In making the announcement, Managing Director and industry leader Alastair Walker said the global pandemic had given the company an opportunity to undertake a strategic review and to transition the leadership team.

“Last year when COVID took over our lives, we decided to catch up with many things that we hadn’t done because we were continuously busy. A major part of this was to look at our strategic and succession planning going forward across the group.

“After 14 years as MD of Napier & Blakeley, it’s time for a change, and so it is with great pleasure that I announce that Rob Howells will be taking over as our new MD going forward,” Walker said.

“Rob joined us in 2004 and has been National Director of our Transaction & Asset Advisory and Due Diligence group over that time, and has worked on many significant property deals for both local and international property investment clients.

“Rob is a natural change for us, as he knows N & B inside out, and he is very well known and regarded in both our domestic market and by a substantial number of global property investors operating here,” he added.

“He will be managing our strategic plan going forward and myself and Peter will be assisting Rob on his new journey and we will also remain on the N & B Board as Executive Directors.” Walker said.

Incoming Managing Director, Rob Howells said “I’m honoured and delighted to take on the role of Managing Director and thank Alastair, Peter, my fellow Directors for their confidence and continuous support.

“We’ve already achieved so much over our 36 years in business and I’m excited about our future, building on our success to date, and to be working directly on our strategic plan and all the benefits it will create for our clients, people and the industry,”

“Over many years, we’ve worked on hundreds of $billions of development and property investment projects from smaller ones to some of the largest property deals globally, managing both development and acquisition cost and risk for our clients.

“During the pandemic’s early stages, we obviously weren’t sure how things would go, but it’s a testament to our strong brand and market knowledge, that we were very busy again pretty well from April last year, and remain so now,” Howells said.

“We’ve been providing pragmatic and commercially orientated advice to local and international clients on cost and risk, since 1985, and are unique in that we have a substantial database of both commercial property assets and actual construction and development costs from our development risk work for development financiers.” Howells concluded.

The company has offices across Australia and Singapore and clients include including private equity real estate investors; family and sovereign, superannuation, pension funds; REITs; property developers, just to name a few.

Posted in the Australian Property Journal
Written by Nelson Yap
28 April 2021

Paul’s time at N & B has now formally come to an end and we would like to thank him and also acknowledge what a great asset he has been for Napier & Blakeley over that time.

As Paul often put it, he “put his body on the line” for N & B and we can say with total certainty that never a truer word was spoken, and he met a lot of friends and new clients along the way.

Our succession planning nationally is always ongoing, and the handover to our Queensland team has been exactly that for a number of years, and we are sure you have already dealt with many of our senior people in the Brisbane office.

Our Quantity Surveying team leaders are:

PAUL COSKER - Associate Director…	ADAM GREENE – Associate Director

.
Running our Transaction & Asset Advisory   and Due Diligence team is:	And our Property Depreciation and Insurance team is run by:
GAVIN PEACH – Associate Director	KY PIH – Associate

Between these four, there is over 70 years of service with N & B Queensland.

So it’s business as usual and we wish Paul every success and happiness in his future, and testament to him that we have this fantastic team in Brisbane to continue to assist you with your investments and developments going forward.

Please do not hesitate to call any of the people below to discuss your requirements: 

BRISBANE
Adam Greene, Associate Director  |  0409 724 395  |  agreene@napierblakeley.com
Paul Cosker, Associate Director  |  0434 400 107  |  pcosker@napierblakeley.com
Gavin Peach, Associate Director  |  0412 225 781  |  gpeach@napierblakeley.com
KY Pih, Associate  |  0408 933 660  |  kpih@napierblakeley.com

MELBOURNE
Peter Frith, Managing Director  |  0418 733 987  |  pfrith@napierblakeley.com
Craig Smith, Director |  0407 371 664  |  csmith@napierblakeley.com
Rob Howells, National Director |  0437 649 082  |  rhowells@napierblakeley.com
John Mathew, Director  |  0414 559 326  |  jmathew@napierblakeley.com 
Ian Gardner, Associate Director  |  0488 225 569  |  igardner@napierblakeley.com

SYDNEY
Alastair Walker,Managing Director  |  0419 503 289  |  awalker@napierblakeley.com
Peter Hammond, Director  |  0419 980 901  |  phammond@napierblakeley.com
Peter Osborn, Director  |  0439 765 571  |  posborn@napierblakeley.com
Brian Gavahan, Associate Director  |  0414 620 213  |  bgavahan@napierblakeley.com
Stephen Cooke, Associate Director  |  0409 228 552  |  scooke@napierblakeley.com

PERTH
Graham Rigby, Associate Director  |  0419 847 998  |  grigby@napierblakeley.com 
Jorden Morris, Quantity Surveyor  |  0457 001 545  |  jmorris@napierblakeley.com

 
will provide specialised advice in relation to the efficient operations and lifecycle management of building assets including the identification, development, facilitation and validation of sophisticated and innovative financial and engineering solutions designed to reduce operational costs, manage risk, improve yield and increase asset values.

