Environmental efficiencies and core areas of sustainability are of increasing import, both from a social and commercial perspective. Yet, within the realm of property, where considerable energy savings and efficiencies can be seen, where does the responsibility truly lie? Increasingly, new homes are indeed being developed with environmental concerns in mind, which certainly does paint a good picture for the future of the housing sector, yet, notable is the lack of efficiencies that can be seen across older properties, as well as a concerning deficit in the number of homes (as a proportion) which incorporate local power generation. As has been previously highlighted, one of the core areas within which improvements can be made from an energy perspective is through renewable generation techniques, primarily solar. Yet, while Germany has shown great example within Europe for progress in the realm of renewable energy generation and similar plans, thus far, it is concerning to see that the UK simply hasn’t achieved anywhere near as much success. But why is this? Previously, even with the Green Deal in existence, numerous industry contractors had reported a concerning lack of interest in pursuing home energy improvements, and now without even that provision available, incentivisation for sustainable techniques now seemingly all boils down to the conscience of the homeowner, or renter; but should it? Especially in the case of rented properties, concerns can, and have been raised as to the viability of installing renewable energy generation mediums such as solar PV, yet it is also something increasingly seen as a step in the right direction from a social perspective. And while it has recently been announced that tenants can indeed petition their respective landlords for permission to make sure improvements to their properties, the question could be raised – is this truly the responsibility of the tenant alone, or should responsibility fall on the landlord, or both parties together?

Pictured: Founder, Steve Rawlings In recent business news, it has been announced that Steve Rawlings, the Lakehouse Founder, has recently reached out to company shareholders to explain to them why he should return to the Lakehouse board; a move which may see Steve Rawlings, alongside shareholder Slater Investments (combined, owning some 21.56% of share capital), potentially overthrow the current board of the company. The move comes amidst criticism from Mark Slater, of the aforementioned Slater Investments, highlighting a “serious governance deficit” within the board itself. Effectively, the proposal is aimed to see the restoration of shareholder value, as explained by Mark, with the appointment of brand new, non-executive directors for the board. One of the primary reasons for the communication with shareholders is seemingly as a result of communication already had between the board and company shareholders, with accusations made with regard to the board “attacking” those candidates proposed in shareholder circulars – something which has been noted to be in stark contrast to conversations that Mark states have been had in private. One of the key concerns highlighted by the board to the company shareholders has been with regard to concerns over compliance with UK Corporate Governance Code should the non-executive directors be appointed to the board. In opposition to this, Lakehouse’s Chairman, Chris Geoghegan stated to shareholders that Steve Rawlings remains unsuitable as a director in the business, ever since its listing on the stock market back in 2015. Highlighting Steve’s history with the company thus far, Chris explained how a lack of involvement within the group, as well as his previous record with the company dating back as far as 2012, also combined with a lack of experience in limited company directorship, does not support the conclusion that he has the skills required to make a meaningful contribution to the board of directors.

Whether it’s through washing down wagons, shutes, skips and equipment, hydrodemolition, grouting, tunnelling or dealing with surface run-off – cementitious water (water with concrete in it) is one of the most common and challenging waters the construction sites have to contend with. Dr Richard Coulton, CEO of Siltbuster, and a leading authority of water treatment, outlines the 10 do’s and don’ts of dealing with concrete water on site. By Dr. Richard Coulton, CEO of Siltbuster (Pictured)   Don’t forget about it Most construction workers are aware of the risks of silt and oil pollution, but still allow concrete wagons to wash out in leaky waste skips – yet concrete washwater on a volume by volume basis, has the potential to cause much greater harm than silt or oil Don’t under estimate it Many think concrete water is acidic but on the contrary, it is very alkaline. The pH of concrete washwater is incredibly high – typically 12 to 13 on a scale which runs from 1 (acid) to 14 (highly alkaline) – making it highly damaging when discharged to the aquatic environment. The Environment Agency stipulates that the acceptable pH level for water to be released to the environment is 6-9 – and concrete water is way off this level Do take care Only domestic oven cleaner has a higher pH and think of the health warnings that come with that! So site workers should treat concrete waters with respect – it’s nasty to handle and it’s NOT safe to stick it down the drain Remember, seeing isn’t believing Even if site water looks visibly clean, if it has been connected with concreting works, it could still have a high pH and be environmentally very dangerous. Dilution is no solution Many are tempted to simply dilute down the concrete wash water but dilution is neither practical nor cost effective. That’s because pH is a log scale. Every unit reduction in pH requires a 10-fold dilution with pH neutral water. So it would take 10,000 gallons to get 1 gallon of concrete washwater with a pH of 12 down to a pH of 8 Tankering is not the answer Giving someone else the problem to deal with, by tankering off site to a suitably licenced waste management centre for further treatment is an expensive solution. Typical tankering costs are in excess of £100/tonne. On say a larger site generating circa 30m3/day that amounts to around £100k per month in extra costs! Know the Trick of Treatment In essence, concrete washwater needs to have its suspended solids removed and its pH reduced to an acceptable value. Forget Acids Neutralising the pH of concrete water by using mineral acids isn’t the answer. These are dangerous to handle, must be securely stored to minimise the risk to workers or accidental release into the environment. Surplus unused acid must be disposed of as hazardous waste, which is costly. Also precise pH control is difficult to achieve with mineral acids as it is all too easy to overshoot the target resulting in acidic water – which is equally polluting! Using these acids also creates “secondary pollutants” – sulphate and chloride – which are nasty for the environment. Similarly, Citric acid (fruit acid) isn’t the answer either as it comes with similar environmental, health and safety concerns and there is a risk of over dosing and acidifying the treated water. Gas works The latest thinking is that carbon dioxide (which is mildly acidic when dissolved in water) is the best neutralising agent for concrete water. It is virtually impossible to acidify the water though overdosing plus, unlike acids, the by-products of neutralising the water with carbon dioxide are non-hazardous, and can actually be considered beneficial. Think Mobile There are simple, easy to operate, mobile units which use carbon dioxide and which can be hired to temporarily treat concrete and other potentially polluting site waters.