Sustainable places, Rosemary Coyne


Published on

UDSS11 'hot tips and tricks' session day 2

Published in: Design, Technology, Real Estate
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Hi everyone. I don’t think that any of my points will be a surprise to the audience here but experience through design review suggests that a sustainable approach is not automatic. For a development to be sustainable it must minimise its impact and costs and achieve enduring value.
  • A committed individual with sustainability as their priority in a lead role – is essential
  • No. 2 A robust iterative decision making process with sustainability as a key objective
  • No 3 – understanding and communicating the vision that a sustainable approach benefits everyone. A sustainable development drives local opportuntiies, - jobs, skills, business, leads to a high quality environment that attracts and retains investment and a cohesive community
  • No 4. At design review we see too many schemes that do not look beyond the red line boundary. To meet national targets such as 80% CO2 reduction by 2050 it is essential to understand the physical and policy context.
  • And to use that contextual policy and physical information to produce the strategies that will allow a development to be designed from below ground up
  • For long term value it is essential to use available information to futureproof the built environment we create, building in flexibility to respond to future changes.
  • There are plenty of examples of poorer and less sustainable outcomes than could have been achieved with the same investment if an appropriate decision making structure and process is put in place.
  • Where experienced and expert teams are not in place, there are plenty of tools that can be used to help with decision making. Sustainable schemes need to work at concept and detail level and tools can help with the iterative decisionmaking process.
  • To answer each question a developer selects the benchmark that the development design has met from a choice of three: Minimum Good Practice Best Practice The minimum is the Local Authority or regional / national policy minimum, but those who produce good and best practice are rewarded with a higher score. There is also a not applicable which the developer can mark if they believe that the question is irrelevant to them Not Applicable’s should be agreed in consultation with the planning authority – either in pre application discussion or through the justification provided for the question. The “minimum not met” would occur if the developer and planner agree that the question is relevant to the development, but the developer is unable to meet the standard. It is for the planner to decide if this is acceptable in the circumstance and context of the development. At the start of the checklist completion process it is a requirement to state the size of the development: <10 Small 11 – 99 dwellings / mixed use Medium 1000 – 5999 dwellings / mixed use Large >6000 Bespoke Some questions are only relevant to a particular size of development. By entering the size of the development the website will ensure that only those questions relevant to your development are answered. A mark is assigned to each benchmark which when multiplied by the weighting for the question gives the the total score for the question.
  • The developer is required to complete the ‘Justification’ box with his justification for the benchmark – minimum, GP, BP – to enable the planning authority to understand why they have met the benchmark that they have selected. THE JUSTIFICATION IS ABSOLUTELY KEY TO THE TOOL . This could be an extract from another document submitted (with a link so it can be followed up), a complete justification in its own right. In rare cases, it can be a commitment to take a particular action. This enables the planner to have confidence in the score awarded. Whilst it is unlikely that the planner will check all justifications, it would be beneficial to carry out a “dip check”, and to follow up questions of particular importance to the site.
  • Questions are weighted to reflect significance within their category. Each question can be awarded its own individual weighting from 0.5 through to 1.0. This is an opportunity for the planning authority to influence the qualities of the development that they wish to see in their locale. EXAMPLE: For example a Authority may have a particular emphasis on employment and opportunities for skills improvement. It is here that the Policy Planners would have the opportunity to weight those questions in the ‘Business’ category highly, probably a 1.0 weighting. For a developer this provides the opportunity to have control on their score and target the questions they believe they can get the most points from - ensuring a higher score for them and the style of development that the planning authority was encouraging.
  • The thermometer diagrams provide a clear picture of the strengths and weaknesses of a development across the categories. Developers can see where their development is potentially in need of improvement, and deeper analysis can be undertaken by looking into that category and the individual questions. Areas of concern can be picked up by planners and interrogated through analysis of the questions and their justification. Both planners and developers should be ensuring that the predetermined priority issues are scoring highly. There is not a right answer on how the development should score – for example a site on the edge of a SSSI would be expected to score a lot higher in ‘Ecology’ than one on an Industrial estate.
