News RSS Feed


Green revamp to cost £28.3m

11:39am Thursday 17th January 2008

comment Comments (23)   Have your say »


THE cost to the taxpayer of going green at two Government offices in York is a controversial £28.3 million.

The bill is being run up during a refurbishment at the Department of the Environment, Food And Rural Affairs' (Defra) offices in Kings Pool, off Peasholme Green, aimed at making the buildings more "sustainable".

The extensive buildings were constructed 14 years ago.

The work, which includes the installation of solar thermal hot water, rainwater harvesting and ultra-efficient gas-fired boilers, will save 15 tons of carbon a year - equivalent to the typical emissions from nine UK houses.

Hilary Benn, Secretary of State for the Environment, Food And Rural Affairs, speaking during a visit to York, robustly defended the expenditure, saying it was essential that everyone - from Government to individuals - reduced their carbon emissions if the world was to avoid rising sea levels and other environmental disasters. He insisted the project was not a symbolic gesture, but a practical measure which would prevent damaging carbon being poured into the atmosphere.

"We are all going to be affected by climate change and we all have a responsibility to do something about it," he said.

But the spending was branded "extortionate" by Graham Bowers, of the PCS union, which represents many civil servants on the site, where more than 800 people are employed.

He claimed carrying out the work would in itself create carbon emissions, for example, through the transportation of materials, equipment and workers to the site, negating the benefits.

"Goodness knows how many years it will take to recoup that," he said.

He also claimed the project came at a time when the Government was cutting expenditure elsewhere, resulting in fewer civil servants doing more work, with a resulting drop in morale.

Michael Watkins, head of estates, said: "The two office buildings at York are being refurbished in an industry-leading way, minimising waste output while maximising the recycling of any waste materials produced.

"In addition, the new Social Hub a staff social meeting and conferencing area has been designed to have a minimal carbon footprint through the use of low-carbon features, including sun pipes, above average thermal insulation properties and a green roof system which will also help improve the local ecology, in conjunction with the new improved landscaping."

He stressed the costs at Kings Pool had been higher than might normally be expected because the work was having to be carried out with staff in situ.

Workers were having to be moved to offices at Monks Cross while the refurbishment happened in their area, resulting in the department have to pay rent on two buildings at once.

He added the project would also increase the number of available workstations from the current 850 to 1,150 in a naturally-ventilated open plan modern working environment, together with the Social Hub extension and business centre.


Your Say YourYork Press

Peter, york says...
12:38pm Thu 17 Jan 08

Seems ridiculously expensive, this would have bought most of Clifton Moor !!!

oli4uk, York says...
1:01pm Thu 17 Jan 08

How can they justify this kind of expense?

considering we cant even afford to fund our hospital such a frivilous waste of money on a relatively new building is insane.

Alan Shaw, Bootham says...
1:05pm Thu 17 Jan 08

Any amount of cost is going to be sniffed at by people who do not care about our environment. This is a great flag ship initiative to sustain the buildings for the long term future, in a way that looks after the environment. Those who feel this is “a waste of money” really need to get into the real world and the more we invest now, the more we will reap the rewards of a greener less polluted world.

Confused, York says...
1:11pm Thu 17 Jan 08

Wouldn't it have been cheaper to hand out wooly jumpers and gloves to the staff and turn the heating down?
It would have cost a lot less and would be just as kind to the environment.

Confused, York says...
1:15pm Thu 17 Jan 08

By the way though, I very much doubt that the £28.3m is for purely green works.
I suspect that is for the total refurb of the building.

dragonian, york says...
1:29pm Thu 17 Jan 08

£28 million!!!!!!!!!
What a disgrace. Surely it would be more environmentally friendly to spend such an amount to purchase and safeguard over half a million acres of rainforest rather than this wastage!

Noddy1, York says...
1:33pm Thu 17 Jan 08

Company after company are making a serious amount of money on the word "green".
Why Mr Shaw is everything green so expensive?

devnull, York says...
1:33pm Thu 17 Jan 08

Surely if carbon was their main concern it would have saved more if they spent that money insulating a few hundred houses and installed double glazing.

Gladis Cheesepick, says...
1:48pm Thu 17 Jan 08

Noddy1 wrote:
Company after company are making a serious amount of money on the word "green". Why Mr Shaw is everything green so expensive?
Noddy, if we dont spend now our children will pay later. This is something we must all get behind. Go green or away.

(A), York says...
2:13pm Thu 17 Jan 08

This is greenwash, pure and simple.

£28mil to save 15 tonnes of carbon a year! With the emmissions from the actual refurb, I doubt there would even be a net improvement over the next 10 years.

These buildings are less than 15 years old, surely it would have been better to wait until it was in serious need of remedial works, then put in the extra measures to reduce carbon emmissions simultanously?

Joe, Skelton says...
3:09pm Thu 17 Jan 08

Ok, so they need the sun to shine to heat the water, but they can't get any water unless the sun is in and it's raining?

bjb, York says...
3:10pm Thu 17 Jan 08

Noddy1 wrote:
Company after company are making a serious amount of money on the word "green". Why Mr Shaw is everything green so expensive?
For the same reason that as soon as you label food organic, the price doubles. They call it RIP OFF.

bjb, York says...
3:24pm Thu 17 Jan 08

The work, which includes the installation of solar thermal hot water, rainwater harvesting and ultra-efficient gas-fired boilers, will save 15 tons of carbon a year - equivalent to the typical emissions from nine UK houses.


