Hero Bennett explores the realities of retrofit-first delivery, drawing on expert discussion around policy consistency, risk, circularity and how retrofit can unlock long-term value.


Max Fordham recently invited experts from the built environment to share their thoughts on the industry push towards retrofit-first and the practical consequences of hard-line policies. London boroughs are putting carbon at the centre of policy through legislation such as Policy 43. This assertive shift may serve to push the market towards a simpler, more circular economy approach to construction. 

However, it's not without substantial challenges, most of which our colleagues at this roundtable have universally encountered. Conventional programmes are not aligned with the complexities of retrofits. Our attendees highlighted several challenging aspects of retrofitting and offered valuable insight into how we can adjust, develop and support this direction. 

Borough-level policy consistency 

Borough approaches diverge significantly, and retrofit policy is still developing. The City of London, for example, has a distinct building stock and fewer residential considerations compared to Westminster, and thus, different priorities have led to a case-by-case approach. Inconsistency across different measurement conventions (cubic metres vs. square metres), thresholds, and varying expectations for surveys, warranties and circular economy evidence slows decision-making and adds cost to the process.   
 
Understanding and de-risking 

We know that thorough surveys and opening-up works are essential to understand buildings and to mitigate risks, but often tenants are in situ, so we have to consider what can be done without disrupting them. Programmes are built, and decisions are made early, often based upon unreliable information.
 
 “…The inherent risks involved in retrofit or refurbishment are much greater than for a new building… How early can we get into these buildings?... How soon can we understand how this building is put together, to try and de-risk some of these unknowns…” Andrew Henriques, Buckley Gray Yeoman 
 
Roundtable participants suggested an investigative period implemented at the beginning of a project, from which a more informed programme and design basis could be taken. We need to see later stage design being brought into longer RIBA Stages 1 and 2. More time should be spent looking at carbon optioneering early; otherwise, unknowns and changes later in the programme could be very expensive. 

“On retrofit projects, a bespoke approach is required, as each project and its level of risk varies immensely, including depending on whether you have vacant possession of a building, or if you have tenants until the day before you start construction.”  Ruth Oates, Buro Four 

As we continue to retrofit, we are building a deeper understanding associated with specific building typologies. This presents an opportunity to collate and deepen shared knowledge, de-risk unknowns and upskill the industry.  

Early involvement and collaboration 

Getting the whole team on board early and on the same page is important. Investing time with facilities managers early in the process to fully understand the systems can have a profound impact on running costs and carbon emissions. This is a fundamental pillar of the Soft Landings approach - the speculative market could learn a lot from universities who have seen the value over the years.

Circularity and reuse 

Contractors are increasingly salvaging components, but gaps remain in the re-warrantying process, certification, and logistics. Pre-deconstruction audits are now becoming standard, which allows for the identification of materials with high reuse potential. However, we need to see greater consideration in MEP design— it’s a big part of the cost of the building and a significant carbon contributor.  Setting project-level reuse targets alongside embodied carbon targets will, and is, helping to prioritise reuse. 

 “Despite all the policy, despite all of the frameworks, the process of doing proper carbon modelling and trying to truly bake that into what we're coming forward with is still a highly creative, highly iterative process, and what's been fascinating, is how that process has led to quite unintuitive solutions, sometimes quite unglamorous solutions - it's actually sometimes the unglamorous things which have a massive (carbon) impact...you may find that retaining a raised access floor is the single biggest thing you can do.” Ben Gibson, Gibson Thornley Architects 

Value creation 

There is still work to do to convince some investors of the value of a sustainable building. The reality is that for some buildings, the perception of risk and cost associated with demanding regulations, such as strict EPC requirements for commercial buildings, sometimes leads to a lack of investment and a risk of creating stranded assets. Retrofit is seen as expensive, and incentivising with initiatives like VAT reform, affordable workspace and vacant building credits is a no-brainer.
 
Positively, we are seeing premium businesses and long-term investors demand sustainable buildings because the evidence is that they attract and retain better tenants. ESG requirements and BREEAM certifications are contributing to the value return for investors, and in London at least, there is a shortage of buildings that offer sustainable credentials to meet the demand.
 
London as a leader 

“We have global cities and their leaders visiting London, wanting to learn about how London delivers successful retrofit.” Andrew Henriques 

It is said that 80% of buildings are already built, which means that retrofit provides us with an enormous opportunity both for value creation in the built environment and for the economy. Although most in the built environment feel retrofitting is a good thing to do, it’s not always easy and never straightforward. We know that policy is the biggest driver to market change, and we are building knowledge quickly and implementing legislation faster than many comparable cities. 

“Retrofit first but not retrofit only.” Andrew Henriques 

Legislation is driving necessary change, but it needs to be flexible, case-by-case and realistic. Recalibrating programmes, sequencing and expectations will support the complicated realities of retrofit. 

Thank you to the attendees: