Frasers Report - Coreo Revised

A journey towards

Circular

Economy

for Central Place, Sydney

From Ownership to Stewardship

Frasers & Dexus

Table of

Contents

Coreo acknowledges the first

and continuing custodians

of the ground upon which we

collectively work, live & dream.

Coreo recognises Aboriginal & Torres

Strait Islander peoples continuing

connection to lands, waters &

communities. We pay our respect to

Elders past, present & emerging.

EXEC SUMMARY 04

INTRODUCTION 08

SCOPE 10

THE LINEAR & THE

CIRCULAR ECONOMY 12

INTERNAL REVIEW 15

CPS BASELINE 15

AMBITIONS 15

OPPORTUNITIES 16

BARRIERS 16

PARTNERSHIPS 16

FOUNDATION 17

DEFINITION 17

VISION 18

GUARDRAILS 20

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is

to provide The Central Place

Sydney (CPS) Project Team

with a clear pathway toward

implementing, learning from

and scaling initiatives at CPS

in order to advance progress

towards the circular economy,

demonstrate leadership, improve

environmental performance,

and strengthen social value.

JOURNEY TO CE

22

2

STEPS & RECOMMENDATIONS 23-42

CONCLUSION 43

REFERENCES 44

APPENDIX 47

Coreo Central Place Sydney 3

Executive

Summary

The circular economy is a systemic approach to economic development driven

by innovation and designed to benefit business, society, and the environment.

Globally, the circular economy is recognised as a $4.5 trillion dollar opportunity. 1

Dexus Funds Management Limited

and Frasers Property Australia have a

substantive opportunity to contribute to

the development of a circular economy

in Australia through the development of

Central Place Sydney.

Central Place Sydney is a part of the Central

Precinct Renewal Program (CPRP). The

CPRP is a large-scale urban renewal and

city shaping project led by Transport for

New South Wales (TfNSW) and other key

planning authorities including the City of

Sydney, Greater Sydney Commission, and

the NSW Government Office of Environment

and Heritage.

Central Place Sydney is proposed to exceed

industry benchmarks in energy, water and

wellbeing whilst also pioneering circular

economy solutions aimed at designing

out waste, reducing embodied carbon and

regenerating natural systems.

As market leading circular economy consultants,

Coreo was engaged to explore, ideate and

provide recommendations on the highest value

circular economy opportunities at CPS whilst

building internal capability and capacity.

Over a four month timeframe Coreo

implemented their proven and robust

four phased methodology:

Phase 1 - Internal review

Phase 2 - Circular economy workshop

Phase 3 - Circular economy options analysis

Phase 4 - Socialisation of recommendations

Based on the outcomes of this methodology

and international best practice and benchmarks,

Coreo has proposed that the most valuable

opportunity for CPS is to pioneer a shift from

ownership to stewardship. Ultimately creating

The transition from ownership to

stewardship at CPS cannot be entirely

achieved in one fell swoop, but rather it will

be a journey and like any journey, it starts

with taking the right steps in the

right direction.

Coreo recommends that the first steps of this

journey be centred on establishing the circular

economy narrative for CPS whilst testing and

trialing the commercially feasible and technically

viable elements of materials stewardship.

These steps include CPS utilising materials from

the urban mine to reduce embodied carbon;

pioneering innovative technologies and servicebased

business models; developing upstream

partnerships in the supply chain; and lastly,

facilitating the provision of waste as a service for

tenants and CPS.

Coreo has prioritised six key recommendations

that are listed in order of priority. The first two

recommendations are proposed to be actioned

entirely whilst the other recommendations are

proposed to commence and be evaluated step

by step as there are critical decision points for

their implementation.

1

Initiative: Circular Economy Position Paper

Recommendation: In using this report as

a springboard, it is recommended that

The Project Team undertake an exercise

to solidify their position on the circular

economy for internal and external

audiences and importantly clarify how

this position fits with their existing

development priorities. It is Coreo’s

recommendation to include the following

in the position paper:

• Vision

• Definition

• Position (ownership to stewardship)

• Work to date (operations focused)

• Decision-making framework

• Targets and measurement approach

a future where every part of a building can be

treated as a temporary service, rather than owned.

1 2 3 4 5 6

4


2 Initiative: Lee Street Materials

Recommendation: The first step in valuing

the materials within the Lee Street

buildings is to firstly understand the degree

that it is possible and what materials are

present. Accordingly, Coreo recommends

the following actions:

Initiative: Circulating high value materials

Recommendation: In appreciation of the

vast array and significant volumes of

materials to be generated at CPS and

captured in the Integrated Distribution

Facility (IDF), Coreo recommends that

two material streams both biological,

3 4

food waste, and technical E-waste be

Collate and review existing Building

prioritised.

Information Modelling (BIM) on the Lee

Street buildings. Where the information

is adequate progress in assessing what

percentage of materials can be recovered

and used in CPS or diverted to other

industries. Where the information is

inadequate Coreo recommends engaging

with a deconstruction/demolition company

to determine the best estimate of types

and quantities of materials that could

be recovered and reused in CPS or other

projects. Important factors to determine

are the type, quantity and percentage of

recoverable materials, cost, timing and

also the value of reusing the materials

such as a reduction in embodied carbon

for CPS.

Coreo has considerable experience

in identifying, evaluating and

supporting the implementation of

circular food waste systems including

both the ‘upstream’ technology

and collection requirements and

the ‘downstream’ partnership and

management options. Based on this

experience and the unique contextual

factors of CPS and the IDF, Coreo

recommends the installation of food

maceration technology and supporting

infrastructure.

For E-waste Coreo recommends CPS

partner with PonyUp for Good, a

Melbourne based social enterprise

that sustainably manages E-waste

whilst donating 50% of their profits to

Australian food charity Second Bite.

6

This presents a synergistic link to the

recommended focus on food waste at

CPS as SecondBite provides meals for

people experiencing food insecurity in

Australia utilising food that would have

otherwise gone to waste.

Initiative: As a Service

Recommendation: Shifting from purchasing

a product to purchasing a service requires

a fundamentally new way of thinking and

working. This shift will require changes to

current systems and processes including

procurement, contracting, project finance and

operations.

Coreo recommends that The Project Team

make a decision on which model, Cooling

as a Service (CaaS) or Lighting as a Service

(LaaS), is more valuable for CPS and thus will

be explored further. To reach this decision,

Coreo recommends organising a meeting

with Kaer, the leading CaaS service provider,

and Arc Renewable Group, Australia’s leading

LaaS provider, to learn more about the

models, their potential value, challenges, and

risks. Once that decision has been reached

Coreo recommends proceeding

to the development of a business case.

5 6

Initiative: Upstream Partnerships

Recommendation: The first step in forming

upstream partnerships is for The Project

team to agree upon a material and/or

product focus. Coreo’s recommendation is

for The Project Team to select a product that

considers the following:

• Embodied carbon.

• LCA results.

• Transparent supply chain.

• Toxicity.

• Local production/manufacture.

Once The Project Team has agreed upon

the chosen material the next steps are

recommended as:

• Undertake a supply chain analysis to

understand where the products are

currently being sourced, what data is

available, emissions produced, potential

capital cost or volume requirement, etc.

• Identify and host a workshop with

suppliers. The objective of the workshop

will be for The Project Team to share

project goals, targets and interest in

engaging with supply chain and also to

learn from the supply chain stakeholders

on their performance, goals, targets

interests etc.

• Set targets. The next step is for The

Project Team to set clear and ambitious

targets surrounding this product type.

These targets should align to CPS’s and

The Project Team’s wider ambitions for

net zero, circularity, social outcomes etc.

Once the targets are agreed upon these

will need to be communicated to the

engaged suppliers.

• The last step is working directly with the

supplier to identify initiatives that will

improve the circularity or reduce the

emissions associated with the selected

product targets.

Initiative: A Material Passport for CPS

Recommendation: To understand the value

of a materials passport and how it aligns to

and provides additional insights beyond BIM,

Coreo, recommends that The Project Team

meet Madaster (a leading materials passport

company) and request a presentation of

the material passport technology. Once

that step is completed Coreo recommends

that The Project Team determine the level

of detail of the material passport to be

developed for CPS and collect the source

data. Once that is completed Coreo

proposes that The Project Team re-engage

with Madaster to determine the next steps in

utilising the material passport technology.

The purpose of this report is to provide

The Project Team with a clear pathway

toward implementing, learning from

and scaling initiatives at CPS in order to

advance progress towards the circular

economy, demonstrate leadership, improve

environmental performance, and strengthen

social value.


Introduction

Since 2010, the circular economy has moved beyond a niche topic, to a priority

area of investment, strategy, research and practice. The circular economy is a

systemic approach to economic development driven by innovation and designed

to benefit business, society, and the environment. Globally, the circular economy

is recognised as a $4.5 trillion dollar opportunity. 1

In practice, the circular economy seeks

to transform all elements of today’s

linear take-make-waste economic

model. With three guiding principles

and five supporting business models,

the circular economy provides a

tangible and practical tool kit to achieve

impact across social, economic and

environmental realms.

Globally, circular economy

commitments, investments and

projects are growing exponentially as

a means to reduce costs, create new

revenue streams and manage risks.

In Australia, all levels of government are

driving progress towards the circular

economy. The Federal Government has

established an inter-jurisdictional working

group on the circular economy with all states

and territories represented. In addition, the

Federal Government has set a clear direction

towards creating a circular economy starting

with a focus on materials, driving forward

new policies, export bans, and channelling

billions of dollars of investment into new

infrastructure and service-based solutions.

