Professional competence has been seriously called into question following the Grenfell Tower disaster, where the specification of safety-critical systems was compromised by insufficient knowledge, lack of clear responsibilities and ambiguous regulations.

Construction professionals and their institutions are being challenged to ensure this does not happen again and competence has become the main focus for achieving change.

Simultaneously the UK’s regulatory system is being rethought by Government – for buildings/structures and professionals alike. Both may result in more prescription and less discretion and autonomy, as well as greater reliance on expert systems and AI.

For a long time the professions working in the built and natural environment have been becoming more specialised and less generalist, potentially leaving them without the wider competences to identify and head off potential problems and interconnected risks.

This debate asks whether the professions are doing enough to respond to changing circumstances or might the current system of professionalism be replaced by a new, less welcome regime?

Chair: Richard Harral, Chief Executive, CABE

Speakers:

• Michael Woodrow, Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering at UCL

• Neesha Gopal, Facade Specialist, Foster and Partners

• Katy Turff, Deputy CEO, Engineering Council  

• John Vanstone, Chair of Industry Competence Committee, National Home Improvement Council and Certass

Venue: Arup, 80 Charlotte Street, London W1T 4QS

Time & date: 17.30 for 18.00 – 20.00, 20th January 2026 (in person only)

Event registration at: https://Edge189-Competence.eventbrite.co.uk

In recent years a far greater awareness of the need to factor risk into decision-making has taken root. In particular, the Covid 19 pandemic taught us the importance of anticipating and preparing for high impact but relatively low probability risks and ensuring that appropriate measures are put in place and then maintained with the express purpose of mitigating damage from, or even avoiding entirely, a wide range of possible future harms. 

In the built and natural environment where projects have lives measured in decades, if not centuries, there is a need to anticipate events and environmental conditions long into the future and with the likelihood that even low probability events will eventually occur , especially when factors such as climate change, damage to natural systems and even inadequate maintenance are taken into account. 

Risks include everything from cyber attacks, loss of financial confidence, infectious diseases and air pollution to breakdowns in infrastructure and supply chains as well as the more familiar dangers of flooding and overheating. Both short and long-term incidents can trigger rapid escalations of events resulting in widespread damage.

The sector needs to consider and factor in long-term risks when developing projects and in its advice and guidance to clients, investors and government. How should this be approached? What skills are needed - not only to design for climate change, but to actively plan for the full range of risk impacts in the years ahead?

The Roundtable addressed four key areas, with invited speakers on each, followed by a wider discusion. The topics are:

1.     Environmental and climate-based risk

2.     Infrastructure failure and outages

3.     Finance and insurance

4.     Designing for risk

We very much hope that you can join us on the 27th to participate in this Chatham House Rule discussion.  It is intended to lead to further debate, but, and more immediately, to an Edge Green Paper on the subject.

Venue:                                                            The Institution of Structural Engineers,

47-58 Bastwick Street, London EC1V 3PS

Time & date:    15.00 - 17.30, 27th November 2025  

References:

• Chronic Risk Analysis, Cabinet Office, Government Office for Science and Foresight, July 2025 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6890acc9e8ba9507fc1b09a6/Chronic_Risks_Analysis__CRA_.pdf

• Climate Change - A Risk Assessment, King D,. et al, (2015) - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280881788_Climate_change_a_risk_assessment

• UK Climate Risk Independent Assessment (CCRA3), UK Climate Risk (2021) - https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Independent-Assessment-of-UK-Climate-Risk-Advice-to-Govt-for-CCRA3-CCC.pdf

• Preparing for Extreme Risks: Building a Resilient Society, House of Lords ((2021) - https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5802/ldselect/ldrisk/110/110.pdf

• National Risk Register, Cabinet Office (2025) - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67b5f85732b2aab18314bbe4/National_Risk_Register_2025.pdf

• The concept of risk in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, IPCC, (2020), https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2021/02/Risk-guidance-FINAL_15Feb2021.pdf

• UK Climate Resilience Roadmap, UKGBC, 2025, https://ukgbc.org/our-work/topics/resilience-roadmap/

Exploring long-term risk in the built and natural environment

In recent years we have all become far more aware of the importance of risk and the need to factor it into decision-making. In particular, the Covid 19 pandemic taught us that high impact but relatively low probability risks need to be carefully prepared for and that plans and resources should be in place well in advance and kept properly maintained thereafter. 

