University of Surrey

Evaluating the sustainability of Brownfield

Redevelopment Projects

The Redevelopment AssessmentFramework (RAF)

Thesis submittedfor the degreeof Doctor of Philosophy

Kalliope E. Pediaditi
MSc, BSc

Centre for Environmental Strategy

School of Engineering
University of Surrey
August 2006'




ProQuest Number: U219769




All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.






ProQuest U219769

Published by ProQuest LLC (2017 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.


All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.


ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
Abstract
Redevelopmentof brownfield land has been identified as an essentialcomponentin
achieving sustainable urban regeneration. In fact, brownfield redevelopment is

equatedas de facto sustainable(and presentedas a headline sustainability indicator).

However, many examplesexist where redevelopmentof Brownfield sites have not
been sustainabledue to a failure to assessthe environmental,social, economic and

physical impacts holistically, as well as to consider the long-term impacts of such

projects. Therefore, this research has developed the RedevelopmentAssessment
Framework (RAF) that aims to evaluatesustainabilitythroughouta site's land use life
cycle. The RAF utilises sustainability indicators while taking into account relevant
existing UK planning processesto increaseits potential for use. The RAF embodiesa
participatory evaluation approachwith the aim of achieving greater communication
and project understanding. Through interviews with a range of brownfield

regenerationstakeholders,the barriers to the adoption of existing sustainabilitytools

are determined to
and recommendationsmade overcome them. The RAF is described
followed by the results of its evaluationbasedon case study trials and participants

views. Recommendations with regard to -required

measures for the wide adoption of
this processare proposedaswell as areasfor future researchin this field.

i
Acknowledgements
From the bottom of my heart I would like to thank all my family (Inga, Manolis,
Panagiotis,Emily, Uncle William and Georgos,auntiesand cousins) as I owe them
what I am today.

I thank Guillaume and his family and my friends (Evi, Patra,Christina,Maria, Vasilis,
Africa, Edo, Paullette,Foulis and Captain)for supportingme over the last threeyears.

A big thank you to all the people involved in this researchincluding all the members
of the SUBRIM consortium including the steeringgroups and in particular Michael
and Abir (Cambridge University), Reading University and Forest Research(Andy
Moffat and the bungalow group). My gratitudealso extendsto the EPSRCfor funding
this research.

I am indebtedto all the participantsin this researchfrom the different local authorities
partaking and intervieweeswhich took the time to sharewith me their experiences
and for making the RAF a reality. In particular I Would like to thank Tim Pope for
mentoring me through the realities of the UK planning system,and Adrian Frost for
trusting me and enablingthe RAF to take place.

A big thank you to my old Thurrock LA colleaguesin particular Isabel and Paul,
Trevor, Claire and John for reminding me the value of what I was doing. Special
thanks to Anne Miller, Joe Weston and Dianne Thrush for their guidance and
encouragement.

A very special thank you to everyone in CES for their advice and support, but in
particular the people from the Tuesday club and Jorge, Heinz, Almu, Lucia and
Marilyn.

Walter and Kate (my supervisorsDr W. Wehrineyerand Dr K. Burningham),I thank

you for everything, your guidance, mentoring, patience, encouragement and
friendship.I could not have achievedthis without you.

A final thank you to my examiners for dedicating their valuable time to read my
Thesis.

ii
 Contents
ABSTRACT I
.............................................................................................................................................
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
.........................................................................................................................
CONTENTS III
...........................................................................................................................................
INDICES OF Fioums, BOXES AND TABLES VI
.........................................................................................
ABBREVIATIONS VIII
...............................................................................................................................
DISCLAIMER Ix
.......................................................................................................................................
CHAPTER 1. RESEARCH RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES I
..........................................
I. I. RATIONALE I
....................................................................................................................................
1.2. Aim AND OBJECTIVES to
..................................................................................................................
1.3. RESEARCHDESIGN II
......................................................................................................................
1.4. RESEARCHCONTEXT 16
...................................................................................................................
1.5. GUIDETO CHAPTERS2-7 IN THETHESIS 18
......................................................................................
CHAPTER 2. BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT- EVALUATING ITS SUSTAINABILITY
.............................. . ................ . ......... . ....... ......................................................................................... 19
2.1. SUSTAINABILITYEVALUATION 19
2.1.1 The ideal ....................................................................................................
sustainability indicator 28
........................................................................................
2.2. THE BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTLIFE CYCLE 32
.........................................................
2.3 SUSTAINABILITY IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION THROUGH UK LAND USE PLANNING 38
........
2.3.1 The PlanningApplication Process and Planning Gain 45
.......................................................
2.3.2 Implementation and monitoring of brownfleld sustainability using EIA ............................. 49
2.3.3 Implementing and monitoring brownfield sustainability through Regulations 52
....................
2.4. BRP RISK AND IMPLICATIONS FOR SUSTAINABILITY EVALUATION 56
...............................................
2.4.1. Defining Risk 56
......................................................................................................................
2.4.1.1. Technical Definition 57
....................................................................................................................
2.4.1.2. Economic definition 57
....................................................................................................................
2.4.1.3. Psychological definition 58
..............................................................................................................
2.4.1.4. Sociological and cultural definition 59
.............................................................................................
2.4.2,4ctual andperceived risk. - recommendationsfor monitoring and management 59
..................
2.5. STAKEHOLDERS AND PARTICIPATION IN BRP SUSTAINAMLITY EVALUATION 62
..............................
2.5.1. Purpose and nature ofparticipation ofBRP evaluation ..................................................... 63
2.5.2. Benefits andLimitations ofParticipation 66
...........................................................................
2.5.2.1. Procedural barriers and limitations to participation 68
.....................................................................
2.5.3. BRP Stakeholders 70
................................................................................................................
2.5.4. Criteria and elements of 'Good'participatory decision making 73
........................................
2.5.5 Opportunitiesfor BRPparticipatory decision making 78
........................................................
2.6. CONCLUSIONS: THE RAF THEORETICAL SPECIFICATION 82
..............................................................
CHAPTER 3. REVIEW OF EXISTING SUSTAINABILITY EVALUATION TOOLS AND
INDICATORS 85
. .... . ............................ . ............................................ ...................................................
3.1. HOLISTIC APPROACH 87
...................................................................................................................
3.2. SITE OR BRP SPECIFIC 91
.................................................................................................................
3.3. LONG-TERM 13RP SUSTAINABILITY EVALUATION 91
........................................................................
3.4. PARTICIPATION (IN CURRENT SUSTAINABILITY EVALUATION TOOLS) 94
..........................................
3.5. INTEGRATION WITH EXISTING DECISION MAKING (PLANNING) PROCESSES 95
...................................
3.6. CONCLUSIONS 95
..............................................................................................................................
CHAPTER 4. SUSTAINABILITY EVALUATION OF BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECTS: CURRENT PRACTICE 97
...............................................................................................
4.1. INTERVIEW AND SURVEY METHODOLOGY : 97
..................... .............................................................
4.1.1. BRP Stakeholders semi- structured interviews 97
...................................................................
4.1.1.1. Background to the Thames Gateway and Greater Manchester areas 100
.........................................
4. LZ National Developers Survey-Methodology 101
.......................................................................
4.2. INFLUENCING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF A BRP 103
...........................................................................
4.3. THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY MONITORING OF BRP 110
...................
4.4. THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTOF BRP 116
.......................................
4.5. THE PERCEIVED 13ENEFITSAND DRIVERS FOR BRP SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTAND
MONITORING 124
.....................................................................................................................................

iii
 4.5.1 Developerdrivers to undertakesustainabilitymonitoring and assessment 124
.......................
127
4.5.2 Perceivedbenefitsofsustainability monitoring..................................................................
4.5.3 Perceivedbenefitsofsustainability assessments 129
................................................................
4.6. BARRIERSTO ADOPTIONAND LIMITATIONSOFSUSTAINABILITYMONITORINGAND ASSESSMENT
130
.........................................................................................................................................................
4.6.1. Barriers to adoption ofstistainability assessmentand monitoring 131
...................................
4.6.2. Procedural limitations ofsustainability assessmentand monitoring 136
...............................
4.6.3. Limitations ofexisting sustainability assessmenttools and monitoringpractices 137
............
4.7. RECOMMENDATIONS FORTHERAF ...........................................................................................
140
4.7.1.Recommendationsto enablewider adoption ofthe RAF 140
..................................................
4.7.2.Recommendationsto overcomeprocedural limitations 142
....................................................
4.7.3.Recommendationsregarding the nature ofthe RAF (i.e. ideal indicators) 147
.......................
4.7.4.Recommendationsregarding theparticipation characteristicsofthe evaluationprocess147
4.8. CONCLUSIONS
AND FINAL RAF SPECIFICATIONS 149
.......................................................................
CHAPTER 5. THE REDEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK 153
................................
S.1. THE RAF 154
...................................................................................................................................
5.2. CASESTUDY:METHODSAND BACKGROUND 157
........................................................ .....................
5.2.1. Casestudy methodology 157
5.2.1.1.Participant ....................................................................................................
160
and non-participantobservation..............................................................................
5.2.1.2.Documentation 160
..........................................................................................................................
161
5.2.2. Detailed case study background
........................... . .......................................................... 161
5.2.2.1. Casestudy site descriptions
.......................................................................................................
163
5.2.2.2.Descriptionsof proposedcasestudydevelopments ...................................................................
5.3. GOINGTHROUGHTHEPHASES-DETAILEDRAF DESCRIPTION 167
....................................................
5.3.1 Phase 1: Team -Building 167
.................................................................................................. 170
5.3.1.1.Team-Building in GM andTG
..................................................................................................
172
5.3.2 Phase 2: Getting the Facts Right
....................................................................................... 172
5.3.2.1.Task 1: gatheringrelevantinformation .....................................................................................
5.3.2.2.Task 2: Consulting the community 174
............................................................................................
177
5.3.2.3.Gatheringrelevantinformation for the GM and TG casestudies..............................................
5.3.2.4. Consulting the community for the GM andTG casestudies..................................................... 177
5.3.3 Phase 3: Preparing the Ground 179
4
............................ .......................................................... 183
5.3.3.1.Preparingthe ground for the GM and TG casestudies..............................................................
5.3.4. Phase 4: Setting Priorities 185
................................................................................................ 185
5.3.4.1Task 1: Identifying a vision, concerns,andbenefits...................................................................
5.3.4.2.Task 2: Prioritising SustainabilityObjectives........................................................................... 187
5.3.4.3.Task 3: Agreeing on the natureof the evaluation-(proceduralissues)...................................... 189
5.3.4.4.Identifying a vision, concernsandbenefitsof the GM casestudy............................................. 189
5.3.4.5. Prioritising sustainabilityobjectivesof the GM casestudy....................................................... 189
5.3.4.6.Agreeing on the natureof the evaluationandproceduralissuesin the GM casestudy 190
.............
5.3.5. Phase 5: Designing the indicators 191
..................................................................................... 192
5.3.5.1 Session1: SelectingBRP sustainabilityassessment criteria ......................................................
5.3.5.2. Session2: Developing long-termBRP sustainabilityindicators............................................... 193
5.3.5.3. SelectingBRP sustainabilityassessment criteria for the GM casestudy ..................................194
5.3.5.4.Developing long-term BRP sustainabilityindicators 194
................................................................
5.3.6. Phase 6.,Putting it all together 195
......................................................................................... 195
5.3.6.1.Agreeing on sustainabilitycriteria and indicators.....................................................................
5.3.6.2. Session3: Agreeing on the proceduralissues 198
............................................................................
5.3.6.3. Agreeing on sustainabilitycriteria and indicators:the GM casestudy...................................... 199
5.3.6.4. Session3: Resultsof the GM casestudy................................................................................... 199
5.4: ENFORCINGAND USINGTHERESULTSOFTHERAF .................................................................... 200
5.4.1. Enforcing and using the RAF results - the GM Case study .............................................. 202
5.5. WHEN AND HOWLONG DOES IT TAKE TO CARRY OUT THE RAF? 212
...............................................
5.6. WHAT RESOURCES DOES THE RAF REQUIRE? : 214
................ ...........................................................
5.7. CONCLUSION 216
.............................................................................................................................
CHAPTER 6. EVALUATING THE RAF (THE METAEVALUATION) 217
................ ....................
6.1. METAEVALUATIONMETHODOLOGY 218
.......................................................................................... 220
6.2 RAF OUTCOMEEVALUATION......................................................................................................
6.3. EVALUATIONOFTHE RAF's CAPACITYFORLONG-TERMMONITORING..................................... 226
6.4. EVALUATIONOFRAF's HOLISTICAPPROACH 228
............................................................................ 231
6.5. EVALUATIONOFTHERAF's CONTEXTSPECIFIC APPROACH ......................................................

iv
 6.6. RAF FEASIBILITY EVALUATION 235
.................................................................................................
6.6.1.Duration and Timing 235
........................................................................................................
6.6.2.Resources 239
..........................................................................................................................
RAF. know-how
6.6.3. Appropriateness
evaluation of - skills and 240
...............................................
6.7. EVALUATIONOFTHERAF's COMPATIBILITYAND INTEGRATIONWITHEXISTINGPLANNING
PROCESSES
......................... 243
..........................................................
6.8. RAF PARTICIPATION EVALUATION 250
............................................................................................
6.8.1.Evaluation ofthe RAFs considerationofrisk 256
..................................................................
6.9. EVALUATION OFTHERAFS FUTURE POTENTIAL 257
......................................................................
6.10.RECOMMENDATIONS FORTBEWIDERUSEOFTHERAF ........................................................... 259
6.11.CONCLUSION 262
...........................................................................................................................
CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 265
........... ........................... . ...........
7.1. EVALUATIONOFTHEATTAINMENTOFTHERESEARCH OBJECTIVES 265
...........................................
7.2. RESEARCHLIMITATIONS 269
...........................................................................................................
7.3. IS BROWNFIELDREGENERATION CONTRIBUTING TO SUSTAINABILITY? 271
......................................
7.4. CAN THERAF HELP? 274
.................................................................................................................
7.5. WHAT is THERAF's POTENTIALCONTRIBUTION TO SCIENCE? 277
..................................................
7.6. WHAT THERAF DOESNOTAND SHOULDNOTDO 278
......................................................................
7.7. SOMEMETHODOLOGICAL REFLECTIONS ONTHEDEVELOPMENT OFEVALUATIONTOOLS........... 279
7.8. RECOMMENDATIONS FORFURTHERRESEARCH 281
..........................................................................
7.8.1. Research in sustainable remediation- where to begin? 282
....................................................
7.9 RECOMMENDATIONS FORTHEPOLICYAND PLANNINGCOMMUNITY........................................... 284
REFERENCES 287
...................... ............................................................................................................
APPENDICES 305
....................................................................................................................................

APPENDIX 1: LIST OF SUBR: IM PARTNERS, PROJECTSAND STEERING GROUPMEMBERS

. .....................
306
APPENDIX2: NATIONAL DEVELOPERS SURVEY,UNIVERSITYOFREADING 309
. .........................................
APPENDIX 3: QUESTIONS ASKED AT CAUSAL DESIGN STAGE INTERVIEWS
. ............................................
310
APPENDIX4. COMMUNITYCENSUS-QUESTIONNAIRE 311
............................................................................
APPENDIX 5: REPORT PROVIDED TO STAKEHOLDERS WITH RESULTS OF COMMUNITY CENSUS
. .............
312
APPENDIX6: INDICATORSELECTIONCRITERIACHECKLIST 338
. ..................................................................
APPENDIX7: REPORTWITH PHASE4 RESULTSPRESENTED TO PARTICIPANTS 341
........................................
APPENDIX 8: RESCUE REmEDiATioN SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA
. .......................................................
357
APPENDIX9: REPORTWITH PHASE5 RESULTSPRESENTED TO PARTICIPANTS 359
........................................
APPENDIX10. REPORTWITH RESULTSOFPHASE6 PROVIDEDTO PARTICIPANTS 433
. ..................................
APPENDIX11: EVALUATIONQUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS 466
.........................................................................
APPENDIX 12: METAEVALUATION INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 467
....................................................................
APPENDIX13: PUBLICATIONSPRODUCED AS A RESULTOFTHISRESEARCH 468
...........................................
Indices of Figures, Boxes and Tables

Index of Tables:
TABLE 1.1. THE BENEFITS AND COSTSOF BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT (HENDERSON 2004, P026) 3
.. ....
TABLE 1.2 CAUSAL DESIGN RESEARCH METHODS AND OBJECTIVES 13
.................................................... ..
TABLE 2.1 INDICATIVE LIST OF CRITERIA FOR THE ASSESSMENTAND SELECTION OF IDEAL INDICATORS 29
TABLE 2.2 BARRIERSTOPARTICIPATION
AND RECOMMENDATIONS (COLLIER,2002) 68
.............................
TA13LE2.3: ELEMENTSORCRITERIAOF"GOOD" PARTICIPATION
ORRISKCOMMUNICATION 73
...................
TABLE3.1. SUEMoT REVIEWED
TOOLS 86
.................................................................................................
TABLE 3.2 CLASSIFICATION OF EXISTING SUSTAINABILITY TOOLS ACCORDING TO THEIR SCALE, LIFE
CYCLEPERIODAND ISSUECOVERAGE(IE ENVIRONMENTAIJSOCIALJECONOMIC) 88
..........................
TABLE 3.3 CHARACTERISTICS
OFREVIEWEDTOOLS................................................................................ 89
TABLE 3.4. TOOL PERFORMANCEAGAINST RAF THEORETICAL SPECIFICATION 96
. .....................................
TABLE 4.1. STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWED AND QUESTIONS ASKED 98
........................................................
TABLE 4.2: REPRESENTATIVENESS
OFSURVEYRESPONSES
OBTAINED 102
. .................................................
TABLE 4.3 METHODS DEVELOPERSUSE FOR SUSTAINABILITY LONG-TERM MONITORING 112
......................
TABLE 4.4. STAKEHOLDERS PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF DEVELOPMENT SUSTAINABILITY MONITORING 126
...
TABLE 4.5. STAKEHOLDERS PERCEIVED BENEFITS OF DEVELOPMENT SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS..126
TABLE 4.6. PERCEIVED BARRIERS TO THE ADOPTION OF DEVELOPMENT SUSTArNABILITY MONITORING
AND ASSESSMENTS : 134
TABLE 4.7. PERCEIVED
.......... ............................................................................................................
PROCEDURAL LIMITATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT SUSTAINABILITY MONITORING AND
ASSESSMENTS 134
..............................................................................................................................
TABLE 4.8. PERCEIVED LIMITATIONS OF EXISTING SUSTAINABILITY MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
TOOLS.......................................................................................................................................... 135
TABLE 4.9: RECOMMENDATIONS OFMEASURES FOR THE WIDER ADOPTION OF THE RAF 144
......................
TABLE 4.10. PROCEDURAL RECOMMENDATIONS FORTHERAF ............................................................ 145
TABLE 4.11: RECOMMENDATIONS ONTHENATUREOFTHERAF .......................................................... 146
TABLE 4.12. RECOMMENDATIONS WITH REGARD TO THE COMMUNICATIONAL AND PARTICIPATION
CHARACTERISTICS THERAF SHOULD HAVE 146
................................................................................. 158
TABLE 5.1. INITIAL CASESTUDYSITESCHARACTERISTICS ....................................................................
TABLE 5.2. CASE STUDY RESEARCH METHODS USED 159
.............................................................................
TABLE 5.3 INFORMATIONCRITERIAFORTHEDESCRIPTION OFTHEDEVELOPMENT 173
...............................
TABLE 5.4 INFORMATION CRITERIA FOR THE DESCRIPTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENT. * ... 174
TABLE 5.5. GUIDELINES TO IDENTIFY BRP MONITORING REQUIREMENTSAND EXISTING USABLE
INDICATORS AND BASELINES 181
.......................................................................................................
TABLE 5.6 SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES TO BE USED IN SESSION2. (ADAPTED FROM DAIR AND
WILLIAMS,2004) 187
.........................................................................................................................
200
TABLE5.7. USEOFRAF RESULTS
.........................................................................................................
TABLE 5.8. TIME REQUIREDTO CARRYOUTTHERAF, ACCORDING TO STAKEHOLDERS 213
........................
TABLE 6.1. DATA COLLECTIONMETHODSUSEDFORMETAEVALUATION 219
..............................................
TABLE 6.2 OUTCOMEAND PROCESS PARTICIPATORY EVALUATIONCRITERIA. ...................................... 250
TABLE 7.1. EXAMPLE OF MCA TABLE FOR SUSTAINABILITY OPTIONS APPRAISAL OF SITE SPECIFIC
STRATEGIES 283
..................................................................... t ..........................................................

index of Boxes:
BOX 1.1. EXAMPLESOFINDICATORDEFINITIONS 8
......................................................................................
Box 2.1. OBJECTIVESOFSUSTAINABLEBROWNFIELDDEVELOPMENTS ADAPTEDFROMDAIR AND
WILLIAMS (2004) 22
..........................................................................................................................
Box 2.2. BELLAGIOPRINCIPLES 23
..............................................................................................................
Box. 2.3. RANGEOFPROPOSED SOURCES OFRELEVANTINDICATORSTO ASSESS COMMUNITYSTRATEGY
PROGRESS 41
. ..................................................................................................................................... 53
Box 2.4 INDICATIVELEGISLATIONRELEVANTTo BRP ...........................................................................
Box 2.5 DIFFERENTSTAKEHOLDERS, WHOMAY POTENTIALLYBE RELEVANTTO INCLUDEIN THE
CONSULTATION PROCESS 72
...............................................................................................................
78
Box 2.6.INFLUENTIAL PARTICIPATION LEGISLATION ..............................................................................
Box 2.7 THE REDEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORKS: THEORETICAL SPECIFICATIONS 82
...............
Box 4.1. REFINED RAFSPECIFICATION AND METAEVALUATION CRITERIA 152
...........................................
.............................. 190
PRIORITY SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES
Box5.1.GM CASE STUDY DEVELOPMENT
Box 5.2 TASK AND QUESTIONS TO BE TACKLED BY STAKEHOLDERS IN SESSION I OF PHASE 6 196
.............

vi
Box 5.3. TASK AND QUESTIONS TO BE TACKLED BY STAKEHOLDERS IN SESSION 2 OF PHASE 6 197
SESSION PHASE ............
Box 5.4 QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER IN 3 OF 6 198
................................................................
Box 5.5 GM CASE STUDY RESULTS FOR SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES2 AND 3 .................................... 204
Box 205
5.6. GM RESULTS FOR SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVE 5 ....................................................................
Box 5.7 GM CASE STUDY RESULTS USING RESCUECRITERIA FOR OBJECTIVE 8 ................................. 207
Box 5.8 GM CASE STUDY LONG-TERM INDICATORS DEVELOPED FOR OBJECTIVES I To 7 (SEE APPENDIX
10 FORDETAILS) 210
..........................................................................................................................
Box 5.9 GM CASESTUDYMONITORINGSTRATEGYFOROBJECTIVE 8 211
...................................................
Box 6.1 COMMENTSSUPPORTING THERAFs CONTEXTSPECIFIC APPROACH 232
........................................
Box 6.2. PARTICIPANTSEVALUATIONOFTHERAF CAPACITYFORINCREASING UNDERSTANDING 255
.......
Box 6.3. PROPOSED THRESHOLDS FORCARRYINGOUTTHERAF .......................................................... 258
Box 6.4. RECOMMENDATIONS FORTHERAFs INCLUSIONWITHINPOLICYAND GUIDANCE.................. 260

Index of Figures:
FIGURE1.1: THE LAND USE BROWNFIELDREDEVELOPMENT PROJECTLIFE CYCLE 6
.................................
FIGURE1.2. THE RESEARCHPROCESS 12
..................................................................................................... 14
FIGURE1.3. DETAILED RESEARCH DESIGN
..............................................................................................
FIGURE2.1 NEW UK PRINCIPLESOFSUSTAINABLEDEVELOPMENT (HM GOVERNMENT,2005, PG3) 20
....
FIGURE2.2 THE SIMPLIFIEDPLANNINGPROCESS (CULLINGWORTHAND NADIN, 2002) ......................... 43
FIGURE2.3. LEVELSOFPARTICIPATION, TECHNIQUES AND FACTORS INFLUENCINGTHE SELECTION OF
TECHNIQUES (ADAPTEDFROMIEMA, 2002) 65
.................................................................................
FIGURE4.1. SIMPLIFIEDFLOWCHARTOFSTAKEHOLDERS PERCEIVED EXTENTAND WAYSOFINFLUENCE
OF BRP :
SUSTAINABILITY................................................ ........................................................... 109
. SUSTAINABILITY MONITORING I 10
FIGURE 4.2 PERCENTAGE OF DEVELOPERSCARRYING OUT LONG-TERM
FIGURE 4.3. DIFFERENCE IN PERCENTAGEBETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND HOUSEBUILDER DEVELOPERS
MONITORING 112
CARRYING OUT LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY ........................................................
FIGURE 4.4. THE DIFFERENCE IN HOUSE BUILDER AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPERS PROPORTIONOF NEW
A BREEAM STANDARD 120
DEVELOPMENTS AIMED TO ACHIEVE AT LEAST ......................................
FIGURE 5.1. THE REDEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PROCESS.................................................................. 156
FIGURE 5.4. PARTICIPANTS IN GROUPSIDENTIFYING VISIONS FOR THE SITE, CONCERNSAND BENEFITS 186
FIGURE 5.5. INDIVIDUAL'S VISIONS PUT INTO THEMIESBY GROUPS........................................................ 187
FIGURE 5.6 PRIORITISATION OF SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVES............................................................... 188
FIGURE 5.7 PARTICIPATION TECHNIQUE PROPOSEDFOR SESSIONS I AND 2 OF PHASE 6 ........................ 197
FIGURE 5.8 LINKS BETWEEN THE SEA, EIA AND RAF PROCESS........................................................... 201
FIGURE 5.9. GM CASE STUDY RESULTS OBTAINED FOR THE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT OF OBJECTIVE
AND BENCHMARKS)....................... 203
1. (SEEAPPENDIX10 FORCOMPLETECRITERIADESCRIPTION
FIGURE5.10. GM CASESTUDYRESULTSFORSUSTAINABILITYOBJECTIVE 4 205
.........................................
FIGURE5.11. GM CASESTUDYRESULTSFORSUSTAINABILITYOBJECTIVE6 206
.........................................
FIGURE5.12. GM CASESTUDYRESULTSFORSUSTAINABILITYOBJECTIVE7 ......................................... 206

vii
Abbreviations
AMR Annual Monitoring Report
BRE Building ResearchEstablishement
BREEAM Building ResearchEstablishmentEnvironmentalAssessmentMethod
BRP Brownfield RedevelopmentProject
CRISP Constructionand City relatedSustainabilityIndicatorsProject
DC DevelopmentControl
DEFRA Departmentfor the EnvironmentFood and Rural Affairs
DETR Departmentof the EnvironmentTransportand the Regions
DTLR Departmentfor Transport,Local Governmentand the Regions
EA Environment Agency
EIA EnvironmentalImpact Assessment
EIS EnvironmentalImpact Statement
LA Local Authority
LA21 Local Agenda21
LDF Local DevelopmentFramework
LP Local Plan
LPA Local PlanningAuthority
NGO Non GovernmentalOrganisation
ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
PPG Planning Policy Guidancenote
RAF RedevelopmentAssessmentFramework
RESCUE Regenerationof EuropeanSitesin Cities and Urban Environments
RPG Regional PlanningGuidance
RSS Regional Spatial Strategy
S106 Section 106Agreement
SA SustainabilityAssessment
SCI Statementof Community Involvement
SEA StrategicEnvironmentalAssessment
SEEDA South East of EnglandDevelopment,Agency
SPSS Statistical Packagefor Social Science
SUBRJM SustainableUrban Brownfield Regeneration:IntegratedManagement
SUE MoT SustainableUrban EnvironmentsMetrics Models and Tools
UDP Unitary DevelopmentPlan
UK United Kingdom
WCED World Commissionon Environmentand Development

viii
Disclaimer

The views expressedin this thesisare thoseof the author,andmay not reflect those
associatedwith this project.

Ix
For my parents, Inga and Manoli

IeAKH
la ßyvý oTov anyazpÖpa Mv I0dM,
va £6xcuazvdvaiualcp6; 0 &pýPOQ
YCUd70;YVO5UEl;
yt,UäT0ý7CCPZ7rbrtlt(;, - full of adventure,full of knowledge.
Tový Aazo-rpvyöva; Kai ron; K6KAco7raý,
wv Ovuo)pbvo17ouctöcbvaul goßduat,
,rgroza oTov öpöuo uov rorb crov Jev Oa ßpci'Q
av pkv'j7 uriV/iý uov vV/12e, av eKý£xT1
"yKivlo, z; w rnýpa Kai w uo5juaorovayy!Ctz.
Tový AazoTpvy6vaýKai wvý K6r-le)7raý,
wv tiypto HoaeiMva 3.-v Oa uvvavrýosiý;,
av 3ev rov; Kovßavet;, uev m71vVvX4 orov,
av il VvX1 uov Jev -rov; oT4vei cp7rpöýcrov.
Na dXcuai vdvai paKpbq o bp6poq.
17o,Ud ra KaAOKazpiv6;rpcoT6va civai
rov pe ri evXapioTlai, peri Xo;pd
Oa p7raivsiq cc Aiptvaq rpcorociJcpptvovq-
va oTauar4acic or'cp7ropela 0owwwd,
Kai req Ka)iq 7rpaypdrctEq Vaxon4aciq,
ormbpta Kai Kop&Uia, notp7rcipia K'tflCVOVq,
Kai 116OVIKLi PVPCDJIK6 KdOC A0749,
jao p7ropcig mo 6ýpOova 13oviKec pvpwJiKd-
ac 7r6Aziq A iyvn-t7aKtq ; roUtq va ; raq,
va P60CIq Kai va ptiO. -ig a7r'Tovq o7rov3aap&ovq.
Htivra oTov voo oov v6Xcrq T71vI06jal.
To (pOdatpov exci dvo rpoopiau6c aov.
A, Ud pq flid(vq roraýi`& Ji6lov.
KaW-rEpa Xp6via ;roUd va 6iapK! cv-
Kai yipoq; ria Vap6ýcic oTo vilai,
7rAo6o7oq,ue 4aa Kip3meg arov c5p6,uo,
pq rpoaJoK&raq rAo6rq va oreJokci I 106icl.
H106icl aWwac ro copaloraVA
Xwpiq avriv 6ev06flyamegoTovJp6lo.
A.Uo Jcv tXv va ac Man ria.
Ki av anopK4 Tjv flpvq, il IOdKj Jcv ac yRauc.
E-rui aoýo6q;rov tymeq, pe T6o-j 7rdpa,
ýJq Oaro icar&Wcc I I06xcqri o7lpaivovv.
Kaflapp; K.
I THA CA, CA Cavafy
RaeDalvan (translator)
Whenyou set out on yourjourney to Ithaca,
pray that the road is long,
TheLestrygoniansand the Cyclops,
the angry Poseidon- do notfear them:
Youwill neverfind such as theseon yourpath,
ifyour thoughtsremain lofty, if aftne
emotion touchesyour spirit andyour body.
TheLestrygoniansand the Cyclops,
thefierce Poseidonyou will never encounter,
ifyou do not cariy themwithin your soul,
i(your soul doesnot set themup beforeyou.
Pray that the road is long.
That the summermornings are many,when,
with suchpleasure,with suchicy
you will enterports seenfor thefirst time;
stop at Phoenicianmarkets,
andpurchasefine merchandise,
mother-of-pearland coral, amber and ebony,
kinds,
and sensualperfumes ofall
as manysensualperfumesasyou can;
visit manyEgyptian cities,
to learn and learnfrom scholars.
Always keepIthaca in your mind.
To arrive there is your ultimate goal.
But do not hurry the voyageat all.
It is better to let it lastfor manyyears;
and to anchor at the island whenyou are old,
rich with all you havegained on the way,
not expecting that Ithaca will offeryou riches.
Ithaca hasgivenyou the beautiful voyage.
Withoýt heryou would have neverset out on
the road.
Shehas nothing more to giveyou.
And ifyoufind her poor, Ithaca has not
deceivedyou.
Wiseasyou have become,with so much
exDerience.
xi
 Chapter 1. Research Rationale, Aims and Objectives

1.1. Rationale

Brownfield redevelopment is part of the UK Government's strategic planning

approachto achieving sustainabledevelopment'; it is at the heart of its urban policy

(Adams and Watkins, 2002) and is reflected in a number of strategic guidanceand
policy documents (ODPM, 2005; ODPM, 2004; DETR, 2000). Although not
universally accepted,an increasinglyuseddefinition of brownfield.land is:
"any land orpremises which haspreviously'beenusedor developedand is not

currentlyfully in use,although it may bepartially occupiedor utilised. It may

also be vacant, derelict or contaminated.Thereforea brownflieldsite is not
necessarily available for immediate use without intervention" (Alker, et al,
2000 pg 49).

In 2005, the Governmentidentified urban regenerationand brownfield redevelopment

its in development
as one of main objectives achievingsustainable and proposed:
"Promoting the more efficient use of land through higher density, mixed use
development and the use of suitable previously developed land and
buildingS2. Planning should seek actively to get vacant and underused

previously developedland and buildings back into beneficial use to achieve

the targets the governmenthas setfor developmenton previously developed
land." (ODPM, 2005, para.27)
The targets refer to one of the Government's headline indicators of sustainable
developmentwhich stipulates that "60% of new housing developmentshould be on

previously developed land" (DETR, 1999). This has recently been expanded to
include a secondcomponent
(b) all new developmenton previously developed(to capture roads and other
infrastructure which accompany housing and other development)(ODPM,
2005a,pg 3).

