OXFORD BROOKES UNIVERSITY

MSC SUSTAINABLE BUILDING PERFORMANCE + DESIGN

MODULE 30405 | POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION

POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION OF THE JOHN PAYNE BUILDING

INDIVIDUAL REPORT
Paula Baptista | 11077668

OXFORD 22ND DECEMBER 2011

Photo by Design Engine Architects Ltd

ACKLOWLEDGMENTS

This academic report on the Post Occupancy Evaluation of the John Payne Building could not have been produced
without the support and valuable knowledge of the John Payne in-situ staff and the Oxford Brookes Universitys
POE 2011 academia. I would like to thank all those involved in the survey and data collection, in particular:
OBU Energy and Carbon Manager, Gavin Hodson: for the guided site visit and all data assistance;
OBU Operations and Maintenance, Gareth Eddy: for the systems walk through and knowledgeable insights into the
system workings;
Capital Projects Manager, Andrew Moore: for the invaluable as-designed data;
OBU CAD Officer, Harj Dharwar: for all the drawings provided.
And most importantly, Prof. Rajat Gupta and Matthew Gregg: for their time, guidance and support with the Post
Occupancy Evaluation methodology and workflow.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKLOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................................................ i
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................................................ iii
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................................... iv
1
1.1

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 1
Objectives .................................................................................................................................................... 1

METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................... 2

BUILDING DATA ............................................................................................................................................... 4

ENERGY AUDIT ................................................................................................................................................. 5

4.1

Pre-Survey Calculations ............................................................................................................................... 5

4.2

Building Fabric ............................................................................................................................................. 7

4.3

NPI and Benchmarks .................................................................................................................................... 2

4.4

Building Operation ....................................................................................................................................... 2

4.5

HVAC System Control ................................................................................................................................... 5

4.6

Appliance Audit ........................................................................................................................................... 8

ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT .................................................................................................................................. 2

5.1

Site Location and Accessibility ..................................................................................................................... 2

5.2

Site Analysis ................................................................................................................................................. 3

5.3

In Use Monitoring ........................................................................................................................................ 4

OCCUPANT FEEDBACK.................................................................................................................................... 20

6.1

Building Use Studies (BUS) Ltd Questionnaire ............................................................................................ 20

6.2

Interviews .................................................................................................................................................. 24

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................................. 25

RECCOMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 26

8.1

Immediate (no-low cost) ............................................................................................................................ 26

8.2

Short Term (medium cost) ......................................................................................................................... 26

8.3

Long Term (high cost) ................................................................................................................................ 26

FEED FORWARD ............................................................................................................................................. 27

10

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................... 28

11

APPENDIXES ................................................................................................................................................... 29

12

ATTACHMENTS .............................................................................................................................................. 43

ii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 John Payne Building Data November 2011 ................................................................................................... 4

Table 2 Sankey Diagram showing Electricity use in percentages from the total energy consumption........................ 5
Table 3 Sankey Diagram showing Gas consumption in percentages from the total energy consumption .................. 5
Table 4 Heating Requirements versus Degree Day Data (APR 2010 - MAR 2011). Degree Day Data by Carbon Trust
2011 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Table 5 Regression Analysis (APR 2010 - MAR 2011) ................................................................................................. 6
Table 6 Control Chart (actual versus predicted) gas consumption (Apr 2010 - Mar 2011) ......................................... 7
Table 7 CUSUM Chart (Apr 2010 - Mar 2011) ............................................................................................................ 7
Table 8 Standard U-Values based on manufacture's especifications 2011 ................................................................ 7
Table 9 U Values benchmarked against Max Fordham .............................................................................................. 8
Table 10 U Values benchmarked against Max Fordham ............................................................................................ 8
Table 11 U Values benchmarked against Max Fordham ............................................................................................ 8
Table 12 U Values benchmarked against Max Fordham ............................................................................................ 8
Table 13 Heat loss through building fabric ................................................................................................................ 9
Table 14 Heat loss through ventilation ..................................................................................................................... 9
Table 15 JP Benchmarks against CIBSE TM46 Typical Office 2006, and Good Practice Guide F 2004 ......................... 3
Table 16 Benchmark against Sustainability Matrix - Green offices [Max Fordham/AJ 2010] ...................................... 3
Table 17 Sankey Diagram showing corresponding CO2 emissions in Kg/CO2/annum. ............................................... 1
Table 18 benchmark against Econ19 (*normalized electric h/w CO2 added to normalized gas heating CO2) ............. 1
Table 19 Design estimate versus actual use .............................................................................................................. 1
Table 20 Design brief versus actual occupancy ......................................................................................................... 1
Table 21 John Payne Lighting 2011 ........................................................................................................................... 9
Table 22 Lighting annual savings 4183 kWh/yr ......................................................................................................... 9
Table 23 Lighting Benchmark - CIBSE TM46 typical office & Guide F open plan naturally ventilated ......................... 9
Table 24 Lighting Energy Consumption ................................................................................................................... 10
Table 25 Current annual energy consumption 26793kWh/yr .................................................................................. 10
Table 26 Low-e annual energy consumption 22611kWh/yr .................................................................................... 10
Table 27 chosen mode of transport of JP occupants ................................................................................................. 2
Table 28 Standard Week Lighting Levels (NOV 2011) ................................................................................................ 6
Table 29 Average Temperature per Floor ................................................................................................................. 7
Table 30 External and Internal Temperature............................................................................................................. 8
Table 31 Standard Week Recorded Temperatures .................................................................................................... 8
Table 32 BUS comfort index (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011) ...................................................................................... 21
Table 33 BUS - control over cooling diagram (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011)............................................................. 22
Table 34 BUS - control over noise diagram (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011)................................................................ 22
Table 35 BUS lighting overall diagram (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011) .................................................................... 22
Table 36BUS meets and needs (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011) ............................................................................... 23
Table 37 BUS temperature in summer (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011) ................................................................... 23
Table 38 Forgiveness Factor index (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011) ............................................................................ 23
Table 39 BUS Satisfaction Index (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011) ................................................................................ 23

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Design Forecast versus Real Energy Use (CarbonBuzz) ................................................................................ 1

