In this interview Tom Seath from John F Hunt discusses the growing importance of reclamation and reuse within the construction and demolition industries. Interviewed by ASBP’s Debbie Ward, Tom explores how reusing materials not only contributes to reducing embodied carbon but also adds social value by supporting charitable and community projects. He highlights the regulatory pressures and market opportunities driving reuse efforts, while also offering insights into the challenges and future of material reuse across the sector.
John F Hunt Limited is a specialist enabling works contractor who offers services ranging from demolition to superstructure construction. Established in 1982 the company has worked on many prestigious projects in central London and the Southeast. The company is committed to making the Circular Economy a reality through collaboration and engagement within the industry. Being contracted at the enabling works phase puts John F Hunt in a unique position to influence the destinations of materials from its sites. By engaging with supply chain partners, they aim to reduce the embodied carbon within their projects.
Debbie:
On to the first question, then, Tom, if that’s okay. Why is the reclamation and reuse of materials important to John F Hunt?
Tom:
Reclamation and reuse of materials is important to John F Hunt in a variety of ways. Firstly, there’s the obvious carbon savings associated with the reuse and reclamation of materials in new construction projects and redevelopment. This allows us to present a different option to clients, whether that’s reusing material like steel to reduce embodied carbon or reusing other items like internal fixtures and fittings—such as internal glass, kitchens, or flooring. These actions all contribute to reducing embodied carbon.
For John F Hunt, it also gives us an opportunity to differentiate ourselves from competitors. We can offer something other than demolition by incorporating reuse into redevelopment projects.
Another reason it’s important is the regulatory aspect. Embodied carbon in buildings will hopefully soon be mandated or have a framework to follow. If we establish these processes now and do them successfully, it won’t be as big of a change in the future.
And there’s something else that often doesn’t get mentioned enough: the social value. When we reuse materials, especially internal fixtures and fittings, there’s potential for these to go to charitable projects. For instance, some projects might not have the budget for kitchens, flooring, or roofing. By donating materials, we can help these social value projects get off the ground. It’s very similar to what you’re doing with The Reuse Hub in Wolverhampton—finding an alternative avenue for materials instead of them ending up in a skip, which is what we want to avoid.
Debbie:
Yes, I think that’s a great point. It’s good that you brought up the social aspect, as it can often get forgotten in all this. People tend to focus on the environmental and economic aspects first, but the social piece is just as important. While we need to be careful that it’s not seen as dumping materials on the charitable sector because we couldn’t get rid of them commercially, there’s a lot of added value for the sector. These projects can do things they wouldn’t otherwise be able to afford.
Tom:
Yes, exactly. It can be seen as a “get out of jail free” card, and that’s something I don’t agree with. Sometimes, when we can’t get rid of materials via a supplier or take-back scheme, it’s offered to a charity. They might not want it but take it because it’s a donation. If they can’t use it, though, it just becomes another waste stream and ends up in the bin—it’s just not on our books anymore.
Debbie:
Exactly, and as more reuse hubs get established, people need to be aware of that. Many reuse hubs, like the one in Wolverhampton, are charities or social enterprises. If they end up with waste, they’re the ones who have to pay for its disposal. But yes, it’s still quite a new approach in the way we’re doing it now, even though reuse has been happening for hundreds of years. We’re working through these unintended consequences as we go.
Moving on to the next question, what percentage of the opportunities John F Hunt tenders for are asking for reclamation and reuse, and in what ways is it being asked for? Is it focused on a particular type of material, or is it a broader requirement?
Tom:
That’s an easy question to answer: 100%. Particularly in central London, you’ve got the GLA Circular Economy statements that need to be made, and there’s more emphasis on pre-demolition audits. These audits are often done by third parties like Reusefully or Material Index, who feed their advice through to us.
In terms of materials or percentages, I think it’s important to avoid giving a blanket figure for how much of a building can be reused because every building is different. Saying 20% or 30% of a building can be reused is like shooting in the dark—you don’t really know. Instead, it’s more useful to set targets for individual materials. For example, items like carpet tiles or raised access flooring are relatively easy to reuse because there’s a market for them now. On the other hand, items like metal stairs, which might be a tiny percentage of a building, could be more challenging to reuse but still worth considering.
