I recently wrote Quota Lottery on the Circular Steel newsletter, about the 30th September cliff edge in the UK’s new steel trade measure. That was about principles and direction, this is more about the numbers.

Since 1st July the UK has capped tariff-free steel imports, cutting quota volumes by 51% against the old safeguard regime and charging 50% on anything above the cap1. Compare those caps against what the country has actually been importing and the gap is significant. On angles and sections (the stuff that holds buildings up) the quarterly quota is about 68,000 tonnes against a recent run rate nearer 140,000. That’s a 52% shortfall, with hollow sections 39% short and rebar 19% short2.

On those figures, sure… a slow market and importers front-loading heavily before July may mean the last three months generate a flatter picture, but these are rounding errors. To fit inside the quota, section imports would have to fall by half. For context they fell 4% last year.

And we don’t really need to infer any of this, because this is the strategy - the Government said it out loud. The Steel Strategy wants domestic production to go from 30% of UK demand to 50%3. Setting a quota that comfortably fitted existing imports would not achieve that.

The problem is the clock. The whole thing relies on substitution: squeeze imports and demand moves to British mills. That only works if British mills meet the demand, and the tariffs arrive in a fortnight while capacity takes years. UK crude steel production has more than halved in the last ten years, from almost 11 million tonnes in 2015 to 4 million in 2024. That doesn’t just get reversed with a tariff schedule.

Take sections… 52% short and the UK has one producer: British Steel, melted at Scunthorpe and rolled at Teesside. That’s the substitute. And it’s also the company the Government took into full public ownership in July, having run it under ‘emergency control’ since April 2025, and which was handed a turnaround chairman in Alan Lovell two days ago. Expecting it to absorb an extra 70,000 tonnes a quarter, starting now, is a pipedream.

There is a plan for British Steel, to be fair - it has a £1.25bn proposal to move to electric arc steelmaking, with a furnace at Scunthorpe and consent already secured for a second on Teesside. That is the route to more British sections, and it is a good one. But it’s conditional on Government support (Government negotiating with itself) and it is measured in years.

Another flagship government investment does not fill this hole either. Port Talbot is building a 3.2 million tonne electric arc furnace with £500m of public money. What comes out is slab, rolled into coil. Coil becomes car body panels, tinplate for food and drink cans, cladding and profiled roof and floor decking, and some is slit and welded into structural hollow sections. So yes, Port Talbot does sit behind the hollow section supply chain but it is not going to make open sections (beams or columns). And just to note, this is still early in construction and won’t be online for another couple of years, at least!

Rebar is the exception. It is the least-short category at 19%, and it is the one where the UK actually has serious capacity: 7 Steel UK in Cardiff running the country’s electric arc furnace for rod and bar at around 1.2 million tonnes a year, almost entirely from UK scrap. They roll light sections too, but not structural sections. If you want to see what a genuinely circular UK steel business looks like, it is that one, and it has been quietly getting on with it for years.

So... where Britain can actually make the product, the gap is small. Where it cannot, the gap is enormous.

The question is not whether the shortfall is real. It is where it goes while the UK cannot fill it, which is the next several years. I can see three places.

One: somebody pays the tariff. Fabricated structural steel rose 17.7% in the twelve months to June 2026, against 6.0% for construction materials as a whole4. And that is inflation before the measure even started. And don’t forget the UK Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism lands on 1 January 2027 on top of all this.

Two: the work leaves the country. This is the one that should worry people most. The quotas cover steel sections, but do not cover fabricated steelwork - maybe there is a sensible reason for this, but from the perspective of this piece, it looks like a loophole. The BCSA flagged this months ago: put a 50% tariff on the ‘raw’ beam and leave the finished/fabricated frame with no tariff, and you have created a generous incentive to buy the frame abroad.

Think about what that does to a UK fabricator. They buy raw sections at the tariffed price, fabricate in the UK, and quote against a foreign competitor who bought the same sections without the tariff, fabricated abroad and imports everything quota-free. For a Steel Strategy aiming to help the UK steel industry, this is doing the opposite - it hands a major disadvantage to a part of the UK supply chain that employs people in Yorkshire and the Midlands, and cannot relocate.

Three: it doesn’t get built. Projects that were marginal at £700 a tonne are not marginal at £950 plus a tariff and an uncertain lead time. No steel consumed, nobody employed.

Maybe there is actually a fourth option…

Reclaimed steel is not in any of this. No quota line, no tariff, no shipping, no mill lead time. It is already standing in buildings in this country, and it is immune to all three problems above.

For years we have led with carbon, because carbon was (and still is) a good argument. Steel reuse has also typically been cost-neutral or even slightly more expensive: what you save on material you give back in testing, certification, storage and risk contingencies. That equation just got updated. Every pound on the price of a new section is a pound of headroom for the reuse supply chain.

Being honest, steel reuse remains small in scale and it’s not suddenly going to solve this headache for large schemes (although why not push for some, e.g. 1%, reused steel on any scheme), but the marginal case has moved. Rooftop extensions, mezzanines, secondary steel, temporary works and refurbs… are perhaps now the jobs where reuse is the commercially sensible answer and the carbon is the free bit.

So do not forget to put a reclaimed option on the tender list. And if you are anywhere near a public sector job, the procurement side of this changes on 1 October too, which I covered in Quota Lottery.

Use less and be more efficient. The tariff schedule is doing the arguing for me this month!

In the last week of August, HB Reavis launched a consultation on a substantially new plan for Elizabeth House, the tired 1960s block sitting alongside Waterloo station. The developer will retain much of the existing structure and turn the vision for One Waterloo from a commercial new build into a retrofit-led mixed-use scheme: two hotels, student accommodation, build-to-rent homes, offices, shops and leisure, masterplanned by PLP Architecture. They say retention cuts embodied carbon by 75% against demolition and new build, with a target saving of around 100,000 tonnes.

The 100,000 tonnes and the 75% are the developer’s own figures, released at consultation stage. They could be doing two things at once, retaining structure and reducing size, but the material published so far does not separate these.

How did we end up here

The AHMM scheme this replaces was no small thing: the existing 11-storey building swapped for a 31-storey tower and a Google KX style groundscraper running more than 200m along the side of the station, with roughly 112,000sqm of offices. It got final sign-off from Lambeth in 2021, then not much happened. Enabling works, a meanwhile-use application and a long-running argument about Northern line access and section 106 contributions.

And so the building is still standing - and will now stay standing - and that is being presented (understandably) as a climate win.

What actually changed

It would be easy to take the timeline and think that this is a story in which planning policy and embodied carbon assessments quietly did their work and a developer saw the light. But I don’t think that is what happened - nothing about carbon counting changed between 2021 and 2026. And demolishing a serviceable 1960s frame was exactly as wasteful in 2021 as it is now.

