Decisions about whether to demolish and redevelop or retrofit existing buildings are rarely straightforward, requiring technical evidence to balance policy requirements, viability and carbon impacts.
New research commissioned by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) provides timely insight into how these decisions are made across England, and where policy, guidance and professional practice may need to evolve.
The research draws on qualitative interviews and almost 1,000 online survey responses from stakeholders affected by or interested in changes to national planning policy or guidance on the demolition and redevelopment or retrofit of buildings.
According to MHCLG, while effort was made to capture insight from a diverse range of stakeholders involved in decision-making around demolition and retrofitting, 'the exact parameters of the total population of interest were not known and therefore the survey should be treated as a consultation'.
Its findings paint a consistent picture: while there is broad support for retrofit and whole-life carbon assessment in principle, current planning policy is widely seen as unclear and insufficiently directive for real-world decision-making.
National and local planning policy in focus
One of the survey's central findings is the perceived lack of clarity in national and local planning policy when deciding whether to demolish and redevelop or retrofit a building, with a significant proportion of respondents either unable to determine the national and local policy positions or considering them neutral.
Across all development types, only 10–21% of respondents felt that policy is clear and easy to interpret, with local planning policy considered only marginally better than national policy.
The findings indicate strong support for considering retrofit first, rather than a presumption that retrofit is always the preferred outcome, particularly on environmental and heritage grounds: 85% of respondents agreed that retrofitting delivers positive environmental benefits and 84% saw preserving local heritage as a key reason to retrofit rather than demolish.
However, retrofit is widely recognised as more complex than demolition and redevelopment: 73% said retrofit requires greater levels of skill and expertise.
Despite this, retrofit is routinely considered in practice: around two-thirds (67%) of respondents said they examine retrofit alongside demolition for all sites, while only 10% reported a clear preference for demolition.
Views were more mixed on cost, bureaucracy and design outcomes, with no strong consensus on whether retrofit is too costly, overly bureaucratic or whether demolition consistently leads to better-designed buildings.
Overall, respondents viewed the choice not as a simple binary but as a balance between environmental benefits, heritage value, skills, cost and project context.
Nearly 90% of respondents called for clear national guidance on how to calculate and apply total carbon emissions in planning decisions. Routine use of whole-life carbon assessments, demolition audits and materials passports was relatively low, despite a high awareness of their value.
Among those already using carbon reduction approaches, there was near-unanimous agreement that they should be embedded within planning practice guidance.
This highlights both a capability gap and an opportunity: as policy and guidance mature, demand for consistent, credible carbon assessment is likely to grow significantly.
Insights confirm appetite for change
The survey also highlighted practical challenges, including resource constraints within local authorities and skills gaps in retrofit delivery, which will need to be addressed alongside policy changes.
Respondents expressed support for a range of potential policy options, such as:
- requiring whole-life carbon assessments for major developments
- mandating evidence that retrofit has been considered before demolition
- standardising national guidance on carbon calculation methodologies
- harmonising VAT treatment between retrofit and new build.
As trusted advisers at all stages of development, RICS members are well placed to shape this transition, particularly around embedding carbon-aware feasibility analysis and helping clients navigate evolving policy expectations.
As MHCLG considers next steps, the profession's role in translating clearer policy into better outcomes will be critical.
RICS comment
The MHCLG findings reinforce what RICS members are seeing in practice.
While important decisions on demolition and retrofitting are now being made much earlier in the planning process – with a greater emphasis on viability, carbon and deliverability – national guidance still lacks clarity and consistency to effectively support those judgements.
RICS strongly encourages a retrofit-first rather than retrofit-only approach, underpinned by proportionate carbon assessments and early-stage feasibility analysis.
If the role of whole life carbon, demolition audits and materials passports in planning policy is expanded, this must be accompanied by increased investment in skills across both professional industries and local authorities.
RICS continues to develop guidance, standards and training to support practitioners in this space, including on retrofit strategy, carbon competence and ethical, evidence-based advice.
For further information, please contact RICS Knowledge.
Discover the new RICS Member App: CPD on the go
RICS has introduced a refreshed CPD approach that prioritises meaningful, high-quality learning that genuinely benefits your work and is tailored to your specialism, career stage, and the real-world challenges you face.
The new app makes logging CPD simpler and more intuitive, so you can focus on the development that matters to your practice.
