and Urban Design (notable exceptions include Stahre, 2008 and Echols, 2007). Or the effect thatSUDS selection and placement have on not only their hydraulic and pollutant removal performance,but also on wider environmental and sustainability factors, such as microclimate. Despite the factthese multiple benefits are routinely cited.The urban microclimate is of significant importance to the health and wellbeing of city dwellers.Even the simple removal of vegetation adjacent to a property can increase the risk of mortalityduring heat waves (Vendentorren
2006). Alongside vegetation removal, the increase in hardimpervious surfaces rapidly removes water from the immediate environment, preventing cooling by-wave radiation from escaping to the atmosphere, further heating up the locality (Grimmond andOke, 1999). There is much interest in reintroducing vegetation into urban areas to increase our citiesresilience to heat waves (Smith and Levermore, 2008). For instance, large parks have been shown toprovide significant levels of cooling in a variety of climates (e.g. Upmanis
, 1998; Jauregi,1990) yet how this propagates into the urban area depends on the local street design. There are alsoindications that smaller, distributed, green spaces provide benefits for propagating the naturalcooling into the urban area (Shashua-bar and Hoffman, 2000). Methods for distributing greencoverage in semi arid regions is covered by Fahmy (2010), however there is, as yet, no conclusiveguidance on the most appropriate form of green infrastructure for UHI mitigation in Europe.Guidance should be combined with an investigation of different distributions of SUDS measures toprovide integrated solutions for climate change resilience accounting for both heatwaves and rainstorms. This paper will focus on this question, quantifying the relative benefits of different designsfor water management and UHI mitigation. Furthermore it will focus on SUDS and show that thechoice of measures and the location of their deployment within the catchment can have implicationsfor their performance.
CASE STUDY SCENARIO CONCEPTUALISATION
The case study site is an 11.3 ha urban area within Sheffield, UK. The site is bounded to the west,south and east by the River Don. Currently, the site is predominantly mixed use; there are manyplots that are vacant or underused. Away from the river channel and banks, there are few areas of green-space, much of the site is impermeable. In addition, the site has experienced flooding inrecent history.Two distinct hypothetical redevelopment scenarios for the site were developed by the URSULAproject (Figure 1). The aim of this process was to produce two highly contrasting designs that couldbe tested for a range of broad sustainability criteria. In order to aid the comparison of eachscenario, a baseline scenario, representing the case study site prior to regeneration, is alsomodelled. For the two scenarios, basic SUDS concepts were employed, therefore Natural drainagepathways are utilised; source control structures were sought wherever possible in preference toregional or offsite controls. Treatment trains were also employed where appropriate. Considerationof the local microclimate was also incorporated into the design by influencing the height / widthratios of the streets, stepped building heights next to open areas were included to reduce the risk of high wind speeds and vegetation, particularly trees were incorporated when it was in keeping withthe design ethos.