It’s not a question of if, it’s not a question of when,  it’s a question of what are we going to do about climate change. Some of us have watched from the sidelines as well grounded climate change scientists like Jonathon Nott, were seemingly subject to attempts to undermine his ideas by some within older Councils. So I would hope that in 2007/08, the need for reform of our buildings energy use can be reinvigorated in light of the recently shifted debate.

Some 25 years ago, I was briefly involved with attempts to integrate the photovoltaic developments of the UNSW’s Professor Martin Green, as I was managing the design and construction of huge building projects where energy use was, then, barely an issue. We were covering buildings in granite at a higher cost per square meter than solar cells. How times have changed. 40% of our green house gases are created in powering the world’s buildings.

Today, I am project manager of the solar hybrid project Trybrid, attempting to develop the world’s best practice in fuel and emission minimalist, swift marine transport.
In the Douglas Shire, I was the man behind the introduction of new energy reducing codes introduced for our commercial accommodation buildings, along with shops and offices. Whilst some focused on replacing incandescent light bulbs, the code I spearheaded, awaiting gazettal ex of Douglas, goes a lot deeper to the core of the energy issues, not just changing the light bulbs.
Let me explain the philosophy. The core power load in the modern tropical building comes from the air conditioner, battling heat seeping into a building, where about 70% of the heat into a building is from radiation. A building can be cool, even though hot air flows through it, if the walls, floor and ceiling are cooling, ‘sucking’ heat away from your body, in the reverse action to radiation from a fire at a distance.

Apparently, I have degree in this field, despite the fun we were focused on at Uni. I have been a design based project manger much of my career, stemming for a Bachelor of Building (UNSW). So given radiant heat will soak into that core filled concrete block wall (odds on behind you now) and from the heated wall, heat will ooze all evening, so its no wonder Patio World does so well in the north, as everyone flees the inside of the house to have a beer at night, to escape the walls that are still heating the house after the sun has gone down.

So the new code I introduced promotes either shading of the external walls and windows, or the insulation of them. Heat load calculations are a standard daily affair for all mechanical engineers and the new Douglas code calls for a maximum heat load that can enter a commercial building via the roof, fenestration, walls or floor.
In other words, we are not about window dressing the light bulb issue, we are about keeping buildings cool upfront and with it, way less need to burn coal to power the air conditioners. The added costs will save the owners a small fortune down the track and instead of developers doing the hit and run, they will have to put the effort into building comfort, not splitting the scene, just leaving split systems, and leaving us paying that fat Ergon bill.
The code makes buildings more livable. For example, simple cross flow through ventilation is to be mandated, which sounds simple, but consider the number of times you find yourselves in a stinking hot room with only one window.
By promoting gas stoves, instead of electric cookers, you will be doing both the planet and your cook skills a favor. If there are ways to heat water without using power sent from thousands of kilometers away, where some 40% of your power is lost just sending it here, you may think its reasonable for the code to promote natural drying of clothes and yes, it may not be completely convenient but your clothes will last longer along with the planet.
It’s not a good idea, having big, west facing windows, that are un-shaded unless you have shares in Ergon and I am suggesting developers will need to put more effort into planning buildings of the future, in energy use terms.
Currently the Building Code of Australia is making some helpful but weak attempts to contain energy use in buildings and some might say it is too little, too late. So in order to get a planning approval, not just a building approval, developers are being asked to think about a building’s heat resilience from day dot. It is no longer just an add-on issue, like a split system is an add-on. To keep heat soak low, you need to design the aspect of any new building from the ground up. Architecturally, instead of decorating buildings in arrays of split systems (like the newish buildings alongside the Smithfield Police Station), architects will have new motivation to design interesting shade structures around tropical buildings.
The codes for Douglas do not yet deal with the project home, where current designs are shameful examples of oblivion to power costs. The mum and dad home design needs improvement, but first, let the commercial sector give it a go. Change is coming. And given that our forebears knew that the shading of a veranda is as much about keeping the sunshine of the house walls, as it is, making a space to sit and chat, I suggest that we do not have to navel gaze in order to figure out how to better cool our buildings. Just look to the traditional Queenslander, for example.
If these codes could drift into the Cairns Regional Council commercial building sector over the years ahead, I would see it as a big achievement in preparing for the future and to me, it is a big part of my motivation to have a shot at winning a seat at the CRC table.
If you want to read about these ideas in more detail, then email me at vote@roddavis.org …and I will send you a copy.

The Douglas planning scheme has an important feature buried in it that is important for the new CRC to understand. 30% of the floor space in all commercial and medium density accommodation buildings is gained through bonuses. Back in the mid nineties, when I was promoting the bonus idea to the then DSC planner, Brad Sully and his consultants, Brannock and Humphrey’s, these bonuses were to promote simple issues like deep planting, sloping roofs and reasonable sun declination planning. In the recent edition of the Douglas plan, all the bonus issues, now taken as a given, were prescribed. This leaves the 30% floor space bonus available to any simple designer to achieve 100% of the allocated floor space with ease. But there is a longer term plan behind the idea. I hope for this reason that other candidates understand why the 30% bonus remains, or alternatively, you could just vote for this candidate. The purpose of leaving the bonus floor space intact was to allow for the slow substitution of benign architectural bonus ideas to the real deal, meaningful energy reducing ideas. It’s a mechanism, that whilst not allowing floor spaces to fatten up, can provide a motivation for developers to go the extra 9 yards by way of energy design and get rewarded for it. For example, some photovoltaic additions on the roof may soon be more feasible as carbon trading changes the dynamics of alternative power boosters and if linked to a floor space bonus, it will become a win win option for all.
This bonus scheme is also ideal to promote the preservation of handsome trees, where mainstream Aussie law gives the right of a building to take precedence over a tree, but with the availability of a potential floor space bonus, the developer could be motivated to try and work around the trees that already exist on site, where practicable.

CONTACT ROD DAVIS: vote@roddavis.org

MOBILE: 0418 235561 or HOME: 0740 994434

MAIL: PO BOX 714, Port Douglas, 4877.

FOR THE WHOLE SUSTAINABILITY CODE in detail, which won a merit award in November 2008 from the Planning Institute Australia, here is the document with explanations: sustainability-code.doc