Performance

Summary of progress against targets during 2006

The table below summarises our performance against property management targets for the period 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2006. Further details relating to progress can be found in the audit of progress against targets.

Managed Portfolio

Target	Summary of progress	Percentage target complete
Monitor response rates related to problem resolution amongst customers through information reports from the Help Desk service.	The DTZ Helpdesk continues to monitor contractor performance across a range of operational factors, as well as response rates to customer enquiries.	100%
Provide tenants with more regular and simple mechanisms for giving us feedback via let’s talk (customer newsletter), our website, and periodic face to face interviews with targeted samples of customers.	The PRUPIM website has integrated several new features allowing tenants to communicate with us. However, we have yet to implement new feedback mechanisms over and above web enabled communication.	50%
Maintain the number of RIDDOR reportable accidents across the offices portfolio at zero.	There was one RIDDOR reportable accident in the Managed Office portfolio in 2006.	0%
Achieve ISO 14001 certification for a further 10 actively managed properties.	ISO 14001 certification was achieved at 3 managed properties during 2006, 7 below the target, although 11 more were certified in early 2007.	30%
Avoid 21,000 tonnes of CO2 through the green electricity procurement contract at all managed properties.	The green electricity contract (Climate Change Levy exempt) resulted in 22,226 tonnes of CO2 being avoided from that which would have otherwise been emitted from ‘brown’ energy consumed. This was 1,226 tonnes greater than the 21,000 tonnes target.	100%
Reduce aggregated electricity consumption for Holborn Bars and 1 Knightsbridge Green (both of which now have ISO 14001 EMS certification) in 2006 by 5%, compared to 2005.	Aggregated electricity consumption for Holborn Bars and 1 Knightsbridge Green increased by 5.6% during 2006, both due to increased levels of occupancy.	0%
Establish a monitoring and targeting system, with associated reports, to measure environmental performance.	Monitoring and targeting through the TEAM Bureau service was still in the trial phase at the end of 2006, and was not expected to be fully operational for the managed portfolio until some time in 2007.	50%

Own Office

Target	Summary of progress	Percentage target complete
Develop a green travel plan for PRUPIM’s Head Office.	We developed a sustainable travel policy for our Head Office (Princeton House) during 2006, outlining various sustainable travel options for employees as well as reporting and communication guidelines. However, this policy did not go so far as specifying a ‘plan’.	50%
Reduce the total electricity consumption of PRUPIM’s Head Office by 3% in 2006 compared to 2005.	During 2006, we reduced our Head Office electricity consumption by 2.75% (0.25% below the target), even with an increase in permanent office head count over the year. For further details relating to this decrease, please see the corresponding key performance indicator.	92%
Maintain the proportion of waste recycled during 2006 at PRUPIM’s Head Office at 84%.	The average recycling rate achieved at Princeton House during 2006 was 86%, 2% higher than the target. For further details relating to this increase, please see the corresponding key performance indicator.	100%
Reduce the total water consumption of PRUPIM’s Head Office by 2% in 2006 compared to 2005.	Absolute water consumption increased by approximately 8% on the 2005 baseline, in spite of various water efficiency measures. However, there was also a corresponding improvement in water efficiency per employee as a result of increased numbers of employees using relatively less water per head. For further details relating to this increase, please see the corresponding key performance indicator.	0%

Key Performance Indicators

Please click on any of the links in the table below to view PRUPIM’s property management performance against a range of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) during 2006.

Energy and Climate Change	Water Use	Waste
Health and Safety	Pollution	Own Office Impacts

Energy and Climate Change

Direct and indirect energy consumption broken down by primary source (whole portfolio) 2006

	Direct energy consumption broken down by primary source (kWh)		CO2 equivalent (tonnes)
Scope 1	Oil	2,964,475	741
	Gas oil	92,463,781	17,568
	Propane	28,407	6
	TOTAL	95,456,664	18,315
	Indirect energy consumption broken down by primary source (kWh)		CO2 equivalent (tonnes)
Scope 2	Electricity	154,853,721	66,587
	Climate Change Levy exempt electricity	51,688,736	0
	TOTAL	206,542,457	66,587

 
Data qualifying note:

(1) Direct energy consumption represents 92% coverage by number of properties (197 out of 215 properties with any form of energy supplied by the landlord).
(2) Indirect energy consumption represents 96% coverage by number of properties (194 out of 203 properties with indirect energy supplied to landlord controlled areas).

In 2006, 65% of PRUPIM’s CO₂ emissions were traceable to our ‘significant’ managed offices, with a further 13% arising from the shopping centre portfolio. Overall, therefore, 78% of our total portfolio CO₂ emissions come from just 16% of our managed properties (by number). This has significant implications for our approach to carbon management and reduction, and justifies why we are focusing our monitoring and targeting efforts on these properties.