Figure 2 POE Methodology workflow diagram .......................................................................................................... 2
Figure 3 Energy Audit Methodology workflow diagram ............................................................................................ 3
Figure 4 Environmental Audit Methodology workflow diagram ................................................................................ 3
Figure 5 Occupant Feedback Methodology workflow diagram.................................................................................. 3
Figure 6 Ground floor on-site audit ........................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 7 Photographic survey of ground floor ........................................................................................................... 2
Figure 8 First floor in-site audit ................................................................................................................................. 3
Figure 9 Photographic survey of First floor ............................................................................................................... 3
Figure 10 Second floor on-site audit ......................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 11 Photographic survey of Second floor ......................................................................................................... 4
Figure 12 Ground floor - John Payne AES System Monitor - AES Control Systems 2011 ............................................ 5
Figure 13 First floor - John Payne AES System Monitor - AES Control Systems 2011.................................................. 5
Figure 14 Second floor - John Payne AES System Monitor - AES Control Systems 2011 ............................................ 5
Figure 15 Window controls (Decant Workshop 2011) ............................................................................................... 6
Figure 16 AES System Control - BOILERS - 28th November 2011, via Gareth Eddie ................................................... 7
Figure 17 AES System Control - HEATING ZONE VALVES - 28th November 2011, via Gareth Eddie ............................ 7
Figure 18 Boiler-room: well insulated fittings and with easy access. Photos by Author .......................................... 7
Figure 19 Ground floor lighting audit. Image by Chloe Oades ................................................................................... 8
Figure 20 First Floor Lighting Audit. Image by Chloe Oades ....................................................................................... 8
Figure 21 Second Floor Lighting Audit. Image by Chloe Oades .................................................................................. 8
Figure 22 Location and Accessibility. Original photos by Google Maps; Photomontage by Author (2011) ................. 2
Figure 23 Original images: Google Maps, Sun Path Diagram (http://www.gaisma.com), Wind Rose for Heathrow
(http://www.metoffice.gov.uk); Photomontage by Author (2011) ............................................................................ 3
Figure 24 SW-NE section cut analysis. Image by Author ............................................................................................ 3
Figure 25 Sections A and B analysis. Images by Author ............................................................................................. 3
Figure 26 Zoning and Data Logger location. Image by Author ................................................................................... 4
Figure 27 In-spot survey | daylight factor. Image by Author ..................................................................................... 5
Figure 28 In-spot survey | lux levels. Image by Author .............................................................................................. 6
Figure 29 In-spot survey | temperature (C). Image by Author ................................................................................. 7
Figure 30 Relative Humidity. Image by Author .......................................................................................................... 9
Figure 31 In-spot survey | noise levels (dB). Image by Author ................................................................................. 10
Figure 32 John Payne Building Occupants. Photo by EFM - Estates and Facilities Management (2010) ................... 20
Figure 33 BUS overall summary John Payne (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011) .............................................................. 20
Figure 34 Overall Comfort Map - BUS comfort scores on the John Payne building .................................................. 21
Figure 35 Daniers CEFL PIR installation notes .......................................................................................................... 22
Figure 36 Detail - motion sensors on the east office area of the first floor of the John Payne building .................... 23

iv

INTRODUCTION

This Post-occupancy evaluation study is undertaken within the POE Module 30405 of the MSc Sustainable Building: Performance
& Design course at Oxford Brookes University. This course module, under Professor Rajat Gupta, is pioneering in POE training
and research in the UK.
Assessing Building Performance defines Post-occupancy evaluation (POE)
...as the act of evaluating buildings in a systematic and rigorous manner after they have been built and
occupied for some time. (Prieser & Vischer 2005, p8).
The subject of this POE study is the John Payne Building on Oxford Brookes Headington Campus, completed and occupied
during 2010. In some respects this building is a prototype where much of the building method and technology to be deployed
on the on-going reconstruction of the campus can be road-tested. In this context, the timing of this POE study, though
comparatively early in its occupation, may be of significant value for specific feedback to the buildings currently on site.
The three story John Payne building houses the main Headington campus workshops on the ground floor, including the
Technology Lab and Architectural Workshops, with two floors of office, open-plan around a single core, above. This is the new
home of the Universitys Estates and Facilities Management department, along with Capital Projects, Hospitality, Property
Services, CAD and the OBU Sustainability team.
1.1

Objectives

The POE brief is defined by Probe (Post-occupancy review of buildings and their engineering) team to answer four broad
questions:
How is this building working?, Is it intended?, How can it be improved?
and How can future buildings be improved? (Bordass & Leaman 2005, p72).

Figure 1 Design Forecast versus Real Energy Use (CarbonBuzz)

One of the key findings established by the Probe process and other POE studies is the divergence between design forecast and
actual energy use [Figure 1]. A large contingent of this is likely to be from unregulated energy, outside that regulated by Part L
of the Building Regulations.

METHODOLOGY

The format for POE in the UK, as pragmatically developed for the Probe process (1995-2002), consists of three interrelated
study areas: the audit, survey and analysis of pre-existing energy use data, site survey and in-use monitoring of environmental
data, and occupant feedback surveys through questionnaires and interviews.
The POE workflow for this study is illustrated below in Figure 2:

Figure 2 POE Methodology workflow diagram

This study sets out to evaluate how the John Payne Building is actually performing, whether this accords with the design intent,
if there is scope for immediate, short or long term improvements (relative to cost) and whether any conclusions can be fedforward to future build. The process consists of following the Energy [Figure 3] and Environmental Audit [Figure 4] workflows,
which in sum is the evaluation of all data, services and environmental conditions, and finally the Occupant Survey [Figure 5]
workflow.
Results of this analysis can then be benchmarked against equivalent buildings and appropriate standards, conclusions drawn
whether the building is performing as intended, whether immediate, short term or long term interventions can be
recommended and whether these outcomes can be fed-forward to future build.

Figure 3 Energy Audit Methodology workflow diagram

Figure 4 Environmental Audit Methodology workflow diagram

Figure 5 Occupant Feedback Methodology workflow diagram

BUILDING DATA

PROJECT DETAILS

INPUT DATA

Name:

John Payne building

Completion Date:

2010
2

Gross Internal Floor Area (RICS) Value: (m )

2

1,380

Treated Floor Area (TFA) Value: (m )

1,282

Location:

Thames Valley

Occupancy Details (Number of hours occupied / year):

2,205

Ventilation Strategy: (Naturally-ventilated / Advanced naturally-ventilated /

Mixed-mode)

Naturally-ventilated

ENERGY DETAILS
(without any weather, exposure, occupancy correction) Areas refer to treated floor area.
Year of electricity and gas data:
04.2010 03.2011
Actual unadjusted electricity use (kWh/year):
2

66,205

Actual unadjusted electricity use (kWh/m /year):

52

Actual unadjusted mains gas use (kWh/year):

Actual unadjusted mains gas use (kWh/m2/year):
Any on-site generation (PV, solar hot water) (kWh/year):

7,729
6
None

BENCHMARKS REFERRED FROM CIBSE GUIDE F/TM46

Good practice electricity use (kWh/m2/year):
2

95 (typical TM46)

Good practice fossil fuel use (kWh/m /year):

INTERNAL CONDITIONS (NOVEMBER 2011)
External temperature (daily average)

120 (typical TM46)

Internal temperature (daily average) in the ground floor

20.36C

Internal temperature (daily average) in the first floor

21.57C

Internal temperature (daily average) in the second floor

Internal humidity (day average) in the office building

21.99C
49.6 RH

Internal temperature (day average) in the first floor

49.88 RH

Internal temperature (day average) in the second floor

49.33RH

Internal lighting intensity (day average) in the first floor

70.9 lux

Internal lighting intensity (day average) in the second floor

294.36 lux

10.3C

Table 1 John Payne Building Data November 2011

4.1

ENERGY AUDIT

Pre-Survey Calculations

During this stage available existing data is collected and analyzed, quantifying known energy use and identifying anomalies. This
serves to establish the research parameters for the following walk around survey and in-use monitoring. Pre-existing data is
then assessed and evident patterns of energy consumption or potential wastage are established.
Electricity Consumption

Table 2 Sankey Diagram showing Electricity use in percentages from the total energy consumption.

The main energy consumption pattern in the John Payne building comes from electricity consumption, mainly for ICT and
lighting use, as is clearly demonstrated on Table 2 above. This will be further analyzed in the upcoming sections.
Gas Consumption

Table 3 Sankey Diagram showing Gas consumption in percentages from the total energy consumption

The gas consumption amounting to a very small proportion, relative to hot water and space heating, , as can be seen on Table 3.
These two Sankey diagrams relate to one another in proportion, with electricity taking up 93% of the total energy consumption
and gas only 7% of the total.

