Building Regulation Part S?

Is it time for planning policy to address Circular Economy in the construction industry?

01 Introduction

[re]Link utilises the UK planning system to incentivise a circular use of construction materials. The third party platform provides a [re]Link rating, depending on the amount of material re-used in the project, and the potential for future reuse of material. This rating is submitted as part of the planning application — demonstrating the development’s credibility of meeting certain sustainability criteria.

Since the 1990s, environmental sustainability has become an increasing factor within the UK’s planning system, which now claims its purpose is “to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development”[1]. Whilst there is a growing number of green policies, there are still significant gaps in terms of Circular Economy and the sustainable use of materials. This is, in part, from structural issues with the planning system. The devolvement of responsibility to local authorities and the private sector, with the reliance on third party accreditations such as BREEAM (BRE Environmental Assessment Method), result in an unholistic and insufficient approach to sustainable development.

For [re]Link to meaningfully address the annual 203 million tonnes of waste produced by the UK construction sector[2], the planning system’s approach to environmental policy needs updating. Sam Revie and Louise Willie, London based sustainability consultants working for Hoare Lee, offer insight into the current context of sustainability within the planning system. To unpack the scale of policy changes necessary to transform the UK construction sector, Emily Garnett of UK Green Building Council discusses what transitioning to a circular economy may look like, and the widespread implications.

02 History of the UK planning system

It is worth touching on the history of the UK planning system, for it demonstrates how changes to the planning system’s structure informs the physical environment.

The five basic legislative principles established in the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act have remained fundamental to the planning system since, these were: a universal definition of development; local authorities to prepare a development plan; developments requiring planning permissions from local authority to follow the development plan and other material considerations; the right for any planning permission declined by the local authority to appeal to the minister; the right for the local authority to use power of enforcement for any development without planning permission[3]. This act shifted the emphasis of planning away from central government to local authorities, who, during this post-war period, were also leading the construction, implementing their own development plans.

During the 1950s and 1960s, the private sector fulfilled an increasing share of the UK’s development. Local governments’ role shifted from developer to regulator, whilst planning took an increasingly top down hierarchical approach, as reflected in the emergence of two tiers — counties and districts, and the creation of national and regional plans[4]. The 1970s economic decline and the introduction of Margret Thatcher’s conservative government led to a contraction of public sector development, as the state became increasingly dissolved through a regime of privatisation and deregulation. The use of development corporation’s, enterprise zones, loosening requirements of the appeal process and growing use of planning agreements, eroded the power of local authorities to that of bargainer with market forces[5]. However, by the mid 1980s, the dissolution of the planning system began to be met with resistance, a key contribution being the increasing awareness over issues of sustainability. Following the Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the government adopted Agenda 21 — agreeing to follow more sustainable development in the coming century[6].

Now, to attain planning permission for a development, the developer must present a planning application to the local authority — demonstrating compliance with the area’s local plan. Each Local Authority’s development Plan is informed by regional, national and international policies — yet differs under each Authority’s own ambitions. Within this application, the development must also show compliance with building regulations — mandatory national codes. Whilst developers must follow these procedures, they have significant influence over the planning system. The dissolution of local authorities and their shifted role from service provider to regulator, has lead to the increasing reliance on deals with private developers — enabling their proposals in return for planning gain and community benefit[7].

History of the UK planning system and introduction of environmental policy

03 Sustainability in the UK planning system

Since the 1980s, environmental policies have grown within the planning system. The manifestation of these policies within the built environment emphasises the importance of the planning system in bringing about sustainable development. However, the complex hierarchy of the planning system; the dissolution of power to local authorities, and by extension private developers, has lead to an administrative , ‘tick box’ approach to sustainability.

The UK has the target of becoming net 0 by 2050, setting out a ten point plan for a green industrial revolution[8]. However to achieve ‘Greener buildings’ the plan focuses on energy efficiency of a building in its use phase, rather than considering embodied energy of materials[9]. This is reflected in national planning policy, where the only regulation directly addressing sustainability is Part L, conservation of fuel and power, regulating the energy performance of a building in use and its fabric energy efficiency[10]. The National Planning Framework (NPPF) includes the chapter, ‘Facilitating the sustainable use of minerals’ [11]— asking for the inclusion of recycled materials. However, the NPFF does not prescribe direct regulation, but instead informs local authority’s development plans — as such this can be considered more of an aspiration.

