What happens when you put a group of biophilic designers and interior landscaping experts in a room? You get a refreshingly honest conversation about why so many modern workplaces still feel like “plantations” rather than living environments—and why, somewhat surprisingly, the future of plants might involve data centres.

 

 

At the plants@work 25th Anniversary meeting at Provender Nurseries, Vanessa Champion, Oliver Heath, Richard Sabin and Tom Palfreyman joined moderator Kenneth Freeman to reflect on the past, present and future of plants in the built environment.

 

The wide-ranging discussion touched on everything from value engineering and sustainability certifications to artificial intelligence, workplace culture and neurodiversity. What emerged was a mix of optimism and frustration—optimism about the growing recognition of plants’ value, and frustration that the industry still has to prove that value again and again.

 

Opening the conversation, Tom Palfreyman reflected on how the funding for planting schemes has evolved over the past two decades.

 

“I think we started seeing people using budgets from different financial pots,” he said. “So it went away from being the facilities manager’s budget to a health and safety budget or an HR budget to attract staff or retain staff and keep people safe.”

 

As organisations began to understand the relationship between plants, wellbeing and workplace performance, planting became easier to justify across multiple departments.

 

At the same time, the commercial benefits of greenery also became clearer. Greener buildings can attract tenants, increase rental value and help create spaces where people actually want to spend time.

 

Still, Tom Palfreyman wondered whether that progress might be slowing. Having stepped back slightly from the industry in recent years, he questioned whether the surge in projects had continued—or whether the sector risked slipping backwards.

 

His comments set the tone for the panel’s central question: has the industry truly succeeded in communicating the value of plants?

Richard Sabin did not mince his words when discussing one of the industry’s long-standing frustrations.

“It’s not ‘value engineering,’ it’s cost engineering,” he said. “People think a building needs foundations and a roof, but it doesn't ‘need’ plants. We have to change that mindset.”

 

In many construction projects, planting schemes remain among the first elements to be reduced or removed when budgets tighten. Carefully designed landscapes are frequently “red-penned” until they lose much of their intended impact.

 

However, Richard Sabin noted that policy drivers such as urban greening requirements and biodiversity metrics are beginning to change the conversation.

 

He recalled one project where biodiversity credits required half a building to be covered with a green wall. While the requirement was technically met, the building owner later admitted they wished they had gone further.

The lesson? When plants are integrated from the start, their value become obvious.

 

The discussion took an unexpected turn when Kenneth Freeman raised the question of artificial intelligence and the future workplace. If AI reduces the need for large office workforces, what does that mean for an industry built around office environments?

 

Richard Sabin offered a surprising answer. “Interestingly, our biggest growth area right now is actually data centres.”

 

Vanessa Champion immediately challenged him. “Wait, plants in data centres? What do they actually do for the servers?”

 

Richard laughed: “Technically? Nothing. But they help the centres get planning permission. They cool the exterior and improve biodiversity.”

 

Vanessa Champion pointed out that some companies are already experimenting with greener approaches. “Some are using AI systems like EchoSense to monitor cooling and heating. They’re creating areas for the mental and physical health of the people working there, and even using interior planting to cool the building. If you were going to create a data centre of the future, it would look like a thriving ecosystem.”

 

Richard Sabin also highlighted the vast potential of the heat generated by servers. “There’s so much potential to use that massive server heat to power greenhouses on the roofs,” he said. 

 

But Tom Palfreyman recalled the frustration of nearly hitting this goal years ago: “We tried to harvest the heat energy from a data centre to power greenhouses on the roof. It worked perfectly, but a large bank stopped it because they were terrified a leak would hit the computers. We need that cross-industry collaboration to prove it’s safe, particularly as digital infrastructure expands.

 

 

The panel also examined the growing influence of sustainability certification systems such as WELL, BREEAM and LEED.

 

Kenneth Freeman warned that these frameworks can sometimes encourage superficial compliance. “You can get the same accreditation for a ‘plantation’ of 100 identical plants as you can for a genuinely biophilic installation,” he said. “You tick the box, but are you providing real value?”

 

Oliver Heath agreed, highlighting the difference between measurable metrics and human experience. “I’ve worked on buildings that achieved Platinum status, and honestly? I still wouldn't want to work there,” he said. “Biophilic design is qualitative—it’s about how a space makes you feel.”