Now let's see. 9 X 10 (as in years) = 90 houses. This them means that for the outlay of £28.3million we are saving the equivilent carbon output of Fifth Avenue.

Now that's what I call a bargain!!

I mean who wants to spend more on the elderly or critically ill or even a decent base for Yorkshire Air Ambulance?

I reckon if we look around there are many more projects such as the DEFRA building that we can throw money at that we cannot spare.

In reality, if as happens on many occasions, a decision is made for DEFRA to pull out of York, the whole place will be pulled down and another supermarket built.

There is no such thing as long term plans when it comes to government departments.

devnull, York says...
4:07pm Thu 17 Jan 08

bjb if they were serious about carbon emissions (I don't really care about them I just want to point out the councils idiocy) they could have done so much more with 28.3 million. If they split it up into £10,000 grants and insulated houses with them that would allow them to insulate 2830 homes. I'm sure insulating houses costs less so you could probably round that up to 3000. According to the energy saving trust "Double glazing, can save a household about three quarters of a tonne of CO2 a year". 2830 x 0.75 = 2122.5. So assuming they could provide double glazing for £10,000 a house (they could probably get roof insulation for that too) they would be saving 2122.5 tons of CO2 a year instead of 15 tons.

devnull, York says...
4:10pm Thu 17 Jan 08

Its nice to know that the council are 141.5 times less efficient than me :p

devnull, York says...
4:17pm Thu 17 Jan 08

I just read "If you currently have no loft insulation and you install the recommended 270mm depth you could save around £110 a year on your heating bills and nearly 1 tonne of CO2 per year."
So assuming you can insulate one roof and install doubleglazing for £10,000 which I'm sure is doable (especially if the council is buying in bulk) that would save about 5000 tons a year making my idea over 300 times more efficient than the councils.

bjb, York says...
4:24pm Thu 17 Jan 08

devnull.

Don't forget the government already offers energy saving grants that pay for half of it, so you can amend your figures to make it go even furthet.

the Butler, Cowichan Bay B.C Canada says...
6:30pm Thu 17 Jan 08

When, if ever was this project discussed in any committee of York ratepayers? This frivolous miss-use of tax money is a disgusting example of we've got your money, so we are putting it to use,so Don't argue!

bjb, York says...
7:13pm Thu 17 Jan 08

the Butler wrote:
When, if ever was this project discussed in any committee of York ratepayers? This frivolous miss-use of tax money is a disgusting example of we've got your money, so we are putting it to use,so Don't argue!
This is government spending, not council.

stevexbooth, Clifton Moor says...
7:52pm Thu 17 Jan 08

I can't wait to see the savings to the residents of York, you never know we may even to get to park in our own city for free! Go on then, charge us 20p and give us a firework display on November 5th!

Franky, York says...
12:25am Fri 18 Jan 08

Nothing to do with the Council or York. Central Government monies.

oli4uk, York says...
9:45am Fri 18 Jan 08

Just so you know, 70% of scientists now say global warming is not a threat since the government backtracked on a policy that removed funding from any public scientist which did so.

Carbon Dioxide goes up due to the natural chemical reactions in the sea when the temprature goes up, could this bring up the amazing correlation of the graph? (This makes up 95% of carbon emmisions, man made Carbon diocide only accounts for 0.36% of the worlds created carbon dioxide, and that doesnt include natural disasters)

The hockey stick graph has been consistantly debunked, not only does it look teh same no matter what data is put in there, it also misses out things such as the warm spike in oman times, the mini iceage and the dark ages, not to mention the fact that 1934 was much warmer than todays tempratures.

The temprature has been steadily declining since 1998.

During the worlds greatest period of industrial activity tempratures went down.

Nearly every government body has backed global warming, how would they look if they backtracked?

dragonian, york says...
11:27am Fri 18 Jan 08

oli4uk wrote:
Just so you know, 70% of scientists now say global warming is not a threat since the government backtracked on a policy that removed funding from any public scientist which did so. Carbon Dioxide goes up due to the natural chemical reactions in the sea when the temprature goes up, could this bring up the amazing correlation of the graph? (This makes up 95% of carbon emmisions, man made Carbon diocide only accounts for 0.36% of the worlds created carbon dioxide, and that doesnt include natural disasters) The hockey stick graph has been consistantly debunked, not only does it look teh same no matter what data is put in there, it also misses out things such as the warm spike in oman times, the mini iceage and the dark ages, not to mention the fact that 1934 was much warmer than todays tempratures. The temprature has been steadily declining since 1998. During the worlds greatest period of industrial activity tempratures went down. Nearly every government body has backed global warming, how would they look if they backtracked?
oli4uk, you are just denying the obvious. Work for an oil company or something do you? As the numbers of CO2 polluting cars soars and tropical rainforests get decimated at rapid rates, you do not need to be Einstein to work out why global warming is taking place!

Comments are closed on this article.




Local Advertisers


Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »