This paper outlines the aims, development and proposed operation of Building with Nature, a new benchmark for appraising the quality of green infrastructur

Burgess, Sarah

Jerome, Gemma

Mortlock, Roger

Sinnett, Danielle

Smith, Nick

English

UWE Bristol Research Repository

Town & Country Planning October 2017 427Green infrastructure (GI) is an essential componentof liveable and sustainable places. There is asubstantial body of research demonstrating themultiple benefits of GI for urban populations. Manylocal authorities now have a GI policy or strategy insome form, and its importance is recognised innational planning policy; but there is still considerableuncertainty as to how GI can best be delivered andmaintained in practice. This article presents ourwork on developing a new benchmark for greeninfrastructure, Building with Nature, which is beingdeveloped collaboratively by Gloucestershire WildlifeTrust and the University of the West of England,Bristol.1The challengesThere is now a considerable amount of guidanceon the planning, design and delivery of GI. Despitethis, what is delivered on the ground is extremelyvariable, and often opportunities for delivering high-quality GI are missed. During the early stages of theproject we spoke to many of those in Gloucestershireand the West of England involved in GI planning,design and delivery about their experiences of theway that GI is incorporated into new developmentand the resulting quality. This, together withengagement with a range of stakeholders in Englandand Scotland, identified a number of challenges andthe need for a benchmark to overcome them.Stakeholders included local authority planners andlandscape architects, developers and their consultants,ecologists, and public health professionals, as wellas NGOs and government agencies responsible forGI advocacy, delivery, and management. Thechallenges can be summarised as follows:● There is uncertainty in what is required in termsof GI in new development, caused by variation in policy between local authorities and a lack ofresources, skills and knowledge in the sector.Although numerous pieces of guidance exist,often from professional bodies, NGOs, or localauthorities, such guidance is overwhelming anddifficult to navigate, especially for those withoutthe necessary expertise to balance competingdemands from GI.● Often GI proposed in new development does notrespond to the local context; there is seldom a‘one size fits all’ approach suitable for either localplanning authorities or developers.● Different components of GI are considered inmultiple documents (for example watermanagement, nature conservation, open space),which misses the opportunity to provide a coherentmulti-functional network.● GI is seen as less important than other objectives,especially in areas with a high demand for housingor those trying to attract investment throughdevelopment.● The quality of GI diminishes as a planningapplication progresses, so that, although the qualitymay have been high in the outline planningapplication, this is not represented in the finalPlanning Our Green Infrastructurebuilding withnature - a newbenchmark forgreen infrastructure Danielle Sinnett, Gemma Jerome, Sarah Burgess, Nick Smith and Roger Mortlock outline the aims, development and proposed operation of Building with Nature, a new benchmark for appraising the quality ofgreen infrastructuredelivery. Coupled with this, there is often a lack ofenforcement on the quality of delivery.● There is uncertainty and concern overmaintenance and management arrangements.We also conducted a review of how GI isconsidered in a range of existing built environmentassessment systems (for example BREEAMCommunities, Building for Life). This found that,although many contained some assessment relatedto GI, they often focused on one aspect (for exampleaccess to green space), or, in the case of the GreenFlag Award, measured one type of GI (parks). Noneof the existing systems include an assessment ofGI as a multi-functional network, or an assessmentof delivery or maintenance. It is crucial that thesechallenges are addressed if GI is to deliver itspotential benefits for people, the economy, and the environment.Introducing Building with NatureThe Building with Nature benchmark has beendeveloped in direct response to these challenges.The aim of Building with Nature is to clarify theexpectations and raise the standard of GI over time.The broad themes that the benchmark should coverand the way it should operate were identified througha literature review and through engagement withstakeholders. The themes include aspects of theplanning, design and management of GI seen asbeing critical to its success, and three framed aroundthe services that GI provides for nature conservation,water management, and health and wellbeing. Eachtheme has a suite of standards that applicants wouldbe expected to meet to be awarded the benchmark:● five core standards, including the creation of amulti-functional network, consideration of localpriorities and character, resilience to climatechange, and provision of long-term managementarrangements, including the governance andfunding as well as the operational aspects ofmaintenance (related to the specific functions);● six water management standards, including theneed to minimise surface run-off and improvewater quality;● six nature conservation standards, includingproviding ecological enhancement and considering428   Town & Country Planning October 2017nature conservation at all stages of development;and● six health and wellbeing standards, includingensuring the availablility of accessible, high-qualityspaces for all and contributing to a sense of place.Building with Nature is flexible enough for useacross different spatial scales and stages in thedevelopment process (for example at outline planningthrough to post-construction), and can also be used to assess GI policies. It is applicable to allcomponents and functions of GI, including greenspaces, soft landscaping, green walls and roofs,sustainable drainage systems (SuDS), and areas for nature conservation. The emphasis is on thecreation or enhancement of a multi-functionalnetwork. Irrespective of when an application ismade, the award would be dependent on a post-construction assessment. However, in