The acquisition strengthens Napier & Blakeley’s existing position in its world class provision of property due diligence services as well of benchmarking buildings for energy efficiency, operational performance and future capital expenditure. It also sets Napier & Blakeley apart in the use of the unique IT based platform.

Napier & Blakeley Emancium will be closely integrated with the Napier & Blakeley business, but will trade as a separate entity within the group – as it comes with software developed to not just collect data on buildings, but also store it within a secure cloud based environment.

Once stored, our subscribing customers can access the data which can then be analysed and applied in many different ways. Importantly, the flexibility of the system allows for simple updating of information specific to a building. This enables the avoidance of the often used spread-sheet for data retention, which very quickly becomes out of date when multiple copies are distributed and used by various stakeholders.

One sweep of a building using the Emancium tool will enable the production of:

• Asset registers with photographic, location and bar-code identification 
• Energy and performance benchmarking for equipment and systems 
• Detailed tax depreciation reporting 
• Replacement cost assessments for insurance purposes 
• Detailed condition audit per item 
• Future capital expenditure forecasts – on an item and system basis 
• Current operating costs benchmarking 
• Benchmarking of a building from a tenancy attractiveness perspective 

With the data collected and stored, building owners can become subscribers to receive benchmark data on their building or portfolios, enabling the identification of business best practice and a pathway to drive continuous improvement. 

Napier & Blakeley itself, can then assist in the building’s evolutionary process with their quantity surveyors, project managers and building services engineers.

Emancium brings with it established relationships and existing contracts, including the development and facilitation of major building retrofits designed to improve NABERS ratings, specialised advisory roles for Building Management Systems and Integration and Measurement and Verification support for Energy Performance Contracts.

The founders of Emancium, Craig Ryan and Stuart Winton, will continue to lead the new entity as Executive Directors of Napier & Blakeley Emancium. Between them, they have over 50 years experience as leaders in the industry. Peter Frith and Alastair Walker will join Stuart and Craig as Non Executive Directors.

Refer also  www.emancium.com

Contact Craig Ryan or Stuart Winton as below :

Almost all focus in the report was applied to the option of pursuing renewable energy as a solution to our reliance on carbon based energy. This is fine for the longer term, but it ignores the commercial reality that a step by step approach is required and indeed will occur. 

Plainly, the process of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels must include the reduction in our overall demand for energy. Any decrease in demand for energy will also reduce Peak Demand. 

It is pleasing that the Federal Government’s announcements following the COAG meeting finally seem to be recognising this fact. But they still seem to be tinkering – one minute per hour less air-conditioning, is cute but not as effective as four less hours at the right times. 

Energy Efficiency is a huge key to achieving greenhouse targets. Energy Efficiency improvements in buildings can provide a quick, very predictable – and in some instances guaranteed – energy use saving. 

In the experience of Napier & Blakeley, energy use in an office building can be reduced by 40% – 50% via energy efficiency measures.  Each measure produces a positive return on investment, in many cases far better than the building owners’ so called “core business”. 

For example:

Office buildings are responsible for about 10% (1) of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. Thus a best – and plainly unlikely – outcome is that Australia’s collective energy use could be reduced by 5% overnight by the adoption of all energy efficiency improvement options.

 Plainly energy efficiency improvements in buildings should be a no-brainer environmentally and economically. 

But it’s not really happening. 

Whether decision makers can’t grasp the concept of spending money to save money, whether the energy costs are not considered material, whether CSR statements are simply that, statements, or whether there is too much confusion out there, it’s difficult to pin-point the reason why.

I suggest one reason for inaction on energy efficiency improvement is environmental fatigue caused by its constant political treatment and the uncertainties brought about by the myriad references around it.

We have VEET, ESC, M&V, GBCA, NABERS, BEEC, Green Star, Green Star Performance, LCAL, CEFC, Kyoto, Montreal, Copenhagen, signatories, non signatories, sceptics, carbon tax, DRM, Peak Demand, CTS, ETS, MWh, KWh, Energy Efficiency Opportunities Programme, Energy Efficiency Information Grants, Climate Change Commission, BREEAM, LEED, E3, MEPS, GEMS, GBF, EUA, EPC, EEC, Clean Energy Future, to name but a few.

