Contents Cover Images

Contents Cover Images Straw Bale RESET Development Ecoterre Earth Bricks Ibstock Brick Ltd Hemp-Lime Plaster Ty Mawr Lime Rammed Earth Rowland Keable, RamCast CIC Authors Anne-Christin Gerharz Research and Design Blanche Cameron Director, RESET Development

Publisher RESET Development 4th Floor 16 Hoxton Square London N1 6NT

Foreword

5

Executive Summary

7

Introduction

9

Low Impact Building Materials

9

Literature Review and Context

11

Research Process

13

Survey Overview

15

Survey analysis

17

Outcomes, Analysis and Conclusions

17

Additional Comments

37

Discussion

43

Interviews

47

Conclusion

55

Tel: +44 (0)207 749 2512 [email protected] www.reset-development.org.uk Registered Charity 1137511 Company Limited by Guarantee 07144369 © RESET Development 2012

2

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

3

Foreword

Dr Jonathan Rae Head of College Schumacher College, Devon Materials play one of the most important roles in the construction industry, not only in the way they influence the appearance of a building but also in terms of their impact on the environment – embodied CO2 and energy performance in use, durability, breathability, health and well-being. At a time when resources are becoming scarcer and more expensive and the economy both nationally and internationally is developing a more sustainable approach, the construction industry can’t afford to get left behind. This transition towards a low carbon construction industry is a contemporary issue. This research by RESET Development helps the built environment sector to understand perceptions around this aspect of the industry – low impact building materials (LIBMs). This research assessed the construction industry’s interest in accredited training standards and qualifications for LIBMs and uncovered, perhaps counter-intuitively in an era of austerity, a positive view of LIBMs.

increasingly contributing to this move, as they can usually be supplied from a plentiful and/or local, renewable source, require minimal processing meaning low carbon and waste production. Even though the construction industry has yet to fully embrace low impact building materials such as these and others, this research demonstrates that the benefits and drivers - such as a high customer demand and potential lower cost compared to mainstream construction materials - are becoming increasingly recognised. In our own work, we assess and explore the benefits of the full range of construction materials available, selecting on performance, durability, cost, environmental impact or benefit and so on. These materials provide solutions that are relevant now and into the future and we hope to see an increase in their use in the coming years. To enable this, fully accredited training standards and qualifications will be needed and we hope that this report will assist in their development.

Low impact building materials such as straw bale, rammed earth and earth block, lime and clay plasters and so on are Pines Calyx Conference Centre Rammed Chalk Structure RamCast CIC

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

5

Executive Summary This research was carried out April - July 2012 by RESET Development for the Construction Skills Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards and Qualifications steering group, to explore the UK construction industry’s appetite for LIBMs training standards and qualifications. An online survey targeted built environment professionals, and a series of semi-structured interviews were carried out with five built environment experts. Results show considerable interest in access to accredited training and qualifications - either for the respondents, their organisations, or for others with whom they were working.

Alongside the design and implementation of accredited training and qualifications, respondents mentioned opportunities to improve uptake and implementation:

However, the perceived drivers - sustainability credentials, health and well-being, material performance and cost effectiveness – are likely to increase demand for accredited training standards and qualifications across the sector.

• Awareness raising amongst those who invest in, design and specify developments • Integrating LIBMs training at accredited colleges • Accreditation for existing courses in LIBMs construction, e.g. at the Centre for Alternative Technology, LILI, Schumacher College, Brighton PermacultureTrust • Development of data sheets and material performance information and specification • Courses for different target audiences • Supplying a range of qualifications, the most popular of which appear to be Levels 1-3 in the NQF, although there was interest at other levels too, including undergraduate and postgraduate level.

Key perceived barriers were seen as: • Lack of access to training • Lack of access to skilled contractors • The need for more information and awareness • Availability of warranties and guarantees • Perceived lack of regulation • Perceived unreliability of supply chain • Availability of insurance

Areas for further research include: • Accreditation and training of trainers and assessors • Supply chain: security of supply, cost, performance and quality • Design, specification and implementation in developments, both retrofit and new build • Wider awareness of existing planning and policy instruments relating to LIBMs

Key drivers were seen as: • Good sustainability credentials • Good materials performance • Potential cost effectiveness • Consumer demand

If the UK is to develop a low carbon construction industry, then low impact building materials, and the training and qualification needed to integrate them into developments, would appear to be seen by the built environment sector as a necessary and beneficial part of that transition.

Perceived barriers include access to and cost of accredited training in LIBMs, awareness of benefits, technical and performance information, and a skilled workforce to implement developments that employ these materials.

Guardian Media Centre, Hay Festival 2008 Straw Bale Structure RESET Development

Interviews with five construction industry experts found that, while LIBMs were not seen as a replacement for mainstream materials, there was certainly a good place for them in an emerging low carbon UK construction industry.

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

7

Introduction Low Impact Building Materials Low impact building materials (LIBMs) are defined on the basis of their long term sustainability, which means their key characteristics include durability, minimal processing and pollution, low carbon and low waste in their production, and can be supplied from a plentiful or renewable source.1 Therefore LIBMs include straw bales, clay and lime plasters and renders, rammed earth and earth blocks, adobe, cob and so on. These features mean that buildings constructed of LIBMs can reduce their negative impact on the environment and improve occupant experience. Through appropriate construction techniques and architectural planning and design, these materials can produce high levels of comfort and performance. Straw bales as a building material are often deemed to be carbon neutral – or even carbon negative – especially if the straw is locally produced.2 As a local, renewable material, with low embodied energy, straw compares favourably in terms of cost to conventional walling materials such as cement block or brick. Straw bales conform to Building Regulations requirements for structural capacity and fire resistance.3 However the straw must be protected from moisture ingress during construction and in use which is the reason for the adage that straw needs ‘a good hat and a good pair of boots’ referring to the roof and foundations of the building.4 Earth-based construction is common all over the world either as a loadbearing or infill construction material.5 Rammed earth, cob or adobe methods can be extremely durable and the thermal storage properties of earth make it ideal for modulating extremes of temperature or in passive solar designs.6 Additionally, earth as a building material effectively controls internal humidity levels.7 WISE Building, Centre for Alternative Technology Rammed Earth Structure RamCast CIC with Galliers Construction

The majority of the required materials for earth construction can often be found on or near the building site reducing the embodied energy required in the construction. Transportation over long distances increases its embodied energy considerably, due to its weight. Earth-based construction can reduce the quantity of cement in a project and support a simple, flexible design and construction process. Like any solid, thermally massive material, most earth-based construction will normally require external thermal insulation under UK Building Regulations.8 Clay and lime plasters and renders are flexible, non-brittle materials whose breathability helps to regulate internal humidity and support a breathable construction approach. They have a lower embodied energy than conventional alternatives such as cement based plasters and renders and lime will continue to draw back CO2 into itself over its lifespan. As with all construction materials and methods, initial training is required to understand design and best practice for these materials. In addition to the advantages above, other drivers for the construction industry to adopt LIBMs include recent UK government targets for CO2 reduction, through revisions to the regulations on embodied energy and energy efficiency.9 Growing consumer demand for sustainable homes in the UK10 and commercial feasibility through new techniques and prefabrication11 could also encourage the UK construction industry to develop a supply chain for this aspect of the market. Moreover, environmental changes present a challenge to the sector to adapt to changing climate conditions and provide solutions to respond to higher summer temperatures, while at the same time reducing embodied CO2.

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

9

This relates to a ‘fabric first’ approach which allows developments to improve performance while reducing embodied carbon, an approach which applies as much to retrofit and refurbishment as to new build. This report explores some of the issues around the availability and interest in accredited training standards and qualifications for LIBMs, as the UK moves towards a low carbon construction industry, and a healthier, more resilient future.