  • Highlight the fact that users can see when a question has not met the minimum standard, or is not applicable (or not answered), for further interrogation.
  • Sustainable places, Rosemary Coyne

    1. 1. The good, bad, excellent and outstanding Designing for excellence Rosemary Coyne – Sustainable Built Environments Advisor 21 June 2011
    2. 2. Greg Clarke – 14 June 2011 A NEW PRESUMPTION IN FAVOUR OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT – seeking out opportunities for growth <ul><li>The purpose of planning - help make .. tomorrow better than it is today </li></ul><ul><li>Planning is about growth – but not just in the built environment – I believe our natural environment can be better cared for </li></ul><ul><li>Our design can be much better than it is </li></ul><ul><li>Everything you do .. Is to champion sustainable development </li></ul><ul><li>The challenge for the planning professions - to be agents of creativity – emphasising inspiration, community leadership, finding solutions </li></ul><ul><li>More benefits of development should be kept by communities </li></ul>
    3. 3. Placemaking: Regions, Towns and Cities Rosemary Coyne Sustainable Design and Construction / Built Environment Policy Manager
    4. 4. <ul><li>A collaborative project to develop a sustainable development plan for a huge regeneration initiative in Birmingham </li></ul><ul><li>£ 0.5million over 3 years (ERDF & AWM) </li></ul>Sustainable Eastside Eastside Sustainability Advisory Group <ul><li>credit for many images </li></ul><ul><li>Richard Green – former Director of Eastside </li></ul><ul><li>Alan Bishop – now HCA </li></ul>
    5. 5. Transformation … .. in the west
    6. 6. ACTIONS FOR PLACEMAKING Its all about adding value - Financial - Common good - Enduring
    7. 7. 1. Appoint a (real) sustainability champion – who has real authority
    8. 8. 2. Define a robust decision making process
    9. 9. 2. Define a robust decision making process starting with a sustainability framework and retesting at all levels of detail
    10. 10. 3. Communicate the (SD) Vision
    11. 11. Set standards What does good look like?
    12. 12. Delivering the vision?
    13. 13. <ul><li>Look at the wider context - beyond the red line boundary – synergies, dependencies, secondary and cumulative impacts and opportunities – we need to be making decisions considering area wide/subregional resource management issues </li></ul>
    14. 14. Never forget to look beyond the red line boundary
    15. 15. 5. Produce the resource/infrastructure community strategies first
    16. 16. London 1666
    17. 17. 6. Think about long term value <ul><li>1. Adaptation to climate change – </li></ul><ul><li>climate proofing </li></ul><ul><li>2. Flexibility in use – 3. Plan for retrofit </li></ul><ul><li>ease/cost of change </li></ul>
    18. 18. <ul><li>Get the masterplan right including connections beyond the site </li></ul>
    19. 20. 8. Use existing tools to set a baseline – aim to add value - LDF, Building Regs, BREEAM, West Midlands Sustainability Checklist, Manual for Street,, Urban design compendium
    20. 21. West Midlands Sustainability Checklist
    21. 22. What the Checklist does <ul><li>a ‘place shaping tool’ tailored to local needs and local ‘sense of place’ </li></ul><ul><li>single framework - all sustainability aspects systematically addressed </li></ul><ul><li>one stop shop - key policy tools and advisory sources </li></ul><ul><li>Aligned with BREEAM Communities </li></ul>
    22. 23. Relationship with other policy WM Regional Spatial Strategy Integrated Regional Framework European and National Policy WM Regional Sustainability Checklist for Developments Local Development Framework References other tools- Ecohomes, BREEAM, CSH Urban Design Compendium, Design and Access Statements … Tailored Local Sustainability Checklist for Developments (optional) SA/SEA of LDF
