See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/250074422

Planning for sustainable utility infrastructure

Article  in  Urban Design and Planning · January 2009

DOI: 10.1680/udap.2009.162.4.187

CITATIONS READS

17 1,807

4 authors:

D. V. L. Hunt Ian F Jefferson

University of Birmingham University of Birmingham
104 PUBLICATIONS   1,093 CITATIONS    149 PUBLICATIONS   2,061 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mark Gaterell Chris David Foss Rogers

University of Portsmouth University of Birmingham
69 PUBLICATIONS   1,037 CITATIONS    326 PUBLICATIONS   4,685 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

BIM 4 FM View project

PhD project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by D. V. L. Hunt on 27 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers
Urban Design and Planning 162
December 2009 Issue DP4
Pages 187–201
doi: 10.1680/udap.2009.162 .4.187
Paper 800059
Received 16/11/2008
Accepted 27/07/2009 Dexter V. L. Hunt Ian Jefferson
Keywords: Research Fellow, Senior Lecturer,
infrastructure planning/reviews/ University of University of
sustainability Birmingham, UK Birmingham, UK
Planning for sustainable utility infrastructure
D. V. L. Hunt MEng (Hons) PhD, I. Jefferson BEng (Hons), DIS, PhD, FGS, M. R. Gaterell MPhil, PhD, DIC and C. D. F.
Rogers Eur Ing, BSc, PhD, CEng, MICE, MIHT
Sustainability checklists are designed to provide practical
tools (including indicators) that help with planning and
measuring sustainability within new developments and
redevelopment schemes. Unfortunately, a checklist –
due to its very nature – tends to consider elements of
sustainability in isolation, narrowing it to a set of
individual tick boxes. Successful planning strategies for
sustainable utility infrastructure require a more holistic
approach that considers elements of water, energy and
infrastructure in tandem rather than isolation, therefore
suggesting that a checklist approach may not be wholly
appropriate. By critically examining the 2007 version of
the sustainability checklist for south-east England with
respect to 12 questions that relate to sustainable utility
infrastructure alone (five for energy, four for water and
three for infrastructure provision) this argument is
explored further. The thorough examination provided in
this paper serves to analyse the framing of the questions
used in the checklist and test the validity of the aims and
scoring method used (including weightings). This paper
also examines whether these questions can jointly form a
successful holistic strategy for infrastructure, not least in
terms of the ability to ensure that supply meets demand.
1. INTRODUCTION
A well-functioning twenty-first century city requires unin-
terrupted supplies of energy and water that match demand
profiles. This requires the provision of utility infrastructure
networks that are well-planned, robust and, above all, sustain-
able. For the purposes of this paper, utility infrastructure
networks are taken to include
(a) a range of energy and water supply sources (e.g. from power
stations to solar panels and reservoirs to rainfall harvesting)
(b) various end-users (e.g. domestic) and their demands (e.g.
heating, washing and drinking)
(c) utility networks that connect supply sources with end-user
demands (e.g. through water supply pipes, sewers, electricity
cables, gas pipes and similar conduits, all of which are
predominantly situated underground).
According to many theorists, sustainable utility infrastructure
should include a balanced consideration across the three pillars
of sustainability – the economy, society and the environment,1
Urban Design and Planning 162 Issue DP4
Mark R. Gaterell Chris D. F. Rogers
Senior Lecturer, Professor of
University of Geotechnical
Birmingham, UK Engineering, University
of Birmingham
while to others it should also include specific consideration of
natural resources,2 resource use3 or good governance.4
As populations grow, so too do demands for energy and water.
These must be met, particularly if economic prosperity (some
argue for growth, others stability) and social stability are to be
maintained. In order for regions to meet demands for energy and
water, they must be accurately forecast and matched to
available supply sources both now and in the future. This
requires careful planning to ensure that balance exists and is
maintained between networks (a) to (c) above. Figure 1(a) shows
an analogy of this: the dotted line represents the desired
outcome; that is, when demands (shown as A) are minimised,
supplies (shown as C) are able to meet demands with capacity to
spare and utility infrastructure (shown as B) is capable of
transmitting/transporting supplies to meet demands with
sufficient carrying capacity to spare. This helps to eliminate the
severe economic, social and environmental issues that can occur
when demands exceed supplies even though the utility networks
have spare capacity (Figure 1(b)) or supplies can meet demands
but the utility networks do not have sufficient carrying capacity
or suffer from very large transmission/transporting losses
(Figure 1(c)). This is strongly linked with the discipline of urban
planning and, more specifically, how adequately to adopt
integrated strategies for the demand side (demand management),
the supply side (resource management) and planning in the
areas of energy and water.
Planning for energy in this way is logistically complex and must
consider future scenarios for matching energy demands from
each sector (e.g. domestic, industry, etc.) with an array of supply
technologies and a variety of fuel sources (e.g. fossil fuels to
renewable technologies).5 Following the UK government’s
agreement to the Kyoto Protocol6 in 1997 and adoption of the
Energy white paper in 2003 (updated in 2007),7 greater
consideration is now required for reducing harmful environ-
mental effects of supply sources (e.g. using renewable and
low-carbon technologies as opposed to fossil-based fuels).
Notwithstanding this requirement, these plans should integrate
measures that allow for ‘security of supply’ to the UK. This has
never been more crucial because of the increasing global
demands for energy from new high growth rate economies (e.g.
China, India, Russia, Brazil and parts of south-east Asia) and the
fact that, since 2003/04, the UK has become increasingly reliant
on net imports of gas.8 In addition, future demand estimates are
Planning for sustainable utility infrastructure Hunt et al. 187