Data qualifying note:

(1) The data contained within this chart represents 92% of PRUPIM’s managed portfolio (up from 80% in 2005). A number of properties were excluded on the grounds of missing or inaccurate data, mainly the result of estimated readings for gas and electricity which had not been adjusted for accruals in the TEAM database. Please note that the data that was presented in our 2005 CR Report has been restated here to account for data anomalies that were adjusted upon close interrogation of the data for the 2006 Sustainability Report.
(2) CO₂ calculations for energy use across the whole portfolio represented above exclude carbon dioxide emissions averted through the procurement of Climate Change Levy exempt energy sourced through the Scottish and Southern green electricity contract. In line with recommended good practice, we have chosen not to dismiss the CO₂ averted from this agreement, which accounts for some 26% of total emissions – or approximately 22,000 tonnes averted from brown energy.
(3) Total CO₂ emissions (tonnes) are calculated by converting reported energy use into kilograms of CO₂ using 2007 DEFRA recommended conversion factors (www.defra.gov.uk).

In both ‘significant’ managed offices and shopping centres, building carbon efficiency has worsened during 2006. The graph above includes emissions from all energy used including emissions that would otherwise be considered ‘zero’ due to Climate Change Levy exempt energy purchasing (in line with good practice reporting). The upward trend can be explained by increases in occupancy in several managed offices and adjustments to operations (such as longer opening hours) at a number of our shopping centres.
We are hopeful that as the TEAM database becomes fully operational across the managed portfolio, improved measurement and targeting coupled with continuous improvement demanded by IS0 14001 certification at many of these properties will result in more substantive reductions in energy use (and therefore CO₂ emissions).

Data qualifying note:

(1) Coverage of this data is all shopping centres and managed offices, except for 2005 data where coverage is 99%, calculated by Common Parts Area (CPA) landlord controlled area. Please note CPA is calculated by using the estimate of 10% of Gross internal area.
(2) All CO₂ calculations represented above include emissions averted through the procurement of Climate Change Levy exempt energy sourced through the Scottish and Southern green electricity contract. In line with recommended good practice, we have chosen not to dismiss the CO₂ averted from this agreement, which accounts for some 26% of total emissions – or approximately 22,000 tonnes averted from brown energy.

Water Use

Overall, total water use for the portfolio has fallen by approximately 3%. One of the reasons for this is that the quality of billing information has improved due to the TEAM database enabling a greater number of billing errors to be identified and subsequently rectified. This has occasionally led to a reduction in the overall water consumed for an individual property following previous over-estimates.

Data qualifying note:

(1) The 2006 data in this graph covers 123 out of 126 properties where water is supplied to landlord controlled areas. The 2005 data covers 121 out of 127 properties.

Normalised water efficiency also improved during 2006. In addition to more accurate billing (which has had a positive downward effect on water consumption for the whole portfolio), for ‘significant’ managed offices and shopping centres, ISO 14001 certification has increased awareness of water efficiency amongst property managers and users.

Data qualifying note:

(1) The data in this graph covers 100% of shopping centres and significant managed offices.

Waste

In 2006, our recycling rate averaged across all managed shopping centres was 24%, down from 32% in 2005. This reduction is largely associated with missing 2006 data for what were relatively high performing centres in terms of recycling in 2005. Nevertheless, there was also a general fall in recycling at several centres.
We will be working hard to ensure that recycling remains a priority through targeting associated with IS0 14001 certification at all our shopping centres. We are pleased to report that Grafton Centre, Cambridge and Manchester Arndale increased their recycling rates substantially, Manchester Arndale to nearly 43%. Mander Centre, Wolverhampton also maintained a very high recycling rate of 42%.

Data qualifying note:

(1) The data in this chart relates to 64% of the shopping centre portfolio for both 2005 and 2006.
(2) For ease of comparison those shopping centres sold during 2006 have been excluded in their entirety from both 2005 and 2006 data as we do not have access to the information. This relates to Kirkgate, Bradford, Arndale, Luton and The Belfry, Redhill. As a consequence, the 2005 data published in the 2005 CR Report has been restated here.
(3) Recycling also occurs at various properties where PRUPIM is not privy to the end data for a variety of reasons, most commonly due to local authority recycling which can not be accurately quantified, or recycling through a Materials Recovery Facility where again estimates are used. Therefore it should be assumed that the actual recycling rate for the portfolio is in fact higher than that shown. The following properties have been excluded from the chart above for these reasons: Borough Parade, Chippenham, Maylords, Hereford, Brunswick Centre, Scarborough and Waterside, Lincoln.
(4) It is important to note that shopping centres’ recycling rates can vary considerably depending on the extent of service provided to the tenants and trading conditions/seasonal variations.

