A Blueprint for Change

ROUNDTABLE WRITE UPS

Working Better Together Convincing budget holders is one side of the coin. What about the industry itself? Is it ready for a new way of working? Many acknowledged that more and better collaboration is needed. We simply aren’t talking enough about what good looks like. It was suggested that the London Technical Advisers Group (LoTAG) should be a vehicle for driving a more consistent approach across the boroughs. National and regional network operators could benefit too from sharing the merits of different approaches with each other. Attendees talked about carbon budgeting and developing energy performance certificates for materials, for example. Getting Communities Behind Change There was discussion about evolving how the sector engages the public on firmer net zero targets, especially where these might compete with placemaking and regeneration drivers. We must bring communities on the journey with us. It was noted that education about different options could help, particularly on the balance of aesthetics, cost and carbon intensity, and of sweating existing assets versus upgrading streetscapes. One way to do this could be through ‘good, better, best’ models that clearly set out the compromises. Who Leads? Other barriers identified included ownership and leadership around a new standard, but with no agreement reached on who should take up the mantle. Could this group pave the way forward?

Core Principles and Standards The group set out its wish list for a standard, considering some early themes and ideas to take forward: • Consideration of whole life versus upfront carbon savings, including longevity and future maintenance requirements, is vital to maximise return on investment and deliver genuinely impactful projects • A standard should enshrine circularity principles and the re-use of materials. It could set specific recycling goals for different material classes • There should be firm numbers. It was noted that the highest polluters are often small projects and setting a cut-off threshold to get the ‘worst offenders’ under control was suggested • Any targets should be tapered, getting more ambitious over time to encourage continuous innovation and let contractors know what they need to work towards • Parity in data calculations and methodologies for measuring the carbon impact of schemes is paramount so that we can compare like for like. It was acknowledged that more information is becoming available to help us do this – we know more now than we did even just five years ago • These shared measurement standards must be robust. Third-party verification could be part of the answer. A common level of competency to carry out assessments might be required too

Conclusion and Path Forward – Finding Common Ground While establishing a shared sustainability standard in infrastructure is a tall order, people clearly saw value in working towards one. The appetite for a new, bolder approach isn’t in doubt, but the industry must work together to achieve change. There will be knotty conversations along the way, but we cannot afford to shy away from having them.