Some events, even when having a relatively low probability in any given year, are highly likely to occur over an extended period, especially when the associated risk level is increasing due to factors such as climate change. 

One difficulty is knowing when threats will become a reality, how soon and to what extent to take preventative and remedial action. This is as true of disease, flooding and extreme heat waves, as it is of major accidents and malicious attacks. 

As work on and with the built and natural environment is almost always for the medium to long term, this should make such risk an ever-present factor in decision-making and design considerations and calculations.

To provide an overview of the issues and challenges, the Edge invited Dame Professor Julia King - Baroness Brown of Cambridge, Sir David King and Professor Brooke Rogers for an in-depth discussion. The discussion wase hosted by and held at Lucy Cavendish College.

Chair: Dr Liam Saddington, Director of Studies for Geography, Lucy Cavendish College

Speakers: Professor the Baroness Brown of Cambridge, Julia King.

Chair of the Adaptation Committee of the Climate Change Committee

Sir David King, Government Chief Scientist 2000 to 2007, founder of the Centre for Climate

Repair and currently Chair of the independent Climate Crisis Advisory Group.

Professor Brooke Rogers, Professor of Behavioural Science and Security,

Kings College London (confirmed)

Venue: Lucy Cavendish College

Lady Margaret Road, Cambridge CB3 0BU

Time & date:    18.00 - 19.00, 13th November 2025  

Downloads:

• Invitation sheet

• Notes from the discussion
  

Reading:

Chronic Risk Analysis. Cabinet Office/Government Office for Science/Foresight (2025) - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6890acc9e8ba9507fc1b09a6/Chronic_Risks_Analysis__CRA_.pdf

Climate Change - A Risk Assessment, King D,. et al, (2015) - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280881788_Climate_change_a_risk_assessment

UK Climate Risk Independent Assessment (CCRA3), UK Climate Risk (2021) - https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Independent-Assessment-of-UK-Climate-Risk-Advice-to-Govt-for-CCRA3-CCC.pdf

Preparing for Extreme Risks: Building a Resilient Society, House of Lords ((2021) - https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5802/ldselect/ldrisk/110/110.pdf

National Risk Register, Cabinet Office (2025) - https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67b5f85732b2aab18314bbe4/National_Risk_Register_2025.pdf

The concept of risk in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, IPCC, (2020), https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2021/02/Risk-guidance-FINAL_15Feb2021.pdf

This Edge Conversation #190 is being held in conjunction with Lucy Cavendish College

An Expert Roundtable convened by the Edge to consider the reform or reinvention of the Planning System in England

To renew the nation after World War 2 the New Towns Act 1946, Town and Country Planning Act 1947 and National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 revolutionised the planning and control of development in England, while aiming to protect nature and the countryside.[i]

Successive governments have tinkered with the 1947 system for ideological reasons and to adapt planning to society’s changing needs. Governments’ goals for planning have also shifted. The 1940s attempt to engender holistic planning has morphed into something more focused. Since 2010, governments have set just two primary goals: to build more homes and the infrastructure for a green energy transition.

To achieve this, the current Labour government is making more changes to the system through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2025,[ii] adjustments to the National Planning Policy Framework,[iii] and an assemblage of other initiatives.[iv] Controversy over Part III of the Bill arose because experts argued that its focus on the government’s goals was at the expense of nature recovery.[v]

We face a polycrisis. The government is right to push for more affordable housing. We must tackle the climate emergency, but we also face a devastating loss of biodiversity. We should ask if the current planning system can deliver on all these fronts, or if it has been patched up too often and is no longer fit for purpose.