Literature Review and Context The aim of this document is to provide an overview of research carried out by RESET Development in 2012 into the UK construction industry’s attitude to LIBMs in the UK, and specifically to assess potential interest in LIBMs training standards and qualifications. Existing courses in LIBMs construction include CPD accredited training for example in earth, straw bale building and clay and lime plasters, including at the Centre for Alterative Technology (CAT), Brighton Permaculture Trust, Low Carbon Trust, Low Impact Living Initiative (LILI) and others. Schumacher College runs certified courses in natural building and CAT includes a module on LIBMs in their Architecture Diploma and Postgraduate Architecture courses. Training standards have also been developed for a Level 3 Certificate in Sustainable Construction by City and Guilds, which includes a unit on low impact building materials and products used in sustainable construction.

Resources Harris and Borer (2005, pps 93 – 104) The Whole House Book – Ecological Building Design and Materials 1

Jones (2002, p15) Building With Straw Bales – A practical guide for the UK and Ireland 2

Chiltern International Fire Ltd Test Certificate: Chilt/RF09001 awarded to Department of Architecture and Engineering of behalf of Modcell Ltd Bath University 3

Jones (2002, p24) Building With Straw Bales – A practical guide for the UK and Ireland 4

Easton (1996, p3) The Rammed Earth House; Stulz and Mukerji (2005, p9) Appropriate Building Materials – A Catalogue of Potential Solutions; Harris and Borer (2005, p139) The Whole House Book – Ecological Building Design and Materials 5

Despite these short courses, the UK is still missing fully accredited courses to train the UK construction and built environment sector in the process of construction with LIBMs.

Stulz and Mukerji (2005, p13) Appropriate Building Materials – A Catalogue of Potential Solutions 6

The report Skills for Climate Change, produced by Newham College of Further Education in 2010, investigates the skills needed in relation to climate change and concludes that:

Harris and Borer (2005, p141) The Whole House Book – Ecological Building Design and Materials 7

Goodhew and Griffiths (2004, p1) Sustainable earth walls to meet building regulations 8

9

The report recognizes a particular need for training in all areas and points out that:

“significant potential gaps in low carbon skills and training provision have been identified in the construction and building services engineering sector.”13 The RIBA’s report Skills for Low Carbon Buildings (2009), while not going into detail on the materials aspect, states a lack of training in Part 3 Architecture education and recognises that:

“low carbon skills must become more integrated into mainstream architectural services.”14 Bioregional’s Materials Report (2002) acknowledges the impact of building materials on the sustainability of the construction sector as:

“materials in construction make up over half of our resource use by weight”.15 The report Mind the Skills Gap by the Academy of Sustainable Communities concludes that there need to be programmes developed on a cross-profession basis in order to address “common gaps” 16 as

The UK Government Climate Change Act 2008 Chapter 27

The House of Commons, Environmental Audit Committee (2008, p16) Greener Homes for the future? An environmental Analysis of the Government’s house-building plans 10

London Borough of Hounslow – Planning Policy Advice (2003, p12) Sustainable Construction Guide for the Development Industry 11

10

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

Rammed Earth Training Rowland Keable and RESET Development University of East London

“within the Construction Skills footprint, very few specific courses or qualifications were identified that are targeted at the projected skills requirements”.12

“organisations need well-qualified staff with a range of generic skills in order to deliver sustainable communities”.17

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

11

The report mentions major concerns expressed by architects and engineers, related to:

“areas of rapid policy change, such as climate change, or knowledge outside traditional boundaries of the discipline.”18 The report’s suggested solution is to capture research and best practice which then needs to be:

“collated and translated into practical guidance and examples that reflect the needs of delivery organisations.”19 Along with a predicted shortage of sustainable development experts20, the report indicates the need for training in all sustainable development areas, including LIBMs.

Resources

Research Process

Newham College of Further Education (2010 p4) Skills for Climate Change: Initial Mapping and Research Report Identifying the Low Carbon Skills Relevant to London Construction and Building Services Engineering Business 12

13

ibid, p5

The Royal Institute of British Architects (2009 p2) Climate Change Toolkit: Skills for Low Carbon Buildings 14

Bioregional, Beddington Zero (Fossil) Energy Development (BEDzed) (2002 p4) Construction Materials Report – Toolkit for Carbon Neutral Developmemt – Part 1

In November 2011, at a meeting of the Construction Skills Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards and Qualifications steering group, at Schumacher College in Devon, it was agreed that it would be useful to explore the UK construction industry’s level of interest in LIBMs training standards and qualifications.

15

Academy of Sustainable Communities (2007 p72) Mind the Skills Gap – The Skills we need for Sustainable Communities 16

17

ibid

18

ibid, p71

19

ibid, p73

20

ibid, p12

The research was carried out April - August 2012 by RESET Development in order to inform the steering committee’s work.

The research consisted of an online survey targeted at construction industry professionals, and a series of semistructured interviews carried out with five construction industry experts: Ralph Need, Quality Assurance and Compliance Manager at Carillion; Jeremy Clayton, Training Manager at the Association of Interior Specialists; Paul Jessop, Chief Executive at the Federation of Drywall Contractors; Paola Boffo, architect and RIBA London Region Chair and Sam Foster of Sam Foster Architects.

Pines Calyx Conference Centre Rammed Chalk Structure RamCast CIC

Straw Bale Construction Training RESET Development

12

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

13

Survey Overview The survey was designed to elicit information on:

If they answer ‘no’ to that question, the respondent is free to leave the survey at that point or to continue, and provide information on the location, sector and size of their organisation or company.

• The respondents’ general interest in LIBMs • The respondents’ current and estimated future use of LIBMs • The current level of training standards and qualifications in the organisation and the estimated future demand for these • Perceived barriers and drivers for the use of LIBMs • The respondents’ access to booking training for themselves or others within their organisation • Location, sector and size of the respondents’ organisation or company The survey also gave a brief definition of LIBMs and explained to which ones this piece of research would be referring (straw bale, rammed earth and earth block, adobe/cob, clay and lime plasters and renders). This is by no means an exhaustive list of all LIBMs – many others are currently in development and/or use, such as the use of hemp/lime. However, there was insufficient space within the survey to cover every material and the aim was to keep the survey brief enough to engage as many respondents as possible.

For those who answer ‘yes’, the next seven questions focus on the respondent’s level of interest in the different materials, their current level of training, and their interest in any increase in training, particularly accredited. They are also asked to give an indication of their desired level of training (NQF Levels 1-8 are offered) and they are then asked about the perceived main barriers and drivers for the use of LIBMs in their organisation or company. Thus the survey aimed to provide an outline of respondents’ current levels of interest and indicate potential future demand. The survey also aimed to identify which materials might be preferred, as well as an indication of the preferences of small or large companies. The results have been filtered by sector area and location across the four UK nations. The participants were able to remain anonymous, or choose to provide their name and email address, to be sent a copy of this report.

The structure of the survey is shown in the diagram on the left. The survey contains only one compulsory question: whether the respondent would be interested in accredited training standards and qualifications for LIBMs. Fig. 1: Low Impact Building Materials survey structure

14

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

15

Survey analysis Outcomes, Analysis and Conclusions This section analyses responses to each of the survey questions as outlined in Figure 1 and draws conclusions specific to each question. A total of 481 respondents completed the survey, of whom 44.9% (216) completed every question. As the results show, a majority of respondents are residents of England (202 responses) but there also were responses from Wales (21), Scotland (22) and Northern Ireland (6). Respondents either work within a small to medium enterprise (114), are sole traders (108) or work within a large company (33). The survey provided a broad overview of views and opinions on LIBMs across various industry sectors, including architecture and design (158), the construction sector (72), surveying (20), engineering (29), planning (33) and building services (48), as well as project management (65) and other fields (63). One of the most striking outcomes of the survey is that the majority of respondents, 54.7% (263) are generally interested in accredited training and qualifications for Low Impact Building Materials..