recognitionthat some aspects of the planning and design of GI are set early on in the process and difficult toadjust retrospectively, applications can be awarded‘candidate’ status at the pre-construction stages of development or for a draft policy. The full awardwould be granted after the scheme or, for phaseddevelopments, each phase is delivered, or the policy published.To provide flexibility for applicants, each of thethematic areas of nature conservation, watermanagement, and health and wellbeing are dividedinto two levels, with three standards in each (seeTable 1). The ‘Achieved’ standards reflect theminimum requirement for high-quality GI, irrespectiveof scale or type of development. The ‘Excellent’standards are representative of exemplary GI.To be awarded Building with Nature ‘Achieved’,the applicant would need to demonstrate that theyhad met all five core standards and all nine of the‘Achieved’ standards across health and wellbeing,water management, and nature conservation. Tosecure Building with Nature ‘Excellent’, applicantswould need to fulfil these 14 standards as well as at least six out of nine of the ‘Excellent’ standards.This means that an applicant could chose tospecialise in two of the thematic areas in the awardby fulfilling all three ‘Excellent’ standards (forexample in water management and naturePlanning Our Green InfrastructureCore 1-5Total++at least six from:Health and wellbeing 1-3Water management 1-3Nature conservation 1- 314 standardsHealth and wellbeing 4, 5, 6Water management 4, 5, 6Nature conservation 4, 5, 620+ standardsAchieved ExcellentTable 1Standards needed to be awarded Building with Nature ‘Achieved’ or ‘Excellent’Town & Country Planning October 2017 429conservation) or spread across all three themes,fulfilling two out of the three ‘Excellent’ standards.The standards have been set at a level that is notso low that the benchmark would be awarded to all developments, but not so high that they wouldact as a deterrent to its use. This is to ensure thatBuilding with Nature has broad appeal, as opposedto being seen as relevant only to exemplaryschemes. Similarly, the evidence that is required to demonstrate compliance is equivalent to thatalready provided in planning applications, so as to ensure that the benchmark is not seen as tooonerous.Building with Nature developmentBuilding with Nature has been under developmentsince 2015 and is currently undergoing final testing onseveral live developments (including large residential-led urban extensions and a small infill development)and policies. The process for its initial developmentis outlined in Fig. 1 and briefly explained here. The requirements of stakeholders were used inconjunction with a review of existing standards and good practice guidance to produce a long list of potential standards. A workshop was then heldwith the research team and external advisors toconsolidate the long list into a suite of draft standards.Fig. 1  Overview of the development of Building with NaturePlanning Our Green InfrastructureConsultationNeed for abenchmark for GIOperation and scope of thebenchmarkGloucestershire and West of England (2015-2017)Scotland (2017)England (2016)DevelopmentFinal standards and technical guidanceLiterature review: long list of standardsPreliminary testing: desk study, workshopDraft standards:workshopTesting: live schemes and policiesReview: advisory group Scotland testing: live schemes and policiesDraft standards and technicalguidanceLaunch:Gloucestershire and West of England (2017)National launch:Scotland (2018) and beyond?Once a draft set of standards had been developed,they were tested against the requirements ofstakeholders and the aim of the benchmark on two contrasting developments (‘A’ and ‘B’) inGloucestershire. The developments were deliberatelychosen to represent a contrast in the quality of GI.Both are strategic, residential-led, mixed-usegreenfield developments of around 1,000-2,500dwellings, with a range of community facilities andcommercial premises.A range of documents submitted as part of theapplication for outline planning permission werereviewed against the draft standards, including theGI strategy, the GI parameter plan, the sustainabilitystrategy, and the environmental statement. Often,the quantity, location and quality of GI is set veryearly in the development process, so ideally anapplicant would begin working towards thebenchmark as soon as possible. This, coupled withthe desire to ensure that the evidence required isnot too onerous, meant that these documents werefelt to be a sufficient test to ensure that thestandards reflect the type of information available atthis stage.Overall, development ‘A’ performed poorly againstthe draft standards, and as a result would not beawarded the benchmark based on the application foroutline planning permission. This was because theindividual features of GI would not form a multi-functional network, and very little information wasprovided on the specific features of GI that wouldbe included or how they related to the needs andpriorities of the area.For example, the GI consisted of a series of isolatedopen spaces that were seldom connected, andwhen connectivity was provided the corridors weretoo small to provide any useful function in terms ofnature conservation, water management, or activetravel. Similarly, there was no obvious connectivitythrough the development or to the surroundinglandscape, including from a protected habitat onsite. There was no consideration of the long-termmanagement of the GI, and the opportunity toprovide multi-functional GI was missed. Whereaspects such as climate change adaptation, watermanagement or health and wellbeing were included,the documents simply contained a reiteration ofnational and local policies, with no articulation ofhow the GI would respond to them.Development ‘B’ would, however, be awarded‘Candidate’ status based on the documents reviewed.The proposed GI was judged to be of sufficientquality to meet the ‘Core’ and ‘Achieved’ standardsacross all three thematic areas and some of the‘Excellent’ standards. It was clear that the GI wouldform a coherent multi-functional network. Therationale for the GI approach was explained, as wasthe relationship between the relevant policies andthe proposed GI. The consideration of