I think what changed is that the product (speculative Waterloo London offices) stopped being a fundable proposition, and a blend of hotel, student and build-to-rent income began to look like a better option. Retention is the result when you need something faster, cheaper, with lower capex and are having to revisit planning in a post-M&S world.

This isn’t a criticism of HB Reavis. Developers respond to markets - that is their job. But we should be honest that the retention argument was not won by the planning system, it was won by the appraisal and funding.

Something else to bear in mind with this is a slight irony that many blame the planning system for slowing things down, but in this case planning had been ticked off the list (exc. S106 details) for 5 years and still nothing happened.

Thought

This is an interesting case study because the best embodied carbon outcome over the past five years was achieved by doing nothing. The building remains standing because the money was not there, and by the time the money returned the answer had changed.

Anyone currently holding a consented demolition scheme they cannot fund is actually sitting on a retrofit.

Two things landed within a day of each other last week and industry will likely file both under grim climate news and move on. But they do raise some interesting questions about how we design buildings in this country.

On 2 September, UNEP published Limiting Overshoot. It is the first time the UN has said so clearly that global temperature rise will cross 1.5C (likely within the next few years) and it reframes the goal entirely. Instead of prevention we now get “overshoot, peak and decline”: exceed the threshold, minimise how high it goes and how long we stay there, then bring temperatures back down through sustained net-negative emissions. And the most optimistic scenario peaks at 1.8C.

The following day the WMO said El Niño is now firmly established and heading for very strong intensity, with a near 100% likelihood of persisting through to February 2027. In places, subsurface Pacific water has been running more than 8C above average. The WMO notes this is the first time one of its updates has been so unequivocal.

El Niño is a natural cycle and is not caused by climate change. What it does is sit on top of a warmer baseline, and its effect on global temperature is usually most pronounced in the year after it develops. So 2027 is the year to watch.

What’s so interesting

If you are running an overheating assessment on a scheme, you are modelling that building against future weather files for the 2050s under a high emissions scenario (not a 1.5C world). So MEP engineers have been quietly designing for overshoot for years, because the alternative was handing over flats that literally cook.

Switch your attention to carbon on the same project. The UK Net Zero Carbon Buildings Standard sets its limits by apportioning the UK’s remaining 1.5C-aligned carbon budget and handing the built environment its share. That’s the mechanics sitting underneath the numbers people are now being verified against.

So… same building, two very different assumptions about the future. The MEP engineers assume we’ll fail. The carbon targets assume we’ll succeed.

To be fair to the Standard’s authors, they saw this coming. Question three of their own FAQ is “Can the Standard ever be 1.5°C-aligned if the world is set to pass that point?” Their answer is that even if other sectors exceed their budget, the built environment should still aim to stay within its own, and that this will need continual review and agreement between sectors. That was a reasonable holding position, but it seems to be a much more live question.

What to do

I suppose the lazy conclusion is that if carbon targets are now pointless and we may as well relax them. That is exactly wrong, and the report says so.

In the new “overshoot, peak and decline” world, how fast emissions are cut is exactly what determines how high the peak goes and how long we sit above it. Beyond the widely talked about impacts of climate change, any extra time up there in overshoot territory raises the risk of “tipping points” (critical threshold beyond which a system reorganises, often abruptly and/or irreversibly), such as ice sheet destabilisation or disruption of the Atlantic overturning circulation.

Final thoughts

Adaptation stops being a nice-to-have and becomes the survival case for the asset. We are never going to be able to demolish and rebuild the UK stock to cope with 2C, so very nearly all of that work is retrofit.

I would put money on nobody having asked project teams what climate scenario each consultant has assumed. That could be something to take to your next design meeting or think about for your project brief.

New York City’s Economic Development Corporation have launched a year-long pilot of what it calls a Circular Construction Hub, in a warehouse at MADE Bush Terminal in Sunset Park, Brooklyn. The intention is for recovery, sorting, storage and redistribution of construction materials, and given construction and demolition debris accounts for 40% of New York’s total waste generation, there is real motivation.

But London got there first. On 2 March, the UK’s first circular construction hub opened in the Royal Docks. Tipping Point East sits on GLA land, delivered with Newham Council and a charity founded by Yes Make, RESOLVE Collective and Material Cultures.

Aside from who got there first, what’s interesting is that two of the most expensive cities on earth, working independently, have arrived at the same conclusion about material reuse. The missing piece (right now at least) is not an app, a standard, a pledge or another tax. It is somewhere to put the stuff.

Why this is the actual bottleneck

Reuse often dies on dates - it would be great if we got beyond this issue, but the fact is we are far from it. Materials come out of building A in March, building B wants some in October, building C in December and the rest has no certainty of ever finding a new home. Between those dates, and perhaps indefinitely, somebody has to own them, move them, store them, test them, insure them and warrant them. That’s working capital, logistics and liability/ownership problems on top of each other.

Rosemarie Miner (New York’s operator, Our Temenos) describes having a keen awareness of why salvage and surplus material use was not scaling, and turns that lens back on the supply chain. Anna Kelles (State Assemblymember) is pushing for deconstruction legislation in NYC, and I like her explanation that materials are valuable, the demand exists, and what is missing is the infrastructure to recover, sort, store and sell them so they are readily available and cost competitive.

Cost competitive is the phrase to underline.

The shed

In New York, the city owns the land and says it has a responsibility to use it to test what is possible at a larger scale. In London the hub sits on GLA land, with Innovate UK money used to fit out the site office from reclaimed materials.

These are pilots on public land, which is a perfectly respectable thing to be, but we should be honest about it. The scale is worth reading properly too - Tipping Point East’s impact is going to be a rounding error on a rounding error in terms of annual tonnes of construction waste. This is just the honest truth, but it doesn’t mean these pilots can’t shine a light on the value in what we too often consider as waste.

Ultimately…

The shed is better than another framework!

I’m keen to know what happens in NYC month thirteen. If the answer is that reuse hubs (currently) only stack up on free public land, that’s not a failure. But it makes this a strategic procurement decision rather than a market and we should treat it as one instead of waiting for a private operator who is not going to arrive in the short to medium term.

Steel is perhaps one of the easiest cases, which is a large part of why Circular Steel exists. It is valuable, traceable, standardised and testable. And even steel can get stuck on the same question.

Something quietly significant happened a month ago, while most of the industry was on holiday. On 28 July, verification to the UK Net Zero Carbon Buildings Standard opened for submissions.

