[XLS]Valudation tool - C2C BIZZ · Web viewOpex Savings Lists 1 OWNER OCCUPIER TENANT INVESTOR...
Transcript of [XLS]Valudation tool - C2C BIZZ · Web viewOpex Savings Lists 1 OWNER OCCUPIER TENANT INVESTOR...
Valuation Tool - C2C Investment Appraisal T“Can C2C on business sites add value to your business, environment and society?”This tool has been developed by the Architecture and Built Environment School of the University of Wolverhampton and other EU partner institutions with funding from INTERREG IVB North-West Europe. The C2C Investment Appraisal Tool provides a simple framework that allows the user to broadly assess the added value of integrating Cradle to Cradle (C2C) on C2C inspired buildings and business sites. Cradle to Cradle here is an innovative design and development philosophy that targets not just minimization of negative ecological footprints, but creation of a positive ecological footprint through smart and intelligent designs. Its core principles are: i) waste is food; ii) use current solar income; and iii) integrate diversity.
The C2C Investment Appraisal Tool forms part of a toolkit that seeks to address: i) availability and infusion of funds; ii) financial feasibility and viability of C2C in business sites; and iii) proper allocation of available funds.
The toolkit comprises:
● A User Guide that provides details of what the toolkit is for and the methodology underpinning it. It also outlines some of the critical issues and evidence bases that have informed the development of this tool. Case studies are included to illustrate the practical application of the toolkit. The user guide also discusses the strengths and limitations of the Toolkit and highlights areas where further research or development work is needed.
● A C2C Investment Appraisal Tool, consisting of a set of individual spreadsheet-based tools to assess the value of C2C buildings or sites for a range of potential stakeholders.
● A C2C Value Indexing Tool designed to collate empirical data from users of C2C inspired buildings or sites as the stock of such buildings and sites grows. The tool is based on pairwise comparison analytical technique. It enables key C2C elements of the site and buildings to be compared in pairs with the view to judging which is regarded more important or most valuable to the user. It thus works out and then ranks the relative importance of each building or site element and then on the basis of that determines the value.
Using the C2C Investment Appraisal Tool:
● Specify the characteristics of the site and nature of the transactions undertaken on the 'Attributes of site' worksheet.
● The 'Data sheet' is then used to collect parameters required to calculate cost and benefits that derive from integration of C2C defined elements
● Adjust parameters on the remaining (Investment Appraisal) sheets which summarise the added value and business case for a range of stakeholders and evaluate results. These sheets set out the NPV, IRR, and Profitability Index resulting from the combination of defined elements integrated into the building or site. Undertake sensitivity checks.
● It should be noted that in some cases, the added value cannot yet be monetised (further research required) and therefore needs to be articulated in qualitative terms.
For further information on C2C in Business Parks, visit http://www.c2cbizz.com or contact Dr Nii A. Ankrah at [email protected]
No Warranty:We make no representations or warranties of any kind whatsoever (express or implied) regarding the content of this document, or its suitability or fitness for any purpose.
Exclusion of Liability:You agree that we will not be responsible for any loss, damage, costs or expense you or anyone else incurs in reliance on or use of any information contained in this document.
Valuation Tool - C2C Investment Appraisal TCan C2C on business sites add value to your business, environment
and society?”This tool has been developed by the Architecture and Built Environment School of the University of Wolverhampton and other EU partner institutions with funding from INTERREG IVB North-West Europe. The C2C Investment Appraisal Tool provides a simple framework that allows the user to broadly assess the added value of integrating Cradle to Cradle (C2C) on C2C inspired buildings and business sites. Cradle to Cradle here is an innovative design and development philosophy that targets not just minimization of negative ecological footprints, but creation of a positive ecological footprint through smart and intelligent designs. Its core principles are: i) waste is food; ii) use current solar income; and iii) integrate diversity.
The C2C Investment Appraisal Tool forms part of a toolkit that seeks to address: i) availability and infusion of funds; ii) financial feasibility and viability of C2C in business sites; and iii) proper allocation of available funds.
The toolkit comprises:
● A User Guide that provides details of what the toolkit is for and the methodology underpinning it. It also outlines some of the critical issues and evidence bases that have informed the development of this tool. Case studies are included to illustrate the practical application of the toolkit. The user guide also discusses the strengths and limitations of the Toolkit and highlights areas where further research or development work is needed.
● A C2C Investment Appraisal Tool, consisting of a set of individual spreadsheet-based tools to assess the value of C2C buildings or sites for a range of potential stakeholders.
● A C2C Value Indexing Tool designed to collate empirical data from users of C2C inspired buildings or sites as the stock of such buildings and sites grows. The tool is based on pairwise comparison analytical technique. It enables key C2C elements of the site and buildings to be compared in pairs with the view to judging which is regarded more important or most valuable to the user. It thus works out and then ranks the relative importance of each building or site element and then on the basis of that determines the value.
Light grey cells indicate user input is requiredGrey cells are for calculation purposes and should not be altered
Using the C2C Investment Appraisal Tool:
● Specify the characteristics of the site and nature of the transactions undertaken on the 'Attributes of site' worksheet.
● The 'Data sheet' is then used to collect parameters required to calculate cost and benefits that derive from integration of C2C defined elements
● Adjust parameters on the remaining (Investment Appraisal) sheets which summarise the added value and business case for a range of stakeholders and evaluate results. These sheets set out the NPV, IRR, and Profitability Index resulting from the combination of defined elements integrated into the building or site. Undertake sensitivity checks.
● It should be noted that in some cases, the added value cannot yet be monetised (further research required) and therefore needs to be articulated in qualitative terms.
For further information on C2C in Business Parks, visit http://www.c2cbizz.com or contact Dr Nii A. Ankrah at [email protected]
No Warranty:We make no representations or warranties of any kind whatsoever (express or implied) regarding the content of this document, or its suitability or fitness for any purpose.
Exclusion of Liability:You agree that we will not be responsible for any loss, damage, costs or expense you or anyone else incurs in reliance on or use of any information contained in this document.