Districts across the UK have divergent policies on sustainability within the building sector. Sustainability consultants Louise Willie and Samuel Revie explain how London is strides ahead of the majority of the UK — whereby “to get planning these days sustainability is one of the main drivers”[12]. Within the 2020 London plan, the policy SI 7 focuses on reducing waste and supporting a circular material economy, promoting the re-use of materials from the minimisation of waste, with the target of 95% of waste from construction and demolition being reused, recycled or recovered by 2030[13]. Following this, referred applications are required to submit a Circular Economy Statement. Whilst this is certainly a promising ambition, the lack of prescribed targets limits its impact.

Applications not referred to the GLA do not have to submit this statement, and instead follow the Local Authority’s development plan. As with Hammersmith and Fulham, this includes many environmental policies, such as the sustainable use of materials through the reduction of waste and promotion of recycling[14]. This is included in the sustainability assessment, which forms part of the planning application; yet, without quantifiable regulation, this is somewhat open, allowing significant interpretation and variability. The weak control of sustainability policy is furthered by the suggested use of BREEAM — devolving regulation to a private, third party.

Tracking environmental policy from international to building level

04 Third Party Accreditation systems — BREEAM

Environmentally progressive regions such as London are moving beyond BREEAM, for more rigorous, comprehensive sustainability assessments[15]. However, its continued popularity with local authorities throughout the UK, with over half now having it as a planning requirement[16], is reflective of the widespread privatisation of the planning system.

Established in 1990, BREEAM was the worlds first sustainability accreditor[17]. It drove sustainability through the development market — its popular use stemming from its rating system — where an ‘outstanding’ rating prescribes monetary value to a project as “more and more clients can see the financial benefit of advertising of a sustainable home”[18]. BREEAM is firmly rooted in the Neo-liberal system — credits are accumulated, and, arguably, sustainability is bought. The foundational use of BREEAM to add monetary rather than environmental value to a project, alongside the ‘opt in’ credit system where the client chooses the environmental criteria they are targeting, leads to greenwashing. What’s more, the growing requirements of the accreditation, from initially a single page assessment to a submission of roughly one thousand pages, has lead to this “pseudo regulation”[19] becoming a tick-box administrative exercise. Clients often opt for the easiest and cheapest environmental criteria, rather than considering sustainable design holistically — seen in the proliferation of bike stands which are considered an easy win[20].

The Bloomberg building by Norman Foster has been lauded for its sustainability credentials, winning several awards including the Sterling prize as well as BREEAM’s own award for “being one of the world’s highest BREEAM-rated major office buildings”[21]. Yet, its ‘outstanding’ BREEAM rating is achieved predominantly from the building’s operational energy, with the ‘opt in’ system of environmental bingo ignoring the embodied carbon of the 10,000 tonnes of imported sandstone cladding, bronze fins and vast concrete structure[22]. The imposing HQ for the media conglomerate embodies the UK’s eco-capitalist, greenwashing approach to sustainable development.

The UK’s use of private environmental accreditation as quasi-policy, enables organisations such as BREEAM to be the gate-keepers of sustainable development. Being both the perpetrators and regulators, they decide which factors are included and assess its environmental performance through their own framework. So, whilst growing numbers of developments are striving for high sustainability credentials, this does not mean the development sector is meaningfully moving towards the reduction of green house gas emissions. Evidence shows that even if the highest standards were adopted worldwide, we would still be heading towards three to five degrees of warming[23] — disastrously higher than that of the Paris agreement. What’s more, this prediction does not include the various factors omitted by sustainability accreditation schemes. Quite simply, BREEAM is not enough for producing truly environmentally sustainable developments.

BREEAM bingo — BREEAM categories and available credits for a fully fitted building. Blue shows optional categories and orange contains mandatory credits for an outstanding rated building.