Question 1: Would your organisation be interested in accredited training and qualifications for LIBMs? This question was the only compulsory question of the survey and provided a general overview, as all participants were asked to answer with either ‘yes’, ‘unsure’ or ‘no’. Participants answering ‘no’ or ‘unsure’ then had the option to leave the survey at this point or to provide more details on their opinion of LIBMs, as well as information on their own construction sector, location and company size, in order to define their background. 263 out of a total of 481 respondents stated that they were interested in accredited training and qualifications for LIBMs - a majority of 54.7%. Only 15.6% (75 respondents) indicated no interest in further LIBMs training and qualifications, while 29.7% (143 respondents) were unsure, representing in total 45.3% (218). The diagram below shows the percentages of participants interested in, unsure about and not interested in LIBMs.

Fig. 2: Question 1: Interest in LIBMs training and qualifications WISE Building, Centre for Alternative Technology Rammed Earth Structure RamCast CIC with Galliers Construction

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

17

Question 2: Are you happy to answer a further 7 quick questions about accredited training and qualifications for LIBMs? Regardless of which answer they provided in Question 1, all participants were then asked if they would be happy to continue the survey and to answer a further 7 questions, or to finish the survey. Only 19 participants of the 481 decided to leave at this point, with 462 continuing.

To define the participant’s interest in LIBMs they were asked to assess how soon they would like to see training standards and qualifications developed for each of the four LIBMs under discussion - straw bale, rammed earth/ earth block, adobe/cob, clay/lime plasters and renders. The survey also offered ranking options for the urgency of their desire for LIBMs training and qualifications: • Yes, immediately (indicating an urgent interest in training as soon as possible) • Yes, in future (indicating an interest in LIBMs training within the next 10 years but not necessarily in the immediate future) • No (indicating no special interest in training or qualifications for this specific material) • Unsure

Fig. 3: Question 2: Respondents proceeded with survey

Depending on the answer they selected in response to question 1, participants were directed to different questions appropriate to their answer to Q1 (3 (A) for ‘yes’, (B) for ‘not interested’ or (C) ‘unsure’ and 4 (A)) in order to clarify their selection.

Question 3 (A): Which of the following LIBMs would your organisation like to see accredited construction training standards and qualifications for? This question was only relevant to participants responding with ‘yes’ to Question 1 (whether they are interested in LIBMs).

18

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

The table on the next page shows the structure of the question and the number of responses for each possible option. The clear majority of participants would be interested in immediate or future accredited training and qualifications for all of the materials, with the clay and lime plasters and renders gaining most interest. A total of 164 respondents out of 169 participants (97.1%) expressed a desire for either immediate or future accredited training and qualifications (74% of respondents indicated an immediate demand) and only one respondent indicated a disinterest in training in clay and lime plasters and renders.

Fig. 4: Question 3 (A): Preferences for training in LIBMs

qualifications (74% of respondents indicated an immediate demand) and only one respondent indicated a disinterest in training in clay and lime plasters and renders. However, clay and lime plasters and renders are followed closely by straw bale construction, with 158 positive responses (93.5% for immediate or future demand, with a majority of 63.3% of responses for immediate need). Rammed earth drew 155 positive responses (immediate or future demand) and adobe/cob gained 142 positive responses. All of the materials attracted interest to a relatively high degree and there is a broad range of demand amongst respondents for either immediate or future accredited training standards and qualifications

for each of these LIBMs. This question also provides an indication on how urgently training should be provided. Throughout all the materials, the answer ‘Yes, immediately’ is the most popular response, showing a large interest in the immediate development of accredited training. In addition to the LIBMs focussed on, participants were also able to specify other materials of interest and indicate their demand for training standards and qualifications for those. 44 respondents specified materials such as hemp and lime, cork, timber frame, thatching, recycled materials (e.g. rammed car tires) and bamboo. Respondents were also specifically interested in alternatives to concrete such as ‘limecrete’.

Fig. 5: Question 3 (A): Responses for preferences for training in LIBMs

The clear majority of participants would be interested in immediate or future accredited training and qualifications for all of the materials, with the clay and lime plasters and renders gaining most interest. A total of 164 respondents out of 169 participants (97.1%) expressed a desire for either immediate or future accredited training and Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

19

Question 3 (B): You indicated that you are currently not interested in accredited LIBM construction training and qualifications. We would like to know why…

“Not appropriate to my organisation. There is an industry need however.”

This question was asked of the 23 respondents that indicated they were currently not interested in LIBMs.

“Not directly of interest to our organisation but would like to see these developed. Also for various skilled/semi-skilled sustainability activities such as detailing, brick cleaning, reclamation and other ‘preparation for reuse’ activities.”

To indicate why they would not be interested in accredited training standards and qualifications for LIBMs, they were asked to select from the following options: • • • • • • • • • • •

No / Low Consumer Demand Warranty / Guarantee Availability Materials Performance Commercial Feasibility No / Poor Access to Training Level of Regulation Mortgage / Insurance Availability Information Availability Reliability of the Supply Chain No Training Required Other (please specify)

The majority of these 23 participants (30.4% - 7 responses) stated low consumer demand as the primary reason for their lack of interest while mortgage and insurance availability was a concern to 5 respondents (21.7%). 15 participants gave comments on other reasons why LIBMs were not currently of direct interest to them or their organisation. Remarkably, a lot of them indicated they selected ‘not interested’ because, while their company might not currently be interested in these materials, they personally recognized that there is a need for accreditation of training in these materials in order to establish them within the construction industry:

20

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

(Respondent 451)

(Respondent 414) Some participants were concerned about potential overregulation at the expense of drivers such as accessibility and commercial feasibility for self-builders:

“I am already a chartered building surveyor and although specialist knowledge is required to implement the technologies correctly, not necessarily [the] need for yet another accreditation, I am already [an] accredited non domestic energy assessor and formerly carbon trust assessor. Green Deal will have similar need for accreditation and it seems we are creating system which will be inflexible, unable to innovate and excludes new entrants to the market.” (Respondent 461) Others mentioned a potential future interest, although they had selected ‘not interested’:

Fig. 6: Question 3 (B): Responses from participants‘not interested’ in LIBMs

“We are not a building company, though we have great interest in LIBMs and hope to use them in future projects.” (Respondent 393) Respondents also mentioned a general need for technical information such as material performance information and practical training for builders:

“We’d want training in specifying them and for builders to get training in using them” (Respondent 84) There were also comments which reflected a common UK perception of LIBMs as only relevant to niche applications

or for historical or heritage use:

“This is a niche market for the twee middle classes. The mass high-performance house building we need will come from modern methods not reversion to ancient ones.” (Respondent 390)

“These materials remain outside the mainstream construction and often for good reason. If available on the scale of traditional construction materials – i.e. cement v. lime, what would happen to these credentials, and unsuitable for large-scale Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

21

building projects often used for the ‘one off’ so called ‘eco house’ - which does not adequately address many of the real issues facing construction today, again for example adequate living conditions the majority of urban dwellers nor the flow towards the 80% urban drift and keeping these people out of slums... These materials are not suitable in terms of availability or buildability to tackle many of the sustainable and ecological issues urban environments now face…”

Question 3 (C): You indicated that you are currently unsure about accredited LIBM construction training standards and qualifications. Please specify why… This question was only available to the 73 participants who selected ‘unsure’ in response to the first question. To indicate why they were unsure about their interest in LIBMs, they were asked to select from the following options:

Question 7 in the survey asks about perceived barriers and drivers for the use of LIBMs which gives more detail on this (page 32). The responses reflected a call for greater awareness on the performance, sustainability, cost effectiveness and health benefits of LIBMs.

• • • • • • • • • • •

Pines Calyx Conference Centre Rammed Chalk Structure RamCast CIC Kent Flint Detail

28 respondents (38.4%) of the 73 ‘unsure’ participants indicated commercial feasibility as the primary reason for their hesitance. Other criteria were consumer demand (31.5%), availability of warranties or guarantees (27.4%), information availability (23.3%) and the reliability of the supply chain (23.3%).