In 2019, the New South Wales State

Government released their circular economy

policy statement ‘Too Good To Waste’ and

established New South Wales Circular, an

advocacy and innovation organisation funded

through the office of the Chief Scientist.

From a more practical standpoint, the NSW

Government established the Circulate Grant

Funding Program and are pioneering circular

economy programs within key departments

such as the Department of Planning, Industry

and Environment. At a local level, the

Greater Sydney Commission has included

the circular economy in their planning

priorities as a means of reducing carbon

emissions and managing energy, water

and waste efficiently 2 . The City of Sydney is

also pioneering a path toward the circular

economy through their engagement of Coreo

in 2020 to support the development of the

City’s internal circular economy strategy.

From an industry level, the property sector

is one of the most active sectors in the

circular economy in Australia. The Green

Building Council, with the support of

Coreo, are developing a circular economy

leadership credit for their Green Star Rating

Tool; NABERS, which is rewarding circular

material processing and recovered material

use in production. The Property Council of

Australia has also formed a circular economy

committee and recently released a circular

economy position paper. In addition, property

developers including Stockland, Lendlease,

Dexus and Mirvac have all invested in circular

economy strategy and initiatives.

It is clear from the significant momentum

over the past 12 months that Dexus Funds

Management Limited and Frasers Property

Australia (The Project Team) have a substantive

opportunity to contribute to the development of

a circular economy in Australia.

Actively transitioning towards a circular

economy requires asking bold questions,

encouraging curiosity and relentlessly

innovating to define, design and deliver a

transformational development.

Coreo recognises that Central Place

Sydney (CPS) has pushed The

Project Team to rethink processes,

partnerships and what the true value

of development is.

Reflecting upon the baseline analysis,

guardrails and vision and coupling this

with international best practice and

benchmarks, Coreo has proposed that

the most valuable opportunity for CPS

is to pioneer a shift from ownership to

stewardship. Ultimately creating a future

where every part of a building can be

treated as a temporary service, rather

than owned.


stewardship at CPS cannot be entirely

achieved in one fell swoop, but rather it

will be a journey and like any journey, it

starts with taking the right steps in the

right direction.

Coreo recommends that the first steps

of this journey be centred on material

stewardship and on testing and trialing

the commercially feasible and technically

viable elements of stewardship as a

whole. These steps include CPS utilising

materials from the urban mine to reduce

embodied carbon; pioneering innovative

technologies and service-based business

models; developing upstream partnerships

in the supply chain; and lastly, facilitating

the provision of waste as a service for

tenants and CPS.

The purpose of this report is to provide

The Project Team with a clear pathway

toward implementing, learning from

and scaling initiatives at CPS in order to

advance progress towards the circular

economy, demonstrate leadership,

improve environmental performance,

and strengthen social value.

8


SCOPE

The Project Team are jointly developing CPS,

which includes two towers atop a podium

building and the redevelopment of the Henry

Deane Plaza at Sydney’s Central Station.

Central Place Sydney is proposed to transform the

western edge of Central Station and includes:

• up to 150,000m2 of workspace across two towers

and a podium building, underpinning the delivery of

the Sydney Innovation and Technology Precinct.

• an Integrated Distribution Facility that unlocks

future over-station development, facilitating the

renewal of Central station; & comprehensive

public realm improvements that will redefine the

experience of over 20 million pedestrians every year.

Central Place Sydney is a part of the Central Precinct

Renewal Program (CPRP). The CPRP is a large-scale

urban renewal and city shaping project led by Transport

for New South Wales (TfNSW) and other key planning

authorities including the City of Sydney, Greater Sydney

Commission, and the NSW Government Office of

Environment and Heritage.

The Project Team has established a project ambition

for CPS for leading sustainability and circularity

performance. Central Place Sydney is proposed to

exceed industry benchmarks in energy, water and

wellbeing whilst also pioneering circular economy

solutions aimed at designing out waste, reducing

embodied carbon and regenerating natural systems.

As market leading circular economy consultants, Coreo

was engaged by The Project Team to explore, ideate

and provide recommendations on the highest value

circular economy opportunities at CPS whilst building

internal capability and capacity.

Over a four month timeframe

Coreo implemented their proven

and robust methodology which

sought to answer three questions

for CPS:

• What is the circular economy?

• What value can it provide to

CPS and its stakeholders?

• Where does CPS start?

This methodology consisted of

four phases of work:

Phase 1 Internal review

Phase 2 CE workshop

Phase 3 CE options analysis

Phase 4 Socialisation of

recommendations

The anticipated outcomes of this

methodology will be a shared

understanding of the circular

economy amongst The Project

Team and key stakeholders; the

strategic and operational value

it can provide to CPS and finally,

a clear and compelling pathway

to action that leverages the

work already underway, whilst

addressing the unique contextual

factors of CPS, Sydney, and NSW.

The Linear &

Circular Economy

Our current economic system is linear

- take, make, waste.

This linear economic model operates on an

interconnection of three things:

• First; fossil fuels which provide cheap energy,

allowing machines to substitute human labour

to maximise profits.

• Second; cheap credit which has expanded

purchasing power to the masses to ensure

people can afford to buy the products and

assets that are produced.

• Third; Mass production through globalisation

and technology advancements which reduces

costs of production enabling the sale of more

and more goods providing economic growth.

The most unsustainable element of the

linear economy is the waste and

pollution it generates.

Globally, 91% of all raw materials are wasted

after their first use 3 which means that not only

are we wasting the materials themselves but

also the value they could contribute to the

economy, such as jobs.

Whilst this linear economic

model has provided strong

growth and prosperity since

World War II it is no longer

sustainable and an endpoint to

its growth is on its way.

Furthermore, in the current linear model

we are not very good at extracting the

maximum value possible from our resources.

For example, in Australia we generate only

US$1.28 cents of output for every kilogram

of materials consumed – less than half the

OECD benchmark (Figure 1 overleaf). 4

10


WE EXTRACT & USE A

LOT OF RESOURCES

The circular economy presents a new paradigm in which the focus moves beyond

merely reducing negative impacts, to optimising the system as a whole - by design.

Australia extracts and uses 38 tonnes of primary resources per capita each year

- double the OECD benchmark

BUT HAVE LOW MATERIAL

PRODUCTIVITY RATES

We generate only US$1.28 of output for every kg of material consumed

- less then half the OECD benchmark

Australia

A circular economy aims to redefine

growth, focusing on values and

value creation.

It is an economic model that is designed to

be restorative and regenerative, underpinned

by gradually decoupling economic activity

from the consumption of finite resources,

designing waste and pollution out of the

system and transitioning our energy to

renewable energy sources.

The circular economy distinguishes between

technical and biological materials. Biological

materials such as cotton, food and wood, are

treated as nutrients in a circular economy. These

materials should be returned to regenerate our

natural systems, such as our soils, to provide

renewable resources for the economy. Technical

materials, such as steel and oil based plastics,

are treated as hard durables that need to be

recovered and restored through strategies like

reuse, repair, remanufacture or in the last resort,

recycling. It is important to note that no material

ever leaves our biosphere; they just change form

depending on how they are valued.

In contrast to the linear, the circular

economy is about integration so as to

enable feedback loops and synergies.

In a circular model things become

multifunctional, which works to not just close

loops but also create more resilient systems

because they are more self-sufficient and less

dependent. No more silos.

12

Figure 1: Material extraction and productivity

The opportunity now exists to replace a brittle, wasteful, and

polluting economic system with something better.

Australia

As powerfully stated by

Dame Ellen Macarthur...

“The circular economy isn’t about one

manufacturer changing one product,

it is about all of the interconnected

companies and governments that form

our infrastructure and economy coming

together... it’s about rethinking the

operating system itself”.

The circular economy concept isn’t new – it has

deep-rooted origins and cannot be traced back

to one single date or author. It is underpinned

by a number of schools of thought including

cradle-to-cradle, industrial ecology, biomimicry,

regenerative design, and permaculture.

It is often stated that the practice of a circular

economy is akin to how indigenous peoples

have lived in harmony with country for millennia

and also how our great grandparents lived

with a strong emphasis on community, never

wasting anything and building things to last.

A circular economy should not be viewed

as a new and or conflicting priority

but rather a strategic tool with which

to complement existing priorities and

commitments including climate change,

Net Zero Waste, and the Sustainable

Development Goals.


Internal Review -

The CPS Baseline

In 2019 the Ellen MacArthur Foundation,

in collaboration with Material Economics,

released a study highlighting that

while moving to renewable energy

and implementing energy efficiency

measures can address 55% of global

greenhouse gas emissions, to achieve the

UN climate goals it is imperative that we

tackle the remaining 45% through the

circular economy with a particular focus

on how we produce and consume five

key materials aluminum, steel, cement,

plastics, food and how we regenerate

arable land. 5

With three guiding principles, and five

supporting business models, the circular

economy provides a tangible and practical

tool kit to achieve impact across social,

economic and environmental realms.

CIRCULAR ECONOMY

PRINCIPLES

•

• Designing out waste and pollution.

• Keeping products and materials at their

highest value for as long as possible.

• Regenerating natural and social systems

CIRCULAR ECONOMY

BUSINESS MODELS

Circular supplies - Replace traditional

material inputs with bio-based, renewable,

or recovered materials. Reduce demand

for virgin resource extraction in the long run.

• Resource Recovery - Leverage technology

to recover and reuse resource outputs.