1Sustainabledevelopmentis defined and analysedin detail in Chapter2.

Emphasisadded.

I
There are a number of projected reasonsfor this increasedemphasison brownfield

redevelopment:
1. Brownfield redevelopmentis believed to offer the opportunity to revitalise

communitieswhile simultaneouslypermitting the use of existing infrastructure

and the easier integration of the project into the wider urban
context.(DETF, 1998)
2. Brownfield redevelopmentoffers the opportunity to create a more spatially
integrated,mixed urban environmentcomposedof resourceefficient and high

quality buildings (ibid).

3. Brownfield redevelopmentis also promotedon the assumptionof its ability to

reducepressuresto developGreenfield sites(Grimski et al, 1998).

Therefore, the UK Government has assumedbrownfield redevelopment to be
inherently sustainable,to the point that it hasbeentranslatedinto a headlineindicator

of sustainability (DETR, 1999).Headline indicators are seenas important vehicles in

the definition as well as implementation of the Government's strategy as they are

more tangible and specific and thereforecan be (and hasbeen) translatedinto policies
and actions.

However, the sustainability of any redevelopmentshould not be taken for granted,as

there are a number of Brownfield RedevelopmentProjects(BRP) which have proven
to be unsustainablein the long-term (Cozens et al, 1999; Ball, 1999; Couch and
Dennemann, 2000). Henderson (2004), in a literature review of past brownfield

regenerationprojects concludedthat although BRPs can have benefits they can also
have a number of adverseeffects (Table 1.1). This indicatesthe needto considerand

evaluatethe long-term impactsof any BRP.

Moreover, in a study by Lesage(2005) using consequentiallife cycle assessmentto

evaluate the different environmental consequericesof brownfield management

options, there were no conclusive answers, demonstrating the indisputable

sustainability of BRP. In particular, Lesageshowedthat the location of the brownfield

site played a key in

role a project's relative sustainability to a similar development on

a Greenfield site, when considering transportationimpacts (Lesage, 2005). Therefore,

there is a need to consider individual BRP characteristics,rather than labelling them

as inherently sustainable.

2
Table 1.1.The benefits and costsof Brownfield redevelopment(Henderson2004,
nLY26)
Reported
benefits Reported
costs
" Physical transformation of (derelict) nEncourages piecemeal ratherthan integrative city wide planning.
site Accordingly investment inotherareaofthecitydeclines.
" Re-use ofhistorical buildings eFocusis on meeting theneedsof national/international capitalrather
" Place(region) marketing tool thanaddressing socialeq64andpolarisation.
" Diversificationofeconomic base vOne-dimensional response themultifaceted problems facinginnercity
" Generation of employment areas,results inpublicfundsbeingcutinotherareas.
" New places for city residents/aFocusis on siteswithinor proximate to thecitycentreor waterfront
tourists
to visit areas,ratherthaninareasofconcentrated deprivation
" Enhanced civicpride nVulnerable to property market cycles,including speculative oversupply,
" Increasing attractivenessof thearea financial delays andbeingoverwhelmed bylatesttrends.
" Risingproperty values vCompetitive advantage limited byreplication
" Increased business confidence wPrivate sectorin a powerful position, suchthatit forcesgovernment to
" Redeveloped area spreads heavilysubsidise suchdevelopments andthusredirect resources from
outwards socialservices.
sTrickleown benefitsfor nearby -Unevendistribution of benefits- e.g. blackandminority ethnicgroups
neighbourhoods mayfacebarriers toInclusion
" Improvements In waterecologyand aVolume of localemployment generated maybe limitedbecause firms
aquaticlife andexisting employees haverelocated.
" Improved transport infrastructure wJobsgenerated oftencharacterised by lowpay,parttimework,high
nNew economicnode distributes turnoverrates.
traffic pressure and relieves mProximity to thesitedoesnotguarantee jobsfor localpeople, as new
congestion elsewhere employees may commute from further a field
w Potential skillsmismatch between local peopleandoffice-style jobsthat
arefrequently generated *
n Local people are priced out of the housing marketor forcedto relocate
because of risinglocal property taxes (displacement)
wLocalpeopleor businesses are forcedto relocatebecauselandis
required forredevelopment
nDevelopment maybeoriented towards theriverandthusdisconnected
fromsurrounding areas.
nPotential for externalities, including visualannoyance andincreased
trafficcongestion.
--

In fact, Dair and Williams (2004) argue that just because development is on a
brownfield site this does not necessarilymake it sustainable,despite government

assumptionsthat this is the case. Adams and Watkins (2002) and Ball (1999)
identifiedthe poor quality of new housingbeing developedon brownfieldsitesas
beingan issueof concern.In particularBall (1999)concludedthat the environmental
efficiency of buildings on BRP in many caseswas inferior to much Greenfield
development. TherehavealsobeenmanyBRP wherethe very remediationprocess
has causedsignificant envirommentaleffects which arguably were larger than the risk
from retaining the contaminantsin situ. Lesage (2005) concluded that the
environmentalimpactsof a BRP differedaccordingto the remediationmethodsused
aswell asthefutureuseof the site.

3
Thus, the UK Government's unequivocalbranding of brownfield redevelopmentas
is
sustainable problematic. Deaking and Edwards (1993) and Imrie and Thomas
(1993) highlight that there are too few critical checkswhen carrying out regeneration
to
projects ensure that they Therefore,
are sustainable. in the light of government
policy push for brownfield redevelopment,and the estimatedgrowth of households
from 20.2 million in 1996to 24 million by 2021 (ODPM, 1999),a minimum of 60%
of which has to be on brownfield sites,it is very timely to developa framework which
would enable the long-term sustainability evaluation of brownfield projects and
potentially provide a soundevidencebasefor future policy guidance.

Susskindet al (2001) commenton the generallack of evaluationof policy or project

3,
success and attribute this to the idea that nobody likes to look at past failures.

However, this phenomenonhas significant consequencesin that there is a lack of

transfer of knowledge, or learning from past mistakes.Cozens et al (1999) talk of

mistakes of the 1960s in terms of urban development projects being repeated.

Tinworth (2004) expressesconcernover (a) the lack of knowledge and understanding

of sustainability of the people leading the UKs regenerationefforts and (b) the lack of

attemptsto evaluateand learn from pastprojects.

For sustainable development to be more than just a popular description for any
desirablegoal, it must be defined with someprecision. If the concept is to becomea
it
reality, should be possible to test whether a development (in this case a BRP) is

sustainable(George, 1999). Sustainabilityhas different underlying principles (Chapter

2) which need to be addressedwhen designing sustainability evaluation frameworks.
Thus in order to develop such a framework for BRP, there is a need to examine in
detail, the elements and principles of sustainability and to ensure that they are
in
addressed the evaluation (Bell and Morse, 1999;seeChapter2).

Patton (1997; 1982) elaborateson the slightly different issue of the general lack of use
findings and attributesthis to
phenomenon a number of main factors:
of evaluation
-The lack of detailed consideration and specification of the evaluation'sutility.

3Withoutspecificreferenceto sustainability.

4
-The lack of realism and considerationof existing processesin which the evaluation
is being introduced.
wThelack of involvementof evaluationusers,resulting in lack of ownershipanduse.

In order to designan applicableevaluationwhich can provide a solid basis for

decision making there is therefore also a need to define the processesand
particularitiesof BRPs(Chapter2). For example,BRPsareperceivedto be high risk
development projectsdueto increased stemn-dng
uncertainties mainlyfrom the lack of
site, backgroundand historic information(Attoh-Okineand Gibbons,2001; Wylie
and Sheehy, 1999) as well as potential contamination.According to research
presentedin POST(1998), a significantproportionof developers arereluctantto take
on risks andeffectively'red-line' brownfieldsitespreferringto developon greenfield
Thus
sites. the increasedperceptionof risk by BRP is
stakeholders seenasoneof the
mainparticularitiesof BRP be
andshould studied furtherandincorporatedwithin the
sustainabilityevaluationof suchprojects(seeChapter2).

Patton's (1997) previous point regarding the involvement of evaluation users in the
is
process also compatible with the sustainability principle of participation (Bossel,
1999). More specifically, sustainability evaluation literature emphasisesthe need to
define sustainability and its principles according to the specific context using a

participative approach (Bell and Morse, 1999 & 2003; Ukaga and Maser, 2004). This
indicates the need for this researchto define and conceptualisethe particularities and

processesin BRP as well as the stakeholdersinvolved in decisionmaking or affected

by such projects and involve them in the evaluation (see Chapter2). To enhancethe

opportunities for the use of the evaluation results, BRP stakeholdershave to be

identified and asked to define the precise purpose that the BRP sustainability

evaluation framework should serve(Chapters2 and 4).

Briefly, a BRP canbe conceptualised as havinga land use life cycle with
-perpetual
threedistinct periods(Figure 1.1). Eachperiodhas differentfunctionsand impacts
and therefore requires the application of different criteria for the appropriate
evaluationof its All
sustainability. threeperiods involve different decisionmaking
processeswhich can affect the BRP who are
sustainabilityas well as stakeholders
involved in decision making. Both decision makers and processesneed to be

5
 consideredwhen developinga sustainabilityevaluationprocess(seeChapter2).

Figure 1.1: The Land Use Brownfield Redevelopment Project Life Cycle

Design and Planning

Period i
Remediation
and
ecision iDoint
Idle site Granting of
planning
permission

Decisionp int
IBuilding sign off

Operation Construction
riod Period

Briefly, the first period is Planning and Design,which involves the greatestvariety of
stakeholdersas well a number of planning processesthrough which sustainabilitycan
be implementedand provisions for monitoring enforced(seeSection 2.3). The second
is
period Remediation and Construction,where sustainability considerationssuch as
dust, noise and traffic generation need to be considered. This period involves
decisions on regulation compliance, with building. control having an important role.
The third includes Operation and Maintenanceaspects.The main BRP impacts shift
over the life cycle from predominantly land use impacts during the first period, to
predominantly pollution impacts such as water, air pollution during the Operation

4 Illustration designedby author and basedon adaptedliteratureby Dair and Williams (2004). See
Chapter2 for more detailed analysis.

6
 period. The evaluation and managementof impact in the operation period follows in
the lines of environmentalmanagementsystemsand could be arguedto involve fewer
regulatorsand controls than the Planningand Constructionperiodss.

Therefore it is necessaryto evaluate the long-term sustainability of BRP,

which
involves assessingsustainabilityat eachperiod of the land use BRP life cycle. At
each
period this would require identifying:
(a) the different decisionmaking processesinfluencing sustainability
(b) the stakeholdersmaking thosedecisions,and
(c) the stakeholdersaffectedby the project,

The field of evaluation., and more specifically sustainability evaluation, is well

advancedand requires reviewing to ensurethat 'the wheel is not being reinvented'.
By reviewing the sustainability evaluation literature (Chapter 2), the gaps and
overlaps can be identified and best practice extractedto inform the developmentof
the sustainability framework (see Chapter5). In researchcarried out by SUE-MOT
(2004), more than 600 sustainability indicator tools were identified. Indicators have
long been identified as desirable 'measuringrods' to assessand monitor progress
towards sustainable development (Briassoulis, 2001) and different definitions for
indicators reflect their intended purpose (Box -1.1). An array of sustainability
indicators 'tools', 'toolkits', and 'checklists' have been developed to measure
sustainabilityat different levels (Bell and Morse, 1999;Hardi and Zdan, 1997;Bossel,
1999;Woodall and Crowhurst, 2003; WS Atkins, 2001).

Despite this diversity, there is no indicator framework, which evaluates the

sustainability of specifically BRP, throughout their land use life cycle. Considering
the increasinggrowth in the number of BRPs and the evidenceof continued failure to
evaluatesustainability, and for decisionmakersto learn from past experience(Carley
and Christie, 1992; Henderson,2004), this researchaims to develop a Redevelopment
Framework.
Assessment

sThelanduselife cycleanddifferentstakeholders
anddecisionmakingprocesses in
aredescribed
detailin Section2.2.

7
 Box 1.1. Examples of Indicator definitions
"Indicators
areproxiesthatsuggestimpacts
onunderlyingfeatures Theproxies
of concern.
aremoreobservable butshouldalsoactasindirect
thanthoseof concern, indicesof change
in thosefeatures"
(Nugent, 1996in GuyandKilbert,1998,p.40)

"Anindicator
is a parameter,
or valuederivedfromparameters,
whichpointsto,provides
information
about,describes
thestateofa phonomenonlenvironmentlarea,
witha
significance
extending beyondthatdirectly
associated value"(OECD
withaparameter
terminology,
quotedin CRISP,2001,p.5)

"Sustainability
indicators are'bellweather
testsofsustainability
andreflectsomethingbasic
andfundamental to thelong-termeconomic, healthof a community
socialandenvironmental
overgenerations"(Sustainable
Seattle,
1993,p.4)

"Indicators
areclearlya toolforeducation thatwillinsuretheirsuccess"
andrequirea process
(GuyandKilbert,1998,p.40)

The use and nature of existing sustainabilityindicatorshas not beenwithout criticism

(Bell and Morse, 1999; Mitchell, 1996). For example, there are problems of

oversimplification of complex issuesthrough the use of indicators (Hemphill et al,

2002). There are concerns of introducing bias through the selection of indicators
(Bossel, 1999) and doubt over indicators' actual capacity to measure long-term

sustainability (Bell and Morse, 1999 and 2003). Bell and Morse (1999) proposethe
acceptance of subjectivity and the adoption of a participatory approach to the
developmentof indicators to ensurethe inclusion of key stakeholdersviews. This is in
line with more generalevaluationand sustainabilityliterature aforementioned(Patton,
2002; Ukaga 2001). Therefore, a review of best practice regarding participation in

particular with regardto sustainabilityevaluationisrequired (Chapter2).

Furthermore, despite the plethora of emerging sustainability indicator tools and

frameworks, there is little documentedevidence of their implementation, and even
less on their evaluation (Innes and Booher, 2000; Mitchell, 1996; Deakin et al, 2002;
Bell and Morse, 2003). This underlinesthe needto review existing sustainabilitytools

and the extent of their implementation, and to trial and evaluate the proposed
RedevelopmentAssessmentFramework (RAF). As the RAF is an evaluationprocess
in itself, what essentiallyis required is an evaluationof the evaluationframework (in
this case the RAF), defined by Scriven (1991) as 'metaevaluation'. Patton (1997)

8
describesand commentson the lack and importanceof metaevaluationsin general,

andstatesthat they to
assist plan, improve,
conduct, interpretandreporton evaluation
(2001,p.184)warns(notreferrmgto sustainabilityevaluationin
studies.Stufflebeam,
particular) that:
$evaluationsmight be flawed by inadequatefocus inappropriate criteria,
technical errors, excessivecosts, abuseof authority, shoddy implementation,
tardy reports, biasedfindings, ambiguousfindings, unjustified conclusions,
inadequateor wrong interpretation to users, unwarranted recommendations
and counterproductiveinterferencein programs being evaluated'.
Stuffelbeam(2001 and 2001a) reportson methodsof conductingmetaevaluationsand

recommendsthe determinationof the metaevaluationcriteria taking into accountthe

purposeof the evaluationand following deliberationwith evaluationusersover what
they should be. This approachis pursuedin this research.

Finally, many research projects in this field have been criticised for being too
theoretical and not representing the needs of the real world (Brown, 2003).
Specifically, with regard to sustainability indicatorsthere has been an identified lack

of utilization of results obtained through monitoring in decision making (Rootheroo,

et al 1997; Carley and Christie, 1992). Therefore, the approachto this researchis to
identify the potential evaluation users and their needs and to develop a
RedevelopmentAssessmentFramework (RAF) which is easy to use, cost effective

and not time consuming and which through its design can be utilised in existing
sustainability decision making processes.Basedon the abovediscussion,the aim and
objectivesof this researchare now describedin Section1.2.

9
1.2. Aim and Objectives

The aim of this researchis:

to develop the RedevelopmentAssessmentFramework (RAF) to be a usable
process for the long-term evaluation of Brownfield Redevelopment
Project
(BRP)sustainability.

To achievethe aboveaim the following objectivesneedto be met.

a. To conceptualise and operationalise the key parameters of a Sustainable
Brownfield RedevelopmentProject (BRP). ""at are the elements and
processes of a BRP and what makes a BRP different and particular to a
Greenfielddevelopmentproject? "
b. To review the existing rangeof sustainabilityindicator tools, identify overlaps,
interlinkagesand gaps,as well as investigatecurrent utilisation and limitations
to their implementationfor Brownfield RedevelopmentProjects.
C. To investigateexisting sustainabilityimplementationand monitoring process

and where relevant integratethem within the Assessment

Redevelopment
Framework,thus ensuringits applicability.
d. To establish the role of key stakeholdersin Brownfield Redevelopment
Projects, specifically with regard to sustainability decision making and

monitoring, and develop appropriateparticipation techniquesallow for their

input and utilisation of the RedevelopmentAssessmentFramework.

e. To developthe Redevelopment Framework.

Assessment
f To trial the RAF in real life casestudies.

g. To evaluate the RAF and its potential for future application (conduct a
metaevaluation).

10
1.3. Research Design
This section outlines the generalresearchdesign qf the thesis, in order to provide a
justification and understanding of how the RAF was developed, trialled and
What
evaluated. is not presentedin this Sectionis a detaileddescription of the various
researchmethods used. Instead, each Chapter includes a section to describe the
different researchmethodsaswell as an assessment
of their strengthsand weaknesses.

This project is an example of practical, applied research, strongly informed by

evaluationtheory. Not only is the RAF an evaluationprocessin itself, but the process
used to develop the RAF is also based on evaluation theory, including the final

metaevaluationof the RAF. The researchwas essentiallyundertaken in three distinct

stages (Figure 1.3) which are: the causaldesignof the RAF (Stage 1); the casestudy
trials of the RAF (Stage2) and the metaevaluationof the RAF (Stage3). Each stage
involved a number of sub-stagesor processes,the methodologies of which are
describedin the relevantchapters.

This research incorporates a range of methodological approaches.The literature

review and review of existing evaluationtools comprisethe descriptiveelementof the

project, providing an overview of the current situation regarding brownfield

redevelopmentand sustainabilityevaluation. Chapter 4 moves the project beyond this

initial description onto analysis as it investigates what is working and what is

problematic in brownfield evaluationand why this is the case.These descriptive and

analytical approaches make up stage 1 of the project and provide a robust basis to

ground the normative componentof this which

research, is the development of the
RAF. A key strength of the researchdesign adoptedis its methodological pluralist
Not
approach. only does it have descriptive,analytical and normative components,but

goes one step further; having developed the RAF, it then actually implements,

evaluatesand consequentlyreftes, the framework (Stage3, Chapter6).

II
Figure 1.2. The Research Process

The initial causal design (Yin, 1993) involved a literature review (Chapter 2) as well

as a review of existing sustainability tools (Chapter 3) used to (initially) design the

RAF. However, in order to enhance its potential use, this initial RAF was presentedto

a range of Brownfield redevelopment stakeholders (Chapter 4), who were asked their
opinion and to make recommendations to improve the practicality and usefulness of
the RAF. Following each interview (a total of 41) the RAF was modified to take into
account the comments of the individual interviewees. Thus the RAF was developed
interactively with its potential users. Standard interview questions were also asked

prior to discussing the RAF, the results of which are presented in Chapter 4. These

also helped in the RAF refinement and finalisation as well as in the development of
the final specifications which the RAF neededto meet and be evaluated against. This
thesis does not provide the trail of the changes made to the initial design, only the
final product (Chapter 5). However, it can be concluded that the initial causal design,

apart from undertaking the tasks specified in Table 1.2, essentially culminated with

12
the developmentof the RAF in addition to a set of specifications(or criteria) which
could be usedin the metaevaluationin Stage3 (Figure 1.3).

Table 1.2 CausalDesign ResearchMethodsand Objectives

RAFCausalDesign(Stage1)
Methods Outcomes Objective
so
Literature wGreater understanding andbackground oftheBrownfield Redevelopment a, b,c,
Reviewon: process, itsparticularities regarding
specifically Increased riskandits d.
Risk,Brownfield management andthevarious stakeholders involved aswellasbestpractice in
redevelopment participant involvement
Planningand aBackground of existing planning
sustainability andregulatory processes
Regulation relevant to BRPthrough whichtheRAFcouldbeapplied.
processes aBackground onexisting indicator
sustainability toolsandtheirlimitations aswell
Sustainability asapplicability to BRP.
Indicators, zInitialtheoretical RAFDesign andspecifications
Participation
BRP v Identification
of whoare thedifferentBRP stakeholders / dynamics andtheir d
c,
Stakeholders roleInsustainability decision making.
Seml- aTheimportance andcurrent ofmonitoring,
utilisation andtheirperceived
structured benefitsandbarriers tothewiderapplication monitoring,
of sustainability
Interviews aTheinterviews helpedidentifybarriersto existing tooluptake andtheir
limitations aswellasIdentifythefunctiontheRAFshouldserveas
perceived bythestakeholders. (RAFSpecifications)
RAFdesignrefinement through each interview (achievement of final
RAF
esign
Developer Understanding of theextentdevelopers arecurrently carryingoutsustainabilityb
Survey evaluations andexisting toolsutilised.

SeeSection 1.2.

13
 EM m
en
0 cm m
ci
LL

(D (1) c
u- 0 *J
W
W -m
m CDL CD (2- 0 m
a) =ZM
U) -4-- -0 r
.2X- (D = a) LL
m ' C'- D E .
> In
( -,-- -2
DZ m -r E <
0-
O > m (D
Co -0 -C3 > Co
2
c2.
m cm (D
mmE CL
LL Co
m

U)

Co

LL :
LL.

w CL
x
-2
c
k3
ch
0 (P
<5 -0 Co

0
ih- CI)
E
CL
(D
r= ip 4)
m
ZC) Co U) M
-
Li- (D
CD U) :2 Co 0 :cu .-
-0 4n c m
CL

1 cn
--- - ..

LM
r. m0 lý5
cn 0
L3) £Z
.to cýI
0 Li- CI) 0 0)
Lo 0 E `i--
(D M iý m
4) e- (D A.) (D
->
(1)
4ý -- (d La c
CL U-
NU.
10 cu (D C»
0 ý
(1 c» cu -'F- 0 -0c rn- tcn CY).)
-0 u
4-- (D ý
'=c: Mc 0 0)
(0 (0 A--
C) . 5< --
0 ß_ u) - -0
- --
C U) -0 LL
W
(D c> -e a) a) Co iý
EE E' Co - m
c2. --
0
.. 92 C:
2. »a 0-
=
2 0 j5
,1
L-3 :ý. m
tu ýt-- (D (0 .-0
(D (i m CM -Z5 (D M 42
> . 5; M b- .
(1) cz > > Z>
m a) c , «) (U -rn (D (L) 2 Z-
0c n- E of Z0 0E 0
'Eý
-ci, :av in
th -i -ýý Z2
1
iz -1
Stage2 of this researchtrialled the refined RAF in real life casestudiesof brownfield

redevelopmentprojects. Background to the case studies and a description of the

processis provided in Chapter5. In this, participant and non-participantobservation
methodswere used along with a documenttrail. This exerciseinvolved a 'descriptive
evaluation' which describeswhat happenedwhen qarrying out the RAF but doesnot
include questions of "why" or cause/effectanalyses(Patton, 1997). As part of the
descriptive evaluation the resourcesand time required to carry out the RAF were

recorded including the external conditions under which the case study trial was
carried out (Patton, 1982).The researchmethodsutilised to undertakethe descriptive
evaluationare analysedin Chapter5, and are aimedat achievingobjective (0.

Stage3 was designedto achieve objective (g) of th research;'to evaluatethe RAF

*e
and its potential for future application'. It requiredansweringquestionssuchas:
i) Are the main aims/ specifications of the RAF achieved through its
implementation?
How doesit work in practice?
What are the main benefits and shortcomings of employing such a
process?
iv) What are the main barriersto the RAF's successfulimplementation?
V) What is the RAF scopefor further implementation?

It therefore incorporated a number of different evaluationsdescribedanalytically in

Chapter 6. In general however, Stage 3 evaluation is formative and predominantly
internal in nature, asking casestudy participants,using semi-structuredinterviews to

evaluatethe processbasedon their experience,with the aim of establishinghow the

RAF can be improved and widely implemented.

Overall as a researchdesign, the approachfbllowý a relatively strong methodology:

the researchdevelopsthe RAF, and then goeson to apply it in real life casestudies
and then examines its feasibility through a structured metaevaluation process,
something not commonly done, although perceived as best practice (Patton, 1997;
Stufflebeam,2001).

15
1.4. Research Context
This PhD thesis is essentially the end product of research carried out for the
Sustainable Urban Brownfield Regeneration:Integrated Management (SUBR:IM)

researchconsortium.SUBRJM is a YI.8 million EPSRCfunded researchconsortium

which aims to find solutions to the problems of developing brownfield land and
essentiallyadvising the National Brownfield Strategy(English Partnerships,2003).
The consortium aims to develop technical solutions and tools for restoring
brownfleld land in urban areas, whilst at the same time increasing the
knowledge base of all stakeholders involved in such development. This
includes investors,developers,planning bodiesand local authorities, but also
the general public and engineerswho worý with such problems (SUBR:IM,
2006).

SUBR:IM consists of 10 academic partner institutions and a number of industry

partners, undertaking 17 distinct researchprojects (Appendix 1). This researchwas

carried out under Work PackageD, chargedwith developinga framework to evaluate
the sustainability of brownfield redevelopmentprojects. Carrying out this PhD
research whilst working for the SUBR:IM consortium has provided many
opportunitiesand influencesin the following ways:
-Accessto casestudy sites.
-Opportunities for peer review of work through conferences and (project and
consortium)steeringgroups.
-Collaborative data collection
-Collaboration with other researchconsortia.

SUBR:IM has a portfolio of 20 different casestudy brownfield sites in the Thames

Gateway and GreaterManchesterareawhich were used in part by all the 17 different

work packages.This could be perceived as restricting this research,in terms of site

choice, but in reality the areas on which the portfolio sites were located were
distinctly different (see Chapters4 and 5 for case study descriptions) and offered

sufficient choice to produce a representative selection. Additionally, being part of

such a large national researchproject was an important factor in obtaining the consent
of the various casestudy partnersto trial the RAF.

16
Part of the obligations of each work package was to report progress to the

consortium's steering group as well as to set up a project steering group. Although

time consuming,regular consultationand peer review of the research,particularly of
the RAF model, by various academicand industry expertsprovided valuable feedback
and helped in the reflinementof the RAF (this information has not been included as
part of the methodology or data collection). Also the researchproject was requiredto
present its work to the whole consortium at internal conferencesand researcher
gatherings taking place twice a year,which again provided useful feedback.

The involvement with the SUBR:IM researchconsortium above all provided the

opportunity for joint and extended data collection. For example, a collaborative
National DevelopersSurvey was carried out headedby the University of Reading,as
well asjoint interviews (seeChapter 4). The University of Cambridge(Work Package
E) assistedby providing a non-participantobserver(Chapter5).

One of the main advantagesof working with SUBRIM was the opportunity for the

close collaboration with other researchconsortia,in particular SUE-MoT (Sustainable

*
Urban Environments Metrics Models and Toolkits) and RESCUE (Regenerationof
EuropeanSites in Cities and Urban Environments).This helped to avoid duplication

of work as well as provided the opportunity to keep abreastwith the developmentsin

other collaborators' fields. In particular, collaborationwith SUE-MoT enabledaccess

to information on the different indicator tools which was then reviewed independently

here (seeChapter3).

Finally and most importantly, carrying out researchas part of SUBR:lM enabledthe
wider dissemination of the findings of this thesis, as well as increasing the potential
for their future utilisation and adoption - one of the author's personal aims. Close

collaboration with SEEDA (South East of England Development Agency) (on Work

PackageD steeringgroup) has offered the opportunity for the potential application of
the RAF throughout the SouthEast(seeChapter7).

17
 1.5. Guide to Chapters 2-7 in the Thesis
Chapter 2 reviews the relevant literature. Section 2.1 defines sustainability with

regardto the UK brownfield context and looks at the theory of its evaluation.Section
2.2 looks at the brownfield redevelopmentproject land use life cycle and identifies the
different impacts occurring throughout it. Section 2.3 examines the planning

processes and opportunities which they present to implement and review

sustainability. BR.P are classified as high risk deQopments so Section 2.4 looks at
and managementprocessesand the links to sustainability.Section2.5,
risk assessment
reviews participation theory and setsout the criteria of good participation as well as
identifies the stakeholdersinvolved in BRP.

Chapter 3 reviews 25 existing sustainability evaluation tools based on criteria

developedin Chapter2. Chapter4 presentsthe results of 41 interviews with various
BRP stakeholders,looking at the methodsthey currently employ to implement and
assessthe sustainability of BRP. The results include a summary of the perceived
benefits and barriers stakeholdersidentified in existing evaluation tools as well as

recommendationswhich are usedto shapethe RAF.

In Chapter5 the RAF is describedfollowed by examplesof its implementationin the

casestudy trials. Chapter6 presentsthe results of the RAF casestudy metaevaluations

based on case study participants' views. The thesis concludes (Chapter 7) with a
discussion of the value of this research and its limitations as well as general

recommendationsregarding actions for the future adoption of the RAF and areas
requiring further research.

18
Chapter 2. Brownfield redevelopMent- evaluating its
sustainability
This chapter reviews relevant literature in order to achieveobjectives (a) to (d) (see
Section 1.2). To develop a useful evaluation there needsto be a clear definition of

what is being evaluated(Patton,2002). Therefore,for this research,there needsto be

a definition of BRP sustainability and its implications regarding its evaluation
(Section 2.1) as well as of the BRP processes(Section2.2). The RAF will make use

of indicators, therefore literature on the characteristicsthat define an 'ideal' indicator

is reviewed (Section 2.2.1). As mentionedin Chapter 1, planning in the UK plays an
important role in the BRP process as well as in the general implementation and

evaluation of sustainability and consequentlyis reviewed in Section 2.3. Increased

uncertainty and subsequentperceivedrisk, was identified as one of the characteristics
of BRP in Chapter I and thus is explored fin-therin Section 2.4 to identify possible
implications for the evaluations(RAF) design. Ukaga and Maser (2004) emphasise
the importanceof participatory evaluation,andthus Section2.5 focuseson identifying
the range of BRP stakeholdersand/or users with the aim of involving them in the
developmentand use of the sustainability evaluation findings. Based on the above
the initial theoretical RAF design developed 7 list
review was as well as a of
theoreticalspecificationsor criteria which the RAF shouldachieve(Section2.6).

2.1. Sustainability evaluation

In orderto evaluatethe sustainabilityof BRP thereis a needto definesustainability
and identify its main components.
The term sustainabilitymeansdifferentthingsto
different people (Bell and Morse, 1999). One of the most frequently quoted
definitionsis from theBruntlandReportwhichstates:
is development
"Sustainabledevelopment that meetsthe needsof thepresent
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs." (WCED, 1987,pg 43).

However as this research focuses on the M of more relevance is the latest

sustainabledevelopmentgovernmentdefinition which is to 'enable all people
throughout the world to satisfy their basic needsand enjoy a better quality of life

7Whichis not described.

(SeeChapter5 for thefinal versionof theRAF)

19
without compromising the quality of life offuture generations' (HM Govemment,
2005, pgl) and is supportedby five principles (Figure 2.1) which are intendedto be
the basis of sustainability objectivesand all UK policies and are thus presentedas a
vehicle for implementing sustainability.Yet at the time this researchwas initiated the

available government definition was 'ensuring a better quality of life for everyone,
to
now andforfuture generations come'(DETR, 1999).This definition is very similar
to the new one but was supplementedby four principles, rather than the new
strategy's five principles (Figure 2.1). These four principles had to be met
simultaneously and take into account the long-term implications of decisions; they

were usedas a basisfor this researchand are:

-Socialprogress which recognisesthe needsof everyone,
ý
-Effectiveprotection of the environment,
ý
-Prudent useofnatural resources;
wMaintenanceof high and stable levels of economicgrowth and employment.
(DETR, 1999).

Figure 2.1 New UK Principles of Sustainable Development (HM Government, 2005,pg

3)

Living Wdhim Ensuring a Strong, Healthy

Environmental Urnits & Just society
Respecting " limits of Vie Meeting the divorce needs of
pLwAes onvironmont all people In widsting and
future coffwnunitles,
resources and blodivemity
to irmproye our mwirortrnwt promoting pewsonal won-
being, social ootv"lon vind
and ensure that the natural
Incluslon. and cmUng equal
resources needed for life are
unin%palmd and rernain so Im opportunity for al.
future generations.

Achieving & Using Sound Promoling GocwJ

Sustainable
Econorny
sustainable soonOMY
which provides
prosperity and
opportunities for all,
and In which
environmental and
social costs fall on
tho" who 101pose
own (Pollutm Pays).
and efficient resource
use Is Incentivised.
Science Go~nanca
Ftesponsibly AcIlvely promoting
Ensuring PolicY [a affectIve, particIpatimip
developed and Systems of
Implemented an Ow governance in all
basis of strong levells of Society -
scien0fle evidence, engaging poopWs
whls% taking Into creatift energy,
account scientific and dversity.
umertainty 11twough
the Precautio; wy
Primiplo) as well as
public aultudo4 and
values.

20
It needsto be emphasisedthat there is no agreeddefinition of sustainabilitybut rather

criticism over its vaguenessas a concept in general (Mebratu, 1998). Although,

sustainabledevelopment
and sustainability can be defined differently, becauseof the

generallack of consensuson a definition for either of the two conceptsand due to

their ambiguity they are more often than not usedas synonyms.Thereforethroughout
this thesisthe terms are usedinterchangeably.