This question does not produce easy answers. Libertarian economists have argued for many years for the market to be given primacy.[vi] Meanwhile, three alternatives for systemic reform have come to the fore in the last fifteen years, only to be set aside. The Conservative Party’s 2010 bottom-up ‘Open Source Planning’ proved impracticable.[vii] The TCPA’s 2018 Raynsford Review, advocating working with the market to promote wellbeing and sustainable development, fell on politically stony ground.[viii] Boris Johnson’s 2020 Planning for the Future White Paper’s simple zoning system was scuppered in part by backbenchers fearing voters’ reactions.[ix]

the Edge aims to reignite the debate. Do we continue to make do and mend, or can we create a different, simpler, more efficient and faster planning system that can deliver equally for climate, nature and people?

Downloads:

• The English Planning System - a provocation 251017

[i] Yvonne Rydin (1998). Urban and Environmental Planning in the UK. London: Macmillan, pp. 22-23.

[ii] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-planning-and-infrastructure-bill/guide-to-the-planning-and-infrastructure-bill (accessed 18 June 2025).

[iii] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/67aafe8f3b41f783cca46251/NPPF_December_2024.pdf (accessed 18 June 2025).

[iv] https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wms/?id=2025-06-02.hcws673.h&s=Land+Use#ghcws673.0 (accessed 18 June 2025).

[v] https://www.rskwilding.com/news/joint-statement-on-part-iii-of-the-planning-and-infrastructure-bill/; https://www.warwickshirewildlifetrust.org.uk/news/wildlife-trusts-call-out-inaccuracies-commons-debate-planning-infrastructure-bill (accessed 15 June 2025).

[vi] E.g., https://iea.org.uk/publications/research/the-land-use-planning-system (accessed 18 June 2025); Robert Jones (1982). Town and Country Chaos: A Critical Analysis of Planning in Britain. London: Adam Smith Institute.

[vii] https://acert.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/planning-green-paper.pdf (accessed 18 June 2025).

[viii] https://www.tcpa.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Planning-2020-Raynsford-Review-of-Planning-in-England-Final-Report.pdf (accessed 18 June 2025).

[ix] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/601bce418fa8f53fc149bc7d/MHCLG-Planning-Consultation.pdf (accessed 18 June 2025).

“The critical need for industry engagement and for a more comprehensive and coherent body of knowledge reinforces the vital importance of Government continuing to engage … in the programmed development of the knowledge, skills and tools by which building safety will be more securely delivered.”

Morrell and Day (2023)

"A nationally based approach to knowledge creation, validation and curation … is essential for improving capabilities in the construction and property industries and for effective public policymaking. Only an organisation with the status and adequate resources of a Public Sector Research Establishment can achieve this." the Edge (2024)

Built environment activities account for over 20% of the UK’s GDP but only 0.8% of public university research funding. In Building Competence and Capability the Edge identified the need for a new and independent Public Sector Research Establishment (PSRE) for the built environment. The UK has other PSREs, including NICE and HSE, but far fewer than elsewhere, as noted by The Royal Society (2020).

A National Built Environment Research Organisation (NBERO) would support vital public interests by providing robust evidence and guidance for practice, policymaking and regulation. This debate will consider the need for such a body and the benefits to different stakeholders: civil society, the construction and property industries, their supply chains, central and local governments and more.

Welcome: Peter Bonfield, VC & President, University of Westminster

Chair: Andy von Bradsky, Government Chief Architect 2019-2021

Speakers:

• Dame Judith Hackitt

• Elanor Warwick, Clarion Housing Group

• Peter Caplehorn, Construction Products Association

• Elena Marco, University of the West of England

• Alan Penn, University College London

• Richard Lorch, Buildings & Cities

Venue: University of Westminster, 35 Marylebone Road, NW1 5LS

Time & date: 18.00 – 20.00, 7th October 2025 (in person)

References:

the Edge. (2024). Building Competence and Capability: The case for a Public Sector Research Establishment for the Built Environment.

Morrell, P. and Day, A. (2023). Independent Review of the Construction Product Testing Regime. London: Department of Levelling Up, Housing & Communities.