Bureau Veritas is the Standard’s new Verification Administrator and has been confirmed as sole verifier for the first year, with wider verifier accreditation opening to the rest of the industry in 2027. As of now, the public register of accredited verifiers lists only two people, both at Bureau Veritas.

I wrote about the Standard itself back in March, when Version 1 landed, see below. My reservation then was the one many had: you can call a building net zero and, until somebody with a clipboard disagrees, nobody is going to say you’re wrong.

So what actually changed

Three things matter:

1. It is measured rather than modelled. To be verified as Net Zero Carbon Aligned, a building needs twelve months of in-use energy data alongside as-built upfront embodied carbon data. What the building actually did, for a year, after the ribbon was cut.

2. Offsets cannot be used to meet the limits at all. They can only be applied to residual carbon once every mandatory requirement is already satisfied. That is the most important line in the whole scheme.

3. It is not a one-off. Buildings have to re-verify every year to hold their alignment. A certificate earned in 2027 will not protect you in 2030 if the plant has drifted and a tenant has installed a major server room.

There is a sensible halfway house too. You can take a Practical Completion On Track validation at PC to show a building is heading the right way, which I think is what most developers will actually use, given they may have sold or let the asset before twelve months of in-use data exists.

The price of proof

The fee sheet is public, which I like. Registration is £500 per building. The administration fee for an initial verification runs from £2,370 for anything under 500sqm to £6,580 for buildings over 20,000sqm. On top of that sits the verifier’s own fee, negotiated separately and not published.

For a large commercial scheme that’s a rounding error against the professional fees already being spent on carbon consultants, but it still needs to be added to the budget!

Embodied carbon > reuse

Operational energy will get most of the attention, because that is where we all know the performance gap lives. But don’t forget that the embodied carbon figure has to be as-built.

Design stage carbon assessments are often optimistic fiction. Substitutions happen, the low carbon mix gets value engineered, and I know all too well how reclaimed steel that looked achievable at Stage 3 becomes new sections at Stage 5 because nobody protected the procurement window.

If the number has to be the one you actually built, reuse stops being a nice line in a sustainability statement and becomes a way of hitting a limit you are commercially exposed to. That is a different conversation, and a much better one for anyone in the reuse supply chain. Its a big part of the discussion we had at Circular Steel UK in June, where the room had long since moved past whether reuse works and on to whether contracts, prices and procurement windows let it happen.

What does this mean

This will be slow initially (the two-person verifier register tells you why). There will be very few verified buildings in the first year, and the ones that get there will be exemplars with committed clients.

The value is not really in the certificates. It is in what happens to everybody else’s language - once a handful of buildings can prove the claim, net zero stops being a free word. Those using it without verification will have to explain why not.

So, no more marking your own homework.

This year we’re bringing together developers, contractors, engineers, fabricators, steel producers, demolition specialists, researchers and government to explore one of the biggest opportunities facing the built environment: making better use of steel.

Tickets

The day is built around four themes:
→ The State of Steel Reuse
→ From Steel Strategy to Decisions
→ Delivering Steel Reuse in Practice
→ The Economics of Steel Reuse

But it’s not just about the main stage. Alongside the keynote sessions, we’ll also have:

• roundtables exploring topics such as supply constraints, commercial models and project delivery

• practical clinics hosted by organisations actively delivering steel reuse today

• case study displays showcasing projects, research and innovation from across the industry

• plenty of time for networking and conversation

The steel landscape is changing quickly. UK Steel Strategy, carbon targets, EAF production, procurement decisions, supply chains and steel reuse are all evolving at pace.

If you want to understand what’s happening, meet the people shaping it and help influence what comes next, this is the room to be in.

📅 Wednesday 24th June 2026
📍 London

Tickets

On April 14th, I attended a breakfast reception in the Palace of Westminster on behalf of the Circular Do Tank. The occasion was the launch of The Reuse Dividend, a major international study that looks at a problem many have been shouting about for years - why is Britain so bad at unlocking the potential of its empty buildings?

Proven Ideas, Not Just Good Intentions

What I really liked about this report is that it moves us past the vague “we should do something” stage. It provides a practical shopping list of proven financial incentives from eight other developed economies.

Instead of starting from scratch, we can now point to specific examples - from tax credits in the US to VAT reforms in Europe - that have already successfully fuelled urban revitalisation. It’s a menu of “what works” and I believe it is a great starting point to take the UK from ambition to implementation.

Speculate to Accumulate: The State’s Business Case

To me, the largest hurdle we face is the way the Treasury views incentives. If you look at a tax break or a grant purely as an isolated cost, it looks like a cost or a loss. That is understandable, but narrow and short-term thinking.

We need there to be a better understanding and acknowledgment of our argument that there are far greater savings for the state here if they are willing to speculate to accumulate. When we reuse a building, we aren’t just saving carbon… we are avoiding the massive, long-term costs of social decline, “broken window” policing and the eventual public bailouts for derelict sites.

If the government sees the wider benefits (job creation, local economic growth and the avoided cost of doing nothing) then incentivising reuse becomes a net benefit and a total no-brainer. It’s an investment in our own resilience.

The Ask: Beyond the 5-Minute Meeting

There was a bit of irony at the event. Rachel Blake MP gave a supportive speech about the importance of the work but, in typical parliamentary fashion, had to dash off before the actual presentation of the report’s findings. It really highlighted the biggest challenge the movement faces - sustained attention.

The clear ask from the founders and presenters (Will Hurst, Leanne Tritton, Richard Nelson and Matt Bullivant) was that for this to work, we need more than just a supportive nod or a five-minute briefing. To get the momentum required to fix a tax framework that currently penalises building reuse over new build, we need real, sit-down time with the Treasury and the Department for Levelling Up.

Read the Report

I recently joined a breakfast roundtable hosted by alpha-ww (thanks to Seb Wood and Kelly Harrison for the invite). The topic was one that usually stays in the “back office” until something goes wrong: Insurance Innovation for Transition Resilience.

We were joined by two experts - Amar Rahman from Zurich Resilience and James Bosely from Gallagher. What followed was a refreshingly blunt conversation about how the insurance world is quietly considering the value of our assets.

Here are the four key takeaways that every property professional should have on their radar right now.

1. Short-Term Policy vs. Long-Term Risk

Amar made a point that stuck with me: while we often talk about hazard and risk, we should be looking at the exposure of the entire value chain, not just the physical asset where an initial loss might occur.

Interestingly, while insurers are doing immense research into climate change and long-term adaptation, the actual products they sell are short-term (usually a maximum of 3 years). They have their eyes on the next 30 years of climate shifts, but they only ever “bet” on your building for the next couple. And then Amar said “Adaptation is hard, but mitigation is easy” as he explained he is seeing the rise of the “Chief Adaptation Officer” because simply tick-boxing with mitigation might not be enough to guarantee future value.