Aim to eliminate material leakage and

maximize economic value.

• Sharing platforms - Sharing of

underutilised products can reduce the

demand for new products and their

embedded raw materials.

• Product life extension - Extend the life

cycle of products and assets to ensure

they remain economically useful.

• Product as a service - Customers use

products through a lease or pay-for-use

arrangement versus the conventional

approach to ownership.

Although the circular economy is

gaining rapid traction globally, it is

important to note that there is no

one blueprint for this transition.

The circular economy is an emerging

concept that requires learning by doing.

The first step in any journey towards the

circular economy is understanding

the baseline.

To this end, Coreo completed a review

of relevant CPS designs, submissions,

strategies, targets and proposals. In

addition, Coreo also engaged with key

internal and external CPS stakeholders

through targeted interviews. The list of

the stakeholders interviewed are

included in the appendix.

The purpose of the document review

and interviews was to gain a deeper

understanding of the ambition,

opportunities, barriers and potential

partnerships that could either accelerate

or impede the transition towards a

circular economy for CPS.

AMBITIONS

All stakeholders interviewed and

documents reviewed set an ambitious

vision for CPS.

There was a palpable sense of passion and

energy amongst the interviewees for what

CPS could achieve and contribute.

The ambition for the circular economy at

CPS was centred on the ethos of contribution

- economically, environmentally and socially.

Interviewees shared a shift in mindset from

‘doing less bad’ and ‘scarcity’, which has

previously driven the sustainability agenda,

to one that is focused on abundance and

value creation.

The majority of interviewees stated that for

circular economy ambitions to be realised

at CPS, it would be critical to engage key

stakeholders, including government, tenants

and the community early on in the journey.

This was deemed to be critical in order to

develop a shared vision and in supporting

actions that all stakeholders felt invested in

and supportive of.

The need for CPS to remain agile throughout

the planning, design and construction process

was also highlighted during the interviews.

The Project Team reflected that what was

seen as leading practice less than three years

ago could be considered commonplace

today, so being dynamic and progressive

was essential.

14


16

OPPORTUNITIES

There was no shortage of opportunities

identified for the circular economy at CPS.

The greatest opportunity identified by all

interviewees for the circular economy at CPS

was making it real - so people could touch,

see and feel it with lots of the examples

centred on materials. This was seen as a

crucial element to facilitate leadership and

influence wider industry change.

An additional four key opportunities were

also identified. The first of those was the

opportunity of systemic thinking and

action, moving from a tick box exercise and

siloing solutions for water, energy and waste

to evaluating how to manage the stocks and

flows of materials and nutrients through CPS.

BARRIERS

In the interviews, a number of barriers,

both real and perceived were identified.

A lack of circular economy knowledge

and awareness was referenced by multiple

interviewees as a challenge, specifically

in relation to costs versus benefits. For

example, one interviewee noted that the lack

of understanding regarding the direct and

indirect value creation potential of the circular

economy meant that there was a perception

that progress towards a circular economy was

‘just going to come at a higher cost’.

Another barrier highlighted during the

interviews was the need for people to change

their behaviour when presented with new

systems. People and getting them to think

about doing things differently, are perceived

to be the biggest obstacles to change and

as such, the need to engage all stakeholders

early on was again referenced.

Lastly, a change to tendering, contracts

and risk transfer processes was identified as

a challenge in relation to the introduction

of new circular business models such as a

‘product as a service’.

Design and material selection was also

identified as an opportunity to demonstrate

and enable circularity, whilst simultaneously

supporting a reduction in embodied carbon

and waste generation. Collaboration through

shared values on leadership, sustainability

and innovation in the broader precinct was

highlighted as an opportunity for CPS to scale its

impact and contribution. Lastly, education and

communication with both internal and external

stakeholders was emphasised as an opportunity

to take people on the journey towards circularity

and demonstrate leadership.

PARTNERSHIPS

Regarding partnerships; interviewees noted

that CPS is well placed to serve as a point of

education, innovation and learning throughout

its development lifetime. Considering this,

interviewees suggested partnerships with

universities and businesses that could offer novel

technologies and solutions to advance circularity.

Planning authorities at the State and Local

Government level were also identified as

important partners, alongside the other

precinct stakeholders such as Atlassian. One of

the interviewees articulated the importance of

these partnerships with the following statement:

“It will be important for people to have

a clear sense of what the whole precinct

stands for and there may be the potential

to set a policy that aligns and compounds

the value generated by this precinct for

all parties. Continuity in the approach is

critical, not just in the architecture but in

the way people think and act.”

Cumulatively, the findings from the document

review and interviews exemplify that The Project

Team and key stakeholders have a baseline

that is conducive to the circular economy. It is

fundamental that there is ongoing engagement

amongst key internal and external stakeholders

given the diversity of initiatives proposed

and the decisions that will give effect to a

multiplicity of disciplines.

Foundation

for Circular

Economy

at CPS

Sustaining forward momentum towards a

circular economy at CPS requires building

a solid foundation that all stakeholders

can readily understand, engage with and

ultimately act upon.

The below foundational blocks are

recommended to be adopted by The Project

Team as a mechanism to create a clear and

consistent narrative for circular economy

implementation at CPS.

VISION

It is Coreo’s recommendation that The

Project Team adopts the visual illustration

of the circular economy vision for CPS as

featured overleaf.

This vision was live scribed by Catherine Leach,

one of Australia’s leading graphic facilitators,

during a dialogue regarding the future circular

economy vision for CPS. In addition to the

vision illustration Coreo has generated a vision

statement that can be adopted for CPS:

DEFINITION

It is Coreo’s recommendation that

The Project Team adopts the

internationally accepted definition

of a circular economy as developed

by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation:

“A circular economy aims to

redefine growth, focusing on

positive society-wide benefits.

It entails gradually decoupling

economic activity from the

consumption of finite resources

and designing waste out of

the system. Underpinned by a

transition to renewable energy

sources, the circular model

builds economic, natural, and

social capital.” 6

“Central Place Sydney will be city-shaping, globally iconic and

reflect country and culture. Yet it will be familiar, welcoming

and accessible providing a place of refuge and safety in the face

of uncertainty. CPS will regenerate and restore people, nature,

place and business and will be ‘wasteless’ beyond just materials.

CPS will serve as a steward of materials unlocking new areas of

competitiveness and new ways to drive the economy.”


18


Guardrails

The circular economy is a systemic shift and exactly how the circular economy

can deliver social, environmental and economic value for CPS and its

stakeholders is not a question with just one answer.

Therefore, the need to define the priorities for circular economy implementation at

CPS is paramount. To achieve this, Coreo asked The Project Team to identify what

“must”, “should”, “could” and “won’t” the circular economy do or be at CPS.

These guardrails provide a scope for circular economy implementation at CPS and

seek to create harmony between existing ambitions and initiatives whilst addressing

gaps in progress.

From both the internal review and the guardrails it is clear that The Project Team share a

desire to create world leading progress towards a circular economy with a tangible focus on

material centric initiatives that can be readily communicated.

UNCOVERING CIRCULAR ECONOMY INITIATIVES

MUST

• Allow CPS to lead the circular economy

agenda in design and development.

• Generate value for customers.

• Support CPS and it’s stakeholders to

achieve net zero carbon target.

• Happen within a commercial framework

(timeframe and cost).

• Be able to be communicated.

• Consider materials circulation and total

cost of the building’s life cycle.

COULD

• Influence supply chains.

• Achieve zero operational waste to landfill.

•

Enable CPS to address one social challenge

in the surrounding neighborhood.

• Initiate a profound change to how

the industry works.

• Create new revenue streams.

• Provide research and

•

development opportunities.

• Create stretch targets.

SHOULD

Be used as an international benchmark for

circular economy in the built environment.

• The learnings should shape and influence

The Project Team’s other projects (a tool

to educate).

• Be tangible and experiential.

•

•

•

•

Promote transparency (be quantifiable).

Be Frictionless and flexible for the end user.

Allow CPS to investigate “as a service”.

Allow CPS to engage the wider community.

WON’T

• Be tokenistic.

• Be a once off.

•

•

•

•

•

Be inventing new materials.

Compromise quality.

Put a scar on the city.

Create more silos.

Generate energy onsite

(excluding solar).

During the circular economy workshop

Coreo facilitated an activity, rapid

project prototyping, that drew upon

the diversity and depth of experience

of The Project Team.

The purpose of this session was for The

Project Team to identify initiatives that could

propel CPS towards a circular economy.

Twenty-three initiatives were identified

during the session.

To further prioritise and refine the

suggested circular economy initiatives,

as well as overlay Coreo’s experience

developing and delivering actionable

circular economy strategies, each

initiative was considered against the

following criteria:

•

Complementary to the internal review and

identified baseline.

• Alignment to the defined guardrails.

• Contributing to the overall circular

economy vision for CPS.

• Favourable government and/or

planning regulations.

• Capacity to create value (social,

economic, and environmental) for

CPS and its stakeholders.

Following this, The Project Team were then

tasked with applying intuitive scoring to rate

each initiative on its likelihood and potential

impact (1 to 5 for each) thus producing an

opportunity score (25 maximum). A full list of

the circular economy initiatives generated,

and their associated scores, are listed in

the appendix.

During the circular options analysis and after

developing the most appropriate pathway

for CPS, several of the initiatives were

grouped together and explored further as

they made sense to be treated as part of

a greater whole.