Disapproval over the government's interpretation-and (lack of) implementation of

sustainability is widely published (Couch and Dennemann, 2000; George, 1999;
Stubbs,2004). Even the aforementionedUK principles of sustainabledevelopment,

although adopted as a basis for this research, can also be criticised for being

conflicting and ambiguous(Couch and 2000).

Dennemann,

When analysing the governmentdefinition (DETi, 1999) it is apparentthat it is in

accordancewith the Brundtland definition (WCED, 1987) which implies a very
important shift from an idea of sustainability as a primarily ecological conceptto a
framework that also emphasisesthe economic and social context of development.
Therefore, in considering the elements of a sustainablebrownfield redevelopment

project it becomes apparent that environmental,.social and economic objectives

should be defined, achieved and evaluated.MacLaren (1996) and Hardi and Zdan

(1997) emphasisethe needto adopt a holistic approachwhen assessingsustainability

by giving equal considerationto all three issues.This indicates that when reviewing

existing sustainability evaluation tools (Chapter 3) as well as when developing a BRP

evaluation framework, one of the criteria should be to ensure that a holistic approach
is adopted.

Although,the aboveis importantin definingthe scopeandbreadthof issueswhich

need to be considered,it is of little help in actually defining BRP.
a sustainable
Therefore,asa generalbasis,sustainabilityobjectivesdevelopedspecificallyfor BRP
in researchcarriedout by Dair andWilliams(2004)wereprovisionallyadopted(Box
2.1).Theseobjectivesarebasedon theUK Government principles(DETR, 1999),yet
have been refined to reflect issuesof BRP and thereforewere consideredmore
relevantto this researchanda goodstartingpoint.

21
Box 2.1. Objectivesof SustainableBrownfield developmentsadaptedfrom Dair and
Williams (2004)

Objective1: SocialProgresswhichrecognises
theneedsof everyone.

Improvedaccess to services
Socialexclusion
Reductionof poverty
Improvement of housing
Reductionof unemployment
Increased
safety
HealthImprovement

Objective2: Effectiveprotectionof theenvironment.

Improve airquality
Minimising useof chemicalsandriskfrom
contamination
Wildlifeprotection
Protection ofthelandscape
Protection of heritage/ buildings
historic

Objective3: Prudentuseof naturalresources

Efficient resources
useof non-renewable
e.g. oillgas,minerals
Increased resources
useof renewable

of highandstablelevelsof economicgrowth.
Objective4: Maintenance

Greaterjobopportunities
Increase workforce
of skilledandeducated
Higherlivingstandards
Business investment andsupporting
infrastructure.

One of the key documentson sustainabilityand its evaluationare the Bellagio

Principles(Box 2.2) (HardiandZdan,1997).TheBellagioPrinciplessetout the ideal
requirementsfor assessing progresstowardssustainabledevelopment(ibid) and in
doing so also indirectly definesustainability(Bell andMorse,2003).Therefore,for
the purposeof denotingthe specifications
of an evaluationof BRP sustainability,the
BellagioPrinciplescanbe considered
as Key. ThesePrinciples
serveas guidelinesfor
the whole of the assessment
process,includingthe choiceand designof indicators,

22
their interpretation and communication of the results (International Institute for
SustainableDevelopmentIISD; 2006). The first Principle calls for a vision, which

provides orientation and is in

expressed practical terms by clear goals. Principles 2-5

addressthe content of the assessmentprocedure, and arguably defme sustainability.

Principles6-8 concernthe actualanalysisand Principles9 and 10 underscorethe
importanceof sufficientand continuousreportingcapacity(Hardi andZdan; 1997).
Gessneret al (2001,p. 69), statethat the principlesare 'userftiendly, robustand
widely known and acceptedas a concreteexpression of Agenda 21'. However,they
havealsobeencriticisedfor beingvague(Becker,2004),andBossel(1999)pointsout
that it is practicallyimpossible
to fulfil all the Bellagio This
principles. impliesthat

any evaluationwill require trade-offs with regard to which Bellagio principlesare

A
met. rangeof sustainability frameworks have subsequentlybeen developed which
haveusedtheBellagioprinciplesasa basisbut havebeenmodifiedto suitthespecific
For
applicationor context. examples,see Water SupplyandSanitationCollaborative
Council(2005),Hardi andZdan(1997),Gessneret al (2001),Hasset al (2003)and
is to
Becker(2004).In the sameway there a need critically consider thesebroad

themesemerging from theseprinciplesand translatetheminto implicationsregarding

the evaluationof brownfieldredevelopment
sustainability.

'D-- 1) 1) D. 4-ýi"Iaog

1. GUIDING VISION andGOALS

Assessment
of progress development
towardsustainable should:
0 Be by
guided a clear Vision SD
of and goals thatdefinethat vision.
2. HOLISTIC PERSPECTIVE
Assessment
of progress development
towardsustainable should:
Include a reviewof thewhole system aswell asitspads;
Consider the well-being
of social,ecologicaland economic subsystems their state;as well as the
directionandrateofchange the
of state of thecomponent pads; andthe interaction between parts;
Consider boththepositiveandnegative consequences of human in
activity a way that the
reflects costs
and benefits for human andecologicalsystems, bothin monetary andnon-monetary terms.
3. ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS
Assessment
of progress development
towardsustainable should:
Consider equityand disparity
withinthecurrent populationand between present and futuregenerations,
dealing withsuchconcerns asresource use, over consumption and poverty,human rightsandaccess to
services asappropriate;
Consider theecological onwhichlifedepends;
conditions
Consider economic development and other non-market that
activities contribute to human andsocial
well-being.
4. ADEQUATESCOPE
Assessment
of progress towardsustainabledevelopment should:

8 Source:Hardi and Zdan (1997)

23
 " Adopta timehorizonlongenough to capture bothhumanecosystem timescales,thusresponding to
currentshodtermdecision making needsaswellasthoseoffuturegenerations.
" Definea spaceofstudylargeenough to include notonlylocalbutalsolongdistance Impacts onpeople
andecosystems;
" Buildonhistoric andcurrentconditions to anticipate futureconditions; wherewewantto go,wherewe
couldgo.
5. PRACTICAL FOCUS
Assessment ofprogress towardsustainable development should bebasedon:
" An explicitsetof categories or an organising framework thatlinksvisionandgoalsto indicators and
assessment criteria;
" A limitednumber ofkeyissuesforanalysis;
" A limitednumber of indicators orindicator combinations to provide a clearer signalofprogress
" Standardising measurement whenever possible topermitcomparison
" Comparing indicator values to targets reference values ranges thresholds or directionof trends as
appropriate.
6. OPENNESS
Assessment of progress towardsustainable development should:
" Make the methods and data that are used accessible to all;
" Make explicitalljudgments assumptions and uncertainties In data and Interpretations.
7. EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION
Assessment of progress towards sustainable development should:
" Bedesigned to address theneedsoftheaudience andsetof users;
" Draw from indicators andother tools that are stimulating and serve to engage decisionmakers;
" Aim from the for in
outset simplicity structure and use of clear and plain language.
8. BROAD PARTICIPATION
Assessmentofprogress towards sustainable development should:
" Obtain broad representation key
of grassroots, professional technical and social groups includingyouth
womenandindigenous people to ensure recognition ofdiverse andchanging values.
" Ensure participation of decision makers to secure a firm link to adopted policies and resulting action
9. ONG5"ING ASSESSMENT
Assessmentofprogress towards sustainable development should:
0 Develop for
a capacity repeated measurement to determine trends;
0 Be iterative,adaptive and responsive to change and uncertainty because systems arecomplex and
change frequently;
" Adjust goals,frameworks and indicators as new insights aregained;
" Promote development of collective learning and feedback to decision making.
10. INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY
Continuity
ofassessing progress towards sustainable development siiould be assured by;
Clearly assigning responsibility andproviding ongoing support inthedecision making process;
ProViding institutionalcapacity fordatacollection maintenance anddocumentation;
0 Supporting of localassessment
development capacity.

24
The first Principle calls for the creation of a clear vision and goals for the

achievementof sustainabledevelopment.However, as discussedpreviously, there is

no consensusregarding the definition of this concept.Ukaga and Maser (2004) and
Bell and Morse (1999) attribute this phenomenonprimarily to individual values
influencing this definition. The importanceof values and the different perceptionsof

sustainabledevelopment is widely addressedin the literature especiallywith regardto

sustainability evaluation frameworks and indicator development (Maclaren, 1996;
Bell and Morse, 1999; 2003; Owens and Cowell, 2001; Innes and Booher, 2000;
Brugman, 1997; Ukaga, 2001; Breheny, 1994; Brandon et al, 1997). Meppeni and
Gill (1998) in Bell and Morse (2003) assert that to operationalise sustainability

requires moving from literary or scientific definitions towards a process that

recognisesdiversity of perspective.Brugmann (1997,p. 63) statesthat:

'sustainability indicators needto be developedwith inputfrom a broad range

of stakeholderssince sustainability is such q value-ladenand contextsensitive

concept'.
Ukaga (2001) assertsthat sustainability indicators should be designedto provide the
information which people want to know in order to promote sustainability in their

areaof interest, is
which also in line with the Bellagio principles. This points out the

need for to
a participatory approach sustainability indicator development which will

allow evaluationusersto define sustainabilitythemselves.

This has importantimplicationsregardingthe developmentof a frameworkfor the

evaluationof brownfield projects.
redevelopment Adoptingan approachwhichmakes
use of participatorymethodswould differ from the usual technocentrictop-down
methodsadoptedto develop many of the existing sustainabilityevaluationand
indicatortools9(Bell andMorse,2003).This conclusiondoesnot renderuselessthe
definition of sustainabilityand objectivespresentedin Box 2.1. Dair andWilliams'
(2004)definition of brownfieldsustainabilitycanbe usedas a startingpoint for the
BRP stakeholders to developtheir own definitionandindicatorswhich wouldreflect
the particular brownfield development.

SeeChapter3 for a review of indicator tools.

25
Additionally, adopting a participatory approach to sustainability indicator
development is also essential when considering the function of indicators as

educational tools (Box 1.1). Guy and Kilbert (1998) emphasise the value of
sustainability indicators as educationaltools. Innes and Booher (2000, p. 177) state
that 'indicators' main influence is not primarily after they are developed and

published, but rather during the course of their development.

' Both Bell and Morse
(1999,2003) and Innes and Booher (2000) convey that the learning value of

sustainability indicators is during the development,implementationand analysis of

the indicators rather than the acquisitionof results.This is an important consideration
when taking into accountTinworth's (2004) and Ball's (1999) commentson the lack
of knowledge and understandingof sustainability of regeneratorsand developers
themselves.In evaluating the sustainability of BRPs, emphasisshould thereforebe
placed on the processof developmentof the indicatorsand assessment, rather than on
the actual indicators themselvesor the results obtained. In fact, the role of such an
evaluation could be seenas a procedurethrough which new knowledge and ideas on
sustainabilitycould enterthe decisionmaking process.

However, Patton (1982,1997,2002) emphasisesthe need for evaluation users to

define the function of the evaluation. Furthermore,Clark and Dawson (1999) point

out that benefits from participative evaluation processes,such as learning and

communication, do not just occur but rather have to be carefully designed in the

evaluation. Therefore, finther investigation is required to identify BRP stakeholders

and best practice participatory theory (Section 2.5) as well as to question a range of
them to establish the specific purpose they perceive BRP sustainability evaluation
shouldhave (SeeChapter4).

Giampietro et al (2006, p. 62) state that 'sustainability cannot be defined in a

substantiveformal way once andfor all' and Breheny (1994) points out that any
definition of sustainability needsto be context specific in order to be operationalised;

yet the difficulty of doing is

so expanded upon in George (1999). However, Patton
(1982,1997) discussesthe generallack of utilisation of evaluation findings at length

and attributes it to several things, including the lack of situational responsivenessin

evaluation methodology. Mitchell (1996) attributes the lack of implementation of a

26
common set of sustainability indicators to the differencesbetween both evaluation
usersand evaluationdevelopersandthe differencesbetweenlocalities.

For example, Todd and Geisler (1999), in reviewing the Green Building Tool,
developed to monitor the sustainability of buildings internationally, identified the
difficulty in obtaining sustainability benchmarks and in defining and weighting

criteria appropriately as they differed between localities. Bentivenga et al (2002, p.

93) states:
'strategies that should be employed[with regard to sustainability evaluation]

should not be based on afixed target or blueprint, but on an integrated and

flexible approach that adjusts to local conditions and the local community

requirements'.
Thus, there is a need for the evaluationof brownfield projects to be context specific
and flexible, aiming to develop sustainability indicators with the input of local

decision makerswhich are appropriatefor informing BRP decision making at the site
level.
I

The lack of use of existing sustainability indicator tools is also discussed in Rootheroo
(1997) Mitchell (1996). SUE-MoT (2004) comments on the limited
et al and

published information about the extent of use as well as the quality of existing tools.

This is attributed in part to their lack of integration with existing institutional decision
have the power to influende a project's sustainability (Rydin
making processes which
2003). Tonn (2000) comment on the lack of a structured investigation into
et al, et al
methods of incorporating sustainability into the process of decision making and Parr

et al (2003) underline the need to examine how systems like research and planning

work together, with the aim of identifying in

ways which research results can increase

their capacity to influence change.

Institutionalcapacityregardingthe development of indicators

sustainability is alsoa
Bellagio,Principle.Thereis thereforea needto identifyexistingBRPdecisionmaking
which
processes influence the of
sustainability projectsand to integratethem when
developinga sustainabilityevaluationframework.Thereforethe decisionmaking
relevant
processes to BRP in
are examined Section2.2. issues
Several the
regarding

27
nature of indicators addressedin a number of the Bellagio Principles require Rifther
considerationbefore developinga BRP sustainabilityevaluationframework.

2.1.1 The ideal sustainability indicator

There is extensive dispute in the literature over the ideal methodological

characteristicsof indicators (Hardi and 2000;

DeSouza-Huletey, Shaneand Graedel,
2000; Custanceand Hillier, 1998) which are also relevant to the Bellagio Principles
which the BRP evaluation framework aspires to meet. The main methodological
disputesconcern:

-the appropriatenumberof indicators;

-the most suitableway of presentingthem; and
-their nature(i. e. qualitative vs quantitative).
They are consideredhere as they aid in the developmentof an indicator selection

processto be used for the BRP evaluationframework.

It is evident from a review of the literature (SustainableSeattle, 1993; Nurick and

Johnson,1998;LGBM, 1995;Cartwright, 2000; Guy and Kilbert, 1998)that there is a
lack of consensusregarding the appropriatenumber of indicators neededto evaluate
Morse (2003) identify tendency for the selection of 20
sustainability. Bell and a
indicators. Guy and Kilbert (1998) proposethe use of an initial list of 100 indicators
be distilled to manageablesets of 15-20. However, drawing on general
which can
theory (Patton, 1997), the question lies. in: what is manageableto whom
evaluation
for Bossell (1999, p. 57) statesthat 'the number of indicators should be as
and what?
small aspossible, but not smaller than necessary'.

For the purposesof this framework, it is not possible or theoretically appropriateto

the number of indicators which should be used. Instead the
predetermineand specify
of indicators should be agreed upon by 1he evaluation users (Ukaga and
number
Maser, 2004) having taken into account the scale and nature of BRP they are

evaluating as well as the relevant feasibility issues,such as cost and availability of

data.

Apart from the Bellagio Principles there is a great deal of literature reflecting on the
ideal nature (characteristics) of sustainability irldicators (Table 2.1). There are

28
disputesas to whether indicatorsshouldbe quantitativeor qualitative (Pinfield, 1996).
Guy and Kilbert (1998) and Mitchell (1996) do not explicitly exclude the use of

qualitative indicatorsbut make the assumptionthat they should be quantitative(Table

2.1). This is evident when looking at proposedindicator selectioncriteria (Table 2.1)

and Bellagio Principles (Box 2.2) where severalauthorsmake recommendationson

the characteristicsof indicators upon which their selectionor developmentshould be
based. Gallopin in Moldan et al (1997), even suggest conditions under which

qualitative indicators are preferable. For example it is proposed that qualitative

indicators are often more appropriateto evaluatesocial issues(ibid). Bell and Morse
(2003) point out the compatibility between qualitative research and analysis of
development due to the fact that qualitative methods allow for a
sustainable
multiplicity of perspectives and values, which essentially reflects sustainability.
Considering the participatory approach recommendedfor the evaluation of BRP
it becomesapparentthat a strictly quantitative set of indicators is not
sustainability
Instead Todd and Geissler's (1999) and Ukaga
considerednecessaryor appropriate.
that determine
and Maser's (2004) view is embracedwhich proposes evaluationusers
the characteristicsof the indicators themselvesfollowing a structuredconsiderationof
the various sustainability aspectswhich they wish to monitor and evaluate.
I T-A-+. - 1-+
fl,,- ncep.
ement and selectionof ideal indicators
BellandMorse 0 Specific( mustclearlyrelatetooutcomes)
(2003)p.31 Measurable (implies thatit mustbea quantitativeindicator)
0
" Usable(practicable)
" Sensitive (mustreadily change ascircumstances change)
Available (itmustberelatively straightforward
to collectthenecessary datafor
"
theindicator)
" Costeffective (itshouldnotbea veryexpensive taskto access thenecessary
data)
LGBM(1995)p.35 Besignificant
Havea reasoned relationship atbothglobalandlocallevel
tosustainability
Berelevant to localgovernment butalsoto theordinary citizen
Reflectlocalcircumstances
Bebasedonrelatively easyto collectinformation
" Showtrendsoverreasonable timescales
" Havea relationship toothersetsofindicators
" Bebothindividually andcollectively meaningful
" Becleareasyto understand andeducate aswellasinform
Provoke change in policiesserviceslifestyles
etc
Leadtothesettingoftargetsorthresholds
Churchand MTHarry 9 Linkedto sustainability, ideallybothlocallyandglobally
1994p.208 0 Relevantto ordinarycitizensas we as to local government and easyto
I understand
0 Likelyto change formyearto yearandmoreImportantly, opento beingchanged
asa resultof localaction
Linkedto settingtargets foraction

29
 * Measurable eitherby the localauthority or by a bodythatcanmakethedata
available.
Maclaren(1996) p. 0 Integrating
186 0 Forward looking
0 Distributional
0 Developed withtheinputfrommultiple stakeholders inthecommunity
Mitchell
(1996)p.9 9 Relevant totheissuesof concern andscientifically defensible
0 Sensitivetochange acrossspaceandsocialgroups
* Sensitivetochange overtime
0 Supported byconsisted date
0 Understandable andif appropriate resonant
0 Measurable
a Expressed in a waythatmakessense(percentage rate,percapita,absolute
value)
0 Theidentification oftargetsandtrendsthatallowprogress towards orawayfrom
sustainabilityto bedetermined.
Holland
(1997)p. 43- 0 Resonance: wouldtheaudience empathise withtheindicator?
44 0 Significance: istheindication unambiguous andclear?
0 Comparability: istheindication capable of comparison withothervaluesreported
elsewhere?
0 Actionorientation: is it clearwhowillcarryouttherequired action?
0 Relation to otherIndicators: as wellas beingmeaningful on its owndoesthe
indicatorhavea collective meaning?
Guy and Kilbert Communityinvolvementwere they developedand acceptableby the
(1998)p.41 stakeholders ofthesystem ofconcern?
Linkage:dotheylinkenvironment economic andsocialissues?
Valid:dotheymeasure something thatis related to thestateofthesystem?
Available and timely: can the data be collected on an annual basis?
Stableandreliable: compiled using a systematic and fair method?
Understandable: simple enough to be Interpreted by lay persons?
Responsive: theyrespond quickly andmeasurably to changes?
Policyrelevance: relevance to publicorcorporate policy?
Representative: as a group they cover the important dimensions of the focus
area
Flexible:theyare important to useregardless of whetherdatais not readily
availableconsidering the data might be available in the future?
Proactive: dotheyactasa warning ratherthanmeasure anexitingstate?
Longrange:dotheyfocusonthelong-term?
Actlocallythinkglobally: dotheypromote sustainability attheexpense ofothers?

There is also disagreementon the desirable extent of aggregationor integration of

indicators (Morse et al, 2001; AtKisson and Hatcher, 2001; Neumayer, 1999;
Meadows, 1998;Mitchell, 1996).Aggregationrefersto:
"combininga wide rangeof similar measuresinto a numberwith a common
denominator like Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or combining measuresof
Index)" (AtKisson
differentkindsinto an indexOiketheHumanDevelopment
and Hatcher, 2001,p. 512).
The appealof this approachis evidentwith the wide adoptionanduseof GDP,and
similar indiceswhich arerecommended for their ability to easilycomparescenarios
and situations (Therivel and Levett, 2004). However there is much criticism of this
I
30
approach(Clifford et al, 1994;Morse et al, 2001). Increasedaggregationrequiresthe
translation of qualitative subjective parametersinto values, for example placing a
monetary value on biodiversity which can be misleading, providing a sense of
certainty and objectivity which does not necessarily exist (Eiswerth and Haney,
2001). Monetarisation also implies that everything can be given an economic value

which according to Dahl (1997) is not possible. Increased aggregation also does not
allow evaluationusersto identify where the problem exists in order to take action, and
thus is unsuitable for site level BRP evaluation which should provide the evidence
basefor mitigation and improvement(George,1999).

There are different approachesto numeric integration and valuation. Mitchell (1996)

outlines some of the monetary approacheswhich as Bell and Morse (2003) identify

to
are most appealing policy, government and thoseresponsiblefor setting the relative

charges, for example, taxes for meeting sustainabledevelopment. Examples of non-

monetaryyet numeric aggregation indicators,createdthrough weighting of valuesand

relative importancetechniques,can be found in Hemphill et al (2002) and Manyong

and Degand(1997). Fuzzy is

set theory anothertechniqueof aggregation(Cornelissen

2001). But theseface similar limitations to monetaryintegration techniques(i. e.

et al,
lack of transparencyin the identification of the causeof sustainabilityissues)and are
deemed inappropriate for the purpose of this project. However, the processesof
for as described in Cole (1999) are
weighting prioritising sustainability objectives
techniquesas they can be used by evaluation users to identify the
seen as relevant
main indicators to
required assessa particular BRP sustainability.

The presentationof indicator results is anotherissueneedingclarification. Cartwright

(2000) amongst others points out the need for simplicity in presentation when

considering the importanceof indicators tools.

as educational Thus, Bell and Morse's

(2003pg 43) comment;

"on the needto integrateinformationin a vyaywhichcan lead to action,thus
not disguisingthroughvisualintegrationtheareaswhichneedaddressing",
is relevant,and the approachrecommended for the selectionof BRP sustainability
indicators.

31
However, when developing sustainability indicators and presenting their outputs,
there is also the need to develop reference conditions to gauge progress (Bossel,
1999). This is inherently difficult and even more so for the case of BRP. Common
techniquesusehistoric referenceswherebythe sustainabilityof the system'scondition
is comparedto thosein the pastwhich are assumedto be more sustainable.In the case

of BRP this is not really possible, as many brownfield sites are characterisedby
previous industrial or unsustainableuses. BRP
Furthermore, involve a change in land
(e.
use g. from vacant derelict land to a shopping centre)which increasesthe difficulty

of comparison. There is inherent subjectivity in setting reference conditions for

sustainability indicators and the issues of scale of relevant data and benchmarks

complicate matters further (Bell and Morse, 2003; Therivel, 2004). Ukaga and
Maser's (2004) and Bell and Morse's (2003) approach is therefore adopted, who
proposethe use of a locally relevant and participatory approachfor the establishment
of referenceconditions andbenchmarks.

The above showsthere is no consensusregardingthe natureof an ideal indicator and

that indicator selectionis a subjectiveprocess.Different indicatorswill be appropriate
in different evaluationprocessesand circumstances:Although a generalapproachhas
been proposed for the case of BRP sustainability evaluation it is also considered

appropriate that indicator characteristicsand evaluation criteria used for selection

(Table 2.1) should be agreedthrough a deliberative approachby stakeholdersin the
BRP (Todd and Geissler, 1999; Ukaga and Maser, 2004 and Bell and Morse, 2003).
Monetarised and highly aggregated numeric and visualisation approaches are

consideredinappropriate,and an action and decisionmaking focus as well as a locally

relevant benchmarkapproachbasedon participatory methodsis proposed.

2.2. The Brownfield Redevelopment Project life cycle

The developmentof a usableprocessfor the evaluationof BRPs sustainability is the

main aim of this research. However, both Patton (1997) and Clarke and Dawson

(1999) propose that to increase the utilisation of evaluation results particularly in

decision making, attention should be paid to existing decision making processesand
to ensuring their,compatibility with the evaluationprocesses,including stakeholders,
timing and in this case,BRP processes.Therefore,when describingthe BRP process,

32
the different types of sustainabilityimpacts which may have to be evaluatedwill be
highlighted. The key decision making processesare also describedwith the aim of
identifying areas where the sustainability evaluation could usefully inform BRP
decisions.

According to Topping and Avis (1991), the main periods in the developmentprocess

are: Initiation, Evaluation, Acquisition, Design and Costing, Permissions,

Commitment, Implementation, Let/Manage/Dispose.These periods do not always
follow this sequence and often run in parallel (ibid). With regard to the
implementation of sustainability and decision making, Dair and Williams (2004)

provide a more simple accountof the brownfield redevelopmentprocessby phasingit

into three periods : land use planning and regulation; developmentand construction;

end use. This is

model adopted here in principle. However, to take into accountthe
particularity of BRPs, i. e. the potential contamination or existing structures, the
be
prospectiveremediationperiod which may required when contamination is present
is included (Figure 1.1). Thesethree periods are describedin further detail focusing

on the particularities of BRP and the decision involved.

making processes

The land use planning and regulation period is arguably the most important as
decisions are taken here which will affect the sustainability of the development
throughout its life cycle. For brownfield redevelopmentthis is most likely to include
an initial period where the site remains idle (Figure 1.1). This period varies in length

andcouldlastdecades.

The only decision making involved with regard to a brownfield site during this idle
period is its characterisationin the Local Plan (LP) or Local DevelopmentFramework
(LDF); for example, land allocated for employment generation or housing.
Sustainability with regard to the land characterisationis considered through the
Sustainability Appraisal and StrategicEnvironmental Assessmentof the LP or LDF
(Sheate et al, 2005; Hales, 2000 and Cullingworth and Nadin, 2002). Detailed

examinationof this is
process outsidethe scopeof this study, although an overview is

presentedin Section2.3 with regardto its implications for sustainabilitymonitoring.

33
The aim of this researchto develop a sustainability evaluation process of BR.Ps,

assumesthe existenceof a BRP or project proposal.Thereforethe evaluationplaces

emphasison the actual brownfield developmentprocess,meaning the processafter
there has been an expressionof interest for developmentof the brownfield site and
thus is not designed to compare alternative development scenarios. For example,
the purpose of the evaluation is not to comparebetween 'no developmentvs a new
housing developmenton a brownfield site' or "housing vs an industrial BRP". It is
designedto inform decision making with regardto the sustainabilityof the BRP and
specific proposals,and assumesdevelopment is planned,is taking place, or is in the

operation period (Figure 1.1). An additional reasonbehind this approach is that if

there is no proposed developmentfor a brownfield site then there are no decision

making and planning processesin progress and often no responsible stakeholders
through which sustainability can be implemented,or enforced. Therefore, it is not
feasible from a procedural point of view to make requirementsfor sustainability

monitoring when there is in to

no one charge undertake this process.Should a site be

allocated for green or open and recreationspacewhich would result in changeof use
or formalisation of current use involving active management, then it could be

consideredin the development

processdescribedbelow.

In this initial planning and design period, the first four stagesidentified by Topping

and Avis (199 1) are included. Development is initiated when a new use for a site has

been identified. Evaluationlo is a vital stagein the process,with the main stakeholder

and decision maker being the developer. This stage includes an assessment of the

site's development potential. With regard to brownfield sites, this may include risk

assessmentsespecially in relation to potential contamination. Issues surrounding

planning permission are consideredby the developer at this point, prior to moving to

the acquisition stageand designand costing. Ideally at this point the developerwould
consider sustainability with regard to the nature of the site and the considered
development.However, there are no statutoryprocessesobliging a developerto make

any sustainability considerationsapart from a review of the policies and regulations,

the limitations of which are examinedin Section2.3

10This doesnot refer to sustainabilityevaluation.

34
Design and costing are continuous activities interlinked with the stage of obtaining

planning permission. It is during these two interlinked activities that most

stakeholdersare involved and where important decisionsaffecting the sustainability
of the development
throughout its life cycle are made.Williams (2003) points out that
through the design and specificationbriefs of the development,decisionssuch as the
choice of materials and construction methods are made - all of which affect the
sustainabilityof the site. Through pre-applicationdiscussions
with the local authority
as proposed in PPS12 (ODPM, 2004a), discussions/negotiations
can be made with
regard to introducing sustainablepractices.However, thesemay not be obligatory, or
may be required through supplementary guidance or as part of Section 106

Agreements (SI06) or planning conditions which are discussedin detail in Section

2.3.

The planning application process or the obtaining of permissions period is

undoubtedly the period with the involved

most stakeholders and provides the greatest
improve BRP" (seeODPM (undatedAnnex A) for
potential to the sustainabilityof -
a list of statutoryand non-statutoryconsultees).In terms of the BRP landuselife cycle
(Figure 1.1), obtaining planning consentis consideredthe decisionpoint for Period 1.

Period2 includes Should

remediationandconstruction. be
contamination identifiedin
the first life cycle period, after obtaining the appropriatelicensesand (see
agreements
DEFRA and Environment Agency, 2004), remediation will have to be undertaken

using the UK principle of "suitable for use" (Pediaditi et al, 2005). The way
is
construction and remediation undertaken on a site may affect the sustainability of
the development. Inconsiderateon-site operation practices (for example, excessive
noise and dust generation and the discharging of waste or effluents to watercourses)

may significantly affect the sustainability of the site. A number of licenses and

regulations deal with these aspects,although they are minimum requirements and do

not constitute best practice (Dair and Williams, 2004; see Section 2.3). Often,

remediationand constructionusing a phasedapproachmay occur simultaneouslyon a

site. For the above reasons when looking at the impacts of the remediation and

11Thispoint is elaborated
uponandjustifiedin Sections2.3and2.5

35
constructionprocessesaswell asthe ways of introducing and evaluatingsustainability
it is logical to group and considerthem in oneperiod (Figure 1.1).

It is important to note that the processesemployed for this second period of

constructionand remediationare determinedin the planning and designphase(Period

1, Figure 1.1). Therefore, with regard to implementing and monitoring sustainability

of construction and remediation processes,the issues and indicators need to be

establishedduring initial planning and design (Period 1), yet monitored during the
actualconstructionand remediation(Period2). Onceagainthe vital importanceof the
planning period in determiningand monitoring sustainabilityis confirmed.

The third and final period in the BRP lifecycle is its operationwhich startswith the
sign-off of the development. This period includes'renting, selling or leasing the
developmentas well as managingits operationand long-term maintenance(Topping

and Avis, 1991). Here the impacts of the development

are mainly fixed and limited

changescan be made, with sustainabilitybeing controlled through the maintenance

and management of the development. However, early consideration during the

planning and design period of the long-term management and operation of the
developmentcould significantly enhanceits sustainabilityperformance.The planning

and design period can be classified as having th& least impact but most scope to

change the overall profile and sustainability of a site, whereas the last operation
period has the most/ largestimpact but the least scopeto changethings.

To improve the sustainabilityperformanceof the operationof the development,issues

can be addressedwith processes like Environmental Management Systems (EMS).

Additionally and the arguably less effectively, end of pipe solutions can be used, for

example modifications to the infrastructurepost developmentcompletion. EMSs are

defined as 'a set of rational methodologiesfor the managementof all activities

regarding environmental aspects'(Alberti et al, 2000, p. 4455); they are formal

for
mechanisms articulating goals, making choices,gathering information, measuring
progress and improving performance with regard to the environment (Ridgway,
2005). EMSs are relevant to sustainability evaluationof developmentsas continuous

monitoring and managementare part of the proceduralrequirements(ibid).

36
However, the implementationof EMS on developmentprojects is far from common

practice (Glasson ef al, 2005). Emerging literature proposesthe link between the
planning and Environmental Impact Assessmentprocess(Sheate,2002; see Section
2.3.3) and the formal management of environmental performance during the

construction and operation period of a development(Sanchezand Haching, 2002;

Ridgway, 2005; Glasson et al, 2005; Ofori et al, 2002). EMSs also have their
limitations and there are issuesregarding their applicability and appropriatenessfor
the long-term sustainability evaluationof BRP. EMSs are businessfocusedtools and
are more suited for internal use by companiesand organisationswishing to manage
their environmental performance.Many BRP, in particular housing developments,
following the completion of the constructionperiod go into multiple ownership,thus
limiting their capacity for the effective implementationof an EMSs.

EMS have also been criticised for their narrow focus on enviromnentalaspectsrather
than adopting a holistic approachto the managementof sustainability(Sheldon, 1997;
see Section 2.1). To addressthis, someproposethe integration of EMS with quality
and health and safetymanagementsystemsand others calling for the development and
implementation of Sustainability Management Systems (De Oliveira Matias and
Coelho, 2002). Therefore, it is evident that althoughrelevant,EMS cannotbe usedto

monitor the long-term sustainabilityof BRP in a holistic way.

Overall there are sustainability implications throughoutthe whole life cycle of a BRP

with a number of stakeholdersand processes involved. However, the processes in

place and the decisions made during the initial planning and design period have the

greatestinfluence to
and potential affect the sustainabilityof a BRP throughout its life

cycle as well as involve the greatestnumber and diversity of consulted stakeholders.