B Utility networks
A C Supplies
Demands
Desired
(a)
etworks
B Utility n
C
Supplies
A missed. At development scale (e.g. for a housing development), a
Demands
(b)
B Utility networks
A B
Demands Supplies
(c)
Figure 1. Conceptualisation of supply and demand scenarios:
(a) supplies can comfortably meet demands (minimised) with
capacity to spare; (b) utility networks have spare capacity but
supplies cannot meet demands; (c) supplies meet demands but
utility networks cannot cope
most likely being underestimated,5 thus exacerbating the
situation. Energy Markets Outlook5 outlines some energy
scenarios for the UK up until 2050 and, importantly, it
highlights that planning within (re)developments will need to
look at both demand-side and supply-side strategies. This is
sometimes referred to as demand–supply matching.9
Planning for water is equally complex and also uses the concept
of future scenarios. The water resource management plans for
the UK (final plans published by respective water companies in
April 2009) set out the proposed strategy for balancing
sustainable water supplies with demand in England and Wales
over the 25-year period 2010 to 2035. Draft versions are
currently available by region (see for example the Severn Trent
plan10) from where it can be seen that both demand-side and
supply-side strategies have been considered. On the demand
side, future increases in water demand have been estimated and
8 Urban Design and Planning 162 Issue DP4 Planning for sustainable utility infrastructure
the effect of implementing water efficiency measures in the
infrastructure (e.g. water leakage reduction and metering)
considered. Where demands are predicted to be greater than
supplies for respective water companies, details are given as to
the essential changes needed to maintain a ‘secure’ water supply
(i.e. a supply-side strategy). These include: planning for new
groundwater sources; above-ground water storage facilities
(including reservoirs); improved connections between different
supply areas and companies; and the possibility of new
technologies. Importantly, it is specified that all options will be
selected according to customer preferences and, in addition, full
economic, social and environmental assessments will be
undertaken.
While demand–supply matching features significantly within
water resource management plans and Energy Markets Outlook,
an integrated planning approach is rarely considered. Therefore
it is possible that planning opportunities that maximise water–
energy interactions,11 both now and in the future, could be
sustainability checklist can be used as a tool to facilitate
decision makers throughout the planning application and design
stages.12,13 It may be assumed that such a scale would allow for
derivation of a sustainable (and integrated) demand–supply
solution for infrastructure that considers energy, water and
utility infrastructure in parallel rather than isolation.
This paper will test the validity of the checklist approach,
specifically the 2007 version of the sustainability checklist for
south-east England (SC07),14 when planning for integrated
sustainable infrastructure provision. A critical examination of
12 questions that relate to utility infrastructure provision is
presented; this includes testing the framing of the questions, the
validity of their aims and the scoring methods used (including
weightings).
2. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND OF THE SOUTH
EAST CHECKLIST
Published in 2002 by the Building Research Establishment
(BRE), A Sustainability Checklist for Developments15 (SC02) was
designed to
(a) increase awareness of urban planners, developers and estate
managers of the practical measures that can be taken to plan
‘sustainability’ into a development
(b) provide a common framework for discussion between
developers, local authorities and communities
(c) help planning authorities and their advisors to specify and/
or assess ‘sustainability attributes’ relating to buildings and
infrastructure within (re)development sites.
SC02 consisted of eight core sections (Table 1) and 88 individual
questions.
In 2003, the South East England Development Agency (Seeda),
through collaboration with local authorities, developers and
researchers, provided a regional focus for the checklist,
specifically to south-east England through The Sustainability
Checklist16 (SC03). It was envisaged that other regional
development agencies (RDAs) would also provide a regional
focus, based on local priorities and conditions. SC03 consisted of
ten core sections (Table 1) and 127 individual questions.
Hunt et al.
 SC0714 SC0316
1.0 Climate change and energy (13) 1.0 Energy (8)
2.0 Community (4) 2.0 Community (16)
3.0 Place making (19) 3.0 Land use (7)
4.0 Transport and movement (13) 4.0 Transportation (35)
5.0 Ecology (4) 5.0 Ecology (9)
6.0 Resources (11) 6.0 Natural resources(17)
7.0 Business (7) 7.0 Business (10)
8.0 Buildings (1) 8.0 Impact of buildings (5)
9.0 Impact of Infrastructure(6)
10.0 Outward focus (9)
Table 1. Core sections from the three versions of the south-east checklist for developments. The number of questions for each
section is shown. Parentheses and italic typeface indicates questions that refer to supply and demand for energy, water and utility
infrastructure at site level
In 2007, an updated web-based version (SC07) for use by
developers, planners and designers was introduced.14 Accessible
by username and password, its focus was on issues of
sustainability that can/should be forecast (and then influenced)
at the design phase within the areas of spatial planning,
construction and occupancy. SC07 assumes that the sustain-
ability of sites being brought forward for development in local
plans have been subject to sustainability appraisal/strategic
environmental assessment (SEA) and have been tested by
examination in public (EiP). It consists of eight core sections
(Table 1) and a total of 72 individual questions, 12 of which are
related directly to sustainable utility infrastructure, charac-
terised in this paper according to the following topic areas
(a) energy, five questions (see Section 3)
(b) water, four questions (Section 4)
(c) infrastructure provision, three questions (Section 5).
The core sections of the checklist in SC07 have changed very
little since SC02 and SC03, except for expansion of the ‘energy’
section to include a broader consideration for climate change
and infrastructure, thus removing the need for a separate
‘impact of infrastructure’ section as adopted in SC02. When
considering the 12 questions that relate to sustainable utility
infrastructure, in SC07 some were found to be duplicates of
those in SC02 and SC03, while others had been modified
significantly, removed or replaced. Further analysis of the
changes to these questions, including the number of questions
asked (i.e. is 12 out of 72 enough?) is important, although lies
beyond the scope of this paper.
3. ENERGY
This section will critically examine the framing of five energy-
related questions within SC07 (Table 2) and test the validity of
their individual aims and the scoring methods and weightings
used. The critical examination is best illustrated through the use
of a focused example. This paper assumes the development of
domestic properties built in typical urban areas in the UK where
gas and electricity are considered the main sources of supply
with carbon dioxide the main concern for emissions. (In other
countries and for rural areas, other fuel types may need to be
considered (e.g. coal, oil, logs, turf, straw briquettes).) The
average domestic energy demands by end-user17,18 are shown
in Table 3; the respective carbon dioxide emissions19,20 are
shown under the baseline heading in Table 4.
Urban Design and Planning 162 Issue DP4 Planning for sustainable utility infrastructure
SC0215
1.0 Energy (4)
2.0 Community (10)
3.0 Land use, urban form and design (20)
4.0 Transport (21)
5.0 Ecology (8)
6.0 Natural resources (13)
7.0 Business (9)
8.0 Impact of individual buildings (6)
3.1. Question 1.6
3.1.1. Question. This question is made up of six sequential
steps (four demand side (steps A–D) and two supply side (steps E
and F)) that appear to be perfectly valid for informing a
demand–supply energy strategy.12 However, several
shortcomings have been found.
The contribution that each step makes ‘toward improving
efficiency through energy efficient design’ varies significantly
from step A to step C, and this is not made explicit within the
checklist. The ‘% reduction in total residual demand’ that can be
achieved through steps A to C is discussed below and
summarised in Table 4.
(a) Step A. It is well reported that passive solar measures can
provide the opportunity to make savings of up to 10% in
thermal energy demand by making relatively simple
adjustments to site layout and building design.21–25 (While
this appears to be a well-quoted reduction value, it should
be recognised that it depends on the orientation of the
buildings and density of the site (i.e. some properties may be
overshadowed by others). Therefore the reductions achieved
will need to be considered for individual buildings.) This
step can reduce total residual energy demands from 24 632
to 23 131 kWh/yr (6?1%).
(b) Step B. Yao and Steemers26 suggest that a typical UK
domestic property (Table 3) will have a heating demand of
90–138 kWh/m2 per year if built according to Part L of the
Building Regulations 2005.27 It has been shown in both
Europe28 and the UK29–32 that improving the thermal
efficiency of a building (e.g. by thermal massing, glazing
and insulation) can reduce this to around 11 kWh/m2 per
year. This step can reduce total residual energy demands
from 24 632 to 13 160 kWh/yr (46?6%).
(c) Step C. Switching from D-rated to A++-rated appliances
reduces energy demand as follows: space heating (20%);
water heating (20%); light bulbs (80%; switching from 60 W
to 12 W bulbs); cold appliances (e.g. fridges, freezers) (70%);
wet equipment (e.g. washing machines, dishwashers) (35%).
These reductions are, however, only relevant if the baseline
technologies are D-rated; this is unlikely for new develop-
ments but quite possible for redevelopment projects. This
step can reduce total residual energy demands from 24 632
to 19 114 kWh/yr (22?4%).
Step D is used for calculating the residual energy demand for a
Hunt et al. 189
 Question Aim Scoring

1.6 What steps (A–F) will the developer take to prepare an energy strategy for To increase the Best: steps A to F
the proposed development to optimise the energy consumption of the site? overall efficiency of the completed
A. Minimising energy demand for the site through orientation and passive development through Good: steps B to E
solar design (D) energy-efficient design completed
B. Maximising the thermal efficiency of individual buildings through thermal and management Minimum: *
mass and insulation (D) Credits available: 1?0
C. Minimising demand for water heating, space heating and cooling, lighting
and power in individual dwellings through efficient equipment and
controls (D)
D. Calculating the residual energy demand for the site (D)
E. Maximising the amount of the residual demand which can be provided
through on-site generated renewable energy (either collective or on
individual dwellings) (S)
F. Meeting the remaining demand efficiently, e.g. CHP (non-biomass or
waste powered), district heating and cooling, ground source heating
and cooling (S)
1.7 What % of total site energy demand will be produced from an on-site To promote the Best: zero carbon
renewable scheme (e.g. wind turbine, solar/PV, hydro, solar water heating, increased use of emissions
CHP operating on biomass or waste)? (S) renewable energy Good: .10% renewable
sources to reduce Minimum: *
dependence on fossil Credits available: 0?9
fuels producing carbon
dioxide emissions
1.8 To what extent will the development take into account the hierarchy To increase the use Best: B, A
(A–E) for feasible heating systems? (S) of sustainable heating Good: D, C
A. Solar water heating techniques Minimum: E
B. Tri-generation or co-generation, preferably powered by renewable Credits available: 0?7
energy, such as commercial fuel cell systems
C. Community heating
D. Heat pumps
E. Gas condensing boilers
1.9 What % of buildings will be designed for and are to be equipped with To encourage the Best: .25%
solar water heating and/or solar/photovoltaic? (S) integration of solar/PV Good: 10–25%
technologies during Minimum: *
the design stage Credits available: 0?8
1.10 What % of the development not intended to be fitted with active solar To encourage the Best: 80%
devices such as solar/PV and solar water heating by the developer will be future use of active Good: 60–80%
designed to allow future installation of these technologies by occupiers? (S) solar technologies Minimum: *
where they are not Credits available: 0?8
initially supplied

*See relevant local planning authority standard for minimum required unless stated otherwise

Table 2. Energy questions within SC0714 (S), supply side; (D), demand side

(re)development site following the adoption of steps A–C (in
isolation and combination; see Table 4) and is an important
prerequisite for matching with supplies (e.g. steps E and F), a
more in-depth discussion of which is given in the analysis of
questions 1.7 to 1.10.
3.1.2. Aim. The aim of question 1.6 is not inappropriate,
although it could be argued that steps A–F are geared more
towards energy-efficient design and less towards management.
Management should incorporate elements of monitoring/
metering for demands and supplies, notably measurement of
building performance and end-user behaviour (i.e. post-
development, to make sure that demands estimated in step D are
actually achieved and are met in a sustainable manner through
the supplies outlined in steps E and F). (Some aspects of
monitoring are considered within question 1.13.)
that step B is the most beneficial option in terms of reducing
total carbon dioxide emissions (37?8%), followed by C (24?8%)
and then A (4?9%). Steps A, B and C together provide the most
savings in carbon dioxide emissions (67?5%). It should be noted
that the percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions is not the
same as the percent reduction in total residual energy demand
due to the emission factors involved for electricity and gas.19,20
3.1.3. Scoring. Question 1.6 (steps A to C) is the only energy
question out of the five to consider and award credits for
reductions in energy demand, disproportionately skewing the
scoring approximately 3:1 in favour of supply-side rather than
demand-side strategies. When considering the contributions that
step B (and to a lesser extent C then A) makes towards reducing
energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions, such
disproportion cannot be wholly justified.