The Royal Society. (2020). The role of public and non-profit research organisations in the UK research and innovation landscape

Downloads:

• ED187 - Debate Invitation

• ED187 - Debate Notes

• ED187 - Richard Lorch presentation

• ED187 - Alan Penn presentation

• ED187 - Elanor Warwick Presentation

The Debate was hosted by the Centre for the Study of the Production of the Built Environment (ProBE)

Health inequalities and inequities that affect the poor and vulnerable are a critical societal challenge. Existing structural inequalities and mounting pressures from environmental degradation, e.g. climate change, are exacerbating the situation.

There is compelling evidence that aspects of indoor environments (e.g. thermal, visual, acoustic conditions and air quality) can adversely affect health. However, the role of indoor environments in health inequalities is less understood, with limited focus on identifying effective solutions for health equity.

Access to indoor spaces (dwellings, workplaces, etc) that are optimised to promote health should be seen as a fundamental right for all.

Reflecting on the Special Issue recently published in the Journal Buildings & Cities, this event is an opportunity to understand and further discuss the latest evidence, the key knowledge gaps, and the significance of both for decision-making, policy and practice. A panel of distinguished speakers presented their expert views, followed by a debate with opportunities for the audience to contribute to the overarching question:

What actions and evidence are needed from academia, industry, policy and third sector, to secure health equity through buildings and their indoor environments?

Chair:          Terrie Alafat, Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust

Speakers:   Marcella Ucci and Anna Mavrogianni, University College London (Special Issue Co-editors)

David Osrin, University College London

Joe Baker, London Borough of Haringey Carbon Officer

Elly Hoult, Peabody Trust

Rosalie Callway, Town and Country Planning Association

Venue:         FCBStudios, Twenty Tottenham Street, London W1T 4RG

Date:             Tuesday 23 September, 18.00 – 20.30

This Edge Debate #186 was held in conjunction with Buildings & Cities. For free access to the special issue visit:

https://www.buildingsandcities.org/journal-content/special-issues/health-inequalities-indoor-environments.html

Downloads:

• Debate invitation

• ED186 Debate notes

• ED186 Debate Report - Amany Khalil, UCL

• David Osrin presentation

• Joe Baker presentation

• Rosalie Callway presentation

Climate change already influences insurance models, asset value, and investor confidence. Yet many planning and valuation frameworks continue to treat buildings as standalone ‘energy islands’; overlooking how solar exposure, ventilation, and water dynamics interact across the urban landscape and obscuring the wider interactions that define how cities actually perform. As towns and cities continue to grow and climate risks intensify, resilience must be embedded into how we plan, design and invest in urban areas. Not just for compliance or efficiency, but for lasting performance — environmental, spatial, and social. This means making better connections between land value and climate impacts in order to continuously drive improvements to urban form.

A series of speakers will describe potential pathways to assessing and valuing urban form and how its wider impact can be recognised in policy and valuation. An expert invited audience will then debate how urban climate considerations should be incorporated into design, planning, development and investment decisions?

Chair:         Lisa Fairmaner MRTPI, Head of London Plan and Strategic Planning, Greater London Authority

Moderator: Marialena Nikolopoulou, Kent School of Architecture

Speakers:   Farhaan Mir, m3 Ventures

Julie Futcher, Anglia Ruskin University

Sophie Taysom, Founder and CEO, Keyah

Venue:  AKT II, White Collar Factory, 1 Old Street Yard, London, EC1Y 8AF

Time & date: 18.00 – 19.30 - 14th July 2025 (in person) - Arrivals from 17.30

Downloads:
ED185 Debate Report

ED 185 - Presentation 1: Julie Futcher

ED 185 - Presentation 2: Sophie Taysom

ED 185 - Presentation 3: Farhaan Mir

This Edge Debate was held in conjunction with AKT II and ARU and has been organised by Julie Futcher and Mattia Donato, members of the Edge.

As part of the consultation procress on a Land Use Framework Defra asked the Edge to run a second expert roundtable following Edge Roundtable 173: Delivering a National Land Use Framework held in July 2024. The second discussion focused on the question of implementing such a Framework. and was attended byrepresentatives from ADEPT, CCC, the Circular Economy Taskforce, CIWEM, Defra, DESNZ, DfT, Environment Agency, Geotechnical Unit- DSIT, IPPR, LGA, LSE, MHCLG, Nature Friendly Farming Network, NISTA, RICS, RTPI, SocEnv, TCPA, UCL and the Edge

The session was held at the headquarters of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, London on the 8th April 2025. The session was held in accordance with the Chatham House Rule and Chaired by Dr Richard Simmons of UCL and the Edge.