long-term430   Town & Country Planning October 2017maintenance and management was particularlycomprehensive, including the need for a GImanagement scheme. Options for including thecommunity in the decision-making process, on-siteactivities, and long-term management were provided.Substantial detail on the habitats within thedevelopment was provided, including their protectionand enhancement through all stages of theconstruction process. However, it was not clear howthese would contribute to wider ecological networks.A SuDS strategy provided an assessment of thesensitivity of receiving waters and the floodplain todevelopment, and detail on the disposal of surfacewater run-off and water quality, as well as theprovision of specific SuDS features and theirperformance. Clear links were made between localstrategies for amenity use and the open spacesprovided, including their accessibility.The results of this testing were reviewed at asecond workshop, where the standards and thelevel of the overall award were refined. Overall, the standards performed well in assessing the two developments. They appear to be set at anappropriate level so that the proposal considered tohave relatively poor-quality GI would not be awardedthe benchmark, whereas the application with well-thought-out GI and a high level of detail would. It wasreassuring that a high-quality development that hadnot set out to be certified performed well, as thissuggests that the standards are set at an appropriatelevel and are realistic. The documentation providedby development ‘B’ was generally sufficient toascertain that the ‘Core’ and ‘Achieved’ standardshad been met. This suggests that the applicationprocess for the benchmark would not be too onerousand that it should simply require a consolidation ofexisting evidence to respond to each standard.However, it was relatively difficult to judgewhether the ‘Excellent’ standards had been metbased on the documentation reviewed. This is not a fair assessment as the developers did not set outto apply for the benchmark and so did not know that it would be necessary to provide this information.Some of this detail would not usually be provided foroutline planning permission and would come later inthe planning process, either in the full planningapplication or in reserved matters. Therefore nodifferentiation between ‘Achieved’ and ‘Excellent’awards will be made in the initial pre-constructionassessment, with applications only being awarded‘Candidate’ status. Those aiming for ‘Excellent’would work towards this as the planning applicationprogresses (see Fig. 2).At all stages of developing Building with Nature,the standards and associated technical guidancehave been reviewed and iteratively refined with bothlocal stakeholders and an external advisory group ofexperts drawn from across the built environmentsector.2Planning Our Green InfrastructureTown & Country Planning October 2017 431Building with Nature is currently being tested inGloucestershire and the West of England on policydocuments, strategic urban extensions, and a smallinfill development. There is ongoing refinement ofthe standards through this testing and consultationwith local stakeholders and the advisory group.This work is also testing the process for awardingthe benchmark; it is envisaged that a trained assessorwill be embedded in the applicant team to provideguidance and compile and submit the application toa certification body. The assessor is likely to be anexisting member of a development or policy projectteam (for example a landscape architect), workingwith the rest of the team to ensure that the GI is ofsufficient quality to meet the standards in Buildingwith Nature. The certification body will be anindependent organisation responsible for the finalassessment and awarding of the benchmark. Thisbody will review the documentation provided by theapplicant against the standards and, if appropriate,undertake a site visit. There will be a charge forundertaking this final assessment, which will beinformed by the testing currently under way.Following testing, the standards and technicalguidance will be freely available in late 2017. Workhas just begun to carry out further testing inScotland, in collaboration with the Glasgow andClyde Valley Green Network Partnership, and withsupport from the Central Scotland Green NetworkTrust, with completion expected in 2018.So far, the results from the preliminary testingand the stakeholders suggest that the benchmarkwill provide clarity to the sector and ultimatelyachieve its aim of raising the standard of GI.● Dr Danielle Sinnett, Dr Gemma Jerome, Sarah Burgessand Nick Smith are with the Centre for Sustainable Planningand Environments, University of the West of England. Dr Gemma Jerome is also with Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust,as is Roger Mortlock. The views expressed are personal.Notes1 The work is being carried out as part of a KnowledgeTransfer Partnership funded by Innovate UK and theNatural Environment Research Council (Grant number1011832) and an Innovation Fund funded by NaturalEnvironment Research Council (Grant numberNE/N016871/1). Further information will be madeavailable in due course at www.buildingwithnature.org.uk2 A full account of the review of existing standards andstakeholder work in England can be found in N Smith, T Calvert, D Sinnett, S Burgess and L King: NationalBenchmark for Green Infrastructure: A Feasibility Study.University of the West of England, Aug. 2016.http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/29514Planning Our Green InfrastructureFig. 2  Application process for Building with NaturePolicyDraftLocal authorityGI strategy,framework, plan,SPDFinalACHIEVEDEXCELLENTCANDIDATENew developmentDeveloperInfill, urban extension,residential, commercial,mixed useRetrofittingOwner, managerBuildings, green spaces, social housing,town centrePost-constructionCANDIDATEORACHIEVEDEXCELLENTORWhat?ExamplesWho?When?AwardPre-construction

Building with nature - a new benchmark for green infrastructure

https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/880350/1/Sinnett et al 2017 Building with nature.pdf

Building with nature - a new benchmark for green infrastructure

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UWE Bristol Research Repository