 

He noted that buildings can technically meet sustainability targets while still feeling sterile or uninspiring. “You can have a ‘wellness room’ that’s basically just a place to go if your heart is stopping,” he joked. “That’s not wellness; that’s just staying alive.”

 

For Oliver Heath, the real challenge is designing environments that foster genuine connections to nature—not simply meeting certification criteria.

 

Despite advances in monitoring technology, the panel agreed that plant care remains fundamentally human.

Over the years, the industry has experimented with sensors embedded in planters and green walls to track moisture levels and send alerts when watering is required.

 

But Tom Palfreyman remains sceptical that technology can replace experienced technicians. “I’ve seen all the sensors. I’ve seen the apps that text you when a pot is dry,” he said. “But you can’t substitute a technician who looks after those plants like their own garden.”

 

He added: “AI might turn my photo into a spreadsheet, but it doesn't know if a plant is about to flower or if it's just thirsty because it’s been a sunny Tuesday. We always say the most important tool is the index finger: if in doubt, stick it in the soil.”

 

Richard Sabin pointed to global standards to back this up. “At Salesforce Tower in San Francisco, they have technicians there almost all the time. The client sees the value in that human intervention. Their bar for what is 'acceptable' is miles above a sensor because they know when something is 'off' before a data set ever would.”

 

Another interesting discussion focused on the small minority of people who do not enjoy heavily planted environments.

 

Studies suggest around 97% of people like plants, but Oliver Heath pointed out that design still needs to accommodate the remaining few—often connected to neurodiversity. “We have to treat people like adults and offer choice,” he said. “About 20% of the population is neurodivergent. Some are hypersensitive to smells or visual clutter; others are hyposensitive and need that stimulation.”

 

The answer is not to remove plants, but to provide a variety of environments. “We need to recognise that people’s sensory thresholds change,” Oliver Heath added. “Spaces should offer different options.”

 

Kenneth Freeman agreed that autonomy plays a major role in workplace wellbeing. “If the corporate culture is toxic, it doesn't matter how many plants you have,” he said. “But if people can choose where they sit—near greenery or in a quieter refuge space—productivity improves.”

 

Perhaps the most memorable moment came from a workplace experiment conducted at GSK. Researchers gradually increased planting levels in an office over four weeks while monitoring employee wellbeing. In week five, they removed all the plants.

 

The reaction was immediate. “In the fifth week, we took everything away,” Tom Palfreyman recalled. “They went up the wall. They were like caged animals.” When staff were asked what they wanted restored, the answer was clear. “97% said, ‘Give us everything’. They weren't happy until we gave them the 'whole ecosystem' back. They needed to feel involved in the choice of plants to truly feel empowered.”

 

Kenneth Freeman concluded with a powerful memory from the 2008 financial crash. “When banks started taking plants away as a cost-cutting gesture, the 'survivors' of the layoffs were grabbing the plants and pulling them back to their desks. You can't put that on a spreadsheet, but you can see it in their faces: we need nature to survive the office.”

 

Hybrid working has fundamentally changed the purpose of the workplace.

People no longer go to the office simply because they must—they go because the space offers something they cannot get at home.

 

“We’ve got to work a lot harder to attract people back,” said Oliver Heath. “That means better environments, different spaces and places where people can collaborate and share ideas.”

 

Vanessa Champion added that younger generations increasingly expect organisations to demonstrate environmental values.

 

“People want to come somewhere where they feel valued and where the brand has values too,” she said. “Plants show that you’re thinking about the planet.”

 

 

 

As Oliver Heath concluded, living plants provide something most sustainability technologies cannot. “They’re a visible demonstration that this is a place where things can flourish,” he said. “Not just plants—but people too.”

 

The panel ended with a sense that the industry has made real progress over the past 25 years—but still faces significant challenges.

 

Plants are increasingly recognised as valuable components of healthy buildings and cities. Yet they are still too often treated as decorative extras rather than essential infrastructure.

 

If the industry can continue to build evidence, collaborate across sectors and influence planning policy, the next 25 years could see plants move from the margins of design to the centre of how we create healthier environments for people and nature alike.