Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Curabitur eleifend tortor nec augue pretium
Picture an office building: the new tenants are refitting the space and changing the configuration, redesigning the layout, adding meeting rooms, maybe removing a kitchen. These fit-out works involve stripping out the existing mechanical, electrical and public health (MEP) building services and replacing them with new, while most of the old is sent to recycling.
Now, picture an office building that has been vacant for years. The owner has upgraded the building services to make it marketable but still there are no interested parties, so a change of use is proposed to a hotel or residential use. The recently installed MEP services are not suitable for the new use type and are destined for waste.
Variations of these scenarios happen regularly throughout the lifecycle of commercial buildings. In a typical case, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors predicts relatively short replacement cycles for MEP building services (15 to 30 years) compared with a building lifecycle of 60 years, and replacement can be more frequent than that. Despite this, circular economy (CE) principles are rarely applied in MEP design and construction. Current linear practices generate substantial waste and carbon impacts – up to 27% of the embodied carbon emissions for a newbuild project, and as much as 75% for a refurbishment, according to the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers’ TM65: Embodied Carbon in Building Services: A Calculation Methodology.
There are several barriers to widespread implementation of CE principles in MEP services. The bespoke nature of buildings means that services are designed to specific projects and occupancy demands, complicating reuse and standardisation. The industry’s cautiousness, coupled with warranty and insurance concerns for second-life equipment, creates obstacles to adopting circular solutions. Equipment often becomes functionally obsolete owing to changing building user needs, decarbonisation efforts or updated regulations.
Returning to our example of the vacant office building, in the current market it would also be very unlikely that the removed MEP installations would find a home in another building because of factors such as:
It’s not all bad news, though. There are important enablers that can support the transition to a CE and reduce how much equipment from these office buildings goes to waste.
Evolving policy and industry frameworks are pushing CE adoption. Regional and local authorities increasingly require CE statements and whole-life carbon assessments as part of planning applications and post-decision reporting, such as the Greater London Authority through the London Plan Policy SI7: Reducing Waste and Supporting the Circular Economy or Greater Manchester’s Policy JP-S6: Resource Efficiency.
In our vacant office example, when seeking planning for the change of use, the owner could be mandated to provide a pre-demolition or pre-refurbishment audit that identifies any potential equipment for reuse, on or off site, aiming to reduce waste.
Similarly, if the tenant in our fit-out example is pursuing BREEAM accreditation, several of the credits encourage circular principles, including designing for material efficiency, adaptability, maintenance and end of life. The key thing is that these enablers trigger conversations among engineers and clients about what is possible for existing or future buildings.
Standardisation and modularity in the design of MEP systems allow for easier upgrades, repairs and component replacement. In our office cases, if the existing systems are to be reused elsewhere, they must be able to be removed and disassembled without damage. Designing MEP services with maintenance and end-of-life disassembly in mind is key to overcoming practical barriers of equipment accessibility and dismantling. Modular designs also enable adaptation of systems for changing building uses without full replacement.
Additionally, if existing equipment is still suitable, using condition surveys to assess equipment can determine whether replacement is necessary or if parts can be incorporated in the new design.
Manufacturers hold significant influence in driving CE adoption by rethinking their product design, business models and service offerings.
Here are a few examples of models and schemes that manufacturers embracing circular models could set up or use to enable circularity in the office case:
Although these business models alone are not sufficient, building owners and those leading procurement need to be aware of, and willing to engage in, alternative procurement routes.
Equipped with complete data on MEP services within office buildings, including service history and condition surveys, a project team would stand more chance of finding a second home for unwanted equipment, and would be better able to discuss re-certifying the equipment or resale. Comprehensive handover processes ensure that facilities management teams have access to accurate information, including the end-of-life strategy. Improved operation and maintenance planning can extend equipment life and drive the realisation of intended end-of-life processes like reuse or refurbishment.
Even with all these enablers in place, would our building owner or tenant and their project teams maximise the onward reuse of redundant equipment? Would they put circular strategies in place in the design of the new scheme to enable circular management in the future?
Embracing the CE requires a fundamental shift in the attitudes and approaches to design and procurement of MEP services to enable longevity, disassembly and reuse. It involves collaboration among building owners, engineers, manufacturers, facilities managers and contractors to embed circular principles throughout the product lifecycle, accompanied by supportive policies and improved data management.
Jennifer Pollard MISEP CEnv, senior associate, and Claire Brierley, senior consultant, at Hoare Lea