Surprisingly, the aim is not linked to savings of carbon dioxide It could be argued that credits should be awarded according to
emissions (a key aim of question 1.7) even though key the extent to which ‘energy reduction’ can be achieved,
reductions can be made. For example, in Table 4 it can be seen regardless of the method that is chosen. This would allow for

0 Urban Design and Planning 162 Issue DP4 Planning for sustainable utility infrastructure Hunt et al.
 Energy Baseline*: Percent of 3.2. Question 1.7
demand kWh/yr total: %
3.2.1. Question. This question incentivises developers to
Thermal achieve a percentage of total site energy demand by on-site
(i) Space heating 14 339 71 renewable schemes (10% achieves a ‘good’ rating). At face value
(ii) Water heating 5349 27
there appears to be little wrong with this, but further
(iii) Cooking 422 2
(iv) Total 20 111 examination reveals some very interesting findings.
Electrical
(v) Lighting 904 20 First, it is not made clear within the checklist that the
(vi) Cold appliances 859 19 achievement of 10% renewables (Table 4) is made significantly
(vii) Cooking equipment 678 15 easier after implementing steps A, B and C (614 kWh/yr) rather
(viii) Consumer electronics 859 19 than in their absence (2463 kWh/yr).
(ix) ICT 497 11
(x) Wet goods 723 16
(xi) Total 4521 Second, the question does not, in its current form, make any
Total (iv)+(xi) 24 632 distinction between thermal, electrical, or thermal and electrical
supplies. This is vitally important because the savings in carbon
*Based upon an average house: three bedrooms; floor area dioxide emissions are highly dependent on the supply technol-
100–160 m2; not designed to integrate passive solar gains; ogy being adopted (see Table 5). For example, if 100 kWh
standard assessment procedure (SAP) rating of between 40–50;
double glazing, 10 m2 of south facing; uses an 80% efficient electrical energy were supplied by photovoltaics (PV) (rather
boiler, D-rated appliances, a gas hob and electric oven17,18 than fossil fuel powered mains electric), it would save 430 kg
carbon dioxide; if 100 kWh thermal energy were supplied by a
Table 3. ‘Baseline’: average domestic energy demands by end-use solar water heater (rather than natural gas), only 190 kg carbon
in the UK in 200517,18 dioxide would be saved. Table 6 shows carbon dioxide saved
(and percent reduction compared with the baseline) due to the
adoption of five different energy supply options to meet the
flexibility in the design approach taken and would allow for eight different 10% residual demand options (note that only
consideration of local priorities and solutions. Perhaps then a energy supply options 5a–5c are renewable and therefore
measure of percent ‘energy reduction’ achieved compared with a directly relevant to this question; 5d and 5e and non-
nominal baseline would be a more suitable metric. This would renewable). The smallest and largest carbon dioxide savings are
allow for the economics of a particular solution to be explored shown in the bottom right (0?4%) and top left (18?4%) of the
in light of its energy delivery potential. (In most cases the table respectively. Interestingly these supply-side savings are
economics of implementing steps A–F at small and large scale much less than the demand-side savings reported in Table 4,
are already known,33–36 thereby expediting this process.) which merely emphasises the arguments put forward in Section
Moreover, it would allow for other sustainable benefits to be 3.1.3.
explored, for example the ability to achieve affordable warmth
(constant 21 ˚C in main rooms and 18 ˚C in all others), not least 3.2.2. Aim. The aim of question 1.7 is clear and therefore no
for those who may be in fuel poverty. (Based on the Department changes are suggested. However, it could be broadened to
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs definition37 that fuel include ‘provision for some measure of security of supply’ (i.e.
poverty occurs when a household spends .10% of its income on some degree of autonomy) within a development; this is a
fuel, it has been reported that more than 1?2 million people were vitally important issue as energy prices become prohibitively
suffering from fuel poverty in 2007.) expensive and/or supplies reduce significantly. In addition, links

Energy demand reduction options: kWh/yr (kgCO2)

Step Step Steps Step Steps A Steps Steps A,

Energy demand Baseline A C A and C B and B B and C B and C

a Total thermal 20 110 18 610 16 172 14 672 8639 7139 4701 3201
(3821) (3536) (3073) (2789) (1641) (1356) (893) (608)
b Total electrical 4521 4521 2942 2942 4521 4521 2942 2942
(1944) (1944) (1265) (1265) (1944) (1944) (1265) (1265)
c Step D: total residual 5 a + b 24631 23131 19114 17615 13160 11659 7644 6144
(5765) (5480) (4338) (4053) (3585) (3300) (2158) (1873)
Reduction in total residual energy 0?0 6?1 22?4 28?5 46?6 52?7 69?0 75?1
demand*: %
Reduction in total carbon dioxide 0?0{ 4?9 24?8 29?7 37?8 42?8 62?6 67?5
emissions*: %
d 10% total residual 2463 2313 1912 1762 1316 1166 764 614

*Compared with baseline

{Emissions factors 5 0?19 kg/kWh for gas and 0?43 kg/kWh for electricity19,20

Table 4. Demand matrix: carbon dioxide emissions reduction contribution after application of steps A to C of question 1.6 (in isolation
or combination)

Urban Design and Planning 162 Issue DP4 Planning for sustainable utility infrastructure Hunt et al. 191
 Carbon dioxide
Energy supply option Technology Site requirements emissions*

Thermal Solar water heating Sunlight; roof space for units (i) Renewable
Community heating Gas supply; underground space for pipes (ii) Non-renewable
GSHP Underground space: vertical shaft (approx 50 m (iii) Non-renewable
depth) or coil (at 2–7 m depth)
Condensing boiler Gas supply (iii) Non-renewable
Electrical Solar/PV Sunlight; roof space or façades for units (iv) Renewable
Wind turbine Wind speed .3?6 m/s; open space or roof space (iv) Renewable
for turbines; 10 m spacing between tips of blades
Hydro Sufficient water flow rate and height drop (iv) Renewable
Thermal and electrical CHP (biomass) Biomass supply; underground space for pipes (v) Renewable
CHP (fuel cell) Hydrogen supply; underground space for pipes (vi) Non-renewable
CHP (gas) Gas supply; underground space for pipes (vii) Non-renewable

*Assumptions: option (i) will save 0?19 kgCO2 for each kWh heat produced (pump powered by solar/PV); (ii) will emit 0?19 kgCO2 for
each kWh of gas used; (iii) will vary according to COP; (iv) will save 0?43 kgCO2 for each kWh produced; (v) carbon dioxide neutral;
(vi) hydrogen is produced through reforming natural gas; (vii) savings in carbon dioxide are dependent on the power to heat ratio of
CHP system

Table 5. Site requirements and carbon dioxide emissions for various energy supply options

should be made with question 1.6 (steps A–C), from where it has
been shown that significantly greater reductions in energy
demand(s) and therefore carbon dioxide emissions can be made.
3.2.3. Scoring. There is no incentive for a developer/planner to
consider anything between 10% renewable energy (‘good’
rating) and zero carbon emissions (‘best’ rating). Perhaps 10%
reduction should be considered a ‘minimum’ requirement level
and more scoring categories introduced, for example a ‘very
good’ level (as used within BRE’s Ecohomes system34). In
addition, scores should incentivise green providers (e.g. energy
companies that provide a supply renewable energy through the
national grid system) for any mains supplies that are required.
Interestingly, when considering the 10% renewable rule within
the context of minimising carbon dioxide emissions, a
significant flaw has been found. For example, Table 6 shows
that option 5a offers more than twice the reduction in carbon
dioxide emissions than option 5c when supplying 10% of the
total residual energy demand and yet they both receive the same
‘good’ score. Moreover, if option 5a could deliver only 5?5–9?9%
renewable energy (i.e. ,10%) it would receive a ‘minimum’
score even though it would be reducing carbon dioxide
emissions to a level greater than option 5c operating at the 10%
rule. In this case, percentage reduction in carbon dioxide
emissions would perhaps be a more meaningful measure.
3.3. Question 1.8
3.3.1. Question. This question incentivises the developer/
planner to increase the use of sustainable heating techniques
within a development according to the hierarchy A to E
(Table 2). Discussion of the ‘sustainability’ performance of these
various technological options and the hierarchy adopted is
given below.
(a) Option A. A solar water heater gathers energy radiated from
the sun for heating water in the home. Up to a 70%
reduction in yearly hot water demand (significantly less for
high-rise or overshadowed buildings) is possible from 4 m2
of flat plate (or evacuated tube) located on a gently sloped
(10–60 ˚) roof facing south-east to south-west. While rated
as the ‘most-sustainable’ heating option it cannot guarantee
all-year-round heat, meaning that additional heating
options (e.g. option E) are still required. Moreover, the
capital cost is greater than biomass heating or biodiesel
combined heat and power (CHP) (Table 7), although carbon
dioxide reduction is broadly similar. This suggests that its
placement at the top of the hierarchy in terms of these
particular metrics may not be wholly appropriate.
(b) Option B. Co-generation (heat and power through CHP) and
tri-generation (co-generation with cooling) provide an
energy-efficient heating solution that can be powered by
‘renewable energy’. Unfortunately, some of the technologies
being endorsed as ‘sustainable’ may not be when certain
metrics are applied. For example, consider the following
(i) it is reported that fuel cell systems have high capital
costs and are less durable than conventional CHP
systems; moreover, they rely on hydrogen fuel, which is
more expensive than other fossil based fuels, not easily
stored and conventionally created by reforming natural
gas (which emits large quantities of carbon dioxide38)
(ii) social arguments against the adoption of biomass-
powered CHP exist (e.g. taking up large amounts of
valuable land that could, and perhaps should, be used
for growing food). While it could have lower capital
costs than solar water heating (Table 7), it would need
to be sourced locally to avoid transport costs and
associated emissions.
(c) Option C. Community heating schemes provide heat to
multiple buildings. As with option B, the sustainability
benefits gained (and therefore the hierarchy adopted) very
much depend on how the heat is produced and what
metric(s) are used for sustainability. For example, when
considering carbon dioxide savings alone, community
heating systems fuelled by biomass or geothermal (e.g.
Southampton city centre scheme) perform best. However, if
economic costs (capital and running), social costs and
environmental costs are included, this argument could
change dramatically (see option B).