(Respondent 391)

Consumer Demand Warranty / Guarantee Availability Materials Performance Commercial Feasibility Level of Regulation Mortgage / Insurance Availability Access to Training Information Availability Reliability of the Supply Chain No Training Required Other (please specify)

Fig. 7: Question 3 (C): Responses from participants ‘unsure’ about LIBMs

There were also 30 additional comments from ‘unsure’ participants, including reasons such as too little time or resourcing/funding to participate in training.

“Our current workload and client base doesn’t offer obvious opportunities for use of LIBMs, though some staff members are sympathetic. We would be interested in a one-off lunchtime training session as part of our office CPD, but are not in a position to pay for any training at present (unfortunately).”

“Lack of time to do a practical course but interested in the technical aspects” (Respondent 429) Some also expressed concerns about overregulation and monopolisation of the use of LIBMs:

“Not sure accreditation is necessary - this can often lead to monopolisation” (Respondent 358)

(Respondent 402)

22

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

23

The lack of information on technical and material performance as well as warranty availability were mentioned.

“Clear information on performance/reliability related to consumer/client demand in order to sell such products” (Respondent 5)

“Having measured the in-situ performance of some of these materials I still have reservations over claimed performance values and product uniformity.” (Respondent 20) In addition, some respondents indicated the lack of informed customers and educated/experienced contractors.

“As a designer construction training is not part of my daily work, [but] I would be interested in the qualifications being available to contactors so the knowledge base and skills are available to allow me to be more ambitious with design decisions

Bee Rowan Straw Build’s manufacturing facility for LUSH, Totnes

24

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

in relation to the stated building techniques.” (Respondent 353) Surprisingly, many of the comments expressed gave a positive opinion of LIBMs. Even when the participant felt their company might not be interested, some were either interested as individuals or felt they could not answer the question representatively as they were not directly involved in the building process.

Question 4 (A): Which levels of accredited training standards and qualifications would your organisation like to see provided for LIBMs? (select as many as apply) This question was only available to participants that responded ‘Yes’ to Question 1, whether they were

interested in LIBMs. By selecting the desired levels of training in this question, participants could rank the grade of qualification they would like to see developed. The table below shows the structure of the question and responses for each option.

“I’m not part of an organisation so it’s beyond my remit to specify it. But I do see the merits of making it more regulated and also see issues arising too such as warranties and how can you place the same tests and standards on building materials which aren’t factory produced but I think it would help give greater assurance to those wishing to try something out of the norm and perhaps help make it more mainstream.” (Respondent 164) “I’m a designer, but would like to get my hands more dirty so you never know...” (Respondent 175)

Fig. 8: Question 4 (A) Training levels response count Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

25

Options given were: • Entry Level - (e.g. Awards, Certificates, and Diplomas at entry level, Foundation Learning at entry level) • Level 1 - (e.g. BTEC Awards, Certificates, and Diplomas at level 1, NVQs at level 1) • Level 2 - (e.g. BTEC Awards, Certificates, and Diplomas at level 2, NVQs at level 2) • Level 3 - (e.g. BTEC Awards, Certificates, and Diplomas at level 3, NVQs at level 3) • Level 4 - (e.g. BTEC Professional Diplomas Certificates and Awards, HNCs, NVQs at level 4) • Level 5 - (e.g. HNDs, BTEC Professional Diplomas, Certificates and Awards) • Level 6 - (e.g. BTEC Advanced Professional Diplomas, Certificates and Awards)

• Level 7 - (e.g. BTEC Advanced Professional Diplomas, Certificates and Awards, NVQs at level 5) • Level 8 - (e.g. Award, Certificate and Diploma in strategic project management or direction) • Other In total, a majority of 96 out of 169 respondents (56.8%) would like to see Level 3 accredited training developed. 130 out of 169 respondents (76.9%) indicated they would like to see training provided at Level 3 and lower, while 41 respondents (24.2%) would like to see accredited training above Level 3. An important area of interest indicated by respondents in their comments seemed to be ‘hands-on’ building experience and the development of practical skills. Some participants also expressed interest in CPD modules.

Fig. 9: Question 4 (A): Training levels desired

26

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

Question 5: Please describe your organisation’s: a. Current use of LIBMs in new construction projects b. Likely future use of LIBMs (over the next 10 years) This question aimed to gauge the potential increase on current levels in the use of LIBMs as opposed to training standards and qualifications. This was to help understand existing levels of use and to gain an indication of possible future demand. For the current use of LIBMs, they were asked to select

from the following options: • Always • Often • Occasionally • Rarely • Never • Unsure For the likely future use of LIBMs, they were asked to select from the following options: • Increasing • Steady • Decreasing • Unsure

Fig. 11 and 12: Question 5 a.) and b.): Current and likely future use of LIBMs Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

27

According to these responses, clay and lime plasters and renders are currently the most commonly used materials (23 responses for ‘always’ used, 46 for ‘often’ used and 89 for ‘occasionally’ used). In terms of estimated future use, 150 out of 265 participants see the use of clay and lime plasters and renders increasing. Clearly, respondents saw the biggest potential in these materials but according to the responses, respondents also see straw bale as a promising material, with 122 out of 265 responses indicating their use of it as ‘increasing’. While the current use of straw bale, rammed earth/earth block and adobe/cob materials is relatively rare, the results of this question show that most participants can in fact see an increase in use of all LIBMs discussed. 101 out of 265 respondents indicated an increasing use of rammed earth, with 80 respondents seeing an increase in the use of adobe.

The greatest potential growth in future use would appear to be clay and lime plasters and renders, but with all other materials also seeing an increase, and respondents envisaging their application as continuing or increasing in future. Again, there was the option to leave a comment or suggest other materials and as with previous questions, participants suggested natural recycled insulation, car tires, hemp lime, cardboard, cork, green roofs and bamboo as other materials which they could envisage might have a role to play in future.

Fig. 12: Question 5 a.): Current use of LIBMs

28

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

Fig. 13: Question 5 b.): Future use of LIBMs

Bee Rowan Straw Build’s manufacturing facility for LUSH, Totnes

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

29

Question 6: How would you describe your organisation’s: a. Current level of training and qualifications in LIBMs b. Likely demand for training and qualifications in LIBMs (over the next 10 years) In addition to the indication of the current and future use of LIBMs in the previous question, this question aimed to assess their current level of training and qualifications in LIBMs, and the future demand for training and qualifications over the next 10 years within the participant’s organisation or company.

For both, the current level of training and qualifications in LIBMs and the likely future demand, they were asked to select from the following options:

Apart from adobe, where the majority of respondents were ‘unsure’ in terms of the future demand, the demand for training and qualifications in all other materials is seen as

• • • •

increasing. Clay and lime plasters and renders achieved 136 responses out of 265 in total, with 112 for straw bale and 103 for rammed earth/earth block.

High / Increasing Sufficient / Steady Low / Decreasing Unsure

Analysis of responses shows that, while the current level of training in these LIBMs within the organisations is considered ‘low’ in general, clay and lime plaster training is still the most commonly used of the four material options.

Fig. 14 and 15: Question 6 a.) and b.): Current level of training and future demand for training

30

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

In the comments section, participants also indicated interest in immediate training in the same additional materials mentioned in previous comments.

Fig. 16 and 17: Question 6 a.) and b.): Current level of training and future demand for training in LIBMs Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

31

Question 7: Please rate the following as drivers or barriers to your organisation’s future use of LIBMs This question aimed to identify the perceived key drivers and barriers for the use of LIBMs and to indicate factors that respondents believe would need to be taken into account, if accredited training standards and qualifications for LIBMs were to be developed.

Respondents were asked to rate 10 options for drivers and barriers from ‘strong driver’ to ‘strong barrier’, with both ‘neutral’ (neither barrier nor driver) and ‘unsure’ options and a space for other suggestions.

The availability of warranties and guarantees and corporate responsibility (CSR) were largely seen as neutral, but overall were considered slightly more as drivers than as barriers.

