In our first Annual Review in 2007 we identified a flaw in the ODA sustainability strategy and recommended that they develop a policy for environmentally sensitive materials such as refrigerants in cooling systems. This recommendation was accepted but the ODA failed to act on it in time for design contracts to be let. Had they done, so much of the cost of re-design could have been avoided.

When the issue of the cooling system in the Aquatic Centre was discussed at Olympic Board, the ODA offered the case presented by Kirsten – that this was a very expensive way to mitigate a small amount of greenhouse gas. We do not deny this, but we encouraged the Olympic Board to consider the wider consequences. London 2012 promised to set new standards of sustainability. Major corporations such as Sainsbury’s and Coca Cola are investing heavily to remove HFCs. There is general acknowledgement that HFCs are outdated technology and they are already being phased out from common uses such as domestic refrigeration and car air conditioning systems. We advised the Olympic Board that London 2012 would be failing in this objective if this situation was not corrected. Having set such high ambitions, we believed that the ODA and other delivery bodies must set an example for others to follow.

The Olympic Board accepted our advice and instructed the ODA to replace the cooling medium and to find savings from the project to offset any additional cost. The net cost to the public purse was zero.

With respect to the Aquatic Centre, in Paragraph 9.13 of our 2010 Annual Review we have recognised the excellent effort of the Aquatic Centre teams to improve the environmental impact of the building.

£1million to save the carbon equivalent of an average UK family household doesn’t seem like a use of public money worth shouting about.

As with all decisions on sustainability we have to seek those opportunities which deliver real value for money rather than throwing hard earned cash at appeasing a politcal agenda.

If you want to understand the difference just compare the development and learning around sustainability between the two Venues design teams and contractors.

Hopkins and Expedition, have clearly shown that they ‘get’ sustainability and did 5 years ago when the Velodrome design process started. Meanwhile, 7 years ago, when the Aquatics concept came into fruition Zaha Hadid architects were all about awe-inspiring architecture – and they certainly haven’t failed us there.

But in the process of working on the Olympics, Zaha Hadid’s architects have pioneered sustainable concrete design and use, found innovative solutions to tackle issues associated with limited supplies of FSC certified timber…and more.

Meanwhile the Aquatics contractors, Balfour Beatty, also had to up their game to deliver against the challenging sustainability targets, presented with a design that was not initally borne out of sustainability.

Balfour Beatty have turned their procurement processes upside down to excel in sustainable construction. Engaging early with their supply chain to innovate, integrating sustainability into every step of procurement and sub-contract award, recognising the value of rail transportation for material deliveries, I could go on.

Perhaps most importantly, the UK’s largest construction firm has developed a visionary corporate strategy that utilises the success of the Aquatics Centre to engage and inspire their whole organisation. The potential impact is far more significant and further reaching than a single Venue.

By all means CSL, highlight the shortfalls. We must recognise our failings to improve. But please, be a bit more insightful about what the Olympics is about. The Aquatics Centre as the bogey man on the Park is tiring, and not at all reflective of the transformational change it has driven across the construction sector. Nor does it credit those that have worked tirelessly over the last 6 years to engage every level of the organisations involved to deliver lasting change.