ATTRIBUTES OF SITE
Kindly provide details of the development as requested below
Land area (Ha):
Location of the property:
Building footprint area (m2):
Gross internal area (m2):
Property type & user:
Type of tenure:
Length of tenure if leasehold (years):
Type of transaction:
Sale price (€):
Rent/sqm p.a. (€):
Transaction date:
Time to let/sell (years):
Occupancy rate (%):
Rent-free period (years):
Rent review period (years):
Sale price of comparable non-C2C developments (€):
Rent/sqm p.a. of comparable non-C2C developments (€):
Time to let/sell comparable non-C2C developments (months):
Occupancy rate of comparable non-C2C developments (%):
Kindly provide details of the development as requested below
1
1000
6000
Choose from list
Choose from list
10
Choose from list
€ 10,000,000.00
€ 200.00
0.00
90%
0.00
3
€ 9,500,000.00
€ 150.00
DATA SHEET Light grey cells indicate user input is required
Grey cells are for calculation purposes and should not be altered
Item Data Unit
Exchange Rate € 1.22 £ 1.00
Investment term 10 years
Inflation rate 1.5%
Cap rate 8%
Discount rate 3.5%
Retail Price Index (RPI) 2%
Cost of capital 6%
4800 m2
Roof area 1000 m2
Average weekly hours 34 hrs
Average yearly hours 1768 hrs
Average weekly salaries £ 614.00 £/week
Average weekly salaries € 749.08
Average hourly salaries £ 13.13 £/hour
Average hourly salaries € 16.02 €/hour
Number of employees occupying facility 432 nr
Design life of property 60 years
€/year
OR
€ 14,560,653.31 €/year
Operational (usable) floor area in the property (80% GIA)
€/week
Total annual salary of workforce in the property (most current financial year on company account)
Total annual salary of workforce in the property based on annual average earnings in the UK (€)
Employee turnover rate (%) 20%
GP consultation cost per minute (€) € 3.75
12.00 minutes
Average prescription costs/ year (€) € 461,880,630.59
52,000,000 nr
€ 53.88 €/visit
Analysis of Working Days
Days in the year 365 days
Weekend days 104 days
Country specific public holidays 8 days
Annual holidays 20 days
Total number of working days 233 days
Medical cost for minor work-related ailments
Average length of time per consultation (minutes)
Average number of prescriptions per annum
Total cost per visit for minor ailments (incldg. Prescription)
Light grey cells indicate user input is required
Grey cells are for calculation purposes and should not be altered
Data Source
Assumed wages rising at rate of inflation
Based on Green Book. Amend as necessary.
UK HM Treasury
Based on Planning Parameters in Spon's Architects' & Builders' Price Book
Based on footprint area
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/search/index.html?newquery=hours+worked. Amend as necessary
Based on UK. ONS data.
Based on UK. ONS data.
Assuming 10m2 for one workstation
Based on UK ONS data.
CIPD Annual Survey Report: Recruitment Retention and Turnover 2007
http://www.pagb.co.uk/information/PDFs/AndyTismanarticle.pdf
http://www.pagb.co.uk/information/PDFs/AndyTismanarticle.pdf
http://www.pagb.co.uk/information/PDFs/AndyTismanarticle.pdf
http://www.pagb.co.uk/information/PDFs/AndyTismanarticle.pdf
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/wide-variations-in-eu-holiday-entitlements---uk-amongst-lowest-154599925.html
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/wide-variations-in-eu-holiday-entitlements---uk-amongst-lowest-154599925.html
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/wide-variations-in-eu-holiday-entitlements---uk-amongst-lowest-154599925.html
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/wide-variations-in-eu-holiday-entitlements---uk-amongst-lowest-154599925.html
C2C PRINCIPLE Present on site
Yes
C2C Defined Element
Everything is a nutrient
Leasing agreements are incorporated whereby suppliers of components and other service providers take back their products at end of their service life.
Choose from list
No
Everything is a nutrient
Clean material separability
Health enriching materials
No
Yes
Everything is a nutrient
Environment enriching materials
There are facilities such as bio-digesters that treat and recycle waste water on-site.
Choose from list
Everything is a nutrient
Water Protection Elements
No
Yes
Everything is a nutrient
Infrastructure to facilitate raw material exchanges amongst businesses, joint use of transport, utility and technical/business advisory services.
Use current solar income
Features are integrated into the development to generate renewable energy e.g. wind turbines, geothermal and solar.
Yes
Use current solar income
Smart utility sub-meters and building management systems are installed to monitor energy usage, on-site generation and any feed-in surplus.
No
Integrate diversity
Yes
Use current solar income
Natural lighting is integrated with innovative artificial lighting using sensors that detect changes in natural lighting conditions.
The development integrates indoor plants, vegetative walls, algae tanks, bio-coated surfaces and furnishings to metabolize air pollutants.
Integrate diversity
Yes
Yes
The development integrates indoor plants, vegetative walls, algae tanks, bio-coated surfaces and furnishings to metabolize air pollutants.
Indoor and outdoor features are integrated into development to create habitat for plant, animal or insect species.
Integrate diversity
NoArchitectural Design Diversity
Integrate diversity
NoLand Use Design Diversity
C2C COSTDetails of Feature Parameter Sourced data
Light Leasing
Contract period 10
€ 0.01
Lighting level (lux) 500
Cost/sqm/month € 2.50
6%
Annual payments (uniform series)