The response outcomes were as follows:

29.4% of participants indicated they were neutral in terms of access to training. However, when the combination of positive (strong and weak driver) and negative (strong and weak barrier) responses are compared, it is clear that access to training is currently more of a barrier, with 104 votes in total for strong or weak barrier (40% of all 265 responses) than a driver, with 66 votes in total for strong or weak driver (24.9% of all 265 responses). Participants were also not united in their response to the commercial feasibility of construction involving LIBMs. There is a slight majority of responses indicating it as a weak barrier but closer examination of the outcomes shows that there are almost identical responses identifying it as both a strong driver and also a strong barrier. Again, the average of responses on drivers (including strong and weak drivers) and barriers (including strong and weak barriers) and an exclusion of neutral and unsure responses helps to identify that commercial feasibility might be perceived as a rather stronger barrier than driver, with 115 responses (43%) as a barrier and 81 (30.6%) as a driver. In summary, the main drivers can be identified as:

whereas the main perceived barriers for the use of LIBMs are: • mortgage and insurance availability (29.4% of responses as a strong barrier), and • level of regulation (23.8% of responses as a weak barrier) As mentioned, access to training is currently seen as a stronger barrier than driver, suggesting that, although a very high majority of respondents were interested in LIBMs, access to training is perceived as a barrier to their uptake. Participants were invited to share their thoughts on additional perceived barriers and drivers. Amongst others, respondents indicated that another barrier to the use of LIBMs is scarcity of technical design information. The cost of building with LIBMs was seen as a driver when considered as cheap, or perceived as a barrier if materials were thought more expensive than conventional alternatives or if there might be an indirect ‘cost’ due to a reduction in internal floor area, when using materials such as straw bale, adobe or rammed earth. The lack of promotion and a ‘lack of public awareness’ (Respondent 221) were also mentioned as a barrier, as some respondents stated customers’ perceived risks of using materials that are not considered ‘mainstream’.

Fig. 18: Question 7 – Perceived key drivers and barriers to future use

Analysis of the results shows that consumer demand, information availability and materials performance were perceived as the strongest drivers for industry uptake of LIBMs.

32

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

On the other hand, participants identified the availability of mortgages and insurance as the strongest perceived barriers, while level of regulation of LIBMs and the reliability of the supply chain were seen as barriers, although comparatively less so.

• consumer demand (45.3% of responses as a strong driver) • materials performance (31.7% of responses as a strong driver) and • information availability (30.6% of responses as a strong driver)

One participant mentioned the

“reluctance of a conservative construction industry to go as environmental as possible” (Respondent 360) as a barrier.

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

33

Other participants indicated the

“access to competent designers/ draughtspersons and building inspectors” (Respondent 307)

There then followed questions about the respondent’s company or organisation. Question 8. Where is your company located? The majority of 79% (202 respondents) indicated they are located in England, with 22 respondents from Scotland, 21 from Wales and 9 from Northern Ireland.

or the

“availability of local builders with experience” (Respondent 241) Fig. 21: Question 9: Company Sizes

as strong barriers. Question 10: Are you responsible for booking training for yourself or others in your organisation?

Fig. 20: Question 8: Respondent’s location

Question 9: What is the size of your company?

By indicating whether they are in a position to book training for themselves or others in their company, this question allowed us to see how many of those respondents able to book training in LIBMs might actually be interested in doing so. A majority of respondents (184) are responsible for booking training either for themselves or others, with 71 people out of 255 respondents not in a position to do so.

This question aimed to indicate whether there was a spread of company size and whether one particular scale of company might be more interested in accredited LIBMs training standards and qualifications than another. Respondents were asked to select from sole trader, SME (Small to Medium Enterprise with less than 500 employees) and Large Companies (500+ employees).

Fig. 19: Question 7 – perceived drivers and barriers to the uptake of LIBMs

34

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

According to the 255 responses to this question, 114 (44.7%) respondents are involved with a SME, 108 (42.35%) respondents are sole traders and 33 (12.9%) respondents are working in large companies.

Fig. 22: Question 10: Respondents responsible for booking training Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

35

Question 11: How would you describe your organisation’s main activities? (select as many as apply) This question aimed to give an overview of the different backgrounds of participants and their relation to industry sectors. Respondents were able to select as many industry sectors as they liked in order to provide an accurate indication of the fields they were involved in. Response options were: • Architecture and Design • Construction • Surveying • Engineering • Planning • Building Services • Project Management • Other (please specify)

Respondents were shown to be spread out widely over various industry sectors, as the table below illustrates. 138 respondents indicated they are involved in architecture and design, followed by 72 from the construction sector. A large number of people also indicated their involvement in project management (65 respondents) and building services (48 respondents), while others indicated a relation to the planning sector (33 respondents), engineering (29 respondents) and surveying (20 respondents). A total of 63 respondents indicated they were also involved in other industry activities such as sustainability and environmental consultancies, training and education providers, materials suppliers, local authority and government officers and housing associations.

Question 12: Who did you receive this survey through? Respondents were asked to provide information on how they found out about the survey. 75 respondents came through the RESET network, 20 respondents through the Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT), and 14 via Schumacher College. There were also respondents who came via Earth Building UK (EBUK), the Sponge Network, the AECB, the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) and the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland (RIAS), as well as the UK Green Building Council (UKGBC) and the Green Register. Additionally, 16 participants indicated they received the survey through ‘other’ sources such as the RICS and through the professional networking website Linkedin.

Additional comments At the end of the survey, respondents were able to add further comments and recommendations, which added to the overall picture and gave more specific detail on respondents’ thoughts. There was a broad range of comments and opinions, as 53 people provided additional views on LIBMs. Reactions ranged from enthusiastic such as:

“Can’t wait to see this happening and would love to be involved!” (Respondent 360)

“This needs to happen” (Respondent 220) and

“Great idea to pursue” (Respondent 211) to comments suggesting important aspects to be considered such as:

“reliable and accredited trainers and certification schemes” (Respondent 357)

Glaster ® Plaster (recycled glas instead of sand) Ty Mawr Lime

Fig. 23: Question 11: Company sector

36

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

37

A considerable number of people were afraid that too many regulations and accredited qualifications could make a self-build project for non-accredited builders difficult or impossible.

“[…] As an architect, I get frustrated when DIY builders detail badly and don’t think their projects through and give materials or styles of building a bad name because they subsequently don’t perform well. From that point of view, I think training is really important. However, I worry that the average Joe or Jane is ‘allowed to do less and less for themselves because of legislation and regulation. Creating ‘experts’ in all walks of life does not always serve the ‘common man’ well. The respondent went on to say:

“Cob is one of the last truly democratic building materials. I worry that people won’t be able to get a mortgage or insurance, or won’t be able to sign off with building regulations unless the cob building has been built by a ‘qualified’ builder. These qualifications may end up barring the people who up until now have been champions of the cob revival. We offer cob building 38

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

services. It would be to our benefit to corner that market. But I worry that it goes against the ethos of cob, one of the things that attracted me to it in the first place....”

buildings in use. This would help to provide consumer confidence in LIBMs being considered viable and preferable to mainstream building methods.”

(Respondent 413) But the majority of respondents also agreed that further promotion, awareness raising and accreditation of LIBMs would be valuable, as part of the transition to a more sustainable future.

“Believe [LIBMs] are a great opportunity to enhance community driven sustainable development.”

“As an organisation, we are keen to see an increase in the use of LIBMs as they can be cost effective, sensitive to historic construction and environmentally positive, putting them on the same pegging as ‘conventional’ building methods through better accreditation and professional training to satisfy building control and mortgage/insurance providers.”

