to follow their design principles and ethos. Buildings are built to a high standard from a sustainability point of view, plus recent business units are achieving BREEAM excellent. But they are generally designed to be practical and not ‘design statements’. All sites are sold on a 125 year ground lease, acceptable to funders but enabling further control to be maintained over the site (for example requiring development within 2 years of site acquisition).
The site now has a diverse collection of occupiers all (with the exception of Tesco) in sustainable buildings offering the users various financial and ethical benefits. Over 1000 jobs have been created in the last 13 years on the site, more than were employed at the pit in its heyday.

photo: Tim Garratt
Contrast this with No.1 Nottingham Science Park. An award winning design with very high environmental credentials (seen as the definitive way forward for science park design in respect of sustainability). But, this is a very striking building, very much an architects view of what we need! It remains to be seen whether occupiers will buy into the architecture. But as a showcase of what can be done with a building (together with the Toyota Building on the same site) this has put Nottingham on the map architecturally for the first time in years. Without doubt No1 needed to be built to show what can be achieved and Blueprint the developers should be applauded for this. It has had a difficult birth into the worst market we have seen for decades, I am sure it will succeed with the fullness of time.
I believe what is needed is a middle course, the practical Ollerton approach with an element of Architectural flair. Hopefully we can move forwards in this manner in the next decade.