PV
Less
Conventional system
€ 64.96
Total € 389,760.00
Annualised cost
C2C premium
Total
Cost/sqm/lux/month1,2
WACC (supplier)1
Installation (cost/m2)3
Data Sources + Assumptions
1. Philips presentation - http://www.dakofa.dk/NogH/Dokumenter/Phillips%20Lighting%20Leasing%20System.pdf
2. Including energy consumption
3. Spon's A&B Price Book
4. Assume 2080 hours p.a., 10Watt/sqm, 10.25 ct/ KWh (Based on 1.)
5. Kat G. H. (2003) Green Building Costs and Financial Benefits, Massachusetts Technology Collaborative. (Productivity gains of up to 7.1% from better lighting control. Conservative figure of 1% used here)
6. Hughes, Ancell, Hirst and Gruneberg (no date) EXPOSING THE MYTH OF THE 1:5:200 RATIO RELATING INITIAL COST, MAINTENANCE AND STAFFING COSTS OF OFFICE BUILDINGS
Total
Data Sources + Assumptions
Total
Data Sources + Assumptions
Total
Data Sources + Assumptions
Helophyte filter5
Number of users 432
Waste water/user/day (ltrs) 20
Amount of waste water available (ltrs/day) 8640
57.6
Space required (m2) 288
€ 457.14
Capital cost
Space required m2/IE1
Amount of waste water pollution (IE)1
Cost/IE21
Operating costs/year
Energy consumption
cost/IE € 1.00
Personnel costs
hrs/week 0.5
days/year 233
cost/hour € 16.02
Maintenance (% of investment) 0.5%
Total operating cost/year
€/year
Total
Data Sources + Assumptions
1. RE: Resident’s equivalent or a measure of wastewater pollution 1 IE is consistent with a theoretical volume of 150 litres per day and a daily load of 90 g Suspended Matter (SM), 135 g Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), 60g Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), 10 g nitrogen (N) and 2 g phosphorus (P)
2. Installation included
3. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-07/german-water-charges-second-highest-in-europe-handelsblatt-says.html
4. Assume 90% of waste water recovered
5. https://www.realestate.bnpparibas.com/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-03/eom_2012_web.pdf
6. http://poliswaterproject.org/sites/default/files/maas_ghg_.pdf
7. http://www.carbontrust.com/media/18223/ctl153_conversion_factors.pdf
8, Waldbaum, H. (2008) Green roofs for urban agriculture, unpublished MSc thesis, University of East London (Some cities offer up to 80% reduced sewage rates)
http://www.emis.vito.be/node/22504
Total
Data Sources + Assumptions
Total
Data Sources + Assumptions
PV
Area available (m2) 400
8
Site potential (KW) 50
KWh/year for 1 KWp 850
Correction factor for sub-optimal performance 95%
Power generated KWh/year 40375
£ 3,500.00
Approximate area per kW (m2)1
Installation cost/KW1
Installation cost/KW
Installation cost
Maintenance 0.20%
Maintenance cost/year
Maintenance cost/year
Total
Data Sources + Assumptions
1.http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/content/download/2278/57162/version/7/file/Solar_Guide_P1.pdf&sa=U&ei=r1B1U4uDBIOAOPrpgYAG&ved=0CEsQFjAI&usg=AFQjCNFrfpx0QkhpgzMk4p6BS5MlWc-S7w
2. http://www.directsolar.co.uk/4kw-solar-system/
3. http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Energy-Saving-Trust/Our-calculations (assume gas)
Smart metersTotal
Maintenance 1%
Total
Smart meter1
Ancillary equipment (Communication - GPRS/3G)1
Data Sources + Assumptions
1. Ecopark presentation (VAT included)
2. Data from elctricity records
4. Assumed as 10.25 cts/KWh
Daylight integration
Total
Data Sources + Assumptions
€ 450.00
Length required (m) (assumed) 236.64
Cost
3. http://www.joneslanglasalle.com/GSP/en-gb/Pages/Global-Property-Sustainability-Perspective-Sustainable-Buildings.aspx gives range of 2-3% for reduction in energy consumption due to behaviour change
C2C Certified Cradlevent textile ventilation vent
Average cost of CradleVent textile ventilation duct per metre incld. Installation6 (€)
€ 2,500.00
Cost
less conventional system?
Total
Data Sources + Assumptions
1. Dapaah et al. (2010) Indoor Air Quality and Office Property Value, JOSRE, 2 (1), 91-115.
2. Kat G. H. (2003) Green Building Costs and Financial Benefits, Massachusetts Technology Collaborative.
3. Assuming 1% less employee turnover due to IAQ improvements
4. ONS
5. Fitz-enz J. (2009) ROI of Human Capital
Green roofs
Roof area (m2) 1000
180.00
Installation cost
Installation cost
C2C Certified Cradlevent textile ventilation vent
Laundry costs of cleaning textile ductwork (€) (average cost/yr)
Cost of air cleansing plant (€)
Rate (including maintenance)6 £/m2
Total
Data Sources + Assumptions
1. Well insulated - H.F. Castletona, V. Stovin, S.B.M. Beck, J.B. Davison (2010) Green roofs; building energy savings and the potential for retrofit, Energy and Buildings, 42.
2.http://www.cstc.be/homepage/download.cfm?dtype=research&doc=H8_De_Cuyper_Standardized_method_for_measuring_the_attenuating_effect_of_green_roofs_on_storm_water_discharge.pdf&lang=en
3.http://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/info/510/allotments/833/allotment_fees
4. Waldbaum (2008) [€8 - 25/m2]
5. Based on STW framework (http://www.stwater.co.uk/upload/pdf/Scheme_of_charges_web.pdf)
Total
Data Sources + Assumptions
Total
Data Sources + Assumptions
TOTAL
C2C COSTCapex Opex
€ 180,000.00
€ 1,324,815.67
€ 46,865.28
€ 133,134.72
€ - € 133,134.72
Data Sources + Assumptions
1. Philips presentation - http://www.dakofa.dk/NogH/Dokumenter/Phillips%20Lighting%20Leasing%20System.pdf
2. Including energy consumption
3. Spon's A&B Price Book
4. Assume 2080 hours p.a., 10Watt/sqm, 10.25 ct/ KWh (Based on 1.)
5. Kat G. H. (2003) Green Building Costs and Financial Benefits, Massachusetts Technology Collaborative. (Productivity gains of up to 7.1% from better lighting control. Conservative figure of 1% used here)
6. Hughes, Ancell, Hirst and Gruneberg (no date) EXPOSING THE MYTH OF THE 1:5:200 RATIO RELATING INITIAL COST, MAINTENANCE AND STAFFING COSTS OF OFFICE BUILDINGS
€ - € -
Data Sources + Assumptions
€ - € -
Data Sources + Assumptions
€ - € -
Data Sources + Assumptions
€ 26,331.43
€ 57.60
€ 373.23
€ 131.66
€ 562.49
€ 562.49
€ 26,331.43 € 562.49
Data Sources + Assumptions
1. RE: Resident’s equivalent or a measure of wastewater pollution 1 IE is consistent with a theoretical volume of 150 litres per day and a daily load of 90 g Suspended Matter (SM), 135 g Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), 60g Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), 10 g nitrogen (N) and 2 g phosphorus (P)
2. Installation included
3. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-07/german-water-charges-second-highest-in-europe-handelsblatt-says.html
4. Assume 90% of waste water recovered
5. https://www.realestate.bnpparibas.com/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-03/eom_2012_web.pdf
6. http://poliswaterproject.org/sites/default/files/maas_ghg_.pdf
7. http://www.carbontrust.com/media/18223/ctl153_conversion_factors.pdf
8, Waldbaum, H. (2008) Green roofs for urban agriculture, unpublished MSc thesis, University of East London (Some cities offer up to 80% reduced sewage rates)
€ - € -
Data Sources + Assumptions
€ - € -
Data Sources + Assumptions
€ 4,270.00
€ 213,500.00
€ 427.00
€ 427.00
€ 213,500.00 € 427.00
Data Sources + Assumptions
1.http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/content/download/2278/57162/version/7/file/Solar_Guide_P1.pdf&sa=U&ei=r1B1U4uDBIOAOPrpgYAG&ved=0CEsQFjAI&usg=AFQjCNFrfpx0QkhpgzMk4p6BS5MlWc-S7w
2. http://www.directsolar.co.uk/4kw-solar-system/
3. http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Energy-Saving-Trust/Our-calculations (assume gas)
€ 8,475.05
€ 1,440.00
€ 9,915.05
€ 9,915.05 € 99.15
€ 9,915.05 € 99.15
Data Sources + Assumptions
1. Ecopark presentation (VAT included)
2. Data from elctricity records
4. Assumed as 10.25 cts/KWh
€ - € -
Data Sources + Assumptions
assumed
€ 106,489.44
3. http://www.joneslanglasalle.com/GSP/en-gb/Pages/Global-Property-Sustainability-Perspective-Sustainable-Buildings.aspx gives range of 2-3% for reduction in energy consumption due to behaviour change
assumed
€ 2,500.00
€ 106,489.44 € 2,500.00
Data Sources + Assumptions
1. Dapaah et al. (2010) Indoor Air Quality and Office Property Value, JOSRE, 2 (1), 91-115.
2. Kat G. H. (2003) Green Building Costs and Financial Benefits, Massachusetts Technology Collaborative.
3. Assuming 1% less employee turnover due to IAQ improvements
4. ONS
5. Fitz-enz J. (2009) ROI of Human Capital
€ 219,600.00
€ 219,600.00 € -
Data Sources + Assumptions
1. Well insulated - H.F. Castletona, V. Stovin, S.B.M. Beck, J.B. Davison (2010) Green roofs; building energy savings and the potential for retrofit, Energy and Buildings, 42.