The point is that every opportunity to reuse should be looked at individually. If the carbon or other benefits are significant, then it’s worth the time and effort, but if they’re not, then perhaps it’s not. Structural elements like steel are still challenging to reuse due to issues like concrete-encased steel, but exposed steel, like we’ve seen at 180 Piccadilly, can be reused if there’s a place for it.
Debbie:
Yes, and having a clear process from the beginning makes all the difference. Knowing where materials are going to end up motivates the entire process.
Tom:
Exactly, it’s about maturity of the market. As more examples of successful reuse emerge, there will be more demand, and the process will become easier.
Debbie:
So, with 100% of the opportunities you’re currently tendering for asking for reclamation and reuse, how many projects that you’ve completed or are currently working on have involved reclamation and reuse?
Tom:
In some older projects—by older, I mean only two or three years ago—reclamation and reuse were more of a tick-box exercise, focusing mainly on social value items like radiators or carpets rather than structural elements.
For example, on a project at Cundy Street with Grosvenor, we worked mainly with radiators, baths, carpets, and internal fittings. That project was really the start of us thinking differently about reuse.
I think in three years’ time, you’ll see that all our projects will have some element of reuse and reclamation. I’d be surprised if there were any projects without those targets. Reuse and reclamation targets will likely become a priority over financial targets, and the challenge will be how to get those materials into the redevelopment, rather than fitting them in afterwards.
Debbie:
And what do you think the balance is between in-situ reuse and materials being supplied to the wider market? Could you give a couple of examples of both?
Tom:
In-situ reuse is still relatively low, but that’s because a lot of case studies have only come out in the last year. 180 Piccadilly, where steel is coming from another project, is a great example of what can be done when there’s a clear plan in place from the beginning.
In terms of internal fixtures and fittings, I think the potential is limitless. You don’t need a whole new redevelopment; it’s just a fit-out. We’re also trying to engage more with community groups, schools, and hospitals, who are always in need of materials. It may not get shouted about in the industry, but it makes a big difference to those who receive these materials.
Debbie:
Definitely. It would be great to see more examples of community projects benefiting from reuse, like schools or community halls using materials from larger deconstruction projects.
Tom:
Yes, and it would be great to see more joined-up thinking across the UK. At the moment, things are a bit siloed, with materials often going to companies like Cleveland Steel or EMR to distribute across the country. But I think there’s potential for construction companies to communicate and collaborate more on where materials are needed.
Debbie:
So, on to our last question: What three things, such as around policy or behaviour change, do you think could be implemented to support an increase in reclamation for reuse?
Tom:
: In terms of regulation, I think there’s an opportunity for change. Setting embodied carbon targets within new developments would be a good start. For instance, developers could be required to meet a certain CO2 target or use a certain amount of reclaimed materials like steel. It could be a carrot-and-stick approach, with planning permission being dependent on meeting these targets and possibly offering incentives like fee reductions for projects that use more reclaimed materials.
For behaviour change, I believe there needs to be earlier engagement. Clients, contractors, and architects need to discuss reuse and reclamation from the outset, as we did with GPE on the steel reuse at 180 Piccadilly. When these discussions happen early, there’s more time to figure out engineering solutions and make reuse work.
Lastly, I think we need to focus more on the social value aspect of reuse, tracking how materials donated to charities or reuse hubs are benefiting communities. We’re good at reporting carbon savings, but not everyone understands that. The human impact of reuse is just as important and can help tell the story of why it’s worth doing.
Debbie:
That’s a great point to conclude with -changing hearts and minds is crucial, especially when it comes to engaging everyone from boardrooms to demolition teams. We should be using social value story-telling as well as discussing environmental impacts when we talk about the benefits of materials reuse
For more information about John F Hunt, please visit their website: https://www.johnfhunt.co.uk/.