好色先生TV

Should development in the UK be regulated on the principle of 鈥渞etrofit first鈥� or 鈥渞etrofit only鈥�? This was the question discussed at a Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) panel debate last week.

It could not have been better timed 鈥� one of the biggest planning stories of last year, Michael Gove鈥檚 rejection of Marks & Spencer鈥檚 plans to demolish and rebuild its Oxford Street store was about to be overturned. Just two days after the debate, the High Court quashed Gove鈥檚 decision, reopening questions around how the planning system should handle demolition schemes and to what degree retrofit should be prioritised.

On the panel for the RICS debate was Henrietta Billings, director of Save Britain鈥檚 Heritage, the campaign group which had led the case against M&S鈥� proposals at the 2022 public inquiry. She was joined by Mike Hussey, chief executive of developer Almacantar and former managing director of Landsec, Sunand Prasad, principal at Perkins & Will, chair of the UK Green 好色先生TV Council and past president of RIBA, Olaide Oboh, executive director of mixed-use developer Socius and Basil Demeroutis, managing partner at Fore Partnership. The panel was chaired by 好色先生TV editor Chloe McCulloch.

The past, the future, the present of locations in London, Manchester, Stoke on Trent, Digbeth, would be different if we had to go down that retrofit route only

Simon Rawlinson, Arcadis

Simon Rawlinson, head of strategic research and insight at Arcadis and chair of RICS鈥� knowledge and practice committee, kicked off proceedings with a keynote speech. He started by using the area around Fenchurch Street as an example of a retrofit 鈥減etri dish鈥�.

In this rather 鈥渄owdy and down-at-heel鈥� corner of the City of London, Rawlinson said, there are buildings that are worth saving, buildings that could be improved and some buildings that are not worth saving at all. Moreover, it is a place where development is going to happen 鈥渁t scale鈥�, either at existing buildings which have preservation value or at sites which have massive value in the air above them but no value in the buildings themselves.

鈥淭hat, for me, is part of the debate about the retrofit,鈥� Rawlinson said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 not about the building itself鈥� it鈥檚 the potential value not just to the developer but to wider society itself. And I鈥檓 going to say that the past, the future, the present of Fenchurch Street 鈥� and many other locations like that, not just in London, but elsewhere in Manchester, Stoke on Trent, Digbeth 鈥� would be different if we had to go down that retrofit route only.鈥�

Is it old fashioned 20th century thinking to think we have a disposable built heritage that we can knock down at will?

Henrietta Billings, Save Britain鈥檚 Heritage

 

Rawlinson posed the panel three questions. First, he asked them to think about a decade of recent architectural history and what things would not have happened if there had been a retrofit only policy at that time. 鈥淲hat things would we have missed out on? What things might not have happened?鈥�

Secondly, he asked the panel to think about all the things they would like to do in the future, and what they could do without taking the 鈥渆xtreme measure鈥� of banning new-build. Thirdly, he asked what a value test for embodied carbon and retrofit could look like.

First to speak was Billings, who began by highlighting the significance of the public inquiry into the M&S scheme and the national attention it generated. 鈥淚t came at a time when there was an increasing awareness about the climate crisis, about how we are knocking down perfectly structurally-sound buildings and chucking them away,鈥� she said. 

鈥淭he question now about it really is how do we use the resources that we鈥檝e got? How do we make sure that we are responsible as we go forward in the 21st century? Is it old-fashioned 20th-century thinking to think we have a disposable built heritage that we can knock down at will?鈥�

>> See also: What does the High Court鈥檚 ruling mean for M&S鈥檚 Oxford Street plans? Lawyers give their views

>> See also: M&S High Court decision won鈥檛 tip the scales away from a retrofit-first future

Billings was keen to stress that she was 鈥渃ertainly not an extremist鈥� on retrofit, and the most important measure of progress for the development sector was to find a consensus. She argued in favour of a system of mandatory whole-life carbon assessments, but where developers are 鈥渆arning the commutes鈥� of their tenants.

鈥淧roviding buildings of character which are sustainable and socially responsible, moving away from brand new steel blocks to repurposing buildings with character and interest and buildings that tell a story.鈥�

We鈥檙e living outside of the boundaries of what this planet can sustain, and at some point we鈥檙e going to run out

Basil Demeroutis, Fore Partnership

 

Demeroutis took a more hardline view. Fore Partnership builds mostly commercial space and has developed projects in the City, and is currently on site next to Tower Bridge. But Demeroutis said the firm has pushed its strategy so far towards retrofit that it is now 鈥渦nlikely to do much more, if any new development鈥�.

Explaining this, he said that 100 billion tonnes of materials 鈥� a quantity about two-thirds the size of Mount Everest 鈥� are mined out of the earth each year, around half of this going into the built environment, and around a third of this half being thrown away during redevelopments. 