20


The Journey Towards the

Circular Economy for CPS

The Steps

INITIATIVE

Actively transitioning towards a circular economy requires asking bold

questions, encouraging curiosity, and relentlessly innovating to define,

design and deliver a transformational development. Coreo recognises

that CPS has pushed The Project Team to rethink processes, partnerships

and what the true value of development is.

Reflecting upon the baseline analysis,

guardrails and vision, and coupling

this with international best practice

and benchmarks, Coreo proposes that

the most valuable opportunity for CPS

is to pioneer a shift from ownership

to stewardship. Ultimately creating a

future where every part of a building

can be treated as a temporary

service, rather than owned.


stewardship at CPS cannot be

entirely achieved in one fell swoop,

but rather it will be a journey, and like

any journey, it starts with taking the

right steps in the right direction.

Transitioning towards a circular economy

at CPS is not just about using materials with

a lower carbon footprint and other bolt-on

gadgets to tick green assessment boxes. It

requires a fundamental shift in attitude to

materials and ownership.

Coreo recommends that the first

steps of this journey be centred on

material stewardship and on testing

and trialing the commercially

feasible and technically viable

elements of stewardship as a whole.

These steps include CPS utilising

materials from the urban mine

to reduce embodied carbon;

pioneering innovative technologies

and service-based business models;

developing upstream partnerships

in the supply chain; and lastly,

facilitating the provision of waste as

a service for tenants and CPS.

Circular Economy Position Paper

OVERVIEW

The first recommendation provided is for The Project Team to develop a

position paper on the circular economy at CPS for both internal and external

stakeholders.

A clear and concise circular economy position paper would facilitate alignment

and foster focus amongst CPS stakeholders. In addition, the act of developing

the position paper would further solidify the position of The Project Team and

provide insight and direction of CPS to the wider CPRP stakeholders.

RECOMMENDATION

In using this report as a springboard,

it is recommended that The Project

Team undertake an exercise to solidify

their position on the circular economy

and importantly how this position

fits with their existing development

priorities. In our experience, it is best

to keep this position paper clear and

concise with simple corresponding

actions and accountability metrics.

It is our recommendation to

include the following in the

position paper:

• Vision.

• Definition.

•

•

•

• Targets and measurement

Position (ownership to stewardship).

Work to date (operations focused).

Decision-making framework.

approach.

22


The Steps

RECOMMENDATION

INITIATIVE

INITIATIVE

Lee Street Materials

OVERVIEW

As part of the redevelopment of CPS,

buildings at 12-14 Lee Street and 20 and 26

Lee Street are due to be demolished. This

stage of development presents a clear and

compelling opportunity to test one aspect of

the transition towards CPS becoming material

stewards in the circular economy - striving to

answer the question of how to keep products

and materials at their highest value.

The buildings to be demolished on Lee Street

were not constructed with circular economy

or deconstruction in mind which will present

challenges in the recovery of the materials

however, the opportunity instead is to test

and trial the use of technologies that allow for

construction and development (C&D) materials

to be exchanged and kept at their highest value.

In the current linear system, a waste

contractor would be engaged to manage

the C&D waste from buildings, typically

they would extract the high value materials

and landfill the rest. To provide some broad

context, a total of 20.4 million tonnes of C&D

waste was generated in Australia in 2017-2018

with a national annual C&D waste recycling

rate of 67%. 7

A federally commissioned report noted that

“resource recovery rates are highest where

there is strong market demand for recycled

C&D materials, with well-defined and wellpublicised

specifications supporting the use of

recycled products.” 8

Resource recovery is a recognised circular

economy business model and aligns to

the circular economy principle of ‘keeping

products and materials at their highest value

at all times’. However, the point to note

here is that within a circular economy, it is

not enough to merely produce a supply of

recoverable resources but rather, the focus

must also be on creating demand.

Demand can be driven in a multiplicity of

ways such as price or regulation, however,

more recent and effective approaches

include the use of technology to create

platforms where materials can be traded.

ASPIRE is an online platform that sets

businesses of any scale on their circular

economy path, by providing pathways for

material exchange. The ASPIRE platform was

originally developed by CSIRO and Data61

in 2015 and formally launched to market in

May 2020. ASPIRE uses innovative software

to facilitate material resource exchange with

materials that would otherwise be discarded

and achieves this by bringing different parties

together to exchange value.

As mentioned above, the focus here is not

just on providing a supply of resources and

materials to the platform but rather focus

on a two way flow of materials through also

creating the demand.

The first step in valuing the materials

within the Lee Street Buildings is to firstly

understand the degree that it is possible

and what materials are present.

A meeting will need to be established

between The Project team to collate existing

Building Information Modelling (BIM)

information, relevant plans and engineering

documents to gain a comprehensive

understanding of the materials that are

present in the buildings. As the buildings were

not built for deconstruction it is important to

note that not all materials will be recoverable

due to the use of adhesives, toxins, etc.

Once there exists a clear understanding

of materials present, the next task will be

to work with an organisation to determine

which materials can be recovered during

the deconstruction phase and at what cost.

At this early stage in Australia’s transition

towards the circular economy, few companies

exist who could fill this role and as such it

may be a case of trialling or working with

existing C&D operators in a slightly different

capacity. If CPS were to engage with an

existing C&D operator such as BINGO, it

is Coreo’s recommendation that a clear

scope is established up front as this method

of working is very different to most C&D

operators current operations.

In addition to the above steps, it is important

to explore and understand how CPS itself can

feasibly reuse any of the materials from the

buildings to be demolished.

The first step is to understand and map

the materials, volumes and quality coming

out of the Lee Street Buildings against the

needs of CPS. At this stage in the transition

towards the circular economy, there may not

be many materials that can be ‘dragged and

dropped’ however, the lessons that will arise

from this exercise are alone worth pursuing

it. Consideration will also need to be given

to spatial and timing constraints. The City of

Sydney and/or the NSW State Government

may be willing partners in temporarily

housing materials.

Once The Project Team has a clear

understanding of the materials, their potential

value, and also their reuse potential within

CPS, the task is then to become orientated

with the material exchange platform, ASPIRE.

Cameron McKenzie, the CEO of ASPIRE

communicated to Coreo that ASPIRE does

not currently have a footprint in Sydney but

they are looking to enter the NSW market in

2021/22. ASPIRE are interested in partnering

with The Project Team to create the interest

and engagement required from the border

market to ‘kick-start’ a circular materials

exchange for NSW. Cameron stated that

ASPIRE would onboard The Project Team

and also assist with stimulating the demand

for materials being exchanged from Lee

Street Buildings as in the early stages of a two

sided marketplace, one side always needs

external acceleration before it finds its own

natural momentum.

The opportunity to partner with ASPIRE to

launch the platform in NSW presents significant

leadership opportunities for CPS. In addition,

the platform can also track and record metrics

important to CPS including waste reduction,

embodied carbon, cost savings etc.

24


The Steps

RECOMMENDATION

26

INITIATIVE

Upstream Partnerships

OVERVIEW

The linearity of the built environment is

not a challenge that CPS and The Project

Team face alone. Rather, it is an opportunity

that requires a systemic response from

government, primary resource companies,

refiners, manufacturers, developers, and

consumers to deliberately create circular

material flows and circulate value.

An important aspect of CPS transitioning

from ownership to stewardship is in ensuring

that the materials circulating within the

development have low embodied carbon,

have low or no toxicity, and have a defined

pathway to circularity after the material’s first

use phase. This focus applies specifically to

materials that are not already sourced from

reuse i.e., C&D materials from the Lee

Street Buildings.

Currently, The Project Team has very few

opportunities to substitute impactful virgin

materials with more circular alternatives.

These options include replacing portland

cement with geopolymer cement; replacing

traditional flooring with a high recycled

content carpet or linoleum; and replacing

hardwood with Cross Laminated Timber (CLT).

As such there exists a real opportunity for

The Project Team to engage and collaborate

with upstream suppliers in order for CPS to

be able to procure circular products. Coreo

recognises that CPS procuring circular

products is an endeavour that will take

time, energy, and investment however, the

abundant learning opportunities and the

potential for industry leadership far outweigh

these challenges.

Creating upstream partnerships for circular

products must focus on leveraging the

strengths and scale of CPS in order to

influence suppliers. The task at hand is not

for The Project Team itself to develop a low

carbon, locally produced product/material

but rather to work with suppliers/product

manufacturers to share data and knowledge,

set targets and agree goals, and send clear

procurement signals.

The first step in forming upstream

partnerships is for The Project team to agree

upon a material and/or product focus.

Coreo’s recommendation is for The

Project Team to select a product that

considers the following:

• Embodied carbon.

• LCA results.

•

• Toxicity.

•

Transparent supply chain.

Local production/manufacture.

Based upon these factors a potential product

to consider is aluminium framing.

Once The Project Team has agreed upon the

chosen material the next step is to establish

the baseline. This step will involve undertaking

a supply chain analysis to understand

where the products are currently being

sourced, what data is available, emissions

produced, potential capital cost or volume

requirement, etc. This analysis should provide

a comprehensive picture of the baseline and

highlight any challenges and opportunities.

Once the product has been selected and the

baseline analysis established, The Project Team

should identify and invite relevant stakeholders

involved in the material’s manufacture, use,

recovery, reuse and or disposal to participate

in a circular economy workshop. This workshop

should have a clear structure with supporting

activities that help educate all participants

whilst providing alignment of the goals of the

project. Firstly, we recommend The Project

Team share how they define the circular

economy, their proposed circular economy

targets/ambitions and why this particular

product has been selected. Next, suppliers

should be provided an opportunity to share

insights into their role within the supply chain

and their interest, understanding and action

toward the circular economy.