2. Parametric Insurance: The “Alternative Risk Transfer”

James Bosely introduced a concept that I think we’ll be hearing a lot more of: Parametric Insurance.

Technically, it’s an “alternative risk transfer” rather than traditional insurance. Instead of the long, painful process of validating a loss and being “made whole” again, a parametric product pays out instantly when a specific trigger (or parameter) is met - think wildfire, flood level or a cyber-attack.

It’s not about the actual loss, it’s about the event. The payout is simpler, quicker and provides liquidity exactly when you need it. So as traditional insurance becomes harder to get for climate-related risks, these parametric models will likely step in to fill the gap.

3. A Soft Market is a Window for Innovation

If you’ve been sitting on a new material, a new system, or a PropTech innovation but were worried about the insurance hurdle, now is the time to move.

James explained that the market is currently “soft,” meaning there is a better appetite for deals. And another tailwind is that Lloyd’s has introduced new underwriting codes (ICX/TCX) specifically for innovative products, alongside a principles-based oversight approach. what does this mean?… they are becoming more sensible about looking at startups and new materials that don’t have 50 years of testing data but do have a solid logic behind them.

4. Is it Time for a Real Estate Captive?

We briefly touched on a big question: should the industry form a “Captive”?

In simple terms, a captive is an insurance company that is wholly owned and controlled by its insureds - in this case a group of real estate players. Its primary purpose is to insure the risks of its owners. Could this be the way to unlock innovation? If the traditional market is too slow to understand a new low-carbon material, could a Real Estate Captive provide the cover needed to gain traction? I don’t have the answer yet, but it’s a space I’ll be watching very closely and perhaps this will be an idea to pursue coming out of the breakfast event.

The Bottom Line

Insurance is often seen as a grudge purchase, a necessary evil at the end of a spreadsheet. But as James pointed out, insurability equals value. If your building isn’t insurable in ten years’ time, its value drops today. Interestingly, your premium for next year’s policy won’t tell you how rosy that outlook is, but the team at the insurance company may have a pretty good idea of the trajectory your asset is on.

It’s a good time to be talking to your insurers. Don’t wait for the renewal - start the conversation now about adaptation and innovation while the market is in your favour.

Read the Strategy

To get there, the government is introducing some of the most protective trade measures we’ve seen in decades - including slashing import quotas by 60% and doubling tariffs to 50% for anything over that limit.

But beyond the high-level politics of “national security” and “trade shields,” what does this actually mean for those of us in the world of Circular Steel and scrap/recycling?

Keep the Scrap

The strategy explicitly confirms that Electric Arc Furnaces (EAF) are the future of British steelmaking. With Tata’s transition at Port Talbot well underway, our domestic demand for scrap is about to skyrocket. Remember the only EAF in the country right now is in cardiff, at the 7 Steel UK facility.

Currently, the UK is a massive exporter of scrap. The strategy announces a cross-government working group (launching in May) specifically tasked with securing a “resilient and high-quality supply” of scrap for domestic furnaces.

We’ve known for a long time that scrap is a finite and well-used resource (remember this paper from last year?). If we are to hit that 50% domestic production target via EAFs, we simply cannot keep shipping our best “raw material” overseas. So expect to see some serious movement on export regulations or incentives to keep that high-grade scrap at home.

What about Reuse?

While the strategy is heavy on EAF and Recycling, it is still relatively quiet on steel reuse.

As I advocate through Circular Steel, the most carbon-efficient way to handle steel isn’t to melt it down, it’s to use it again in its current form.

While the strategy focuses on “green steel” production, the real “low-hanging fruit” for the construction industry is maintaining the value of existing structural sections. We need to ensure that the push for EAF capacity doesn’t cannibalise the stock that should be destined for direct reuse. Recycling is great, but efficient reuse of the best bits is even better.

Transition of Blast Furnaces

Importantly, and aligned to continually increasing steel demand, the strategy acknowledges that Blast Furnace (BF) production will continue for the immediate future. The government has stepped in at Scunthorpe (British Steel) to ensure these stay running while the industry transitions.

The Challenge: BFs are the source of “virgin” steel, which is often still required for specific high-grade applications that scrap-based EAFs can’t always hit (yet). The strategy mentions “practical research and innovation” to boost productivity (think carbon capture or hydrogen injection) and to try and stay within Net Zero limits.

Procurement and Supply Chains

With import quotas being slashed by 60% this summer, we are about to see a shift in procurement. By making imports more expensive and difficult, the government is forcing the hand of designers and contractors to look for UK-made steel. This push to home grown steel is slightly at odds with how some projects may have been hoping to deal with looming NZCBS limits, by purchasing low carbon EAF steel from the continent.

Given the UK EAFs aren’t online yet (Tata’s EAF isn’t expected until 2027/28), we could face a “supply gap.” Perhaps this will make Circular Steel look even more commercially attractive. If you can’t get new, low carbon EAF UK steel and you can’t afford imported steel, then do those refurbished sections in the yard start looking like a very sensible option?

The Steel Strategy attempts to reverse “decades of de-industrialisation.” For the circular economy, the focus on scrap is welcome, but we must remember to be a reuse nation as well as a recycling nation.

No doubt this will be a topic of discussion at the Circular Steel UK 2026 event on Wednesday 24th June. Grab a ticked now…

Circular Steel UK 2026

Last week, the Circular Do Tank (where I’m proud to be a director) submitted our formal representations to the government’s draft NPPF consultation. The deadline has now passed, but the points we’ve raised are vital for anyone who actually wants to see a circular economy move from “nice idea” to “standard practice.”

A Ceiling on Ambition?

The draft NPPF proposes several changes that sound great on paper. However, there is a catch - PM13. This specific proposal threatens to restrict Local Planning Authorities from setting their own, higher standards for energy efficiency and circular economy targets. Effectively, it risks creating a “ceiling” on ambition. We believe local authorities should have the power to pull the supply chain forward by setting clear, quantitative standards for material reuse and carbon reduction.

Our Key Asks

In our submission, we focused on three main areas:

• Protecting Local Powers: We are calling for the removal of restrictions that stop councils from being more ambitious than the national baseline. If a borough wants to lead the way on circularity, the NPPF should be their tailwind, not a roadblock.

• Redefining “Reuse”: The current draft sets the bar incredibly low (suggesting that reusing soil and hardcore is enough). We’ve proposed much stronger language that prioritises the retention of existing structures and the reuse of materials in their highest value form.