2.http://www.cstc.be/homepage/download.cfm?dtype=research&doc=H8_De_Cuyper_Standardized_method_for_measuring_the_attenuating_effect_of_green_roofs_on_storm_water_discharge.pdf&lang=en
3.http://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/info/510/allotments/833/allotment_fees
4. Waldbaum (2008) [€8 - 25/m2]
5. Based on STW framework (http://www.stwater.co.uk/upload/pdf/Scheme_of_charges_web.pdf)
€ - € -
Data Sources + Assumptions
€ - € -
Data Sources + Assumptions
€ 575,835.92 € 136,723.37
VALUE ADDEDCriteria Type of value
Hard
Maintenance/sqm/anum
Maintenance/year
Insurance savings Hard
Reduced capital cost of development
Allowance for inflation
Savings on insurance/year
Savings in energy costs Hard
Energy/year
hard
Productivity gains (hrs/year)
Productivity gain (€/year)
Total
Savings generated from leasing equipment and systems
Installation (cost/m2)3
Maintenance6
Energy/m2/anum4
Productivity improvement from optimised lighting
Productivity gains5
Data Sources + Assumptions
1. Philips presentation - http://www.dakofa.dk/NogH/Dokumenter/Phillips%20Lighting%20Leasing%20System.pdf
2. Including energy consumption
3. Spon's A&B Price Book
4. Assume 2080 hours p.a., 10Watt/sqm, 10.25 ct/ KWh (Based on 1.)
5. Kat G. H. (2003) Green Building Costs and Financial Benefits, Massachusetts Technology Collaborative. (Productivity gains of up to 7.1% from better lighting control. Conservative figure of 1% used here)
6. Hughes, Ancell, Hirst and Gruneberg (no date) EXPOSING THE MYTH OF THE 1:5:200 RATIO RELATING INITIAL COST, MAINTENANCE AND STAFFING COSTS OF OFFICE BUILDINGS
Total
Data Sources + Assumptions
Total
Data Sources + Assumptions
Total
Data Sources + Assumptions
Savings in water costs hard
Number of days development in use
Annual savings
Annual savings /m2
Water saved (ltrs/day)4
Rate /m33
Total
Data Sources + Assumptions
1. RE: Resident’s equivalent or a measure of wastewater pollution 1 IE is consistent with a theoretical volume of 150 litres per day and a daily load of 90 g Suspended Matter (SM), 135 g Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), 60g Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), 10 g nitrogen (N) and 2 g phosphorus (P)
2. Installation included
3. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-07/german-water-charges-second-highest-in-europe-handelsblatt-says.html
4. Assume 90% of waste water recovered
5. https://www.realestate.bnpparibas.com/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-03/eom_2012_web.pdf
6. http://poliswaterproject.org/sites/default/files/maas_ghg_.pdf
7. http://www.carbontrust.com/media/18223/ctl153_conversion_factors.pdf
8, Waldbaum, H. (2008) Green roofs for urban agriculture, unpublished MSc thesis, University of East London (Some cities offer up to 80% reduced sewage rates)
Total
Data Sources + Assumptions
Total
Data Sources + Assumptions
hard
Generation tariff (€/kWh)
Income/year
Income/year
hard
Export tariff
Improved access to subsidies & grants for innovation
Generation tariff (£/kWh)2
Selling excess C2C-defined renewable energy to grid
Export tariff
Income/year
Income/year
Savings in energy costs Hard
Reduction in consumption
Tarrif (£)
Tarrif (€)
Energy bill savings/year
Energy bill savings/year
Total
Data Sources + Assumptions
1.http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/content/download/2278/57162/version/7/file/Solar_Guide_P1.pdf&sa=U&ei=r1B1U4uDBIOAOPrpgYAG&ved=0CEsQFjAI&usg=AFQjCNFrfpx0QkhpgzMk4p6BS5MlWc-S7w
2. http://www.directsolar.co.uk/4kw-solar-system/
3. http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Energy-Saving-Trust/Our-calculations (assume gas)
Savings in energy costs Hard
Energy reduction (KWh)
Annual saving
Total
% exported2
Annual energy consumption (GWh)2
Behaviour change3
Tarrif4
Data Sources + Assumptions
1. Ecopark presentation (VAT included)
2. Data from elctricity records
4. Assumed as 10.25 cts/KWh
Total
Data Sources + Assumptions
hard
Proportion linked to IAQ in work environment
3. http://www.joneslanglasalle.com/GSP/en-gb/Pages/Global-Property-Sustainability-Perspective-Sustainable-Buildings.aspx gives range of 2-3% for reduction in energy consumption due to behaviour change
Absenteeism improvements due to improved indoor air quality (IAQ) Total number of absenteeism days per employee
linked to poor IAQ4
Annual savings
Total
hard
Annual benefit
Total
hard
Staff retention/attraction benefits from IAQ
Total
Data Sources + Assumptions
1. Dapaah et al. (2010) Indoor Air Quality and Office Property Value, JOSRE, 2 (1), 91-115.
2. Kat G. H. (2003) Green Building Costs and Financial Benefits, Massachusetts Technology Collaborative.
3. Assuming 1% less employee turnover due to IAQ improvements
4. ONS
5. Fitz-enz J. (2009) ROI of Human Capital
hard
Annual savings (KWh)
Annual savings
Savings/year
Productivity improvements due to improved indoor air quality (IAQ)
Productivity benefits2 (%)
Staff retention/attraction improvements
Staff retention/attraction improvement3
Estimation of total cost of turnover (termination, replacement and learning curve productivity losses)5 (€)
Savings in energy costs (cooling effect)
Energy savings1
hard
Proportion of site covered (assumed)
Chargeable area m2 (A)
Select appropriate band for A (C )
Select appropriate band for B (D )
savings/yr (C - D)
Savings/year
Data Sources + Assumptions
1. Well insulated - H.F. Castletona, V. Stovin, S.B.M. Beck, J.B. Davison (2010) Green roofs; building energy savings and the potential for retrofit, Energy and Buildings, 42.
