Sustainable places, Rosemary Coyne
•Als PPT, PDF herunterladen•
2 gefällt mir•431 views
UDSS11 'hot tips and tricks' session day 2
![Greg Clarke – 14 June 2011 A NEW PRESUMPTION IN FAVOUR OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT – seeking out opportunities for growth ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (20)
Ähnlich wie Sustainable places, Rosemary Coyne
Ähnlich wie Sustainable places, Rosemary Coyne (20)
Mehr von Design South East
Mehr von Design South East (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Sustainable places, Rosemary Coyne
- 1. The good, bad, excellent and outstanding Designing for excellence Rosemary Coyne – Sustainable Built Environments Advisor 21 June 2011
- 3. Placemaking: Regions, Towns and Cities Rosemary Coyne Sustainable Design and Construction / Built Environment Policy Manager
- 5. Transformation … .. in the west
- 6. ACTIONS FOR PLACEMAKING Its all about adding value - Financial - Common good - Enduring
- 7. 1. Appoint a (real) sustainability champion – who has real authority
- 8. 2. Define a robust decision making process
- 9. 2. Define a robust decision making process starting with a sustainability framework and retesting at all levels of detail
- 10. 3. Communicate the (SD) Vision
- 11. Set standards What does good look like?
- 14. Never forget to look beyond the red line boundary
- 15. 5. Produce the resource/infrastructure community strategies first
- 16. London 1666
- 20. 8. Use existing tools to set a baseline – aim to add value - LDF, Building Regs, BREEAM, West Midlands Sustainability Checklist, Manual for Street, Sustainablecities.org, Urban design compendium
- 21. West Midlands Sustainability Checklist
- 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
Hinweis der Redaktion
- 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.