Downloads:

• Notes from the Roundtable (8th April 2025)

• Edge analysis diagram of Government policies named in the consultation and the place of a Land Use information Framework (LUIF)

• Edge response to Defra Land Use Consultation (25th April 2025)

MAKING IT HAPPEN

Looking at the timeline produced by the Edge for Futurebuild in 2020 and reviewed today, 5 years’ later, we have known for many years about the impact of climate change and the likely consequences, what needs to be done and also how to do it. And yet, here we are in 2025 with the window for action closing with a concerning degree of dithering when it comes to taking action and making impact. We know that there are government legal commitments to achieving targets by some key not very distant dates – 2030, 2035 and 2050. The Climate Change Committee has also shown that we are not going to meet our targets for emissions reduction or even tree planting.

The sessions today consider how those working in the built and natural environment can improve on this situation through a combination of legislation and competence and positive actions those delivering.

Sustainability, social justice and transition

The UK has the highest levels of income inequality in the EU. Poor housing standards with 14% or 3.5 million homes failing the Decent Homes Standard is another indicator of inequality as is uneven access to green space with the more economically deprived areas tending to have the least access while often being urban areas with the poorest air quality.

The Labour government has come into power with a commitment to both provide affordable housing and protect nature.

There are questions to answer if we are to achieve these commitments starting with how should we use our land ? Where should we develop? Are new towns the answer? Locations for renewable energy? For sustainable transport routes? Impacts of climate change on the land? Suitable land for food growing? Biodiversity network connectivity? Ensuring that 30% of the land is given to nature? What should those working in the built and natural environment do to effect significant change? Assess to employment? Access to services? How should planning respond to integrate all these issues into sustainable solutions?

The other drivers for sustainability, social justice and fairness are the UN Sustainable Development Goals which were adopted by member states in 2015. The UK government has made a commitment to deliver these by 2030, but enthusiasm by the construction industry appears to have waned despite the Institution of Civil Engineers Global Engineering Congress held in 2018 with its Sustainability Route Map for the global engineering community to better engage with the UN SDGs. What is our progress to date? How can the industry have a greater focus on these critical ambitions?

Edge Debate 177:

Tackling the polycrisis – can we fix housing, climate, nature and health?

5th March 2025, 10.30-11.45

The government wants to build thousands of new homes in urban and rural areas to try to fix the housing crisis. So why talk about a polycrisis?
Developing homes – how many, where, how it’s done – is inextricably interconnected with three other crises, in nature, the climate and health. Solving one crisis only to make the others worse would be criminal. So, how can we:

• Ensure that healthy homes in healthy places are provided for human health and wellbeing.

• Ensure that all new housing is delivered within carbon budgets

• Ensure that all new developments support and enhance nature and are carried

  out within nature’s carrying capacity.
  Achieving the desired outcomes needs an open and realistic national conversation.

Chair: Richard Simmons, Visiting Professor, Bartlett School of Planning (confirmed) Spatial, strategic planning, new towns, cracking housing crisis but will they do this...?

How the government plans to deliver new housing in ways that are positive for the climate, nature and health.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing and Local Government, MHCLG

How to turbo charge nature recovery while building the houses the country needs

Alan Law, Chief Officer Operations, Natural England Building homes within our carbon budget

Yolande Barnes, Professor of Real Estate, University College London Planning for healthy places

Flora Samuel, Professor of Architecture, University of Cambridg

Putting circularity and reuse at the heart of what we all do

What do we mean by circularity and reuse in all that we do?
It has been well documented that we are all living beyond planetary boundaries and that continuing business as usual is not an option. The built environment has a responsibility here, how will it make impact for change? We should also be mindful that it is our consumption that is driving environmental destruction, water depletion and increased carbon emissions in the main producer countries. How can we use less and support a circular approach in both our private lives and our work? Do we need a Circular Economy Plan to sit alongside the Environment Plan?