2 Urban Design and Planning 162 Issue DP4 Planning for sustainable utility infrastructure Hunt et al.
 Previously implemented energy demand reduction options: kgCO2 saved (Reduction in CO2 emissions
compared with baseline in Table 4: %)

Steps Steps Steps Steps A,

Baseline Step A Step C A&C Step B A&B B&C B&C

10% total residual energy 2463 2313 1912 1762 1316 1166 764 614
demand: kWh/yr
Energy supply options
5a Electrical e.g. Solar/PV, 1059 (18?4) 994?6 (17?3) 822 (14?3) 757 (13?1) 566 (9?8) 501 (8?7) 329 (5?7) 264 (4?6)
wind turbine, hydro
5b Thermal and electrical I* 578 (10) 542 (9?4) 448 (7?8) 413 (7?2) 309 (5?4) 274 (4?7) 179 (3?1) 144 (2?5)
Large-scale CHP (biomass)
5c Thermal e.g. Solar water 468 (8?1) 440 (7?6) 363 (6?3) 335 (5?8) 250 (4?3) 222 (3?8) 145 (2?5) 117 2?0
heating, biomass heating
5d Thermal and electrical II{ 283 (4?9) 266 (4?6) 220 (3?8) 203 (3?5) 151 (2?6) 134 (2?3) 88 (1?5) 71 (1?2)
Large-scale CHP (gas)
5e Thermal and electrical III{ 85 (1?5) 79 (1?4) 66 (1?1) 60?4 (1?0) 45 (0?8) 40 (0?7) 26 (0?5) 21 (0?4)
Small-scale CHP (gas)

*Power to heat ratio of 0?81:0?19 (Wartsiler Biopower 2–1?8 MWe)

{Power to heat ratio of 38:32 (reciprocating Sterling engine 3 MW)
{Power to heat ratio of 0?86:0?14 (Whispertech 1 kW)

Table 6. Supply matrix: carbon dioxide emissions when meeting 10% total residual energy demand

(d) Option D. A ground source heat pump (GSHP) extracts low-
grade heat from below the surface (typically at a depth of 7 m)
where the earth remains at a fairly constant yearly temperature
(11–12 ˚C)39 for powering underfloor heating systems, typically
in buildings with very high thermal efficiency. For every 1 W
of input energy received, it can deliver 4 W output, leading to a
coefficient of performance21 (COP) of 4. CHP (option B, C) has a
COP of 0?8; therefore, on this metric alone, GSHPs could be
perceived to be better than CHP and therefore feature higher in
the hierarchy system. (Note that, when compared with passive
solar in step A of question 1.6, both have much lower
efficiencies; a 30 W fan could be used to more evenly
distribute 10 kW of solar heat (equivalent to 10 m2 of glazing),
leading to a COP of 300.) However, when examining total
capital costs alone it has been shown that GSHPs are more
expensive than options A, B or C (Table 7).36 Therefore,
categorisation as option D may be appropriate when
considering a capital cost metric in isolation.
(e) Option E. A combi-boiler is used to supply space and water
heating requirements within the home. While it is powered
by natural gas, which emits carbon dioxide on combustion,
it is a well-proven technology that allows for energy
efficiency in the region of 100% to be achieved. It is the
basic standard for heating adopted within many UK homes
and does not suffer from the intermittency issues (e.g. no
hot water on cloudy days) of option A.
3.3.2. Aim. The aim of question 1.8 is clear, although care
should be taken when adopting the word ‘sustainable’ to
describe the various heating options. For example what metric(s)
are being used to justify this and, more importantly, how they
are being used to establish the hierarchy given in the question?
When testing this hierarchy using measures of capital cost
alone, order B, C, A, D was found to be more appropriate,40 and
a similar ordering was found here when considering carbon
dioxide emissions.

Cost per unit purchased: £ Total capital cost: £

Technology: (A)–(D) refer to hierarchy
used in question 1?8, Table 2 One block* Ten blocks One block Ten blocks

600 kW wind turbine N/A 421 N/A 424 706

Bio-diesel CHP (B) N/A 803 N/A 810 970
60 kW wind turbine N/A 809 N/A 817 410
Biomass heating (C) N/A 837 N/A 845 179
Solar water heating (A) 1 470 1 289 148 484 1 302 340
Ground source heating and cooling (D) N/A 1 500 N/A 1 515 253
15 kW wind turbine 1 768 1 503 178 600 1 518 099
6 kW wind turbine 1 939 1 874 — 1 892 772
2?5 kW wind turbine 2 837 2 813 286 500 2 841 125
Ground source heat pump (D) N/A 3 343 N/A 3 375 979
Solar/PV 5 549 5 463 560 430 5 518 080

*One block (energy demand 5 78 289 kWh/yr) consists of 101 residential flats of which 72 are provided with electrical domestic hot
water and electrical underfloor space heating. The remaining 29 dwellings have electrical domestic hot water, with space heating and
cooling by way of a variable refrigerant volume installation

Table 7. Cost for supplying renewable energy technologies at two different scales (modified after Sullivan and Mark)36

Urban Design and Planning 162 Issue DP4 Planning for sustainable utility infrastructure Hunt et al. 193
 3.3.3. Scoring. Unfortunately, the hierarchy is fixed. Therefore
(without any justification as to what the ‘sustainable’ benefits
are) the freedom of the designer to be innovative (with regards
to meeting heating requirements) is dramatically reduced. For
example, if a designer wished to build a passive house, he would
still be required to fit solar water heater(s) (option A) or integrate
cogeneration/tri-generation (option B) to achieve a ‘best’ score.
Ironically little/no heating is needed and therefore CHP would
likely be superfluous to requirements. This merely emphasises
the need for metrics to be used when establishing any hierarchy
(e.g. lowest capital costs, reduced whole-life cost, reduction in
energy demand or carbon dioxide emissions, low embodied
energy, etc). Moreover, these need to be applied transparently
(allowing for the developer/planner to understand and test their
validity on a case-by-case basis) and flexibly (allowing the
designer to implement the aspirations of the checklist while still
having freedom of design).
3.4. Questions 1.9 and 1.10
3.4.1. Questions. These questions consider integration of solar/
PV and solar water heating; fitted to a percentage of ‘buildings’
from new (question 1.9) or with potential to be fitted to
‘developments’ at a later date (question 1.10), clarification is
required as to the difference between percent ‘buildings’ and
percent ‘development’. Unfortunately, solar technologies have
already been encouraged by questions 1.7 and 1.8 and the
developer/planner is not presented with any justification as to
why two more questions (and therefore credits) are being set
aside for adopting solar.
3.4.2. Aims. The criticism of question 1.9 and its ‘aim’ to
promote solar technologies during design overlaps quite
considerably with the issues of detailed sight design raised in
question 1.8. Moreover, it highlights the need for distinction
between where the ‘checklist’ ends and where detailed sight
design (i.e. implementation of the aspirations of the checklist)
begins. These arguments carry forward for question 1.10, from
where it could be argued that ‘flexibility’ and ‘adaptability’
within any building is a sustainable practice and therefore this
should not be limited to the adoption of solar technologies.
3.4.3. Scoring. The scoring for these questions can be criticised
in two ways: first because there is no justification given as to
why the scores have been chosen (e.g. why is 10–25%
considered ‘good’ and .25% ‘best’ in question 1.9, and likewise
for question 1.10?); and second because no consideration is
given to how these technologies can reduce carbon dioxide
emissions. For example, in question 1.9, if two developers on
identical sites both ensure that 25% of the buildings are
designed for and equipped with solar/PV and/or solar water
heating, 0?8 credits will automatically be awarded. However,
this fails to take into account the percentage of total electrical
demand that is being supplied in each case, which is a function
of area covered (m2) and efficiency of the modules (3–15%).41
Therefore, when comparing two identical developments, full
accreditation may be achieved in both cases and yet the
dependence on fossil fuels and reduction in carbon dioxide
emissions may be dramatically different (one developer may
adopt 1 m2 of 3% efficient modules per building and the other
may adopt 10 m2 of 15% efficient modules). In addition, if 100%
of the houses within the development were equipped with solar/
4 Urban Design and Planning 162 Issue DP4 Planning for sustainable utility infrastructure
PV and/or solar water heating, no credits would be awarded for
question 1.10. This highlights the need for infrastructure
questions to be constructed in parallel rather than isolation, thus
allowing for consistent shared aims and objectives to be
highlighted. (Note that the scoring adopted for question 1.10 is
taken from SC03 without modification.)
Importantly, if neither solar/PV nor solar water heating is
adopted within a development, a total of 1?6 out of the 4?2
credits would be lost and yet the development may be able to
meet all of its electrical and thermal demands locally and by
using renewable energy schemes (e.g. a large local wind turbine
and biomass heating). The checklist shows some inflexibility for
design when considering supply options and this is a major
shortfall of SC07.
4. WATER
Using the same methodology as adopted in Section 3, the four
questions relevant to water (Table 8) are now critically
examined.
4.1. Question 1.4
4.1.1. Question. The question incentivises a developer to
connect a percentage of household baths, showers and hand
basins to greywater recycling systems to enable water reuse (for
non-potable uses) within the home or wider development. The
question deals with both supply and demand and is in line with
sustainable thinking around water use.33 However, a few flaws
have been found. For instance, greywater is produced in a wider
selection of buildings than just ‘households’.
(a) Hotels, which incorporate baths, showers, hand basins and
washing machines (usually in the form of an in-house
laundry), can produce significant quantities of grey-
water.42,43
(b) Toilet flushing (a non-potable end-use) requires urinals and
toilets to be connected to the system and there is no mention
of this within the question. Moreover, these demands could
be within the ‘wider development’ from retail premises and
offices. In these developments little greywater is produced,44
but large amounts can be used for WC and urinal flushing
(70% of total demand in an office).45
(c) The term ‘percentage connected’ is unclear. Are baths,
showers, hand basins and washing machines treated
equally, as it would appear within the question? For
example, a development consisting of 100 houses each with
1 bathtub, 2 showers, 2 hand basins and 1 washing machine
would lead to 600 water-using items. If any 300 items were
connected, would this count as 50%? If so, this could lead to
large variations in the volumes of water that could actually
be collected and reused. For example, if the occupant takes a
shower daily but only the bath is connected to the recycling
system there is no greywater recycling in operation; for this
particular case no overall decrease in water consumption
would be achieved.
4.1.2. Aim. The aim incentivises a reduction in the use of
clean water (i.e. mains water) and this is a well-founded aim as
water is a very valuable resource.46 However, it should be
recognised that there is more than one way to achieve this aim;
rainwater can also be used (in isolation to or in combination
Hunt et al.
 Question Aim Scoring