2.http://www.cstc.be/homepage/download.cfm?dtype=research&doc=H8_De_Cuyper_Standardized_method_for_measuring_the_attenuating_effect_of_green_roofs_on_storm_water_discharge.pdf&lang=en
3.http://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/info/510/allotments/833/allotment_fees
4. Waldbaum (2008) [€8 - 25/m2]
5. Based on STW framework (http://www.stwater.co.uk/upload/pdf/Scheme_of_charges_web.pdf)
Discounts from reduced stress on public drainage systems5
less excluded cultivated area (green roof) (B)
Total
Data Sources + Assumptions
Total
Data Sources + Assumptions
TOTAL
VALUE ADDEDSourced data Productivity benefits
Capital savings
€ 64.96
40%
€ 1.30
€ 7,795.20
Capital savings
€ 389,760.00
3%
€ 14,502.97
€ 14,502.97
Capital savings
€ 2.13
€ 12,792.00
1%
7637.76
€ 122,346.22
€ 35,090.17 € 122,346.22
Occupational Cost Savings
Data Sources + Assumptions
1. Philips presentation - http://www.dakofa.dk/NogH/Dokumenter/Phillips%20Lighting%20Leasing%20System.pdf
2. Including energy consumption
3. Spon's A&B Price Book
4. Assume 2080 hours p.a., 10Watt/sqm, 10.25 ct/ KWh (Based on 1.)
5. Kat G. H. (2003) Green Building Costs and Financial Benefits, Massachusetts Technology Collaborative. (Productivity gains of up to 7.1% from better lighting control. Conservative figure of 1% used here)
6. Hughes, Ancell, Hirst and Gruneberg (no date) EXPOSING THE MYTH OF THE 1:5:200 RATIO RELATING INITIAL COST, MAINTENANCE AND STAFFING COSTS OF OFFICE BUILDINGS
€ - € -
Data Sources + Assumptions
€ - € -
Data Sources + Assumptions
€ - € -
Data Sources + Assumptions
Capital savings
7776
€ 5.34
220
€ 9,135.24
€ 9,135.24
€ 9,135.24 € -
Data Sources + Assumptions
1. RE: Resident’s equivalent or a measure of wastewater pollution 1 IE is consistent with a theoretical volume of 150 litres per day and a daily load of 90 g Suspended Matter (SM), 135 g Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), 60g Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), 10 g nitrogen (N) and 2 g phosphorus (P)
2. Installation included
3. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-07/german-water-charges-second-highest-in-europe-handelsblatt-says.html
4. Assume 90% of waste water recovered
5. https://www.realestate.bnpparibas.com/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-03/eom_2012_web.pdf
6. http://poliswaterproject.org/sites/default/files/maas_ghg_.pdf
7. http://www.carbontrust.com/media/18223/ctl153_conversion_factors.pdf
8, Waldbaum, H. (2008) Green roofs for urban agriculture, unpublished MSc thesis, University of East London (Some cities offer up to 80% reduced sewage rates)
€ - € -
Data Sources + Assumptions
€ - € -
Data Sources + Assumptions
Revenue
£ 0.17
€ 0.21
€ 8,373.78
€ 8,373.78
Revenue
£ 0.05
€ 0.06
50%
€ 1,142.77
€ 1,142.77
Capital savings
20187.5
£ 0.04
€ 0.05
€ 1,036.87
€ 1,036.87
€ 10,553.42 € -
Data Sources + Assumptions
1.http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/content/download/2278/57162/version/7/file/Solar_Guide_P1.pdf&sa=U&ei=r1B1U4uDBIOAOPrpgYAG&ved=0CEsQFjAI&usg=AFQjCNFrfpx0QkhpgzMk4p6BS5MlWc-S7w
2. http://www.directsolar.co.uk/4kw-solar-system/
3. http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Energy-Saving-Trust/Our-calculations (assume gas)
6.32727272727273
2%
126545.454545455
€ 0.10
€ 12,970.91
€ 12,970.91 € -
Data Sources + Assumptions
1. Ecopark presentation (VAT included)
2. Data from elctricity records
4. Assumed as 10.25 cts/KWh
€ - € -
Data Sources + Assumptions
Capital savings
0.235579188261426
20%
€ 2,944.37
€ 2,944.37
Capital savings
1%
€ 145,606.53
€ 145,606.53
1%
€ 1,456,065.33
€ 14,560.65
€ 14,560.65
€ - € 163,111.55
Data Sources + Assumptions
1. Dapaah et al. (2010) Indoor Air Quality and Office Property Value, JOSRE, 2 (1), 91-115.
2. Kat G. H. (2003) Green Building Costs and Financial Benefits, Massachusetts Technology Collaborative.
3. Assuming 1% less employee turnover due to IAQ improvements
4. ONS
5. Fitz-enz J. (2009) ROI of Human Capital
Capital savings
2%
126545.45
€ 12,970.91
€ 12,970.91
Capital savings
40%
4000.00
3000.00
4000 - 7499
2000 - 3999
€ 1,831.04
€ 1,831.04
Total € 14,801.95 € -
Data Sources + Assumptions
1. Well insulated - H.F. Castletona, V. Stovin, S.B.M. Beck, J.B. Davison (2010) Green roofs; building energy savings and the potential for retrofit, Energy and Buildings, 42.
2.http://www.cstc.be/homepage/download.cfm?dtype=research&doc=H8_De_Cuyper_Standardized_method_for_measuring_the_attenuating_effect_of_green_roofs_on_storm_water_discharge.pdf&lang=en
3.http://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/info/510/allotments/833/allotment_fees