    23. 24. The Checklist - 8 categories: <ul><ul><li>Climate change and energy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Community </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Placemaking </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transport and Movement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ecology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Resources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Business </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Buildings </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>EACH CATEGORY HAS A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>FILTERS BRING UP DIFFERENT QUESTION SETS FOR DIFFERENT SCALES OF DEVELOPMENT </li></ul></ul>
    24. 25. Using the Checklist <ul><li>Each question has a choice of three benchmarks. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Minimum, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Good Practice, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Best Practice </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(not applicable) </li></ul></ul>
    25. 26. Using the Checklist <ul><li>The developer provides a written justification (evidence) for the benchmark they have selected – an audit trail. </li></ul>
    26. 27. Using the Checklist <ul><li>Questions within each category are weighted individually - shown graphically </li></ul>
    27. 28. Using the Checklist <ul><li>An overall percentage score is awarded for each of the eight categories. </li></ul>
    28. 29. Using the Checklist <ul><li>User can monitor progress and benchmarks awarded </li></ul>
    29. 30. Checklist Website <ul><li>Online tool: </li></ul><ul><li>individual, secure accounts + multiple developments. </li></ul><ul><li>intuitive and user friendly holding all the information required to complete a checklist. </li></ul><ul><li>FAQs </li></ul><ul><li>Summary Report or Detailed Report - submitted to the LPA via email or printed hard copy </li></ul>
    30. 31. Selected Checklist questions <ul><li>CLIMATE CHANGE - qu. 4 of 13 </li></ul><ul><li>COMMUNITY - qu. 3 of 3 </li></ul><ul><li>PLACEMAKING - qu 19 of 20 </li></ul><ul><li>ECOLOGY - qu 4 of 4 </li></ul><ul><li>RESOURCES - qu.1 of 10 </li></ul>
    31. 32. 1. CLIMATE CHANGE - qu. 1.4 of 13 Urban areas can be 6-8°F hotter than surrounding areas = “urban heat islands (UHI).” This is due to building materials (particularly darker materials such as tarmac, and heavier materials such as concrete) absorbing and radiating heat. <ul><li>Objective - To reduce the heat island effect inherent to urban areas through passive design measures. </li></ul><ul><li>Question - Will the development aim to reduce UHI through: </li></ul><ul><li>Provision of appropriate shaded green space and tree cover </li></ul><ul><li>Green roofs and vegetated walls </li></ul><ul><li>Design to enable air-flow throughout the development </li></ul><ul><li>Passive Solar design </li></ul><ul><li>Open water and fountains in public spaces </li></ul><ul><li>Shaded public spaces and footpaths </li></ul>Targets and Justification Best - Yet to be established Good - A design strategy which addresses at least the above points Minimum - See relevant local planning authority standard for minimum required
    32. 33. 2. Community - qu. 2.3 of 3 <ul><li>Objective - To ensure that community facilities are maintained and community has sense of ownership. </li></ul><ul><li>Question - Will the development have provision for community management of facilities, open space, SUDS, grey water schemes etc. </li></ul><ul><li>Targets and Justification </li></ul><ul><li>Best - Yes as good practice plus support sources identified to help in initial stages (local authority, community group, community trust, charity etc.) </li></ul><ul><li>Good - Yes actively marketed to potential occupiers / owners </li></ul><ul><li>Minimum - See relevant local planning authority standard </li></ul>
    33. 34. 3. PLACEMAKING - qu 3.19 of 20 <ul><li>Objective - To ensure that street lighting is as energy efficient as possible and to minimise light spillage. </li></ul><ul><li>Question - This section of the checklist equates with the Building for Life Standard but not on a question by question basis. </li></ul><ul><li>How much of the street lighting will be energy efficient with limited upward light transmission? </li></ul><ul><li>Targets and Justification </li></ul><ul><li>Best - As good practice plus renewable energy generation </li></ul><ul><li>Good - 100% low powered street lighting with limited upward light transmission </li></ul><ul><li>Minimum - See relevant local planning authority standard </li></ul>
