Jonathon Hill, director of Enevo Building Compliance, explores whether the pilot standards due to come in later this year are fit for purpose
It seems that you can’t go more than 24 hours these days without hearing about the circular economy; a concept the construction industry should embrace by prioritising adaptability, material reuse and whole-life carbon reduction. But is it actually realistic or an unachievable pipe dream?
Early signs from the UK Net Zero Carbon Buildings Standard (UKNZCBS) pilot have thrown up mixed results, with an early survey of the 228 projects trialling the process reporting that 60% of users say the standards are easy to use. Yet the industry has criticised it.
It “unintentionally encourages demolition”, according to Simon Sturgis of Targeting Zero; is “an attempt to align with the UK’s net zero strategy, which is itself inadequate and failing to deliver”, says Alice Brown from AAB architects; and Cundall’s head of sustainability Simon Wyatt states “projects are only assessed against intensity targets, not absolute emissions”.
Statements like these beg the question; are we setting ourselves up for a fall?
The final version is targeted for publication later this year and, although many bodies have backed a single agreed definition of a “net zero carbon” building, including RIBA, RICS, LETI, CIBSE and the UK Green Building Council, Whole-Life Carbon (WLC) remains the sticking point.
Retrofit vs new build
The age-old conundrum of whether to build new or retrofit seems to be here to stay and the UKNZCBS is keen to reiterate that the standard is “designed to encourage retrofit, not demolition”.
While we’re all beholden to planning, viability and fluctuating materials costs, we shouldn’t be discouraged by the fact that retrofit square metre limits are significantly lower than those for new builds, often by around 30% or more depending on building type, according to UKNZCBS pilot targets.
It’s also important to remember that embodied carbon in construction and materials can easily outweigh any operational savings for years. And with retrofit schemes held to tougher standards than new builds, it doesn’t quite add up.
Just like a building’s floorplate, we must remember that we’re an island and there’s limited space to develop and there’s an abundance of unused assets ripe for a new lease of life – 165,000, according to Habitat for Humanity Great Britain.
Alongside the fact that more planning authorities, clients and funders are now asking for lifecycle carbon evidence, when it’s done right, WLC helps futureproof assets, build for longevity and avoid nasty surprises later. But how can we truly assess WLC without having requisite data to rely on?
Start as you mean to go on
Design and procurement decisions made early on can lock in around 70% of a building’s carbon footprint, before anything is built.
All construction materials and site activities carry carbon costs that are often invisible without a proper WLC assessment.
In procurement, if your specs don’t align with long-term carbon goals, you could be storing up retrofit costs, compliance issues or ESG red flags. It’s not just a moral decision. It’s a commercial one.
Developers like British Land are demonstrating that circular economy principles reduce both cost and carbon and WLC assessments reinforce this approach. They show the value of retaining structures, reusing materials and designing for adaptability.
Circular economy principles, such as designing for disassembly, specifying recycled content, extending component lifespans aren’t just for sustainability reports, they belong in cost plans and site meetings, too.
Getting ahead of the (long) game
Rome wasn’t built in a day and took centuries to reach its peak and, while I’m sure none of us would be prepared to support a development of that scale and stature today, we must approach development through a future lens, focusing on whether it’s suitable for future generations rather than people of today.
WLC is a fundamental part of the development puzzle that is still being left out of many conversations. If we’re not looking at the whole picture, being the total carbon footprint over a building’s lifespan, we’re staring through the wrong lens.
A WLC assessment helps guide smarter choices from the outset, whether regarding procurement, materials or site strategy. Simply focusing on operational energy and overlooking decades of real-world use and maintenance is akin to measuring a car’s emissions based on the factory floor alone.
All things considered, though, the UKNZCBS pilot is progress. It’s a step in the right direction; we just need to ensure pragmatism prevails and we make decisions based on the whole picture, not just the elements we can see.
UKNZCBS is asking for specific suggestions via this portal, so we would encourage readers to engage in the conversation to help build a sustainable future together.
The post Is whole life carbon assessment the missing piece in net zero standards? appeared first on Planning, Building & Construction Today.