• Defining the Circular Economy: We’ve pushed for a formal definition within the NPPF. You can’t manage what you don’t define, and the planning system needs a clear understanding of what a “circular system” actually looks like.

Final Thought

We hope we’ve captured the views of the many forward-thinking construction innovators we talk to every day. The goal is simple: to ensure the planning system facilitates economic growth and resource efficiency, rather than stifling it with “lowest common denominator” rules.

You can read our full representation below to see the specific policy tweaks we’re pushing for.

Read the Reps

A big thanks to everyone in the industry who contributed their thoughts to this. Now, we wait to see if the government is truly ready to “do” circularity, or just talk about it.

Officially launched on 10th March, this is the UK’s first unified, cross-industry rulebook designed to prove that a building is truly “Net Zero.” And in a world of ever increasing numbers of guidance documents, this It isn’t something to just sit on a shelf - it’s a fundamental shift in how to define success in the built environment.

Download Version 1

Explainer

Unlike previous guidelines that focused mostly on design-stage promises, the Standard is focused on actual performance. To claim alignment, a project must stay within strict “carbon and energy budgets”:

• Operational Energy: specific Energy Use Intensity (EUI) targets based on building type. This includes everything, even “unregulated” energy like plug-in appliances, not just heating and lighting.

• Embodied Carbon: “upfront” carbon limits on materials and construction. You have a fixed carbon budget to spend on your structure and fit-out.

• Fossil Fuel Free: no gas boilers allowed.

• Renewables: specific targets for on-site energy generation, like solar PV.

• The 12-Month Test: you cannot get final “Net Zero” status at the design stage or even at PC. Verification is based on one year of actual in-use data, so you have to prove it works after the ribbon is cut.

Does your project have to follow and report against this? No, not yet. It’s currently voluntary, but don’t let that fool you. It’s becoming a “de facto” mandate - investors and lenders are already using it and local councils are starting to reflect the limits into planning requirements. It is widely expected to inform future versions of Building Regulations and the Future Homes Standard.

Incentives

When you set hard targets, you inevitably trigger a bit of game theory. People will always find the most efficient path to hit the number, even if it leads to unintended consequences.

Given my involvement in the steel industry, let’s use this as an example. The Standard’s carbon limits are rightfully ambitious and structure (often involving steel) makes up a large part of the embodied carbon figure. So someone designing, specifying or purchasing steel on a project may find the “easiest” way to lower the steel related carbon figure is to specify Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) steel. However, since the UK is still transitioning its domestic production from BF-BOF to EAF, this incentivises specifiers to look abroad for imported low-carbon steel…

• that might “clean” a London building project’s balance sheet, but if we do it by undermining our own domestic industrial transition, are we actually helping the planet or just moving the emissions elsewhere?

• and if we kill off the UK’s primary steel production in the race to hit a target, will we lose the long-term sovereign ability to control our own circular economy.

We must ensure that in our rush to be “Net Zero,” we aren’t inadvertently de-industrialising the UK and forgetting some important social and economic considerations. This steel example makes me think of two things:

1. you should come to the Circular Steel event in London on 24th June and speak to the industry about the reuse and recycling of steel and how these different parts of the industry all have a place

2. there is a 2025 piece called The role of scrap in steel decarbonisation which highlighted the finite and limited resource which is scrap (which feeds EAF) and pushed for decarbonisation of BF-BOF blast furnace facilities (most of UK steel making) rather than the industry specifying lower carbon steel from the continent

Version 1, but still evolving…

The Standard is a “Version 1” for a reason. It is meant to evolve and we should all try and be part of that ongoing conversation. If you are looking at these new requirements and wondering how they apply to your specific project - or how to balance these carbon targets with commercial and logistical reality - don’t feel you have to figure it out in a vacuum.

Myself (at Propetual) and colleagues across the industry, including those at Kees and Net Positive Solutions, are already under the bonnet of this document. We are able to help you navigate the data and strategic choices, ensuring project decisions happen in an informed way and at the right time. And aligned with the Standard, this can cover ⁠upfront carbon (design, materials), ⁠⁠operational carbon (systems, energy, waste) and crucially the post completion assessments (shining a light on any performance gaps).

Let’s get to work

Despite the challenges, this is a moment to be positive. For the first time, we have a clear, evidence-based benchmark. It’s an invitation to innovate and to design better.

I encourage everyone to get to know the document. Don’t be intimidated by the technicality, but instead see it as the toolkit for the next decade of construction. Let’s get to work on using it.

The energy at the launch was very clear and everyone had a spring in their step (and no it wasn’t just down to the beautiful sunshine!). After a formal morning session opened by Deputy Mayor Mete Coban, I joined the afternoon walkthrough hosted by pioneer of TPE, Talia Berriman (Newham Council), to see how the theory of “circular construction” is being put into practice.

The tour was split into three distinct chapters that define the TPE ecosystem:

1. The Material Warehouse: Akil Scafe-Smith from RESOLVE Collective walked us through the intake and inventory, telling us some stories of specific materials that have come from cultural uses.

2. The Yard and Factory: Joel De Mowbray from Yes Make showed off the Yard Space and explained that coming soon would be the engine room where the “doing” happens, a second warehouse space that is going to be the Factory.

3. The Office Space: Summer Islam from Material Cultures explained the design and creative thinking behind TPE’s use of available materials (think reused CLT, pressed hemp boards and Elton John’s old kitchen) to create the much needed admin backbone of the operation, comprising office space and a meeting room.

What TPE has achieved here is immense. It isn’t just a warehouse; it’s a co-developed hub that creates practical, everyday entry points into climate action. By housing these three practices under one roof, they’ve built a system that stops high-quality materials from hitting the skip and immediately redirects them into projects that serve local needs. And with it being a 5-year meanwhile play on a site which ultimately is going to be developed out into Silverworks as part of the wider Silvertown masterplan, there is enough time to establish TPE and hopefully it will leave some sort of legacy within the permanent re-development.

It is brilliant to see a space that doesn’t just hoard “waste” but actively adds value to it. The imagination on display from the designers and craftspeople involved means that almost anything salvaged can be reimagined. And on top of that, they are building some of the systems needed to enable this kind of movement to grow and for that, the whole team deserves a massive well done.

However, as we move from the excitement of the launch into the reality of the long-term, there are some interesting questions that I hope TPE will help us answer.

Firstly, there is the scale. While TPE is a triumph for community-led projects, I’m keen to see how this model translates to the heavy-duty requirements of larger-scale developments. Can we take these lessons and this site and scale them to a level that moves the needle for the designers, contractors and clients that are involved in medium to large commercial projects?

