Is it my imagination or has the passion of COP26 cooled?
Of course, other priorities – from selecting a new Prime Minister, to trying to manage the hike in energy prices and cost-of-living crisis, as well as navigating interest rates at home and wrestling with the Ukraine issue abroad - have pushed this issue off the top of the Government’s agenda. However, The Climate Change Committee (the Government’s official advisors) recently described the Government’s current achievements of reducing climate warming emissions as “shocking”.
As a member of the built environment community, for me the ‘carbon issue’ is far greater than home insulation, carbon offsetting and tub-thumping commitments to reaching Net Zero by 2050.
I believe that the Environmental Audit Committee’s recent recommendation to Government - about the introduction of mandatory whole-life carbon assessments for buildings (in planning guidance and building regs) - is one of the most critical contributions to the whole debate. The Committee’s advocacy of including an assessment of locked-in carbon and the fact that embodied carbon is wasted each time a building is knocked down to be rebuilt, is thought provoking – but probably not popular with many involved in new-build projects.
This is a silent stalking issue which came to the fore recently when Michael Gove exercised his authority (as the then Secretary of State for the Levelling Up, Housing & Communities) and ‘paused’ the proposal to demolish and rebuild M&S’s Oxford Street store. The subsequent Public Inquiry will have to consider whether the intended plan will release over 40K tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere (as anti-plan campaigners claim) or, whether redevelopment of the existing building will create additional carbon emissions and use 25% less energy - as the retailer and its architectural consultants (Pilbrow & Partners) claim.
Should we encourage the greater use of low-carbon materials, such as timber and recycled steel?
Should we, like France and the Netherlands, focus much more on re-use and retrofit in our national strategy to tackle embodied carbon?
Is Permitted Development, whilst a boon to reducing bureaucracy and eliminating unnecessary red-tape related delays (in ‘getting building done’), the correct tool to support the re-use of buildings. Will the decision not to retrofit or rebuild increase the amount of embedded carbon in the built environment?
Developers promoting demolition and rebuild will argue that no two projects are the same, as each has a unique combination of specific commercial, strategic, occupational, financial, community and stakeholders objectives. Therefore starting with a clean sheet of paper is not only more cost-effective but also minimises the need for unnecessary compromise on the application of energy-saving strategies - as these can be designed into the new building.
They would argue that rebuilding and retrofitting would seldom tick all these boxes and that it is also important to consider occupier usage of a building - will the same sustainability standards still be achieved in practice once the building is occupied?
On the other hand, those supporting retention and retrofitting, will claim that there is ‘limited evidence’ of the Government’s claim that it is already actively promoting ‘reuse’ and retrofitting.
Many are calling on the Government to harmonise VAT rates on new build and rebuilding/retrofitting - as, on the whole, new build tends to be VAT free, but the tax is levied on materials and labour on rebuild and retrofit projects.
There is also talk of introducing mandatory ‘Circular Economy* Statements’ in pre-demolition audits on planning applications. Whilst this would increase the ‘red-tape’ factor, it would lead to everyone involved in creating new home, leisure and work environments being more transparent and more accountable on sustainability issues.
And therein lies the most evocative of the rebuild communities’ argument. Increasing consumer awareness of the environmental, sustainable and financial benefits of high quality rebuild solutions will (it is argued) be a game changer. Why? Because greater ‘consumer’ awareness will drive demand for rebuilding (rather than demolish-and-build) - from investors, shareholders, employees and clients with explicit ESG goals and ambitions.
We have seen how the high profile of Net-Zero and the need for stringent energy management has changed the conversation in boardrooms across all sectors and across the globe. This paradigm change is what the rebuild and retrofit community appear to want to achieve and ultimately, they want to see an emergence of a market where occupiers are drawn towards repurposed accommodation, as opposed to new build alternatives.
Of course, there is no option but to retrofit certain buildings (such as historic and listed structures), but perhaps rebuilding and retrofitting should be the first option we consider, rather than automatically opt for a ‘knock it down and start a fresh’ strategy – which many feel is a default position.
It might also have other benefits in an age when many domestic and commercial builders are facing materials shortage and the subsequent hike in materials’ prices (albeit for many conversion projects achieving energy targets is not straightforward or cheap).