4. Waldbaum (2008) [€8 - 25/m2]
5. Based on STW framework (http://www.stwater.co.uk/upload/pdf/Scheme_of_charges_web.pdf)
€ - € -
Data Sources + Assumptions
€ - € -
Data Sources + Assumptions
€ 82,551.69 € 285,457.78
VALUE ADDED
€ -
Other revenues and savings
Data Sources + Assumptions
1. Philips presentation - http://www.dakofa.dk/NogH/Dokumenter/Phillips%20Lighting%20Leasing%20System.pdf
2. Including energy consumption
3. Spon's A&B Price Book
4. Assume 2080 hours p.a., 10Watt/sqm, 10.25 ct/ KWh (Based on 1.)
5. Kat G. H. (2003) Green Building Costs and Financial Benefits, Massachusetts Technology Collaborative. (Productivity gains of up to 7.1% from better lighting control. Conservative figure of 1% used here)
6. Hughes, Ancell, Hirst and Gruneberg (no date) EXPOSING THE MYTH OF THE 1:5:200 RATIO RELATING INITIAL COST, MAINTENANCE AND STAFFING COSTS OF OFFICE BUILDINGS
€ -
Data Sources + Assumptions
€ -
Data Sources + Assumptions
€ -
Data Sources + Assumptions
€ -
Data Sources + Assumptions
1. RE: Resident’s equivalent or a measure of wastewater pollution 1 IE is consistent with a theoretical volume of 150 litres per day and a daily load of 90 g Suspended Matter (SM), 135 g Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), 60g Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), 10 g nitrogen (N) and 2 g phosphorus (P)
2. Installation included
3. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-07/german-water-charges-second-highest-in-europe-handelsblatt-says.html
4. Assume 90% of waste water recovered
5. https://www.realestate.bnpparibas.com/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-03/eom_2012_web.pdf
6. http://poliswaterproject.org/sites/default/files/maas_ghg_.pdf
7. http://www.carbontrust.com/media/18223/ctl153_conversion_factors.pdf
8, Waldbaum, H. (2008) Green roofs for urban agriculture, unpublished MSc thesis, University of East London (Some cities offer up to 80% reduced sewage rates)
€ -
Data Sources + Assumptions
€ -
Data Sources + Assumptions
€ -
Data Sources + Assumptions
1.http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/content/download/2278/57162/version/7/file/Solar_Guide_P1.pdf&sa=U&ei=r1B1U4uDBIOAOPrpgYAG&ved=0CEsQFjAI&usg=AFQjCNFrfpx0QkhpgzMk4p6BS5MlWc-S7w
2. http://www.directsolar.co.uk/4kw-solar-system/
3. http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Energy-Saving-Trust/Our-calculations (assume gas)
€ -
Data Sources + Assumptions
1. Ecopark presentation (VAT included)
2. Data from elctricity records
4. Assumed as 10.25 cts/KWh
€ -
Data Sources + Assumptions
€ -
Data Sources + Assumptions
1. Dapaah et al. (2010) Indoor Air Quality and Office Property Value, JOSRE, 2 (1), 91-115.
2. Kat G. H. (2003) Green Building Costs and Financial Benefits, Massachusetts Technology Collaborative.
3. Assuming 1% less employee turnover due to IAQ improvements
4. ONS
5. Fitz-enz J. (2009) ROI of Human Capital
€ -
Data Sources + Assumptions
1. Well insulated - H.F. Castletona, V. Stovin, S.B.M. Beck, J.B. Davison (2010) Green roofs; building energy savings and the potential for retrofit, Energy and Buildings, 42.
2.http://www.cstc.be/homepage/download.cfm?dtype=research&doc=H8_De_Cuyper_Standardized_method_for_measuring_the_attenuating_effect_of_green_roofs_on_storm_water_discharge.pdf&lang=en
3.http://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/info/510/allotments/833/allotment_fees
4. Waldbaum (2008) [€8 - 25/m2]
5. Based on STW framework (http://www.stwater.co.uk/upload/pdf/Scheme_of_charges_web.pdf)
€ -
Data Sources + Assumptions
€ -
Data Sources + Assumptions
€ -
INVESTMENT APPRAISALMarket conditions: Market is not yet responsive to C2C
Tenant behaviour: Potential tenants unlikely to want to pay more than they would to occupy conventional premises (i.e tenants have fixed b
Implications: Tenant will only bid more if operational costs can be shown to be reduced
Developer will achieve increased rent only based on operational cost savings
Business case will rest entirely on operational cost savings achieved by C2C integration
Non-C2C
Tota
l Cos
t of O
ccup
atio
n
βΔO
ΔB
Business case:Added value from C2C integration
Cost of integrating C2C features
O1
R1
VC2C - CC2C
VC2C =
CC2C =
Savings in Operating costs (ΔO) € 52,791.69
100%
Yield 8%
€ 285,457.78
0%
Increase in budget (ΔB) = μ x ΔP € -
Increase in rent (ΔR) = β x ΔO € 52,791.69
ΔR x (1/yield) € 659,896.15
Time to let (years) 0.0
Rent-free period 0.0
Rent review (year) 3
Rent adjustment factor 3%
Innovation risk factor (r) 0%
€ 575,835.92
€ 136,723.37
€ 575,835.92
Cost of capital (C) € 455,398.51
€ 2,168,308.70
Business case:-€ 1,508,412.55
Return on Investment (ROI) -70%
DCF Calculations Year
0 1 2
Expenditure
VC2C Calculations
Proportion of Opex savings reflected in effective rent (β)
Productivity benefits, new revenues, brand value, etc. (ΔP)Proportion of ΔP reflected in budget increase where market is responsive (μ)
VC2C =
CC2C CalculationsCapex (ΔC1)
Annual/maintenance cost for year 1 (ΔC2)
CC2C =
CC2C = ΔC1 + Σ(₁,n;i)ΔC2 + C
VC2C - CC2C
VC2C - CC2C
Capex € 575,835.92
Annual costs € 136,723.37 € 138,774.22
Cost of capital € 43,687.50 € 46,308.75
€ 575,835.92 € 180,410.86 € 185,082.96
Value
Increased rent € 52,791.69 € 52,791.69
Rent review adjustment € - € -
€ - € 52,791.69 € 52,791.69
NET INCOME -€ 575,835.92 -€ 127,619.17 -€ 132,291.27
PVs -€ 575,835.92 -€ 123,303.54 -€ 123,495.32
Business case:Net Present Value (NPV) -€ 1,810,972.65
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Err:523
Profitability Index (PI) 0.21
Total Expenditure (CC2C)
Total Value (VC2C)
Potential tenants unlikely to want to pay more than they would to occupy conventional premises (i.e tenants have fixed b
Tenant will only bid more if operational costs can be shown to be reduced
