CircuS trajectory: Bonheiden has its say

Today we talk to Thomas Pluymers, sustainability officer at Bonheiden municipality. In Bonheiden, they are starting work on the redesign of their town hall.

What is the reason for a major redesign of your town hall?

The current town hall dates from 2005 and in itself is still a solid building, but the way of working has evolved a lot over the past 20 years. Some services have grown, others have moved, such as the youth service. There is also a desire to centralise other municipal functions. In addition, there is an intention to eventually dispose of the building in which the social service is currently located. All this calls for a refurbishment of the town hall, or a new infill at a second location that will serve as a social hub: the Sint-Maartensberg site.

How does the Sint-Maartensberg renovation plan relate to the plans for the town hall?

The choice of location for social services - either in the town hall or in a social hub on the Sint-Maartensberg site - largely influences the depth of the renovation of the town hall. If social services are integrated into the town hall, a much more drastic refurbishment will be required. If it is housed in the social hub, the town hall will require less drastic refurbishment.

What circular principles do you want to include in the redesign?

We want to focus on efficient use of space: looking at which spaces are really needed and whether existing space can be better utilised. We also want to maximise the reuse of existing materials, by mapping what we already have, and commit to healthy air quality and green indoors and outdoors. Bonheiden is a green municipality and we want to extend that identity to our buildings.

With this renovation, you will set an example, what do you think of that?

Cool, huh?(laughs) As a sustainability officer, I really enjoy pioneering circularity. For the town hall site, this is a logical step. There, over the past 5-10 years, we have already switched from our own service vehicles to electric shared cars, which we share with residents. We have provided charging stations there for the share cars and for external vehicles. Some two years, we installed a green roof on the town hall, and through citizen participation we put PV panels there. So redesigning the town hall in a circular way would be the last step for us to make the whole building sustainable.

I hear you talk a lot about citizen participation: how do you plan to involve citizens in this project as well?

With the plans for Sint-Maartensberg, citizen participation is more obvious than with the town hall, which is mainly administrative. Nevertheless, we want to explore ways in which we can involve residents there too, for instance through user surveys or participatory information sessions.

What impact do you expect the redesign to have on the working culture?

We expect a modified layout to greatly improve job satisfaction. Today, employees work in an open landscape office without acoustic shielding. This leads to nuisance. We want better acoustics and more space for concentration and digital consultation. By using smaller consultation areas, individual quiet zones and flexi-places, we can use the space more efficiently and promote cooperation. The combination of working from home with training and education regularly leaves desks empty. So we could use the space more efficiently.

What are the main energy bottlenecks at the Sint-Maartensberg site?

That building is clearly outdated. Apart from urgent repairs, little structural improvement has been made to it. So we are talking about a complete renovation, with a focus on energy efficiency and sustainable techniques. If we tackle a building like this in 2025, we have to prepare it for the future straight away.

What were your expectations of the CircuS process beforehand?

We hoped to arrive at a clear vision for the development of both sites through CircuS. We succeeded: we gained insights that are useful not only for the town hall and Sint-Maartensberg, but also for other future renovation projects of municipal patrimony.

What did you think of the practical examples covered in the fourth session?

Very interesting. Certainly in terms of specifications, we learned that we as local government do not always have to impose all the conditions ourselves. It is valuable to leave room for designers or contractors to provide their own circular vision.

How did the explanation on procurement processes help?

It made us realise that we don't have to seal everything up ourselves. Sometimes let the market itself propose a circular approach. That gives fresh insights, especially for a small local government where internal expertise on this is limited. It is important to allow the market and the knowledge there too.

What did you think of Atelier Noest's insights on creating support?

It was a very nice story, also linked to Bonheiden. It was a story of creating a place of meeting among residents. The idea of a structure that residents literally help build - with local wood and from their own gardens - fits well with the character of Bonheiden.

Have you already learned a lot from the other local councils participating in the project?

Definitely. After all, most of the local councils are working on a town hall or executive service. Although we did not submit our executive service for this trajectory, we obviously have one. There are also opportunities here to improve it in the future. I feel the same needs and concerns that we have come back to other local governments.

How do you see the balance between circular investments and cost savings?

We find value in working with a 'circular piggy bank', as Kris Blykers told us. If you make creative, circular choices within a certain budget - for example, by using space smarter - you can free up resources elsewhere for sustainable added value. That way, the balance of the project comes back into balance and you counter the idea that circular construction is necessarily more expensive.

What challenges do you still expect?

The biggest challenge remains getting everyone on board: colleagues, politicians, users, citizens. We need to find a consensus that satisfies everyone. Circularity takes time, explanation and conviction. If you want to go too radical, you risk scaring people off. Step-by-step change works better.

How will you anchor circular ambitions in the tendering phase and cooperation with the architect?

By working with a starting point around circularity in the working groups. That way, all employees involved, from all different departments, are on board from the start to embrace the principles of circularity. We want to include circularity not as a detail, but as a starting point in the specifications.

What lessons do you hope to learn in the final session of CircuS?

The final session is about finance and subsidies. There, we hope to discover additional levers that can make our plans feasible, especially as a small local government. Any grant that helps keep circularity affordable is welcome. That will still be a bit of coffee-gazing.

What would you advise to other municipalities looking to renovate circularly?

Start by looking at what you already have. Often the solution lies in what already exists: underused spaces, facilities or materials. You may need to build less than you think, and circularity is simply free.