cc: r.g.goodall@uea,b.summers@uea,m.hulme@uea date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:15:24 +0000 from: Trevor Davies subject: RE: Accommodation for New Climate Change Centre to: Joseph Saunders Joseph, Thank you very much for this. ICER I understand your caution over the ICER building. But - you may not realise: 1 "Our bit" of JIF is the two research councils NERC and ESRC 2. The Tyndall Centre is a NERC initiative, also supported by ESRC (& EPSRC). This is not a "local" Centre - this will be THE player on the global stage - that is the intention of the research councils. 3. In effect, the supporters of ICER and the Tyndall Centre are the same people. 4. Given 1, 2 & 3, the research councils will not be hamstrung by the accidents of timing and procedure. Fundamental changes MAY be costly, but JIF will not be reluctant to consider the possibility. We MAY be able to attract financial support from elsewhere. The Planning Authorities could well be a problem, but I do not see why we cannot say that we will talk to them. I know they have a more parochial attitude than we do, but we are talking about THE world centre for seeking solutions to the most important threat to humankind (as you know, I can be a little more diplomatic than that in negotiation). ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION The VC has undertaken to ensure that Centre is well accommodated on the campus, either within, or within a few metres of the existing ENVelope. These decisions have to made on the basis of academic/business criteria. As far as "retro-fitting" is concerned, with all due respect, our collaborators are THE experts in innovative energy techniques in the UK. OF COURSE, we will talk to UEA energy conservation adviser, but our objectives are ambitious. "Retro-fitting" might include, for example, building-in of photovoltaic cells into the present outside structures/facing. Our view is more expansive than saving UEA a bit of money on the gas bill. It is testing/developing techniques which might then be marketed around the world. OF COURSE, UEA concerns & priorities are paramount. There is no intention here to ignore those. But our discussion has to be balanced by the potential benefits to UEA of significantly enhancing - globally - our reputation for design (and these WILL be the designs of the future) and efficient use of energy (i.e. what can we do to make good 60's designed buildings powered by unsustainable energy producing techniques?). Again, There will be UEA/Norwich views on appearances/lines etc which have to be considered - but these issues have to be faced in most developed countries, so the designs need to accommodate these. Again, I cannot see why we cannot undertake to consider these issues. Trevor t 09:03 24/02/00 -0000, you wrote: >Trevor Good afternoon > >1. If the ICER Building goes ahead everything (or nearly >everything!) will be fine, I guess. However, the energy conservation >technology we are designing into the building is not innovative; indeed >there are some who would describe it as distinctly 'old hat'. >Nevertheless, what can and should be said is > >'UEA has an impressive track record of applying energy conservation >techniques to great effect and currently hold the record for the most >energy efficient building of its type - the Elizabeth Fry Building. >Through the efforts of our in-house energy conservation and >environmental adviser, we continue to add to our catalogue of our energy >conservation and environmentally friendly projects with the recent >introduction of CHP and the acquisition of a licence to supply water >from a source deep beneath the University Campus. In conformity with >this philosophy the new ICER building is design to exacting conservation >standards.' > >However, much more to the point is that the design of the building is >pretty well fixed insofar that it has received approval by the JIF >process to date (I acknowledge not the final leg, but that seems more in >the nature of a political decision than a factual one), it has Planning >Consent, and it has been costed. Fundamental changes at this stage would >be time consuming and costly to achieve. Am I missing the point? > >2. If the ICER Building does not go a head as a JIF Submission, >Could the Building become the Tyndale Jackson Centre with support from >these two benfactors? If so then much of what I have written above in >paragraph 1 applies. > >3. If the ICER Building does not go ahead, then I am > >3.1 very doubtful and extremely uncomfortable about expressing a >solution resting in a part occupation of the ISD building. I believe the >notion of this building becoming vacant lies in the Central Library >being extended. Whilst I am sympathetic to ISD wanting to consolidate >(and have been party to some of the discussions with ISD in this >respect), I