Developer will achieve increased rent only based on operational cost savings
Business case will rest entirely on operational cost savings achieved by C2C integration
C2C
ΔO € 52,791.69
€ -
Added value from C2C integration
O2
R2 R1
*
Increase in capital value of property
*
Capitalised cost of integrating C2C
Year
3 4 5 6 7 8
€ 140,855.83 € 142,968.67 € 145,113.20 € 147,289.89 € 149,499.24 € 151,741.73
€ 49,087.27 € 52,032.51 € 55,154.46 € 58,463.72 € 61,971.55 € 65,689.84
€ 189,943.10 € 195,001.17 € 200,267.65 € 205,753.62 € 211,470.79 € 217,431.57
€ 52,791.69 € 52,791.69 € 52,791.69 € 52,791.69 € 52,791.69 € 52,791.69
€ - € 1,583.75 € 1,583.75 € 1,583.75 € 1,583.75 € 1,583.75
€ 52,791.69 € 54,375.44 € 54,375.44 € 54,375.44 € 54,375.44 € 54,375.44
-€ 137,151.41 -€ 140,625.73 -€ 145,892.21 -€ 151,378.18 -€ 157,095.35 -€ 163,056.13
-€ 123,702.71 -€ 122,547.20 -€ 122,837.33 -€ 123,146.24 -€ 123,475.52 -€ 123,826.71
Year Discounted Totals
9 10
€ 575,835.92
€ 154,017.86 € 156,328.13 € 1,211,852.85
€ 69,631.23 € 73,809.10 € 471,065.88
€ 223,649.09 € 230,137.23 € 2,258,754.65
€ 52,791.69 € 52,791.69 € 439,047.67
€ 1,583.75 € 1,583.75 € 8,734.34
€ -
€ 54,375.44 € 54,375.44 € 447,782.00
-€ 169,273.65 -€ 175,761.79
-€ 124,201.32 -€ 124,600.84 -€ 1,810,972.65
INVESTMENT APPRAISALMarket conditions: Market is not yet responsive to
Investor behaviour: Potential investor unlikely to bid more than they would for a conventional premises
Tenant behaviour: Tenant will only pay higher rent based on operational costs achieved
Implications: Investor will achieve increased return only based on an increase in effective rent arising from operational cost savings
Business case will rest entirely on increase in effective rent achieved from operational cost savings achieved by C2C integration
Assumption: Covenant strength not affected
Non-C2C
Tota
l inv
este
d x
yiel
d
I
Business case:Added value from C2C integration
Tota
l inv
este
d x
yiel
d
VC2C - CC2C
VC2C =
Cost of integrating C2C features
CalculationsOperational cost savings (ΔO) € 52,791.69
100% *
Yield 8%
€ 285,457.78
20%
Increase in tenant's budget (ΔB) = μΔP € 57,091.56
Increase in rent (ΔR) = β x ΔO € 109,883.25
ΔR x (1/yield) € 1,373,540.59 Increase in value of property
Time to let (years) 0.0
Rent-free period 0.0
Rent review (year) 3
Rent adjustment factor 3%
Rent growth 3.5%
Innovation risk factor (r) 0%
C2C premium € 500,000.00
Investor's innovation risk perception 2%
Insurance risk 1%
€ 136,723.37
Cost of capital (C) € 395,423.85
ΔI € 2,027,398.12 C2C investment premium
Business case:-€ 653,857.53
Return on Investment (ROI) -32%
Year
CC2C =
Proportion of Opex savings reflected in effective rent (β)
Productivity benefits, new revenues, brand value, etc. (ΔP)Proportion of ΔP reflected in rent increase where market is responsive (μ)
VC2C =
CC2C Calculations
Annual/maintenance cost for year 1 (ΔC2)
CC2C =
VC2C - CC2C
VC2C - CC2C
Expenditure 0 1 2 3
Capex € 500,000.00
Annual costs € 136,723.37 € 138,774.22 € 140,855.83
Cost of capital € 37,933.98 € 40,210.02 € 42,622.62
€ 500,000.00 € 174,657.34 € 178,984.23 € 183,478.45
Value
Increased rent € 109,883.25 € 109,883.25 € 109,883.25
Rent review adjustment € - € - € -
€ - € 109,883.25 € 109,883.25 € 109,883.25
NET INCOME -€ 500,000.00 -€ 64,774.10 -€ 69,100.99 -€ 73,595.20
PVs -€ 500,000.00 -€ 62,583.67 -€ 64,506.51 -€ 66,378.65
Business case:Net Present Value (NPV) -€ 1,188,845.04
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Err:523
Profitability Index (PI) 0.46
Total Expenditure (CC2C)
Total Value (VC2C)
Potential investor unlikely to bid more than they would for a conventional premises
Tenant will only pay higher rent based on operational costs achieved
Investor will achieve increased return only based on an increase in effective rent arising from operational cost savings
Business case will rest entirely on increase in effective rent achieved from operational cost savings achieved by C2C integration
C2C Rent collected
ΔO € 52,791.69
I
ΔI*yield € 162,191.85 ΔP € 57,091.56
O2
R1
Increase in value of property
C2C investment premium
Year
4 5 6 7 8 9
€ 142,968.67 € 145,113.20 € 147,289.89 € 149,499.24 € 151,741.73 € 154,017.86
€ 45,179.98 € 47,890.77 € 50,764.22 € 53,810.07 € 57,038.68 € 60,461.00
€ 188,148.64 € 193,003.97 € 198,054.12 € 203,309.32 € 208,780.41 € 214,478.86
€ 109,883.25 € 109,883.25 € 109,883.25 € 109,883.25 € 109,883.25 € 109,883.25
€ 3,296.50 € 3,296.50 € 3,296.50 € 3,296.50 € 3,296.50 € 3,296.50
€ 113,179.74 € 113,179.74 € 113,179.74 € 113,179.74 € 113,179.74 € 113,179.74
-€ 74,968.90 -€ 79,824.23 -€ 84,874.37 -€ 90,129.57 -€ 95,600.67 -€ 101,299.11
-€ 65,331.06 -€ 67,209.86 -€ 69,045.36 -€ 70,841.03 -€ 72,600.25 -€ 74,326.30
Year Discounted Totals
10
€ 500,000.00
€ 156,328.13 € 1,211,852.85
€ 64,088.66 € 409,027.87
€ 220,416.79 € 2,120,880.72
€ 109,883.25 € 913,855.60
€ 3,296.50 € 18,180.08
€ -
€ 113,179.74 € 932,035.68
-€ 107,237.04
-€ 76,022.36 -€ 1,188,845.04
INVESTMENT APPRAISALMarket conditions: Market is not yet responsive to C2C
Tenant behaviour: Potential tenants unlikely to want to pay more than they would to occupy conventional premises (i.e tenants have fixed budget for premises)
Implications: Tenant will only bid more if operational costs can be shown to be reduced
Business case will rest entirely on operational cost savings achieved by C2C integration
Non-C2C
Tota
l Cos
t of O
ccup
atio
n (1-β)ΔO
βΔO
μΔP
(1-μ)ΔP
Business case:Added value from C2C integration
Cost of integrating C2C features
O1
R1
VC2C - CC2C
VC2C =
CC2C =
Savings in Operating costs (ΔO) € 52,791.69
0%
Yield 8%
Operational savings accruing to tenant (1-β)ΔO € 52,791.69
€ 285,457.78
0%
Productivity benefits accruing to tenant(1-μ)ΔP € 285,457.78
Tenant savings (ΔS) = (1-β)ΔO + (1-μ) € 348,396.95
€ 2,897,479.94
Time to let (years) 0.0
Rent-free period 0.0