“Accreditation could offer the possibility of credibility and guarantees, which would help sell them as products.” (Respondent 340)

“It will mean that people can have confidence in a builder who may not have any relevant finished exemplar buildings. This will make it easier to persuade clients of the merits of LIBMs.” (Respondent 241)

(Respondent 245)

“I think much better LCA information is needed to present a stronger case for LIBMs and also ‘accredited details’ or similar acceptance by NHBC and LABC for provision of warranties etc” (Respondent 259)

(Respondent 473)

“I think that it would be really valuable to have an accredited training route to bring credibility to the LIBM sector, and to ensure that correct techniques and materials are being employed to ensure optimum performance of

(Respondent 40)

(Respondent 345)

(Respondent 426)

“I would be wary of any scheme that would seek to over-regulate the use of LIBMs to the point where it was impossible to use materials without a qualification such as Part P for electricity and Part L for plumbing. The attraction of using LIBMs is partly due to their accessibility.”

“Qualifications could improve standards and detailing and could improve public acceptance and confidence in LIBMs.”

Many participants recognized the need for accredited experts in order to increase customer confidence in builders and contractors. Accreditation would also increase guarantee and mortgage options for materials. The accessibility of material performance information and technical data was another important aspect for respondents.

In addition to the technical and organisational aspects, survey participants mentioned that cost and funding for courses and practical training would play a key role in their decision whether to attend accredited training courses or not.

“Price of training and level of government funding likely to be biggest decider” (Respondent 9)

“It would be good to offer training to students that they could afford with the option that they would get credit for this in their university modules” (Respondent 371) Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

39

In terms of access to and organisation of training, participants were of the opinion that modules on LIBMs should be included in existing courses and the possibility for practical ‘hands on’ training should be available. There were many suggestions on how LIBMs could be included in existing training or which existing courses would simply need accreditation.

“It could be possible to add a LIBM accredited unit to the existing Level 3 Cert/Diploma in Sustainable Construction (City & Guilds) - or just use the flexibility within the existing qual[ification] with a focus on LIBM rather than differentiating LIBM from other [sustainable construction] approaches.” (Respondent 334)

“We have included attendance on our Eco Construction Awareness programme as a building contract condition. Qualifications in LIBMs could be treated the same way.” (Respondent 221)

“This training and accreditation should be integrated with other mainstream techniques in order to make it complementary.” (Respondent 119) Respondents also mentioned the existence of courses which might perhaps already be in a position to receive accreditation:

40

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

“There are very good training programmes already available in strawbale building, clay and lime plastering, they are just not accredited. Amazonails developed these over the last 10 years. It would help the use of these natural materials to become more mainstream if these courses were accredited” (Respondent 281)

“Already experienced LIBM trained builders should be able to not go through the entire qualification from scratch but be assessed from their level of expertise because there are many trained but uncertified builders in this area of pioneering/transition.” (Respondent 197)

“City & Guild and Edexel accreditation would open a global opportunity of making LIBM training useful to sustainability in the Built Environment the world over. The Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB) is reviewing their course structures, LIBM can be dovetailed to be part of their core curriculum.” (Respondent 132)

“The skills training should include practical skills to allow designers

to understand how they work so they can clearly communicate this in their drawings and specification and understand the programme and budget issues. The client also needs to be well informed so we would need enough knowledge to reassure the client on proposing these materials. Also, going back to CfSH and BREEAM, [training would be useful on] the positive/ negative impact of using these materials when a rating is required.”

companies in the UK actually producing LIBMs which are a commercial success, but they should be the ones producing training courses. For instance Ibstock should do the unfired clay brick laying courses. Please let me know how you get on though” (Respondent 325)

Respondents also divided between those interested in receiving training and those who would be interested in supplying training or becoming assessors, showing another area for further research.

(Respondent 305) Others raised the issue of the sufficient availability of trainers and drawing on the experience of other countries in developing a construction industry supply chain for both materials and products, as well as skilling up the workforce:

“The issue is that we don’t have any real experts in the UK to provide the training courses, and this seems a strange way to go about it. If you look to other countries (and to a certain extent the UK) they have companies who train first (SIREWall in Canada, Martin Rauch in Austria for rammed earth, and Clayworks in Cornwall for earth plaster, and even ModCell in Bath for straw bale) and then sell their product.There still aren’t many

“Would be interested in attending short introductory courses covering theory and application” (Respondent 96)

“My interest would be in seeing these materials and techniques brought into the courses we run, first as training and knowledge, then as an NVQ unit for apprentices that are lucky enough to get work of this kind.” (Respondent 319)

“We would very much like to become NVQ level assessors for clay plastering. We have started this process by going to Germany and starting the ECVL Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

41

Discussion clay plaster training system and we also run clay plaster courses at our unit in Cornwall (we started/created the CPN-Clay Plaster Network training program one year ago. We now want to know how to become NVQ assessors for clay plastering.” (Respondent 71)

interest and they need to have recognised standards and qualifications; I was personally involved in a project to develop recognised technical standards for rammed earth and such things are essential to enable the technologies to be more widely adopted and implemented” (Respondents 370)

Overall, the comments in this section were positive and anticipated the availability of accredited training:

“We look forward to a time when all masonry trainees receive instruction on LIBMs, especially at levels 1-4” (Respondent 50)

“These should be put in place as there is certainly growing WISE Building, Centre for Alternative Technology Rammed Earth Structure RamCast CIC with Galliers Construction

“I am also studying for an FdSc in Sustainable Design and Construction at a local HE college and see a demand for such training in colleges. It is accredited qualifications in these areas that will really change the face of construction training and therefore future construction practices.” (Respondent 176)

The research showed some very interesting results which are particularly relevant to the discussion on potential interest in training standards and qualifications in low impact building materials. Analysis showed that more than half of respondents (54.7%) are generally interested in LIBMs training and qualifications. From a total of 481 survey participants, only 19 left the survey after the first question, all the others provided at least some further information, while 216 out of 481 (44.6%) answered every question of the survey. This could also be said to reflect a good level of interest in the topic from respondents and a general desire to contribute to the discussion on the future of LIBMs training and qualifications. Analysis also clearly shows respondents expressing a demand for accredited training and qualifications, with demand almost equally high across the different materials. With a slight majority, training in clay and lime plasters and renders is the most desired, but there is not much of a gap between those and the other materials, straw bale, rammed earth/earth block and adobe. Respondents also envisage an increase generally in the future use of and demand for all mentioned materials, plus the potential of other Low Impact Building Materials, such as limecrete, hemp and lime, bamboo, thatch, recycled car tyres and so on, to be increasingly incorporated into construction. While most of the participants indicate their company never or only rarely uses LIBMs (apart from clay and lime plasters and renders which are used occasionally on average), they see an increasing demand in future for all of them. According to this the majority of them states there is currently a low level of training in LIBMs but they envisage an increase in the future demand for accredited training and qualifications.

42

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

Most participants responding with an interest in LIBMs came from either architecture and design (111 people) or the construction sector (57 people). They are mainly located in the UK and are either Sole Traders (70 people) or part of a SME (85 people). Also 81.2% of participants generally interested in LIBMs qualifications are responsible for booking training either for themselves or others in their company. This could be interpreted to represent direct interest from industry members in training options and indicates that around 134 – approximately a third of those surveyed – would probably book accredited training for LIBMs if it were to be developed. The majority of the 75 respondents who indicated their company would not be interested in LIBMs training, indicated their company does not currently use LIBMs at all. However, although they were mostly unsure about the future use of straw bale, rammed earth/earth block and adobe, they could see the use of clay and lime plasters and renders increasing. In terms of the levels of training, the demand for accredited qualifications at Level 3 or below is relatively high with 130 responses, while 41 participants would be interested in seeing training above Level 3. Of the 130 respondents who would like to see accredited qualifications of Level 3 or below, a majority also indicated they would like to see an immediate or future development of courses for all of the LIBMs. 68 of those respondents indicated their involvement with a small to medium enterprise, while 53 identified themselves as sole traders and 5 are employees of a large company. Of the 41 respondents wishing for qualifications above Level 3, there were 20 sole traders and 20 employees of a Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

43

small to medium enterprise and no one working for a large company, and 1 non response. Of the 41 respondents who would like to see accredited LIBMs training at Level 3 or above, 33 (80.5%) would like an immediate accreditation for straw, rammed earth/earth block and adobe, with 35 (85.4%) wishing for immediate accreditation of clay and lime plasters and renders.