cannot give you any guidance as to how advanced David >Baker's paper on this topic is progressing or whether it has already >been received for consideration by PRC. Certainly I am not aware of >funds having been identified for consolidation to proceed. > >3.2 certain that notwithstanding the availability of the ISD >Building, it could not be available to you in September, because a >Central Library extension in this time scale is impossible. And if there >were alterations to the ISD for its conversion to the Tyndale Centre to >be added into the equation, these could only happen when ISD move out to >their extended Library. > >4. On the assumption that the ICER building does proceed, boring >and unimpressive though it may sound, I believe your only safe course of >action (and in many ways the only believable one) is to say that > >'The Centre will be housed in new temporary accommodation built for the >purpose, and within easy reach of the School of the Environmental >Sciences. Immediately thereafter UEA will develop proposals with >representatives of Tyndale for rto design appropriate accommodation for >the Climatic Change Centre applying energy conservation and >environmental standards for which UEA already enjoys an enviable track >record and reputation.' > >5. Lastly, I am uncomfortable about saying anything about >retro-fitting innovative energy saving devices to existing individual >buildings on campus. Our energy conservation advisor will be able to >help you better than I can in this regard, but broadly, because we are >centrally provided for from the boiler house (where the CHP is also >housed)economic solutions are only likely to be found by devices located >there. > >Trevor I am aware the above is little better than a 'damp squib', but I >would much prefer to be cautious and surprise Tyndale latter than to >paint a false picture now. > >Joseph. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Trevor Davies [mailto:t.d.davies@uea.ac.uk] >Sent: 22 February 2000 12:13 >To: j.saunders@uea; r.g.goodall@uea >Cc: b.summers@uea; m.hulme@uea >Subject: Accommodation for New Climate Change Centre > > >Joseph/Richard, > >We have to finish the bid this week. > >I am assuming that we can say: > >1. It will go into ICER (if successful), of course. > >2. If ICER is not successful, we have pinpointed good quality >accommodation >'within the ENV envelope', by which we will mean the wider ENVelope of >course, such as the top bit of ITCS. > >Asd we have been talking with engineers from UMIST & Southampton, it has >become clear to us that there is much innovative work that could be done >on >energy - for example, incorporating solar cells into the structure of >buildings. If we are to construct a new building, it would be a nice >angle >to say that we will seek to use the building as a test-bed, where >appropriate (consistent with planning, architectural restrictions, etc). >It >would be very appropriate if we could say something like this for ICER - > > >" The building was designed, and planning permission sought, for a JIF >bid >in April 1999. During the design phase, there were only informal >indications of the Research Councils' Climate Change Centre initiative >(which we anticipated by provisionally earmarking accommodation for the >Centre). Given the emphasis of the Centre (once details were revealed), >and >the possible convergence now of success in both the JIF and Centre >competitions, it is our intention - at the announcement of any JIF >success >- to bring together the designers, planning authorities and JIF >authorities >to see how the new building may be used as an experimental test-bed for >further innovative energy techniques (the original design already >included >an innovative thrmal-flue, which UEA intended to use as a subject of >experimentation)". > > >- and if ICER fails - > >"Should the ICER bid not be successful, the layout of the earmarked >existing accommodation is also suited to be an experimental test-bed, >which >embraces a different (but possibly more generally-applicable, and >greater) >challenge of 'retro-fitting' new energy technologies. The university is >very sympathetic to this intention, and will be very supportive during >our >discussions, with the local planning authorities, on a site which is >regarded as architecturally outstanding and sensitive". > > >Trevor > > >++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >Professor Trevor D. Davies >Dean, School of Environmental Sciences >University of East Anglia >Norwich NR4 7TJ >United Kingdom > >Tel. +44 1603 592836 >Fax. +44 1603 507719 >++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Professor Trevor D. Davies Dean, School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom Tel. +44 1603 592836 Fax. +44 1603 507719 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++