Rent review (year) 3
Rent adjustment factor 3%
Innovation risk factor (r) 3%
C2C premium € 300,000.00
€ 2,494,981.60
Business case: € 402,498.34
Return on Investment (ROI) 16%
DCF Calculations Year
Expenditure 0 1 2
Increased rent € 300,000.00 € 300,000.00
Rent review adjustment € - € -
€ - € 300,000.00 € 300,000.00
Value
VC2C Calculations
Proportion of Opex savings reflected in effective rent (β)
Productivity benefits, new revenues, brand value, etc. (ΔP)Proportion of ΔP reflected in budget increase where market is responsive (μ)
VC2C =
CC2C Calculations
CC2C =
VC2C - CC2C
VC2C - CC2C
Total Expenditure (CC2C)
Annual savings accruing to tenant € 348,396.95 € 348,396.95
Interest on savings € 25,084.58
€ - € 373,481.53 € 348,396.95
NET INCOME € - € 73,481.53 € 48,396.95
PVs € - € 70,996.65 € 45,179.07
Business case:Net Present Value (NPV) € 377,099.94
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) Err:523
Profitability Index (PI) 1.15
Total Value (VC2C)
Potential tenants unlikely to want to pay more than they would to occupy conventional premises (i.e tenants have fixed budget for premises)
Tenant will only bid more if operational costs can be shown to be reduced
Business case will rest entirely on operational cost savings achieved by C2C integration
C2C
ΔO € 52,791.69
ΔP € 285,457.78
Added value from C2C integration
O2
R2 R1
*
Present Value
*
Present Value
Year
3 4 5 6 7 8
€ 300,000.00 € 300,000.00 € 300,000.00 € 300,000.00 € 300,000.00 € 300,000.00
€ - € 9,000.00 € 9,000.00 € 9,000.00 € 9,000.00 € 9,000.00
€ 300,000.00 € 309,000.00 € 309,000.00 € 309,000.00 € 309,000.00 € 309,000.00
€ 348,396.95 € 348,396.95 € 348,396.95 € 348,396.95 € 348,396.95 € 348,396.95
€ 348,396.95 € 348,396.95 € 348,396.95 € 348,396.95 € 348,396.95 € 348,396.95
€ 48,396.95 € 39,396.95 € 39,396.95 € 39,396.95 € 39,396.95 € 39,396.95
€ 43,651.28 € 34,332.17 € 33,171.18 € 32,049.45 € 30,965.65 € 29,918.50
Year Discounted Totals
9 10
€ 300,000.00 € 300,000.00 € 2,494,981.60
€ 9,000.00 € 9,000.00 € 49,634.72
€ -
€ 309,000.00 € 309,000.00 € 2,544,616.31
€ 348,396.95 € 348,396.95 € 2,897,479.94
€ 24,236.31
€ -
€ 348,396.95 € 348,396.95 € 2,921,716.25
€ 39,396.95 € 39,396.95
€ 28,906.76 € 27,929.24 € 377,099.94
INVESTMENT APPRAISALMarket conditions: Property market influence on owner occupier behaviour is limited or non-existent
Owner Occupier behaviour: Not driven by profit motive
Inspired by C2C vision and keen to experiment on C2C to realise the benefits it offers
Implications: Extent of implementation of C2C only limited by the budget available
The budget may be bigger, equal, or even less than that required for comparable non-C2C development
Business case is based on the operational cost savings plus productivity benefits, brand value, etc. achieved by C2C integration
Non-C2C
Tota
l bud
get
Tota
l bud
get
B
Business case:Added value from C2C integration
Cost of integrating C2C features
VC2C - CC2C
VC2C =
CC2C =
CalculationsOperational cost savings (ΔO) € 52,791.69
Productivity benefits, etc. (ΔP) € 285,457.78
Other revenues and savings (ΔR) € -
ΔO + ΔP + ΔR € 338,249.47 Added value per anum
€ 2,813,087.32 PV
Innovation risk factor (r) 1%
€ 575,835.92
€ 136,723.37
Cost of capital (C) € 455,398.51
€ 2,146,625.61 C2C investment premium
Business case: € 666,461.71
Return on Investment (ROI) 31%
Year
Expenditure 0 1 2 3
Capex € 575,835.92
Annual costs € 136,723.37 € 138,774.22 € 140,855.83
Cost of capital € 43,687.50 € 46,308.75 € 49,087.27
€ 575,835.92 € 180,410.86 € 185,082.96 € 189,943.10
Value
Operational cost savings (ΔO) € 52,791.69 € 52,791.69 € 52,791.69
Productivity benefits, etc. (ΔP) € 285,457.78 € 285,457.78 € 285,457.78
Other revenues and savings (ΔR) € - € - € -
Total added value (VC2C) =
CC2C CalculationsCapex (ΔB1)
Annual/maintenance cost for year 1 (ΔB2)
Total cost (CC2C) = ΔB1 + Σ(₁,n;i)ΔB2 + C
VC2C - CC2C
VC2C - CC2C
Total Expenditure (CC2C)
€ - € 338,249.47 € 338,249.47 € 338,249.47
NET INCOME -€ 575,835.92 € 157,838.61 € 153,166.51 € 148,306.37
PVs -€ 575,835.92 € 152,501.07 € 142,982.57 € 133,763.85
Business case:Net Present Value (NPV) € 554,332.67
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) 17%
Profitability Index (PI) 1.29
Total Value (VC2C)
Property market influence on owner occupier behaviour is limited or non-existent
Inspired by C2C vision and keen to experiment on C2C to realise the benefits it offers
Extent of implementation of C2C only limited by the budget available
The budget may be bigger, equal, or even less than that required for comparable non-C2C development
Business case is based on the operational cost savings plus productivity benefits, brand value, etc. achieved by C2C integration
C2C Added value
Savings in operating costs ΔO € 52,791.69
B
Other revenues and savings ΔR € -
€ 575,835.92 ΔP € 285,457.78 Productivity improvements
€ 136,723.37
ΔB1
ΔB2
Added value per anum
C2C investment premium
Year
4 5 6 7 8 9
€ 142,968.67 € 145,113.20 € 147,289.89 € 149,499.24 € 151,741.73 € 154,017.86
€ 52,032.51 € 55,154.46 € 58,463.72 € 61,971.55 € 65,689.84 € 69,631.23
€ 195,001.17 € 200,267.65 € 205,753.62 € 211,470.79 € 217,431.57 € 223,649.09
€ 52,791.69 € 52,791.69 € 52,791.69 € 52,791.69 € 52,791.69 € 52,791.69
€ 285,457.78 € 285,457.78 € 285,457.78 € 285,457.78 € 285,457.78 € 285,457.78
€ - € - € - € - € - € -
€ 338,249.47 € 338,249.47 € 338,249.47 € 338,249.47 € 338,249.47 € 338,249.47
€ 143,248.29 € 137,981.81 € 132,495.85 € 126,778.68 € 120,817.90 € 114,600.38
€ 124,832.61 € 116,176.98 € 107,785.46 € 99,646.89 € 91,750.51 € 84,085.85
Year
10 Discounted Totals
€ 575,835.92
€ 156,328.13 € 1,211,852.85
€ 73,809.10 € 471,065.88
€ 230,137.23 € 2,258,754.65
€ 52,791.69 € 439,047.67
€ 285,457.78 € 2,374,039.65
€ - € -
€ 338,249.47 € 2,813,087.32
€ 108,112.24
€ 76,642.80 € 554,332.67