1. Each year, central government departments and executive agencies spend in the region of £3 billion on construction and refurbishment projects. For some years, the performance of buildings on the government estate has been subject to environmental targets and initiatives. In 2005, the OGC published the Common Minimum Standards for both construction and refurbishment projects and also for the operational use of buildings. The Standards referred to and drew on earlier guidance and standards. These included the requirement, since 2002, for departments to carry out an environmental assessment on projects using the Building Research Establishment's Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) or equivalent and to achieve a very good rating (for refurbishments) or excellent rating (for new builds). Since 2002, government has required departments to meet estate-wide environmental targets covering energy, water, waste, travel, construction and procurement. And since 2003 departments are required to use "Quick Wins"—products endorsed by OGC as being more sustainable.[2]

2. The standards expected of the government estate have also been raised. In 2006, DEFRA launched revised targets for Sustainable Operations on the Government Estate (the "SOGE" targets), covering energy, water, waste, travel, construction and procurement. These targets were more demanding in some respects—including, for example, a requirement for the central government estate to achieve carbon neutrality by 2012. In particular, both new builds and major refurbishment projects were required to achieve a BREEAM rating, or equivalent, of "excellent". These efforts to raise the bar have been running in parallel with cross-departmental initiatives which affect construction and refurbishment on the government estate. These include:

• the Gershon Efficiency Review (2004) which has created pressure to seek cost savings in construction and refurbishment projects;
• the Lyons Review (2004) which has resulted in a programme to relocate departmental functions away from the South East, and a consequent need for major refurbishments or new buildings; and
• the High Performing Property Initiative (2006), coordinated by the OGC, which aimed to integrate property management into central government's strategic business delivery.[3]

3. Despite the attention given to targets and mandatory practices to deliver sustainability, much remains to be done if departments and agencies are to achieve key targets set out in the Common Minimum Standards. Mandatory environmental (BREEAM or equivalent) assessments were carried out in just 35% of new build projects and 18% of major refurbishment projects during 2005-06. The required environmental standards could be shown to have been met in only 9% of projects. The NAO's own assessment of a sample of projects in 2005-06 found that many projects fell short of the required standards (Figure 1). The take-up of Quick Wins was also limited, despite being mandatory since 2003. Departments often did not conduct post-occupancy evaluations, though these are a well-recognised tool for improving building design and operation, and also a requirement of OGC's Gateway Review process.[4]

Figure 1: Sustainability ratings of a sample of 45 construction and refurbishment projects examined by the NAO

Source: National Audit Office/Arup survey of 2005-06 construction and refurbishment projects

4. Nonetheless, there are examples of good practice across government which others might follow—as Figure 1 shows, one in five new builds examined by the NAO did achieve an excellent rating. Other more specific examples include:

• the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) achieving BREEAM excellent or equivalent ratings for all its new builds and major refurbishments;
• over 80% of projects examined by the NAO using timber from sustainable sources;
• higher take-up of Quick Wins in energy efficient white goods such as refrigerators;
• the use of natural ventilation and daylight in refurbished vehicle test centres, by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency;
• Defence Estates' increasing the extent to which recycled content is used in its modernisation of single living accommodation;
• the Treasury's use of a novel "gain-share" arrangement with its PFI contractor to encourage energy efficiency, in the modernisation of its headquarters building;
• DEFRA's insistence on BREEAM excellence, despite initial landlord resistance, in the sale and leaseback of its offices in Whitehall Place;
• the former Home Office's use of its intranet and visual displays, to communicate sustainability messages to its staff; and
• the use of integrated teams, combining building sponsors, designers, facilities managers and building contractors, in the construction of the Defence Sixth Form College at Welbeck.[5]

5. Accountability, enforcement and leadership for sustainable construction and refurbishment are split between several individuals and departments.

• Individual Accounting Officers are responsible for deciding the correct course of action in their own departments to achieve the construction and refurbishment sustainability outcomes, within the framework and targets set out by the OGC and DEFRA in terms of common minimum standards and procurement and sustainability policies.
• DEFRA is responsible for providing advice to both the OGC in the form of the "Quick Wins" list, and directly to departments about products and processes that are most likely to achieve sustainable outcomes, as well as to lead by example. DEFRA is also responsible for overseeing the targets for Sustainable Operations on the Government Estate.
• Individual departments are responsible for meeting the targets for Sustainable Operations on the Government Estate. Departments report on progress against targets through providing data annually to the DEFRA-sponsored Sustainable Development Commission (SDC), and through departmental Sustainable Development Action Plans and departmental annual reports.
• The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform has responsibility for the construction sector and for sustainable construction more generally, whilst the Department for Communities and Local Government is responsible for buildings regulations.[6]

6. The Government has set in place new initiatives and structures to improve performance, accountability and leadership, particularly through the Treasury's 'Transforming public procurement' (January 2007) and the 'UK Sustainable Procurement Action Plan' (March 2007). Clearer roles have been defined for individual departments for sustainable procurement; and for the OGC in embedding agreed procurement policies throughout the procurement profession in government, with new powers to set standards, require performance against them and hold Permanent Secretaries to account for procurement. Ministerial oversight is to be exercised through the Cabinet Energy and the Environment Committee. The Head of the Home Civil Service will oversee delivery of the Action Plan. Finally, a new Government Procurement Service has been created, bringing together procurement professionals across government, for which the Chief Executive of the OGC is now responsible. The new Service's principal aim is to implement a more professional approach to procurement across the estate, as well as to improve capability and exchange best practice.[7]

7. The lack of reliable data has hampered government's ability to track its own performance. The OGC's Property Benchmarking Programme, launched in 2006 and now being rolled out to all departments, should provide basic information across the estate and allow every holding to be measured against sustainability criteria, such as annual water consumption per person and energy consumption per square metre. This database of government buildings can be analysed and benchmarked against sectoral, national and international comparators. OGC is working towards capturing a comprehensive analysis of the sustainability performance of each of the 9,000 holdings on the estate within 18 months.[8]

3   Qq 2, 13, 38, 56, 60, 62; C&AG's Report, paras 1.8-1.10, Figure 4 Back

4   Qq 2, 3, 5, 7-8, 18, 20, 27-30, 49, 101, 103; C&AG's Report, paras 2.2, 2.4, 2.7, 2.19-2.22; Figures 6 and 7 Back

5   C&AG's Report, paras 2.4, 2.17, 2.20; Case Example 4 on page 20, para 3.16, Figure 14, paras 4.7, 4.8 and 4.11  Back

6   Qq 2, 3, 12,16, 18, 23, 25, 45-48, 51, 61, 63, 66, 81, 91, 102; C&AG's Report, Figure 3 Back

7   Qq 2, 21, 33, 81 Back

8   Qq 13-15, 19, 65, 66, 79 Back