Then there’s the value proposition. Currently, materials are taken for free, with only collection costs covered. While this is an attractive “avoided cost” for those looking to dodge disposal fees, I do wonder if we are still inadvertently downplaying the inherent value of the material itself. To reach true commercial viability, surely we eventually need the market to price these assets properly.

Finally, there’s the “inventory” challenge. When asked what they say no to, the answer was “very little.” That’s a noble starting point, but for a hub to remain efficient, you need a high churn rate. I’ll be watching closely to see how they draw the line between a vibrant resource centre and a stagnating storage zone.

I want to be clear, these aren’t criticisms, they are just a couple of considerations in the next set of hurdles for the entire circular economy. TPE is a bold, energetic step in the right direction and I’m very excited to see how they refine the model. If you’re in the industry and want to see what the future of urban resource management looks like, get yourself down to the docks.

Sign me up for the Demo

As a CN Awards Judge, I’ve had the privilege of reviewing many products and innovations across the construction sector. Very few truly shift the needle. But every so often, something comes along that forces you to ask: “Why hasn’t the industry been doing this all along?”

Imperial Thermal Engineering is one of those rare cases.

Over the past few years, their team has picked up two CN Product Innovation Awards. The first was for the Etorch in 2023 and then again in 2025 for the Epot. That is impressive, but the real story is why they’ve won.

This is all-electric, flame-free, gas-free equipment designed specifically for hot-works roofing.

• No LPG bottles

• No traditional torches

• No flame risk

Instead you get safer, cleaner, more controlled heat with a fraction of the hassle. And the icing on the cake is that it’s more efficient to run!

Why this matters for the industry

For anyone involved in roofing, property or construction risk management, the implications are big:

• Safety: Eliminating open flame removes one of the sector’s highest-risk activities

• Sustainability: Electrifying hot works removes fossil fuels from the process entirely

• Efficiency: Faster warm-up, better control, lower energy consumption and simpler logistics

• Insurance & Compliance: A flame-free process reduces hot-works exposure

The Eseries equipment solves long-standing, widely-felt challenges.

See it for yourself

Curious about how these systems work in practice? Well there’s an opportunity to see a live demonstration this Thursday morning in Farringdon, London. The team will be showcasing their E-Series line-up, including the Etorch and the Epot.

If you’re involved in roofing, procurement, sustainability or construction risk, it’s well worth seeing.

Sign me up for the Demo

And finally, here’s a write up from 2023 on the back of their first CN Award win…

This year’s event lands at a critical moment for the industry. With steel reuse gaining serious traction (and a few shake-ups challenging assumptions) there’s never been a more important time to come together and ask: where are we now, and what’s next?

Buy a Ticket

What to expect:

The event is built around real stories, real challenges, and real progress.

I’m bringing together everyone working to push steel reuse forward — from demolition to design, procurement to policy — for an afternoon of shared insight, practical takeaways and bold thinking. Across four powerful sessions we’ll explore reuse systems, costs, policy, and on-the-ground delivery, as well as some fast-paced burst presentations from people doing the work.

Sessions & Speakers:

• Steel without End

  Ella Warren - HTS | Will Arnold - IStructE | Bill Firth - EMR | Eoin Bailey - 7 Steel UK | Dave Chapman - ArcelorMittal | Ben Cunliffe - British Steel

• Field Notes on Reuse

  Project burst presentations from a range of contractors, engineers, fabricators and more

• Making Reuse Happen

  Tom Howarth - Circular Steel | Gemima Walker - Elliott Wood | Harry Price - Severfield | Konstantinos Tsavdaridis | City, University of London

• Steel Reuse 2.0

  Steve Gilchrist - Circular Steel | Charlotte O'Farrell - City of London Corporation | Rob Palmer - Maconda | Roy Fishwick - Cleveland Steel & Tubes | Martin Quinn - GPE

Format & Flow:

Main event starts at 13:00 (arrive from 12:30) – Panels, case studies, keynotes

Networking drinks from 18:00 – Stick around, grab a drink, and connect

📍 Venue: Storey Club, Paddington

🎟️ Tickets: £150+VAT

Who’s it for?

Whether you’re in construction, engineering, design, manufacturing, development or policy — if you care about circularity, carbon, and the future of steel, this event is for you.

Grab your ticket today and be part of the next chapter for circular steel.

Buy a Ticket

What is EME?

EME is like a matchmaking service for materials - finding new for excess resources that would otherwise go to waste or low value recycling. Whether it’s structural steel, timber, glass, carpet tiles, furniture or even high-value industrial components, EME finds and connects those who have surplus with those who need it.

And the really cool thing is that this isn’t just about waste reduction, it’s about unlocking real financial and environmental value. These materials already exist, and reusing them cuts costs (from disposal/recycling), reduces emissions and supports the circular economy.

Zooming Out

Right now, the construction and property industries face a big challenge: how to reduce embodied carbon while keeping projects financially viable. One of the fastest, most impactful ways to do this is material reuse - and EME is leading the way in making this process seamless.

By leveraging data and matchmaking, EME is making sure materials don’t get scrapped or down-cycled (or even worse, landfilled) but instead stay in circulation where they belong.

Your Materials Need YOU 🫵🏻

If you’re looking for high-quality reclaimed materials, you don’t have to wait. There are materials on EME’s platform today, ready to be snapped up by you. One recent addition is over fifteen doors which are available right now.

Timber Doors

Want to see what else is available, browse and then sign up. And if you have have surplus materials or need help sourcing please reach out to the team.

The shift toward circularity is happening, and platforms like EME are making it easier than ever to take part. Whether you’re looking to cut costs, lower your project’s carbon footprint, or tap into a smarter way of sourcing materials, now’s the time to get involved!

It is worth noting that it aligns well with the previous Orms/Lancaster Uni and Waterman reports on the subject and is more of a hands-on “how-to” document aimed at both new builds and retrofits. Orms’ guidance focused on integrating passports into pre-demolition audits and encouraging a shift from demolition to deconstruction, and Waterman’s framework established a hierarchical passport system (Material, Component, System, Building) tied into BIM and regulatory compliance.

More than Just a Digital Tag

At its core, a material passport is more than a digital asset register. It provides:

• Product sustainability data, including Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) and embodied carbon metrics.

• Material health and safety data, like VOC emissions for WELL and BREEAM.

• Circularity insights, detailing disassembly methods, repair strategies, and end-of-life reuse pathways.

The guide emphasises that material passports aren’t just about current projects - they are an investment in a future where reclaimed materials become the norm. It promotes reuse hubs and platforms, such as Excess Materials Exchange, to track material flows across portfolios, an area previously advocated by Orms in its open-source database approach.