In fact, each decision made in this period has significant 'downstream' implications
life cycleperiods.
for the subsequent

In conclusion, a number of important points regarding the RAF can be made. The
RAF can be applicable only to brownfield sites whýchare not dormant and for which

proposals are being developed. The evaluation focuses on the assessmentof the
sustainability of a particular BRP and not on the comparisonof alternative uses or
sites. BRP have different sustainability impacts throughout their life-cycle and

37
thereforeevaluationshould be undertakenfor all threeperiods.Finally, it is important
to ensure sustainability is assessedand factored early on into the decision making
process. The evaluation should be designed to be compatible with the existing
decision making and planning processesin order to enhanceits utilisation as well as
to ensurethat sustainability is not merely an afterthought,but integral to the project
design.

2.3 Sustainability implementation and evaluation through UK

land use planning
Land use planning is an instrument for coordinating economic, environmental and

social policies (Healy and Shaw, 1994), and thus has a central role in the delivery of
sustainable development (Owens and Cowell, 2002). The present Governmentstates
that 'sustainable developmentis the core principle underpinningplanning' (ODPM,

2005, para 3). At the same time the redevelopment of brownfield land, as
demonstratedthrough the examinationof the brownfield land use life cycle (Section
2.2), is characterisedby the planning process.Thereforethis section reviews the UK

planning system with regard to its decision making processesand opportunities as

well as the limitations it presentsto implementingand evaluatingBRP sustainability.
is in
The planning system examined relation to how sustainability is introduced and
implemented, with a more detailed examination'of specific instruments such as
(Section 2.3.1), EIA (Section2.3.2) and the 2.3.3).
Regulations(Section
planning gain
Theseinstrumentsare examinedin more detail as they can be used as mechanismsto
implementthe developedBRP evaluationframeworkandalsoprovideopportunities
to ensurethe integrationof the evaluations'resultswith existing decisionmaking
processes.

At the time of this research,the UK planning systemis undergoing extensivereform

which has presenteda number of new opportunities for sustainability evaluationand

implementation.However, there is increasinguncertainty as to how things will work

out once those reforms are established. Continual changes have also presented
difficulties in conducting the literature review; therefore the account presentedhere

reflects the planning up

situation until late 2005.

38
The current UK planning system is plan-led which means that BRP planning

applications are assessedaccording to the policies in the plans unless material

considerationsindicate otherwise (Cullingworth and Nadin, 2002). Therefore,a brief
description of the planning processesin local policy development, providing an

understandingof how sustainability is implementedand monitored at a strategiclevel

is provided.

Sustainabledevelopment in planning has been promoted through the adoption of

Local Agenda 21 Strategies (LA21), which should provide the direction and
indicators to monitor progress towards sustainable development. The Local
Government Act (2000) introduced a statutory requirement for LA to prepare a

community strategy (see ODPM, 2000) which incorporatesthe LA21 strategy and
should contain, as a minimum, a vision for the area,a strategy,an action plan and a
monitoring framework. Both Community Strategiesand LA21 require a LA to consult
the local community to obtain input on how progres'scan be achievedand measured.

Cullingworth and Nadin (2002) concludethat this openly participatory approachoften

leads to strategiesbeing developedin a way that lacks clear direction and purpose,
thus reducing their use in planning decisions.Furthermore,LA21 is voluntary and
does not hold any legal or statutory weight especially in land use planning and
developmentcontrol (Cullingworth and Nadin, 2002) and thus is rarely explicitly

considered in development control decisions (Doak, 1998). Community Strategies

aim to "enhancequality of life of local communitiesand contribute to the achievement
ofsustainable development"(ODPM, 2000). Of importanceis the increasedemphasis
placed on monitoring and the range of proposed sources of publicly available
indicators and data (see Box 2.312),which could potentially be used for this research.
However, Evans and Theobold (2002) expresstheir concernsabout how the broad

visions of the new Community Strategies are being translated into action and
implemented, as well as the fear that emphasis is being shifted away from the

environmentalaspectsof sustainability.

12Thesesourcesof indicatorsareonly indicative;moredatabases lists

or recommended of indicators
arecontinuallybeingcreated.

39
ODPM (2005c) reviewed LA monitoring practicesresulting from community strategy
introduction and identified a numberof issuessurroundinginformation and data gaps

particularly in the field of sustainable development. Issues about the lack of

standardisationof monitoring practiceswere identified, with recommendations being

proposed for LAs to create new alternative mechanismsto collect data. Questions

were also raisedabout

"the capacity of existing monitoring systemsto track performance and, in

particular, and critically, to allow authorities and Local Strategic

Partnerships (LSP) to monitor change over time and reflect on priorities"
(ODPM, 2005cp. 34).
The lack of effective engagementof partners and the difficulties in pooling and
sharing resourceswere also seenas barriers to monitoring, a phenomenonwhich was
in 13
perceivedto be exacerbatedby the complex governancestructures place .

From the above an interesting opportunity is presentedfor the evaluation of BRP

sustainability. Patton (1982 and 1997) emphasises the importance of minimising

resourcesrequired for evaluation with the aim of enabling the feasibility of such

processes.With the introduction of Community Strategies as documents which

contain the LA sustainability visions, as well as sets of indicators and performance

targets,which can be used to monitor progresstowards sustainabilitya useful source
of data for the sustainability evaluationof BRP presentsitself. Community Strategies

therefore deserve further consideration regarding their relevance to the small

developmentscaleand in particular BRP (seeChapter5).

13SeeReferencesffardý 2000; Mc Guirk, 2000, Imrie and Raco, 1999,Bassettet aL 2002; Carley,
2000) on local governanceissuesin effective regenerationand sustainability.

40
Box. 2.3. Rangeof proposedsourcesof relevant indicatorsto assesscommunity
strategyprogress.
AuditCommission, 2002,Qualityof Lifeindicators
Auditcommission,2003,Qualityof Life:a goodpracticeguideto communicatingqualityof lifeindicators
AuditCommission 2004,CPA2005-thenewapproach
AuditCommission 2000,Consultation: VoluntaryQualityofLifeandCross- CuttingIndicators forLocal
Authorities.
AuditCommission, 2003,Patternsforimprovement: Learningfromcomprehensive performance
assessment to achieve
betterpublicservilces
AuditCommission, 2003,Economic andcommunity regeneration: fromInspection
Learning
Community Development Foundation 2001,TheNewCommunity howto Involve
Strategies: localpeople
CountrysideAgency 2002,RuralProofing Delivery
Checklist
CountrysideAgency,2002LocalStrategic Partnership
andCommunity Strategyruralchecklist
IDeA,2004,Managers guideto performance management
Neighbourhood RenewalUnit2003,Performance management Fr6mework-LocalStrategic Partnerships:
AidMemoir tosupportthereviewofpartnership working
Library
ofLocalperformance indicators hftp:
//www.
local-pi-librarv. shtml
qov.uk/-qoodprac.

Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPGs) and the more recent Planning Policy
Statements(PPSs)provide a national framework for planning. PPGsand PPSsset out
Central Governmentpolicies on different aspectsof planning, for example,PPG13on
Transport, PPS23on ContaminatedLand. They must be taken into accountby Local
Planning Authorities (LPA) as they prepare their developmentplans. Subsequently,
taking into accountthe plan led nature of the land use planning system,policies have

an effect in shaping(or determining)individual planning applications.

Regional Planning Guidance (RPGs) or the more recent Regional Spatial Strategies
(RSS)provide a strategicplanning framework in eachof the eight English regionsand
in London a Spatial Development Strategy is preparedby the Mayor. LPAs when
development 14
producing plans need to take account of policies at the national and
regional levels (DTLR, 2001; Figure 2.2).

From the above,the importanceof the way sustainabilityis interpretedin national and

regional policy becomesapparentespeciallywith regardto the sustainability of future

developments.However, there are problemswith the implementationof sustainability

through the use of policies. These have been analysedextensively in Pediaditi et al
(2005a) and Owens and Cowell (2002) and include policy compartmentalisation

14The term development is and is relevant to all plans, eg LDF, Area Plans etc
plan usedgenerically

41
(Hales, 2000), inconsistencies (DTLR, 2001), superficial consideration of

sustainabilityissuesand a continuedemphasison economicpriorities (Gibbs, 1997).

However, a numberof important changeshaverecently occurredin planning aimedat

promoting the holistic considerationof the sustainabilityimpacts of policies andplans

which have important implications for sustainabilitymonitoring. Extensivechangesto
the English planning systemare required as a result of the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act (2004) (see Section 2.5) including the requirement for mandatory
Sustainability Appraisals (SA) and the integration of Strategic Environmental
Assessments(SEA) (ODPM, 2005b).

The UK has over ten years of experiencewith a form of SEA as a result of the
Planning and Compensation Act 1991, the Town and Country Planning Act
(Development Plans) Regulations and the former PPG12, which required LAs to

undertakeenvironmental appraisals,and later sustainabilityappraisals,for their land

use development plans. Until now, these have been fairly simple objective-led
by
appraisalscharacterised a lack of data and increased uncertainty (Therivel, 2004;

Sheate,2003; Sheateet al, 2005). Additionally, in an examination of sustainability

George (2001) concluded that, to date, the lack of
and environmental appraisals,
between the relation and integration of planning and appraisalprocesses had
clarity
limited their effectivenessfor sustainabilityimplementation.

SEA is not without criticism, with Boothroyd (1995, p. 100) stating that "SEA is
limited by its (1) positivism; (2) binding but unempoweringformality; and (3) narrow

scope" which Vanclay (2004) attributes to SEA being spawned from the technical
EIA paradigm. Partidario (1996) criticises SEA for its narrow considerationof social
impacts. Owens and Cowell (2002) expresstheir reservationsregarding the actual

capacity of such planning sustainability tools (including SEA and EIA) to implement

sustainability. They argue that they falsely aim to be tools to aid rational decision

making, rather than acceptingand explicitly addressingthe political nature andpower

issues as well as different values underpinning the different stakeholders' and
decisionmakers' interpretationsof sustainability.

42
 Key Inputs Processes
Key Outputs

PLAN-NLAKING

National Guidance Draft Plan preparation

Regional Guidance Feedback
Sub- regional
Guidance* Local Plan Enquiry'

* illustrates areas
Local Objectives* Inspectorsreport
whereSEA may
be required
Modified Plan
Consultation
Adopted
Secretaryof State Development
consideration Plan/ LDF

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL

DevelopmentPlan/ Application made

LDF *
--f
National Guidance* Publicity
Regional Guidance* Feedback
Sub- regional
Guidance* Negotiation

Site Context
Supplementary DC officers report
PlanningDecision
guidance* Refusalor
Consultation Planning committee Approval

APPEAL PROCESS Development,

,,
Planning decision Appeal Lodged

National Guidance*
Regional Guidance* Methodchosen: local
Sub- regional enquiry/informal
hearings,writtenreps
Guidance*
Site Context Inquiry/hearing/site
visit Planning Decision
Supplementary Refusal or
p_uidance* Approval
Inspectorsreport
DevelopmentPlan/
LDF* J.Development-,
IIL uzbium iurai %,naja-, ur, ý;; I-I

Figure 2.2 The Simplified Planning Process (CullingvVorthand Nadin, 2002)

43
However, Sheateet al (2005) assertthat as a result of the new sustainabilityappraisal

process and new planning system requirements for implementation of the SEA
Directive (EuropeanDirective 2001/42/EC),improvementsshould take place because

of the greaterrequirementsfor more rigorous baselineinformation on which to base

the appraisals.Although SA and SEA are primarily involved with the sustainabilityof
plans and thus not directly linked to the BRP level, there are a number of interesting
elementswhich could facilitate, and should be consideredfor, the developmentof the
framework to evaluateBRP sustainability.

Essentialelementsof the combinedSA and SEA processare those of monitoring the

significant effects of the various developmentplans, and thus require each LA to

develop a monitoring framework and to report regularly using indicators (ODPM,
2005b). This processrequiresthe developmentof baselinesand benchmarksand has
been in many casescombinedwith the new requirementsfor an Annual Monitoring
Report (AMR) which aims to:
"assessthe implementationof the local deMopment schemeand the extentto

which policies in local development documents are being successfully

implemented"(ODPM, 2005c,p. 2).

As a result of these changesin planning, sustainability is not only becoming more

integrated through improved processessuch as SA and SEA, but sustainability

monitoring itself has increased in importance. Regarding the evaluation of BRP,

although these changesare not explicitly relevant to the developmentlevel, they do

present (a) opportunities for new sources of data, baseline information and
benchmarks for indicator development, which should be considered further when
developingthe evaluation;and (b) a potential avenuefor the BRP evaluationresultsto
feed information into policy decisionmaking.

Additionally,Sheateet al (2005),in a reportlookingat the relationshipbetweenEIA

and SEA, commenton the lack of vertical integrationbetweenthe two processes.
Howeverthey do identify a potential overlapin the caseof Urban Development
Projects(UDP) aspossiblechangein landusecanrequirean SEA.Also the practice
to
of creatingmasterplans underpinthe UDP can iequire SEA.This is of particular

44
relevanceto this researchas UDPs are often BRPs. Sheateet al (2005) in this review
proposegreaterconsiderationof how EIA and SEA could be integratedin a beneficial
way. SA and SEA and Annual Monitoring Report processesare clearly of relevance
to BRP and should thus be consideredfurther when developing the sustainability
evaluationframework.

So far, the processfrom plan developmentto the planning application processhas

beendescribedidentifying briefly the inconsistenciesand difficulties in implementing

and evaluating sustainability. However, there are regulated and structured decision
making processesin developmentcontrol, through which, explicitly or implicitly,
sustainability can be implementedwith regard to a specific developmentand which
are also applicable to BRP. These relevant processesare the planning application
process and planning gain, EIA and Regulations and are now examined in detail
(Sections 2.3.1,2.3.3 and 2.3.3). Specifically, the potential of these processesto
introduce long-term monitoring is examined,as well as the scope of the monitoring
findings to feed into planning policy formulation andplan development.

2.3.1 The Planning Application Process and Planning Gain

When making a decision about whether to accept or refuse a BRP or any other

planning application, decision makers need to take into account existing policies in

the developmentplan, any supplementaryguidanceand material considerationssuch

as new national policies (ODPM, 2005, PPSI para 8; Cullingworth and Nadin, 2002).
The policies cover a range of thematic topics which contribute to sustainability such

as noise, public transport provision, open space, densities albeit in a fragmented

manner. As stated in Dair and Williams (2004, p. 14) "almost without exception,
development applications give rise to conflicting views on the merits of the
developmentproposal". However, it needsto be pointed out that there is no official

systematicsustainability evaluationof proposedBRPsthrough this process.

In Rowan-Robinson et al (1995),a studyof how Development Control (DC) could

deliver sustainabledevelopmentestablishedthat due to the natureof the plan-led
process,DC officers had difficulty in determiningwhethera proposalwould be
sustainableand in justifying negotiatingthe elementsof sustainability.Planning
officers face pressuresto make decisionsinvolving the sustainabilityof proposed

45
developmentswithout having clear guidanceon suchissues,especiallywhen political

and economicpressuresare involved (Hales, 2000). This problem is especiallyacute

when considering the ambiguity of the sustainability concept (Owens and Cowell,
2002) and the eight-weekdeadlinedevelopmentcontrol authoritiesare set to dealwith

most planning applications (Cullingworth and Nadin, 2002). Therefore, the

introduction of practical tools to integrate sustainAility that can inform the basis of

planning decisionsat the technical and political level is needed(Gwilliam, 1993)and

thus could serveas a potential function of the BRP evaluationframework.

An important part of the planning applicationprocessis the negotiationperiod (Figure

2.2). This relates (amongst other things) to the. negotiation of planning gain or
planning obligations, conditions or agreements,related to the proposeddevelopment
(seeDoE, 1997and DoE 1995;ODPM, 2005d).
"The term planning gain can denote the provision offacilities which are an
integral part of the development,but it can also mean 'benefits' which have
little or no relationship to the development,and which the LA requires as the

price ofplanningpermission "(Cullingworth and Nadin, 2002, p. 166).

In July 2005 Circular 1/97 was cancelledand replacedby ODPM Circular 05/2005;
the guidance (ODPM, 2005d) is broadly the same and requires that a planning
obligation must be:
-Relevantto planning
-Necessaryto make theproposeddevelopmentacceptablein planning terms
-Directly related to theproposed development
nFairly and reasonablyrelated in scale and kind to theproposed development
-Reasonablein all other respects.

Planning conditions and agreementsare often used for the provision of affordable
housing. Developers are frequently expected to. provide affordable housing on
developmentsabove a certain size (Cullinworth and Nadin, 2002). Crook et al (2001)
identified that 89 % of LPA had developedan affordable housing policy within their
local plan, thus demonstratingto potential developerstheir intentions to require such

planning gain. However, the agreementon the provision dependson the negotiating
power of the LPA which in turn is related to current and local economic conditions
(Marvin and Guy, 1997; Cullingworth and Nadin'2002; Carmona et al, 2003). For

46
example,negotiatingpowersin London or in the SouthEast,where there is increasing
pressurefor development and housing costs, are high, are much strongercomparedto
the North where there is greaterdifficulty in attracting development(Cambell et al,
2000; Carmonaet al, 2003; Cullingworth andNadin, 2002).

However,planninggainextendsfurtherthanjust theprovisionof affordablehousing.

It now hasa vital role in providinginfrastructureespeciallysincethe privatisationof
public services (Marvin and Guy, 1997). Provision of roads, infrastructure, gas,
electricity and water supplies, is a commonly acceptedplanning obligation of the
developers. In turn, this becomes a negotiation process between developers and

service providers (ibid). In a negative sense,however, this distancesthe ability of

LPAs to stipulate the choice of service provision, especially with regard to
environmental considerations,as they are not involved in the decision-making,for

examplechoosinga more environmentalfriendly serviceprovider.

Carnbell et al (2000, p. 759) in a review of planning obligations identified that:

"a signiticant widening of the use and scope of planning obligations has

occurred in the last ten years. Obligations are used not only to remove
physical constraints on development and to mitigate direct development

impacts, but also to ameliorate more diffuse social, economic and

environmental impacts, to provide community benefits and to support wider

policy objectives".

The Urban Task Force recognisesthe potential of planning obligations to provide for

quality and management improvements in the urban environment. The RICS (1991)
identified the potential of planning agreementswith regard to major developmentsin

providing benefits to the community, particularly when there is a loss of amenity.

Additionally,therehasbeenanincreasingdebateoverthe
"extent to which local authorities can legitimately require developers to

shoulderthe wider costsof development:the neededinfrastructure,schools

andother local (Cullingworth
services" andNadin,2002 p. 166).
Cambellet al (2000,p. 760) statethat "developersarefaced with a proliferation of
differenttypesof approachesandchargesin differentareaswhichhaveevolvedin an

47
ad hoc manner". They also state that "Short-term planning gains are tending to
override longer termplanning concernssuch as environmentalquality (ibid, p. 759)".
The need for a systematic predictable approach to planning gain has been long

expressedby developers(Carmona et al, 2003), usually as 'the need for a level

playing field' (Henderson,
2004) is
and linked to the needfor a structuredapproachto
15
evaluatingthe sustainabilityof planning applications .

In the Green Paper (DTLR, 2001) it was proposed that LPAs should develop a
planning checklist so that people know how to submit a good quality planning
application (DTLP, 2001, p. 29). Since then, a number of LPAs have developed

to the
sustainability checklists assess sustainability of developments (Starck, 2003).
These checklists can potentially be used as a basis for the creation of planning gain
requirementsin the form of planning conditions or Section 106 agreementsthat relate
to a sum of money aimed at providing measuresin theory to improve sustainability.
However, these checklists rarely consist of material planning considerations,vary
in
substantially quality between LPA and therefore are still faced by the issuesof
development control's capacity to consider sustainability through standardised

processes(ibid).

Thus far, planning obligations are not determinedin a systematicmanner(Cambell et

al, 2000), and are almost always determined behind closed doors (Henderson, 2004).
Although the local plan is used as a basis,there is no assessment of the sustainability
of theseobligations. Furthermore,there.is no evaluationof the actual effectivenessof
the completed planning applications (George, 1999). This indicates the need for a
systematic process which can evaluate the sustainability of planning applications
including the impacts resulting from proposedplanning gains. Consideringthe highly

political nature of planning application decision making (Rydin et al, 2003; Owens

and Cowell, 2002; Weston 2000), there is scopefor the BRP evaluation to act as a
structured framework which could develop the link from SA and SEA targets to
developmentdecisions.

15Consideringthat the core

principle underpinningplanning ia sustainabledevelopment

48
Planning gain and in particular S106 agreementspresent an additional important

opportunity for the development and implementation of the BRP evaluation

framework. For instance, providing that the evaluation requirements follow the

guidancein ODPM Circular 05/2005,there is considerablescopefor S106 agreements

or planning conditions to be usedto oblige developersto monitor the sustainabilityof
their developments. Therefore, planning gain potentially becomes an important
mechanismto enforceor demandlong-term sustainabilitymonitoring.

This idea is drawn from initial experienceof requiring long-term monitoring as a

result of PPG13 (ODPM, 2001) whereplanning conditionsand S106 agreementshave

beenusedto obtain funds and specify monitoring requirementsfor developmenttravel

plans, also know as green travel plans (see ODPM, 2002). Through the use of
planning gain, developershave had to submit travel monitoring strategies,as well as
propose targets and in some cases mitigation measures,which they commit to
undertakeshould they fail to achievethosetargets.This opensthe door for extending
monitoring requirementsto sustainability issuesother than traffic. It thus presentsan
important opportunity for the long-term sustainability monitoring of BRP and the
integration of the evaluation framework within existing processes,thus enhancingits

usability (Patton, 1982). However, literature on the processesadoptedand the relative

successof the GreenTravel Plan schemesis sparseandrequiresfurther investigation.

2.3.2 Implementation and monitoring of brownfield sustainability

using EIA
Environmental Impact Assessment(EIA) is a procedureintroduced into the British

planning system as axesult of EC Directive 1985 (85/337) and implemented for

England and Wales through Environmental Impact Regulations 1999 SI no 293 to
assessthe environmental impacts of developments.EIA is a processwhich requires
the production of an EnvironmentalImpact Statement(EIS), by gatheringinformation

on the significant environmental effects of a developmentfrom a variety of sources

such as the developer, LA, statutory consulteesand third parties. Although the focus
is mainly on environmental impacts, such as noise, ecology, traffic and air pollution,

social impacts are also considered,when stipulated in the scoping study (Weston,
1997;Morris and Therivel, 1995). Vanclay (2004, pg 269) assertsthat "social impact

assessmentis a componentof EIA, especially when 'the environment' is understood

49
broadly". However, definitions of 'the environment' vary according to the country
(Donnelly et al, 1998). With regard to UK EIA, there is criticism of the weak
treatmentof socio-economicimpactsin EISs aswell asthe lack of post-monitoringof
the identified significant issuesand mitigation measures(Glassonand Heaney, 1993;
Glasson el al, 1999; Glasson, 1995 in Morris and Therivel, 2001). Morris and
Therivel (2001 pglO) state 'th e lack of monitoring is a serious deficiency in current
EIA practice'.

EIA has the potential to improve the sustainability of a developmentas it has to take
into accountthe proposedsite, the development,the predictedimpactsandproposalof
to
mitigation measures minimise negative impacts (Glasson et al, 1999; Weston,
1997). This may be the case,if a holistic approachis adoptedwhich also takes into
account socio- economic impacts. EIA is of particular relevanceto the evaluationof
BRP as the assessmentis carried out at the development level, unlike SEA.
Furthermore, there is a legal requirement for EIA to include public participation,

another sustainability requirement,which unfortunately in most casesis limited to the

public enquiry and publication of the EIS (Wood, 2003). Moreover, best practice
literature onEIA recommendsthe introduction of monitoring processesto assessthe
(Glasson 1994; Glassonet al, 1999; Wood, 1999;
efficiency of mitigation measures
Dipper et al, 1998).However, Chadwick and Glasson(1999, p. 811) statethat EIA
cc
at its is
worst a partial linear exerciserelated to one site, produced in-house
by the developerwith little public participation. There is a danger of a short-

sighted 'build it andforget it' approach, with little attentionpaid to the actual
impactswhich resultfrom projects once implemented".
This issue presents a need which could be addressedthrough the evaluation
framework by developingit in a way that allows long-term sustainabilityevaluation.

With regard to sustainablebrownfield redevelopmentand the evaluation framework,

EIA is a potentially very beneficial process. BecauseEIA has a legal mandate,by

integrating other forms of assessmentthere is the opportunity that they will be given
(Vanclay, 2004). However, BRPs EIA, 6 and
greater consideration not all require an
therefore, this processcould not be applied to evaluatethe sustainability of all BRP

16Only thoselistedin ScheduleI and2 of theRegulations, to giveriseto

whichareexpected
impacts(SeeMoore,2002).
significantenvironmental

50
(Glassonet al, 1999).However, elementscan be drawn from this processand there is

also room for improving the EIA process itself by enhancing,using the evaluation
framework, the participatory and social aspectsof the processwhich have variously
beenidentified as lacking.

Glassonet al (1999) proposethat EIA should not stop at the decisionto grant
planningpermission,but rather shouldbe a meansto obtain good environmental
management over the life of the project and thus stressthe need for follow-up
monitoring and auditing work in the EIA process(Wood, 1999; Wilson, 1998;
Glasson, 1994). Therefore, an important opportunity and scope for the BRP
evaluationframeworkis presentedthroughthe useof planningconditionsand S106
agreements andthe EIA processto enablelong-termsustainabilityevaluationof the
BRP as well as the efficacy of the proposedmitigationmeasures.The evaluation
could provide important feedbackfor future developmentproposalsand to EIA
practitionerson the efficacy of mitigationmeasuresand impactpredictionsa need
expressed by severalauthors (Chadwick and 1999;
Glasson, Morris and Therivel,
2001; Dipperet al, 1998; Marshall,2005).

An important need for the BRP evaluation framework is therefore identified, namely
to enable the holistic post-monitoring of recognised significant impacts and the
effectiveness of mitigation measures. Additionally, the BRP evaluation could be
designedto provide a vertical integration mechanism(Ealeset al, 2005) of EIA post-

monitoring information into SEA, whereby development

scaleinformation could feed

into local and ultimately regional and government policy, thus reducing the
fragmentation of the policy evidencebase as discussedin Pediaditi et al (2005a).
However, this would require a coordinated approach as well as LA resourcesfor

collating and interpreting the information provided, indicating that the feasibility

aspectsof this need to be investigatedftu-ther.Above all, further is

research required
to establish whether policy makers, EIA and SEA practitioners perceive this as
needed,useful and accomplishable(seeChapter4).

51
2.3.3 Implementing and monitoring brownfield sustainability
through Regulations I

Regulating involves the setting of statutory environmental rules and standardsby

government so that a breach of regulations can result in court proceedings and

penalties (Moore, 2002). It is in the interest of all developersto comply with the
regulations, and therefore they play an important role as a benchmark in terms of

procedures followed and standardsmet when developingbrownfield sites.During the

planning application process a developer will have many matters to consider with
regardto regulation complianceand obtaining licences,either for the site remediation
or constructionor operationof the development.There is a wide variety of regulations
covering issuessuch as energyefficipncy, accessibility(Box 2.4) and thus it could be

consideredas an implicit way of implementingsustainability.

Brownfield sitesare characterisedby previoususe which may involve the presenceof

contamination.The UK governmentdefines contaminatedland in Section 78A(2) of
Annex A to PartlIA of the EnvironmentProtectionAct 1990(DETR, 2000a)which is
the new contaminatedland regime as:
'any land which appears to the local authority in -whosearea it is situated to be in
by in,
such condition, reason ofsubstances on or under the land that:

a) Significant harm is being caused or there is significant possibility of such

hann being caused,or

b) Pollution of control waters is being or is likely to be caused'

Statutory guidance requires the identification and remediation of land which is

thought to be causingunacceptablerisks to humanhealth or the environmentthrough
a processof risk assessment. The regulation of contamination is dealt with by using
the polluter pays principle and is seen as a key element in ensuring sustainable
development(Pediaditi et al, 2005). In Annex I to PartIlA (DETF, 2000, para 6) the
threatsof contaminatedland to sustainabledevelopmentare statedas:
wIt impedes socialprogress, depriving localpeople bfclean and healthy environment;

-It threatenswider damageto the environmentand to wildlife;

52
-It inhibits the prudent use of land, in particular by obstructing the recycling of
previously developed land and increasing developmentpressures on Greenfield
areas; and

-The cost q)f remediation representsa high burden on companies,home and land
ownersand the economyas a whole.

Box 2.4 Indicative legislation relevantto BRP

BuildingRegulations
2000
Construction
(DesignandManagement)
Regulations
1994
Controlof SubstancesHazardous
to HealthRegulations
2002(COSHH)
Environment Act 1995
Act 1990
Protection
Environmental
1988
Regulations
Groundwater
HealthandSafetyat WorkAct 1974
PlanningandCompulsory PurchaseAct2004
PollutionPrevention
andControlAct 1999
PollutionPrevention 2000
andControl(EnglandandWales)Regulations
Substances
Radioactive Act 1993
TownandCountryPlanningAct 1990
PlanningandCompensation
Act 1991
PlanningandCompulsory
PurchaseAct2004
TownandCountryPlanning(Assessment
of (England
Effects)
Environmental andWales) 1999
Regulations
TownandCountryPlanning(Environmental
ImpactAssessment) 2000
(ýnglandandWales)Regulations
TownandCountryPlanning(Environmental
ImpactAssessment)(EnglandandWales)(Amendment)
2001
Regulations
Order1995
TownandCountryPlanningGeneralPermittedDevelopment
TownandCountryPlanningGeneralDevelopment Order1995
Procedure
WaterAct 2003
WaterEnvironment
(WaterFramework 2003
Directive)(EnglandandWales)Regulations
WaterIndustryAct 1991
Act 1991
WaterResources
ECGroundwater Directive80/68/EC
ECDirective96161/EC andControl
on IntegratedPollutionPrevention
ECWaterFrameworkDirective(20001601EC)
LiabilityDirective(2004/35/EC)
EU Environmental

The objectives of the contaminatedland regime are then set out (DETR, 2000a,para
7) within the context of implementing sustainabledevelopmentas:

- To identify and removeunacceptablerisks to humanhealth and the environment;

To
- seekto bring land
damaged backinto beneficial
use;and

53
 To seekto ensurethat the cost burdensfaced by individuals, companiesand society

as a whole are proportionate, measurableand economicallysustainable.

Thus, in the caseof BRP where contaminatedland is present,there is an addedlayer

of regulationsand associatedprocedureswhich needto be carried out and adheredto

in order to ensurethat the site is 'suitable for use'. The need for compliancewith
these regulations could thus be considered as an opportunity for sustainability
implementation. However, the actual capacity of these regulations to implement

sustainability, particularly with regard to how the regime addressessocial issuesand

public participation are questioned(Catney, 2005). The remediationof contaminated
land is based on the 'suitable for use' approachwhich involves risk estimation by

where risks are interpretedby expertsusing different

surveying and risk assessments,
guidelines for different land uses (Petts et al, 1997). DEFRA and Environinent
Agency (2004) have developeda scientific frameNýorkfor the assessmentof risks to
human health from land contamination. Specifically, the Contaminated Land
ExposureAssessment(CLEA) model, Health Criteria Values (TOX reports) and Soil
Guideline Values (SGVs) are usedby expertswhen carrying out risk assessments
(see

will be
Pediaditi et al, 2005 for more information). The results of the risk assessments

used to develop and evaluate remediation strategies before granting planning

,
permission to develop a site. Therefore, the risk assessment has the capacity to
influence the remediation process which in turn can have implications on a
development'ssustainability (Harbottle et al, 2005). Thus risk plays a key role in the

redevelopmentof contaminated land and therefore is examined in greater detail in

Section 2.4. What also becomesapparentis the importanceof theseregulationsin the
determining the nature of BRP. This is more so on contaminated sites where

regulations stipulate the type of use permitted, for example,residential, commercial

according to the contaminationpresentand remediationmethodsused. Therefore the
regulations have the ability to affect the future sustainability of a site, in particular
when consideringLesage's(2005) findings who concludedthat the impact of a BRP
largely dependedon its enduse.

However,in generaltherearelimitationsasto theability of regulatorsto improvethe

of
sustainability developments.
As identifiedby Williams (2003, pg344) in interviews

54
with regulators "they felt they lacked the powers to enforce best practice". It is
recognisedthat regulationsare becomingmore stringentwith regard to, for example,
requirementsfor fuel and power conservation(BU, 2001), but still could be more
stringent (Select Committee on Environmental Audit, 2005). Although stipulations
could be made through regulationssuch as the maximum dischargerates for surface
waters to watercourses,regulatorsdo not have the authority to stipulate the meansto
achieve that rate, for example through using environmentally friendly technologies
(ibid).

Furthermore, most regulations are not locally derived but are of national or
international origin and, therefore, local circumstancescannot always be taken into

consideration.For examPle,.the building regulations and standardsregarding water'

conservation or energy efficiency are not area specific although environmental
conditions could require them to be more stringentin someareasin relation to others.
However, regarding contaminatedland, a caseby case approachis adopted for the
implementationof the regulationsexamining eachcontaminatedsite individually and
taking into considerationthe specific contaminantsand intendeduse.