In this workshop Coreo recommends discussing

data sharing with upstream partners as a way to

have a clear and complete picture of the impact

of the chosen material. Coreo recommends that

key product suppliers work with Integral Group on

the Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) data requirements

and Coreo on circularity data requirements.

The next step is for The Project Team to set clear

and ambitious targets surrounding this product

type. These targets should align to CPS’s and

The Project Team’s wider ambitions for net

zero, circularity, social outcomes etc. Once the

targets are agreed upon these will need to be

communicated to the engaged suppliers.

The task then becomes in working directly

with the supplier to identify initiatives that will

improve the circularity or reduce the emissions

associated with the selected product targets.

This work could involve education and training,

technical support and sharing methodologies.

In cases where improving circularity or reducing

emissions requires suppliers to make financial

commitments, The Project Team may need to

share the risk through co-investment, offtake

agreements or joint decarbonisation initiatives.

This may also present an opportunity to

engage the NSW Government as an investor

given their work in driving forward research on

low carbon construction materials. 9

Whilst the above work is being undertaken the

next step is to set procurement guidelines for

the specified product. Setting clear guidelines

for suppliers is one of the most effective levers

in addressing the circularity of products and

will also act as a test case for other products.

Procurement guidelines should include the

targets agreed upon above. Finally, The Project

Team should consider rewarding progress

towards circularity amongst it’s supply partners;

one mechanism to do this is through offering

better payment terms.


The Steps

INITIATIVE

A Material Passport for CPS

OVERVIEW

What if every existing building had to be

preserved, adapted and reused, and new

buildings could only use what materials

were already available?

Well, this is no longer a question of ‘what if?’

as it is already happening and is arguably an

inevitable progression of the development

sector globally.

Just as a regular passport provides personal

details of someone’s identity, the equivalent

document for materials - a material passport -

provides insight into the identity of a building.

Typically in the form of digital data sets,

a material passport records exactly what

materials, products, and components go into

a structure, thereby making it vastly easier

when looking to renovate a building or at the

end of the building’s life recover everything of

value, preventing these materials from being

landfilled, dumped or incinerated.

Given the voracious consumption of resources

and the staggering volumes of waste

generated by the development sector, the

uptake of material passports to facilitate

material reuse is inevitable. On its current

course, the development sector is set to triple

material extraction in 30 years, and triple

waste generation by 2100. 10

Globally, the Dutch government has

introduced tax incentives for developers who

register material passports for their buildings

and is considering making it a mandatory

requirement for all new projects, in line with

its ambition to achieve a circular economy

by 2050. 11 Other countries are following suit,

including Denmark and Belgium.

Whilst the uptake of material passports

to facilitate reuse presents a fundamental

shift in the development sector, it is smart

business. One recent study found that the

2.6m tonnes of construction and demolition

material generated each year in Amsterdam

has a value of €688m. 12

Material passport company Madaster

calculates that, on average, the residual

value of a building’s materials equates to

around 18% of the original construction cost

– a huge increase to the bottom line and a

valuable asset to the developer. This clear

financial opportunity has been seized by

Dutch bank giant ABN Amro, which presides

over a €10.6bn commercial real estate

portfolio with their portfolio of properties

progressing to have a materials passport. In

a statement by an executive of ABN Amro he

summed up their position “We are no longer

just a financial bank, but a materials bank.”

RECOMMENDATION

So how does CPS become a material bank

and The Project Team material stewards?

Based upon these factors a potential product

A material passport for CPS will provide a

digital representation (‘twin’) of the two towers

and surrounding buildings, detailing the

materials and products used. In addition, the

material passport can contain information

on the quality and location of materials,

embodied carbon, as well as the financial and

circular value of the products and materials.

To develop a materials passport Coreo

recommends engaging Madaster 13 .

Madaster is a Dutch startup that is leading

the development of material passports

globally through their online cloud platform.

Level of detail requested /

elaboration of the Madaster

building passport

1

2

3

Level 2 + enrichment of products

in Madaster platform with

circular material & product data.

Level 1 + source data also linked to

products in the Madaster platform,

including their material composition.

Source data (IFC / XLSX) of the building object

is only linked in Madaster platform to available

(NEW) materials. Including insight into financial

(residual) value of used materials. Limited insight

into the buildings degree of circularity (MCI).

Madaster is not yet operational in Australia

(although they plan to launch here) nor has

a materials passport been completed by any

other company in our market, which presents

a significant leadership opportunity for CPS

and The Project Team.

The completeness and accuracy of a

materials passport is determined by

the availability and quality of building

information (source files & BIM models).

There are three levels of detail that can

be achieved with a materials passport

depending on the level of ambition, as

shown in Figure 2, below.

DOSSIER

BUILDING PASSPORT

Material

Product

X

€

MCI

X

X

Figure 2: Levels of detail for Madaster cloud platform

28


TO EXPLORE THE DEVELOPMENT

OF A MATERIAL PASSPORT FOR

CPS COREO RECOMMENDS THE

FOLLOWING KEY STEPS:

STEP 1

Meet Madaster team and request a

presentation of the material

passport technology

Coreo is connected to the CEO of

Madaster and can support The Project

Team to meet and have a presentation

on Madaster and it’s material passports

more broadly.

STEP 2

a) Determine the level of detail of

the material passport to be

developed for CPS

Quite simply, the more data The Project

Team feeds into the Madaster platform

the more information will be available

and the more valuable the material

passport will be.

Coreo therefore recommends that The

Project Team determine the purpose of

the material passport for CPS and which

level of detail is desired as shown in

Figure 2 on the previous page.

A material passport developed in Madaster

can be roughly elaborated on three levels, with

the higher level always building on the directly

underlying level. It should be noted that there is

always the option to stop at a specific level and

then move on to the next level at a later time.

Level 1 of the material passport aims to reflect

the materials used in a building and as such,

provide insight into the quantities of materials

used, where these materials are located in the

building and what their financial (residual) value

is. At this level, no insight is obtained into the

products used in the building and their underlying

circular properties (including the degree of

reuse, recycling, detachability, etc.). As a result,

insufficient insight can be given at this level into

the circularity score (Madaster Circularity Index)

of the building.

Level 2 of material passport provides insight

into the materials used and quantities thereof,

and provides insight into products (including

their material composition), and their location

(building layer) in the building. Information

on products is ideal on Madaster as this can

include detailed data and information such as

Environmental Product Declarations. On the

basis of this additional perspective, the material

passport makes it clearer which products have

been used in the building (including numbers)

and in contrast to materials, these can potentially

be ‘reused’ at a higher level. Despite the fact

that the product basis is formed at level 2, still

insufficient insight is obtained at this level into

the degree of circularity of the building, because

the circular properties of the materials and

products used are still largely unknown.

Level 3 of the material passport provides insight

into the circularity score of the building to be

registered (in addition to the display of materials

and products used). This is achieved by enriching

the materials and products with circular data.

This is the most detailed and comprehensive

version of the material passport in Madaster.

b) Determine which building shells

(“building layers”) must be

incorporated in the building passport

A building is composed of distinctive layers

that each have their own function and

lifespan. The materials and products used in

the building are categorised in the Madaster

platform and assigned by means of a

classification code to a various building shell.

In this way, the location of materials and

products in the building also becomes clear.

In addition to architectural and constructional

elements, Madaster also has the option to

classify technical services (installations),

interior and elements in the building.

Figure 3: Layers of a building

c) Determine the level of detail of the

requested building layers

During a BIM process a distinction can be

made between ‘design’ models (used by

architectural, construction and installation

consultants) and ‘production’ models (used

by installers and suppliers). Many parts

of the building are elaborated during the

construction phase in both the design

and production model. Coreo therefore

recommends deciding early in the process

for which parts what model will be used. For

a solid material passport in Madaster, design

models should ideally be developed at a

minimum LOD 300 level. Production models

often contain specific information and often

better represent the actual built situation. It

is therefore preferable to eventually use as

many production models as possible.

STUFF

SPACE

SERVICES

STRUCTURE

SKIN

SYSTEM

SITE

0 350

YEARS

30


STEP 3

Collect & prepare required building

information (source data)

Building information (source data) must

be collected and processed in response to

the desired level of detail of the building

passport to be delivered. The Madaster

platform can use two types of source

data; namely: (1) an IFC file (based on

a 3D/BIM model) and (2) a Madaster

Excel template (if no 3D/BIM model of

the building is available). These source

files (IFC and Excel) are automatically

validated upon import into Madaster

for completeness in terms of: material

description, classification code and

geometric data.

Prior to progressing further towards the

development of the material passport

for CPS Coreo recommends reconvening

key stakeholders involved. This includes

bringing together designers, architects,

structural and mechanical engineers,

and modelling and procurement experts

for a briefing on inputting the above

information into the Madaster platform.

This briefing will also serve to ensure

that these actions are clearly understood

and the desired outcome is achieved.

Following this, Madaster has a guide on

the following steps for uploading the

information that are recommended to be

followed with the advisory support of their

team and Coreo if needed.

In a new-build situation, like CPS, a

material passport is typically created

by the design team, after which the

contractor and suppliers further enrich the

building information into a so-called ‘As-

Built’ BIM model. The Building passport

can then be delivered upon delivery of the

building to the building owner / developer.

HOW IS A MADASTER MATERIALS

PASSPORT DIFFERENT TO BIM?

