EDITOR’S COMMENT Do you ever get the feeling that we’re just fannying around at the edges, tweaking things, trying not to upset too many people – or the status quo – and never really achieve what we need to?
Now, while there is every possibility that I could be about to launch into a rant unconnected to real estate, I’m not. This is entirely real estate-related. Promise. Although feel free to read into that whatever you like.
Let’s start with the long-awaited net zero review from Chris Skidmore – 340 pages looking at just how (or not) the UK is going to reach its net zero target by 2050. Guess what one of the big recommendations to come out of the review is? Reform the planning system. Again. Yes, it does need to work better, but reform after reform isn’t really going to solve the problem here, is it? Telling developers to forget about viability and focus on net zero isn’t really going to fix the climate, is it? Nope.
There are interesting recommendations in the report – a land use strategy, support for Trailblazer Net Zero cities, a new net zero homes standard, etc. But there’s also a lot missing that could help meet our net zero goals.
There was still too much focus on EPCs as the tool to measure success for commercial buildings. Everyone knows EPCs are barely worth the paper they are written on. Where was the support for the NABERS scheme, which has delivered real results in Australia, largely because the government got behind it? Measuring energy in use and focusing attention on how we use buildings, not just how they are built, could go a long way, but it wasn’t mentioned once in the report. Luckily, this industry is pushing ahead with the scheme itself, just like it is with a UK net zero carbon building standard.
This industry is, to some extent (although more effort is needed), pushing hard to deliver buildings that benefit the environment, rather than destroy it. It is trying. And while a stick of legislation will, of course, chivvy it along, I’m not convinced what we are seeing – in practice and through various reviews – is more than fannying around those edges.
Those I speak to agree that what is really needed is data. If this industry – one of the biggest contributors to climate change – is to really make a difference it needs data on energy use from its occupiers. It needs data that can help it deliver change. And that is something government just doesn’t seem to want to legislate on. It was a big topic of discussion at our final ESG summit of 2022, with the majority of our speakers saying it would be the tonic for this aliment. Our political voice at the summit – Bim Afolami – said he heard the calls, but legislating on data sharing would never happen. Political suicide.
And it is not just central government offering “solutions” that don’t deliver. Let’s turn to Cambridge, a city with the opportunity to be a global centre of life sciences excellence. Not a week goes by where we don’t hear of new demand from exciting companies wanting space and deep-pocketed investors wanting to splash cash there. Demand for space is colossal and the opportunity immense. Supply is dramatically lagging, so surely Cambridge should look at how to capitalise on this? But no. Earlier this month a draft report on the Greater Cambridge Local Plan outlined a need for 6.5m sq ft of research and development space over the next 20 years. That will barely scratch the surface. At the end of 2022 there was more than 1m sq ft of active demand from the sector.
Is Cambridge also fannying around at the edges? Is it too frightened of upsetting the nimbys and pushing out the greenbelt to make the region one of the world’s greatest powerhouses in science? Maybe.
Maybe I’m just grumpy and extending this week’s Blue Monday to a full seven days. But maybe, just maybe, this year we have to push back harder and demand that the needs of this industry are met.
To send feedback, e-mail samantha.mcclary@eg.co.uk or tweet @samanthamcclary or @EGPropertyNews
