A commercial Upgrade Plan, in full
Eleven tabs on one building: what the certificate assumed, what it would take to reach EPC B, what each measure costs, when your leases actually allow it, and who pays.
Brookfield House
22 Wellington Road, Stockport · Offices and Workshop Businesses · 2,340 m²
Brookfield House is a 2,340 m² office building rated D at 88 points. Because it is over 1,000 m², it is expected to be caught by the EPC B standard in 2031. It currently meets the E minimum, so there is no breach today – the exposure is entirely forward-looking, and the building has roughly one lease cycle in which to deal with it.
The gap is 38 points – that much is arithmetic, because band B ends at 50 and this building sits at 88. What it costs to close is not something this page can tell you, and we will not pretend otherwise: 5 measures are on the proposed route, and the price of each comes from three quotations against a specification, with the saving valued at the tariff this building actually pays.
What this plan depends on
- Access to the demises. Two tenants on FRI leases. Lighting inside the demises is sequenced to the 2027 break and the 2030 expiry, not to a date we chose.
- The 2029 roof covering renewal proceeding. Insulating alongside a re-cover that is happening anyway is a different proposition from doing it as a standalone project later.
- The evidence surviving. If the O&M manual and the 2019 refurbishment file cannot be found, the re-assessment case weakens and the works gap stays at 38 points.
- Cost recovery. The leases are silent on improvement. See Lease & tenant.
If the route stalls, the fallback is a registered exemption – but on this building nothing supports one today, because the measures on the route have to be tested against the seven-year rule first, and the ones that pass it are ones you are required to do rather than ones you may decline. See Exemptions.
This is your building as the certificate describes it – which is not always the same as the building you own. Every row here is an input to the model that produced your rating.
| Recorded on the certificate | Value |
|---|---|
| Address | Brookfield House, 22 Wellington Road, Stockport |
| Use class recorded | Offices and Workshop Businesses |
| Total floor area | 2,340 m² |
| Asset rating | 88 – band D |
| Certificate lodged | 12 June 2017 |
| Certificate expires | 11 June 2027 |
| Assessment method | SBEM, via iSBEM |
| Main heating fuel | Natural gas |
| Building environment | Heating and natural ventilation |
| Building levels | 3 |
What the certificate does not record
The certificate says nothing about how the building is occupied, what it actually costs to run, or what has been done to it since 2017. All three matter to the plan and none of them are in the model.
The single most useful page in this plan. Each input below is classified by how it was established – and the ones marked assumed are the ones where evidence, not building work, may move your rating.
| Input | How it was established | Recorded as | Opportunity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wall construction | Assumed | Unknown construction, age-band default, uninsulated | High – a 2019 refurbishment is understood to have included cavity fill |
| Air permeability | Assumed | Default leakage rate for an untested building | High – a test certificate may exist in the O&M manual |
| Lighting | Observed | Generic fluorescent luminaires, manual switching | Medium – partial LED replacement in 2021 is not reflected |
| Roof construction | Assumed | Age-band default | Medium – as-built details may exist |
| Glazing | Observed | Double glazed, aluminium frame, thermal break assumed | Low |
| Heating plant | Observed | Gas boiler, default seasonal efficiency for type and age | Medium – commissioning certificate would give the actual figure |
| Controls | Assumed | No credit – controls not demonstrated at survey | High – zoning added in 2019 earns no credit in the current model |
| Ventilation | Not applicable | Natural ventilation | None |
None of that is a criticism of the assessor. They may only enter what they can see or are shown, and where construction is concealed and no documentation is offered, the conventions require a cautious default. The variable here is the information, not the assessor – which is precisely why a different assessor on the same evidence would reach the same 88.
What this is worth
On buildings of this age and history, we would expect evidence alone to be worth several points, and occasionally considerably more. We deliberately do not quote you a precise figure: SBEM publishes no per-measure point value, so anyone promising you an exact uplift from a document is guessing. What we can say is that this is the cheapest lever on the building, and it should be pulled before anything is specified.
It may also confirm bad news. If the wall really is uninsulated, the evidence will say so, and you will have established that for the cost of a file search rather than a survey.
Assemble this before commissioning the re-assessment, and hand it over at the start of the visit. An assessor who has the evidence before modelling never has to enter a default and revisit it.
| Document | Settles | Likely location | Priority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Air permeability test certificate | Infiltration rate – currently a default | O&M manual; building control completion file | First |
| 2019 refurbishment specification and cavity fill guarantee | Wall construction – currently 'unknown, uninsulated' | Asset file; the contractor; service charge records | First |
| BMS schematics, points list, commissioning record | Credit for the 2019 zoning strategy | Controls contractor; FM provider | First |
| 2021 lighting schedule with luminaire data | Lighting efficacy | Fit-out contractor; M&E consultant | Second |
| Boiler commissioning certificate and manufacturer data | Plant seasonal efficiency | O&M manual; maintenance contractor | Second |
| As-built roof details | Roof construction – currently age-band default | Original build file; architect | Second |
| Window schedule and glazing performance data | Glazing U-values | Supplier; refurbishment file | Third |
If nothing survives
Buildings bought second-hand often have no handover file at all. Two routes are usually open and both are cheap relative to the works they may avoid:
- An air permeability test – one day, and on a building of this age frequently the single highest-value piece of evidence available.
