Common Mistakes in BREEAM Evidence

BREEAM is one of the leading assessment method addressing sustainable buildings . These nine topics to consider sustainability and the value of new buildings for a variety of issues . Based on the final score of the building , the certificate will be a matter of identifying the level of sustainability that the building had been achieved , ranging from graduate to extraordinary .

To enable assessors to score good building design and construction team needs to provide evidence to assessors for each topic will be considered . Assessors will then compare the evidence that has been with the terms and award a score . It is in the provision of evidence that many mistakes were made ​​. Three comments most errors are :

Gaps in the evidence base

Flood vague documents relevant to the issues

Too many warnings in the consultant's report

Gaps in the evidence base

It is the number one mistake in the evidence given to the BREEAM assessor . It often comes down to a team member does not check the details of the requirement . It's easy to fix : each member of the team need to carefully read the requirements for their problems .

Flooding in the document

This error is by getting in touch with the previous error . In an effort to compensate for the lack of evidence of team members submit all the documents are in the file itself is vaguely related to the issues under consideration . However , all relevant information has the potential to cover the key elements that are relevant to this issue . It can even be worse than this : the various design iterations can be included in the information to provide evidence to the contrary . The reason again lies in the lack of understanding of the team members and the resolution again is to carefully read the requirements for this problem .

Too many warnings

Consultants need to be careful about their statements in their report issued design . They do not always control the execution of their advice . BREEAM requirements often requested specifications or similar forms of evidence . Where members of the design team has been given the responsibility for problems where the BREEAM specifications required to submit evidence that occurs on a regular basis while the specifications provided. This specification while full of conditional statements . For example, a document may state that if X is installed then the credit is reached . When this occurs the consultant will be able to get further proof that X is going to be installed or they are not the right person to handle this problem and therefore they will require hand responsibility for someone more appropriate .