Transcript Queen Margaret University - RE:LOCATE Sustainability

Case Study – The UK’s Greenest and Most Space Efficient HE Building?
Queen Margaret University - RE:LOCATE
Steve Scott
Queen Margaret University
Director of Estates and Facilities
Queen Margaret University
•
•
•
•
•
Established 1875
4000 Students (FTE) 500 Staff
77% Female
72% Scots/12% Other UK/16% International
Four Schools
–
–
–
–
Health Sciences
Social Sciences
Business and Enterprise
Drama and Creative Industries
• £27m Turnover
• 96% graduate employment rate
• University title – January 2007
QMU – Previous Estate
Estates Options Appraisal
Which Was :Matching the Estate with the University Strategic Plan
Which concluded:Estate not fit for not fit for purpose – condition/growth/efficiency
University not financially viable within current estate.
Which recommended:New Estate - Relocate – dispose and build new - smaller by (35%)
New Business - Transform – best practice and financially sustainable
Which represented
Unique opportunity
Unique risks
1998
Site Selection
Process
5 years In total
2 failed attempts
50 long listed
16 shortlist
4 fully evaluated
Choice
Craighall - East Lothian
13 Miles ( west to east)
Green belt
Financial and Non Financial
2002
2003
Outline Design Brief
Environmental
Distinctive
Identity
considerations
Learning
centred Sustainable
Interactive & Social
Learning
Welcoming
& Inspiring
Future Flexibility
and Expansion
Community
Focus
Design Brief
Open &
Accessible
Safety & Security
Space
Efficiency
Cost & Lifecycle
Integrated
Masterplan
Masterplan
Design – Academic Building
Entrance Level
VISION
Upper Level
Social Spaces
Space Planning
Significant increase in Space utilisation rates
Net Internal area close to SMG model for affordable estate
Strict space management essential for success (timetable)
Learning Resource Centre
Consolidated base for Student Centred learning
No taught classes
Central location “heart” of building
Varied environment
study spaces (1:5)
Secure and non secure
Office Accommodation
Academic and Corporate
No subject areas
Detailed workspace planning
No student access
Teaching and Research
Modelled future profile
Targeted utilisation rates
Strict space management
Grouped room types
Structural grid
Sustainability
The following awards were delivered;
CEEQUAL
Excellent Rating
BREEAM (Academic)
-
BREEAM (Sports)
BREEAM (Residences)
-
Excellent
(Highest points
for UK University)
Excellent
Excellent
ENVEST
-
17 ecopoints/m2
Sustainability - Approach
•
Holistic
–
–
–
–
avoid gimmicks where add expense and cost
get basics right
balance cost benefits with any additional costs (no additional sustainability budget)
design sustainability in
•
Vision Statement - ” to develop a sustainable community for learning and life “
•
Emphasise Sustainability throughout process
–
–
–
–
•
specialist sub consultant - GAIA
consultant selection
contractor selection
monitoring regime
Key target areas
–
–
–
–
–
low Carbon footprint
biodiversity and a quality external environment
Indoor air quality and Daylight
water management
Green travel plan
2004
Low Carbon Footprint – The Building
Minimise Consumption
•
•
•
•
•
utilise natural ventilation, coupled with thermal mass,
where possible
set a 25% improvement on the Building Regulation
standards for building air tightness
apply an IT Solution that minimises both power and
unwanted heat gain. In this instance it is ‘thin client’
technology
set a 5% improvement on the Building Regulation
standards of thermal insulation
deliver good natural daylight to the interiors and
couple this to intelligent lighting controls
2004
Low Carbon - Simple Design
The Low Carbon Strategy - Bio-Mass
•
technical and financial review of renewable energy technologies identified
Bio-mass as the preferred low carbon technology for the Campus
•
The intention was to burn local forestry products in a QMU owned Energy
Centre to provide heat for the Academic and Residential Blocks.
•
no precedent (at time) in UK for this scale of plant (4.5MW heat)
•
Bio-mass is deemed to be carbon neutral
•
full gas boiler back-up
2 No Gas Fired
Boilers (4.5MW)
for full back-up
Wood Store
Bio-mass Boiler
1.5MW
Water Storage Cylinders
Bio-mass Financial Appraisal
2004
•£1.5m to install Bio-mass Energy Centre
•£0.4m Capital Grant from Carbon Trust
• Heat delivered to Campus at a rate of 1.78p/Kwh
•Payback period estimated at between 5-7 years.