Heating Requirements versus UK Degree Days

Using the Carbon Trust baseline temperature of Heating Degree Days for an office building in the UK (15.5C) the correlation
between the outside weather and the energy use of the building can be found, using the formulas:
DDdays = Tbase 0.5 (Tmax + Tmin)

T = C

DDannum = annum (Tbase 0.5 (Tmax + Tmin))

500
400

Degree Days
(DD)

Heating
kWh

2,500
2,000

300

1,500

200

1,000

100

500

0
APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR

Table 4 Heating Requirements versus Degree Day Data (APR 2010 - MAR 2011). Degree Day Data by Carbon Trust 2011

The comparison illustrates how the internal temperature heating requirement follows the degree days consistently throughout
the year. This implies that in general, the John Payne building follows the UK standard heating requirements and no major
discrepancies can be observed.
Compiling comparative scatter plots and control charts of monthly space heating consumption against Degree Days will show
the seasonal variations of energy use patterns. The statistical cumulative sum (CUSUM) chart will illustrate consumption
patterns highlighting where the building performs best or worst.
Heating kWh
2,500

R2 0.85 = EXCELLENT
y = 4.9809x - 264.53
R = 0.93981

2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
-500

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Degree Days
Table 5 Regression Analysis (APR 2010 - MAR 2011)

The trend line [y = mx + c] implies when DD = 0 the Internal space Gas hearing requirement is a minus value, or is not required.
This does not mean however, that there is a surplus of heating/kWh when the y axis reaches negative. According to the
performance indicator (R2), the John Payne building performs at an excellent rate, in terms of heating/kWh versus heating
Degree Days.
6

300
200
100
kWh 0
-100

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

JAN

FEB

MAR

-200
-300
Table 6 Control Chart (actual versus predicted) gas consumption (Apr 2010 - Mar 2011)

On Table 6, the rise of kWh/use in July implies that summer months perform badly, despite energy consumption at a minimum
0, this is because the constant (y=mx+C) is negative (- 264.53 kWh). The negative areas of the graph highlight the most energy
efficient months within John Payne, which are May and November (marked in green).
200
FEB

100
kWh 0
-100
-200

AUG
APR

JUL

-300
-400

JUN

JAN

OCT

MAR

DEC

SEP
NOV

MAY

-500
Table 7 CUSUM Chart (Apr 2010 - Mar 2011)

This graph would be flatter compared other building performance. This is due to the y scale being relatively small; the good and
bad performance is exaggerated. Downward trends imply energy efficient months, while upward trends expose less energy
efficiency. It is not possible for John Payne to perform any better during summer months as its Gas requirement is already
minimal 0.
4.2

Building Fabric

The building fabric (roof/ground floor/glazing/walls) and corresponding U-values are used for the design heat loss calculations
and thermal loads. These calculations will also be checked with reference to available construction drawings and related to
other factors such as orientation and internal layout.
Since there was no data available on the exact U-values for the Fabric of the John Payne Building, estimates were made using UK
manufactures standard specifications [Table 8]. Through these findings, the building fabric heat loss can be calculated.
SOURCE
IES Modeling from available info
IES Modeling from available info
IES Modeling from available info
MagHansen Fenster/Fasad
MagHansen Fenster/Fasad
MagHansen Fenster/Fasad
Assumed worst case Part L 2006
Worst case from available construction info

MATERIAL
External Walls
Ground Floor
Roof
Glazing
External Doors
Roof Lights
Roller Doors
external upper floor

W/m2 oC
0.198
0.132
0.177
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.500
0.200

Table 8 Standard U-Values based on manufacture's especifications 2011

The most relevant of these values were then benchmarked against Max Fordhams Sustainability Matrix for Green Office
AJ/2010 for a better insight on their efficiency value, as Table 8 through to Table 11 illustrate.
ROOF

U-Value

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

minimum standard (Part L 2010)

best practice (Part L 2013)
innovative (Part L 2016)
pioneering (Part L 2019)
John Payne

Series1, 0.177

Table 9 U Values benchmarked against Max Fordham

GROUND FLOOR

U-Value

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

2.5

minimum standard (Part L 2010)

best practice (Part L 2013)
innovative (Part L 2016)
pioneering (Part L 2019)
John Payne

Series1, 0.1324

Table 10 U Values benchmarked against Max Fordham

GLAZING U-Value

0.5

1.5

minimum standard (Part L 2010)

best practice (Part L 2013)
innovative (Part L 2016)
pioneering (Part L 2019)
John Payne

Series1, 1.3

Table 11 U Values benchmarked against Max Fordham

WALLS

U-Value

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

minimum standard (Part L 2010)

best practice (Part L 2013)
innovative (Part L 2016)
pioneering (Part L 2019)
John Payne

Series1, 0.1981

Table 12 U Values benchmarked against Max Fordham

Building Fabric Heat Loss

The estimated annual heat loss can be found by calculating the Fabric Heat Loss and the Infiltration Heat Loss, through these
formulas respectively:
A = m2

Qfabric = ((Uvalue x Asurface x DDannum x 24) 1000) kWh/annum

U-value = W/m2C
V = m3

Qinfiltration = (AC x 0.36 x DDannum x 24 x V)/1000 kWh/annum

13%

12%

1%

floor

10%

susp. floor

building
fabric

external walls

15%
28%

glazing/doors

ventilation

roller doors

5%

roof
26%

90%

rooflights

Table 13 Heat loss through building fabric

Table 14 Heat loss through ventilation

Heat loss through building fabric: using the [Qf formula] findings were reached showing a high percentage of heat loss through
the external walls (10,249 kWh/annum at 28%), and the glazing (9,683 kWh/annum at 26%). The remaining values from highest
to lowest are, respectively, from the roof (5,551 kWh/annum at 15%), the roof lights (4,917 kWh/annum at 13%), the ground
floor (4,438 kWh/annum at 12%), the roller doors (2,050 at 5%), and finally, the suspended floor with green-roof sedum cover
(326 kWh/annum at 1%). The green roof could account for an added insulation for the suspended roof, but which could not
benefit from a negative value, or lower than 0% [Table 13].
Heat loss through ventilation: using the [Qinf. Formula] and the air change for typical naturally ventilated office at 3m3/h/m3 (as
advised by Prof. R Gupta), the heat loss through building fabric amounts to 37,215 kWh/annum, which corresponds to 10% of
the total, where heat loss through ventilation amounts to an astounding 351,838 kWh/annum, which corresponds the
remaining 90% of the total [Table 14].