Information obtained for the purposes of general development regulation

requirements (for example, Building Regulations) has the advantage of being

nationally standardisedand, therefore,may potentially serve as an important sourceof

information for sustainability monitoring, i. e. a valuable existing data sourcefor the
framework.
evaluation

However, the compatibility and usefulness of this information source with

sustainability evaluation requires further conkderation. For. example, local

participation is arguably limited in the process of legislation development. In

combination with the other more local processes(for example the EIA and SEA)

regulationshave the potential to implement sustainability,although improvements are

required with regard to participation and monitoring as well as integrating the

processesthemselves.
I

In conclusion, the planning application process is key and provides a number of

mechanismsand opportunities to implement and monitor sustainability which the

55
BRP evaluation framework should incorporate.Planning is undergoing changeand
new opportunities are presentedfor sustainability monitoring, although due to their
novelty there is limited knowledgeof their materialisationon the ground.Thus further
investigation is required to establishhow SEA, EIA, planning gain and regulations

could be usedby the BRP evaluationframework (Chapter4).

17
2.4. BRP risk and implications for sustainability evaluation
Objective (a) of this researchincludesdeterminingthe processesand elementswhich

make a BRP different from a Greenfieldproject, which may have to be consideredin

order to ensurethat the BRP sustainabilityevaluationis situationally responsive.

Due to potential contamination and the common lack of environmental and site
information, which increasesthe project's uncertainty,BRP typically involve higher
levels of risk than conventionalGreenfieldprojects.The UK regulatory (Box 2.4) and
in
planning processes place to deal with risk from contaminationare analysedin detail
in Pediaditi et al (2005) and havebeenbriefly mentionedin Section2.3.3, concluding
that risk has an important role in the decision making of a BRP. Thus risk has the

ability to affect the sustainability of the overall schemefrom its design and potential

remediation process employed down to whether the development goes ahead.

Therefore,like sustainability, it is important to define risk and find links betweenthe
two conceptswhich can be used for their evaluation. However, what was not clear
from the literature and regulatory guidancewas the extent and the conditions under

which long-term monitoring of contaminationon BRP is

sites required and whether
the sustainability of the proposedremediation strategiesis considered.This deserves

further investigation (seeChapter4).

2.4.1. Defining Risk

Risk has many definitions (See Jaegaret al, 2001; The Royal Society, 1992; Wylie

and Sheehy, 1999). Wehrmeyer et al (2004) and Pediaditi et al (2005b) distinguish

risk into technical, economic, psychological and socio-cultural categories and

conclude that the definition of risk determineshow risk is perceived, assessedand

thus managedand potentially accepted.There are four broad ways in which people
define risk: the first two are broadly evidential, the last two are largely experientialin

17This Section is only a brief summaryof the issuesanalysedin Pediaditi et al (2005)

56
their heuristic method(seeWehrmeyeret al, 2004 for more details).

2.4.1.1. Technical Definition

Here, risk is defined as the statistical probability for an event occurring, often

multiplied by the magnitude/ scopeof the event

Risk= [Probability*Magnitudeof Event]

with the corollary that includesperceptionor someform of social response:

Risk =[Probability *Magnitude *Outcry]

Technical risk underliesthe majority of engineering-basedapproachesto remediation,

including the site samplingstrategy,and thus the complex decision-makingprocessto

remediateand subsequentlyregenerate,the site. This is particularly relevantto the UK

approach to restoring sites according to "suitability for use" (Syms, 1997), where
technically defined risk is consideredwhen developingrisk managementstrategies.It
is written here as "evidential" becauseit usesempirically-derivedvalues as the basis
for risk assessmentand subsequentmanagement.Becauseof its perceivedobjectivity

and its technical background,it is also usually favoured by regulatory by

agencies,
Local Authorities seekingguidancefor action (or not) andby lawyers.

2.4.1.2. Economic definition

Here risk is defined by means of an economic interpretation of the likely damage

attributed to an event. The Polluter Pays Principle (UNCED, 1992) suggeststhat

be by
pollution should reduced making consumers pay the full price for the pollution

associatedwith the product. This is based on the premise that the market is best at
allocating resourcesso long as pricesreflect the full costsand so long as the market is

not structurally distorted. Given that the debate as to who pays is a legal one, and
given that economically there is no difference between making the polluter pay or
compensatingthe polluted (Coase,1960), econornibrisk assessmentof contaminated
land typically includesissuesrelating to:

-the clean-upcoststhemselves;
-liability for the remediation;
-loss of earning through project delay or reducedprices;
-future liability for residualcontamination;
-legal recoursefor specific aspectsof the regenerationprocess.

57
As with the technical definition, the economic definition of risk is essentially

evidential becausethe assessmentof risk dependson the data gatheredon costs and
benefitsto the polluter (Wehrmeyeret al, 2004).

2.4.1.3. Psychological definition

Psychologically,risk is subjectively basedon personal circumstances,backgrounds,

culture and institutional factors (Renn, 1998). Risk is not expressedas a technically
derived number or as a probability assessment, but rather a qualitative and typically
holistic (as opposed to reductionist) evaluation of something being "risky",
"dangerous","threatening" or "hazardous".Thereforeit is essentiallyexperiential.

Although there is a relationship between the technical assessmentof risk and the

psychologicalperception of it, it should not be assumedthat they are proportional in

all cases.Equally, a psychologicalevaluation of low risk is not necessarilythe same
as risk acceptance. Technically derived low probabilities of risk are often seen as
sufficient evidence,for defining a risk as "resiqual" or "background", implying

approval for acceptingrisk as "inevitable" or "normal" (Roth et al, 1990).The reason

for this is that the empirical and experientialorigins of risk are paradigmaticallyand

ontologically distinct and are not immediately let

comparable, alone tradable.

Previous and on-going researchhas identified issues influencing psychologically-

defined risk estimateswhich also affect risk acceptanceof individuals or groups
(Roth, 1990; Slovic, 1987,1999). Theseare summarisedin Pediaditi et al (2005, pg
28 ) as :
othe degree to which the institutions and
assessing managing the risk are trusted by

the various stakeholders( i.e. involving issuesoffairness opennessandparticipation

in decision making);

-the degreeofdreadjelt bypeople in relation to the hazardspresent;

-the degreeto whichpeoplefeelfamillar with the risks involved;

othedegreeto whichpeoplefeel in control of the risks to which they -

are exposed,
degree to which the risks are known (including assumptions about
othe
contamination);
-the degree to which alternative options have bcen explored (and the use of the

PrecautionaryPrinciple) (POST,1998,pg 38).

58
Thesefactorsneedto be takeninto accountwhen deciding which risks to evaluateand
how to managethem, and are relevant to the evaluationof BRP as is expandedupon
below.

2.4.1.4. Sociological and cultural definition

Here, risk is defined through social and cultural factors, which provide a sense-

making framework of the situation (Renn, 1998; Slovic 1987,1986). Crucial to this
discussion is the ability to develop a shared interpretation and understanding of
hierarchical, egalitarian, individualistic, fatalistic and autonomous cultural patterns

(Thompson et al 1990). In his seminal Risk Society, Beck (1992) argues that we, as a

society, through our individual activities and tacit as well as open acceptance of risk,
define collectively the levels of risk we deem acceptable.

Currently, when dealing with potentially contaminatedsites, developersare required

to focus on dealing with the technical risks relevant to the potential contamination.It
is also these technical risks which deter some developers from taking on BRP.
Wehrmeyeret al (2004) arguethat the picture in faýt is much larger and complex and
involves a number of different aspectswhich also relate to different definitions of

risk. They propose that the concept of sustainable development gives a more

representativebasis to deal holistically with these different types of risk than the

approach
technical scientific risk assessment currently adopted(ibid; and Wehrmeyer

and Pediaditi, 2004).

2.4.2 Actual and perceived risk: recommendations for monitoring

and management
Much has been written on the existenceof 'actual' and 'perceived' risk, as well asthe
differing perceptionof risk by 'experts' and 'lay people' (Adams, 1995; Syms, 1997;

Petts, 1996; Jaegar et al, 2001; Wylie and Sheehy, 1999; The Royal Society, 1992).

However this distinction betweenactual and perceivedrisk is misconceived,because

level, both inevitably involve human interpretation and judgment,
at a fundamental
and hencesubjectivity (Fischoff, 1998).

Through the examination of'the UK risk assessmentand managementapproach,

Pediaditi et al (2005) identified in
that planning and regulatoryprocesses place to deal

land have technical limitations and make assumptions(Aldrich et

with contaminated

59
al, 1998; Caimey, 1995; Syms, 1997). They only consider a very narrow technical
definition of risk based on scientific 'expert' views which wrongly disregardsthe

subjective and diverse nature of the risk concept (Wehrmeyer et al, 2004; Edu1jee,
2000;National ResearchCouncil, 1996;Ozonoff, 1998;Jasanoff,1993).

There is a plethora of stakeholdersin BRPs (see Section 2.5) each of which faces
different risks throughout the project's life cycle from planning through to operation,
and may perceive and define risk differently. There is a need to consider all
stakeholders'risk perceptions(Renn et al, 2000; Avrai el al, 2001; Bohneblust and
Slovic, 1998; Gregory, 2002). It is important to note that thesedifferent definitions of
risk are not mutually exclusive, but do co-exist. Slovic (1987) arguesthat lay people
assessrisk in a more holistic way than experts by taking into account social,
environmental and economic impacts of risk-related decisions rather than just

narrowly focusing on the technical aspectof risks relating to health impacts. Webler

et al (2001) also conclude that lay people tend to assess the acceptability of risk by
full considerationof the perceived sustainabilityof the remediation strategy and the
long-term impactsand risks to future generations.

Risk managementstrategiesthat are basedsolely on evidential risk can be difficult to

implement becausethey are subsumedby socio-economic,regulatory and public
issues.
Thus the failure to look holistically at the risks involved may jeopardize
policy
the sustainabilityof the project (Pediaditi et al, 2008).

All the above signifies the importanceof two-way risk communication guidancefor

which can be found in the literature (see:Jaegar,

et al, 2001; Cvetkovitch and Lofsted,

1999;Lash et al, 1996;Wehrmeyer,2001; Slovic, 1986;Kasperson,1986; SNIFFER,

1999; Bradbury, 1994; Fischoff, 1998). Risk communication is considered key
it the acceptanceof the BRP itself (NICOLE, 1999). The
especially as may affect
factors affecting risk perceptionsand subsequentlyrisk acceptanceare analysedin

Pediaditi et al, 200518and the importanceof stakeholderparticipation and monitoring

of
asa mechanism risk is
management established.

18Seeliterature on factors affecting risk perception:Slovic, 1987;Petts, 1994; Kasperson,1986;Syms,

1997;POST, 1998;Wylie and Sheehy,1999;The Royal Society, 1992; Cvetkovich and Lofstedt, 1999;

60
Stakeholderparticipation is analysedin detail in Section2.5. However, Pediaditi et al
(2005) showedthat participation methodsin the field of sustainabledevelopmentare

advancedwith the value of two-way communication being widely accepted.It is

therefore consideredthat an exchangeand integration of sustainability participatory

methodologiesand the holistic approachto decisionmaking would greatly benefit risk
communication and decision making, ultimately increasing its potential to improve
the overall sustainability of BRPs. It was thus concluded that a BRP sustainability
framework should be designedto enablea procedural and theoretical integration of
the two concepts of risk and sustainability (Gray and Wiedemann, 1999). More
specifically, the evaluation framework should opt for a participatory approachwhich
would allow for the range of stakeholdersto express their concerns (different

perceivedrisks) regarding a developmentand createa monitoring strategyto address

thoseparticular concerns.

In fact, it was establishedthat one of the factors of increasingrisk acceptability was

perceived control and the reduction of uncertainty, which can result from monitoring
(for examplelong-term monitoring of in-situ contaminants).Patton (1982) underlines
the value of user focused evaluation in reducing uncertainty, and proposes that
evaluationsare designed to include processeswhich would allow all stakeholders,and
not only 'experts', to make their perceived risks'explicit and propose indicators to

monitor them.

Gray and Wiedemann(1999) point out that risk managementand sustainability have
much mutual relevanceand could benefit from a more intensive exchange. Therefore
in Pediaditi et al (2005) the similarities and scopefor integration of the two concepts

of risk and sustainable development were assessed,concluding that there are many
and scope for integration as risk based decision making may affect the
similarities
sustainability of a project, for instance through the choice of remediation technology
for example "Dig and Dump" vs "Natural attenuation" (Vegter, 2001;
and strategy,
Bardoset al, 2002).

Jaegeret al, 2001; Adams, 1995; National Research Council, 1996; Petts, 1996; Kasperson,
et al, in
Lofsted and Frewer, 1998;Lash et al, 1996;Pritkin, 1998;Fischoff, 1998amongstothers.

61
The above discussionpoints out the value of incorporating risk considerationsin the
framework for evaluating BRP sustainability. Risk should be considerednot only in
its technical and evidential definitions but also its socio-cultural and experiential
definitions. A way of achieving that is by adopting a participatory approachwhich

allows for the different types of risk to be evaluated, resulting, through greater
communication and monitoring, in the reduction of uncertainty and increasedtrust

and control and thus greaterrisk acceptance.

2.5. Stakeholders and participation in BRP sustainability

evaluation
It has been establishedthat sustainability is a value laden concept which to be
evaluated needs to be defined by its users, taking into account context specific
infonnation. Ukaga and Maser (2004 pg 2) statethat:
scanygroup planning to evaluate a given initiative or event [in this case a
BRP's sustainability] must have a good conversationabout their philosophy

so they can develop the aims and purposes of the evaluation to be consistent

with theirstatedvalues".
participation literature is reviewed, in order to define the elementsand criteria needed
to design an appropriateparticipatory methodologywhich would enablethe selection
indicators to evaluatethe sustainability of BRP. It is therefore that
emphasised the
of
of this researchis not to create a participation processbut a sustainability
purpose
evaluationprocesswhich usesparticipation methodý.

Often in the literature participation implicitly refers to the involvement of the

lay However, in this research Webler and Renn's (1995)
community or the public.
description of participation as forms of exchangethat are organisedfor
more general
the purpose of facilitating communication between stakeholdersregarding a specific
decision, is adopted.Thus, referenceis not necessarilymade to the community when
the term participation, but rather to the BRP evaluation stakeholderswho are
using
defined in Section2.5.3.

Participation has different purposeswhich in turn affect the methods used,

involved and intensityof It
involvement. is important
therefore to define
stakeholders

62
the purpose of the participation and subsequentrelevant methods which should be
to
used achieve that purpose (Section 2.5.1). However, participation should not be

accepteduncritically as the right thing to do in all circumstances,

and thus the benefits

as well as procedural limitations of participation are examined (Section 2.5.2). This

information can then be used to design a participatory processwhich capitaliseson
the benefits of participation, yet is also realistic, taking into account participations
procedural barriers and limitations. In Section 2.5.4 the processand outcomecriteria
of 'good' participatory decision making are outlined forming the pillars for the
participation process design and evaluation (See Chapter 6). One of these criteria is

the integration of participation into existing decision making processes,which is

explored further in Section2.5.5.

2.5.1. Purpose and nature of participation of BRP evaluation

The purposeof participationwill affect its nature.In fact a numberof different
hierarchiesillustrating the different levels of participationcan be found in the
literature (Amstein, 1969; Dorcey et al, 1994; Wilcox, 1994; Pretty and Shah, 1994;
UNDP, 1997).Amstein (1969) describesthe different levels of participation using the

metaphor of the 'ladder of participation, which is outlined as it is the earliest and

probably best known categorisationof models of participation. The ladder essentially

depicts a hierarchy ranging from non-participation and degreesof tokenism, where

essentiallydo not have the power to influence a decision, through to the

participants
top level of the ladder of citizen power where participantshave total control over the
decisionmaking process.

One problem with such hierarchies is that they imply that more participation is

necessarilybetter. However, the appropriatelevel and methods used should reflect the
the participation (see Figure 2.3) (IEMA, 2002). Sanoff (2000, pg 11)
purpose of
describesthe different purposeswhich participation,can serve,as:

z "to generateideas;
-to identify attitudes;
-to disseminateinformation;

nto resolvesomeidentified conflict;

-to measureopinion;

63
 " to review a proposal,
" merely to serveas a safetyvalvefor pent - up emotions.
One purposedoesnot necessarilyexclude another,and indeedparticipation can fulfil

more than one role. However, according to the defined purpose of the participation
process the methods used will vary, and it is therefore important to recognisethe
limitations of any one process.For example, in the context of this research,which

requires evaluation users to define their sustainability values in order to select

indicatorsbasedon those,extendedinvolvement is required (Figure 2.3). Participants

need to contribute to the formation of a plan (in this case the evaluation strategy).
However, as is apparentfrom Figure 2.3, extendedparticipant involvement requires
high interaction methodswhich are initiated early within the participation programme
andwhich limit the number of participantswho canyealistically be involved.

This can have implications with regard to the extent to which the lay public can be
involved. Tonn et al (2000 pg 164) state'public participation should not be seenas an

either or proposition' but rather propose the considerationof the decision making

questions and implications when deciding on the extent and methods of public
This is important regarding the sustainability evaluation design as a
participation.
different level of participation with arguably less community input and intensity,

required to answer the question of "what indicators should we use to monitor the
BRPT' to "Should the project go ahead?". Participation is
sustainability of a specific
by initiating the 19 who decide which specific
shaped those consciously process ,
are deliberated and which not. Therefore, the benefits and procedural
questions
limitations of participation are reviewed, to draw elementswhich can help design an
processfor the purposeof evaluating BRP sustainability, thus
optimum participation
determiningthe level of community consultation.

19In this casethe author designingthe evaluationframework

64
Figure 2.3. Levels of participation, techniques and factors Influencing the selection of
techniques (Adapted from IEMA, 2002)

Extended
Involvement

Participantsareableto
contributeto theformation
of a planor proposalandto
influencea decisionthrough
groupdiscussions or
activities

Stagein the / Citizenjuries-

advisory Numberof
participation groups participants
progra.mme
Involvement
andConsultation

Formal
orinformal toIdentify
dialogue Issues
of
concern

focus
-workshops- house
open
groups-

InfomationFeedback

ofinformation
Thedissemination witha requestforfeedback
to
knowledge
supplement andgaina betterunderstanding
of
Issues.

exhibits
staffed
-surveys- anddisplays- telephone
staffed lines

Education Provision
andInformation

Theuseof information
dissemination
to createanawareness orissues
of activities

-leaflets
- newsletters-press
releases
- adverts
- television
- radio

65
2.5.2. Benefits and Limitations of Participation
There are many theoretical argumentssupporting participation in decision making

which are outlined and discussedbelow as:

-The inherent right to participate in the political decision making process in a
democraticsociety;
-Provision of relevantand holistic information to basedecisions;
-Better decisionmaking;
-Increasedopportunity to achieveconsensusand understandingbetweenparticipants.
Thesemotivations for participation can be classified into three categories:normative,
instrumentaland substantive(Fiorino, 1990;Buminghamet al forthcoming) whereby;
'under a normative view, participation is just the right thing to do. From an
instrumental Perspective it is a better way to achieve particular ends. In
it
terms,
substantive leadsto betterends(Stirling,2004,
p. 220).

In respect to the normative view, Morino (1990) arguesthat in democracy citizens

have the right to participate in decision making and to be informed of the basesof
decisions being made for them. This is reinforce.d in Article 21 of the Universal
Declarationof Human Rights (UN, 1948)which states'Everyonehas the right to take

part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen

Through
representatives'. participation, accountability and transparencyare enhanced
thus increasing the legitimacy of decisions (Anex and Forcht, 2002). However,
Cvetkovitch and Earl (1994) proposecaution that not all participation producesjustice

and underline the need for a deliberative transparentand accessibleparticipation

process (see Section 2.5.4). Therefore, when designing the participatory process

attention should be to
given provide opportunities for participants to deliberate in a
transparentmanner.

With regard to the instrumentalmotivations for participation, Anex and Focht (2002)

argue that as participants deliberatethey are more likely to become aware of others'

perspectives,thus helping them to forge an understandingand hopefully consensus.

This processis thought to enhancetrust amongstparticipants,which also enablesthe

acceptanceand greater ownership of. decisions (Sanoff, 2000). In Chapter 1, the

66
current lack of use and ownership of evaluationprocessesand results was identified

as an issue of concern.Patton (1997), in proposing ways of increasing the utility of

evaluations, recommends working with decision makers and information users
(stakeholders)in a collaborativeway to designand carry out the evaluation.
"The stakeholderassumptionis the idea that keypeople who have a stake in

an evaluation should be actively and meaningfully involved in shaping that

evaluationso as tofocus the evaluationon meaningfuland appropriate issues,

therebyincreasingthe likelihood of utilisati6n" (Patton, 1982,p. 59).
Therefore,the use of deliberativeparticipation methodsto increasethe ownershipand

acceptanceof the BRP evaluation by its users is of great relevanceand value to this
research.

In substantiveterms participation is also promotedon the basis that is provides better

quality information to both decision makers and other participants which in turn

enables better decision making (Anex and Focht, 2002). In particular, public or
community participation is advocated on the basis that it can reveal important
information quickly and cost effectively (Greenbergand Lewis, 2000; Fischer, 2003).
Bartsch (2003) proposesthe consultationof local communities on the basis that they
have a greaterunderstandingof the needsand problemsin an area.This indicatesthe
to
need consult the local community (at a minimum through surveys, seeFigure 2.3)

in order to obtain information feedback with regard to a proposed BRP and issues

which shouldbe through

addressed the evaluation.

It is therefore clear that participation can contributepositively in a number of ways in

the evaluation of BRP. In order to achievebenefits*such
as ownership of the process,
involvement by is
evaluation users required. Community consultation for
extended
information feedback which can be achieved through less extensive involvement

such as surveys is also needed. However, participation will not just occur
methods
for it to achieve its purpose, it needs to be carefully planned (Sanoff, 2000).
and,
Therefore,the different proceduralbarriers to participation are outlined below, which

can be taken into accountwhen designingthe evaluationparticipatory process.

67
2.5.2.1. Procedural barriers and limitations to participation
Collier (2002) identifies barriers to participation and makes a number of

recommendations to address them (Table 2.2). 'One of the main limitations to

participation is the lack of (ibid).

attendance ODPM (1998), referring specifically to
community participation, report on the lack in
of participation existing community
involvement processes.Owens and Cowell (2002, p. 61) question the Government's

reasoning in promoting more deliberative community involvement "at a time when

the demiseof civic virtues has beenalmost universally acknowledgedand lamented'.
Birch (2002, p. 49) states;
"whilst LA are clear about the benefits that engaging the public can bring,
theyseemconcernedthat the effectivenessofsuch activities may be affectedby
low levels of public interest in participation initiatives or indeed the

representativenessof thoseresponding".
Ta'kli- II 'Rnrrii-. rq M mrtirinstinn qncl remmmendationq (Collier- 2002)
Issue Recommendations
Competing It takestimeand commitment to participateproperlyand thereare manycompetingdemands.
demands Try to makeparticipationas easyas possible.
Access - Carefullyconsideraccessto consultation documents andoutreached events.Takeintoaccount
the needsof thedisabled.
Time Aim to allowsufficienttimewithinthe programme for participants
to preparefor eventsandto
readandcommenton documents.
Awareness People have to be aware of the programmeto participate.Think about informingand
encouraging peoplethrougha co-ordinated promotion campaign.
Information Try to presenta rangeof information, takingintoaccountthe formatand levelof detailrequired
by differentparticipants.
Public The stressof speakingin a meetingdetersmanyfromparticipating. Surgeriesand exhibitions
speaking are more flexibleandless intimidating.
Access to the TheInternetgivespeopleaccessto a widerangeof informationand opinionsfromall sidesof
Internet the argument.Butnoteverybody hasaccess,so a websiteon its ownIs notenough,

This raisesimportant questionswith regard to the extent which the public should be
to in developing an evaluation for a BRP as well as the lengths
expected participate
which one should go to try to involve them. Participation takes time and money,
therefore budgeting when designing a participatory processis essential(Wehrineyer,

2001; IEMA, 2002). A is

more expensive strategy not necessarily more effective
(Wehrmeyer,2001). In fact, IEMA (2002) describea range of participation methods

ranging in levels of involvement (Figure 2.3) and state their advantages and
disadvantagesas well as appropriateness
regarding the purpose of participation. When

68
selecting which participation methodsto use, they recommendthe considerationof
the following20(IEMA, 2002,p. 30):
-The purpose and objectivesof theparticipation eiercise;
-The degree of interaction required betweenparticipants and the extent to which
participants are able to influence decisions,,

aThe timing of use, ie the stage in the decision makingprocess and the time available
for participation;
oResourceavailability-time, costs;
-The numberofparticipants involved,,and
ThecomT lexity, controversyand level of interest in issuesunder consideration.

For the purpose of this research,a pragmatic approach should be adopted which

considersthe implications of the decisionsbeing deliberatedwhen deciding the extent

of public participation (Owens and Cowell, 2002). Gyford, (1991), Lowndes et al,
(1998) and Birch (2002) assertthat membersof the public only become interested

when the issuesat hand are immediately relevant to them. It does not interest them
how the local councils are run or the processesused(in this casethe indicators which

monitor BRP); 'what does matter to the public are better services which ostensibly
derive from theseprocesses' (Fenwick and Elcock, 2004, p. 535). All the above
indicatesthat for the participatory approachrequireý for the evaluationof BRP, direct

extended involvement community participation is not essential and may have

feasibility complications. However, community information feedback is required,
indicating that lower involvement methods such as surveysand consultation through

representationare (Figure
necessary 2.3).

However, the lack of representationis the Achilles heel of participation (Owens and
Cowell, 2002) and participatory evaluation more specifically (Ukaga and Maser,
2004). 'Often people involved do not represent the majority but are rather citizens
sp6cial interests' (Sanoff, 2000, p. 23). In fact, a study by Birch (2002)
who represent
concluded that 56% of UK local authorities are concerned that participation exercises

are capturing views of dominant yet unrepresentativegroups. HaJer and Kesselring

(1999), caution against undermining existing democratic processes,for example by

20theseissueswill be consideredfin-therin the stakeholderinterviews in Chapter4.

69
not using elected representativessuch as councillors. They conclude that the
introduction of add-on interactive fora 'might have eroded the power of of)TIcially
aegally embedded)practices of participation' (ibid, p. 19). From the above, two
important conclusionscan be drawn.Firstly that existing legally requiredparticipation

processesin BRP should be consideredwhen developing the evaluationparticipation

process (see Section 2.5.5). Secondly, councillors should be involved in the
evaluationprocessto representthe public.

However, this approach also has its limitations. Whitehead (2003) points out the
dangerof assumingthat councillors' views are necessarilyuniform or representative

of those of their community. The assumption that the community has a uniform
opinion is problematic in itself. Henderson(2004, pg2l) explains how any public
representativeelectedor otherwise:
'may not represent the diversity of interestspresent in the surrounding area,

recognising that society can be sub-dividedby age, ethnicity, gender,physical

ability, sexuality and wealth'.
Therefore,a combinationof community participation methodssuch as a censuswhich

shouldprovide eachmemberof the community the opportunity to expresstheir views

aswell as obligatory councillor to
representation, allow for extensiveinvolvement and
deliberation, may be consideredan optimum miO. Having dealt with the issue of

public participationand representationit is importantto examine more widely the

potentialstakeholderswho couldbe involved in a BRPevaluationprocess.

2.5.3. BRP Stakeholders

Collier (2002, p. 7), defines stakeholdersas "constituencies,organized groups, or
individuals that have a direct or indirect interest in the decision". In the caseof the

sustainability evaluation of BRPs, the decision in question is "how should the

sustainabilityof a BRP be is22

evaluated? . There is extensiveliterature on the different

stakeholders and their role in BRPs (Dair and Williams, 2004; Greenberg and Lewis,

2000; Adams et al, 2000; Ferguson1999; Wernstedtet al, 2003; Carley, 2000; Urban
Mines, 2000; Bardos et al, 2001). However, thereis no consensusas to who shouldbe

2' Thisneedsto be exploredfiu-therby questioning chapter4.

stakeholders
22andnot 'whethertheproposeddevelopment shouldgoahead'andneither'what shouldtheBIR be?
eghousing,industrialunitsetc'

70
involved in eachdecisionmaking process.Different categorizationsand groupingsof

stakeholders can be found, reflecting the interestsof different authors.It is therefore

important to examinethe literature in order to make decisionsabout best practice in
identification
stakeholder for this research.

Stakeholderinclusion and the composition of the group should be tailored according

to the scale of the BRP and the effect it is going to have on the surrounding area
(Collier, 2002). Additionally, the composition of the stakeholder group may alter

according to the life cycle period of the project. Bartsch (2003) notes that different

play
stakeholders a different role in eachBRP period (Figure 1.1), and thereforetheir

role shouldvary accordingto the period.

Box 2.5 provides an indicative list of stakeholdersin BRPs, including stakeholders

who have decision making powers, those who will be affected by the BRP and also
thosewho have the to
power obstructor assist the project. This list is indicative rather
than exhaustiveand is intendedto be used as a prompter, as stakeholder involvement

will dependon the individuals' relevanceto the specific sites and projects in question.

When selecting stakeholdersto involve in each stage of the participatory process,

their legitimacy will have to be considered.If participants are not content with the
composition of the group they may doubt the fairnessof the process,and the whole
be disrupted(Sanoff, 2000; Seargent and Steele, 1998; see
participationprocesscould
Section 2.5.4). Therefore, Seargentand Steele(1998) and the Environment Council
(2002,pg6) proposethe considerationof the following questionsprior to the selection
to
of stakeholders assess their legitimacy:

" no is directly responsiblefor the decisionson the issues?

" Whoholdspositions of responsibility in stakeholdingorganisations?

" no is influential in the area, community,organisation?
" no will be by
affected any decisionsaround the issue?

" no will promote a decision-provided they will be involved?

" no will obstruct a decision- if they are not involved?

" no has beeninvolved in the issuein thepast?

" no has not been involved up to now -but should have been?

71
Box 2.5 Different stakeholders,who may potentially be relevantto include in the
uU11SUILULIULI
Plvvrbb
" BuildingControl
" Development Control (includingregeneration
officer)
" Sustainability officerLA21
" "Environmental Health Officer" landofficer)
(Ind.contaminated
" HealthSafetyExecutive (HSE)
" Highways
" Councilors
" National HouseBuilding Council(NHBC)
" National Health Service (NHS)
" Environment Agency (EA)
" Police
" Utilityregulators
" Service providers
" Architect
" Engineer (incl.remediation consultant)
" Development surveyor (incl.Planning
consultant)
" Costconsultant
40
Estateagent
" Community liaison
" Lawyer
" Contractors
" Landowner
" Developer
" Investors
" Partners
" Endusersoccupants/ residents
" Housing Associations
" Banks/ financial institutions/insurers
" Aid/grantproviders (e.g.English Partnerships)
" NGOs
" Central Government Departments
" Regional Authorities (RDAs)
" Statutory andnonstatutory consultees
" Residents associations
" Community groups / pressure groups
" Individuals
" Business groups
" Building siteoperatives
" Visitors/workers oncommercial sites
" Neighbours
" Purchasers ortenants

72
2.5.4. Criteria and elements of 'Good' participatory decision
making

In order to design and evaluatean effective partic,iPatory processthe criteria which

it
constitute need to be defined. Criteria and elementsof effective participative
decisionmakingcanbe dividedinto outcomeandprocesscriteria.Outcomecriteria
are outlined below, but are not reviewed here in detail as thesecan only be used to
evaluate the outcome of the deliberation. They are content specific in that they can
only be used after the deliberation has ended, limiting the potential to draw on
generally applicable elementsof best practice of the processas well as the context/
outcomeof the deliberation.
Outcomecriteria consistof.
-achievementof consensus on a decision;

ovalueaddedto the decision;

-a fair decision (inequities are minimized as far aspossible);
-improvement in the public availability of information; and
-promotion of trust between stakeholders (Environment Agency, 1998).

By contrast, process criteria are applicable and comparable to all participatory

processes (Santos and Chess, 2003). Furthermore, Sanoff (2000) argues that
participantsjudge the efficacy of a participation processon the basis of the process
followed and the opportunity they had to contributeand be involved rather than on the

outcome. The processcriteria and important elementsof the participatory processare

thus examinedbelow (Table 2.3).

The participation and risk communication literature has tended to focus on process
how participation occurs, 6r the different means to promote
criteria which examine
participation such as information exchange, rules and so forth (Santos and Chess,

2003). Processcriteria also include recommendationsas to how decisions are made

and who is involved in the decision making process. Cvetkovitch and Earl (1994)

comment on the plethora of literature, which stipulatesthe 'shoulds' in participation

(seeTable2.3).