Madaster provides an easy add-on to

users of BIM. BIM is first and foremost

a design tool, which will contain a lot

of information, but is not necessarily

easily accessible by numerous parties.

Madaster provides easy insight

into the information on materials

and products stored within a BIM

model. In addition, Madaster allows

for easy enrichment of (product)

data. For example, a BIM file might

contain information on the floor

material (wood) and type (product

number of the supplier). Madaster

can then provide underlying product

information by linking to the product

database of the supplier. In addition,

Madaster allows data to be sliced

and diced as and when required. For

example, if insight is required into

all materials on a certain floor of the

building, Madaster allows for easy

export to excel of only that data. This

would improve the understanding of

where materials are located within a

building and how for example, a floor

renovation can be planned ahead with

full knowledge of the materials used

on that floor.

MANAGEMENT

MAINTENANCE

INITIATIVE

As a Service

OVERVIEW

The product ‘As a Service’ (AaS) business

model is a game changer. This business

model is gaining rapid traction across

sectors and transforming relationships

between producers, consumers, and

resources. In the product AaS business

model, customers use products through a

lease or pay-for-use arrangement versus

the conventional buy-to-own approach.

Financing and managing of

technological products to obtain

a range of final results

FINANCING

PERFORMANCE

TRADITIONAL

PURCHASE / LEASING

CLIENT

LANDFILL

BUILDING CLIMATE

TECHNOLOGIES

FACADE

HEATING

HEAT EXCHANGE

VENTILATION

AUTOMATED CONTROL

CENTRAL

CONTROL

Financial,

management &

maintenance services

Technological

hardware & software

Material ownership

& recycling

This business model differentiates itself

from the sharing business model which

seeks to capitalise on overcapacity that

can be found in many industries, with

collaborative use services such as Airbnb

making use of a surplus in space, by

designing out overcapacity from the start.

Figure 4 below depicts the difference

between a traditional purchasing/leasing

approach and a product as a service

system for a facade.

SERVICE

DELIVERY

Performance is

agreed

Client outsources

technical

management & risk

PRODUCT- SERVICE

SYSTEM

Combination of products and

services to provide

a performance

DISSASSEMBLY &

REMANUFACTURE

32

Figure 4: Traditional leasing/ownership approach versus as a Product Service System


RECOMMENDATION

To exemplify how the product AaS

business model works, including its

potential benefits, the ‘Lighting as a

Service’ (LaaS) model developed

between Amsterdam’s Schiphol

Airport and Philips is highlighted below.

In 2015, the architect supporting the

refurbishment of one of Schiphol Airport’s

lounges, Thomas Rau, engaged with Philips

stating that the airport wanted a certain

amount of light hours and only wanted to

pay for the performance each year.

Philips worked with Schiphol Airport to

design a bespoke and intelligent lighting

system that fit the requirements of the

lounge, at a manageable price for the

Airport. In the LaaS model Schiphol Airport

pays for the light - ‘the lux’ - while Philips

pays the energy bill and retains ownership

of the lighting infrastructure ensuring its

performance maintains agreed standards.

This innovative relationship ensures that

Schiphol Airport pays for the performance of

the? lux and doesn’t have to expend capital

on infrastructure they do not know how to

manage effectively or efficiently in use, or

when it reaches end of life.

By moving from a one-time sale to a LaaS

model Schiphol Airport benefits from

maintenance and service by Philips, as well as

the option to adapt or upgrade the lighting

system based on new technology. Philips on

the other hand gets to retain the value of the

material and has a close relationship with the

customer that is incentivised by performance,

essentially the better they perform the more

revenue they get.

Philips implemented a minimalist light plan

that made as much use as possible of the

Airport’s natural sunlight, to avoid providing a

surplus of material and lux. The team worked

with an installation partner, and used a LED

light fitting for ceiling systems, adapted to

be hung in the high ceilings of the Airport.

A combined sensor and controller system

further helped keep energy use to an absolute

minimum, by dimming or brightening the

artificial lighting in response to motion or the

presence of daylight.

Data from the LaaS model at Schiphol Airport

has shown that the lighting infrastructure lasts

75% longer and the energy consumption has

reduced by 50%. In 2019, Philips reported that

their circular economy offerings contributed

more than 13% of total company revenue. 14

LaaS has now been implemented in numerous

projects globally with new and innovative

elements built into the model. In one of the

world’s most sustainable buildings, as rated by

BREEAM, ‘The Edge’ in Amsterdam has a LaaS

LED system which is powered by Ethernet

and is 100% IP based. Separate sensors

were added to the lights, making the system

(i.e. each luminaire individually) computer

controllable. It not only allows employees to

personalise the lighting and temperature at

their workspaces using a smartphone app, but

it also provides building managers with realtime

data on operations and activities. This

data allows facility managers to maximise the

buildings’ operational efficiency and optimise

office space as well as reduce the building’s

CO 2

footprint.

The implementation of a product AaS

business model is a fundamental step

towards The Project Team transitioning

from ownership to stewardship.

The additional value drivers for

implementation include a reduction in

capital and operational expenditure on

assets; enhanced performance on energy,

water, and other resources; facilitating

the achievement of desirable ratings,

certifications, and targets.

There are numerous examples of product AaS

business models that could be implemented

at CPS, however, Coreo recommends

The Project Team further explore

‘Cooling as a Service’ (CaaS) and LaaS.

Shifting from purchasing a product to

purchasing a service requires a fundamentally

new way of thinking and working. This shift

will require changes to current systems and

processes including procurement, contracting,

project finance and operations.

The first step is for The Project Team to

make a decision which model, CaaS or LaaS,

is more valuable for CPS and thus will be

explored further. To reach this decision, Coreo

recommends organising a meeting with Kaer,

the leading CaaS service provider, and Arc

Renewable Group, Australia’s leading LaaS

provider, to learn more about the models, their

potential value, challenges, and risks.

There are several opportunities and

challenges to consider with the

progression of either model:

• CaaS has never been delivered in Australia

thereby presenting a great leadership

opportunity for CPS.

• LaaS has been delivered in Australia but

not on CPS scale.

• Kaer is interested in a whole precinct

approach to CaaS to warrant entry into

the Australian market (currently operating

across South East Asia).

• Both models have significant potential to

reduce energy and emissions and reduce

waste and pollutants which will enable

the achievement of desired ratings/

certifications e.g., NABERS.

• Significant reduction in capital costs

(comparison of capital costs; HVAC versus

light infrastructure require important

consideration).

• HVAC deeply tied to design/facade

selection.

• Arc Renewable Group is a new company in

Australia (founded 2017) and may not be

able to cover capital infrastructure costs.

This will need to be determined.

34


In advance of the meetings with the

LaaS and CaaS providers, Coreo will

work with The Project Team and relevant

project consultants including Integral

Group to develop a key set of questions

to explore with each service provider.

It is recommended that team members from

operations are included in these meetings as

they will bring an important lense and line

of enquiry.

Coreo will record the content of the

meetings and present a short presentation

on both models including the opportunities

and challenges for The Project Team to

consider. If the decision is not to progress

with either model the exploration will cease

at this point, however, if a model is selected

Coreo recommends progressing to develop

a business case.

The business case is proposed to be

developed collaboratively with the input and

support of other relevant stakeholders such

as Integral Group and for example if a CaaS

model, the Stantec team.

The objective of the business case will be

to validate the model’s viability and

feasibility for CPS, with an intent to clearly

articulate how The Project Team can

practically understand and engage with

the as AaS model.

The business case is proposed to include:

• Project definition.

• Timeline.

• Value proposition.

• Financial model (capex and opex

considerations from Business as Usual (BAU)

to AaS).

• Circularity and other performance values

(energy, waste, emissions, social/tenant

experience).

• Risk matrix.

• Stakeholders.

• Implementation plan (procurement and

contractual considerations).

• Recommendations.

On completion of the business case Coreo will

present the key elements to The Project Team

with the intent for a decision to be reached on

cessation or progression.

Depending if and what AaS model is

implemented it will be important for The

Project Team to consider how to measure the

performance of the model in CPS across a

diversity of parameters.

Coreo recommends at a minimum the

following are considered:

• Behavioural change in energy consumption

(based on customisable model for

cooling/lighting).

• Tenant satisfaction/wellbeing and

productivity.

• Circularity (extended life of products,

efficiency/performance, reduction in

resource inputs).

The Steps

INITIATIVE

Circulating high value materials

OVERVIEW

In today’s linear economy we place value on the function of a product or material for

the time it provides the function and not on the material value which is often discarded

as waste. In contrast, in a circular economy products and materials are valued for both

their functionality and their materiality as well as the value that they contribute to the

system.

Creating circular material flows firstly requires an understanding of the types of

materials being introduced in the system. The circular economy distinguishes between

technical and biological materials. Biological materials should be returned to

regenerate our natural systems, such as our soils, to provide renewable resources for the

economy. Technical materials should be recovered and restored through strategies like

reuse, repair, remanufacture or in the last resort recycling.

In line with the second principle of a circular economy once the material is known to

be technical or biological, the focus needs to be on keeping the material at its highest

value for as long as possible.

In appreciation of the vast array and significant volumes of materials to be generated

at CPS and captured in the Integrated Distribution Facility (IDF), Coreo recommends

that two material streams both biological, food waste, and technical E-waste be

prioritised. These materials have been prioritised due to their high cost of management,

harm to the environment if landfilled, and their potential to create value for CPS and

wider stakeholders.

Although there may be a desire to establish an approach to circulate all material

streams, Coreo recommends that The Project Team start with these two materials

streams and then expand from there. The current IDF space provisions appear

adequate for any future circular service or infrastructure solutions that may be required.