4.3

NPI and Benchmarks

The Normalized Performance Indicator (NPI) for John Payne Building is calculated to allow objective comparison of this building
against benchmarks, whilst taking into account energy use data, the weather exposure and occupancy. A bottom-up approach
(CIBSE, 2004) for detailed end-use building benchmarking standards is then used and specific elements are evaluated, as
appropriate, with reference to:

CIBSE (2004) Guide F: Energy Efficiency in buildings

Building Regulations AD L2a Conservation of fuel and power
(2006 edition in force at time of submission, referenced to 2010 edition)
Max Fordham Sustainability Matrix - Green Offices (published AJ 2010)
RIBA CIBSE platform (nd) CarbonBuzz
Probe (1995-2002) POE case studies
Building Use Studies (1995-present) Occupant survey studies (courtesy of Adrian Leaman, BUS)

Normalized Performance Indicator calculations [all standards from CIBSE AM5:1991]

Treated Floor Area
Hours of use

1282
2250

m2
per annum

7729
66205
73934

kWh/annum
kWh/annum
kWh/annum

252 working days/annum x 8.75hrs/working days

Annual energy use

gas
electricity
total
Degree Days per annum

2189

Weather correction

9693

kWh/ annum

Exposure correction
Weather corrected total

9562
75767

kWh/ annum
kWh/ annum

NPI energy use/annum

82467

NPI per m2/annum

April 2010 March 2011

kWh/ annum

gas

kWh/m2/annum

electricity
NPI total

56
64

kWh/m2/annum
kWh/m2/annum

gas
electricity
Unadjusted total

6
52
58

kWh/m2/annum
kWh/m2/annum
kWh/m2/annum

Unadjusted per m2/annum

space heating energy x 2462 standard degree days per

annum
sheltered city centre exposure correction factor
Value corrected for space heating use + calculated nonheating energy use.
Value corrected with 2400 standard hours of use, for
naturally ventilated offices under 2000m2.

Weather corrected space heating with hours of use

correction
Actual non-heating with hours of use correction only

Benchmarks
0

50

100

150

200

250

typical office TM46 (2008)

good practice Guide F (2004)
John Payne (normalized)
John Payne (unadjusted)

gas

John Payne
(unadjusted)
6

John Payne
(normalized)
8

good practice Guide F

(2004)
79

typical office TM46

(2008)
120

52

56

54

95

electricity

Table 15 JP Benchmarks against CIBSE TM46 Typical Office 2006, and Good Practice Guide F 2004

Against the established CIBSE benchmarks, the John Payne performs well [Table 15]. However these benchmarks are set against
a general typical office. Against current and future projected benchmarking (relative to current and anticipated Part L
2010/13/16/19), John Payne achieves only minimum standard [Table 16], but it also only required to reach the Part L 2006
benchmark.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
kgCO2/m2/year
minimum standard (2010)

30

best practice (2013)

innovative (2016)
pioneering (2019)

21
8

zero carbon

John Payne (normalized)

John Payne (unadjusted)

31
28

Table 16 Benchmark against Sustainability Matrix - Green offices [Max Fordham/AJ 2010]

CO2 Emissions [emission factors from SAP 2009]

To normalize between different fuel uses (electricity, gas etc.), energy units (kWh) will be converted to carbon emissions (kg
CO2e) using the official DEFRA SAP index (Standard Assessment Procedure) intensity factors (available at: Carbon Trust, 2011)
with the values of: 0.198 for main gas and 0.515 for grid electricity.
Energy use to CO2 calculations
Unadjusted annual CO2 emissions
gas 1530 kgCO2/annum
electricity 34228 kgCO2/annum
total 35758 kgCO2/annum

Annual emission factors

gas
1.5
electricity 34.2
total 35.8

tonnes CO2/annum
tonnes CO2/annum
tonnes CO2/annum

Annual CO2 emissions per m2

gas
1.2
CO2/m2/annum
electricity 26.7 CO2/m2/annum
total 27.9 CO2/m2/annum
3

Table 17 Sankey Diagram showing corresponding CO2 emissions in Kg/CO2/annum.

kgCO2/m2/annum
typical office

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80
heating & h/w
other electricty

good practice
John Payne (re-adjusted*)

Table 18 benchmark against Econ19 (*normalized electric h/w CO2 added to normalized gas heating CO2)

Design intent versus in-situ occupants

From the pre-survey calculations the total annual building energy use, both for gas and electricity consumption, was found to be
just below the design estimate [Table 15]. Although it is relevant to point out that the buildings current occupancy status is at
45% of its total [Table 16], meaning that the present total energy consumption for gas and electricity could increase in 55%, if
the building was to house a full occupancy status.
design estimate
actual use
gas
electricity

actual use
7,729

design estimate
10,800

66,205

91,800

Table 19 Design estimate versus actual use

design brief
actual occupancy

90
41
Table 20 Design brief versus actual occupancy

4.4

Building Operation

Photographic Survey Ground Floor

Figure 6 Ground floor on-site audit

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]

[10]

Maintenance Workshop possible fire hazard due to impromptu bicycle and clothes storage
Entrance hall improper bike storage under stairwell
Boiler Room detail of electrical fittings
Maintenance Workshop lights on unnecessarily: no users
Maintenance Workshop detail of light fittings
Hall excessive heating of unoccupied and small area
Maintenance Workshop wide window area with high daylight permeability under-used
Boiler Room detail of properly installed (perceived) and organized heating and electric systems
Lounge adapted lounge, adjacent to Maintenance Workshop, users have no outside views, natural light or ventilation.
If the lounge space (where users can rest their eyes and minds by looking into the landscape) was switched with the
maintenance workshop (where users need controlled lighting levels and are looking into the desk to concentrate) the
psychological benefits to the users could improve their work performance.
Lounge materials and layout of the kitchen in the lounge is non-appealing, non-functional (odour/heat), and possibly
dangerous: due to the light fittings right above and proximity to the boiler room.

Figure 7 Photographic survey of ground floor

Photographic Survey First Floor

Figure 8 First floor in-site audit

[01]
[02]
[03]
[04]
[05]
[06]
[07]
[08]
[09]

West Office adaptation: blinds have been installed due to outside glare
West Office dominant south west wind has been known to gust thorough the window, re-organizing nearby desktops
West Office the passive ventilation system works by convection causing nearby users to feel the outside weather as-is and
causing discomfort. Lighting controls are motion automated and not always sense a lone user.
West Office nearby construction site is a major source of unwelcome noise and dust in the office.
Although the offices are under populated (41/90), the layout does not always benefit the user: positioning them in locations
where noise/wind/insolation can reach them.
Connecting Hall adaptation: lights installed have no functional use (aside from aesthetics) and appear to be non-energy
efficient.
Connecting Hall panoramic detail of passive ventilation and light fittings
East Office automated windows near desktops may create unwanted environment interactions with users. The lighting
scheme sometimes lights areas with much higher intensity than needed.
Kitchen the materials chosen for the kitchen seem to be more for aesthetics than for functionality (user-friendly/cleaning)

Figure 9 Photographic survey of First floor

Photographic Survey Second Floor

Figure 10 Second floor on-site audit

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]

West Office windows and building structure have clear ventilation and temperature infiltration issues (respectively)
Shower detail, seems to be routinely used
West Office anything said on these leisure and meeting spaces is echoed and reverberated to the lower floor
West Office throughout the building the controls are not user-friendly or intuitive
West Office lighting controls do not notice that there is a user working away on her desk
East Office detail of structural versus fabric dislocation, creating infiltration (also, the metallic structure brings cold in
from the base of the building by conduction)
East Office to close the manually controlled windows, users risk their fingers in a design-unintended manoeuvre. This
photograph is actually located at its mirrored location, on the west office.