1.4 What percentage of household To reduce the overall Best: .50%

baths, showers, hand basins and
washing machines are connected to
greywater recycling systems to
enable water reuse within the home
or wider development? (S/D)
1.5 What percentage of the total roof
area in the development is designed
to allow the harvesting of rain water
for reuse and/or is covered by green
roofs? (S/D)
6.7 Will the development meet the
required water demands placed
upon the site? (S/D)
6.8 If there are any public or private
surface or groundwater abstractions
on or close to the site (within 2 km),
are pollution prevention measures
being installed to ensure that water
quality is not adversely affected
during and after development? (S)
consumption of clean
water for non-potable
uses
To ensure that roof
space is used
productively to minimise
water demand and
manage water run-off
on the site
To develop a sustainable
water efficiency strategy
at a masterplanning level
for the whole site
To ensure that any
development on site
does not adversely
impact upon local public
or private water supply
through polluting aquifers
or groundwater
Good: 25–50%
Minimum: *
Credits available: 0?8
Best: more than 50% of the roof area used for rainwater
harvesting or green roofs; captured water used for
irrigation and/or toilet flushing and/or washing machines
Good: 50% of roof area used for rainwater harvesting or
green roofs
Minimum: *
Credits available: 1?0
Best: good practice plus greywater recycling
Good: water demand minimised and rainwater harvested
for reuse on the site
Minimum: *
Credits available: 1?0
Best: water interception and cleaning facilities in place
during construction and in water run-off management
system to ensure that clean water is returned to ground
Good: general water pollution prevention measures are in
place to avoid any adverse affects to local abstractions
both during the construction phase and occupancy
Minimum: *
Credits available: 1?0

*See relevant local planning authority standard for minimum required unless stated otherwise

Table 8. Questions in SC0714 referring to supply (S) and demand (D) of water

with greywater) for non-potable uses.13,47 Unfortunately, while
rainwater is considered in question 1.5 (see Section 4.2), no
linkage is made with the aims of question 1.4. The aims of this
question can also be achieved through the use of water-saving
devices and more sustainable habits, and these approaches
appear to be missing completely.
4.1.3. Scoring. A ‘best’ rating is achieved through connection
of .50% (sinks, bathtubs, hand basins and showers) to a
greywater recycling system. However, there is no incentive for
connecting more than 51% up to a maximum of 100%. Once
again, more scoring categories would help here.
4.2. Question 1.5
4.2.1. Question. This question incentivises the developer/
planner to allow for a percentage of the total development roof
area to be used for harvesting of rainwater for reuse and/or be
covered by a green roof – a higher percentage is assumed to be
better. Collection and use of rainwater is a valid objective
because it reduces both the demand for potable (i.e. drinkable)
mains water and run-off to sewers,48 the latter being facilitated
also through the use of green roofs.49 Unfortunately, the
question does not take into account that there are different types
of roofs (e.g. pitched and sloped), some of which are better at
collecting water than others (see Section 4.2.3).
4.2.2. Aim. This question has dual aims – minimise water
demand and manage run-off – and there are flaws in both. The
first aim implies a reduction in water use. However, it could be
argued that reuse of water collected from roofs does not fulfil
this aim – it merely reduces ‘mains’ water demands. The
adoption of ‘water-efficient’ technologies (aerating taps, low-
flush or composting toilets, water sensors, A-rated wet
appliances, etc.) would help minimise water demand by
reducing overall water consumption, but such approaches have
been overlooked within this question.
Fulfilment of the second aim depends on the ability of each
method to divert rainfall away from mains stormwater systems.
For rainfall harvesting, this depends on rainfall density, roof
type (pitched or flat), roof material and spare storage capacity
within the tank.48 For green roof run-off it depends on rainfall
density, storage capacity of the substrate (.100 mm thickness49)
and drainage layer, vegetation type, degree of saturation,
climatic factors and the water requirement of plants.50 With so
many variables, run-off is not managed, merely reduced, and
this will happen only when operating conditions are favourable
(low rainfall density, high spare storage capacity (in green roof
substrate or water tank) etc.).
4.2.3. Scoring. The scoring categories show that a better score
can be achieved if a larger percentage of roof space is used.
Unfortunately, a developer can achieve a ‘best’ rating by using
only 51% of available roof area for collecting rainwater and this
leaves a significant amount of potential water supply excluded.
In this case, perhaps the best practice level should be increased
to 100% roof area with the very good level set at 80% and so on.
This ‘best’ rating should also include vehicle washing as an
important end-use.
The scoring system does not recognise that the coefficient of
water collection changes for different roof types48 (0?9 for
sloped, 0?5 for flat), strongly affecting the volumes of water that

Urban Design and Planning 162 Issue DP4 Planning for sustainable utility infrastructure Hunt et al. 195
 can be collected for reuse. This in turn affects the ability of a
development to minimise its (mains) water demands. Moreover a
‘best’ rating would be awarded currently to a development that
uses 51% of its flat roofs to collect water and a ‘good’ rating
would be awarded to a development that uses 50% of its sloped
roofs to collect water. Ironically, however, if the roof plan areas
were identical, 77% more water (for reuse) could be collected
from the development with sloped roofs.
4.3. Question 6.7
4.3.1. Question. The question incentivises the developer to
ensure that supply meets demand for the site. This is an
important criterion for any supply–demand strategy both now
and in the future. However, it is surprising that this question is
asked for water only and does not feature within the energy-
related questions. This illustrates the importance of looking at
utility infrastructure related questions in an integrated way in
order that these parallels can be drawn.
4.3.2. Aim. The aim is to develop a water efficiency strategy
for the whole site. Unfortunately, a clear strategy for water, as
comparable with energy (steps A–F of question 1.6), is not
readily apparent. Again this illustrates the advantages of
constructing infrastructure questions in parallel.
4.3.3. Scoring. ‘Best’ practice should not just be about ‘good
practice plus greywater recycling’ (Table 8), not least because
greywater recycling may not be possible in all development
types (e.g. in the case of a development of offices and/or retail
facilities where in-house greywater production does not exist).
In this case a developer would not be able to achieve ‘best’
practice, even though other strategies (e.g. rainfall harvesting)
may be the most sustainable solution for that context.
4.4. Question 6.8
Question 6.8 is well founded and an individual analysis is not
presented here with respect to supply and demand. It is included
to show that protection of existing borehole supplies near to
new developments is considered; however, integration of
borehole abstraction as a new source of supply within new
developments is not.
5. INFRASTRUCTURE
Using the same methodology as adopted in Sections 3 and 4, this
section critically examines the three questions relevant to
infrastructure provision (Table 9).
5.1. Question 1.11
5.1.1. Question. This question incentivises the developer to
provide utility infrastructure that allows for easy access and
future expansion. This is perfectly valid given the numerous
times carriageways are dug up. Unfortunately, however, the
question limits itself to future disruption alone and thereby
ignores disruption that is caused during the construction process
itself, even though these impacts can be considerable.51
Moreover, the question does not take into account the array of
other ‘sustainable’ benefits that can be gained from utilising a
more holistic approach to planning utility infrastructure (see
Section 5.1.2). Perhaps the question should be re-worded to
include ‘designed to maximise sustainable benefits in both the
short and long term’.
5.1.2. Aim. The aim incentivises three things: easy access to
utilities; minimal requirement for disruption and need for
reconstruction; and allowing for future expansion. While these
are perfectly valid aims, they are limiting and could be
broadened to incorporate some of the wider sustainability
benefits that can be achieved through provision of sustainable
utility infrastructure, for example asset location and leak
detection (and therefore reduction).51 The aim should elucidate
further on the term ‘minimal requirement for disruption’. Would
digging a trench within a busy pedestrian high street within the