Creating circular material flows will support The Project Team and CPS to achieve a

net zero operational waste target as well as facilitating CPS’s future tenants to achieve

their own zero waste targets.

36


FOOD WASTE

Food waste presents a substantial opportunity

for CPS and the broader CPRP to capture

and circulate nutrients in Sydney and more

broadly in NSW. Currently, in Australia

significant value is lost through ineffective

and inefficient food waste systems resulting

in substantial greenhouse gas emissions and

an estimated 20 billion dollar cost to the

economy per year 15 .

There is a major shift in Federal and NSW

waste policy towards the circular economy

which is driving objectives to halve or even

ban some forms of food waste or broader

organics waste streams to landfill. This will

have major ramifications across the waste

industry, and specifically in Sydney, which

currently has a significant gap in large

scale processing capacity of waste streams

containing food and organic materials 16 . With

the policy shift and current infrastructure gap

there is a significant opportunity for CPS to

utilise the IDF to provide infrastructure and

services to capture the value of food waste.

Leveraging the IDF and collaboration with

precinct stakeholders, The Project Team could

capture substantial volumes of food waste in

a high value form to support the generation

of biogas for green power, bi-products

such as high calorific briquets to displace

coal in furnaces, animal feed, fertilisers, soil

conditioners, and even bioplastics.

Capturing the value of food waste not

only has substantial downstream benefits,

it can provide significant cost savings in

waste contracts. Food waste is putricsable,

meaning it breaks down fast causing odour,

leachate and attracting insects and vermin.

Food waste on average constitutes up to

30-50% of general waste 17 . If food waste is

treated as a nutrient, meaning it is managed

and kept separate from other non-organic

material streams that are not putricsable, it

can enable waste collection frequencies to

decrease from per day to per week, or even

per fortnight depending on storage capacity

in the IDF. Furthermore, creating circular

material flows can future proof CPS through

preparedness for legislative and policy

changes, increases in landfill costs and also

market differentiation for prospective tenants

through better support services.

RECOMMENDATION

Coreo has considerable experience in

identifying, evaluating and supporting the

implementation of circular food waste

systems including both the ‘upstream’

technology and collection requirements

and the ‘downstream’ partnership and

management options. Based on this

experience and the unique contextual factors

of CPS and the IDF, Coreo recommends the

installation of food maceration technology

and supporting infrastructure.

In this recommended approach, food waste

maceration technology will be installed

throughout the precinct where food waste is

generated e.g. commercial office kitchens,

retail outlets etc. The in-situ macerators

are proposed to be supported by plumbing

infrastructure and/or vacuum piping to

transport the macerated food waste to a

holding tank to be collected by an offtake

partner or processed onsite in a tech enabled

modular larvae unit in the IDF.

Downstream partnership options are

recommended to be explored on the basis

of their processing capacity, cost/gate

fees, green house gas (GHG) emissions,

resource use (energy, water, fuel), circularity,

leadership/brand value and offsite or onsite

processing options.

Initial recommendations on downstream

partnership options include:

• Sydney Water - in this partnership,

macerated food waste could be collected

by Sydney Water for the generation of

biogas in their anaerobic digesters to

produce energy. In addition, this will

increase biosolids which could be used to

generate high calorific briquettes to

displace coal use in furnaces or fertiliser

for use in the agricultural industry.

The nitrogen and/or fertiliser that is

generated could potentially be recirculated

to CPS for use on green infrastructure

providing a nutrient exchange.

• Gotterra - a food and organics waste

management company - in this partnership

the macerated food waste could be fed

directly into modular waste management

units in the IDF. The modular units use

artificial intelligence, robotics and insect

larvae to process food waste. The standard

units can take up to an estimated five

tons per day. As the larvae mature over

a 10-12 day period they will need to be

replaced with new larvae to commence

the consumption cycle again (all managed

by Gotterra). The mature larvae and their

manure is then used to make a nutrient

rich feed for livestock, fish etc. The use of

these onsite modular units can also support

biodiversity at CPS and enable a substantial

reduction in GHG emissions. Each modular

unit can be customised to a car park size.

Standard specifications are: L- 6.09m W-

2.4m H- 2.5m, the height requirements to

enable replacement of the units is 4m. The

units require a three phase five prong power

supply. Servicing is performed by a light

6m commercial truck. The vehicle requires

access to the macerator and front door to

the unit and takes two hours to complete.

In regards to upstream collection, macerators

are a safe and proven technology for the

disposal of food waste. Macerators are

installed neatly under a kitchen sink, food

waste is put into the sink where the macerator

is turned on with slow running water to support

the maceration and entry into plumbing/

piping infrastructure for diversion to a holding

tank as shown in Figure 5.

38


Figure 5: Example food waste macerator unit

Macerating the food waste at CPS and

Due to the broad range of food waste that

ELECTRONIC WASTE

DIVERSION TO

MACERATOR

TO HOLDING TANK

IN THE BASEMENT

Historically, macerators were not encouraged

for use in Australia as there were concerns

of the macerated food waste going direct to

sewerage treatment plants which were not

equipped to capture the increased biogas

creation for conversion into energy and heat.

Today, macerated food waste is desirable

for wastewater treatment utilities as it can

be processed through onsite anaerobic

digesters to generate 50-70% more biogas

than other feedstocks which is then used

to provide energy for the facility and any

surplus sold to the grid. Sydney Water 18 and

Queensland Urban Utilities have run trials

of this technology and Yarra Valley Water in

Victoria 19 have successfully commercialised it.

capturing it in a holding tank enables any

concerns related to sewerage infrastructure

damage to be negated and also enables the

utility providers to charge an accurate gate

fee which was not possible with direct entry

to sewer. Current gate fees are between $100-

150 which is more cost effective than landfill

and commercial composting (specific fees will

need to be determined for NSW as these fees

are drawn from previous work in Queensland).

In addition, concern has been raised about

the water and energy required to operate

macerating technology. Independent

studies have shown that a macerator uses

approximately 3-4 kWh of electricity per

year and for every kilogram of food waste

macerated an estimated 6.2 litres of water is

used 20 . It is important to note that both the

energy consumption and water use figures

will need to be further validated as these

figures reference household use.

Comparative studies on food waste

management systems have shown that

macerators have the lowest net global

warming potential of separate collection and

food waste management options. To illustrate

this point, kerbside collection to compost is

-14 kgCO 2

e/t foodwaste and for households

with a food waste macerator feeding to

a wastewater treatment plant, the

global warming potential is -168 kgCO 2

e/t

foodwaste in contrast, landfill is +743kgCO 2

e/t

foodwaste. 21,22

An additional value of food maceration

technology is the broad range of food

waste that it can process including small

bones, seafood shells, meat, fruit/vegetable

peels, and coffee grounds. However, fats,

oils and greases, large bones and oyster

shells, and compostable packaging are not

can be processed and the ease of use,

research highlights that macerators enable

a higher percentage of food waste to be

captured compared to the other collection

systems such as composting. 20

Irrespective of what food waste

management system is ultimately installed

in CPS and the IDF, education will need

to be provided to tenants and all key

stakeholders on how to use the selected

system and importantly why the system

was selected to ensure people understand

the value creation they can contribute to.

Although Coreo has recommended this

circular food waste system based on

our previous experience, research, the

objectives of CPS and the unique value

of the IDF, there is substantial work to be

done to validate the technical viability and

feasibility of this approach.

Accordingly, Coreo proposes to work

with The Project Team and relevant

external stakeholders such as ARUP to

develop a cost/benefit analysis of the

recommended solution and potential

downstream partnerships. A very important

consideration given the priority of reducing

water consumption in Sydney, will be

to validate whether a vacuum piping

system for food waste can work in place

of a maceration technology that uses a

considerable volume of water. In addition,

consideration of cooling and heating

requirements for the connected buildings in

the IDF will be another factor to consider

as these requirements can be met through

synergistic onsite technologies such as

anaerobic digestion.

Considering CPS’s future tenants are

likely to be companies working in the

information technology sector, it is a

reasonable conclusion to make that there

will be significant volumes of E-waste being

generated at CPS. Electronic waste is a broad

term that covers a range of products but put

simply E-waste refers to any product with a

power plug. These items can contain both

hazardous and valuable materials that can

be recovered when they reach the end of their

working life.

Electronic waste is growing up to three

times faster than general municipal waste

in Australia. It is estimated that television

and computer E-waste alone will grow by

over 60% or 85,000 tonnes to 2024. While

E-waste is not one of the main waste streams

generated in Australia, (compared with, for

example, construction materials) it is one of

the fastest growing. 24

Current product stewardship legislation

and programs for E-waste in Australia have

been largely ineffective with large volumes

of E-waste being exported to developing

countries or landfilled. 25 In addition, well

known companies such as Westpac and

Officeworks have had their E-waste tracked

to developing countries including Ghana

where young children were burning the

plastics to extract the high value metals

in horrific and unsafe conditions. 26 This all

speaks to the opportunity The Project Team

have to establish a service that is transparent

and value generating for their tenants.

recommended to be disposed of. 23

40


RECOMMENDATION

The provision of a high quality, purpose led

E-waste service is an essential component

of an advanced materials recovery facility at

CPS in the IDF. Currently, several options exist

for managing E-waste including the City of

Sydney’s dedicated recycling days; the National

Television and Computer Recycling Scheme;

and numerous technology recyclers. Although

these solutions adequately manage this waste

stream by mitigating harm and avoiding landfill,

they miss the opportunity to extract additional

value back to the community.