05 Updating the system — [re]Link regulation

The need for planning regulation

The [re]Link platform could operate without state intervention. Sam Revie of Hoare Lee explains that private developers in London are increasingly setting their own goals for a Circular Economy, without planning requirements[24]. However as seen with BREEAM this, in most cases, is driven by the monetary value of sustainability credentials, which can lead to an unholistic application and inadvertently unsustainable consequences. In Europe, companies facilitating the re-use of construction materials already exist, such as Rotor[25] in Belgium and Madaster[26] in the Netherlands, demonstrating the feasibility of the [re]Link platform. However, Rotor’s and Madaster’s projects are sparse and disjointed, revealing the limits of relying on the commercial market alone. If we are to transition to a Circular Economy, we need a systemic change. Emily Garnett of UKGBC recognises the private sector as a key driver for this transition, however explains the necessity for public regulation, which “would also help at defining a common understanding and encourage people to increase their use of circular principles.”[27] If the [re]link platform’s ambition is to facilitate the UK’s transition to a Circular Economy, this system-wide change requires state intervention in the form of planning regulations.

Left to local authorities?

Continuing in the current practice of the planning system whereby power is largely devolved, the [re]Link rating could be regulated through local authorities, who would set their own benchmarks and standards for its application. This would enable [re]Link’s use to form part of wider environmental considerations — allowing for a more case specific approach. What’s more, working through local authorities may enable [re]Link to be used far quicker than if adopted on a national level, as Louise Willie explains, “National policy is slow to change and adapt and local councils are a bit more agile and can change quicker. So for example the London plan is driving a lot of development in London that the government policy isn’t asking for at all.”[28] However, whilst in London’s case, using [re]Link within planning policy on a local scale may lead to a quicker uptake, it make take far longer for less progressive parts of the UK to adopt the [re]Link rating system, if they adopt it at all.

A case for national policy

For [re]Link to facilitate the system wide change necessary for a circular economy, there needs to be parity of use across the UK and this requires mandatory national planning regulations. The [re]Link rating would be a nationally prescribed standard — whereby the amount of material re-used and the potential future reuse of material’s are codified. This would form part of a new building regulation focusing on the Circular Economy. As building regulation Part L has demonstrated, setting quantified codes for sustainability measures has a profound impact on sustainable development. Part L helped focus the construction sector to carbon emitted from a building’s use, yet as many have argued, the UK needs regulation over embodied carbon within a building too.[29]

[re]Link rating forming part of new building regulations over a circular economy

Alongside the need for national regulation on embodied energy, other sectors of national policy also need updating if the UK is to move to a Circular Economy. Emily Garnett explains the wide-spread paradigm shift necessary,

“I think it should be international to national to local as the circular economy needs joined up thinking and lots of grassroots thinking could reinforce the issue of unaligned and fragmented policy. Also some policies and investments gaining traction like waste to energy are directly opposed to the circular economy but are still in the name of sustainability.”[30]

Collaboration on an international scale, Garnett believes, is necessary to transform current material flows. Garnett explains moving from a linear to a circular economy would have widespread impact on fields beyond the construction sector; to ensure the system-wide transition a centralised effort between these sectors is necessary.

Certainly, the argument for National policy to promote a Circular Economy does not stem from a utopian vision of nationalisation — issues with national policy have been explored, such as the slow time frame of implementation and transference of sustainable design into an administrative task. The unintended consequences of national policy can be seen in Part L — whilst this Building Regulation improves the operational energy of a building, the stringent U value requirements leads to the use of complex, engineered facades. These often contain materials with higher embodied carbon, specialist assemblies and differing design lives making material re-use challenging. This reveals the influence national policy has over the built environment, whilst demonstrating the need to consider national policy informing sustainability in a holistic manner. Perhaps, regulation over the circular use of material is the missing puzzle piece to prevent the adverse consequences of part L.

06 Conclusion

Whilst the UK planning system’s basic principles have remained largely unchanged since it was established in 1947, its organisational structure and role within development has shifted dramatically. No longer does the public sector lead development — currently, the private sector accounts for approximately three-quarters of new construction work[31]. Now, the planning system is complicated, with hierarchical policies moving between mandatory and aspirational.This, met with the hollowing of local authorities, has somewhat diminished their role to bargainer with private developers. All of this is reflected in the disjointed and varying sustainability policies across the UK’s planning system and the adoption of third-party accreditation systems such as BREEAM. The outsourcing of sustainability policy, alongside the expansion of environmental targets set by developers themselves, demonstrates the increasing role of the private sector in driving sustainable development.