For me though, a key point is that we need greater standardisation of this. If different platforms, companies, or projects use inconsistent data structures, we risk fragmentation and inefficiency. Alignment on key fields, interoperability across digital systems, and secure, accessible storage will be critical to scaling adoption.

Time will tell if the EU’s Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) and the Digital Product Passport (DPP) initiative will drive us towards this kind of standardisation, but our industry also has a role in ensuring practical, universal standards are developed and adopted.

Who Owns the Passport?

The guide recognises that materials passports evolve over time, meaning responsibility for updating and maintaining them must be shared across multiple stakeholders. I think this is so important and really reinforces why we need to get these right - it must be easy to access, have relevant information (not necessarily everything which could be overwhelming and a burden) that is able to be maintained. For me the key is making material passports about the entire life of buildings or projects, not just something that is completed at project completion and forgotten.

• Developers & asset owners should set the passport strategy

• Design teams initiate and embed data collection at the design stage

• Contractors ensure materials are logged and documented during construction

• Manufacturers provide technical product details for passports

• Facilities Managers keep records up to date during a building’s lifecycle

Why This Matters

The guide builds on the groundwork laid by Orms and Waterman by bringing short and simple clarity to the “how” of material passport adoption. It makes a strong case for digital passports as a due diligence tool, supporting both sustainability certifications and insurance for reused materials - two key challenges that have slowed adoption in the past.

For anyone in property and construction, embedding materials passports into projects now is not just about compliance, it’s about staying ahead of the inevitable regulatory and market shifts. Whether you’re a developer, consultant, or contractor, you have an opportunity to lock in material value and contribute to an industry-wide shift towards circularity.

Here’s a couple of things to expect in 2025 for UK construction.

Offices

The office sector is poised for a resurgence with 18% growth in project starts forecast for 2025. Hybrid working trends continue driving demand for high-quality refurbishments and environmentally efficient spaces, as companies adapt to new ways of working. Plus government announcements of billions of investment in digital infrastructure will likely stimulate further demand for data centres and tech-enabled office spaces. This aligns closely with last year’s prediction that refurbishments would offset declines in new office developments, although it appears stronger than predicted.

Infrastructure

Public investment is leading the charge in 2025, driven by commitments to long-term infrastructure funding. The Spending Review in Spring 2025 is expected to clarify significant allocations to utilities and transport, whilst the water industry’s AMP8 programme will double investment. And then there’s Net Zero ambitions which are generating more funding for renewable energy and grid expansion. As a result, civil engineering starts (which saw a slight decline in 2023) are expected to grow by 5% in 2025, reinforcing predictions made last year.

Private Housing

Private housing, which has faced significant challenges in recent years, is finally showing signs of sustained recovery. Starts are forecast to grow by 13% in 2025 due to improved affordability and high demand, and buyer confidence seems renewed as shown by a jump in mortgage approvals at the end of 2024. This recovery was predicted last year, but the growth seems stronger than expected.

Summary

Reflecting on a year ago, many of the anticipated trends for 2025 have materialised:

• Stability: Election done, inflation is cooling, interest rates are dropping, and GDP growth is upward.

• Construction Starts: Following a 7% decline in 2023, project starts have stabilised and are forecast to grow by 8% in 2025.

• Challenges Persist: Labour challenges remain a significant constraint, while material costs are still high and pressure margins.

2025 could be a turning point for UK construction. The industry is bolstered by public spending, renewed private sector confidence, and a clearer political landscape.

There’s no denying that the journey is complex, but as I’ve said before, those leading in London are much like Formula 1 teams who pioneer technology and set new benchmarks that others will strive to meet.

GPE: Scaling Circularity

GPE has launched its Circularity Score, a new metric that quantifies the percentage of reused and recycled materials incorporated into their developments. Their targets signal a clear commitment:

• 2025: All new schemes to achieve a minimum 40% Circularity Score.

• 2030: This target rises to 50%.

• 2040: Aiming for greater than 60% circularity across all projects.

Real-world examples of this approach are already catching the headlines. Close to my heart due to the steel reuse, is 2 Aldermanbury Square, where 1,700 tonnes of steel were salvaged and repurposed for use at another London project, a powerful demonstration of material reuse on a significant scale.

I appreciate GPE’s focus on transparency - they have plans to publicly disclose building scores and their methodology by mid-2025, which will be an interesting read. And I think their CEO, Toby Courtauld, has the right approach when he says “Our Circularity Score will challenge us to innovate faster and catalyse a deeper market for reused materials.”

Final note on the score itself… there is no industry agreed method of calculating ‘circularity’, so GPE has come up with their own. You may have your own view, but it’s a start. A couple of the fine-print point are worth noting:

• To measure circularity GPE are including quantity of materials that have been retained/reused (either from the existing site or wider market) and they will also include the proportion of a new material that is derived from recycled content.

• Also note if they deconstruct a building and donate/sell material, that will be recorded but not find it’s way into the score - I think this is a missed opportunity because it would incentivise material harvesting. It takes me back to my thought piece on whether deconstruction should be considered part of a current development project, or the end of the previous development, see link below.

British Land: Circularity in Practice

British Land’s Full Circle, Full Potential initiative is an all-encompassing framework embedding circular economy principles across their projects. It also includes a suite of tools ranging from materials trackers to employer requirements. Plus there is a strong focus on Material Passports, including a whole piece on what they are and how they should be used on projects. The project manager in me also appreciates the responsibilities matrix for who they think should be doing what through the phases of a project - I wonder if the industry agrees on these?

Whilst British Land have not defined any circularity targets, they have certainly gone into detail to show that they understand the topic, and they explain that this all fits into their wider drive of carbon reduction - their pathway aims for upfront embodied carbon to be below 500kgCO2e/m2 on all office developments by 2030.

And there are already some notable success stories, including projects like 1 Broadgate where, once again, reused steel saved significant embodied carbon. Similarly, the refurbishment of 1 Triton Square achieved a carbon reduction of 2,400tCO2 by reusing facade panels.

It’s good to see that British Land’s approach also emphasises tenant collaboration to reduce waste from fit-outs, recognising that the circular economy must extend beyond ‘base build’ construction. I have always said that materials like steel are high carbon but low frequency, and we should not forget the materials and activities that are lower carbon, but higher frequency (e.g. fit-out).

These initiatives by GPE and British Land are not just about hitting targets, they are helping to rewrite the rulebook for construction and property management. They are leading the way to a functioning circular economy by prioritising reuse, recycling, and transparency. Of course, there’s still a long way to go. I’m sure we can all think of many challenges and issues with reusing materials rather than buying new. But there is so much material stock out there and I think that this shift is inevitable, so why not get on board?