鈥淚 think we鈥檙e going to look back at this period of time 鈥� and our descendants will look back at this 鈥� as a barbaric period of human history,鈥� he said. 鈥淲e鈥檙e living outside of the boundaries of what this planet can sustain, and at some point we鈥檙e going to run out.鈥�

He added: 鈥淏efore we really jump into deciding what we鈥檙e going to build, we have to really take stock of what we have and think quite seriously about whether we could do something with it. And I think when we don鈥檛 really do that work seriously and sincerely and with some integrity, we鈥檙e doing a disservice to those who come after us.鈥�

Prasad described himself as 鈥渄efinitely a believer, just not a fundamentalist鈥�. He gave examples of several emerging tools that developers can use to 鈥渢ake the emotion鈥� out of decisions on retrofit or new-build, including the RICS鈥� whole-life carbon assessment. But he said the real problem is that retrofit is still underrated.

鈥淚t鈥檚 not fashionable, it鈥檚 not taught in architecture schools, it鈥檚 not what every architect wants to put on the wall. And yet I think it is one of the most exciting things, that requires the greatest imagination.鈥�

Retrofit is not fashionable, it鈥檚 not taught in architecture schools, 鈥� and yet I think it is one of the most exciting things

Sunand Prasad, Perkins &  Will

No one at the debate would stand up and argue for a retrofit-only planning system, Prasad said, and this lobby is actually very small. He argued that, in the context of the climate emergency, there should be a presumption that buildings are retained and retrofitted rather than replaced. Most developers will include a retention option as part of their proposals for a scheme, and Prasad said it would not be a big step to introduce a greater weight for these options.

>> See also: Westminster council unveils plans to become a 鈥榬etrofit-first鈥� city

Oboh brought the debate back to Rawlinson鈥檚 point about the social value of retrofitting existing buildings. Her firm, Socius, has started to take a retrofit-first approach after an experience on a project in Brighton a few years ago. Oboh had been met with a 鈥渞eal uprising鈥� from locals who wanted to save a building that, despite not being particularly beautiful, was still valued by the community.

鈥淎ctually what local people value and what they appreciate, what they have walked past for many years and they鈥檝e got memories and experiences in those spaces, that is something that we have to learn to understand,鈥� she said.

Working on reuse projects is still a continuous challenge to balance viability, planning and finding the right skills, Oboh admitted, and she stressed the need for clarity in planning policy so that both sides knew the direction of travel, something that is not currently the case. But she said she had seen a 鈥渞eal change鈥� in public sentiment towards retrofit projects.

鈥淔or us, it鈥檚 that creative and imaginative approach to how we repurpose buildings, to give them a new lease of life, is something we are fascinated and equally excited about.鈥� For Socius, the question is how to focus on retrofit while also making sure the debate is nuanced: 鈥淲e can鈥檛 save everything, but we need to try.鈥�

That creative and imaginative approach to how we repurpose buildings to give them a new lease of life is something we are fascinated and equally excited about

Olaide Oboh, Socius

For Hussey, the most important factor for developers in the debate for and against prioritising retrofit was policy consistency. Hussey is a big player in the property sector, having built around 25 million square feet of mixed-use space in central London and Canary Wharf, a fifth of that being refurbishments.

His experience of the politicians who have shaped planning policy is that they are 鈥済enuinely useless鈥�. 鈥淭hey work on a five-year programme, typically to get re-elected鈥� and they have a very biassed agenda. But we鈥檙e working on 10, 20, 30, 40-year programmes.鈥�

Hussey鈥檚 key point was to ask about the long term priorities of communities affected by buildings, and what are the policies that can be sustained for longer than five years. 鈥淭he problem with fiddling and messing around the edges is if you can鈥檛 finance it, you can鈥檛 build it, you then take longer to generate the growth that supports the increasing population in the world, and everybody suffers. So I think we need to educate the system first, and we need to invest in the system.鈥�

If you can鈥檛 finance it, you can鈥檛 build it. You then take longer to generate the growth that supports the increasing population in the world, and everybody suffers

Mike Hussey, Almacantar

But the debate over retrofit, Hussey argued, was a 鈥渙ne-dimensional question with a multi-dimensional answer鈥�. In essence, he said it was about market demand. The development of Canary Wharf in the 1980s and 1990s had been supported by most locals, he said, because it had brought jobs to the area and supported communities.

鈥淚f it suddenly becomes more important that we protect the planet 鈥� and it is incredibly important 鈥� then other things have to give, if you鈥檙e not going to be creating growth and developing more viable schemes with greater profits and therefore recycling capital back into the community.鈥�

>> See also: M&S High Court decision won鈥檛 tip the scales away from a retrofit-first future

The 鈥淩etro-fit first vs Retro-fit only鈥漝ebate was the third in a series of events in the RICS Great Hall, in central London. 好色先生TV was the event鈥檚 media partner