Coreo recommends CPS partner with PonyUp

for Good, a Melbourne based social enterprise

that sustainably manages E-waste whilst

donating 50% of their profits to Australian

food charity Second Bite. This presents a

synergistic link to the recommended focus on

food waste at CPS as SecondBite provides

meals for people experiencing food insecurity

in Australia utilising food that would have

otherwise gone to waste.

PonyUp for Good (PonyUp) prides itself on

working in partnership with top facilities

management teams across Australia to

provide building-wide technology and

E-waste solutions, communication programs,

activation events and tech amnesties.

PonyUp can provide lockable 120L, 240L,

660L and 1100L E-waste collection bins for

on–site placement and stackable, lockable

cages, best suited to docking bays. Collection

of full bins and cages can be arranged in

advance according to an agreed schedule or

PonyUp can be contacted when the bin is full.

PonyUp places a strong focus on data security

and privacy and ensures any IP on donated

computer assets is irreversibly destroyed.

PonyUp uses the Blancco data erasure

solution, which is the gold standard in data

deletion and meets Department of Defence

standards. Once data is cleared the devices

are refurbished and sold with 50% of profits

directed to SecondBite. The devices with no

potential for reuse are recycled by PonyUp’s

Commonwealth Government-approved Coregulatory

Arrangement, DropZone by MRI,

under the National Television and Computer

Recycling Scheme.

PonyUp can also provide battery recycling

buckets to accommodate most common

battery types including: nickel cadmium,

nickel metal hydride, lithium rechargeable,

lithium primary, alkaline and lead acid.

Buckets provided are DG (Dangerous Goods)

rated and supplied with a sealed lid to ensure

the safe storage and transport of batteries.

In addition to E-waste and battery recycling,

PonyUp will provide reporting data on the

impact of the E-waste collected at CPS. This

data can then be used to communicate to

tenants, team members, the wider community

and shareholders.

Conclusion

It is our hope that this report presents the

opportunity for the circular economy at CPS

as clearly as it does the opportunity for growth

within The Project Team’s understanding and

capability in enacting a circular transition.

Coreo believes that the circular economy has the

potential to benefit both Dexus and Frasers directly, the

property development industry systemically and the

communities and places that are collaboratively created

such as CPS.

The journey presented in this report is an initial

recommendation that will need ongoing exploration and

revision as further momentum is gained and specific

circular business cases for CPS are defined. As such,

this report should not be seen as a static document, but

rather a seed from which more concrete actions will

grow and be implemented.

42


References

44

References

[1] Accenture, 2020, ‘The Circular Economy [8] Department of Agriculture, Water and

Handbook’. Accessed 20 January 2021 the Environment, Hyder Consulting, 2011,

https://www.accenture.com/us-en/about/ ‘Construction and demolition waste status

events/the-circular-economy-handbook report - management of construction and

[2] Greater Sydney Commission, 2020,

demolition waste in Australia’.

‘Reducing carbon emissions and managing Accessed 20 January 2021

energy, water and waste efficiently. Planning https://www.environment.gov.au/protection/

Priority W19’. Accessed 20 January 2021 waste/publications/construction-anddemolition-waste-status-report

https://www.greater.sydney/western-citydistrict-plan/sustainability/efficient-city/

[9] WWF-Australia, B, Waters, H. Worsley &

reducing-carbon-emissions-and-managing M. Richter, 2020, ‘The time is now: Tackling

[3] Circle Economy, CGRi, 2020, ‘The world is embodied carbon in the building and

now 8.6% circular.’ Accessed 20 January 2021 constriction sector’. Accessed 20 January 2021

https://www.circularity-gap.world/2020 https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/

downloads/wwf_decarbonising_building_

[4] Organisation for Economic Cooperation

and Development, 2021, ‘Material

and_construction_materials_report.pdf

consumption’. Accessed 20 January 2021 [10] UK Green Building Council, 2019,

https://data.oecd.org/materials/materialconsumption.htm

https://www.ukgbc.org/ukgbc-work/

‘Circular Economy’. Accessed 20 January 2021

circular-economy/

[5] Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Material

Economics, 2019 ‘Completing the picture how [11] Government of the Netherlands, 2021,

the circular economy tackles climate change’. ‘Aiming at a circular economy by 2050, a

Accessed 20 January 2021

necessity for carbon neutrality’.

https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/ Accessed 20 January 2021

assets/downloads/Completing_The_Picture_ https://www.government.nl/ministries/

How_The_Circular_Economy-_Tackles_ ministry-of-infrastructure-and-watermanagement/events/wcef-climate-2021

Climate_Change_V3_26_September.pdf

[6] Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017,

[12] Issuu, 2018, ‘Circular Amsterdam ‘.

‘Concept. What is a circular economy? A Accessed 20 January 2021

framework for an economy that is restorative https://issuu.com/fabrications/docs/circularamsterdam-en-small-210316_

and regenerative by design’.


[13] Madaster, 2021, ‘A world where humankind

https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/ can use material forever’.

circular-economy/concept


[7] Shooshtarian, S., Maqsood, T., Khalfan, M., https://www.madaster.com/en

Wong P., and Yang, R., 2019, ‘Construction and [14] Philips, 2015, ‘Philips provides Light as a

Demolition Waste Management in Australia: Service to Schiphol Airport”.

Review of Differences in Jurisdictional


Regulatory Frameworks’.

https://www.philips.com/a-w/about/news/


archive/standard/news/press/2015/20150416-

https://sbenrc.com.au/app/uploads/2019/10/ Philips-provides-Light-as-a-Service-to-

CIB-WBC-Jun2019-ConstructionDemolition Schiphol-Airport.html

WasteManagementAustralia.pdf


References

[15] Department of Agriculture, Water and the

Environment, 2021, ‘Tackling Australia’s food

waste’. Accessed 20 January 2021

https://www.environment.gov.au/protection/

waste/food-waste#:~:text=Each%20year%20

we%20waste%20around,of%20Australia’s%20

greenhouse%20gas%20emissions

[16] Jazbec, M., and Turner, A., 2018 ‘Creating a

circular economy precinct’, report prepared by

the Institute for Sustainable Futures, University

of Technology Sydney, for Sydney Water.


https://www.sydneywater.com.au/web/groups/

publicwebcontent/documents/document/zgrf/

mja2/~edisp/dd_206045.pdf

[17] Do Something!, 2021, ‘Fast Facts on Food

Waste’. Accessed 20 January 2021

https://www.foodwise.com.au/foodwaste/

food-waste-fast-facts/

[18] ABC, 2016, ‘Waste turned into electricity in new

Sydney Water trial’. Accessed 20 January 2021

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-30/

food-waste-powering-sydney-water-sewageplant/7460182

[19] Yarra Valley Water, 2021, ‘Waste to

Energy’. Accessed 20 January 2021

https://www.yvw.com.au/help-advice/waste-energy

[20] Environmental Protection Agency,

STRIVE Report Series No.11, Carey, C., Phelan,

W., and Boland, C., 2008 ‘Examining the use of

food waste disposers’.


https://www.epa.ie/researchandeducation/

research/researchpublications/strivereports/

STRIVE_11_Phelan_Foodwaste_web1.pdf

[21] Elsevier, Journal of Cleaner Production,

Lundie, S., Peters, G. M., 2005, ‘Life cycle

assessment of food waste management

options’. Accessed 20 January 2021

http://analyseplatformen.dk/Data/

madspildsmonitor/HTML_madspildsplatform/

assets/lundie---peters_2005_life-cycleassessment-of-food-waste-managementoptions.pdf

[22] Local Government Association, 2012,

‘The potential of food waste disposal units to

reduce costs. A literature review.’


https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/

documents/potential-food-waste-disp-077.pdf

[23] Emerson Electric Co., 2019, ’How to use a

food waste disposer’. Accessed 20 January 2021

https://www.insinkerator.com.au/how-usefood-waste-disposer

[24] Department of Environment, Land,

Water and Planning (DELWP), 2015,

‘Managing e-waste in Victoria: Starting the

Conversation’. Accessed 20 January 2021

https://www.environment.vic.gov.au/__data/

assets/pdf_file/0031/49729/E-waste-bandiscussion-paper_online_R.pdf

[25] Australasian Journal of Environmental

Management, 2016, ‘Assessing effectiveness

of WEEE management policy in Australia’.


https://www.researchgate.net/

publication/304628249_Assessing_

effectiveness_of_WEEE_management_

policy_in_Australia

[26] ABC, Background Briefing, Le Tourneau,

R., 2017, ‘How did Westpac’s e-waste end up

on the worst dump in the world?’. Accessed

20 January 2021

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/

programs/backgroundbriefing/8329068

Appendix

46


Appendix

INTERVIEWS

Development Manager – Nicholas D’Ambrosio (Frasers)

Development Director - John Dawson (Frasers)

Project Director - Kimberly Jackson (Frasers)

Sustainability – Richard Palmer (Intergral) + Rory Martin (Frasers) (joint interview)

Environmental Programs - Alan Fok (Dexus)

Design lead – Scott Duncan (SOM)

PROTOTYPING

48


“Unless someone like you cares

a whole awful lot,Nothing is

going to get better. It’s not.”

- Dr Seuss, the Lorax

E: ASHLEIGH@COREO.COM.AU

E: JAINE@COREO.COM.AU

W: WWW.COREO.COM.AU

Frasers Report - Coreo Revised

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?