During 2006 –for the first time - we were able formally to measure our waste recycling rate at a large proportion of our DTZ managed offices (all properties within this portfolio are ISO 14001 certified). We can report that a 22% recycling rate was achieved. In particular, 138-142 Holborn Bars and City Place House, London both achieved recycling rates of over 40% and Wimbledon Bridge House, London achieved a recycling rate of over 50%. According to Government figures, it should be possible to attain an overall recycling rate of between 60-70% (with efficient collection and recycling systems for paper, cardboard, glass, cans, and toner cartridges). We remain mindful of the opportunities that exist to improve recycling rates at managed properties, and the continuing ISO 14001 certifications at these properties should help in this regard, particularly in monitoring and targeting.

Data qualifying note:

(1) The scope of this data encompasses 81% of DTZ managed offices (26 properties). Six properties were excluded on the basis of poor or missing data. Data refers to waste from tenanted areas only.

Health and Safety

Deaths or major accidents at managed properties ('significant' managed offices and shopping centres)

Zero

In 2006, a total of 57 RIDDOR reportable accidents were recorded in the shopping centre portfolio, compared to 68 in the previous year. Of the 57 RIDDOR’s, 77% of these were categorised as ‘slips and trips’. The RIDDOR rate per million visitors therefore fell to 1:2.4 million, compared with 1:2.04 million in 2005. In the ‘significant’ managed office portfolio, we recorded one RIDDOR as a member of the public slipped on a pavement light which was on a public thoroughfare owned as part of a property.

Data qualifying note:
(1) These figures are compiled using PRUPIM’s annual accident statistics which are reported at the quarterly H&S Operations Committee (OPSCO).

Pollution

Own Office Impacts

Our building carbon efficiency at Princeton House improved by just over 11% to 85 kgCO2/m2, compared to 95 kgCO2/m2 in the previous year. Also worthy of note is the fact that our electricity consumption (in kWh) fell by almost 3%.

Data qualifying note:
(1) The 2005 data was revised to include CO2 emissions associated with oil consumption. As a result, building carbon efficiency has been revised upwards. Furthermore, we have not included gas consumption in Princeton House for 2005 and 2006 because we do not have the 2005 data (it also represents a very small fraction of our total energy consumption – in fact, just 8%).
(2) We have chosen to change the wording of this KPI to reflect the fact that it measures building carbon efficiency, as opposed to building energy efficiency.

Overall, water efficiency at Princeton House improved by just over 3% - from 58 litres / employee / day in 2005, to 56.4 litres / employee / day in 2006. This was achieved despite an 8.1% increase in absolute water consumption (during the same period our staff numbers also increased thereby increasing overall consumption). However, the efficiency gains were achieved by implementing various water efficiency measures, including the placement of water hippos in WC cisterns.

Data qualifying note:
(1) Water efficiency is calculated using CIRIA guidance (2006), ‘water key performance indicators and benchmarks for offices and hotels’.
(2) The numbers are derived by dividing the total water consumption (litres) for a year by the number of office employees and then by the number of working days in a year (253).
(3) During 2006, PRUPIM had 277 permanent office employees in addition to 50 employees from Ascent (an insurance company affiliated with PRUPIM)  which occupied the second floor of Princeton House. For this year’s calculation, we have also included Ascent employees who were located in Princeton House during both 2005 and 2006 (and therefore who were also consuming water). As a result of this inclusion, we have recalibrated the 2005 calculation.

Recycling rates at Princeton House continue to increase, to an average of 86% for the 12 months in 2006. This increase was achieved despite a change in the waste contractor employed at Princeton House at the beginning of the second quarter of 2006.

Data qualifying note:
(1) PRUPIM’s pre 2006 waste contractor underestimated Princeton House waste recycling rates. This was due to incorrect estimates in relation to the waste composition associated with a typical office rather than the typical profile of Princeton House. As a result, it is likely that 2005 data included in the 2005 CR Report was understated, although we have not restated it here as it is not possible to account for this underestimation.

During 2006, our total CO₂ emissions associated with business travel represented approximately 316 tonnes. With a portfolio as diverse and geographically far reaching as ours, it is sometimes difficult to avoid the need to travel – physically visiting a property is often an unavoidable necessity. During 2006, the relative proportion of travel by rail fell compared with previous years (with a marginal decrease in rail travel and marginal increase in car travel). However, the growth in the international portfolio was mirrored by a growth in air miles – from 44% in the previous year to 52%. This is of concern to us and we remain committed to finding ways in which we can reduce our environmental footprint by promoting green travel options where possible. The recent launch of a sustainable travel policy is the first step towards this.

Data qualifying note:
(1) CO₂ emissions associated with business travel are estimated using the National Energy Foundation CO₂ calculator. Certain assumptions sit behind the model so it does not provide a fully accurate account of travel related emissions, but is useful for indicative purposes. For instance, conversion of car miles is based on the carbon emissions typically associated with an average UK family car returning 29 miles per gallon. Aeroplane associated emissions are based upon short-haul (European) flights in economy class (but does not account for the global warming effect from other aircraft emissions in the upper atmosphere, such as ozone created from NOx or condensation trails).