The True Cost of Stranded Assets: Why MEES 2030 is a Commercial Wake-Up Call

The True Cost of Stranded Assets: Why MEES 2030 is a Commercial Wake-Up Call

Over the last 25 years, I’ve delivered more than £1bn worth of projects as a Chartered Quantity Surveyor. If there’s one truth I’ve seen time and again, it’s this: when risk is ignored early, value is lost later. And right now, one of the greatest risks facing property owners is stranded assets.

What do we mean by “stranded assets”?

A stranded asset is a building that becomes unlettable, unsellable, or significantly devalued because it no longer meets regulatory or market expectations. In the UK, the most immediate driver is the tightening of Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards (MEES). By 2030, all non-domestic buildings will need to achieve an EPC rating of ‘B’. That puts an estimated 80% of UK office stock at risk.

The result? A clear and widening brown discount. Assets with poor sustainability credentials are already trading at lower rents and lower capital values. The gap is only going to grow.

The numbers don’t lie

Recent UK retrofit case studies prove that tackling this head-on pays dividends:

• Pall Mall, Manchester – Deep retrofit of a Grade II listed office. EPC uplift from G to A, 74% reduction in energy use intensity, and a rental uplift from £12–15 psf to £35–37 psf.
• Coal House, Cardiff – EPC uplift from D to A, with rents rising from £16.75 psf to £25 psf.
• Tempo, Maidenhead – EPC uplift from D to B, delivering performance 23% below UKGBC energy targets, with a rental uplift projected at 20% above local market rates.

These aren’t theoretical benefits. They are evidence that sustainability, done right, protects and enhances asset value. Data drawn from UKGBC’s Retrofitting Office Buildings: Building the Case for Net Zero (2024) and Knight Frank’s 2025 viability analysis provides the commercial proof behind these examples.

Why early action matters

The cost of upgrading from EPC D to B in a London office averages around £113 per square foot. That’s a significant capital outlay. But when modelled against rental uplift, reduced voids, and financing advantages, the returns are clear. The earlier you act, the more options you have. Delay, and you risk expensive rework or an asset that investors simply won’t touch.

What investors and developers need now

• Investors need certainty their portfolios won’t be hit with a brown discount, and that their assets will continue to attract capital.
• Developers need commercially viable pathways through MEES, BNG, and emerging standards like NABERS UK, all while battling planning delays and rising build costs.

Both face the same problem: ESG complexity without a clear, bankable business case. That’s the gap we must bridge.

A bankable business case for ESG

At Revive, we focus on the earliest project stages (RIBA 0–2). This is where the commercial logic is set, costs and risks are tested, and a viable pathway to compliance and value protection is defined. My role as a Chartered QS is not just to advise on costs, but to translate ESG ambitions into deliverable, financially robust strategies that boards and investors can back.

Final thought

MEES 2030 isn’t just a regulatory hurdle. It’s a commercial reality check. The winners will be those who act early, build the bankable business case, and turn sustainability into value. The losers will be left with stranded assets and the premium to fix them, which will undoubtedly be charged by the market in the run-up to 2030.

👉 My question to you: how prepared is your portfolio for MEES 2030, and do you have the business case to prove it?