- An opening-up inspection – small, repairable, and it settles the wall construction question definitively rather than by assumption.
Ordered by when the work can actually be done, not by cost or by points. The constraint on this building is access, and access is set by the leases.
| Measure | Practical window | Status | Cost and payback |
|---|---|---|---|
| LED lighting throughout with presence and daylight controls | Landlord areas now; demises at the 2027 break | On the route | From three quotations, tested at your own tariff |
| Heating controls, zoning and optimum start | Occupied – no access constraint | On the route | From three quotations, tested at your own tariff |
| Building management system upgrade | Occupied | On the route | From three quotations, tested at your own tariff |
| Air-tightness and draught-sealing works | 2027 void, ground and first | On the route | From three quotations, tested at your own tariff |
| Roof insulation, with the 2029 covering renewal | 2029 – bundled with planned lifecycle works | On the route | From three quotations, tested at your own tariff |
| Solar PV, roof mounted | Any, subject to roof works completing | Considered, parked | From three quotations, tested at your own tariff |
| Air source heat pump, full plant replacement | Plant end-of-life | Considered, parked | From three quotations, tested at your own tariff |
Sequenced against the dates you already have
| When | Event | What happens |
|---|---|---|
| Now – Q2 2027 | No access constraint – landlord areas and plant | LED and controls to common parts and plant rooms; heating controls, zoning and optimum start; BMS upgrade |
| Mar 2027 | Tenant A break date – 1,180 m² ground and first | The void. LED and controls through the demise, air-tightness and draught-sealing. The cheapest access this building will get. |
| 2029 | Roof covering renewal – planned lifecycle | Insulate with the re-cover. Doing this as a separate project later costs materially more. |
| Nov 2029 | Facility matures – refinancing | Target: evidenced band B, with the plan and the evidence file as the lender document |
| Sep 2030 | Tenant B expiry – 760 m² second floor | Remaining demise works; contingency if anything above slipped |
| 2031 | EPC B standard applies | Compliance evidenced, not asserted |
Sequencing logic
- Fabric and controls before plant. Air-tightness and controls change what the heating system needs to be. Sizing new plant first means paying for capacity you were about to remove.
- Bundle with work that is happening anyway. The roof insulation is affordable because there is already a re-cover scheduled. Alone it is a different proposition.
- Landlord areas first. They need nobody's permission, which makes them the only part of the programme you fully control.
Measures this building's own recorded characteristics qualify it for, which do not appear on the certificate's recommendation report. Assessors work to a standard recommendation set, and it does not catch everything.
| Measure | Why it qualifies here | Why it is not on your certificate |
|---|---|---|
| Destratification fans | Three-storey building with a naturally ventilated volume and gas heating | Outside the standard non-domestic recommendation set |
| Variable speed drives on pumps | Wet heating system with constant-speed circulation recorded | Recommended only where the assessor records pump data specifically |
| Pipework and valve insulation in plant areas | Plant room recorded but insulation status not assessed | Not an assessed element |
| Sub-metering by floor and by service | Two demises on a shared supply | Not an EPC measure at all – it is an operational one |
| Hot water point-of-use replacement | Central hot water serving intermittent office demand | Only recommended where the assessor records HWS distribution losses |
| Void and riser sealing | Three floors with vertical service risers | Captured under air-tightness only if a test was carried out |
Including, explicitly, the schemes that do not apply – so you are not chasing funding you cannot use.
| Route | Applies here? | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Full expensing / AIA | Yes | Lighting, controls, BMS and heating plant are qualifying plant and machinery. Most of this programme is integral features. |
| Green / sustainability-linked lending | Yes | The facility matures November 2029. A costed, dated, evidenced plan is exactly the document a margin ratchet is priced against. |
| Local growth hub grant | Check | Small capital grants exist in some regions for SME-occupied premises. Worth a call; do not build the budget on it. |
| Salix Finance | No | Public sector only. This is a privately held commercial building. |
| Industrial Energy Transformation Fund | No | Industrial process energy. An office does not qualify. |
| Boiler Upgrade Scheme | No | Covers domestic and small non-domestic buildings. At 2,340 m² this building is outside it. |
| ECO4 / GBIS / Warm Homes | No | Domestic schemes, funded by domestic supplier obligations. Not available for commercial property at all. |
The regulatory duty is yours. The energy saving is your tenants'. Almost every stalled commercial MEES programme stalls on that sentence, and this is the tab that deals with it.
| Tenant A – ground & first | Tenant B – second floor | |
|---|---|---|
| Demise | 1,180 m² | 760 m² |
| Lease | FRI, expiry 24 March 2028 | FRI, expiry 28 September 2030 |
| Break | 24 March 2027 | None |
| Service charge | Repair and maintenance only – silent on improvement | Same |
| Right of entry | To inspect and repair; not expressly to improve | Same |
| Pays energy | Directly | Directly |
| Position | Consent needed for in-demise works before the break | Consent needed, or wait until 2030 |
What this means in practice
- You cannot recover the cost through the service charge. Both leases permit repair and maintenance and are silent on improvement. Energy efficiency works are improvement.