Maybe another hindrance – as it appears from the recent Climate Commission Report – is that there are two camps? The first; the dull yet pragmatic supporters of energy efficiency measures and the other; the elite and well funded supporters of renewable energy?

I don’t for a moment suggest that we don’t pursue the development, or to not adopt, renewable energy options.

 Renewable energy can have less certainty and has far longer payback periods.

We see inexpert community groups pursuing the development of localised wind farms – although sometimes not too close to their own homes – perhaps for the benefit of being part of a community, rather than for economic or even environmental drivers, especially when considered against the energy efficiency improvement opportunities that no doubt lie dormant throughout their region.

Similarly, we see the power companies building renewable supplies, but some or perhaps all of this activity has been forced upon them by government regulation.

On the matter of the power companies, many query their push for their customers to use less power.

It is the reduction in PEAK DEMAND that the power companies pursue. A pursuit that we should all support.

Peak Demand relates to the eight or ten hours in the two or three hottest days of the year, when everyone cranks up their cooling. This tiny percentage of annual demand, requires 10%-20% of the power companies’ infrastructure.

Thus billions of dollars are invested for our collective comfort for a few short hours. Analysts suggest that the premium we all pay for this luxury is about 400 times the standard rate per MWh – although this is averaged across each one of our electricity accounts.

Perhaps Development Approvals should require a high rise to incorporate its own capacity to service its Peak Demand?

The introduction of ‘Time-of-Use’ metering would enable (i) the power companies to apply a more realistic price to these peak periods and (ii) consumers to reduce their energy consumption during these periods (in response to the high prices charged).

Over time, the requirement to carry under-utilised infrastructure will subside, enabling the gradual withdrawal of the requirement to subsidise the peak users and thus reduction in all others’ energy bills.

There does not appear to be the political will to allow the introduction of enabling metering in some of our States.

Coupled with statutory pricing mechanisms, we face the risk of more (short to medium term) superfluous infrastructure costs being passed on to us all.

There have been various Government programmes and grant moneys made available for energy efficiency improvements to existing buildings. However, they represent a bag mixed with expediency, cynicism and political targets, for example:

Green Building Fund, $120M directly supported energy efficiency in buildings, but went primarily to those at the front of the curve, who perhaps could afford to do the works themselves.

Low Carbon Communities, $330M seems to be a welfare handout disguised as environmentally driven grants.

$1B tax breaks for energy efficiency works. This large number was waved under our noses for some time and then claimed back by the Treasurer to balance his books. But the break was almost certain to NOT induce change in behaviour. The conditions and the time lags involved would have neutered its capacity to procreate.

It’s a similar story relating to the renewables sector but on a much grander – or perhaps cynical – scale, for example:

Carbon Tax; given the removal of much of the pain – via tax cuts and subsidies – required to induce change, this appears to be a redistribution of wealth disguised as environmentally driven ambition.

Clean Energy Finance Corporation; has been billed as $10B for driving the renewables sector. There is some talk of part of the finance to be speared into energy efficiency, but I am nor aware of any confirmation on this front.

Perhaps we should forget the acronyms and start from ground up now, to address Peak Demand by improving energy efficiency and give ourselves a better platform to consider the longer term options before us.

By Peter Frith, Joint Managing Director, Napier & Blakeley, Energy Efficiency Advocates.*
Published on the Property Review Website 13.12.12

Sources:  (1) Australian Government – Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency

Quantity Surveyors are the only construction cost trained professionals that can make sure your assets have the appropriate insurance replacement cost cover.

A Quantity Surveyors purpose is to predict and manage construction costs. They are specifically trained to do so and they don’t value, they don’t build, they don’t design, they don’t buy and sell property. They are independent and professional consultants.

So here’s a quick list of Property Reinstatement Cost Assessments do’s and don’ts :

Do’s:

• Make sure you’re not under or over insured
• Include all relevant costs in your insurance
• Estimate costs based on current market rates
• Escalate costs going forward appropriately
• Consider the time involved to demolish, re-plan and re-build
• Include costs for professional fees for re-design
• Consider cost not ‘value’
• Assume nothing, as risk is risk, and risk management is good
• Be nice to your family and friends when they ‘offer you construction advice’

Don’ts:

• Don’t forget to contact us to assist you

Napier & Blakeley’s Quantity Surveyors prepare reinstatement cost assessments for billions of dollars worth of properties every year, including many of the largest property portfolios and our knowledge and experience in this area is second to none.