Question Aim Scoring

1.11 Will site heating/cooling/power/
water/sewage and communications
infrastructure running through the
public realm be designed for easy
access and allow for future
expansion of services? (S)
1.12 Will the developer make site-wide
provision for an energy infrastructure
that allows renewable energy to be
sustained on site? (S)
1.13 Will the site be ‘smart’ metered,
showing site occupiers net energy
use, quantified over separate time
periods? (S/D)
To provide easy access to site
service and communications
infrastructure, with minimal
requirement disruption and
need for reconstruction, and
allowing for future growth in
services
To ensure that the
masterplan considers the
site-wide distribution of
on-site produced renewable
energy
To evolve an energy
management scheme and
provide the public with
easy access to renewable
energy information
Best: not yet established
Good: single-point access to infrastructure externally
and space and additional ducting provided to allow
for future expansion of services
Minimum: *
Credits available: 0?8
Best: not yet established
Good: private wire networks for renewable energy
transmission and CHP provided across the site
through a single point of access service corridor
Minimum: *
Credits available: 0?9
Best: as good practice, plus metering data accessible
for site occupants; publicly accessible meter
provided at energy source
Good: site smart metered and information used to
help evolve energy management scheme
Minimum: *
Credits available: 0?9

*See relevant local planning authority standard for minimum required unless stated otherwise

Table 9. Questions in SC0714 referring to infrastructure provision. (S), supply side; (D), demand side

6 Urban Design and Planning 162 Issue DP4 Planning for sustainable utility infrastructure Hunt et al.
public realm be counted as minimal disruption? This may be the
case currently because no recognition for other utility
placement methods is given (see Section 5.1.3) and disruption
could be interpreted as traffic disruption.
5.1.3. Scoring. A ‘best’ rating for utilities has not yet been
established and this is a significant limitation of the checklist
because it does not incentivise the developer to go significantly
beyond what is deemed to be ‘good’ practice. Moreover, good
practice currently relates to a single external point of access to
infrastructure and, while this is good for new utility placement,
it does not address the wider aims (as discussed previously) or
the situation where older utilities exist (not least in regeneration
projects). In addition, logical placement of new utility networks
below ground is sometimes not adhered to even when one point
of access exists;38 logical placement of utilities according to the
National Joint Utilities Group52 would ensure specific depths
and transverse locations from the edge of the carriageways were
met. This is essential if future growth in services and other
potential end-uses for underground space is not to be limited.
However, the ability to do this is often compromised in all but
new developments due to the congestion of existing
underground infrastructure, and the greater the congestion the
more likely that utility infrastructure will simply be fed into the
spaces available most expediently to get the installation in
place. Perhaps then a ‘best’ score should include some incentive
for mapping existing and new services (e.g. through three-
dimensional geographic information system (GIS) mapping51)
and achievement of minimal disruption (perhaps even ‘no-dig’
policies) for current and future pipe networks. Accreditation
could be given to the use of other utility placement methods as
part of ‘best’ practice (e.g. trenchless technologies53 and utility
tunnels51,54,55).
5.2. Question 1.12
5.2.1. Question. The question incentivises developers to
provide energy infrastructure (e.g. a CHP pipe network) that
allows renewable energy to be sustained on site – and this is
perfectly valid. However, in addition (and in parallel) to this,
developers should be incentivised to develop on-site water
infrastructure (e.g. potable and non-potable systems on the
supply side and stormwater and wastewater disposal systems).
5.2.2. Aim. It is well reported that the adoption of energy
infrastructure within any development requires integration
within the earliest stages of the decision-making process, in other
words, masterplanning.56,57 The aim is thus justified and valid.
5.2.3. Scoring. Unfortunately a ‘best’ rating has not been
established even though examples of best practice exist51 in, for
example, Disney World (Orlando, USA), New Downtown
(Singapore), Putrajaya (Malaysia), Barcelona (Spain) and
Fahrland (Germany). A multi-utility tunnel (MUT) is an
integrated solution for housing utility infrastructure (energy
infrastructure (including CHP, gas and electricity), water
infrastructure (supply, including non-potable networks, and
sewage disposal) and pneumatic household waste disposal) that
has multiple sustainable benefits. However, these solutions
necessitate planners to cross disciplinary boundaries in order to
engender ‘best’ practice and, unfortunately, this is not
considered within SC07.
Urban Design and Planning 162 Issue DP4 Planning for sustainable utility infrastructure
In terms of the ‘good’ rating, the scoring is both valid and
necessary. However, it should be recognised that the endorse-
ment of CHP infrastructure on an ad hoc basis may not
necessarily be the most sustainable solution for all develop-
ments. For example, as both heat and electricity are produced
year-round from a CHP system, it is necessary to have large
users of heat (e.g. a hospital and/or hotel) connected in warmer
months to avoid heat being wasted. That is not to say that other
innovative uses cannot be found for this ‘waste’ heat (e.g.
greenhouses), but the important issue is recognising that these
requirements exist early on, and definitely before their full
integration into any masterplan.
5.3. Question 1.13
5.3.1. Question. The question incentivises developers to smart
meter properties over separate time periods in order that
occupiers’ net energy use is measured. This is perfectly valid as
there are well-reported daily and seasonal variations26 that are
effected significantly by user behaviour (e.g. using a 9 kW
electric shower for 5 minutes per day rather than 30 minutes
per day will result in a reduction in electrical demand of 1365
kWh/yr). However, smart metering should also include water
usage.
5.3.2. Aim. The aim is to evolve an energy management
scheme and provide the public with easy access to renewable
energy information. These aims are valid. However, it should be
made clearer what information needs to be metered and
therefore made accessible; temporal demands (thermal and
electrical), supply (e.g. renewable and non-renewable mains
sources) and carbon dioxide emissions are suggested. This type
of smart monitoring should also be adopted for water, where
public access to information is vitally important – in this case
the metering is to inform on temporal demand (potable and non-
potable) and supply (e.g. mains water, rainwater, greywater). The
similarities between water and energy schemes are clearly
evident here.
5.3.3. Scoring. The scoring is considered appropriate, but
clarification is required in respect to what information should be
displayed (see Section 5.3.2). This forms a significant part of
monitoring a building’s performance and is therefore allied to
the current policy of energy certification for buildings.
6. DISCUSSION
The critical examination presented in this paper has highlighted
the flaws and inconsistencies within SC07 when considering 12
questions (and their individual aims and scoring methods)
relating to sustainable utility infrastructure provision. This
section addresses these findings (including recommendations for
improvement) under three key headings, as summarised in
Table 10.
6.1. Questions
It is vitally important that the delivery of an overarching
strategy for infrastructure provision is promoted from within the
questions used in SC07. This will enable sustainable solutions to
be sorted in a holistic manner and should avoid cases where
opportunities are overlooked or occur at too late a stage within
the decision-making process. When considering energy, it can
be seen that question 1.6 presents a perfectly valid ‘sustainable’
Hunt et al. 197
 strategy that includes steps for both demand (steps A–D) and
supply (E and F), making it compatible with infrastructure
planning used at national and local scales. While such a
structure could be envisaged for water (to include supply,
demand, disposal and recycling), its inclusion is not readily
apparent. Furthermore, questions relating to fundamental
demand management practices (e.g. promotion of ‘water-
efficient’ technologies such as aerating taps, low-flush or
composting toilets) are missing. Notwithstanding this shortfall,
the highly important question of whether supply meets demand
is included for water, and this is a necessary step – ironically a
similar question for energy is not apparent and therefore should
be considered.
While smart metering is included (question 1.13) and can
provide necessary in-roads in this respect, it is unfortunately
promoted only for energy supplies. Other improvements could
be made through the adoption of on-site infrastructure, but, as
noted in question 1.12, this needs to be considered at the earliest
stages within the decision-making process (i.e. masterplan). In
addition it should be recognised that opportunities also exist for
other infrastructure networks (e.g. potable and non-potable
water, sewage, household waste, etc). Even with the adoption of
on-site renewable infrastructure it is likely that a significant
amount of energy will continue to be supplied through the
mains and therefore it is surprising that the use of green
suppliers is not encouraged.

