Projects can target the 19B Life Cycle Impacts Prescriptive Pathway under Green Star - Design & As Built and claim up to 7 points instead of 5 points by following this alternative pathway:

Life Cycle Impacts Prescriptive Pathway

19B.3.1 Building Reuse - Façade:

• 3 points are available where at least 90% (by area) of the existing building façade is retained

19B.3.2 Building Reuse - Structure:

• 3 points are available where at least 90% (by mass) of the existing major structure is retained

Additional Point:

Where 6 points are achieved via the above pathways, one additional point from any other 19B Life Cycle Impacts pathway may be targeted.

Documentation Requirements:

Please provide the following in your submission:

• Evidence to support the achievement of the alternative pathway
• All other documentation as per the submission guidelines
• A copy of this FAQ.

When there is are two adjacent Tertiary spaces, this criterion doesn’t apply to the wall between these spaces as tertiary spaces are not noise sensitive and do not have privacy concerns.

When a tertiary space is adjacent to either a Primary space or a Secondary space, the sound insulation requirement applies.

The intent of the criterion 'Localised Lighting Control' in Green Star - Design & As-Built is to provide occupants with the ability to control the lighting in their immediate environment. In an open plan/ activity-based working environment, for example, an office setting or educational facilities i.e. libraries, project teams may demonstrate compliance by providing different lighting zones across 95% of the nominated area. 

It is noted that the lighting zones should be designed to suit different tasks, for example: 

• Some areas may have soft lighting, such as areas with daylight during the nominated hours. 
• Some areas may have a high degree of lighting control, including turning the lights on and off and adjusting their light levels and; 
• Other areas where light is shone directly on the workstation. Where compliance is being demonstrated through varied lighting zones, project teams must demonstrate how all the regular occupants in the project have access to all the spaces provided. The localized lighting strategy should be complemented with a communication strategy, outlining how individual lighting control may be achieved by occupants by occupying different lighting zones. The project team may choose to use the tenant fit out guide to communicating this message. Where projects are delivered with cold shell spaces or where the scope of the rating is base building, project teams can demonstrate compliance by installing a DALI system within the base building which can be utilised by the tenant to deliver localised lighting control.

Exceeding Green Star Benchmarks – Mattresses.  The Emission criteria for bedding listed in the table for Total VOC Emission limits reads 0.22mg/m, this should instead read 0.22mg/m3. In addition, Green Star recognises that the GECA standard ‘Furniture, Fittings, Foam & Mattresses Level A’ aligns with the stated limits for the Mattress Innovation credit. 

Unlike Australia, the New Zealand WELS scheme does not issue WELS certificates nor provide a registry of fittings. Instead, the only compulsory part of the NZ scheme is that suppliers of fittings must provide a WELS label at point of sale. Some NZ fittings do, however, carry certificates because they are sold in the Australian market.

For the above reason we will accept supplier/manufacturer literature or packaging/photos of packaging showing the WELS rating label. It is not necessary to provide a certificate.

After extensive consultation with the New Zealand waste management industry the New Zealand Green Star Construction and Demolition Waste Reporting Criteria, or Reporting Criteria is released.

All waste operators and waste processing facilities associated with Green Star projects pursuing the C and D waste credit in Design and As Built and Interiors NZ tools must be issued a Compliance Verification Summary which shows they are in compliance with the Reporting Criteria document.

NZGBC has heard projects have stated they could not find Auditors to conduct the associated audits required for the Reporting Criteria. At the time of this TQ there are at least four organisations which have shown they have personnel which fulfil the Auditor Qualifications in this document. In the interest of ensuring projects can find suitable auditors this list will be shared. NZGBC will NOT ensure this list is kept up to date. It is the responsibility of the project to ensure the Auditor is suitably qualified as per the Reporting Criteria document.

Organisation: Toitu Envirocare -- Chris Bailey chris.bailey@toitu.co.nz

Organisation: Tonkin and Taylor -- Hannah Kelly hkelly@tonkintaylor.co.nz

Organisation: ESG Audit Ltd. -- Anna D’Arcy anna@esgaudit.co.nz

Organistion: Sunshine Yates Consulting -- Sunshine Yates sunshine@sunshineyatesconsulting.co.nz

The Green Star Team has seen an increasing number of poor submissions resulting in increased assessor time and longer turn-around times for projects.

Credits will only be reviewed by Assessors where the project team submits the following as per the Submission requirements checklist:

• Evidence referenced accurately - Highlighted and marked up documents with direct answers demonstrating compliance with the credit criteria.
• Consistency – The submission makes sense as a whole, i.e. occupancy numbers and area of the building are consistent across the whole submission. 
• Explain clearly in the Submission Template how the project is meeting the intent of the credit – use discussion boxes at Round 1 and Round 2.
• Specific – Evidence should be project-specific, or where generic they should contain a reference to how the project will address the Submission Guidelines.
• Reports and specification – After the cover page and contents page, only include the relevant pages of reports and specifications. I.E., do not include the entire XYZ document; only include the relevant pages for the credit.

If Assessors find the above inconsistencies during review, the credit will not be reviewed and will result in Not Awarded points. At the Post Round One (or Two) Comments, the project will not be able to instruct the Assessor where the information was provided if the above protocol was not followed.

Here are some extra guidelines for better Green Star documentation:

• Even though credit templates may allow hyperlinks to be included, we encourage you to NOT use any hyperlinks in the submission as they sometimes break after the submission is shared between GSAPs, NZGBC, and Assessors, and they may also incur issues on cybersecurity if they are linked to a cloud server. 
• We encourage you to provide all the evidence in PDFs (except calculators), and each credit should stand on its own with the associated documents. Previous assessments have shown the disadvantage of cross-referencing documents in submissions.

We encourage GSAP’s to follow the best practice Green Star Submissions document, and watch the “How to prepare a good Green Star submission” video, both of which are available on our website. You can also find an exemplar on how to reference supporting documentation in our Submission Guidelines.

For commercial washing machines and dishwashers, manufacturers data shall be submitted instead of a WELS rating. Note that other commercial kitchen equipment that use taps (i.e. Kitchen sinks) shall demonstrate compliance via on site flow testing if a WELS rating is not available.

The C and D Waste Reporting Criteria requires Waste Contractors to provide weigh bridge receipts as part of the audit to receive the Compliance Verification Summary. The C and D Waste Reporting Criteria does not require Reprocessing Facilities to be audited or to have a weigh bridge (please see the C and D Waste Reporting Criteria definition section for further clarification of these terms). Waste contractors transporting C and D waste to reprocessing facilities which do not have weigh bridges can provide alternative methods proving the load from the construction site goes directly to the reprocessing facility. One way of proving this can be a GPS track of the waste contractor vehicle from the construction site to the reprocessing facility, such as E Road. A Waste Contractor taking material to a Waste Processing Facility will require weigh bridge receipts as per the C and D Reporting Criteria.

The DAB v1.1 LCA Calculator Guide presents 2 options to demonstrate LCA report quality assurance.

The LCA study and LCA report must comply with quality assurance requirements by meeting one of the following two options:

• Option A: The report is produced by an LCA Certified Practitioner, subject to organisational quality assurance, which has been certified in accordance with ISO 9001.

• Option B: The report is produced by an Experienced Individual and is peer reviewed by an LCA Certified Practitioner.

These options are also acceptable for DABv1.0 projects, meaning a report prepared by a Certified Practitioner does not require a “small fitouts”.