So call us today to make sure your property insurance needs are covered.

Contacts

Development Advisory & Quantity Surveying
Peter Hammond – 02 9299 1899 – phammond@napierblakeley.com
Craig Smith – 03 9915 6300 – csmith@napierblakeley.com
Paul Cosker – 07 3221 8255 – pcosker@napierblakeley.com

Transaction & Asset Advisory
Rob Howells – 03 9915 6300 – rhowells@napierblakeley.com
Alastair Walker – 02 9299 1899 – awalker@napierblakeley.com
Gavin Peach - 02 9299 1899 – gpeach@napierblakeley.com

Property Depreciation
John Mathew – 03 9915 6300 – jmathew@napierblakeley.com
Peter Guerra – 02 9299 1899 – pguerra@napierblakeley.com
Peter Osborn – 02 9299 1899 – psoborn@napierblakeley.com

Sustainable Property Solutions
Peter Frith – 03 9915 6300 – pfrith@napierblakeley.com

The End of Financial Year has come and gone and the 31st October is lodgement day.  So there is less than 2 weeks to get your Depreciation Schedules in place.

We can assist you, guarantee you get maximum deductions and also be fully compliant with the A.T.O. as we are Registered Tax Practitioners.

Napier & Blakeley, the first Property Depreciation Company and still the best – just ask your Accountant.

Contacts

Call Napier & Blakeley today for assistance with your Tax Depreciation Schedule or any other Napier & Blakeley services at any of our offices below:

Property Depreciation & Insurance
John Mathew – 03 9915 6300 – jmathew@napierblakeley.com
Peter Guerra – 02 9299 1899 – pguerra@napierblakeley.com
Raymond Yen – 02 9299 1899 – ryen@napierblakeley.com
Paul Mazoletti – 07 3221 8255 – pmazoletti@napierblakeley.com

Transaction & Asset Advisory
Rob Howells – 03 9915 6300 – rhowells@napierblakeley.com
Alastair Walker – 02 9299 1899 – awalker@napierblakeley.com
Peter Osborn – 02 9299 1899 – posborn@napierblakeley.com

Sustainable Property Solutions
Peter Frith – 03 9915 6300 – pfrith@napierblakeley.com

Development Advisory & Quantity Surveying
Craig Smith – 03 9915 6300 – csmith@napierblakeley.com
Peter Hammond – 02 9299 1899 – phammond@napierblakeley.com
Paul Cosker – 07 3221 8255 – pcosker@napierblakeley.com

A leading Australian property group has strongly criticised federal government tax changes, arguing they have stopped international investors from putting their money into Australian property.

The government in the budget doubled the withholding tax rate for international managed investment trusts (MIT), from 7.5 per cent to 15 per cent. The measure has since been approved in the Senate, with a concession for new energy efficient buildings.

Peter Frith, managing director of property and development adviser, Napier & Blakeley, said the action, with no consultation or warning, was a huge mistake and was apparently based on misguided thinking.

”It not just flies in the face of the plan to make Australia the hub of finance in Asia, but the move suddenly places Australia on the list of countries with significant ‘sovereign risk’,” he said. ”As a result, Australia is no longer considered so transparent and predictable.”

His comments followed similar remarks last month by The Trust Company, a leading property and infrastructure custodian, that the action put Australia’s status as a prime investment destination in doubt.

Mr Frith said immediately after the budget, a $1 billion investment prospect was whipped off the table. ”Since then more than $1 billion appears to have gone cold,” he said.

”Napier & Blakeley believes it is in the interests of all of the property sector to ensure we fight for clarity and transparency and ask [Treasurer] Wayne Swan to keep his mitts off the MITs.”

Napier & Blakeley’s joint managing director, Alastair Walker, said the ”MIT debacle” was raised in every meeting he attended during a recent visit to Singapore to meet clients and property advisers.

Many had raised serious concerns about the transparency of the Australian investment landscape and were considering alternative investment destinations.

Mr Walker said that in the past few years, Napier & Blakeley had provided due diligence on more than $10 billion worth of property investment transactions.

The Trust Company has been responsible for more than 30 managed investment trusts with $5 billion of direct investment in Australia since the MIT legislation was introduced in 2008.

Andrew Cannane, The Trust Company’s head of corporate client services, told Business Day from Singapore that since the budget measure, there had been a hiatus as people held off.

”I don’t think investment in Australia will dry up, but we will see less investment via the MIT structure,” he said.