    34. 35. 4. ECOLOGY - qu 4 of 4 <ul><li>Objective - To ensure trees and shrubs specified contribute to the ecological site value </li></ul><ul><li>Question </li></ul><ul><li>Will a mixture of locally occurring native trees and shrubs been specified? </li></ul><ul><li>60-90% native species listed in the LBAP in compliance with PPS9 </li></ul><ul><li>>90% native and as specified in LBAP or HAP and using locally sourced stock </li></ul><ul><li>Targets and Justification </li></ul><ul><li>Best - B </li></ul><ul><li>Good - A </li></ul><ul><li>Minimum - See relevant local planning authority standard </li></ul>
    35. 36. Eastside Biodiversity Strategy <ul><li>11 Sites selected for further detailed Phase 2 survey refelecting </li></ul><ul><li>1. Ashted Circus </li></ul><ul><li>2. Jennens Road / Lawley Middleway Post-industrial site </li></ul><ul><li>3. Millennium Point </li></ul><ul><li>4. Curzon St. canal entrance </li></ul><ul><li>5. Montague Street Post-industrial site </li></ul><ul><li>.6. Digbeth Branch canal </li></ul><ul><li>7. River Rea / Grand Union Intersection of cana </li></ul><ul><li>8. Disused Duddeston </li></ul><ul><li>9. New Bond Street Post-industrial site </li></ul><ul><li>10. Shaw’s Passage . </li></ul><ul><li>11. Park Street Gardens </li></ul>
    36. 37. Eastside Biodiversity Strategy <ul><li>Eastside’s Signature Species: </li></ul><ul><li>Black Redstart </li></ul><ul><li>(Legally protected under Schedule 1 Wildlife & Countryside Act, and Amber listed of Conservation Concern) </li></ul>
    37. 38. BREEAM COMMUNITIES ECO3 NATIVE FLORA <ul><li>To ensure that the trees and shrubs specified contribute to the ecological value of the site </li></ul><ul><li>Minimum – 30 – 60% native </li></ul><ul><li>Good – 60 – 90% native </li></ul><ul><li>Best - > 90% of trees and shrubs specified are native </li></ul><ul><li>Evidence required = </li></ul><ul><li>Minimum – report from suitably qualified ecologist </li></ul><ul><li>+ management plan specifying appropriate maintenance </li></ul><ul><li>Good – as above + incorporates BAP species </li></ul><ul><li>Best – report from suitably qualified ecologist + evidence of research of species robust with regard to microclimate and predicted climate change impacts </li></ul>
    38. 39. RESOURCES - qu.1 of 10 <ul><li>Objective - heritage or archaeologically important features are conserved or preserved if present. </li></ul><ul><li>Question - What will happen to heritage/ archaeologically important features and their settings which could be affected by the development. </li></ul><ul><li>Targets and Justification </li></ul><ul><li>Best - Both protected and enhanced either physically or through public access/interpretation </li></ul><ul><li>Good - Important features are protected </li></ul><ul><li>Minimum - See relevant local planning authority standard for minimum </li></ul>
    39. 40.
    40. 42. ASHTED LOCKS ARCHAEOLOGY <ul><li>The historic environment (heritage assets: archaeological remains, historic buildings and historic landscapes) is part of sustainability because it's a finite non-renewable resource- this is emphasised in PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment and also mentioned in PPS1 The main features on this site are: 1. Well- preserved remains of Ashted Pumping Station (built 1812, housed Boulton and Watt steam engine)- to be retained in new development by design that protects it and leaves part of it visible 2. Canalside walls- the more recent structures fronting Lawley Street Middleway have been demolished but the historic walls alongside the canal have been retained and will form part of the new development 3. Below-ground archaeological remains of Belmont Glassworks-  archaeological excavation in advance of development 4. Small air-raid shelter next to canal- to be retained in new development 5. Decontamination unit on Belmont Row- importance not recognised until fairly late on in the process, too late to prevent its demolition - but a detailed record was made before demolition   </li></ul>
    41. 43. References <ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>