Can new build commercial developments survive the UK NZCBS?
12.12.2024
New build commercial developments are at a crossroads
The UK Net Zero Carbon Building Standard (UK NZCBS) sets challenging targets for upfront carbon for commercial office developments.
Does this leave new build commercial office development dead in the water?
The end of business as usual
Whilst the NZCBS’s limits are extremely challenging (a shell and core upfront carbon target of <475 kg CO2e/m2GIA for projects commencing on site in 2025), new build offices can achieve them.
However, it means an end to business-as-usual. It means no more towers. No more 9m+ column grids. No more large areas of curtain walling. And no more multi-storey basements.
But this shouldn’t come as a surprise.
If we — as an industry — are honest with ourselves, we already knew these buildings were not net zero aligned. The standard is a jarring alarm for something we knew: minor improvements won’t get us anywhere near net zero within our remaining carbon budget.
We are hopeful this provides a moment for reflection and radical change.
But what if we don't change? What if we don’t accept and meet the limits for commercial offices? What are the alternatives?
Alternative 1: Reallocate carbon budget
One alternative is to have lower limits for other sectors, i.e. allocate more of our carbon budget to the commercial sector and less to other typologies. But is that the right thing to do?
When you consider social value and wider societal benefits, do homes, healthcare facilities, schools and cultural buildings matter less? Surely homes and public service infrastructure should be a top priority for using the carbon budget?
Alternative 2: Redistribute carbon limit over time
Ruling out alternative 1, the only other alternative is to redistribute the carbon limit over time. In other words, increase carbon limits in the short term and introduce larger reductions over time.
But this poses a problem.
The annual reductions required are already much higher than material decarbonisation trajectories. This means long-term limits may already be even harder to achieve than short-term limits.
So this alternative would simply push even more risk ‘down the road’ for others to deal with.
So which alternative do we choose?
The standard is incredibly thought-provoking.
Understandably, many in the industry are concerned about the reality of meeting the limits within existing industry constraints and financial systems. It’s a reminder that we have challenging decisions to make.
But also that there’s a significant risk of inaction. The longer we wait to act, the harder and more radical the actions may have to be.