Table 2.3: Elementsor criteria of "good" participation or risk communication

73
 Authors Elements or criteriaof "good"participation or riskcommunication
Environment PTheextentto whichtheparticipants represent allstakeholders
Agency 1998 aEffectiveness ofthemethod inmeeting theobjectives oftheparticipants
- Useof resources totheirfullestvalue
@ Theextenttowhichthecommunication method andmandate forstakeholders'
participation
meettheobjectives ofdifferent parties
wThedegree of knowledge andawareness achieved among participants
mCompatibilitywithotherdecision processes, particularlystatutory,
Wehrmeyer mHavea transparent process
2001 -Applytheprecautionary principle to riskcommunication
uAgree the'ground rules'ofthecommunication inanInteractive dialogue
aCommunicate 'asfastasreasonably practical'.
wBeclearabouttheInformation needsoftheparticipants
@Balance participationwithfocus
- Beassimpleaspossible andastechnical asnecessary
mDon'texpress riskinnumerical termsalone I
wUnderstanding thatthereis notalways onebest. solution andthatconflicts canbeover
values
societal
wCompetence andtrustcanbecome morerelevant thanstatistics
wFindwaysto involve stakeholders Inthedecision making process
Institute
of w The process of publicparticipation should be agreed uponbetween stakeholders
participatory a Publicparticipation should start early in the decision-making process
planning(1981) -The objectives of the publicparticipation need to be clearlystated
inSymeand - People need to be aware of the level of power being offered
Eaton(1989) aEffortsshouldmadeto Identify allinterested parties
- Informationshouldbefreelyavailable to allparticipants
n Participantsshould know-how their submissions willbe processed
wWhereappropriate costsforparticipants should bereimbursed.
Cvetcovitchand vThegoalsof publicparticipation shouldbeclearly defined
Earl(1994) n Publicinvolvement should start early In the decision process
nCommunicators haveto behonest andresponsive to thepublic
The
a publicshould be involved in the setting ofthe agenda for publicinvolvement

From Table 2.3 a few common elements in each set of recommendationsemerge

whichare:
decision
j. Participatory makingprocesses be,
must andmust appearto be, fair.

ii. Stakeholdersmust displaycertainminimumdegrees

of trusttowards eachother.
iii. Differencesin knowledgeand competencemust be addressed. Thus information

provision and the educational elements in participation processesneed

consideration.
trade-offs to be ind structured developed
processes
iV. Valuesandvalue need accepted
to allow for this.
V. Participation must be, or seem to be, an integral part of the decision making
23
process .

23At the appropriatetime and level suitableto achievingthe intendedpurposeof the participation.

74
j. Fairness
Thereare different types and definitions of fairness(Albin, 1993).However, only one
conceptof fairnessis directly relevantto participatory decisionmaking processesand
is describedby the EnvironmentAgency (1998) as the extent to which opportunities

exist for the expressionof legitimate personalinterest and contribution to the decision

making process.Santosand Chess(2003) describethe conditions of fairness,relating

to the equal ability of all participants to be part of the process, freely initiate and
in the discourse,and in the decision-making.24Participants should also be
participate
free from manipulation and have equality with respectto power (ibid). Thesecriteria
for the evaluation of these aspectsof fairnessare dealt with by all authors in Table
2.3. They should be consideredwhen designingthe evaluation process,in particular
the process of stakeholderidentification and involvement as well as when setting
groundrules of deliberation.

u. Trust
Illsley (2003) suggeststhat people are more likeiy to accept decisions when they

acknowledge both the moral basis of the judgment and the legitimacy of the decision

making body. This relates to trust in, and credibility of, the decision makers and
facilitators of the participatory processes (Table 2.3), (Keeney el al, 1986;
Wehrmeyer,2001). There are three dimensionsof trust: trust of expertsand expertise,
trust of government decision-makers and trust of other stakeholders(Anex and Focht,
2002). Trust is a key factor, which is characterisedboth by the technical competence

of the information provided as well as the opportunities to make underlying values

explicit (Kontic, 2000). Trust is considered as a prerequisite to effective decision

making but is also known to be enhancedthrough deliberative processeswhich allow

for value sharing (ibid). The implications of the aboveare that prior to the initiation of
the participatory evaluationprocessthere needsto be agreement between participants
to the composition of the stakeholder group. Additionally, methods
with regard
should be developed which will allow for the provision of technically competent
information as well as for participant value sharing.

" Seeprevioussectionon criteriafor stakeholder

selection.

75
ju. Competence,Information and Education.
The EnvironmentAgency (1998,pg 20) describeparticipatory competenceas:
"the ability to provide all of those taking part with the procedural tools and
knowledge needed to make the best possible decision. In this context the

provision of information, providing accessto different (including conflicting)

information sources and experts; providing opportunities for questioning,
debate and learning, promotion of the consideration of anecdotal evidence

and intuitive knowledge; and opportunitiesfor people to check claims and

reducemisunderstandingsare all important".
All thesecriteria of participatory competenceshould ideally be implementedthrough
the sustainability evaluation process design. However, the levels of informational
competenceand degree of participation and role of values in decision making will
vary accordingto the levels of uncertainty and stakesinvolved in the decision making
(Giampietro, 2006). This implies that when designinga participatory approachof the

evaluation of specific projects, althoughminimum requirementsto achievethe above

criteria should be set, flexibility should also be -available to modify the process
dependingon its uncertainty and stakes.Participation allows for social learning and

capacity building (Tuler, 1998). However, this requires the consideration of

appropriate methods of information provision, taking into account participant's

competence (Keeney et al, 1986). Obviously these will vary between BRP's, thus

underlying the need for a simple yet flexible processwhich can be adaptedto suit the

needsof a particular project and its stakeholders.

iv. Making values explicit and value trade-off decision making

"Values are the criteria used to select and justify actions, to evaluate people
(including the seo and events"(Cvetcovichand Earl, 1994 pg163). Making values
indicators to evaluate sustainability has been stated as a
explicit when selecting *
from the outset (Ukaga and Maser, 2004). Additionally, an examination
prerequisite
of participatory and risk decision making processes specifically with regard to

brownfield redevelopment projects (Pediaditi et al, 2005) identified the need to

internalise ethical and other valuesin the decisionmaking process(Ball, 2002; NRC,
1996; Kasperson, 1986). However existing BRP decision making processessuch as

planning have wrongly been portrayed as rational processeswhich use scientific

information, when they are in fact political processescharacterisedby value and

76
power struggles (Owens and Cowell, 2002; Weston, 2000). Therefore, there is

growing support for participatory deliberation which accepts and makes values
explicit in decision making (Giampietro,2006; Owens and Cowell, 2002; Susskindet
al, 2001). However, the inherent difficulties of doing that are also documented, in

particular when decisions involve making trade-offs that involve multiple dimensions

of value (Avrai et al, 2001; Gregory, 2002).

Therefore, it is proposed that along with participation and deliberation, a decision

making framework is neededto help encouragethinking, and to structureinformation

so that participants can better understandthe complex issues and range of values
(Mathesonand Matheson, 1998).Avrai et al (2001, p. 1067) define the elementsof a
decision making framework as "clarifying several aspects including defining the
decisions to be made, identifying objectives, creating alternatives, understanding

consequences and weighing trade-offy in selectingamong alternatives". It is proposed

for this researchthat this framework shouldbe targetedaroundmaking values explicit
through the use of, for example,value focusedthinking (Keeney et al, 1986) as well
as through a structured approachenabling value trade-offs like the one proposed in
Gregory (2002). Criteria to evaluatethis processare proposedin Table 2.3.

v. The integration of participation Into existing decision making processes

Clarke and Dawson (1999) discussthe phenomenonof evaluationsserving more as
late 'add-ons'to existingprogramsandprojectsratherthanintrinsic elementsof the
decisionmakingprocesses, which limits their effebtand the use of findings.Ukaga
(2001) and Sanoff (2000) suggestthat this is the case for many participatory
at
processes, best limiting the extentto which issuesraisedfrom the participatory
processcan influence decisionsand at worst leading to lack of credibility of
itself.
participation From the it
above, is clearthat the framework for the participatory
sustainabilityevaluationof BRP facestwo challengesin its design. Firstly, as an
it
evaluationprocess needs to that
ensure it is integrated
within existingBRP decision

making (Section
processes 2.2 and 2.3). Secondly,opportunities within the existing
decisionmakingprocessesneed to be identifiedwhich would allow for participative
decisionsmadeusing the evaluationframeworkto be taken on board and at best

77
 25 are
legitimised. Therefore, existing BRP participatory or consultation processes
investigatedfurther.

2.5.5 Opportunities for BRP participatory decision making

UK environmentallaw hasbeendescribedashistoricallyclosedto publicinfluence,
betweenregulators
limitedto negotiation andregulated partieson compliance and
evidence presented from a narrow basisof expertise(Steele,2001).However,there
hasbeenan increasing emphasis on publicparticipation,whichcanbe observed in
UK domestic, EU, andinternationalenvironmental law (Steele,2001;Illsley,2001)
(seeBox2.6).As therelationship between law andparticipation
variesaccordingto
differentprocesses andpiecesof legislationandtypesof law,only theparticipatory
processes directly
relevantto BRP decisionmakingarediscussed.

Box 2.6. Influential participation legislation

andDirecfive
Convenfion
m Aarhus 90/3131EC
Directive,Directiive
0 PublicParticipation 2003/35/EC

0 Seveso11(Directive96182/EC)
Controlfunction
throughthe Development
0 Consultation
U PlanningPolicyStatementI
PurchaseAct2004, statements
L3 Compulsory Involvement
of community
U ImpactAssessment,
Townand CountryPlanning:Environmental Englandand Wales,Regulations
Sl1999/293
19991

The Development Control and planning process has already been discussed (see

Section 2.3 and Pediaditi et al, 2005a). However, it is important to identify existing
in
mechanisms place for participatory decisionmaking. Under Article 10 of the Town

and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, LPAs are

required to consult various bodies so called 4'statutoryconsultees" about specified

categories of planning application. The comments received are then taken into

the LPA reachesits decision on the application. In addition, LPAs are

accountwhen
advisedto consulta rangeof otherbodies"non-statutory
consultees"
most of which
are set out in Appendix B to DOE Circular 9/95.

25in theirbroadestsense

78
However, this process has obvious limitations. As consultation is mostly through

written submissions,there is limited scope for deliberation, two-way information

exchange and for consensus building, which were considered key elements of
effective participatory decision making. In fact, in a survey undertaken (ODPM,

undated)LPAs expressedconcernthat have

consultees a tendencyto be over-cautious
and sometimes appear unaware of the range of Jimitations a development faces.
Additionally, the responseto the consultationis limited to specific areasthe statutory
consulteesare 'representing', so that, for example,English Nature only respondson
ecological issues, the Environment Agency only responds with respect to their
regulatory roles etc. Issuesthat do not have statutory consulteestypically do not get
aired and the overall review still lies in the handsof the developmentcontrol officer
dealing with the application. In this, the consijltation process is not really a
deliberativeprocess,with open questions,but a structuredway to get views from the

most significant agencies.

Therefore, until recently, the only opportunity for public participation in planning

application decisionmaking was through the public.inquiry processor through written

consultationswith neighbouring residents and businesses (Cullingworth and Nadin,
2002) The public inquiry process,however, is criticised with regard to its limited

opportunity for consensusbuilding and improved understanding as well as highly

chargedand confrontationalnature(Fiorino, 2000 and Weston 2000).

However times are changing, and PPSI (ODPM, 2005), as part of ODPM's strategy
to put sustainability as the core function of planning, also reinstatesthe importance
and need for increased public participation and stakeholder consultation when
determining planning applications and developing plans. A particular demonstration

of this increasing emphasison participation is through the recently adopted Planning

and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) by which LPAs are required to prepare a

statementof community involvement:

"The statement of community involvement is a statement of the authority's

policy as to the involvementin the exerciseof the authority's functions under

Sections19,26 and 28 of this Act and Part 3 of the principle Act ofpersons

who appear to the authority to have an interest in matters relating to

developmentin the area' (IHMSO,2004, Ch4pter5 Art 18).

79
As this is a recentdevelopment,the implementationof this Act is just starting to take

place and therefore the participatory processesemployed have yet to be defined.

However, this process constitutes an important opportunity for the potential
integration of the BRP sustainability evaluationparticipatory process,thus achieving

criterion (v) of good participatory decisionmaking (Section2.5.4).

UK planning law has adopted a mandatory consultation process for some larger
developments through the requirement for Environmental Impact Assessments
26
(ElAs) In theseinstances,participation is a condition of the legality of the decision
.
to proceedwith the development.However,participation is limited to the provision of
information, in the form of an environmentalstatementand the opportunity to attenda

public hearing to comment on a predefined pyoposal, and thus faces similar

limitations to the standardplanning application consultationarrangements.Although
best practice literature regarding increasedinvolvement participation and two-way

communication in EIA is well the

established, take up of such processeshas been

slow (Chadwick and Glasson,1999;Glassonand Heaney,1993).

The more recent legislation and guidance tends to promote more extended
involvement participation (see Figure 2.3) which includes deliberation and the
inclusion of values, two-way information exchangeand a problem solving approach
to decision making, and consequentlyoffers more potential for the integration of the
BRP evaluation participation processes.However, there is a need for caution and
further investigationwith regardto the actual implementationof this legislation on the

ground as well as its applicability to BRP evaluation. The processes describedare

designedto answer a different questionto those of the evaluation, mainly whether a
development should go ahead.Therefore, firther investigation is required into the

possibilities for introducing more involved deliberative participatory processesinto

existing BRP (Chapter

processeS27 4).

26(Directive 85/337/EEC,Council Directive 97/1IEC, Town and Country Planning: Assessmentof

EnvironmentalEffects; Regulations1988:SI 1998/1199;Town and Country Planning: Environmental
Impact Assessment,England and Wales,Regulations1999:S11999/293).
27 There is a needto ask BRP stakeholdersto what extentthey carry out or are involved in
participatory processesand what stakeholdersand what type of participatory processesthey perceive
the RAF shouldhave.

80
In conclusion,it has been establishedthat participation has a number of benefits and
is required to carry out BRP sustainability evaluations. The purpose of the

participation would be to enable effective decision making with regard to defining

sustainability, obtaining context specific information with the aim of identifying

relevant indicators to evaluate the sustainability of BRP. Although community

involvement was identified as key with regard to BRP, it was establishedthat

consideration in the design of the participatory processshould also be given to the

feasibility aspects,such as time and cost parameters.Therefore, it was proposedthat

participation is carried out by evaluationusers and public representativesand public

information feedback obtained through community census (see Figure 2.3). The

elementsof good participatory decision making were established,with a number of

recommendations proposed regarding the nature of the evaluation processincluding

the needfor a structureddecisionmaking framewoik which enablestransparencyand

value sharing. The need to integrate participation into existing decision making
process was underlined with new opportunities emerging for more involved

participation through the planning system,

requiring further investigation (Chapter4).

81
2.6. Conclusions: the RAF theoretical specification
From the abovereview a numberof key issuesemergedwhich serveas the theoretical

specification for the RAF developmentand evaluation (Box 2.7). These theoretical
specificationsor criteria are also usedas a basisto evaluatea rangeof existing tools in
Chapter3. Recommendationsare drawn with regard to further researchrequired for
the purposesof this project and for the wider researchcommunity.
Box 2.7 The RedevelopmentAssessmentFrameworks:Theoretical specifications

TheRAFwouldhaveto be:
1. Holistic(evaluate socialandeconomic
environmental, aspectsof theBRP)
2. SiteandProjectspecific(evaluate atthedevelopment levelandinclude
evaluationof associatedimpacts
resultingfromplanning andS106
conditions
Agreements).
3. Long-term(evaluate ofall3 BRPlifecycleperiods)
thesustainability
4. Participatory (enable usersto maketheirvaluesandrisk
evaluation
perceptionsexplicitaswellasdevelop indicators
theirownsustainability based
onthose;Obtaincommunities views)
5. Integratedwithinexistingdecisionmakingprocesses(planning)

*Thesefivecriteriawill beusedto evaluateexistingtools(Chapter4) aswell

asthe RAF case study trial (Chapter
6)

First it was identified that in order for the RAF to be in line with the principles of
it
sustainability would have to enable a holistic evaluation of BRPs, considering

social, envirom-nental and economic implications (Section 2.1). There are

sustainability implications throughoutthe whole life cycle of a BRP with a numberof

stakeholdersand processesinvolved (Section 2.2). However, the processes in place
and the decisionsmade during the initial planning and designperiod have the greatest
influence and potential to affect the sustainabilityof a BRP throughout its life cycle

and also provide the best opportunity to involve consulted Each

stakeholders. BRP is

distinct and thus requirescaseby caseconsideration.

Therefore it is proposed that the RAF should adopt a context speciflc approach

which is initiated as early as possible and integrated within the planning Process,

yet which enables the long-term evaluation of the project throughout its land use life

cycle. Through the it

review was identified that the planning system is undergoing

change with a number of opportunities for participatory evaluation and decision

82
making presenting themselves.However, further researchis required to identify how
and whether the different BRP stakeholders,and in particular decision makers, are
aware of or are using these opportunities and whether they are carrying out
and
sustainabilityassessments monitoring at all (SeeChapter4). The literature review
also identified the potential to link Community Strategies,Statementsof Community
Involvement, SEA, EIA, Planning Gain and Regulations with the RAF as they

presenteddecision making processeswhich the RAF could be integratedas well as

potential sources of data and benchmarks. However, there is a need for further

researchto question BRP decision makers as to which of these processesthey are

using and the extent to which they see a link or utilisation of these processesas
beneficial.

The importanceof adopting a participatory approach to indicator developmentwas

established from the outset, with the literature review identifying potential BRP

stakeholdersas well as stakeholderselectioncriteria. Elementsof good participatory

decisionmaking were reviewedwith the aim of being designedinto the RAF process.
From the literature an extended involvement participatory approach seems to be

appropriate for the RAF. However, it is important to ask BRP stakeholdersand RAF
future users what kind of participatory approachthey think would be most effective
for the RAF (Chapter4).

Furthermorerisk was identifiedas a key considerationfor BRP, in particularwith

regardto the potentialfor and
contamination uncertainties
general regarding the site
Whilst
conditions. is
risk assessment a key it technicalrisk.
process, only addresses
Thereforea more holistic approachwas propoied using participation and risk
to the
communication enable variety of risk to
considerations be madeexplicit and
as
evaluated part of the RAF. Additionally,what was not clear from the reviewwas
to
the extent which long-term monitoring is beingcarriedout on remediatedsitespost
completion,andthereforewill haveto be investigatedfurther(Chapter4).

Finally, the review of the literature regarding the iaeal characteristicsof an indicator

to be controversial, with no consensus being drawn regarding the number of

proved
indicators,their nature,form of presentation,aggregationetc. However, Table 2.1 was
developedwhich presentsthe different potential characteristicswhich indicatorscould

83
have and is a starting point to their design. As the theoretical specificationsof the
RAF stipulate participative decision making in the developmentof indicators, it is

proposedthat RAF participants agreeon the ideal'indicator on a caseby casebasis,

thecriteriaof Table2.1.
havingconsidered

The literature review also identified a number of potential functions for the RAF,
including:
oServing as an information provision mechanism,providing feedback of policy
effectivenessand a link betweenEIA and SEA;

-providing an aid to development decisionmaking,

-Providingfeedback to BRP decisionmakerson the effectsof their decisions.

These different potential uses of the RAF evaluationsare not mutually exclusive but
do have different methodological implications. It -is therefore important to explore

what BRP stakeholdersconsider to be the limitations of existing tools and what

benefits they wish and perceive can be achieved from sustainability evaluation
(Chapter 4). This information in combination with the theoretical directions

establishedin this chapterwill enablethe developmentof the RAF in a theoretically

sound,yet practical manner.

84
Chapter 3. Review of existing sustainability evaluation
tools and indicators.
A recent study by the SUE-MoT Consortium identified 632 sustainability evaluation
tools (SUE-MoT, 2004). Innes and Booher (2000, p. 174), referring to sustainability

evaluationtool development,
state:
'this movementis developingso quickly that little has as yet beenpublished
documenting,much less critically evaluating, theseexperimentsor assessing
their impact. The internet is a much better ýource than the library forfinding
out about much of this work, although its descriptionsare sketchyand reflect
the imageeachgroup wants to offer. P
Mitchell (1996) comments on the ad hoc developmentof tools and sustainability
indicators, whereas Deakin el al (2002) note the existing overlap between tools.
Moreover, with regardto the quality of existing tools and the extent of their use,there
is also little information (SUE-MoT, 2004). Bell -and Morse (2003) point out that
there has been limited review into the use of indicators. Considering that the aim of
this researchis to develop a usable sustainability evaluationprocess,it is important
that an investigation is carried out to identify which of existing evaluation tools are
being utilised as well as the extent of their use, with a particular focus on BRP (see
Chapter4).

This chapterthereforereviewspotentiallyrelevantexistingsustainabilityevaluation
tools to ascertainwhetherthey meetthe criteriaor theoreticalspecificationsin Box
2.7.A directreviewof 632toolswasnot feasible;therefore,a secondaryreviewwas
conducted based on three These
othermainstudies. arethe SUE-MoT 28studywhich
is compilingandreviewingexistingurbansustainaýilitytools,aswell asthe research
carriedout by BEQUEST and CRISP. In Europethe CRISP (Constructionandcity
RelatedsustainabilityIndicatorSProject)has provideda databaseon the use and
indicators
applicationof a wide rangeof sustainability for constructionand urban
areas.The BEQUEST frameworkhasbeen used to help the
structure indicatordatain
the system (Curwell and Deakin,2002). As it is not in the scopeof this studyto

'RTheauthorhascollaborated from anearlystagewith theSUEMoT Consortium,sitson their

Steeringgroup,andworkedtogetherwith themin identifyingexistingevaluationtoolsaswell asin
developingcategorisation categories
andclassification usedin theirreview. It wasagreedappropriate
at the timethat SUEMoT conduct theclassification
andtheauthor undertake a secondary
reviewbased
on the BRP See
criteria.
relevant Chapter1.

85
 review all existing tools and indicators, the results of these studies are used to draw
conclusionswith regard to the overlaps, gaps and relevance of existing tools with
regard to BRP and the authors' secondaryreview based on the SUE-MoT results.
Table 3.1 lists existing evaluationtools reviewedby SUE-MoT, numberedso they can
be classified according to their characteristicsin relevant cells (in following Tables
3.2; 3.3 and 3.4). This method of representationin Tables 3.2,3.3 and 3.4 permits the
identification of the relevant existing tools, i. e. the oneswhich meet the specifications
in Box 2.7. It also enablesthe identification of the current gaps in relation to BRP

sustainabilityevaluationtools. The relevancecolumn in Table 3.1 is the overall result

of this review and shouldbe consideredhaving consultedTables3.2,3.3 and 3.4.

Table 3.1. SUE Mo T reviewed tools

Nameof Tool Number Relevance29
Yes,No, potential(P)
CEEQUAL - Civilengineering Environmental QualityAward I P
www.ceequal. com
BRE-Methodology for environmental Profilesof Construction
Materials, 2 N
Components andBuildinqswww.bre,co.uk
TheBousteadModelwww.boustead-consultinq. co.uk 3 N
BuildingDesiqnAdvisorhftp://qaia.lbi.qov/bda/ 4 N
DOE-2.2hftp://simulationresearch. lbl.nov 5 N
Community SustainabilityAssessment 6 N
hffi)://aen.ecovillaqe.
oýqlactivities/csa/Enqlishftoc.
t)hD
SPeARThesustainable ProjectAppraisalRoutine 7 P
hffp:/Iwww.aruD. com/enVironmenttfeature. cfm?oaqeid=l685
Athenawww.athenaSMI. ca 8 N
BRESustainability Checklistfor developments www.bre.co.uk 9 Y30

CityGreenwww.amedcanforests. orq 10 N
ECOTECTwww. squl.com 11 N
Ecopro3l 12 N
EcoCalwww.bestfootforward. com/ecocal. htm 13 N
ENVEST2 www.bre-co. uk 14 N
TheHongKongBuildingEnvironmental Assessment MethodHK-BEAM 15 N
hftp:/A&ww. bse.wivu.edu.hk/Researr, h Centre/BEP/hkbeam/HK
GreenBuildingChallenge www.cireenbuilding. ca 16 N
GaBi4 www.De-euroDe-com 17 N
LEEDLeadership in EnergyandEnvironmental Designwww.usgbc. org 18 N
Landscape urbanplanningtools 19 7
MinnesotaSustainable DesignGuideMSDG 20 P
hftp://www.develop. csbr.umn.edu/msdq2/MSDG/quide2. html
Planningfor Community Energy,EconomicandEnvironmental Sustainability 21 P
PLACEShftp:/fwww.ener-qy. ca.qov/places/EXECSUMM. PDF
SocialCostsof AlternativeLandDevelopment Scenarios 22 N
www.fhwa.dot.qov/scalds/scalds. htmi
rSEEDA Checklistwww,sustainability-checklist. 23 Y
sustainability co.uk

'9 Relevanceis determinedon the overall performanceof eachtool accordingto criteria in Table 3.4.
" This has servedas the basis of the newer SEEDA developmentchecklist which was usedaspart of
the RAF (seeChapter5).
31Not enoughinfo available.

86
SPARTACUS Systemfor PlanningandResearch in TownsandCitesfor 24 N
UrbanSustainability
http:IAAww. unl-
raurnplanung.
dortmund.
derirpud/prolspada/sWa, htm
TEAN,Toolfor EnvironmentalAnalysisandWanagement 25 ?
www.ecobilan.
com

3.1. Holistic Approach

The needfor a holistic approachto the evaluationof BRP sustainabilitywas discussed
in Section 2.1. However, Table 3.2 shows there is a predominance of solely
enviromnental evaluation tools. This conclusion is also drawn by Levett and Therivel
(2004) as well as Deakin et al (2002a)who commenton a generalfragmentationand
32
a lack of tools addressingall three issues.Levett qnd Therivel, (2004p. 3) identified
that environmentaland economictools prevail, with a lesseremphasisattributedto
the social dimension and attribute this phenomenonto the fact that 'there is less
consensusabout what social issues are and more contention surrounding what
significant social impacts are, than about environmental and economic ones.'
Rotheroo et al (1997) point out that generally when developing sustainability
indicators the focus usually reflects the expertiseof the developerof the indicators.
Also Cooperin Brandonet al (1997)identifiesa particulargapwith regardto building

assessmentmethods addressing social issues, also evident from Table 3.2, In fact,

when re-reviewing the tools in Table 3.2, it was observed that in some casestools
which claimedto address social or economic issuesdid so very sparingly,if at all. For

example, one tool which claimed to addressall sustainability issueshad only one
indicator relating to social issuesand it consistedof the number of work accidents
during construction.So although there are a number of tools, they mainly focus on
environmental issues and tend to be fragmented,thus not proving to be entirely
appropriatefor the purposeof BRP evaluation.

32environmental,social and economic

87
 00
00

cl-
CN
"! C--
cl- Cl)
rl_ CN

rd
C, C
Cl)
4) CN
Z-, c-
CO CA
C-1
(b
tn
co
I%- C14
CL
C) U

Cl. 9
.0
76
ý!! LO (ý- M
04
Z5
:Ii C - co cli
cn -
cx. r- -- d C'. -A
to
0 C- -L C-)
04 - C%J C--vi
P..V-
Je Cq ccý
ý
C'.
ý2
r-: C4 P%- CM
.Z
4)

M
CN Cl-- M

rl: V- C*4 (D
zz
.iCo C6

-0 -
cl-
cn C-)
C= CV
0 C14 pl: ý
C) - 4=

-y,
r4
CO 04
C5 cli
cli

"Z

m
22
C14 ri
C14
(n
-,I C14
vi
C=
(13
04 04
0) CKS 06
C14
C6 LO 'd
cu C-i
Lf) Ld Lo
Cj ci C*4 - CQ

A )
(4 cc-
"M
a L) CL
(1) U) 0
ffi a CY)

Iýi 1- 0
a) ýa >
-Z5 E m
C)
0 m ca U) W
.0
1!
 ON
00

E
c u cu 0
cr u
-U) cmM
g E 9 E-
e0 z z z z z z z -ro z z c,-. C .2
cn go z z »cn Cý- Z Z Z n
(P Z: ?v
E LA
E (L)
E! >
E
e CO) 8
(D cn CO CO)
l=
0
E
:=
12 '0

CL

0 CL CL
M 4n 10 13
z z z z z z r- Z z c r- -j z z z cý. z z z r-
-i -j -J Co
b12 CL
=) rn

? 9 (D
-- c2 -

0
>
(D (D >,
Z -5 *=
-0 c (D m
0
(n c3'- E-
3, OU) 8U) c4, Z Z c4. Z c- > > Z Z
.r CO Z z z Z
cu 2 (1) Z z z r- r- r- -2
(D >
u
r- 3 3 en
0) cu Ci)
.
(n E
CL 8 0
8
JE "5 C)
r
Z
Z
a-

4 Z

-m
r=::
4) Co < m m M M M M M (0 M (0 CU M M C'-- M M M M

E
th

r.
4) 0-
ý0

c2. c2. U- Cl. CL CD- 4- - a

CL CL Cl-. No. Ci. n a cl C. - -b- C-- cs-. 44-
to
-;
i
12. o.
0-

CD vý m e U.) (0 rý Co m c> m
c%j m le U') CD r- Co CY) cq C%j c4
Co
iz
0
ON
3.2. Site or BRP specific
An overview of different existing tools identifies that there is a diversity of tools with

regard to the different scalesthey address.Brandon et al (1997) have identified that

the spatial dimensionplays an important role and can hinder the integration between
different tool methodologies. Therefore, in Table 3.2 the different tools were

categorisedaccording to four different scales.The majority of tools reviewed focused

on evaluating the environmental performance of buildings or infrastructure and at a
more detailed level, materials and components, mainly based on Life Cycle
Assessmentmethodologies.However, through the examinationof BRP processesand
the planning process,it was establishedthat a BRP can have much wider implications
than the building structureitself, including associatedimpactsresulting from planning
conditions which should also be evaluated (see Section 2.3). This scale has been
defined as the developmentscalein Table 3.2 and, as can be observed,there are only
35
three tools out of the 25 reviewed that are relevant to this scale and which address
environmentalsocial and economic issues.This phenomenon is also reported in Cole
(1999), who assertsthat there is a predominanceof tools looking at the impacts of
buildings and few which look at the wider impactsof developments.

3.3. Long-Term BRP sustainability evaluation.

In Section2.2 the importanceof evaluatingthe different impacts of a BRP throughout
its life cycle was established.It was thus deemedimportant to identify whether any

existing tools the

assessed sustainabilityof developýnent
projects throughout their life

cycle. As is pointed out in Curwell and Cooper (1998) and Deakin et al (2002) there

are very different tools and assessment approaches in planning (strategic and local)

and between the different sectorsof developmentprojects (i. e. design, construction

and operation). Deakin et al (2002a) for example, through the BEQUEST

the different tools available, identified a tendency for the initial

examination of
planningand design to
phases, overshadow the assessment
sustainability needsof the

constructionandoperationalphasesof a development.This can alsobe from

observed
the author's review (Table 3.2). When examiningthe different evaluationtool

35 Tools (7,9,23) Table 3.2

91
websiteS36and SUE-MoT reviews, some tools were found which claimed to be
applicable to all phases,but there was no evidence of long-term monitoring which
would be of particular relevanceto the operationphaseof the BRP. Only tools 7,9
and 23 were found to make assessmentsof operation sustainability, albeit at the
planning and design period of a development (Figure 1.1) and based on project
37
specifications

Deakin et al (2002a) comment on the lack of integration betweenthe different tools

and the need for the development

of a more integratedapproachwhich looks at all life
cycle periods through one tool. Although a number of the tools reviewed did make
use of other tools to inform their assessment,the integration was not through the
different BRP life cycle periods. As can be noted from Table 3.3, all but one tool

reviewed consistedof assessments of performanceat a specific point in time and thus

did not provide continuity. Essentially,therewas no evidenceof developedevaluation

and monitoring methods which are initiated at the design phase and continued
throughoutoperations.

One of the particularities of BRP identified in Chapter 2 was the potential

contaminationand subsequent remediationrequired to make brownfield sites suitable

for use. It was establishedin Chapter 2 that a sustainability evaluation would also
have to be carried out for the remediation process. However, the review of the
literature, including Bardos el al (1999), Bardos et al (2000), Vik et al (2001),
Rudland and Jackson (2004) and existing sustainability tools, did not identify any
tools designedto evaluatethe sustainabilityof proposedreclamationand remediation
schemes.Although tools 9 and 23 make referenceto remediationmethods,the criteria
are too simplistic and potentially misleading. The remediation sustainability
assessmentsconsist of a simple question regarding which remediation method is
utilised, with higher scores attributed to schemeswhich use alternative methods to

36Theauthoronly lookedin detailat thewebsitesof toolsspecifiedin Table3.2andcompared her

conclusions to thoseof theSUE MoT reviewof thesame tools.In fact theSUEMoT reviewis moreof
a classificationexercisebased
on theinformationprovided by tool developersanddoesnot question
thevalidity of theclaimsmade.Thereforetheauthorrevisitedthetool websitesfor a re-evaluation.
37Tool 7 canundertake assessments
post-development have
completionto certifythatspecifications
beenmet,but it is unknownif continuousperformance monitoringis carriedoutandrequiresfurther
investigation.

92
 doesnot take into accountthe specific
"dig and dump". However, suchan assessment

site conditions,the risk assessment

resultsor the risk perceptionsof the community.

Rudlandand Jackson(2004) emphasise the complexityof remediationtechnology

choice and the range of factors which need to be taken into accountincluding
technological appropriateness,regulatory requirements, costs and benefits,
requirements,
stakeholder aswell as sustainabilityissues.Althoughtherehavebeen
comparing
studies differentremediation
methods (for example,Harbottleet al, 2005)
theyareby no meansconclusive,asthey do not takeinto accountsocialandin many
caseseconomicand factors,
process such asprojecttimelines andbudgets (Vik et al,
2001).Theoreticalframeworksare available(Harris et al, 1995; Vik et al, 2001;
Rudland and Jackson,2004; SAFEGROUNDS,. 2002) for remediationoptions
selection,which do make reference to sustainability;however they are not
They
assessments.
sustainability alsohave limited practicalapplication,as decisions
technology
on remediation choicearebasedcurrentlyon the DEFRA and EA (2004)
model proceduresfor the management of land contaminationwhich do not take
sustainabilityinto account. Furthermore, these frameworks do not assessthe
sustainabilityof different options, either their slistainabilityimpact when being

carriedout or postcompletion.