Figure 11 Photographic survey of Second floor

4.5

HVAC System Control

The building management system (BMS) generally provides control and monitoring of the building services, consisting of:

Boiler plant providing LPHW to a constant temperature and a variable temperature circuit
Zone control of radiator heating and fan convector heating
Two extract fan systems
Natural ventilation systems

Figure 12 Ground floor - John Payne AES System Monitor - AES Control Systems 2011

Figure 13 First floor - John Payne AES System Monitor - AES Control Systems 2011

Figure 14 Second floor - John Payne AES System Monitor - AES Control Systems 2011

BMS Supervisor
Controls heating zones temperature set points and automated natural ventilation CO2 levels set points. It has two modes:
summer and winter. The automated window opening may be triggered by high temperatures or high CO2 levels; therefore, in
winter the windows may open for air flow quality, regardless of temperature. The heating system is then activated,
counteracting the heat loss, and created a spiral of unbalance in the system. There is minimal (time-limited) occupant manual
over-ride, which can cause frustration due to the external noise/winter draughts (ref. occupant feedback).
Ventilation system (see Appendix IV)
Advanced Natural Ventilation (ANV) system has been adopted to reduce the requirement for comfort cooling and mechanical
Ventilation; BMS controlled automated windows (CO2 & temperature sensors) offer the opportunity for night time cooling to
reduce peak daytime temperatures., record settings and variability, vent outlets: area & location, fans: quantity, power rating
(Watts), duration of use. The table below highlights the opening control for the identified areas. (Decant Workshop 2011)

Figure 15 Window controls (Decant Workshop 2011)

Heating Systems
A condensing gas boiler: Potterton WH50 (not listed Sedbuk/SAP, 87.5-107.5% from trade lit). Twin boilers [Figure 16 through to
Figure 18]: single sufficient for most conditions, therefore running at efficient level/back-up. Zoning flexibility: two main circuits
each with 3 zones: rads & trenches circuit, zoned for each ent. Lobby, 1st and 2nd floor offices and fan convector circuit, zoned
for each gnd. fl. Workshop/lab.

Figure 16 AES System Control - BOILERS - 28th November 2011, via Gareth Eddie

Figure 17 AES System Control - HEATING ZONE VALVES - 28th November 2011, via Gareth Eddie

Figure 18 Boiler-room: well insulated fittings and with easy access. Photos by Author

4.6

Appliance Audit

Figure 19 Ground floor lighting audit. Image by Chloe Oades

Figure 20 First Floor Lighting Audit. Image by Chloe Oades

Figure 21 Second Floor Lighting Audit. Image by Chloe Oades

Recessed Compact Florescent GENERAL LIGHTING 2x28W

x32

Suspended Fluorescent Laserline Lum. GENERAL LIGHTING 2x54W

x10

Suspended Fluorescent Luminaire GENERAL LIGHTING 2x58W

x60

Strip Fluorescent Luminaire GENERAL LIGHTING 1x54W

x144

Spot Domotec Halogen AMBIENT LIGHTING 1x50W

x39

11%

14%

3%
Recessed
Compact
Florescent

21%

Suspended
Fluorescent
Laserline
Luminaire

51%

Table 21 John Payne Lighting 2011

The only ambient lighting is the Spot Halogens and they have the largest potential of 90% saving per fitting. The task
lighting also saves a fraction per fitting but has a far larger number of fittings.
30000
Spot Domotec Halogen

25000
20000

Strip Fluorescent
Luminaire

15000
10000

Suspended Fluorescent
Luminaire

5000

Suspended Fluorescent
Laserline Luminaire
Recessed Compact
Florescent

0
Standard fitting

Low-e fitting

Table 22 Lighting annual savings 4183 kWh/yr

The majority of the lighting is task lighting due to this it acts as a base-load for electricity consumption despite this there are
savings to be made.
Typical ( electricity) CIBSE TM46 (2008)
Typical Guide F (2004)
Good Practice Guide F (2004)
JOHN PAYNE
0
JOHN PAYNE
kWh/m2/yr

21
Table 23

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Good Practice Guide F

Typical ( electricity)
Typical Guide F (2004)
(2004)
CIBSE TM46 (2008)
22
38
95

Lighting Benchmark - CIBSE TM46 typical office & Guide F open plan naturally ventilated

John Paynes energy consumption against Guide F only office Good Practice performs well enough but this benchmark is 7years
out of date. Its lighting, electrical energy consumption against CIBSE TM46 typical office is clear to see it performs well but it is
difficult to tell accurately how well the building performs as it is a total electrical typical office load and JP data is just lighting.

Standard fitting

7.0

Low-e fitting
kWh
1.8

0.8

1.1

7.8
5.9

7.1

2.0

0.7

0.2

Task lighting

Task lighting

Task lighting

Task lighting

Ambient lighting

Recessed Compact
Florescent

Suspended Fluorescent
Laserline Luminaire

Suspended Fluorescent
Luminaire

Strip Fluorescent
Luminaire

Spot Domotec Halogen

Table 24 Lighting Energy Consumption

1%

Recessed Compact
Florescent

4%

5%

Suspended Fluorescent
Laserline Luminaire

51%

39%

Suspended Fluorescent
Luminaire
Strip Fluorescent Luminaire

Spot Domotec Halogen

Table 25 Current annual energy consumption 26793kWh/yr

0% 3%

3%

Recessed Compact
Florescent
Suspended Fluorescent
Laserline Luminaire
39%

55%

Suspended Fluorescent
Luminaire
Strip Fluorescent
Luminaire
Spot Domotec Halogen

Table 26 Low-e annual energy consumption 22611kWh/yr

10

Equipment & Appliances

ITEM

TYPE

FLOOR

Heatrae Sadia
Multipoint 30

LOCATION

POWER RATE
kW

AV.
hrs/day

hrs/annum

kWh/annum

3.00

3.00

756

2268

3.00

1.00

252

756

3.00

3.00

756

2268

3.00

1.00

252

756

3.00

4.50

1134

3402

3.00

3.00

756

2268

9.80

1.50

378

3704

Sub-Total
(Hot
Water)

15422

Hot Water
Point Of Use
Hot Water

0
0
0
1
2
Instantaneous
Shower

Water Boilers
(For Hot Drinks)
ICT
PCs Inc. VDU

Rada/Mira
Advance Atl

Heatrae Sadia
Supreme 170

Kitchen

2.50

6.00

1512

3780

Kitchen

2.50

6.00

1512

3780

0.20

4.00

1008

1411

0.20

5.00

1260

1260

0.20

3.00

756

302

1
1
2
1
2

Lab
Architectural
Workshop
Elect/Systems
Workshop
Office
Office (BMS)
Office
Office
Office

19
7
25
10
8

0.20
0.20
0.20
0.18
0.18

6.50
24.00
6.50
5.50
5.50

1638
8760
1638
1386
1386

6224
12264
8190
2495
1996

Office

0.02

8.00

2016

202

Office

0.02

8.00

2016

40

Office

0.05

8.00

2016

202

2
1

Office
Office

3
1

0.05
0.03

8.00
8.00

2016
2016

302
60

Sub-Total
(ICT)

34949

Printer/Scanner
s (Small)
Printer/Copiers
(Large)
Plotter

Shower Room

Laptops

Cleaners Cpd. (3 X
WCs)
Rest Room
Architectural
Workshop
Lab
Kitchen (Sink + 3 X
WCs)
Kitchen (Sink + 2 X
WCs)

ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT

Assessment of the John Payne Buildings immediate external environment will need to address the short and medium term (the
current site works and how they are proposed to evolve) and the long term (the implemented Brookes masterplan).
5.1

Site Location and Accessibility

Figure 22 Location and Accessibility. Original photos by Google Maps; Photomontage by Author (2011)