For example, to explain why they selected ‘no’ in response to whether their company would be interested in LIBMs qualifications, one of them (belonging to the construction, engineering and planning sector) stated:

“Not directly of interest to our organisation but would like to see these developed. Also for various skilled/semi-skilled sustainability activities such as denailing, brick cleaning, reclamation and other ‘preparation for reuse’ activities”

There were 33 responses from employees of large companies, 10 (30.3%) of whom indicated a general interest in LIBMs accredited training and qualifications, while 5 (15.2%) were neutral and 18 (54.5%) were unsure.

In terms of materials, participants from the construction industry favoured immediate development of accredited training for clay and lime plasters and renders with 46 responses out of 57 (80.7%), closely followed by straw bale construction with 42 responses (73.7%). Rammed earth/earth block (34) and adobe/cob (29) still combined the majority of responses on an ‘immediate’ demand for training. Many respondents from the construction industry also suggested alternative materials such as hemp, cork, cardboard, green roofs and rammed car tyre construction.

(Respondent 414). 7 of the 10 respondents from large companies who were interested in LIBMs would like to see an immediate development of accredited training for straw, rammed earth/earth block and clay and lime plasters and renders, with 6 also interested in the same for adobe. The most requested levels of training were Level 3 and 4 and, except for adobe, they could see the use of LIBMs increasing in future.

The same person indicated a lot of strong drivers for LIBMs such as consumer demand. Also this person insisted that the

“general lack of training in sustainability is not restricted to LIBMs”.

From the construction industry there were 72 responses in total, 38 of them from SMEs, 25 sole traders and 9 from a large company. A broad majority of 79.2% (57 respondents) indicated their company would be interested in accredited training and qualifications for LIBMs.

The second of these three construction industry members stated that LIBMs were

12 were unsure if their company would be interested in LIBMs accredited training, but one of them still indicated s/he “welcome[d] the idea” (Respondent 398).

but that

Only 3 construction industry members indicated their company would not be interested in accredited training and qualifications (Respondents 121, 391, 414). However, each left detailed comments in order to explain their opinion and situation.

44

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

Respondents varied in their opinion on whether access to training was a barrier or driver, with 15 out of 57 indicating it as a weak barrier while another 15 see it as a strong driver. An interesting comment (Respondent 360) on this question stated:

“Barrier - reluctance of conservative construction industry to go as environmental as possible! Self build more supportive...”

Construction industry respondents selected Level 3 training as the most desirable level of accredited training, with 80.7%. Still, between 36.8% and 63.2% of them expressed a desire for more advanced levels of training above Level 3.

while another one (Respondent 307) said:

Construction industry members perceive the level of regulation and the availability of insurance and guarantees, access to training and the reliability of the supply chain as the primary barriers, while high consumer demand, materials performance and commercial feasibility are seen as the primary drivers.

A lack of interest or awareness amongst professionals and clients is also mentioned as a barrier.

“Access to competent designers/ draughtspersons and building inspectors - strong barrier”.

“fast, cheap - easy to use/ available” (Respondent 391),

“whilst they are very nice - they are for small scale development and do not address the issues faced by urbanism at the global scale we now face”. Talk on woodfibre insulation Ty Mawr Lime

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

45

Interviews In addition to the UK-wide online survey, a number of construction industry leaders were interviewed to understand their view of Low Impact Building Materials, how they perceived their role within mainstream construction, and whether there was a potential for future demand as well as drivers and barriers to their uptake. Four experts were chosen from across the construction industry: • Ralph Need, Quality Assurance and Compliance Manager, Carillion • Jeremy Clayton, Training Manager, Association of Interior Specialists • Paul Jessop, Chief Executive, Federation of Drywall Contractors • Paola Boffo, architect and RIBA London Region Chair In addition, Sam Foster of Sam Foster Architects was interviewed, for his insight as a professional architect and practitioner, designing and specifying LIBMs in developments, as well as teaching their practice within Environmental Design at Dundee University.

The interviews were structured around the following questions: • Can you see LIBMs playing a role in the construction industry in future? • What role could you see LIBMs playing in relation to your own organisation? • How do you see LIBMs in relation to your customers and their demand for these materials? Do you see current or future demand for LIBMs? • Do you think accredited training and qualifications would be of use in future? • What factors do you see as potential drivers or barriers for the use of LIBMs? Each expert agreed for the interview to be recorded, and then reviewed and consented to the inclusion of their views, attributed statements and quotes for inclusion in this report. RESET Development is grateful for their participation and frank discussion.

WISE Building, Centre for Alternative Technology Rammed Earth Auditorium RamCast CIC with Galliers Construction

WISE Building, Centre for Alternative Technology Rammed Earth Structure RamCast CIC with Galliers Construction Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

47

The role of LIBMs in the UK construction industry All interviewees had a positive impression of LIBMs and were generally interested in their potential uptake and use. They expressed the benefits they perceived, such as their environmental and health credentials, although some were unsure about their application within larger scale projects. In answer to how they viewed the future role of LIBMs in the construction industry, each was sure that these materials would be valuable to a low carbon construction industry and eligible to be considered as alternatives to mainstream materials; they all believed their role would increase.

“LIBMs will definitely play a role in the construction industry in future and access to accredited training and qualifications should be increased.” Jeremy Clayton, AIS Regarding just how influential LIBMs might become within the construction industry, opinions varied. Some of those interviewed perceived LIBMs as complementary materials, alongside mainstream construction methods.

“It is envisaged that LIBMs would be used in conjunction with or complement conventional building materials within mainstream projects,” stated Ralph Need from Carillion.

“Rammed earth and clay and 48

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

lime plasters could have potential to be included in mainstream construction, pending production of data which validates their suitability and viability.” Paul Jessop, CEO of the Federation of Drywall Contractors, agreed:

“the role of LIBMs within the construction sector is definitely increasing, although it’s unlikely they will ever take over completely.” Paola Boffo, London Regional Chair of the RIBA, however believed that LIBMs could play a leading role in the development of the industry towards a more sustainable future and could certainly compete with mainstream materials for integration into large scale projects.

“The construction industry is changing and there will be a revolution in the way we build. LIBMs will certainly play an increasing role in that process in future.” Paola Boffo, RIBA Sam Foster also felt that the future role of LIBMs should not be underestimated.

“There are so many good quality designs with LIBMs, not only in the UK but also all over the world. I don’t know why LIBMs haven’t been fully adopted yet

in the UK. LIBMs are something that I strongly feel need to be pushed in the construction industry.” He also referred to the fact that the UK already has contractors and designers who can deliver buildings that incorporate LIBMs at a larger, commercial scale:

“Examples of buildings such as the Adnams Brewery, some of SimmondsMills Architects’ earth buildings and RHM Architects’ Clayfields housing development show that LIBMs aren’t reserved for small, domestic projects.”

Paul Jessop felt that:

“at the moment, LIBMs are niche materials,” but that building confidence through information and training would help to increase uptake:

“People will use what materials they are confident with. Accredited training and promotion of LIBMs would surely help as the usage of LIBMs would increase if people were more familiar with these materials.” Ralph Need from Carillion believed that:

The need to increase awareness and information However LIBMs face a few challenges in the move to increase their uptake. The experts expressed a lack of sufficient information and promotion of LIBMs within the construction sector, both for customers as well as industry professionals.

“One of the main barriers for the use of LIBMs is the lack of understanding by clients and designers,” said Sam Foster. “Raising awareness and greater availability of information could increase demand for LIBMs.”