In 2005 the Regeneration of European Sites in Cities and Urban Environments

(RESCUE) researchconsortium developeda checklist for the purpose of assessing
funding applications for BRP which included assessmentcriteria of remediation

processes(RESCUE, 2005). Although, this tool adopts a more site specific and
detailed approachto the sustainability aýsessmentof remediationprocesses,it serves

mainly as a checklist and does not provide any benchmarks to assessperformance.

Thus there ais big gap in knowledge and availability of sustainability indicators

remediation and reclamation processes;which can not be addressed through

regarding
this research. It is, however, of interest to question contaminated land practitioners
the to
about extent which theyconsider in
sustainability their work andthe procedures
theyuseto do so (see 4).
Chapter for
However, thepurpose of the RAF, the RESCUE
for
criteriaare recommended useuntil more alternatives
appropriate are developed.
The applicationof the RESCUEcriteria throughthe RAF case study will also be
informativewith regardto their relevanceto the UK as, althoughgenericin nature,

93
they have only been trialled once in Germany,yet are being proposedas a European
model.

3.4. Participation (in current sustainability evaluation tools)

Evaluatingthe sustainabilityof BRP involves value baseddecisions,and thus requires
to
participation enable stakeholders to develop the criteria for the evaluationwhich
reflects their values and needs(seeSection2.5). However, from the review of the 25
tools (Table 3.3), it was identified that none of the existing tools relevant to the
developmentlevel adoptedthis approach.The majority of the developmentscaletools

reviewed prescribe a number of indicatorswhich have been determined by a technical

specialists(usually private consultants),who have predefinedthe object of study. This

results in the reduction of the flexibility and applicability of the developedevaluation

and essentiallyreflects the perceptionsof the technical specialistrather than those of
the affectedstakeholders. Some tools (20 and 21) incorporatedthe flexibility to select

criteria but they were for use on a much larger scale (such as assessingthe
sustainability of whole cites). Sometools involved stakeholdersby allowing them to
carry out and
self-assessments, this usually with
corresponded whether the tools were
free or not (seeTable 3-3).

Finally, one of the criteria of "good" participatory decision making (Table 2.3) is to
have a transparentprocess (Wehrineyer, 2001). Additionally, Levitt and Therivel
(2004 pg 4) concluded in their review that there is a need for the developmentof a
tool which is '!fast, not resource intensiveand transparent'. From the author's review

of existing tools (Table 3.3) it was noted that many are developedby consultancies,
are patentedand require a fee (often high) to be conducted.Consequently,in many
the benchmarks used for the evaluation are not disclosed,resulting in
cases criteria or
the loss of Other
transparency. tools do disclose the criteria and benchmarks but not
the weightings which are attributed to the different criteria and in some casesnot the

method behind the evaluation scoring, again reducing significantly the transparency

of the process.

94
3.5. Integration with existing decision making (planning)
processes I
The importanceof integratingsustainabilityevaluationprocesseswithin existing
decisionmaking processesand in particular with regard to planning has been
in
elaborated depth(Section2.3).From the review of existingtools (Table3.3),only
9
nos. and 23 made to
reference UK planning policies and legislation,
althougheven
in thesethe processthroughwhich the integrationwas accomplished
at the decision
making level was not madeexplicit.

3.6. Conclusions
Despite the plethora of existing sustainability evaluation tools, there is not one tool
which appears to be aimed at evaluating the long-term sustainability of BRP in a
holistic and participatory way whilst being integrated within existing BRP and

planning decision making processes (Tables 3.4 and 3.1). Additionally, an

overarching fragmentation was identified, with different tools being developed for

specific scalesand life cycle periods.Tools 7,9,23 may be of some relevancedespite

their limitations and thus deservefurther considerationwith regard to their potential

application using the RAF. With regard to the evaluation of the sustainability of
remediation strategies,it was concluded that further researchis required to develop

remediation sustainability indicators (although this is not in the scopeof this thesis).
The provisional use of the RESCUE checklist was proposedto evaluatethe
sustainabilityof the remediationprocessuntil betteralternatives
aredeveloped.

Although this review has beenuseful in identifying potentially relevant tools as well

as gaps and overlaps, there are a number of tools, which have not been reviewed.
Additionally, it was not possible through this review to evaluatethe extent to which
the development industry is using any of the above tools. It is thus important to
investigatewhat is currently being usedby the developmentindustry and the reasons

why 4).
(Chapter

95
Table 3.4. Toot perfonnance against RAF theoretical specification.
Toolstcriteria Holistic BRPI development Long-term Participatory Integrated
specific I (planning)
I x X/ D x X? V?
2 x x V x x
3 x x x x x
4 x x x x x
5 x x x Completedby X
users
6 V x V x x
7 V Xf D V? x v
8 x x x x x
9 V X/ D V? x v
10 x x x x x
11 x x x x x
12 x x x x x
13 x x x Completedby X
users
14 x x x V? v
15 x x x x x

16 x x x x x

17 x x x ? x

18 x X/ D V x
19 .? x ? ?
20 x x V V
21 x x x V
22 x x x x
23 V X/D V x
24 V x x x
25 x x x x

96
Chapter 4. Sustainability evaluation of brownfield
redevelopment projects: current practice
This chapter provides an analysis of interviews carried out with a range of

professionalsinvolved in BRP and the resultsof a national developer'ssurvey.It aims

to ascertaincurrent practice in sustainability implementationand evaluation of BRPs
and obtain their stakeholders'recommendationsfor the design of the RAF (seeTable
1.2and Figures 1.2 and 1.3). This chapterforms an important part of the causaldesign

of the RAF and aims to achieve objectives c and d of this researchproject (Section
1.2). An analysis of the methodsused to carry out this investigation is presentedin
Section4.1. Six main issueswere addressedthrough interviews and a survey and they
are listed togetherwith their respectivesectionnumbers:

-The level and methods of influence intervieweeýperceived that they had on the
sustainability of BRP (Section4.2).

-The extent of, and methodsemployedfor, monitoring the long-term sustainabilityof

BRP (Section4.3).

oThe extent of, and methods used for, the assessmentof the sustainability of BRP

proposals(Section4.4).

-The perceived benefits of carrying out long-term sustainability evaluation of BRP

(Section4.5).

-The perceived barriers to sustainability evaluation tool adoption as well as

limitations of existing tools (Section4.6).
Recommendationsfor the evaluationof BRP (Section4.7) used to define the RAF's
design specifications(seeChapter1).

4.1. Interview and Survey Methodology

4.1.1. BRP Stakeholders serni- structured Interviews

A totalof 41 semi-structured Table4.1 summarises
interviewswereconducted. who
was interviewedand the main questions Semi-structured
asked. interviews
are a
method of datacollectionwhereby"the interviewer
asks the
questions samewayeach
time,butisfreeto altertheirsequenceand toprobeformore "
information.(Fielding

97
and Thomasin Gilbert, 2001, p. 125).This method was selectedbecauseOppenheim
(1992,p. 82) states"the more difficult and the more openendedthe questionschedule
is the more we shouldprefer to use interviews".The interviews were then transcribed,
by the author, and analysed by grouping common answers and themes, on the
different topics.

Table 4.1. Stakeholders Interviewed and questions asked

Stakeholdersinterviewed Classification 41 Total Mainquestionsasked.*
reference Number
Contaminatedlandrelevant:EA, CL I CL2..etc 6 , How and to what extent can you
EH, NHBC, Remediation influencethe sustainabilityof a BRP?
*
Contractor v Do you and the processesyou use
BuildingControl, BC I monitorthe sustainabilityof a BRP?
-Do you and the processesyou use to
Manager
LASustainability S 2
assessthe sustainability of BRP?
LA SeniorDCofficers DC 2 aWhatdo you perceiveto be the benefits
of assessing and . monitoring the
LA Policy and Regeneration P 5 sustainabilityof BRP?
Managers mWhatwouldyou say are the barriersto
Other LA internal planning LAP 2 the sustainability assessment and
consultees of BRP?
-monitoring
Private planning and PC 3 @Recommendations for the assessment
consultants
sustainability andmonitoring of BRP?
Architectsanddesigners A 3
Thea bove questions were askedt o
Developers-- D 10
Contaminatedland professionalswith
SustainabilityAssessmenttool TD 5 regard to contaminationmonitoringin
developers additionto sustainabilitymonitoringand
Government policyEP GP 2 assessment of BRP.
Communities
Millennium and
NBS.
* SeeAppendix 3 for detailedlist of questions.

As this part of the researchwasnot the soleaim of the project (but rathermeantto
inform it), the samplewasnot exhaustive but ratherindicative.The sampleof people
interviewedwas identified througha processof co-nomination,and from contacts
obtained through the SUBRIM consortium(seeChapter1). The sample does not
different involved in BRP (see Box 2.5) or to be
claim to cover all stakeholders
in
representative terms of sample size. In fact, the sampleshows a bias towards
in the planningand design periodof a BRP, which is the most important
stakeholders
in termsof implementing sustainabilityaswell as ensuring long-term sustainability
(Chapter 2). Chapter 2 also concluded that this is the life cycle period
evaluation
wheremoststakeholders are involved and decisiorýs aremade which could affectthe
long-termsustainabilityof BRP. Therefore,this bias is somewhat justified.

98
Additionally, Patton's (2002) approachto the developmentof evaluation processes
hasbeen followed in that intervieweeswere selectedon the basis of their professional

capacity as potential evaluation users or as BRP decision makers. Therefore, this

has its limitations in ihat it does not cover the local
methodology consciously
communitiesor the be
generalpublic who might affectedby BRP.

Although the sample does not claim to be representative,care has been taken to
interview acrossa wide range of professionsas well as to samplefrom five different
Local Authorities (LAs) in the Greater Manchesterand the Thames Gateway area.
Thesetwo areaswere chosenas they were the key focus of the SUBR:IM consortium,
but also becausethey are key regenerationareas(seeSection4.1.1).

Additionally, sustainabilityevaluationdevelopersof the tools identified as potentially

relevant for the RAF (seeChapter3) have been interviewed, providing answersbased

on their own years of experience of application of their tools as well as based on

similar researchwhich they have conducted. This approachstrengthensthe validity of
the results provided as the cumulative knowledge of experts in the field of
sustainability evaluation in the UK could be obtained. Finally, as will become

apparentfrom the resultspresentedin this chapter,there seems to be uniformity in the

answers provided between stakeholders, which reinforces the validity of the

conclusionsdrawn in the following sections.

These interviews were essentiallycarried out to refine the theoretical specification of

the RAF (Box 2.7) and determinethe purposewhich the RAF should serve,as defined
by BRP stakeholders which would also be potential RAF users. However, the
interviews had anotherdimensionto them which is.not analysedin this thesis.At the
time of the interviews an initial RAF had been developed, based on the theory of
2,
Chapter which was brought to
along each of the interviews. Following the general
line of questioning (see Table 4.1), the RAF was described and intervieweeswere
to
asked comment on it. They were asked to identify which elements of the process
they liked or disliked and to make recommendations to improve it. In particular,
on feasibility issuesand reconimendationsof to how to make the
emphasiswas placed
These recommendations have been
process widely applicable and most useful.
surnmarised in Section 4.7 and provide detail and refinement to the theoretical

99
specificationspresentedin Box 2.7. Essentially, after each individual interview the
RAF was revisedto incorporatethe interviewee'srecommendations.This processwas

very beneficial as it resultedessentiallyin 41 revisions of the RAF before reachingthe

form presentedin Chapter5, and which could explain its successwhen implemented
(see Chapter 6). As a result of this process a drastic simplification of the RAF

occurred, which led to its departure from theoretical best practice described in
Chapter 2, particularly with regard to public risk communication and participatory
theory.This issueis elaboratedupon further in Chapters6 and 7.

4.1.1.1. Background to the Thames Gateway and Greater Manchester areas

The ThamesGateway is an area stretching40 miles along the ThamesEstuary from
the London Docklands to Southendin Essex and Sheernessin Kent. The decline of
traditional industrieshas left the ThamesGateway,which makesup about 2% of the
South East, with 17% of the region's Brownfield land (Harris, 2006). There are plans
to invest Y446million in the area,build 120,000homesand create 180,000new jobs,
80% of which needsto be built on brownfield sites (ODPM, 2005f and 2005g). The
Gateway is arguably Europe's biggest regeneration scheme, but it is also very

controversial,making it a good to use for this research.Despite its claiming to be

creating sustainablecommunities (ibid), much of the proposed growth is earmarked

on floodplains, and there are concernsabout the availability of key infrastructuresuch

as water services(Milne, 2004).

Additionally, the ThamesGatewayis an interestingcasestudy as it is characterisedby

extremelycomplex governance (Schopen, 2004), involving a plethora of actorswhich

makes their coordination and consultation regarding any one particular BRP a
(Ross, 2004). Another important issue of interest is the rise in housing
challenge
demand and affordable housing (ODPM, 2005h). Dixon et al (2005) identified that
housingprices in the Gatewaywere well abovethe national average.In fact two of the
deprived areas in the Gatewaywere found to have higher housing prices than the
most
(ibid). The situation is different in the Greater Manchester area, as is
average
below, and therefore they make two good contrastingareasto samplefrom.
explained

100
The GreaterManchesterareais in the North West of England Region and whosekey

regeneration drivers or coordinators is the North West Development Agency

(NWDA). Greater Manchesteris characterisedby complex governance(see ODPM,
2003 for a descriptionof key actors),yet not at the scaleof ThamesGateway.Greater
Manchesteris characterisedby its declinedindustrial past which has left a significant

amountof brownfield land. In contrastto the ThamesGateway,Greater is

Manchester

characterisedby a low demand for housing, and a big stock of abandoned homes.
Housingprices are below the national average(Dixon et al, 2005), with an oversupply
of poor quality housing being a key issue.One of the key regenerationdrivers in that

area is the Northern Way Growth Strategyand Housing Market Renewal Pathfinders
initiative (ODPM, 2003; 2004 b; 2004c).

Both the ThamesGatewayand the GreaterManchesterare very interesting casestudy

areas, characterisedby heavy industrial pasts and a brownfield land legacy but

currently facing distinctly different economic situations, particularly with regard to

housing prices. However, both areas are branded'as sustainablecommunities, and
thereforeit is interestingto examinehow they are being createdand evaluated.

4.1.2. National Developers Survey-Methodology

In Chapters thattherewasa lack of informationabout
2 and3 it wasestablished
whetherthe developmentindustry
wasevaluating-thelong-termsustainability
of its
BRPsandif sowhichtoolstheywereusing.Therefore,a NationalDevelopers
Survey
(NDS)was carriedout (seeAppendix2) in conjunctionwith the Universityof
(CEM)aspartof theSUBR:
Collegeof EstateManagement
Reading, IM collaboration
(SeeChapter1). The datawerecollectedthroughpostalquestionnaires,whichare
as
characterised methods
appropriate when wanting to obtain wide coverage
1993).CEM wasresponsible
(Sarantakos, for the designandadministration
of the
NDS, and the author'ssolecontributionwasto ask two closedquestions which
whether
addressed developers long-term
undertake sustainability
monitoringandwhat
percentageof their developmentsthey obtain BREEAM certificationfor (see
9
questions and11,Appendix2). The survey alsoincluded
one openended question
whichaskeddevelopers
to specifythetypeof long-ýerm they
monitoring preferred.

101
The NDS was sent to 987 developers,both commercial and housebuilders.A 9.5%

usable response rate was achieved. A comparison of the survey respondentsby

numberand size of output againstNHBC (National HouseBuilders (forporation) data
givesan indicationof how the sampleof thoseundertakingresidential
representative
developmentis againstthe industryas a whole. Table4.2 showsthat the sampleis
more representativeof medium to large sized housebuilders(31 or more units p.a.)
than smaller operators (less than 31 units pa). However, whilst housebuilders
producing less than II units per annum account for 80% of registered and active
housebuilders,NHBC data (seePediaditi et al, 2006a ) shows that their contribution
to the industry's total output is small. Therefore, it could be arguedthat although the
response rate at less than 10%was poor, the representationfrom the larger developers
indicatesthat the samplereflects the views of thoseresponsiblefor a large percentage

of the UKs brownfield redevelopment.

Table 4.2: Representativity of survey responses obtained.

NHBCdata

Sizeband Number registered % by size Sample count as

(2003) band % NHBC

0 units 10,188
1-10units 4,421 80% 0.16%
11-30units 712 13% 2%
3 1-100units 264 5% 12.5%
101-500 units 112 2% 13%
501-2000units 20 0.4% 15%
2000+ units 14 0.3% 21%

Total active 5,543 100% 1.35%

The results of the survey were analysedusing SPSSand Excel (for the descriptive
statistics) and are presentedin conjunction with interview findings in Sections4.3 and
4.4. respectively. Although surveysare a good way of obtaining data from a larger

number of developers, than could have been achievpdthrough interviews, they do not
allow for question clarifications to be made (Sarantakos,1993). Furthermore, the fact

thatthe authordid not havecontroloverthe deliveryandadministrationof the survey

limited the opportunityto carryout follow-upcallsto try to increasetheresponse
rate.
However,the follow up interviews(Section4.1.1)provideda greaterunderstanding
of
the surveyresults(seeSection4.3 and4.4).

102
4.2. Influencing the sustainability of a BRA
In Section 2.3 of the literature review a number of processesin land use planning

were identified throughwhich sustainabilitycould be influenced,including:

x Community Strategiesand Local Agenda21 (LA2 1);
m SustainabilityAppraisals(SA) and StrategicEnvironmentalAssessments(SEA);
m The planning applicationprocessand planning gain;
n EnvironmentalImpact Assessment(EIA);
m Regulations.

Due to the novelty of some of these processes,it was concluded that further
investigation was required to establishthe views of BRP stakeholdersregarding the

use of theseprocessesin influencing the sustainabilityof BRP, as well as to identify

any others potentially used. Therefore, the following two, open-ended, non-
prescriptive interview questionswere asked. "To what extent can you influence the
sustainabilityof a BRP?" and "How?".

What became obvious from the onset of the interviews was that all the different

categoriesof stakeholders had different definitions of sustainability.Although it is not

in the scopeof this researchto analysethesein detail, a few examplesof the different
definitions are presentedto illustrate the point. Architects defined sustainability in
design as 'designing an attractive, distinctive place to live with good accessibility to
facilities'(Al) the
whereas contaminatedland defined
stakeholders sustainability of a
contaminatedsite as 'ensuring a site or a development
is safefrom a human health

perspective'(CL4). The definitions appearedin most casesto reflect the professional

capacity of the interviewees,anotherexamplebeing a Local Authority (LA) highways

engineerwho defined sustainabilityas 'havingfunctioning public transport serviceas

well as a good network ofcycle ways andfootpaths(LAP 1).

Of all the 41 interviewees,the vaguestanswerswereprovidedby developersandDC

officers.DI stated 'it is a buzz in
word my opinion,it meansanythingyou want it to
mean',and two developers
(D8, D 10) provideda text book answerof 'better quality
of life for everyone. D6 assertedthe importance of the economicaspectof
sustainability,stating'peopletend toforget that aproject to besustainablealsoneeds
to makeaprofit'. This finding is alsoin accordance with Ball (1999)who concluded

103
that developersdid not have an understandingof what sustainability meant and how
to operationaliseit. The DC officers admitted to being unclear with regard to the
meaningof sustainability,for example:
'it is such a vagueconceptI'm not quite sure to be honest' (DC2).

'sustainability I suppose is detennined by policies, but these are forever

changing,for example up until recently we were pushing for additional car

parking spaceson developments where as now this is deemed unsustainable
and we are askingfor the exact opposite,so.. I don't think anyone can be sure
ofwhat sustainability really is'(DC I).

This different understandingof sustainabilitybetweenthe various stakeholdersshould

not necessarilybe viewed negatively. However, what should be recognisedfrom the

above is the need for decision makers to make their values and sustainability
principles explicit before attempting to select sustainability indicators. This idea is

also supported in the literature (Ukaga and Maser, 2004 and Section 2.1) but strangely
not reflected in existing evaluation tools (Chapter 3). With regard to the lack of
understanding of the meaning of the term by DC afid developers it also points out the

potential purpose for the RAF to serveas a learning tool, especiallywhen considering
the central role these stakeholdershave in the implementation of sustainability (see

Figure 4.1).

However,in order to try to avoid intervieweesdigressingand not consideringthe

issueof sustainabilityat all, the Brundtlanddefinitionof sustainabilitywasquotedby
the authorat eachinterviewto providea common focus.It alsoneeds to be bornein

mind that none of the stakeholders interviewed made a distinction between

Brownfield and Greenfield developmentprojects, regarding their role as influencing
sustainability in general. However, a finther line of questioning was
or evaluating
with contaminated land stakeholders(CL 1-6) to understandthe various
undertaken
aspectsof sustainability relevantto the remediationprocessof BRP specifically.

From the interviews it was establishedthat the different stakeholder groups (see

Figure 4.1) perceived themselvesto have different levels of influence on the

developmentandutilised different means to influence it. Overall,
sustainabilityof a

104
developers and LA DC officers were perceived by all interviewees, including
themselves,to have the greatestinfluence on the sustainability of a project (Figure
4.1) even though it was thesetwo groupswho expressedthe greatestuncertaintyover
the meaningof the term and also the meansthrough which to achieveit:
'all decisionspassby meso...yesI cansayI havea big influencein making
my development
sustainable' (N).

'I suppose we bring all consultees views together and have the task of

negotiating with developersso we try our best to achieve as sustainablean

outcome aspossible' (DC 1).
Other stakeholdergroupsfelt that their level of influence was dependenton the extent
and timing of the involvement permittedwith regard to a development
proposal.

The private sector, including developer consultants,contractors and architects, felt

that they could only make recommendationseither through their designs or by
proposing elementsof sustainability best practice relevant to their field of expertise.
However they all saw their influence as entirely dependent on whether or not
developersdecidedto take on boardtheir recommendations:
'We often try to incorporate innovative ideas and bestpractice through our
designs,for example green roofs, but it is all down to the developer and

whether he is to
willing pay that little extra or take the risk'(A 1).

All private sector intervieweesexpressedthe opinion that developers' decisionswere

basedon profit marginsrather than sustainabilityconsiderations.However, the private
planning and sustainability consultantsdid perceive sustainability to be a growing
issue with a lot of new planning guidance enabling the implementation of

sustainabilitythrough their recommendations.

'Things are changing with newpolicies on energy,recycling, open space,and

we are increasingly able to say to divelopers, look unless you take

sustainability seriously and make provisions, you are likely to have your

permission refused(PCI).

Theimportanceof planningpoliciesandtheplanningapplicationprocessasa vehicle

In fact LA intervieweesfelt that
for implementingsustainabilitybecomesapparent..

105
they had influence on the sustainability of a proposed development, through the
planning application consultations which they provided based on government
planning guidanceand policies, and through the recommendationof S106 agreements.
However, they all statedthat theýextentof their influence was significantly dependent

whichtheygaveto their consultations:

on DC andtheconsideration
'I can make my recommendationsin my consultation askingfor a S106for a

green travel plan with public footpaths and cycle ways... the question is
whether DC take any notice of it... this is if it doesn't get lost amongst the list

of other things like school provisions or affordable housing which seem to

always comefirst'(LAP I).

LA interviewees also stated that the level of influence they had dependedon how

early they were involved in the applicationnegotiations,statingthat:

'the earlier we are involved in discussionsin the designprocess the better,

once the application has been handed in there are very few things you can

stipulate'(LAP2).
felt thattheyhadgreaterpowerto influencethe sustainabilityof
All LA stakeholders
a developmentwhen they werepartnersin the as
process, is the casein manypart
governmentfunded initiatives.
'You can have developerswhich hand applications in without consulting with

us once, we strongly advise against this, but it still happens, in those cases
is lot
there not a you can do to improve 1).
sustainability'(DC

'In projects were we are partners or we have developmentagreementswe

have to work togetherfrom the beginning so we can have a bigger influence

on how things are done.. we have more time and collaboration which is what

you need'.(DC2)

EIA was seenas an importanttool for influencipgthe sustainabilityof proposed

by all interviewees:
developments
'through the mitigations proposed, you can improve the sustainability of the
development,or at least reduce its impacts'(PC2).

106
DC, sustainabilitymanagersand private planning consultantsmentionedthe potential
for influencing the sustainability of developments through the requirement of
developmentSustainabilityAssessmentsyet commentedon their lack of clarity of the
its implications:
processand enforcement
drecently we have been receiving requests to carry out sustainability

assessments which are meant to cover all aspectsof sustainability although

not in the level ofdetail requiredfor an EIA, there is no guidance on this and I

supposeevery consultant has their own method(PC3).

The new indirect opportunity to influence the sustainabilityof proposeddevelopments

through the SEA of developmentplans such and SupplementaryPlanning Guidance,
which would ensure the sustainability of policies and thus could influence the

planning application decisions at the DC level (S&tion 2.3). However, concern was
expressed from LAs that they lacked understanding of how to undertake the process
due to its novelty.
'Its crazy at the moment,we are having to prepare SEA and SA and no one is

quite sure how to do it... will it improve the sustainability of policies and
therefore of developments?...
you won't mind me being cynical... but it seems
like yet another bureaucratic exerciseto me at the moment'(P3).

'With SA in theorywe shouldbe able to ensurethatpolicies are sustainable,

I'm not quitesure how that's going to work in practice though,we havejust
contractedour onesout to consultants'(P2).

Building Regulationswere seenas a potential vehicle to implement sustainability as

they set the legal requirementsto achieve adequatestandardsfor the constructionof
buildings and set down the minimum standardsfor requirementslike drainage,waste
disposal, fire safety, conservationof fuel and power and disabled access.Dair and
Williams (2004) statedthat Building Control inspectorsdid not have the capacity to
sustainable measures than thosecited in the regulations, and that the
recommendmore
inspectorssaw their role as ensuringthat the minimum standardswere met. The BC

officer interviewed stated:

107
 'Building Regulations as of recently incorporate some aspects of energy

efficiency but they are by no means pushing the boundaries of building

perfomance sustainability.. they do have the capacity to be influential.

This is in line with the views expressedin the Select Committee on Environmental
Audit 5h Report (2005) as well as Friends of the Earth (2004) requirementfor closer

monitoring of building regulation implementation and tighter environmental

standards.

Regulationswere seenas playing an important role with regard to contaminatedland.

However, it was emphasisedby all CL intervieweesthat sustainability in its broader
sensewas not considered.
and makespecifications based on regulations and
'We base our assessments

planning policy which only addressthe issueofsafety with regard to pollution

(CL4).

I We don't have the power to stipulate which remediation strategy is

undertaken, the
only acceptable contaminant levels'(CL1).
the
Againthe conclusionregarding inability to best
enforce practiceandsustainability
which were not required
considerations by the was
regulations a centralfinding in
Dair and Williams (2004).

Finally, community strategiesand LA21 were not mentioned by any of the

intervieweesas vehiclesfor implementing which
sustainability, confirmsEvans and
Theobold's (2002) that
suggestion community strategiesare too broadto be translated
into action and implemented.In conclusion, it seems that the most influential
to implement at
sustainability the development level were policies, the use
processes
however, the latter were not seen to be
of S106 agreementsand the regulations;
stringentenough regarding issues
sustainability and this limited their capacity to make
a difference.

108
 0

r- to -r- 8

cn

=00. S m 0) 1.
58

1
r_ 0
0 ts
E
MM E0
cn = :3c t:! c2. tcz
c"E
0 c2. ?
ffi(Jmmw iiCD (D
im 0mc0 *t3 2 3!
(L) '--c2.8
c:i. -
3g Co CJ'«o m (0

E
, U)
"un CI)
0
Icl, ý 121121
CL Co0
la
IU Z
10 el 11ý.e 3 -5. c2,
-
0,8.
IL Z r_ (4 m -F2.r- 5 -a.
u-
-0 3: 28 »
0 c2 th
LU CZ8 a) 5.
cle Co(0 0 -1 :3m Co
.
9
0E0 Co
ci c02--0 .
ý- , 15,
Z 2
=>
WEc: ,
E * 2> "Ci
r_
.j4 < Cu :, -3 LU
0 C)f
LU
1-321 (n iM
:a
;8=m (Co,
CL 0
tu LU Co
C3)cm.5 r--
0 Cu H
C CM
9 j2
tiý 0
[2 -5 E a)
-
W
iE
U) 0 r_
c3)
cu U)
(D u)
=
4) ü
C» M
c
*g e 12 r= Co
= c)
2L
(0 U)
cz LU
tu 5- M00 u
im «2 CD cy) (0 )w
w
cl

E
r_
K.- :p
-@
,r0 E2 :i
mor=O,
= cn (1) Z
M. g? ri.
00

?
EI -ö
ý. 8 :
0:
c) (P "r
F- Lo
u2mcm 5 :3 c2. r_
.0
*

LU
F
mi2 -,0& ý5 -cy
Co) ,r
EE< .-
E u g,
6>1.2 CO Rm U)
28 -0 CLm a
F- ä-2=)c>.A 9- c.>ma.
r_0 r_
12E O
Z
2
r.
0. E
.

w
EL

i3
ui Q) - Z rn

w
c2
& e F--0 =) CD «a
:2
t»
4.3. The nature and extent of long-term sustainability
monitoring of BRP
Chapters 2 and 3 established that despite the variety of sustainability evaluation tools,

their capacity for long-ten-n monitoring of developments and extent of use is unclear.
Therefore, interviewees were questioned about whether they undertook long-terrn

sustainability monitoring and which methods they used (See Appendix 3). As
described in Section 4.1.2 the interviews were preceded by the NDS, the results of
both are presentedbelow. Evaluation methods have been divided into two categories:
long-terrn monitoring, which refers to sustainability evaluation throughout the BRP
life cycle (Section 4.3) and sustainability assessment which refers to one off

evaluations mainly carried out at the planning and design period (Figure 1.1)
examined in Section 4.4.

In the NDS developers were asked whether they monitored the long-ten-n

sustainability of their developments (see Figure 4.2) which was followed by an open
ended question of 'if yes, what is your preferred way of monitoring? '. Figure 4.2
shows that half the developers who responded had never carried out long-term

sustainability monitoring and only 17% claimed to always do so.

Figure 4.2 Percentage of developers carrying out long-term sustainability monitoring

Do you monitor the sustainability of your brownfield developments from
the start of the project through to completion?

17%

(3Always
n Frequently
13%
50% o Occasionally
o Sometimes
Ne\er/not so far
%m

14%

110
The answers obtained from the open ended question are very interesting and are
summarisedin Table 4.3, and as can be noted do not necessarilymake referenceto
sustainabilitymonitoring at all! Developers'survey responseswith regardto the types
of monitoring they employed were unclear. In fact, many developersdid not specify
the type of monitoring or provided responsesranging from cost control to the
employment of independent consultants which potentially indicated a lack of
understandingof what the questionwas referring to.

From follow-up interviews with 10 developers(seeTable 4.1), it was establishedthat

they conduct a lot of monitoring of aspectssuch as output deliverables,cost control
and market researchas part of their project management.However, what was also
clear from their answerswas that there was an overall lack of understandingof the
phrase'long-term sustainabilitymonitoring'.
'We monitor all our operations closely, looking at cost control, return on
investment,quality control, safety audits I could spend all day listing all the
monitoring we do'(D 10).

'We carry out monitoring post completion, we conduct surveys to house

buyersto establishtheir satisfactionwith theproperty'(W).

'A couple of L4 have asked us to cany out Bat surveys prior and post
development completion so I guess that counts as sustainability
.
monitoring'(D2).

Three developersalso mentionedhaving to carry out monitoring for government

fundedinitiatives,which only lasteduntil project completionand mostly involved
on
outputmonitoring money spent and what was deliveredin a specificperiod of
time.
, We undertakeannual monitoringfor the ýIillennium Communities project,
but I don't know if you would call it sustainabilitymonitoring,it is more
reportingon spendingandresultingoutputs'(D6).
Onedeveloperstatedthat:
gas a companywe monitor our operationsusing indicatorsfor Social
CorporateResponsibility'(D3).

III
However, a review of their indicators'8 identified limited relevance to development
scale sustainability, which raises questions with regard to tile capacity of' Corporate
Social Responsibility or EMS utilised by large corporations to actually have an effect

on ground operations, as in this case. For example, what is the value of an EMS for a
developer company, which monitors its environmental performance with regard to its

office paper consumption rather than the environmental performance of their key
operations which are the buildings they are developing?

Table 4.3 Methods developers use for sustainability long-term monitoring

Monftoring methods described Grand total %
Consultant/ independentmonitoring 23
Cost control 2
Generalapproach/ no detail 8
Measurementagainstindicators 4
No response 46
Sampling/ surveys 8
Site visits/ inspections 4
Variiousmethods 4

From the survey results a difference (although not statistically significant), can be

noted between commercial and housebuilder developers, with a greater percentageof

commercial developers having carried out long-ten'n sustainability monitoring (Figure
4.3).

Figure 4.3. Difference in percentage between commercial and housebuilder developers

carrying out long-term sustainability monitoring

Percentage of developers claiming to monitor the

long term sustainability of developments

100%
80% 42.9%
66.7%
60% Wkwo" m Monitor
40% o Do not monitor
57.1%
20% 33.3%
0%
Commercial developer Housebuilder

3' The review of their Corporate Social Responsibility indicators on the developers website was
conducted by the author, the indicators were very broad for example % ofannual completions on
brownfield sites.

112
Insight into why this may be happeningwas provided by one developer,involved in
the constructionof both commercialand housingdevelopments,who stated:
'it's is much easier to monitor the environmentalperformance offor example

one large retail or industrial unit, you can have installed a Building
PerformanceManagement(BMS) system,and have someonein charge of it,

you can't really do that to sayfor example100 housing units it's much harder
to control and I don't think individual homeowners are interested in
monitoring their performance'(D
environmental I).
I
No correlationwas identified betweenthe size of 39
developers and whetherthey carry
out monitoring.