Site environment: As existing/as proposed: hard/soft landscape/ green roof, bio-diversity, site works: extent, duration.
Access: Pedestrian/goods access, egress (inc. green roof space) - as existing/as proposed.
Transport: Public transport accessibility/proximity, car parking, cycle parking (ref. facilities, showers etc.)

percentage %

20
15
10
5
0
journey to work

car

bike

bus

walk

lift

17

Table 27 chosen mode of transport of JP occupants

5.2

Site Analysis

Figure 23 Original images: Google Maps, Sun Path Diagram (http://www.gaisma.com), Wind Rose for Heathrow
(http://www.metoffice.gov.uk); Photomontage by Author (2011)

Figure 24 SW-NE section cut analysis. Image by Author

Figure 25 Sections A and B analysis. Images by Author

5.3

In Use Monitoring

Data Loggers + Spot Readings

Six Data loggers including 4 iButtons (temp) and 2 HOBOU12 (temp/RH/lux) devices were placed in the building at the locations
indicated in the zone plans of Figure 26, for the duration of four weeks.
A spot measurement device called Environmental Meter (Temp/Lux/dB) was also utilized. Readings from this device can provide
the appropriate data required to develop a comparative analysis of predicted performance and actual building performance.
The locations were selected so that a comparative reading could be made on the buildings plan (on the next pages) and section
cut layouts, as can be seen on Figure 24 and Figure 25 of the previous page. For this academic study, only the area outlined in
red was surveyed, which comprises of the office workspaces.

Figure 26 Zoning and Data Logger location. Image by Author

Daylight
The external lighting for the day measured was 4700lux on a semi-cloudy day. It is possible to see a stronger influx of daylight
near the areas with windows/roof lights/openings. The levels, however, change very drastically from the lit areas to the one in
the shade, possibly resulting in glare, if the internal artificial units do not activate.

Figure 27 In-spot survey | daylight factor. Image by Author

Studies (H Mahone 1999) have shown better improved pupil performance in schools associated with higher daylight levels.
http://www.virtualdaylight.com. Daylight, and the users ability to interact visually with the surrounding environment is an
important factor for creating psychological user comfort in architecture. It has also been known to increase productivity and
improve overall building health status.

Artificial lighting (lux levels/quality/PIR systems)

The electric lighting system in John Payne is responsive to daylight levels. Meaning that it automatically adjusts itself by
dimming or increasing intensity depending on the outside daylight; noting that Figure 28 is inverted in orientation, on the left
side of the plan is the artificial lighting by itself on an unoccupied space, whilst on the right side of the plan it was occupied by
three users who, due to the motion sensors switching off every 20 minutes, had also their desktop lights on thus the increased
light levels.

Figure 28 In-spot survey | lux levels. Image by Author

Recommended Lux levels

In a general office environment for display screen equipment work is 500 lux (10%).
Where fine detailed work is carried out (e.g. technical drawing) a higher level of 750 lux (15%) is recommended.
Where a lower level of concentration is required 300 lux (6%) is an acceptable level (e.g. meeting rooms).
No. 2792, HEALTH AND SAFETY, The Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992; in effect since 1993 BREEAM Office requirements are 350-400 lux (7.4 8.5%) in general office area.
1200
1000
800

Lux

600

1st Floor

400

2nd Floor

200
12 November 2007

11 November 2007

10 November 2007

09 November 2007

08 November 2007

07 November 2007

06 November 2007

Table 28 Standard Week Lighting Levels (NOV 2011)

Lux levels monitored within the open-plan offices show how 2nd floor lighting reaches much higher lighting levels thank the 1st
floor. This is not due to natural light from the roof light as it does not happen over the weekend.

Indoor Temperature
The recorded internal temperatures are on average much higher than necessary. This is possibly due to the fact that these are
dry-bulb temperature readings, which do not take into account the environmental perception of the analysed areas. By
considering the humidity [Figure 30] and air change rate levels [Table 14], one will find that the perceived temperature for these
spaces is in actuality much cooler than the actual dry-bulb temperature readings.

Figure 29 In-spot survey | temperature (C). Image by Author

Recommended office temperature: 19 to 23C.

Minimum - 16C and 13C if the work is physical.
Maximum - Currently there is no maximum workplace temperatures although employers should ensure temperatures in the
workplace are reasonable.
Regulation 7, UK HEALTH AND SAFETY - The Health and Safety Regulations 1992
25
20

2nd Floor

15

1st Floor

10

Gnd Floor

5
0
oC

External
MAX

AVG
Week 1

MIN

MAX

AVG
Week 2

MIN

MAX

AVG

MIN

Week 3

MAX

AVG

MIN

Week 4

Table 29 Average Temperature per Floor

25
20
15

External
Temp

10
5
0
MAX

AVG

MIN

MAX

Week 1

oC

AVG

MIN

MAX

Week 2

AVG

MIN

MAX

Week 3

AVG

MIN

Internal
Temp

Week 4

Table 30 External and Internal Temperature

Internal temperature on all floors stays within a consistent tolerance creating a consistent environment. Internal temperature
fluctuates with the External temperature but to a lesser extent.
25

20

External
Gnd Floor W

15
1st Floor E
1st Floor W

10

2nd Floor S
5

2nd Floor W
2nd Floor E
19 November 2007

18 November 2007

17 November 2007

16 November 2007

15 November 2007

14 November 2007

13 November 2007

oC 0

Table 31 Standard Week Recorded Temperatures

Humidity Levels

Figure 30 Relative Humidity. Image by Author

Recommended Relative Humidity levels:

CIBSE, BSRIA and BRE generally agree that the appropriate range of RH in an office environment should be around 50% RH,
within a typical range of 40 - 60% RH, a figure endorsed by HEVAC.
HEALTH AND SAFETY, The Health and Safety (Display Screen Equipment) Regulations 1992.

Indoor air quality: CO2 readings from AES System Control

Recorded CO2 levels from the AES Control system [Figure 12 through to Figure 14] shows an average of 604.6ppm distributed at
the ground level, an average of 841ppm distributed on the first floor, and an average of 924.5ppm at the second floor. Higher
statistics are curiously also near the windows (see Attachment I for a full outline of the above mentioned Figures).
Considering that heat loss through ventilation takes up 90% of the total building heat loss [Table 14], it can be assumed then
that this characteristic would also increase the air change rates and therefore improve the CO2 levels within the building. If the
heat loss by ventilation is optimized (read: reduced), there is a high probability that the CO2 levels would respectively increase.

Noise (internal/external source)

Recorded noise levels must take into account the temporary condition of the construction site adjacent to the John Payne
building, as can be seen on Figure 23. The highest pitch recorded during the spot readings was of 105dB (within the upper
exposure action values), with an average of 70dB near the windows overlooking the construction site.
At night, the recorded noise levels were of an average of 31dB, which becomes white noise for most people (night birds
chirping, low voices, low vehicle sounds).

Figure 31 In-spot survey | noise levels (dB). Image by Author

Exposure limit and action values:

Lower exposure action values:
a daily or weekly personal noise
exposure of 80 dB; and
a peak sound pressure of 135 dB.

Upper exposure action values:

a daily or weekly personal noise
exposure of 85 dB; and
a peak sound pressure of 137 dB.

