Structure, strategy or a flexitarian approach to sustainable development?

It’s unusual to start a conversation about ensuring a sustainable built environment with a statement about veganism. But if you stretch the idea, it kind of works. Veganism is better for the planet and people. Mostly. But not all vegan foods have teeny tiny carbon footprints. And not all vegan foods are good for you. And, sorry vegans, not all of them look or taste very nice. The same is true when we come to the argument between retrofitting or refurbishing our built environment or knocking it down and building back better. It’s a crude metaphor, I know, but it has got you thinking, which is the point, right? Real estate is at something of a crossroads. We all know it is one of the biggest contributors to climate change. That means it can be one of the biggest saviours when it comes to the environment. Decarbonising the built environment would have a huge positive impact on this planet’s ability to sustain itself, to survive. The industry wants that. But the built environment is more than just a carbon emitter. It is communities, it is our homes, our workplaces, our play places, it is full of our memories and of history. And it is this that makes the argument around regeneration or refurbishment so much harder to settle. “I think it’s more about what is responsible development and that includes redevelopment, that includes retrofit, that includes refurbishment,” said Chris Cumming, director of Savills Earth. “Sustainable development is about doing it sustainably, environmentally, socially and economically. If you push too hard on any one of those, when you make that leg of your stool too big in comparison to the other two, the whole thing falls over. So it’s really about taking a balanced approach to everything.” What’s it worth? Taking a “sustainable development” stance forces investors and developers, occupiers and the public, to think more about the purpose and value of the building and the whole ecosystem. Shoosmiths real estate partner Will Seymour says London (and other historic cities) have to consider the historic value of our buildings.  “From a social perspective, that’s something that’s very important to everyone,” he says. “I think one always has to have an eye on reusing and redeveloping existing stock. But at the same time, innovation and new buildings are always going to be required.” To solve the conundrum, DP9 associate Katharine Woods says government needs to step up and deliver some sort of the strategic framework.  “What we need, if it is that important on the agenda, if we are saying we are having a climate crisis, is we really need to get government with industry, with individuals and with people who are leading in this field to say, ‘Right, if you are going to be developing buildings in the future, this is what you need to be doing. There are no different standards being adopted. This is it. This is the framework’,” said Woods. Ali Abbas, managing director and head of UK for Art-Invest, agreed. While Art-Invest both retrofits and redevelops (it is transforming a 4.5-acre site into 1.5m sq ft of workspace), Abbas says the industry needs clarity and direction. “What the capital wants and what we are really yearning for at the moment is certainty,” he said. “And it’s not getting that from the broader policymakers. When you are looking to do good and regenerate and create outcomes, you need that certainty to do that.” The panel Ali Abbas, managing director, head of UK, Art-Invest Chris Cummings, director, Savills Earth  Derek Griffin, head of acquisitions, Whitbread William Seymour, partner – real estate, Shoosmiths Katharine Woods, associate, DP9 Derek Griffin, head of acquisitions at Whitbread, has turned to the business’s stakeholders for that certainty and direction.  “There is certainly a lack of strategic central government advice as to what we should be doing,” said Griffin. “So in response to that, the private sector and various stakeholders in it are making their own way. “The real agenda is being driven by our stakeholders,” he added. “We have requirements from our shareholders who are expecting us to be forward-looking and meeting commitments and contributing towards the green agenda, but at the same time, obviously wanting a return on their investment. There are lots of different stakeholders who are probably driving this more progressively than central government at the moment.  “In the long term, I hope it will be a bit more focused and strategic and that will help us be more efficient in what we are trying to do, but we are just trying to do the best we can.” Lacking direction Current legislation isn’t clear enough, added Shoosmiths’ Seymour. He cited the EPC, branding it a blunt tool that now – as deadlines draw closer – is having some effect on behaviours but isn’t shifting the dial. “It’s not really the sort of thing that is going to guide great change and change the direction of what people do in terms of planning and development,” said Seymour. “I don’t think law-making and government can do that. That has to come from the people within the market. That has to be driven by occupiers and their requirements. It has to be driven by investors and what their shareholders expect to see in terms of responsibility.”  He added: “What they need to operate properly is a proper legislative framework and I think that is the bit at the moment where there is detail lacking. “ For Savills’ Cummings, any legislation has to be holistic and considerate of numerous factors. “Things like MEES are a great driver but if you start to lose pieces of your high street or community because of their EPC rating, then something’s going very, very wrong indeed,” he said. He pointed to densely populated heritage highs streets with great transport links that are part of a community but may be peppered with buildings that will fail EPC targets. Creating a new net zero building on the edge of town may hit EPC targets but what are the unintended consequences? Not only the embodied carbon release by pulling down the non-compliant buildings but what about travel and the carbon cost to get to the edge of town? “We need to be mindful of that and how that metric looks and how that comes to the fore,” said Cummings. “You don’t want to be just driving to energy efficiency because you’ll let that social economic piece tumble away.”  And that’s why it can’t just be “retrofit is all good and redevelopment is all bad”. “You have got to judge each scheme on its own merit and its own fundamentals and do the right thing,” says Art Invest’s Abbas. “I look at a building as a skeleton and then really it’s about its permeability with the communities, the heart, the lungs, the blood and everything else.” Which is why Abbas and Whitbread’s Griffin do a little bit of everything. New-build, retrofit and sometimes a little bit of both. Not all vegan, not all carnivore, but a flexitarian approach to delivering a sustainable built environment.  To send feedback, e-mail samantha.mcclary@eg.co.uk or tweet @samanthamcclary or @ Image © Yinan Chen/Pixabay