The roles that residents can play in reducing demands appears to Equal consideration for supply and demand strategies is
have been overlooked, as has the role that improved infra- important because both elements contribute significantly
structure can play in increasing supplies (e.g. through reduced towards sustainable provision of utility infrastructure.
leakage of water pipes or transmission losses for electricity). Unfortunately, for energy, the inclusion of questions 1.7–1.10

Section Recommended improvement(s)

Questions (a) Ensure delivery of an overarching strategy for water and energy to include
(i) water-efficient technologies
(ii) verification that energy supply can meet demand on site
(iii) reduced leakage in water system
(iv) early adoption of on-site water infrastructure
(v) sustainable behaviour of residents
(vi) smart metering for water
(vii) green providers for mains energy
(b) Adopt equal consideration for supply and demand strategies including
(i) highlighting the importance of demand reduction
(ii) less emphasis on solar
(c) Avoid rigid adoption of technologies (including hierarchies) because successful implementation depends on site/
contextual issues, for example
(i) CHP requires users for heat produced in summer
(ii) low/no greywater is produced in offices and retail outlets
(d) Allow designers to come up with innovative solutions
(e) Avoid creating flaws, inconsistencies and potential areas for misinterpretation within questions, for example
(i) savings in carbon dioxide emissions depend on the technology being used, its efficiency, and the mains
fuel being replaced
(ii) the term ‘percentage’ (of appliances connected to greywater systems) is not helpful
(iii) the difference between ‘% buildings’ and ‘% development’ is not made clear
(iv) greywater has an array of producers, not just domestic
(v) rainfall harvesting can help to minimise mains water demand, not water demand per se
(vi) for utility placement, disruption occurs not only in the future but also during the construction phase
(vii) ‘minimal requirement disruption’ for utility placement is undefined
(viii) the ability of different roof types to ‘manage’ water flows is debatable
Aims (f) Highlight where aims are linked between questions
(g) Ensure questions with dual aims are not conflicting
(h) Ensure all aims are captured
(i) aim to improve asset location, leak detection and reduction
(ii) aim to increase security of supply
Scoring (i) Scoring used should be transparent and flexible
(j) A more quantitative approach to scoring should be taken
(k) Utilise ‘supply’ and ‘demand’ matrices (derived on a case-by-case basis) to help developers understand the
consequences for adoption of ‘supply’ and ‘demand’ solutions
(l) Use more scoring categories to incentivise better performance (five as opposed to three), for example
(i) between 11 and 99% for renewable energy
(ii) . 50% connection of greywater systems
(iii) . 50% roof used for rainwater harvesting/green roof
(m) Avoid creating tensions between scoring of individual questions
(n) Avoid omissions and errors in scoring categories, for example
(i) include vehicle washing as an important non-potable water use
(ii) note that more water can be collected from a sloped roof than a flat roof
(iii) establish a ‘best’ rating for utility placement to include mapping of services, no dig policies and other
utility placement methods