Exposure limit values:

a daily or weekly personal noise
exposure of 87 dB; and
a peak sound pressure of 140 dB

From the UK Statutory Instruments, 2005 No.1643 HEALTH AND SAFETY, The Control of Noise at Work Regulations 2005.

10

OCCUPANT FEEDBACK

Figure 32 John Payne Building Occupants. Photo by EFM - Estates and Facilities Management (2010)

As academic research the module has been allowed to use the copyrighted Building Use Studies (BUS) occupant questionnaire,
with the advantage of benchmarking against a wide data-set of surveyed buildings (including all the Probe studies). The
questionnaire has been refined over a long period to precise and pragmatic need to know notnice to have content. This
covers:
overall comfort, including thermal
occupancy
perceived productivity

management responsivity

overall building satisfaction

transport to work

Numeric results and commentary have been fed back to BUS director Adrian Leaman via excel pro-forma spreadsheet, analysed,
benchmarked and returned graphically. This enables access to the comfort, satisfaction and perceived productivity of JPs
occupants relative to equivalent buildings, gauge its success as a workplace and conclude whether there are issues that might
need to be addressed.
6.1

Building Use Studies (BUS) Ltd Questionnaire

(see Appendix III.a)

BUS uses for most times a 1 to 7 scale. For occupants to factor their responses as well as colourful indicators for relative
benchmarking against their full data set of buildings, where:
is better than average
is in the average range
is worse than average

20

Based on the overall summary as illustrated on Figure 33, some conclusions can already be drawn, respectively from top to
bottom:

Figure 33 BUS overall summary John Payne (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011)

i.

Despite nearly universal concerns over excessive air movement in winter, overall ambient comfort is still perceived as
good.

ii.

Good lighting quality was let down by universal frustration with poor sensoring.

iii.

External noise through automated open windows gained the worst responses.

iv.

Good results for delivery of key design requirements.

v.

Typically no effect on health at all (or the users did not understand the question).

vi.

The image to visitors is perceived as good, but perhaps not as good as it could for a new building.

vii.

Open plan layout favoured except by committed opponents.

20

Figure 34 Overall Comfort Map - BUS comfort scores on the John Payne building

Table 32 BUS comfort index (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011)

21

John Payne scored very well for BUS overall comfort [Table 32]. Nevertheless, a significant proportion complained of excessive
air movement, particularly cold draughts in winter. The control over cooling diagram [Table 33] shows another side of that
problem, that users are at the mercy of a non-intuitive computerized system control. West facing windows are noticeably the
worst affected by prevailing wind.

Table 33 BUS - control over cooling diagram (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011)

External noise is the next significant discomfort. High sound levels coming from adjacent construction; frustration at the lack of
control over window automation; over-ride potential is very time limited; temporary condition: end in sight mentality; CO2
threshold for automated opening raised to 1000 ppm; improved but not resolvable until construction completion.

Table 34 BUS - control over noise diagram (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011)

Lighting overall was perceived as reasonably satisfactory. However, frustration with the lighting sensors was commented on by
nearly every occupant.
productivity is affected by having to get up and walk under the sensor.

Table 35 BUS lighting overall diagram (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011)

Lighting goes off after no motion detected for short period. A short term option is to increase the period to its max. Unit, at
40min (currently it is at 20min). This may defeat the object of energy conservation, but may increase productivity. The PIR
sensors actually have an effective radius of only 2.5m, whereas following the manufactures specifications, it should have from 5
to 7m [Figure 35].

Figure 35 Daniers CEFL PIR installation notes

22

Figure 36 Detail - motion sensors on the east office area of the first floor of the John Payne building

Aside from that, there seem to be less sensors than required installed throughout the building [Figure 36]. Because of the open
floor plan layout, they are not strategically positioned for the sensors to be effective without a fixed layout plan; they need to
be installed on a 5x5m grid throughout the desk space floor area.
Some of the good indicators showed user satisfaction with the meets and needs [Table 36] of the building, as well as the
temperature in summer (when the cold drafts actually play the correct role of passively cooling the environment) in Table 37.

Table 36BUS meets and needs (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011)

Table 37 BUS temperature in summer (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011)

Some of the other results include dissatisfaction with the air quality and quantity of the meeting rooms, insufficient or over
ventilation due to gusts of wind through openings being a problem. The forgiveness factor rating is just above average [Table
38], showing that despite its shortcomings, the users like the building overall, as shown by Table 39.

Table 38 Forgiveness Factor index (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011)

Table 39 BUS Satisfaction Index (BUS Methodology Ltd 2011)

23

Supplementary Questionnaire (see Appendix III.c)

To gain more insight into the attitudinal characteristics of occupants in relation to their perception of the building, additional
questions were developed to complement the occupant survey study. Mainly aimed at correlating occupants environmental
awareness to their building use satisfaction, and establishing the comparative and adaptability themes developed in the
subsequent proposed interviews. The topics were discussed with Harriet Waters, the Brookes Sustainability Manager,
coincidentally based in John Payne, who had expressed an interest to input.
Maximizing the number of questionnaires returned is important in order to serve as proper representative data, so to avoid
form fatigue, the supplementary questions are kept very concise (a single page), and formatted to resemble and attach to the
BUS questionnaire (see Appendix III.a).

6.2

Interviews

Overall Comfort, Thermal Comfort, Perceived Productivity

A selection of a representative cross-section of the occupants were individually chosen following the BUS questionnaire and all
previous energy and environmental surveys, and invited to subsequent informal interviews. We interviewed 17% of the
occupants, some with undemanding questionnaire responses, some with more to say, in the hope of further understanding the
key issues raised.
Through the interviews, it was found that 86% of the occupants generally liked John Payne, in regards to the two main concerns
raised in the BUS questionnaire: the window and lighting automation systems, the temporary external noise level oriund from
the construction site and the poor internal acoustics due to walls sound reverberation quality.
Another recurring theme was the buildings lack of personalization. The lack of colour and art work, amongst other, seemed
something most would like to have improved on. With a below average BUS score on image to visitors, the design purity of the
John Payne building is thus questioned.
Liven it up more colour
Significant interview scores related to the desire to control their environment (71%), the rest preferred to have it controlled for
them, while one person preferred to have both options available.
A high number of occupants also confirmed to having clashed opinions on ideal environmental settings, totalling 86% of the
interviewed. All interviewed had at one point or another tried to override the system, mostly without success.
Yes, daily
Yes, but short lived
Yes, but hard to achieve it seems random
Yes, but too complicated and unresponsive
Yes, but with only occasional success
Yes, if it will let me
Yes, but nervous of interfering with important settings

24

CONCLUSION

The post occupancy evaluation of the John Payne Building has shown that the building is generally eco-friendly as it has a good
rating when benchmarked for energy use against CIBSE (2004) Guide F: Energy Efficiency in buildings, Max Fordham
Sustainability Matrix - Green Offices (see Appendix II), the RIBA CIBSE platform (nd) CarbonBuzz, Probe (1995-2002) POE case
studies and the Building Use Studies (1995-present) Occupant survey studies (courtesy of Adrian Leaman, BUS), as can be
verified throughout the report.
The John Payne performs well in terms of general energy consumption. And although it is within the benchmarks established, it
has high electricity consumption and considerations must be made to the fact that the building is only 46% is full capacity of
occupants, resulting in correspondingly less total energy consumption per square meter than its real potential. System controls
do not work as efficiently as the design intent was, but another consideration has to be made about the influence of the
adjacent construction site, which interacts with John Payne by influencing its non-intuitive pre-set ventilation and lighting
systems. Occupant feedback shows that users are in general satisfied with the John Payne building, with some complaints about
the pre-set control systems that are not interacting with the users, nor can be guided by the users, to satisfaction.
There is always scope for improvement, therefore some immediate, short or long term recommendations (relative to cost) can
be found on the next page.

