好色先生TV

More than 100 million of the 400 million tonnes of solid materials the construction industry uses each year, end up in landfill. Today, only 13% of the sector employs a site waste management plan, but with such plans due to become compulsory next year, tackling construction waste has never been more relevant.

With this in mind, 好色先生TV teamed up with WRAP, the government-funded body charged with reducing the level of waste, and gathered a number of the sector鈥檚 key players (see box on page 48) to discuss the challenges involved and their solutions.

The discussion began with an agreement that, although carbon neutrality and climate change have become 鈥渢hings people talk about in the pub鈥�, waste management has not been embraced. It was felt that a zero-waste building would not have the same cachet as a zero-carbon scheme. Despite pockets of good practice among developers and housebuilders, the participants said they thought the issue was not of vital importance to clients and was often the last thing discussed during project meetings.

The challenges

One of the biggest challenges is constraints on city sites. In London the chance of having more than one skip is minimal and you have to shift it off site every 45 minutes

Barry Smith, Simons Group

鈥� Working culture. One of the biggest problems, according to several participants, is the disparity between the will of senior managers to deal with the problem and the way work is carried out at ground level. As one participant noted: 鈥淭here is a disconnection between the person at the top and the guy who has to plaster 12 rooms by next week and get rid of all the rubbish.鈥�

Contractors agreed that while, in principle, many firms are keen to tackle the issue 鈥� not least because waste costs money 鈥� the biggest hurdles are on-site work practices, so a massive 鈥渃ultural change鈥� is necessary.

鈥� Site constraints. For many contractors, the space limitations of city, retail centre and high-street projects present huge barriers to waste management. On such sites it is rare to have space for more than one skip so they are often filled within an hour and taken off site to be emptied several times a day. Although many contractors are now using Hippo bags 鈥� which are collected and disposed of by waste disposal firm Hippowaste 鈥� as an alternative to skips, these still demand space.

鈥� Recycled materials. Recycling was unanimously welcomed but there was concern that many recycled materials are new and have not been adequately tested. Also, some projects lend themselves better than others to the use of recycled content. Housing schemes, for example, were noted for their use of recycled chipboard and plasterboard.

If you want to be resource efficient, then you have to manage your waste 鈥� waste costs money

John Tebbit, CPA

The solutions

鈥� Overall vision. Although many senior industry figures are keen to crack the problem, they mistakenly focus on a single issue of sustainability, such as cutting water wastage, instead of the overall environmental impact of products used.

One participant said: 鈥淚f you only drive for a reduction in water consumption, carbon efficiency or waste management, you鈥檙e not going to get the best result. Zero waste to landfill from a site is good, but if all you鈥檝e done is transfer a horribly inefficient site process to a horribly ineffective off-site process you鈥檙e simply exporting your problems somewhere else.鈥�

鈥� Smart design. Across the board, it was agreed that the 鈥渉oly grail鈥� solution to reducing waste is to design to fit. Architects agreed that in principle 鈥測ou should be able to forecast waste鈥� and construct off site to hone the process. With more design firms moving into total 3D design, it was suggested that, in principle, it should become easier to identify waste materials earlier in the process. Standardised designs would also go a long way. 鈥淢ore standardisation and the use of standard module sizes means less choice so therefore less waste.鈥�

Only measuring and benchmarking makes people realise. Unless you are measuring waste, you can鈥檛 do anything about it

Mike Watson, WRAP

鈥� Getting clients on board. Placing waste reduction at the heart of the procurement process is vital, according to all the participants. 鈥淚t has to be specified or nobody will take it seriously,鈥� said one. One contractor reported that it was a welcome surprise that a recent client judged waste minimisation as being as important as health and safety and sustainability.

Another participant noted: 鈥淚f the client is challenging the architect, the consultant and the main contractor, then suddenly the focus is there. It鈥檚 down to the client to drive it all.鈥�

However, there was a general feeling that a client-led focus on waste reduction is unrealistic in most cases. 鈥淭he first choice for choosing suppliers is the price. I鈥檝e yet to see a job without cost as its first priority,鈥� said one attendant.

鈥� A voluntary code of practice. Several participants were in favour of a cross-industry code of practice on waste reduction. 鈥淎 code could encourage the idea that if someone is not supporting waste minimisation, they should be ostracised by the construction fraternity.鈥�

At the moment the big issues are sustainability and carbon footprints. Waste management is some way down the list for clients

Peter Capelhorn, Scott Brownrigg

However, it was felt that one single code of practice applying across the entire industry, was too ambitious, and that separate codes according to sector type, would work better. 鈥淎 code of practice is possible in sectors, but it would be quite a challenge to get complete sector commitment,鈥� said one participant.

The notion of rival contractors pooling knowledge on waste minimisation was also welcomed but most people said it would be hard to put into practice, given the competitive nature of the business.

Targets and legislation

With the government target to halve waste to landfill by 2012, the Major Contractors Group鈥檚 waste reduction targets and the Code for Sustainable Homes鈥� suggestions already around, there was disagreement about whether more targets were needed.

The ideal thing would be a client who engaged with waste management issues from the start

Andy Fancy, Wates

The 鈥減lethora of quick fixes鈥� was attacked by many as another burden on the sector. 鈥淢inister after minister comes along and confuses action for achievement. With quick fixes you have to be clear where you are going in the long term,鈥� said one participant. Another argued: 鈥淚t鈥檚 not about a knee-jerk reaction to targets. It鈥檚 about changing an entire working culture.鈥�

However, others welcomed new goals, claiming that even if the government failed to hit its goal of zero-carbon by 2016, targets would at least provide focus and motivate action. 鈥淭argets are extremely important in seeing what you鈥檙e trying to achieve. Unless you are measuring and benchmarking you cannot do anything about the problem.鈥�

One or two participants went even further, arguing that more legislation would force the sector into action and achieve results. 鈥淚f this is going to get the priority it deserves, it will come through legislation.鈥�

Two controversial suggestions were made: first, in line with the Code for Sustainable Homes, it was mooted that grant funding should be supplied only if projects reached a certain level of waste reduction. Second, it was felt that only a hike in landfill tax 鈥� already rising to 拢48 a tonne by 2010 鈥� would make an impact. 鈥淕overnment intervention is needed 鈥� the price of waste is simply not high enough,鈥� said one participant.

Ultimately, as the discussion made clear, waste costs money. There is, therefore, great will among senior industry figures to act on the issue. It is finding a way that is proving to be more problematic.