Table 10. Summary of improvements required

8 Urban Design and Planning 162 Issue DP4 Planning for sustainable utility infrastructure Hunt et al.
creates a significant bias towards supply-side approaches (not
least solar energy) and this should be avoided. While this bias
does not exist within the water and infrastructure questions, the
lack of an overall strategy should not be forgotten.
Rigid adoption of technologies (including hierarchies) has
been used within the infrastructure-related questions of SC07
(e.g. heating technologies in question 1.8, solar technologies in
1.9 and 1.10, CHP technology in question 1.12 and greywater in
question 6.7). Such an approach is questionable first because
their success depends on site/contextual issues and second
because it restricts the approaches that can taken by the designer
and this could potentially stifle the creation of (and therefore
adoption of) innovative solutions.
Flaws, inconsistencies and potential areas for misinterpretation
should also be avoided in all questions; several key examples are
listed in Table 10. In some cases this may mean that questions
need to be reformulated in order to better achieve the aims that
are set forward. For instance, many of the issues that have been
raised for question 1.4 (Section 4.1) and 1.5 (Section 4.2) could
be eliminated by asking a different question (e.g. what
percentage of non-potable water demand is being met through
use of rainwater and/or greywater within this dwelling?).
However, while this allows for a variety of solutions to be
adopted, one could be forgiven for asking if it is really
necessary. In reality it is the overarching ‘aims and objectives’
(e.g. reduce mains ‘water’ consumption) that are important and
should be signed up to by the developer at the visioning stages
of a development; the designer should then be free to decide the
way in which these aims can be best achieved taking into
account local priorities and the local context.
6.2. Aims
Currently, SC07 consists of individual aims for individual
questions. Unfortunately, this type of approach does not
consider the case where individual aims can be fulfilled
(sometimes to a greater degree) through completion of other
questions. For example, the aims of question 1.4 can be fulfilled
through completion of question 1.5 and the aims of question 1.7
can be better achieved through implementation of steps A–C in
question 1.6. For this reason, checklists should highlight where
shared aims and objectives operate between questions.
In some cases questions are presented with dual aims (e.g.
minimise water demand and manage water run-off in question
1.5) and care needs to be taken to ensure that they are pulling in
the same direction. It is also important that all the sustainable
benefits are captured within these aims; for example, improved
asset location and leak detection and reduction are missing from
question 1.11, as is security of supply from question 1.7.
6.3. Scoring
A more quantitative approach to deriving scoring categories is
required – one that is both transparent and flexible and allows
for a range of design ‘options’ to meet overarching checklist
‘aspirations’. Unfortunately, SC07 is lacking in all of these areas.
For instance, question 1.8 engenders, by award of credits, a rigid
hierarchy for adoption of heating supply technologies and
question 6.7 awards ‘best practice’ for the adoption of greywater
recycling without any justification. Moreover when typical
measures (capital costs and carbon dioxide emissions) were
Urban Design and Planning 162 Issue DP4 Planning for sustainable utility infrastructure
applied in question 1.8, a different ordering was found. This
merely emphasises the need for measures to be applied
transparently (i.e. allow external users to understand what
metrics have been used and why).
The derivation of ‘demand’ and ‘supply’ matrices for energy
(Tables 4 and 6) was extremely helpful in understanding the
consequences (i.e. likely performance) of various supply and
demand solutions. While the analysis was limited to a small set of
metrics (reduction in energy demands and carbon dioxide
emissions), others could (and should) be incorporated in order to
help derive the most sustainable solution on a case-by-case basis.
The use of three scoring categories (best, good and minimum) has
been shown to be restrictive in SC07, for example in questions
1.4, 1.5 and 1.7 (see Table 10). It is suggested that (in some cases)
five categories may be more helpful and engender higher
standards to be achieved. Moreover, this modification would put
the SC07 system in line with the BRE environmental assessment
method (Breeam)40 in which five categories are currently used.
In all cases the creation of tensions between the scoring of
individual questions should be avoided (e.g. the case where a
developer is not able to achieve maximum scores in questions
1.9 and 1.10 simultaneously). In addition, the scoring categories
should avoid any errors; for example, vehicle washing should be
included as an important non-potable water use in question 1.5
and it should be recognised that more water can be collected
from a sloped roof than from a flat roof. More important than
this is the omission of ‘best’ rating classes, for example in
questions 1.11 and 1.12. In filling this gap suggestions have
been made (to include mapping of services, ‘no-dig’ policies and
potential use for alternative methods of utility placement, e.g.
trenchless and multi-utility tunnels) based upon academic
literature and previous research.
7. CONCLUDING REMARKS
A critical examination of the SC07 checklist (question, aims and
scoring) has been performed on 12 questions that relate directly
to utility infrastructure provision for energy and water.
Evidence has been provided to show that SC07 suffers from
(a) flaws and inconsistencies in the questions and their aims
(b) a lack of quantitative measures within the scoring methods
used.
While recommendations for its improvement have been given it
remains questionable, based on the evidence provided here,
whether the checklist approach is helping or hindering the
design process. Primarily this is because there is significant
disparity between where the checklist should end and where the
designer should be free to implement its aspirations.
Unfortunately, checklists, by their very nature, reduce the early
stages of the planning/design process to a set of tick boxes,
which does not help when trying to derive holistic solutions. Nor
do they encourage new design approaches or innovative
solutions. Inherently, aspects of sustainability are considered in
isolation within SC07 and, as shown in this paper, it is less able
to deliver a consistent, coherent and unbiased sustainable
strategy for energy and water. Furthermore, disciplinary
Hunt et al. 199
 boundaries have not been crossed, making the checklist less able
to achieve ‘best’ practice for utility infrastructure.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank the Engineering and Physical
Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) for financial support during
this sustainable urban environments (SUE) research project
under grants GR/S20482, EP/C513177 and EP/E021603. The
authors also wish to thank the referees for their most useful
comments.
REFERENCES
1. GIDDINGS B., HOPWOOD B. and O’BRIEN G. Environment,
economy and society: Fitting them together into sustainable
development. Sustainable Development, 2002, 10, No. 4,
187–196.
2. MCGREGOR I. M. and COLE R. Using the SPeARTM assessment
tool in sustainable masterplanning. US Green Building
Conference, Greenbuild 2003, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 2003.
3. DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS. UK
Government Sustainable Development Strategy Indicators.
Defra, London, 2005.
4. HAWKES J. The Fourth Pillar of Sustainability: Culture’s
Essential Role in Public Planning. Cultural Development
Network and Common Ground Press, Melbourne, 2001. See
http://www.culturaldevelopment.net for further details
(accessed 10/04/2009).
5. DEPARTMENT FOR BUSINESS, ENTERPRISE AND REGULATORY REFORM.
Energy Markets Outlook. BERR/ Ofgem, London, 2007.
6. UNITED NATIONS. United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, 1997. See www.unfccc.int for further
details (accessed 10/04/2009).
7. DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY. Meeting the Energy
Challenge, A White Paper on Energy. The Stationary Office,
London, 2007. See http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file39387.
pdf for further details (accessed 04/04/2009).
8. DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY. Energy Trends. DTI,
London, 2007. See http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file38674.
pdf for further details (accessed 21/04/2009).
9. BORN F. J. Aiding Renewable Energy Integration through
Complimentary Demand–Supply Matching. PhD thesis,
University of Strathclyde, 2000.
10. SEVERN TRENT WATER. Water Resource Management Plan –
Draft Version. STW, Birmingham, 2008.
11. KOUTSOYIANNIS D., MAKROPOULOS C., LANGOUSIS A. et al. Climate,
hydrology, energy, water: recognizing uncertainty and
seeking sustainability. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences,
2009, 13, No. 2, 247–257.
12. HUNT D. V. L., JEFFERSON I., JANKOVIC L. J. and HUNOT K. P. H.
Sustainable energy? A feasibility study for Eastside,
Birmingham, UK. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, Engineering Sustainability, 2005, 159, No. 4,
155–168.
13. HUNT D. V. L., LOMBARDI D. R. and JEFFERSON L. J. Sustainable
Water? A feasibility study for Birmingham Eastside.
Proceedings of 4th CIWEM Annual Conference, Newcastle,
2006, CD-ROM.
14. SOUTH EAST ENGLAND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY. South East
Sustainability Checklist, 2007. See http://southeast.
sustainability-checklist.co.uk/ for further details (accessed
03/03/2009).
15. RAO S. and BROWNHILL D. A Sustainability Checklist for
0 Urban Design and Planning 162 Issue DP4 Planning for sustainable utility infrastructure
Developments: A Common Framework for Developers and
Local Authorities. Building Research Establishment,
Watford, 2002, BRE Report 436.
16. SOUTH EAST ENGLAND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY. Sustainability
Checklist Version 1. Seeda/BRE, 2003, CD-ROM.
17. DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY. Gas Consumption Data at
Local Authority Level, Energy Trends. DTI, London, 2005. See
www.berr.gov.uk for further details (accessed 03/03/2009).
18. DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY. Experimental Electricity
Consumption Data at Local Authority Level, Energy Trends,
DTI, London, 2005. See www.berr.gov.uk for further details
(accessed 03/03/2009).
19. DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS.
Environmental Reporting Guidelines for Company Reporting
on Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Defra, London, 2005. See
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/envrp/gas/
index.htm for further details (accessed 28/02/2009).
20. SIMMONS C. and GONZALEZ I. Domestic Carbon Dioxide
Emissions for Selected Cities. Research conducted for British
Gas by Best Foot Forward, Oxford, 2006.
21. GOULDING J. R., LEWIS O. and STEEMERS T. Energy in
Architecture. The European Passive Solar Handbook.
Commission of the European Communities/University
College Dublin, 1993.
22. NEWTON M. N. and WARREN B. F. Passive solar house
performance: derivation from simulation results. Building
Services Engineering Research and Technology, 1995, 16,
No. 2, 91–96.
23. KARLSON J., ROOS A. and KARLSSON B. Building and climate
influence on the balance temperature of buildings. Building
and Environment, 2003, 38, No. 1, 75–81.
24. BALCOMB J. D. Passive Solar Buildings. MIT Press, Cambridge,
MA, 1992.
25. HYDE R. and PEDRINI A. An energy conservation architectural
design tool for warm climate (LTV): the tool development
and testing. In Tropical Daylight and Buildings (ULLAH M. B.
(ed.)). National University of Singapore, Singapore, 2002.
26. YAO R. and STEEMERS K. A method of formulating energy load
profile for domestic buildings in the UK. Energy and
Buildings, 2005, 37, No. 6, 663–671.
27. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER. The Building Regulations
2005: Conservation of Fuel and Energy, Technical Guidance
Document L. ODPM, London, 2005.
28. TOMMERUP H. and SVENDSON S. Innovative Danish building
envelope components for passive houses. Proceedings of
10th International Passive House Conference, Hamburg,
Germany, 2004, pp. 389–395.
29. LOVELL H. C. Supply and demand for low energy housing in
the UK: insights from a science and technology studies
approach. Housing Studies, 2005, 20, No. 5, 815–829.
30. LAZARUS N. Beddington Zero (Fossil) Energy Development.
Toolkit for Carbon Neutral Developments – Parts 1 and 2.
Bioregional Development Group, Sutton, 2001.
31. EUROPEAN GREEN BUILDING FORUM. Hockerton Housing Project,
Catalogue of Best Practice Examples, 2001. See http://www.
egbf.org/PDFs/hockerton.pdf for further details (accessed
03/03/2009).
32. KILLIP G. Background material F, built fabric and building
regulations. In The 40% House Project. Environmental Change
Institute, Oxford, 2005, ECI research report 31.
33. DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT. Code for
Hunt et al.
 Sustainable Homes: A Step Change in Sustainable Home
Building Practice. DCLG, London, 2006.
34. BUILDING RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT AND CYRILL SWEET. Costing
Sustainability: How Much does it cost to Achieve BREEAM
and EcoHomes Ratings? BRE, Watford, 2005, Information
paper 4/05.
35. BUILDING RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT AND CYRILL SWEET.
Putting a Price on Sustainability. BRE, Watford, 2005,
Report FB10).
36. SULLIVAN L. and MARK B. Renewable Energy – A Current
Perspective on Planning and Design Options. Broadway
Malyan and Fulcrum Consulting, London, 2005.
37. DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS. The
UK Fuel Poverty Strategy: 5th Annual Progress Report.
Defra, London, 2007.
38. HUNT D. V. L. and ROGERS C. D. F. Barriers to sustainable
infrastructure in urban regeneration. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers, Engineering Sustainability,
2005, 158, No. 2, 67–81.
39. DOHERTY P. S., AL-HUTHAILI S., RIFFAT S. B. and ABODAHAB N.
Ground source heat pump – description and preliminary
results of the Eco House system. Applied Thermal
Engineering, 2007, 24, No. 17–18, 2627–2641.
40. BUILDING RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT. Breeam Fact File Version 5.
BRE, Watford, 2007.
41. BAHAJ A. Solar photovoltaic energy: generation in the built
environment. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,
Civil Engineering, 2005, 158, special issue 2, 45–51.
42. DIAPER C., JEFFERSON B., PARSONS S. A. and JUDD S. J. Water
recycling technologies in the UK. Journal of the Chartered
Institution of Water and Environmental Management, 2001,
15, No. 4, 282–286.
43. PIDOU M., MEMON F. A., STEPHENSON T., JEFFERSON B. and
JEFFREY P. Greywater recycling: treatment options and
applications. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, Engineering Sustainability, 2007, 160, No. 3,
119–131.
44. BOWDEN D., DIAPER C., STRATHERN M. and STRUTT M. HAZOP –
Office Building Rainwater Recycling System. Cranfield
University, 2001, Report no. Wrocs Hazop 2.
45. BREWER D., BROWN R. and STANFIELD G. Rainwater and
Greywater in Buildings: Project Report and Case Studies.
BSRIA, Bracknell, 2001, Report TN7/2001.
46. See www.wmo.ch/web/homs/documents/english/icwedece.
html (accessed 13/04/2009).
47. HILLS S., BIRKS R., DIAPER C. and JEFFREY P. An evaluation of
single-house greywater recycling systems. IWA 4th
International Symposium on Wastewater Reclamation and
Reuse, Mexico City, 2003.
48. LEGGETT D. J., BROWN R., STANFIELD G., BREWER D. and HOLLIDAY
E. Rainwater and Greywater Use in Buildings: Best Practice
Guidance. Construction Industry Research and Information
Association, London, 2001, Report PR80.
49. NEWTON J., GEDGE D., EARLY P. and WILSON S. Building
Greener: Guidance on the Use of Green Roofs, Green Walls
and Complementary Features on Buildings. Construction
Industry Research and Information Association, London,
2007, Report C644.
50. MENTENS J., RAES D. and HERMY M. Effect of orientation on the
water balance for green roofs. Proceedings of 1st Annual
Conference on Greening Rooftops for Sustainable
Communities, Chicago, 2003, 1, 29–30.
51. ROGERS C. D. F. and HUNT D. V. L. Sustainable utility
infrastructure via multi-utility tunnels. Proceedings of the
Canadian Society of Civil Engineering 2006 Conference:
Towards a Sustainable Future. CSCE, Montreal, 2006, paper
CT-001.
52. NATIONAL JOINT UTILITIES GROUP. Guidelines on Positioning and
Colour Coding of Utilities’ Apparatus. NJUG, London, 2003.
53. MILLIGAN G. W. E. and ROGERS C. D. F. Trenchless technology.
In Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
Handbook (ROWE R. K. (ed.)). Kluwer, Norwell, MA, 2001, pp.
569–592.
54. CANO-HURTADO J. J. and CANTO-PERELLO J. Sustainable
development of urban underground space for utilities.
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 1999, 14,
No. 3, 335–340.
55. LAISTNER A. Utility tunnels – long-term investment or short
term expense? The new economic feasibility of an old idea.
Proceedings of the 15th International No Dig Conference,
Taipei, Taiwan, 1997, Paper 10.1.
56. JEFFERSON I., ROGERS C. D. F. and HUNT D. V. L. Achieving
sustainable underground construction in Birmingham
Eastside? Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of
the IAEG, Nottingham, 2006, CD-ROM.
57. HUNT D. V. L., LOMBARDI D. R., ROGERS C. D. F. and JEFFERSON I.
Application of sustainability indicators in decision-making
processes for urban regeneration projects. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers, Engineering Sustainability,
2008, 161, No. 1, 77–91.

What do you think?

To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be forwarded to the
author(s) for a reply and, if considered appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as discussion in a future issue of the
journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineering professionals, academics and students. Papers should be
2000–5000 words long (briefing papers should be 1000–2000 words long), with adequate illustrations and references. You can submit
your paper online via www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals, where you will also find detailed author guidelines.

Urban Design and Planning 162 Issue DP4 Planning for sustainable utility infrastructure Hunt et al. 201
View publication stats