Research by Colliers International found that since the government cut the WHT rate to 7.5 per cent in 2007-08, foreign investment in Australian commercial property markets rose from $1.2 billion in 2008 to $5.5 billion last year.

Written by Philip Hopkins
Displayed on the following websites – June 30, 2012
Sydney Morning Herald
WA Today
Canberra Times
Brisbane Times
The Age

It’s got Richard Branson and his Carbon War Room and potentially billions of dollars of investment in the United States. Australia is also in on the act and Melbourne and Sydney are vying to be the first to market.

 It’s the race to roll out the first batch of energy efficiency retrofits for commercial buildings that pay for themselves through savings on the power bills, and use private investment funding repaid through local government rates.

 The City of Sydney has recently posted a draft template for what an environmental upgrade agreement template might look like and Parramatta and North Sydney councils are close behind. The NSW Office of Environment & Heritage has posted a set of guidelines for the state wide legislation that governs the agreements.

 Melbourne already has its guidelines for a program confined initially to its 1200 buildings program and could be close to the first deal involving a building of more than 40,000 and a retrofit worth between up to $14 million.

In Australia the agreements have been fostered using seed funding from Low Carbon Australia and private investment from NAB and Eureka Funds Management.

But the US is also steaming in this direction. In fact it started the trend.

According to news yesterday from The New York Times that had the Twittersphere working double time under the hash tag #green buildings, Richard Branson’s Carbon War Room has led a consortium for the first batch of commercial buildings awaiting the green light.

“The consortium is led by a company called Ygrene Energy Fund http://ygrene-energy.com/ of Santa Rosa, Calif., which has already won an exclusive contract to manage a retrofit program for a half-dozen communities in the Miami area, with the city expected to join in a few weeks. It is in the late stages of completing a contract with Sacramento, and is seeking deals in other cities,” the newspaper said.

• See a recent article on EUA on The Fifth Estate
• See The New York Times article
• See draft EUA at the City of Sydney site
• See guidelines for the agreements from the NSW Department of Environment & Heritage  

Essentially the concept in both countries is that energy efficiency upgrades for buildings are initially funded by private investment, and the investment recouped through council rate charges, but are cash flow positive for the tenant (at worst neutral) because of savings on the power bill.

The US was first to develop the idea and applied it initially to residential property, but this floundered because of complications associated with mortgage security issues. It could be a much smoother ride for commercial property.

In Australia, Melbourne developed its own version of the concept through its Melbourne 1200 program but industry sources say the legislation is onerous, requiring agreement of all tenants in a building.

The Sydney EUA template

In NSW, the legislation requires that tenants are no worse off but does not need tenant agreement.

According to Napier & Blakeley joint managing director Peter Frith there is considerable interest from some parties to get the EUAs finalised but in his opinion the draft template agreement released by the City of Sydney was “clunky” and could do with some shaping up.

“It would be useful if it was split slightly. The council and the financiers know it backwards but building owners will be coming fresh to it each time so a document that has more defined sections relevant to the building owner would be better.”

Mr Frith’s company recently launched a new operation, Verdigris Capital, to take advantage of the emerging opportunities offered through the initiative and kept a close eye on developments ever since. He was recently invited to review the documentation in Melbourne, to “offer a fresh set of eyes” he said.

His verdict?  The EUA draft document from the City of Sydney should be more workable than the final EUA document in Melbourne, Mr Frith said.

“Melbourne’s legislation is probably more difficult because it requires all the tenants to agree before an EUA is entered into. Whereas in Sydney tenants are protected in that they can’t be any worse off, but agreement is not required.”

Property interests in Melbourne are looking to have the legislation modified, Mr Frith said, but maybe after a trial period. “I think they might let it run its course and see if it’s as prohibitive as people say it is. But if they do some transactions they might leave it.

“If Sydney leaps ahead, you can assume Melbourne will water down some of the aspects.”

Mr Frith said he understood “the objective is to have the document in Sydney finalised by September/October.”

Mr Frith said Verigris was working on an agreement in Melbourne on a deal worth between $7 million and $15 million for a building of more than 40,000 square metres and he believed a handful of other deals are under way.

He said the industry was “keenly awaiting finalised documentation as as one potential mechanism around split incentives [where owners are reluctant to pay for upgrades that benefit tenants.]”

Larger institutional won’t be the early movers, said Mr Frith, but are likely to change their minds when they see that tenants can be cash flow positive from the start.

Written by Tina Perinotto
Displayed on The Fifth Estate – sustainable property news and forum – September 21, 2011