“raising awareness for LIBMs is worthwhile and essential if they are to be put forward as a viable and sustainable alternative.” He also stated that:

“the lack of awareness of the clients is a barrier to the use of or demand for LIBMs so increased promotion would definitely help.” Jeremy Clayton of AIS agrees.

“The current approach on LIBMs is good but they need to be promoted more.”

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

49

Accredited training qualifications for LIBMs

standards

and

Each expert was very supportive of the development of accredited training and qualifications, agreeing that these materials require a different approach and accredited training would help designers and contractors supply a good quality product and minimise common mistakes.

“The difference of the product (LIBMs compared to common building materials) leads to a totally different way of building. This is the main reason why there should be more training and especially accredited qualifications available,” stated Paul Jessop.

“An increase in training opportunities and accredited courses is important to ensure the proper usage of LIBMs. As most people have no experience with these materials, they are not aware LIBMs require a different approach in the building process than common materials. When people are not properly trained a lot can go wrong. So the training needs to be carefully validated.” It was also pointed out that broader availability of training and information could help to increase the uptake of LIBMs and the industry’s interest to incorporate them into projects and developments.

50

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

“Training resources and qualification criteria needs to include a focus on LIBMs in order to promote these materials and the suggested benefits” Ralph Need believes.

“LIBMs certainly have potential in terms of their sustainability and aligned, accredited qualifications would be needed in order to ensure the use and application of these types of materials is executed in the correct way.” There were a variety of suggestions as to what courses could look like and how they could be included in existing education. Most were of the opinion that, as well as at Levels 1-3, it would be useful to include modules on LIBMs in existing university/degree level courses in order to deliver information to as broad an audience as possible. Paola Boffo spoke from the point of view of the designer and specifier:

“Architects would be interested to specify and build with LIBMs, and even though they might not be interested in the practical training for themselves, it would help them to know that their contractors have been trained and hold accredited qualifications for the use of LIBMs.” Paul Jessop agreed, suggesting that even if designers and architects might be more interested in theoretical training, such as detailing and technical information, there

still should be practical training options for contractors so that both designers and contractors would be educated properly in order to deliver correct LIBMs construction:

“Built environment professionals, including architects, engineers and construction workers, need to be trained - the architect to be able to understand the building process and the planning requirements, the contractor to be able to build in an appropriate way.” When asked what kind of information should be included in training and qualifications in order to increase the use of LIBMs, participants pointed out various factors which are already standardized for mainstream construction materials. The most desired information were data sheets on material performance, giving technical information and standardised data meeting building regulations, as well as case studies and the availability of a network helping to collate relevant references and data as an industry information resource. Sam Foster believed this was a vital ingredient to uptake:

“The availability of case studies, technical information and construction standards that meet Building Regulations is essential. Coordination with existing construction standards across Europe would be very helpful in those terms.” He also highlighted the need for coordination across the industry:

“A network of different green building databases and organisations would be incredibly helpful, as well as supporting designers and clients looking for information and advice. “ In relation to customer demand for LIBMs, opinions differed. Various important influences on the demand for LIBMs training and qualifications were identified, as well as a general demand for the request of these materials by clients. The cost of courses and the perceived competitiveness in terms of commercial feasibility of the materials were indicated as potential issues. Another main factor would be the degree to which LIBMs were championed, to increase consumer demand.

“The key aspects influencing whether construction sector members engage with LIBMs and training will be the availability and cost of training courses, and the promotion of LIBMs,” Jeremy Clayton stated.

“The costs of LIBMs in construction need to be competitive with conventional building materials to be attractive to the construction industry.” “The client’s demand for these materials and the promotion by the construction industry are both equally important factors in order to increase the use of LIBMs,” believes Sam Foster. Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

51

When asked to consider these materials in relation to mainstream construction materials and name the main barriers and drivers for LIBMs, the perceived cost of the materials and lack of client experience was given by Jeremy Clayton, as well as sustainability credentials and material performance:

“The main barriers for the usage of LIBMs are the costs of the materials themselves (clay and lime) and the experience of clients (from a promotional point of view), while the main drivers are the low carbon impact of LIBMs and their good insulation capability.” Paul Jessop agreed.

“The main barriers are the lack of knowledge of LIBMs, the cost of the materials and the acceptability of those materials for large scale projects while the main driver is their sustainability.” The primary barrier though, agreed by each of the experts, was the lack of experience amongst construction industry members – the lack of trained and qualified professionals, and inclusion of the training into mainstream trade qualifications.

existing trade qualifications and associated training packages,” believes Ralph Need.

“LIBMs are not pushed from the educational side - the availability of accredited training and certified professionals could increase the use of LIBMs.” As main drivers, the experts agreed that the sustainability of the materials and the environmental and health benefits that accompanied them were the primary benefits that clients appreciated and drove them to request their use, especially if combined with cost effectiveness and quality of performance.

“While the sustainability of LIBMs is a driver for the industry to adopt them,” said Ralph Need.

In summary, all participants stated they would be pleased to see accredited training and qualifications developed, and even though some of them were sceptical about the overall scale of influence LIBMs might be capable of achieving within the construction industry, they all expressed their support for the highly beneficial influence these materials would have on sustainable construction.

Application of a sand-lime plaster with a steel float Ty Mawr Lime

“If there were training qualifications for these materials,” said Ralph Need. “Carillion would certainly consider integration within its current programmes.”

Lime Plaster and Energy Efficiency training Ty Mawr Lime

“The proof of their cost effectiveness and competitiveness to conventional materials in terms of their quality and durability would be an even stronger driver.”

“The main barrier for the use of LIBMs is the lack of awareness amongst clients and the construction industry in general, particularly as there is no integration of these materials into 52

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

53

Conclusion This research, conducted from April – July 2012, explored the built environment sector’s appetite for accredited training standards and qualifications in low impact building materials, such as straw bale, rammed earth, earth block, adobe and cob, and lime and clay plasters and renders. Through general survey and interviews with industry experts, the results showed considerable interest in accredited training either from respondents or their organisations, or from other sectors with whom they worked. For example, an architect expressed the desire for the contractors they worked with to be trained, so that they might understand better how to implement the materials designed and specified in the development. The survey showed key perceived drivers and barriers for the use of LIBMs in development. Key perceived barriers: • Lack of access to training • Lack of access to skilled contractors • Lack of information and awareness • Availability of warranties and guarantees • Perceived lack of regulation • Perceived unreliability of the supply chain • Availability of insurance Key drivers were: • Good sustainability credentials • Good material performance (structural, thermal, etc) • Potential lower cost • Consumer demand Expert interviews found that, while LIBMs were unlikely ever to take over as mainstream materials, they have a role in an emerging UK low carbon construction industry. RESET Development feels that, on balance, these findings provide a clear case for the development of LIBMs Sourcing the raw materials RamCast CIC

accredited training standards and qualifications. Alongside the design and implementation of these, respondents mentioned opportunities to improve uptake: • Awareness raising amongst those who invest in, design and specify developments • Awareness raising amongst those who invest in, design and specify developments • Integrating LIBMs training at accredited colleges • Accreditation for existing courses in LIBMs construction, e.g. at the Centre for Alternative Technology, LILI, Schumacher College, Brighton PermacultureTrust • Development of data sheets and material performance information and specification • Courses for different target audiences • Supplying a range of qualifications, the most popular of which appear to be Levels 1-3 in the NQF, although there was interest at other levels too, including undergraduate and postgraduate level. This was by no means an exhaustive piece of research. Inevitably, there is potential for further research, whether opportunities identified by respondents, or other considerations below: • Accreditation and training of trainers and assessors • Supply chain: security of supply, cost, performance and quality • Design, specification and implementation in developments, both retrofit and new build • Wider awareness of existing planning and policy instruments relating to LIBMs However, If the UK is to develop a low carbon construction industry, then low impact building materials, and the training and qualification needed to integrate them into developments, would appear to be seen by the built environment sector as a necessary and beneficial part of that transition. Low Impact Building Materials Training Standards & Qualifications

55