However, the private sector alone is not enough; more often than not, private developers view sustainability as a credential for increasing monetary value to a project. In this context, sustainability suffers the paradox of operating within an unsustainable system. Projects are applied green make-up, whilst still fundamentally being unsustainable. This can be seen in the lack of effort directed at embodied energy and circular economy — which fall through the gaps of planning regulation and private sustainability trends.

[re]Link could work within the current context of devolved responsibility over sustainable construction, however this would significantly limit its impact. To address the urgency of the Climate Crisis, the changes necessary to the construction industry are radical. We need a paradigm shift, moving from a linear to a circular economy. This requires a national effort — whereby a centralised agenda is imperative to address the system-wide changes to the construction industry, material flows, as well as the numerous tangential sectors affected. Whilst [re]Link can help facilitate this change, it needs to be met with National Policy, in the form of new building regulations that codify the circular use of materials in the construction sector.

07 References

1. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, National Planning Policy Framework (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, London, 2019)p5
2. Jess Sharman, Construction waste and materials efficiency (NBS, 2018) <https://www.thenbs.com/knowledge/construction-waste-and-materials-efficiency> [accessed 04.01.2021]
3. H.W.E Davies, ‘Continuity and Change: Evolution of the British Planning System, 1947–97’ in The Town Planning Review, Vol.69 (Liverpool University Press: Liverpool, 1998) p136
4. ibid p140
5. ibid p145–146
6. ibid p146–147
7. ibid p149
8. GOV.UK, UK sets ambitious new climate target heat of UN summit (Department of Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy) <https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-sets-ambitious-new-climate-target-ahead-of-un-summit> [accessed 29.12.2020]
9. HM Government, The Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution, (HM Government, London, 2020)
10. HM Government, The Building Regulations 2010, Conservation of fuel and power approved document L1A (HM Government, 2010) p2
11. Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, National Planning Policy Framework (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, London, 2019)p58
12. Samuel Revie, interview by Phoebe Walton (London, 07.01.2021)
13. Greater London Authority, London Plan (Greater London Authority, London 2020) p405
14. Hammersmith & Fulham, Hammersmith & Fulham Local Plan (London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham: London, 2018)
15. Samuel Revie, (London, 2021)
16. Katie Puckett, Are green ratings helping or becoming a problem in the quest to improve the sustainability of new buildings? (Building, 2013) <https://www.building.co.uk/focus/overrated/5053017.article> [accessed 29.12.2020]
17. BSRIA, The Future of environmental rating systems (BSRIA Limited: Berkshire, 2013) <https://www.bsria.com/uk/news/article/the-future-of-environmental-rating-systems/> [accessed 29.12.2020]
18. Samuel Revie (London, 2021)
19. Katie Puckett, (Building, 2013)
20. ibid
21. BREEAM, Bloomberg London One of the world’s highest BREEAM-rated major office buildings, (BRE Global, 2021). <https://www.breeam.com/case-studies/offices/bloomberg-london/> [accessed 29.12.2020]
22. Oliver Waitwright, The case for…never demolishing another building (The Guardian: London, 2020) <https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2020/jan/13/the-case-for-never-demolishing-another-building> [accessed 30.12.2020]
23. ibid
24. Sam Revie (London, 2021)
25. ROTOR DC, Rotor Deconstruction is a cooperative that organises the reuse of construction materials (ROTOR DC: Brussels) <https://rotordc.com/about/> [accessed 29.12.2020]
26. Madaster, Madaster: cadastre for materials version 2018 (Madaster, 2018) <https://www.madaster.com/en#video> [accessed 03.01.2021]
27. Emily Garnett, Interviewed by Phoebe Walton (London, 06.01.2021)
28. Louise Willie, Interviewed by Phoebe Walton (London, 07.01.2021)
29. Katie Puckett (Building, 2013)
30. Emily Garnett (London, 2021)
31. Office for National Statistics, Construction statistics, Great Britain:2018 (ONS, 18.10.2019) <https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/constructionindustry/articles/constructionstatistics/2018> [accessed 07.01.2020]