The recent controversy over the proposed redevelopment of Marks & Spencer’s Marble Arch store on Oxford Street shone a vivid light on the ability of the English planning system to deal with complex issues surrounding retrofit (modifying a building’s systems and/or structure after its initial construction and occupation) and redevelopment (new construction on at site that has pre-existing uses).

Savills recently contributed to a new report from the London Property Alliance, entitled, ‘Retrofit First Not Retrofit Only: Future-proofing national policy to support sustainable development’, which provides a review of how retrofit and refurbishment are currently addressed through the English planning system, making recommendations for improvements to speed up the delivery of development projects.

Clearly, owing to the ongoing and worsening climate crisis, sustainable and low carbon retention and refurbishment should be the highest priority for existing buildings. But, due to structural, design and viability considerations, retrofit is not going to be the right solution for all assets. But how should decisions be made on a consistent basis to ensure all projects are considered fairly, without politicisation of the issues?

Regarding the issue of embodied and whole life carbon in recent cases, it has been rightly acknowledged that there are a large number of variables and assumptions contained within an analysis conducted during RIBA Stage 2. Put simply, designs are not usually evolved sufficiently to make an accurate prediction of material quantities and associated embodied carbon emissions at this stage in the design process. Additionally, assumptions about tenant activities in the modelling of operational energy consumption and future carbon emissions projections from the national electricity grid could also lead to considerable deviation away from predictions in practice. It is therefore difficult to draw assured conclusions about the benefits and impacts of refurbishment or redevelopment solely from predictions of carbon emissions alone.

The pre-application process now often involves numerous meetings between developers and case officers, testing increasing numbers of design iterations for a variety of retrofit options in order to agree on how to get the best out of development for both environmental and public benefit. Again, this adds to the burden on planning officers and design teams.

Local planning authorities currently lack any national guidance on how to assess and compare retrofit and redevelopment projects. While the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) makes a brief reference to encouraging reuse over redevelopment, there’s no additional guidance to aid planners and developers in setting out the relevant issues that should be addressed when considering the refurbishment or redevelopment of existing buildings. This policy vacuum causes inconsistency in the determination of applications, and can result in lengthy pre-application analysis of different design options, slowing down the delivery of new sustainable commercial and residential floorspace across England.

A holistic overview of sustainable development issues is therefore required to set out various benefits and impacts arising from different development options. This should incorporate economic and social sustainability, as well as environmental issues. With a clear framework of standardised issues addressed for an agreed number of development options, both developers and case officers can engage on a consistent and transparent basis to highlight critical issues for a given site or authority, and address them accordingly through good design woven into the pre-application process. Adoption of such a framework has the potential to speed up the pre-application process, provide certainty for investment decisions and thereby ensure quicker delivery of sustainable homes and commercial spaces.

Further information

Contact Dan Jestico or Matt Richards 

Real Estate Insights Podcast: Savills Earth Series – Episode 4, Retrofit first or retrofit only?