£500k Grant, 3% Fossil Fuel Inflation, 1% Woodchip Inflation
5,000,000
4,500,000
4,000,000
3,500,000
3,000,000
Current Scheme
Biofuel
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Residences
Carbon from Biomass
Deliveriesk
QMU Fossil Fuel
Kg CO2 / m²
20
HEEPI Good Practise
Benchamrk
Carbon from Biomass
Deliveries
QMU Fossil Fuel
HEEPI Good Practise
Benchamrk
Kg CO2 / m²
Carbon Appraisal – 4 Months Heat Data
30
30
20
10
10
Academic Buildings
Biodiversity and external environment
•
•
•
•
Woodland shelterbelts surround the
campus, providing a large increase in the
length of valuable edge habitat which
attracts bird and invertebrate diversity
Mixed native hedges extend the edge
habitat, providing corridors of cover
Meadow grassland and wetland margins
will provide tall grass habitat typical of
field margins
Wetlands in rural areas have declined in
recent years due to agricultural
improvements, and therefore new
wetlands are very valuable.
Minimising Pollution / Water Management
Water both into and out of site
managed to minimise energy use:
Water Out - SUDS pond
Water In Low use fittings
w.c.’s
waterless urinals
taps
Leak detection on water main
Rainwater harvesting discounted
(payback period too long)
Healthy Materials
Internal Materials
80% of floor finishes A rated as
determined by the Green Guide
to Specification
80% of internal walls A rated as
determined by the Green Guide
to Specification
Recyclable
Balance between carpet and lino –
acoustics v life cycle
Green Travel Planning
BREEAM - SCORE
–
–
–
–
excellent rating -77%
Highest scoring HE in UK
Highest ‘bespoke’ excellent rating in Scotland (4th highest in UK)
Land use and Ecology high scoring – unusual for Greenfield site
ICT Strategy
2004
Followed extensive research
Holistic approach
support core brief
design in
Business case
Consultant and Sub Consultants involved
Thin Client Infrastructure - Fundamental to Delivering Sustainability Strategy
what is thin-client?
A thin-client is a client computer in a client-server architecture
network which depends primarily on the central server for
processing activities, and mainly focuses on conveying input
and output between the user and the remote server. In
contrast, a thick or fat client does as much processing as
possible and passes only data for communications and
storage to the server.
Definition courtesy of Wikipedia
perception v’s reality
thick-client
heavy footprint
thin-client
broad reach
time consuming to deploy network dependency
responsive
poor user experience
highly productive
complex and not well understood
rich user experience
easy to deploy
well understood
easy management
benefits
remote
working
energy
saving
extended
equipment
lifespan
thin-client: 5-6 years
Some specifics
blade servers
• 40% less energy
than conventional
servers
• HP Blade System
27% less energy
than competitors
thin-clients
• 17W per client max
• 90% reduction on our
old PCs
• CRT to LCD migration
conscious procurement decision end-2004
disadvantages
and our solutions
all eggs in one basket
we had better
make it a
super-strength
basket
non-compliant software
• computer
aided design
• video and
audio editing
• hardware
dependent
loss of local control
• tackled early as a
separate project
• although staff were
unable to install or
change anything locally,
support was improved
and it was soon accepted
(by most)
the change process
•change
management
•changing user
perceptions of
technology
•re-skilling of IT staff
from PC to TC
outcomes
All existing individual and IT lab computers are to be
migrated and replaced with thin-client devices unless
the work of the institution cannot be achieved by the
use of this technology or by providing an alternative
within a shared space. No individual will have a
personal computer on their desk.
This is an institutional imperative in line with
project Re:Locate.
implementation schedule
project initiation
November 2004
proof of concept
June 2005
supplier award
January 2006
student lab migration
September 2006
old campus complete
may 2007
campus relocation
summer 2007
-0
7
-0
7
N
ov
S
ep
l-0
7
-0
7
ay
7
-0
7
ar
-0
Ju
M
M
Ja
n
-0
6
-0
6
N
ov
S
ep
l-0
6
-0
6
ay
6
-0
6
ar
-0
Ju
M
M
Ja
n
-0
5
-0
5
N
ov
S
ep
l-0
5
-0
5
ay
5
-0
5
ar
-0
Ju
M
M
Ja
n
-0
4
N
ov
1400
1200
1000
800
Terminal count
Application count
PC count
600
400
200
0
support
learn from our pain
• choose your targets
• get institutional buy-in at all costs
• choose some academic and support staff to
champion the technology
• accentuate the benefits
• accept that it will not meet everyone’s needs
so have a contingency
• experience depends on the client hardware
“big picture”
smartcards
wireless &
TC laptops
print, copy
and scan
VoIP
QMU Re:Locate - Summary
– Re:Locate – unique challenge/opportunity
– Business re-engineering
– Space Planning & Sustainability – core
– ICT (thin client) strategy – Key to both
– Successful?
• Delivered on cost and programme
• Operating within space plan objectives – case study
• Met sustainability (design ) targets – POE underway
Questions