The Shift from Linear to Circular

Vince and Holly opened with compelling points about the state of our supply chain. Vince emphasised the need to break away from the hierarchical, linear model that currently dominates. He called for a more egalitarian approach, where all supply chain participants are viewed as equal contributors. A shift of this kind would allow companies like Keltbray to bring their expertise to the table earlier in a project’s lifecycle, potentially improving sustainability outcomes from the get-go.

Stuart followed up with case studies showcasing Keltbray’s ongoing efforts, while Aisling Reynolds (Group Environmental and Sustainability Manager) led the dynamic roundtable session that sparked some fantastic discussions. There were about eight or nine tables, each seating eight people, filled with what I called “the Formula One” of the industry - individuals whose actions could shape the direction of the wider construction sector.

Tackling Key Questions: Collaborative Thinking

We worked through three critical questions during the morning, with each table sharing their thoughts. Here’s a recap of the discussions and insights.

1. What are the opportunities for reuse and the circular economy?

A recurring theme at our table was risk-sharing. As it stands, risk is often pushed down the supply chain, which can stifle innovation and hinder the circular economy’s potential. The consensus was that we need to rethink how we distribute and manage risk to unlock new opportunities for reuse.

One suggestion I found particularly compelling was viewing pre-demolition audits as “design tools”. Rather than treating them as box-ticking exercises, why not integrate them into the earliest stages of a project? While the idea of conducting these audits at stage 0 is ambitious - considering most projects are barely even ‘projects’ at that point - it does challenge us to be more creative in our reuse strategies.

A great analogy came from Charlie Scott at Watermans, who likened current design practices to writing a recipe and then shopping for ingredients. In the future, we should reverse this: look at what’s already in the fridge (i.e., available materials) and design accordingly. This kind of creative thinking is exactly what’s needed to drive a more resource-efficient future.

We also agreed that creating a robust network for knowledge-sharing is essential to realising the circular economy’s potential. Collaboration is key, and without it, valuable insights remain siloed. Lastly, we touched on the need to redefine value - how we measure it, where it exists, and how it drives decision-making.

2. How can we measure the impact and value of circular economy activities?

This question revealed a significant gap in how we incentivise circular practices. Currently, our metrics don’t reward material recovery or deconstruction efforts, which makes adoption difficult. Without the right incentives, it’s hard to drive meaningful change.

A more detailed pre-demolition audit would help here, offering better visibility into the value of reused materials. We also floated the idea of designing buildings for disassembly - how about a rating or score for how ‘circular’ a project is? This could push designers and contractors to think more deeply about the lifecycle of their materials.

Vince shared a great model for thinking about these issues: the triangle of competing forces - effort, time and value. It’s a balancing act, but with the right metrics in place, we can move towards greater circularity.

3. What more can Keltbray do for the circular economy?

This discussion was about action. We all agreed that Keltbray has a unique opportunity to lead by example, sharing knowledge and successes with the wider industry. I couldn’t resist bringing up the Formula One analogy again, but then switched to Roger Bannister’s sub-4-minute mile. Once something is proven possible, it’s much easier for others to follow - and that’s exactly where we are with the circular economy.

I suggested Keltbray could offer alternative tenders for deconstruction on every project. Not only would this provide clients with real data on the costs and benefits of deconstruction, but it would also allow Keltbray to refine its expertise in this area.

Another idea I walked away with was the concept of a circular economy hackathon. Imagine bringing together design teams from projects with similar timelines to collaborate on circular solutions. These kinds of initiatives could push the boundaries of what’s possible and accelerate the industry’s progress.

In conclusion, the Keltbray event was a refreshing reminder of the power of collaboration and innovation. As industry leaders, we have a responsibility to drive the circular economy forward, and it starts with conversations like the ones we had that morning.

Let’s keep the momentum going. I’ll leave you with this thought - what will be our industry’s “4-minute mile” moment, and how can we push each other to get there?

A week ago, on Monday 30 September 2024 - day one of Circular Economy Week - the Circular Do Tank launched!

I’m a founding member of this new forum, which aims to raise awareness and drive adoption of circular practices within the built environment. So I thought I’d tell you a little bit about it.

🚨 But before I go further, there is a CALL TO ACTION! 🚨

🏢 if you represent an organisation, consider signing our Pledge. For now, just register interest by clicking here.

🙋 if you are an individual and wish to be on our mailing list and/or contribute to the Workstreams, register by clicking here.

What is the CDT?

The Circular Do Tank is a dynamic team of multidisciplinary experts dedicated to
tackling challenges relating to the circular economy through pragmatic experimentation – by enlisting property investors and developers to undertake material reuse in their projects and to support them with our expertise, comprising a wealth of experience in legal, insurance, finance, and more.

With the backing of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, we drive
the adoption of re-use practices in construction, renovation, and demolition projects.

Our mission is to facilitate the adoption of circular practices by collaborating with organisations, sharing knowledge, and driving innovations that enable material reuse and carbon reduction. We have a vision of a future where every sector operates within a thriving circular economy, significantly diminishing environmental impact and fostering a regenerative global ecosystem.

So it’s our purpose to lead the transformation towards a circular economy by championing circular practices across industries, reducing waste, and promoting resource efficiency. We are aiming to drive forward five key pillars.

The Committee

Sixteen committee members founded the Circular Do Tank and got it this far. We meet monthly to discuss progress, manage the forum and shape the direction of travel going forwards. It’s a really fantastic group of people from right across the industry with such a wealth of experience.

Workstreams

The scope of the Circular Economy is vast, so we have narrowed down our focus to six workstreams - these may, and probably will, evolve over time. Workstreams are led by various CDT Committee Members, but we actively encourage individuals to join these workstreams - the key words here are knowledge sharing and collaboration! You may spot that I am leading the Logistics and Storage Workstream, so reach out if you can help on this.

The Pledge

We have written a Circular Pledge which we believe all types of organisations can commit to. Whilst we acknowledge we need the “decision makers” to be bought into this, we also seek commitment across the entire spectrum of participants in the built environment, from designers through to manufacturers. Our three point Pledge is:

• Prioritise the highest form of retention and reuse within the built environment.

• Participate in the reuse and exchange of construction materials and products.

• Foster a collaborative approach through sharing of successes, challenges, and data.

Pledging organisations will be listed on the Circular Do Tank website, will receive regular communications from the CDT and are encouraged to share their affiliation publicly.

What Next?

Keen to be involved? Check on the call to action above - we hope you can join us by pledging as a business or assisting as an individual member.

If you want to know more, please reach out at hello@circulardotank.co.uk. We’re happy to answer any questions.

And don’t forget to follow us on LinkedIn.