- You cannot force entry to the demises to carry out improvement works. A right to enter to repair is not a right to enter to improve.
- Dilapidations will not help. The building is in repair; upgrading it is your regulatory burden, and section 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927 would cap any claim at the diminution in the value of the reversion in any event.
The conversation to have with Tenant A, in writing
- Name the measure and the benefit. "We propose LED lighting and controls throughout your demise, at our cost, and it reduces the electricity you pay for." Put the modelled saving in only once you have one worth standing behind. The saving is theirs; say so.
- Offer the trade. They want term certain; you want access. A re-gear that removes the 2027 break in exchange for the works being done during a short agreed shutdown serves both.
- Ask for a decision and a date. Set a reasonable deadline and say what happens if you do not hear.
- Get any refusal in writing. Confirm a phone refusal by email the same day and invite correction.
For every future lease
You cannot fix the subsisting leases, but nothing stops you fixing the next ones. A sustainability provision covering access for statutory compliance works, and cost sharing where the tenant benefits, should be in the Tenant A re-gear and in every renewal after it. More on recovery and access →
Assessed honestly: no exemption is available to this building today, and we would rather tell you that than sell you a filing exercise.
| Ground | Available here? | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Seven-year payback | No | The ground requires that no measure passes the seven-year test. On a building with lighting, controls and air-tightness still to do, that is very unlikely to be the case here. |
| All relevant improvements made | Not yet | Becomes available only after the five required measures are installed and the building is still below standard. On our modelling it will reach B, so this should never be needed. |
| Third-party consent | Possible, later | Only if a tenant refuses in-demise works in writing. Not a current position – nothing has been asked yet. |
| Devaluation over 5% | No | Nothing in this programme touches the elevation or reduces lettable area. A RICS valuer would not support it. |
| Wall insulation damage | No | No wall insulation is proposed – the cavity is understood to be filled already. |
| New landlord | No | Not a recent acquisition. |
The compliance answer is only part of the question. Here is the same building framed as an asset decision.
| Option | What it gets you | What it risks |
|---|---|---|
| Improve to B | Lettable beyond 2031, evidenced. The energy saving accrues to the tenants who pay the bills, and supports rent on review. A clean refinancing in 2029. | Capital committed against a standard that could still move |
| Do only what the payback test compels | The floor. Whatever passes the seven-year test is mandatory, so this is not a cheaper strategy – it is the strategy with the optional items removed. | Leaves no margin if a measure underperforms or the standard tightens |
| Improve and re-gear | Access at the 2027 break, longer term certain, works done in a void rather than around a trading tenant | Incentive cost; the tenant may not come to the table |
| Refinance first, improve after | Nothing. The facility matures in 2029 and the valuer will ask about 2031 by then. | Materially worse terms. The option that looks cheapest and is not. |
| Sell | Transfers the problem | A purchaser prices the same works, plus a discount for the uncertainty and for having to run them themselves |
This is decision framing, not investment advice. We are energy assessors, not regulated financial or investment advisers, and the judgement is yours and your advisers'.
Compared against real register data – every commercial property in Stockport, and every offices & workshops property in England and Wales.
| This building | Stockport | Offices & workshops | England & Wales | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asset rating | 88 | 80 | 83 | 74 |
| Band | D | Average D | Average D | Average C |
| Floor area | 2,340 m² | 547 m² | 633 m² | 659 m² |
| Share below EPC B | – | 83.5% | 81.3% | 76.1% |
| Properties analysed | 1 | 4,810 | 259,596 | 998,164 |
How to read this
At 88 points this building is close to the Stockport average and to the national office average – which is precisely the problem. 83.5% of commercial stock in Stockport is below EPC B, and 81.3% of offices nationally. Being typical is not a defence; it means most of the market has the same 2031 problem and will be trying to solve it with the same contractors at the same time.
There are 385 buildings in Stockport over 1,000 m² and below EPC B. Moving early is partly a procurement argument.
Build this for your building – £49
We find the certificate you already have, then produce the plan: the points gap, the measures that close it, what each costs, and when your leases allow it.
Common questions
Is Brookfield House a real building?
No. It is a worked example built from the patterns we see across the register, so that we can show the full method without publishing a client's building. The benchmark figures it is compared against are real.
What does a real plan cost?
£49 to build an Upgrade Plan from the certificate you already have. If you go on to commission an assessment, that is credited against the fee.
How is this different from an EPC recommendation report?
A recommendation report lists measures. This sequences them against your lease events, tells you which inputs on your certificate were assumed rather than evidenced, sets out who pays under your leases, and frames each against the seven-year test. Costs come from a properly quoted remediation, not from us guessing – the plan is what those quotations get tested inside.
Do you actually do the work?
We carry out the assessment and produce the costed specification. That is the difference between us and a lead-generation site: the plan is the start of a service, not the end of one.