25

RECCOMENDATIONS

8.1

Immediate (no-low cost)

8.2

Increase energy efficiency by installing more energy efficient light bulbs starting at the worst case scenarios, as can be
verified on Figure 19 through to Figure 21.
Address lack of the acoustic absorbent surfaces within the open-plan environment with available artwork from OBU
Improve quiet/sensitive office task areas, without adding partitions (which negatively impact other issues).
Provide communal areas with natural light, such as altering the office layouts to allow for easy circulation and rest
spaces near wide-window areas: such as overlooking the green roof on the second floor, and switching the lounge with
the maintenance workshop on the ground floor thus also avoiding wind tunnels versus desktop.
Improve working conditions in relation to temperature versus passive ventilation, by positioning all file cabinets and
storage spaces directly below the roof light on the first floor. This will better control the air flow rate, but not so much
that it will compromise its functionality. Be sure to keep drawers closed in case it rains suddenly (rain drops from rooflight openings).
Fulfill the building occupancy potential, consider hot-desk usage or smaller desks, as noted by occupants through BUS
Increase daylight propagation and decrease glare by installing semi-opaque screens on roof lights and selected
windows
Set ambient lighting to the minimal required (BREEAM Office minimal requirements are 350lux) and proportion
desktop lights individually to the users.
Separate the temperature and the CO2 monitors, so that one does not influence the other resulting in off readings. Or
have a series of them in the same space (3 max) to only activate after going through a comparative analysis.
Allow for user control after educating the users about working in a high tech building environment.
Short Term (medium cost)

8.3

Improve lighting sensors capacity and or quantity, ideally at 5x5m grid intervals.
Address lack of the acoustic absorbent surfaces within the open-plan environment with available artwork from OBU
students or even the John Payne staff themselves. The artwork can also improve the buildings attractiveness to users.
Increase covered bike storage/lockers and create incentives for public transport.
Green roof access for maintenance purposes (although this is medium cost, it should be considered as a immediate
priority recommendation)
Improve usability of temperature, lighting and CO2 window controls
Set up sub-meters in zones of different purpose in the building to allow greater energy consumption understanding
Remove dimmers and replace all ambient light bulbs with limited lux intensity (BREEAM Office minimal requirements
are 350lux) as well as energy saving (eco-friendly) bulbs.
Long Term (high cost)

Green roof versus Photovoltaic Panels: since the green roof presently does not provide any insulation benefits, nor
rainwater storage capacities without retrofit, as other benefits for the immediate surrounding environment (as biodiversity), it would be strongly advised to consider the installation of PV panels, which would benefit John Payne and
OBU in the long term by providing considerable electricity savings: which is one of the major energy consumer and CO2
contributor in John Payne [Table 17].
Increase daylight propagation and decrease glare by installing semi-opaque glazing in the roof light and selected
windows.
Hire an Architect to supervise changing layout floor plans in order to increase productivity and user well-being, as well
as other adaptations.
Invest in a professional POE assessment, as predicted in John Paynes building log, every few years.

26

FEED FORWARD

Energy Consumption Monitoring and a Building Managers Manual, along with increased user awareness and
responsibility through a seminar or workshop and an appointed building manager.
Consider all aspects of orientation and environmental influences and interactions from inside and outside of the
building fabric. So that if the building has to breathe to circulate air, then the air cant be too cold, otherwise it will
get a flu.
Improve user-friendliness and user controls empower the user and they will react accordingly by taking care of
their environment.

27

10

REFERENCES

ACCESS The Advanced Student Scheme For Energy Savings in Schools, Best practice programme Energy Efficiency BRE 2000
Bordass et al, Assessing building performance in use, Building Research & Information (2001) 29(2) 144-157
Building Use Studies Ltd 42-44 Newman Street, London W1T 1QD
Carbonbuzz website: http://www.carbonbuzz.org/
CIBSE Applications Manual AM5:1991 Energy Audits and Surveys, The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers,
London.
CIBSE Guide F 2004, Energy Efficiency in Buildings, The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, London.
CIBSE TM 46 2008, Energy Benchmarks, The Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers, London.
Degree days (International resource): www.degreedays.net
Gupta R, Chandiwala S, A Student-Centred Approach to Provide Evidence-Based Feedback on the Sustainability Performance of
Buildings, PLEA 2009, Quebec City, Canada, 22-24 June 2009
SMEasure: Building Energy Management http://www.smeasure.org.uk/about
The Carbon Trust, How and why to use degree day information, GIL 135 www.thecarbontrust.co.uk

28

KEY

WEEK

WEEK DAYS

Submission Deadlines

Group Meetings

Site Visits

General

Project Introduction
Building Background Data
Group Meeting - Establish Pre Survey
1st Contact - Gavin Hodgson
Site Survey & Data Request to Gavin Hodgson
Site and Photographic Survey
Study of Site Survey
Site Survey Presentation
Group Meeting
Establish Group Programme
Equipment - from Matt Gregg
Study of Equipment Position
Equipment Position Review by Matt Gregg
2nd Site Visit - Setup of Data Monitoring
BUS Questionaire - Dr Bill Bordass
Group Meeting
POE Methodologies
Occupant Questionaire
Energy Analysis and related calculations
Systems Analysis
3rd Site Visit
Occupant Interviews
Retrieve Monitors
Download Data
Group Meeting - Tutorials
Analysis of Data Collected
Compare Data (to Benchmarks)
Report Scope and Coordination
Final Report and Presentation
Post Presentation Gathering
Individual Study
Individual Report Submission

DESCRIPTION

POST OCCUPANCY EVALUATION

GANNT CHART John Payne Building
24th Oct - Wk2
M T W T F

31st Oct - Wk3

M T W T F

7h Nov - Wk4
M T W T F

14th Nov - Wk5

M T W T F

21th Nov - Wk6

M T W T F

28th Nov - Wk7

M T W T F

5th Dec - Wk8

M T W T F

12th Dec - Wk9

M T W T F

This issue will be proposed by our group before/after class, on the 16th of November, so a poll can be taken concerning this matter.

Chloe Oades
Paula Baptista
Andy Baylis

19th Dec - Wk10

M T W T F

NOTES
! Subject to Building Manager confirmation (Gavin Hodgson)
! This is the formal established date for the final presentations - although we hope to present a week earlier, in order to have more time to elaborate and submit a more throrough final individual report.

17th Oct - Wk1

M T W T F

GROUP 01

11
APPENDIXES

Appendix I Gant Chart

29

Appendix II Max Fordham, Green Office Sustainability Matrix versus John Payne Building.

30

Appendix III BUS Ltd and Supplementary Questionnaires

st
III.a BUS Questionnaire Ltd 1 page

31

nd
III.a BUS Questionnaire Ltd 2 page

32

rd

III.a BUS Questionnaire Ltd 3

page

33

III.b Questionnaire cover

34

III.c Supplementary questionnaire sheet

35

Appendix IV Oxford Brookes University AES System of Operation Manual

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

12

ATTACHMENTS

System Control Screenshots

43