LAs were asked whether they undertook, or required developersto carry out, post-
developmentcompletion sustainability monitoring. The answersprovided were very
enlightening and uniform betweendifferent LA stakeholders.

LA interviewees explained that they very rarely, if ever, conducted long-term

monitoring at the development level, although some expanded on the methods
through which they could require monitoring from developers:
'Currently the only method available to ask developers to undertakepost-
monitoring is through the use of S.
106 which
agreements, has only recently
started to be applied in this context'(DCI).

9you see more and more long-term monitoring being secured through S106

requesting monitoringfor Green Travel Plans'(LPA 1).

As confirmed by the private planning consultantinterviewees,and admittedby LA;

'monitoring during the construction phase of developments,mostly with
to
regards noise, traffic and air quality issuesare increasing although this
usually involvescontractors or certifiers preparing the reports which are then
submittedto LA'(PC 1).

39Developer size refers to the annual rate of unit completions.

113
LA intervieweesalso mentionedthe possibility of utilising EIA in combinationwith
S106 agreementsto securepost-developmentmonitoring of the successof particular
mitigation measuresproposed.Examplesprovided were three year monitoring plans
examining the success of habitat and species translocationsand the Green Travel

plans. However, none of the LAs or private consultantsinterviewed were aware of

post-monitoringrequirementsever extending further than five yearspost development

completion and all expressedthe difficulty of enforcing such measures (see Section
4.6).

Long-term sustainability monitoring as a result of Building Regulations was not

commented upon, apart from the building control officer who stated:
'we very rarely if ever monitor on site, wejust don't have the capacity to do
that, what we do require though are performance certificates, which are
verified by independent assessorsorfor example the NHBC'(BC).
With regard to long-term sustainability monitoring, all LA policy and sustainability
officers mentioned the increasedprofile of monitoring as a result of the changesin

planning and requirements for SA and SEA, Annual Monitoring Report (AMR),
Community Strategy(CS) monitoring (see Section2.3). However, it was not clear to
the intervieweeshow thesemonitoring requirementsaffected the development level.
A quotewhich nicely summarisesthe points madeis:
cup until now monitoring was never a priority, and never undertaken in a
structured manner thus usually resulting in it not being done... now with the
new SEA regulations we are required to undertake extensivemonitoring, the

resourcesfor which we don't have...someone is going to have tofoot the bill

and developers are the most probable candidate... how we are going to
achievethat we are still unsureof it is still early days'(S2).

Although LA interviewees predicted that there was going to be change in the near
future with regard to the extent and nature of sustainability monitoring required for
developments,they did expresstheir concernsover the lack of knowledge or guidance
be Of the LA officers interviewed
on how that was to achieved. with current
responsibilities, they all noted that althoughthere was a lot of monitoring
monitoring
being carried out, it mainly involved collecting datastipulatedby governmentand that
this information was rarely utilised internally or analysedfor local context decision

For
making. PI
example stated:

114
 'myjob is quitefrustrating at the momentitfeels like I'm gathering datafor
ODPM the whole time, and its not like this information is ever usedfor local
decisionmaking(PI).

With regardto long-termcontamination

monitoring,the picturewasno different.CL
intervieweesexplainedhow no long-termcontaminationmonitoringwasundertaken
post developmentsign-off.LAs only monitoredsiteswhich had landfill or radongas
issues.They stipulatedthat accordingto Regulationsthey only had the powersto
enforce contaminationmonitoring for oneyear after appropriatecontaminantlevels
hadbeenreached,at which point they had to sign-off developments thus losing all
powers to enforceany fin-ther In
monitoring. the wordsof one Envirom-nental
Health
officer:
'ourjob is to ensure that the developmentis safe at the time of completion,
after that there is very little we can do'(CL6).

CL intervieweeswere questionedaboutwhetherthey felt that this approachharboured

risks especially with regard to barrier and containmentremediationtechniqueswhen
taking into accountclimate change.All CL intervieweesfelt that the current approach
involved future risks:
'there is a huge gap in knowledge as to the behaviour of barrier and
containment remediation methodspost ten years. We are walking into this
with our eyesclosed especiallyseeing the popularity of these methods as dig

and dump is no longer an option. This is something which needs to be

the higher levels as .
currently at a L4 level we do not
addressedat ofpolicy
have the enforcement powers to make request for long-term post-
moniforing'(CL5).
This lack of knowledge was also commentedupon by the NHBC which provides 10-
year insurance cover for brownfield sites, yet the problems of actually monitoring
post developmentcompletion were also stressed:
'People don't want contaminationmonitoring gauges in their gardens, there

would have to be a considerable cultural shift with regards to risk

for
managementand acceptance such practices to be implemented.

In conclusion,very little is occurringin terms of long-term monitoring both with

to
regards sustainabilityand contamination at site level. However, changes
-a
occurring through the planning system indicate'that monitoring is becoming a

115
pressingpriority. The task now is to relate the new information being generatedat the
higher levels, suchas SEA monitoring to developmentscaledecisionmaking and vice
versa.

4.4. The nature and extent of sustainability assessment of

BRP
Following the aboveresultswhich revealeda generallack of sustainabilitymonitoring
as well as confusion aboutthe meaningof sustainabilitymonitoring, it was considered
appropriate to questionintervieweesaboutwhich methodsthey currently employedto
assess the sustainability of developmentprojects. The range of different methods
intervieweeswere awareof, or personallyemployed,were the following:
uUnstructuredassessmentof developmentproposalsagainst governmentpolicy and
guidance.
-Environmental Impact Assessments.
oSustainabilityAssessments.
mLAsustainabilitychecklists.
-SEEDA sustainability checklist.
-English Partnershipssustainabilitycriteria for funded developments.

-EcoHomesand BREEAM.

The most common methodusedto assessthe sustainabilityof developmentproposals

identified by all LA and private consultantintervieweeswas the use of policies and

government planning guidance. However, all commented on the random and

unstructured manner with which this was occurring. DC officers in particular

expressedtheir concernwith regard to the constantflow of new guidanceand stated
that:
I it filters through the systemand eventually reaches us, but there is such a

range of issuesto consider with no structuredprocess to make decisionsand

invariably there need to be trade-offs of thq nature of new employmentunits

versesloss ofgreen space '(DC 1).

'There are trade-offsyou cant do everything,developingsustainablyis not like

following a recipe,you can be in line with policies and it could still go awfully

wrong'(P5).

116
These fmdings are compatible with the literature. The role of planning and the
developmentcontrol processas a mediator with regard to the different uses of land

and in implementing sustainability, through a processof trade-offs, is recognisedin

Owensand Cowell (2002). The power and significant role DC officers have as well as
the challengesthey face, often having to use judgement and intuition when making
thesetrade-offsis also emphasisedin Dair and Williams (2004).

Many of the interviewees talked of a mental checklist built up over years of

experience which included the different things they needed to consider when
assessinga developmentapplication:
'Its not like I have a written checklist which I go through, it's in my mind,
there are standard things I need to checkfor all proposals and then others
according to I
circumstances, guessyou learn thesethings with time' (N).

As discussedin Sections 2.3 and 4.2, EIA is another form of assessmentbeing

requestedby LA for large developmentsalthough by definition it has been designed
to consider mainly environmental aspects.However, private planning consultants
interviewed stated that they were increasingly being asked to undertake socio-

economicimpact and
assessments to include them in the EIS:
'Often in the LI scoping reviews we are getting requestsfor socio-economic

you could argue and say that EIA is an environmental

impact assessments,
but
assessment, we hardly ever do, if the LA requires one, they get it.. anyway
its usually the section where the mostpositive impacts can be presented like

newjobs, regenerationetc'(PC2).

The new potential for LAs to request sustainability assessmentsfrom larger

developments was mentioned by some LA interviewees and private planning

consultants.Consultantsclaimed a large increasein the demandfor such assessments

in the past two years. However, out of the five. LAs interviewed, only one had

experience of requiring such The

assessments. LA officer involved in reviewing the

sustainabilityassessment reports commentedon their subjectivity and lack of data and

researchbasedevidencewhich informed the opinions in

expressed the reports:

117
 'I'm not convincedof their valuereally, we havestartedaskingfor thembut
they read more like promotionaldocumentsthan assessments, they do not
on'(S1).
haveanyreal structureor criteria whichtheybasetheassessment

In Section2.3 thepotentialfor LAs to developtheir own sustainabilitychecklistswas

Only oneof the LA intervieweeshad recentlygonethrougha processof
discussed.
developingsucha checklist,which consistedof a numberof questionsfor developers
to answer,with the aim of creatinga basis for discussionbetweenthe LA and
However,the responsible
developers. sustainabilitymanagerexpressed concernsasit
was felt that the successof this checklistdepended on the extentto which the DC

sectionof the LA wouldutilise it andinsistuponits by

consideration developers:
'Although we developed the checklist and it has been adopted and is a

material consideration, the problem is get(ing DC to use it, I am not there

when they have the negotiationswith the developerso I don't have the means

of making them use it. What is needed is DC retraining in sustainability, some

off them are still stuck in the days were planning is all about car parking
provision! '(SI).
However, maybe the quality of these locally developedchecklists is an issue. One
developer interviewed who had recently been asked to consider the specific LA

checklist commented:'this is not a checklist but a wish list' (D2).

One of the most potentially relevant tools reviewed in Chapter 3 was the SEEDA

Interestingly, over two-thirds of the LA interviewees had heard of the

checklist.
SEEDA checklist and described it as a good way forward towards providing a

structuredprocessfor the bf
sustainabilityassessment developmentproposals:
'I've heard of this checklist and apparently it also makes reference to

policies... we have never used it though(DC2).

In fact none of the intervieweeshad experienceof using the checklist themselves,as
they were not in the South East of England Region. However, when interviewing the
it
tool developers and managers, was established that the SEEDA checklist is

developed to aid LA and developer's decision making with regard to

primarily
planning applications.

118
 'Best practice and the new benchmarks of the checklist purposely make

referenceto planning policy and governmentguidance to enableplanners to

link the checklistto application decisionmaking'(TDI).

'Thereareplans to roll out thechecklistacrossall regions...we knowit has

limitations, and a revisedversion is in theprocessof being developed (TD2).

'To be honestwe are not sure the extentto which this checklist is being used,

we know of afew caseswhere it has, mainly.in development

projects which we
have beenpartners in but you see it isfree, and it is up to LA if they use it or
...
not'(TDI).
Intriguingly, nine out of the ten developers interviewed mentioned undertaking
sustainabilityassessmentswhen carrying out developmentprojects in partnershipwith
public bodies, based on the criteria of funders such as English Partnerships which
also included requirementsto achieve BREEAM40' or EcoHomes certification. These

two tools were not reviewed in Chapter 3; they consist of building envirom-nental
performance assessments and their tool developers were interviewed. The tool
developerspointed out that the assessmentcriteria are not publicly available, and the

use of certified BREEAM is

assessors made to conduct the assessments on a fee basis.

They also pointed out that certification could be oýtained on the basis of the designs

and that development inspection was not necessary. In the National Developer

Survey, developerswere questionedon the percentageof their new developmentsfor

they to
aim obtain at least a BREEAM or EcoHomes(pass)rating (seeFigure
which
4.4).

40Building ResearchEstablishmentEnvirom-nentalAssessmentMethod (BREEAM)

bre.
www. co.uk/services/BREEAM and htm
EcoHomes.

119
Figure 4.4. The difference in house builder and commercial developers proportion of
new developments aimed to achieve at least a BREEAM standard
In what proportion of new development do you aim to
achieve at least the minimum BREEAM (PASS) standard?
100% 49 7 9
ill.9
15
9 Li 100%
80%
46.7
75%-99%

60% 50%-74%
20.6
m25%-49%
40% I"
- Ei 10%-24%
II
1%-9%
20%
23.3 n none

0% o don't know

housebuilders Commercial

From the survey it was established that 70% of commercial developers and 37% of'
housebuilders aim to obtain some BREEAM certificates for their new developments.
In fact, some LA interviewees mentioned the efforts being made to include policies in

their new LDF requiring developers to undertake BREEAM and F.coHomes

assessmentsas standard practice. However, all LA sustainability and policy officers
recognised the limitations of these two assessments only focused on building

performance and addressing wider socio-economic issues:

'BREEAM and EcoHomes are building assessmenisand do nol address wider

sustainability issues... they are widely used however and it's better than a hole

in the head.'(S2).
Architects interviewed claimed that although they knew of the BREEAM standards

they did not find them useful:

'BREEAM really isn't, for architects- it is not like vvehave a checklist which

can guide our design, what we use is CABE best practice guidance instead'
(A2).

Reservations regarding the transparency of the BREEAM and Ecol-lornes tools were

expressedby a number of interviewees:

'I know people rave on about BREFAM and EcoHomes and the talk about
including them in the plan, I have a serious issue though qI'developing a local

120
 policy which requires you to hand money to a private company to carry out
assessmentswhich you cannot even check the results yourself, I think its
unacceptable'(P4).

'You can askfor a BREEAMcertificateof VeryGoodfor your development,

but the truth o)f the matter is, you do not have thepossibility or the capacity as

a LA to confirm the validity to verify thoseresults'(S1).

This issue of transparencywas identified as a key element of good participatory

decisionmaking in Section2.5. It was also identified in Chapter3 that the majority of

reviewed tools were not transparent

and thereforewere deemedinappropriatefor the
purposes of the RAF. Concern over the transparencyof evaluation processeswas
evident from the interviews and will thus be consideredas a key specification of the
RAF.

From the survey results obtained for the BREEAM question (see Figure 4.4 and
Appendix 3), insight is also provided with regardto the long-term monitoring results
(Section4.2). Commercial and house-builderdevelopersclaiming to undertakelong-
term monitoring were more likely to be carrying out EcoHomes and BREEAM

assessments.Pearson's statistical tests for correlation were carried out between the

variables of whether developers carry out long-term sustainability monitoring and

whetherthey obtain BREEAM certification, and interestingly a significant correlation

95% was identified (Pearson'scorrelation coefficient 0.262978 for housebuilders
at
carrying out EcoHomes and 0.437879 for commercial developers carrying out
BREEAM). This finding can be interpretedin more than one way. It could be argued
that developers carrying out EcoHomes or BREEAM may generally be more
therefore may also-carry out long-term sustainability
environmentally proactive and
However, based on all the results, it is the author's belief that, due to the
monitoring.
lack of understandingof the term long-term sustainabilitymonitoring, developerswho
to be monitoring in the survey were probably referring to the BREEAM
claimed
In fact the most commonmethod of monitoring proposed (seeTable 4.3)
assessments.
the use of independent which
consultants, could correspondto the BREEAM or
was
EcoHomesassessors.

121
Interestingly, the difference between the percentageof commercial developersand
housebuildersclaiming to monitor and undertake correspondsto those claiming to

undertake BREEAM assessment (see Figures 4.3 and 4.4). When questioned,the
BREEAM tool managerexplained that BREEAM had been available on the market
longer andjustified the different usageon this basis.However, one developerstated:
'BREEAM is starting to be askedfor especiallyfor industrial units, I think the
large potential savingsfrom reduced energy bills makes this certification

somethingbuyerslookfor, I don't think it has the sameimpactfor homes'.D3.

of remediationstrategiescontaminatedland
With regard to sustainabilityassessments

professionals were questioned more specifically regarding their practices. As

mentioned in Section 4.1, remediation strategies are not assessedaccording to
sustainability criteria as there is no governmentguidance or regulations stipulating
suchpractice (seeChapter3).
'The choice of remediation technology is down to the developer we can't

stipulate one over another in particular on environmentally friendliness

criteria'(CLI).

However, similar codes of practice which were considered when designing a

remediationstrategywere proposedby a number of the interviewees.One stated:

&asa general rule of thumbwhen designinga remediationstrategy we
try to keeptheproblem [referring to contamination]on site;
-handle as much aspossible materials on site, and
Etry and keeptreatmentas close to the site aspossible
the decision however is up to the developer,and as sustainability is not part
of the factors
equation, like cost and timing are much more important(CIA).

Remediation contractors interviewed mentioned generally that such practice was

entirelydependent on the feasibility

economic of the operations
as well as the timing
One
of the operations. contractorprovided the following example:
'there have beencaseswere natural attenuationwas a much cheaperand
more environmentallyfriendly optionfor the developer,still they wentfor dig

and dumpbecause
thetimeframeswerenot appropriate'(CL2).

122
This finding is in line with Dair and Williams (2004) who identified that practicality
issueswere the key factors influencing developers' decision making with regardsto
developmentsustainabilitypractice.

CL interviewees aboutwhetherthey felt a remediationsustainability

werequestioned
assessment tool would be useful for them to assessthe sustainability of their
Responses
strategies. differed:
'Our job is highly technical and site specific I don't think you can have a

checklist which you could score the sustainability of your reclamation

process'(CL6).

Ut would be useful to have more clear guidance and some criteria, but it

would always have to be tailored according to site conditions' (CU).

you can't have a computer model which will tell you this is the most

sustainableoption to have on site, it dependson a number offactors such as

money, time and skills. I think the humanfactor is very important and I don't

think computermodelscan simulate this'(CLI).

The above findings reinforce the argumentsmade in the literature (see Chapter 2)
for factors to be considered when deciding or
regarding the need a variation of
a strategy,
remediation. as well as the need for legislation stipulating the
assessing
issues.There was fio unanimous agreement between
considerationof sustainability
intervieweeswith regard to the need for a remediationsustainability tool. However,

what was confirmed was the need for a context specific assessment which takes into
different variables, as well as fiirther information and guidance on the issue
account
of sustainableremediation.

In conclusion, despitethe assessment

plethoraof sustainability tools identified in

Chapter 3, thereseems to be very limited knowledgeanduptakein the development

industry.BREEAMandEcoHomesappearto be the mostestablished andrecognised
by LA anddevelopers, they
although arecriticisedamongst otherthingsfor their lack
Long-term to
sustainabilitymonitoringwith regard contamination is
of transparency.
simply not On
happening. the whole it that
seems sustainabilityassessments
and

123
monitoring being carried out are done in an. unstructured manner based on
governmentpolicy and guidance,somethingviewed negatively by most interviewees.

4.5. The perceived benefits and drivers for BRP sustainability

assessment and monitoring
Stakeholderswere questionedon their perceivedbenefits and drivers for development

sustainabilitymonitoring and However;

assessment. it needs to be clarified that in the
answersprovided below intervieweeswere not referring to a particular existing tool or
evaluation practice. They were talking generically and thus their answers can be

assumed to imply what they would ideally wish from an evaluation tool. Answers
obtained across stakeholders were similar and have been summarised in Tables 4.4

and 4.5. However, caution is advised when interpreting these results as a small

number of stakeholders expressing a particular benefit, for example, does not

necessarilyimply that other stakeholdersdid not perceive this particular point as a
benefit. Logistical issues may have influenced the results such as shorter length
intervieWS41coupled by the fact that seven of the developer interviews were
,
by different 42who may not have probed to the sameextent as
undertaken a researcher
the author did with other stakeholders.

4.5.1Developerdrivers to undertakesustainability monitoring and

assessment
Drivers for the adoption of developmentsustainability monitoring and assessments
forward by Interestingly
developers. 9 out of the 10 developersstated
were only put
that they saw themselvesundertaking sustainability monitoring within the next few
years, with three developersdrawing the parallel between the statusof sustainability

monitoring today and health and safetymonitoring ten yearsago:

'It is going to become mainstream... we are all going to have to do it..

sustainability monitoring today is like health and safety requirements ten-

ffleen years ago... you can choose whether to be proactive and be at the

41Someinterviewees couldnot devotemore than 40 to

minutes the interviews,
althoughthemajorityof
interviewslasted90mýinutes.
42BRPinterviewswerecarriedout in conjunctionwith CEMaspartof theSUBRAMresearch
The of her intcrviewees
relevant for
questions CEM andviceversa
consortium. authorquestioned some
(SeeChapterI).

124
 forefront or to put your head in the sand hoping it will go away.. but it won't
the sameway the health and safetystuffdidn't' (N).
This is in line with the literaturewhich often drawsa parallel regardingEMS and their
increasein popularity in relation to past trends in quality as well as health and safety

systems,
management which havenow becomemain stream(Ofori et al, 2002).

All developersidentified policy and changing regulations as being the major driver,

and examples were provided with regard to the new more demanding energy
efficiency building regulations:
'this is a typical situation of the stick vs carrot approach, I think the

government has tried the carrot approach putting incentives and special
grants but I'm not convincedhow successfulthey have been, so I think the
stick is next' (D5).

Market pressurewas seenby three developersto be a driver, but not as strong as the
regulations.In the words of one developer:
'Energy ratings for homes is a good example,we are all doing it now and

customersstart asking for them, I don't think though it is a decisive factor

when buying a property, investing more in ajancy kitchen is more likely to get
you a sale than ifyou investedin making the place energy efficient... I think
this is a problem becauseunlesscustomersstart demandingsustainability and
demonstratingit with their purchase choicesmarket demandwill not become

a significant driver'(D 1).

Some important conclusions with regard to the RAF can now be drawn. Market
demand was not seen as an important driver to assessand monitor long-term
in
sustainability relation to policy and regulations.This indicatesthat the RAF should
focus attention on the regulatory and planning aspectsrather than trying to develop
into a rating system appealing for end user consideration such as BREEAM, or
EcoHomes.

125
 ý10

OM

E .0 r=-t! -4)
> a)
m
r- 0E
E
.
ci
(0 CY C> (0 lit 8 -2 Z,e qt 1
Ln
1
C.1

.
U)

ell,0
.E
0 :3
j2 a- r-

0 (D F- C,4 CN CD C> cý4 (D F2 cli Z

E

E Co
CL
E 0
0 0 CL c2
E E
> :j CL
cu
>
cn
c 00 (D 0
-5 c2 0 ý-- to M m tn 2 c2 Q 1-t (0 <O
- - 1 1
A
jo: Lo gn
tR LA
(1) CI)
, (D ý 4; c)
-rz :ý c2.0)
cm
0 =
c -e E
cu
:5; r_ (1) c :3 :> cu
-) '
i1

LO Ln tr)
1.0 CD
cu
c2 .0
12 Z; m. :3 cu E 93.: 3
c CL 0Q e r-
0 c2.

E
0 r2 C> C:) C,4 cm c3 P- r- CD 00

Z
to
r z
-
0 E?8Z
_O
E M E
(1)r= c r= r_
.0
.0 0 15 Fu E 0 3§
Z :5 -cli
cý4
r- 00 M Co C,
4 C%j

.
12 (P "0 s '-» -0
E' (L)-w .
E
0 «2
r= - fCL)
C,4 i: ý C,4 (D 9
0.
9.2G
P') C,4 r4 m C,4
.

*0
m
E
.
-% 0 Z 20 16 12 CI) 0
:3 12 t5 Ei -0
c:
CI 0
(0 Ts r_ r_
(D sm
-
c3)
.0 Co -a 3
(L) j2 CL
E Zw e5 2 8 M
CL Jý .2
s2 Zc
0
-,
-ö
0
(2 >, OL L2 e- e -2
0 >
> 2 o cu 9?
0 -r2E' ý .- cx 0
CL)m c. 2 -, 0 @
c: d3 l u .2
to m, 0 42 ýý c: (P U)
e
Z c> a)
G) E
e r=
M' g?
(1)
u)
c:
in
-5
0) a ZM
oý . ýo
m
IMM W c:
V) 20
(D .
CI)
EE a) in Co0 Co
cu «0 (L) 2 --Ei 0) 0 0 c: 0c
E . > r_ 0
E tu cm r- . -. 0
0
c2. 0
9 A0
s0 *A 0
A p c r- M 2 . CI) CL 0 (L) en U)
5: i3
e in ci -2 ' L3 c: In E E
0 0 Ci)
Z r_ Z CL
(n
m to
F4
tu
rL 0 q> m CL -0
F;
4.5.2 Perceived benefits of sustainability monitoring
This information was obtained after making interviewees think of an ideal

sustainability assessmentand monitoring tool and asking them to statewhat perceived

benefits this tool would have as well as what function it should ideally fulfil. This
information ultimately guides the refinement of the RAF into a processwhich the
BRP intervieweeswant.

One of the main benefits and subsequentfunctions of long-term monitoring was seen

as the provision of information and feedback with regard to the sustainability of

projects. A developer stated:
'it would be interesting to know if some the new environmental technologies

actually work'(D8).
LA interviewees saw the value of monitoring and information feedback in terms of

obtaining an understandingof whetherand how policies worked on the ground.

6wemonitor a lot of things, but it isfor government,and the results don't give

you direcifeedback regarding policy impacts on the development scale, so in

fact we don't know ifa particular policy is a good one or a bad one'(PI).

'such.a process[Iong-temsustainability monitoring] would provide feedback

to
and realism new measures being implemented andpolicy requirements,for

examplelike the installationof wind turbines to

adjacent housing;relatedto
therenewableenergyprovision policies(PC3)'.

A LA sustainability manageremphasisedthe value and need for monitoring feedback

information stating:
'such an approach will help stop the branding of policies and measuresas
inherentlysustainable,such as brownfield redevelopment'.

the
LA policy officersmorespecificallyexpressed benefitof monitoringinformation
link betweenSEA, SA andEIA something which hasbeen identifiedas
servingas a
lacking in the literature (Therivel, 2004; Sheateet al, 2005; Sheate,2002). The
benefits of monitoring serving as information feedback mechanismswere also
by
emphasised the architectsinterviewed.

127
 dwecan design things to the best of our abilities and with good intentions

using bestpractice guides,howeverwe very rarely get anyfeedbackas to how

our design performed with regard to aspects like liveability and quality of
life'(Al).
'Something could be inherently wrong with our designs and we wouldn't
know... we don't live in the developments,this lack offeedback could be

resulting in perpetuating badpractice' (M).

A different benefit perceived by interviewees (Table 4.4) resulting from long-term

monitoring, albeit more procedurally related, was seen as its implication of forcing
people to think about long-term impacts and to take responsibility for them. Many
intervieweesincluding developersthemselvescommentedon the 'build and forget it'

culture of the industry.

development
'such aprocess of a long-term monitoring strategy can helpfocus the mind on
the truly important issues,asyou cant monýtOreverythingas well as embeda
sense of responsibility in the current build and forget culture of the
developmentindustry' (CL6).

Swhen undergoingtheplanning applicationprocess everyoneis in such a rush

to process things that you canforget to look at the biggerpicture and consider
that the developmentis going to be aroundfor at least the nextfifty years..
devisinga long-term monitoring strategy could help all those involved to think

about long-term impactsand take responsibilityfor them'(DC 1).

Based on the above, two important perceivedbenefits emergewhich help define the

purposeof the RAF evaluation.Firstly, the RAF could servethe purposeof providing
feedbackinformation on developments,with the aim of improving future practice as

well as policies. Secondly, the RAF was seen as beneficial in that it could enablea

more responsible approach to development which takes into account long-term

impacts.

128
4.5.3 Perceived benefits of sustainability assessments.
The lack of a structuredprocessto assessthe sustainability of developmentprojects
was identified as an issue in Section4.4. It was thus no surprisethat all interviewees
the
expressed major benefit of having referring in particular
sustainabilityassessment,
to the planning and designphaseof development,as:
'the provision of a structuredprocessto enablethe assessmentof the merits of

a development proposal, as well as a platform to agree on planning

obligations (DC2)'(Table 4.3).

cyou never know what you are going to be askedfor when submitting an

application, what would be very helpful is to have a structured and

transparentandfairprocess ofdetermining applications' (W).

'having a robust structured sustainability assessmentwould help mitigate

against the ambiguity involved in planning decisionmaking.' (PC2).

Many interviewees,when commentingon the importanceand the benefits which they

to
would wish occur as a result of an ideal sustainabilityassessment
process,saw as a
key role the enabling of discussionsand negotiations.This is in line with Carley and
Cristie (1992), who comment on the issue of lack of communication within LA.
Intervieweesboth public and private proposedthat one of the benefits of carrying out

a sustainability assessment would be to enabk discussions between LA and

developersto be carried out on a clearly defined basis. It was also seen that such a

process would provide greater clarity with regard to the actual definition of
sustainability and of ways to implement it (Table 4.5):
'By having a structured sustainability assessment,it implies defining the

which
elementsofsustainability, at themoment to befrank are not clear(D 1).
The abovealsoindicatesthat structureis key elementwhich shouldbe considered in

theRAF final design.

A final benefit perceivedmainly by LA interviewees(Table 4.5) was that by carrying

on in the application and designphase
out a structuredsustainability assessmentearly
of a development, there was a greater opportunity to recommend and enforce
to
measures improve the sustainability of a development.

129
 'The main benefitI supposeis that sustainability will be improved(P3).

'If you manage to undertake the sustainability assessmentearly on in the

designprocess you have the opportunity to propose or enforce alternatives

and mitigation measuresto improve the sustainability, which is the ultimate

goal after all, '(S2).

is a widely acknowledgedprerequisitefor carrying

Early involvement and assessment
out a successful EIA (Glasson,2005; Weston, 2000) and SEA (Therivel, 2004). The

need for early assessmentwas emphasisedby a number of interviewees, mainly from

the LA and wasjustified by the feeling that LAs had limited enforcementpowersonce
developmentapprovalhad beengranted:
'Once it's built what canyou do you can't knock it down canyou?(P5)'.

'Onceplanning permissionhas beengranted apartfrom building control there

is not a lot of regulation so you have no power to change things, a
sustainability needs
assessment to be at the design phase if it is to improve
1).
sustainability'(S
Unsurprisingly this was not a benefit mentionedby any of the developersinterviewed.

Thus, the benefits of sustainabilityassessments were seenas ultimately improving the

developments, on the proviso that assessments could be carried out in
sustainabilityof
the design phase of developments. Importantly interviewees felt that sustainability

assessments should serve as framework for structured consideration of the various

sustainability issues with the benefit of improving communication and facilitating

decision making. These findings have clear implications for the RAF refinement and
be in the design
processes and specifications(seeSection4.7).
should reflected

4.6. Barriers to adoption and limitations of sustainability

monitoring and assessment
This section begins by describing the barriers to the adoption of sustainability
tools which were perceived by
monitoring and existing sustainability assessment
interviewees(Section 4.6.1, Table 4.6). A number of the different proceduraland tool
limitations have been mentioned already but all points are summarisedin Section

130
4.6.2 and 4.6.3 (Tables 4.7 and 4.8). Only the main limitations and barriers are

expandedon in this sectionto provide a basis on which to frame the context on which
recommendations were proposedby the interviewees.These recommendationsthen
form the basis for the developmentof the RAF practical specifications(Section4.7)

and final design.

4.6.1. Barriers to adoption of sustainability assessment and

monitoring
Oneof the mainbarriersto the adoptionof sustainabilitymonitoringandassessment
practices identified by the vast majority of intervieweesand in particulardevelopers
was the lack of an understanding of the meaningof sustainability,especiallywith
regard to its appliedcontext in the development industry.This issueis also evident
from Section4.2 where it was identified that different stakeholdershad different
definitions andperceptionsasto what sustainabilitymeant.One tool developerstated:
'it is very dijficult to measuresomething's performance when there is no
agreementwhat it is your measuring' (TD3).

Three out of ten developers argued there was a lack of market demand and
understandingof the evaluation results, by consumersand LAs, with developer D6

claiming:
'at the momentit is us which have to educatethemand tell themwhat it means
to havean excellentBREEAMrating,not theotherwayaround.

The lack of understandingof sustainability was also considered in conjunction with

the lack of skills or knowledge with regard to sustainability assessmentand
implementation processesexpressedby LA and emphasisedby all sustainability
tool developers interviewed (Table 4.6). Based on their experiencesof
assessment
trying to implement their own evaluation tools, tool developers stated that they found

they had to spenda lot of time explaining the tools and the results obtained.
ewe have spent a lot of time and effort which we hadn't accountedfor just
explaining to LA how the tool works, what they can gain from using it and
what the results mean, to be honest there is an issue of re-education or
training required in this field which was also pointed out in the Egan

review[ODPM, 2004](TD5).

131
LAs appearedanxious about the steep learning curve they were required to move
along due to the many changesin planning and the new sustainability requirements
especiallywith regardto the implementationof the SEA Regulations.
'Peoplehave got too many things to grapple with at the moment,planning is
undergoingreform and sustainabilityseemsto be at theforefront'(P5).

'... at the moment we need to figure out SEA and SA and all the new
monitoring requirementsthere is also the requirementsfor SCI and CS never
mind the general planning reform... we are learning as we go along and I
supposethat showy'(P2).

One of the greatest barriers to the adoption of sustainability monitoring and

practices
assessment and contaminatedland monitoring was the LA's perceived lack
of enforcementpowers (Table 4.6), in particular p9st-developmentcompletion. Both
LA and Sustainability assessmenttool developersargued that LA have very limited
resources(Table 4-6) as well as time (Table 4.7) with the result that they can only
undertakewhat is statutorily requiredof them.
'As part of my job as a L4 officer I am required to undertake a number of
tasks, which are in my job description... I am already very pressed for
time...so if I spend time assessing the. sustainability of developments
somethingelsewon't get done I be
which won't able tojustify(P5).

'Unless sustainability assessment can be integrated within our existing

processes we can'tjustify time
spending or resources
on it(P2).

Furthermore, LA interviewees pointed out that, if sustainability assessmentor

monitoring requirements were not incorporatedwithin planning policy or guidance,
be
they could not reasonably requested by developers in the form of S106 agreements.
Many of the LA and private consultants also suggestedthat of the known tools
(excluding the SEEDA checklist) none were integratedor designedwith the planning
in
process mind.
'if there is no planning policy stating that developmentsshould undergo
formal sustainability assessmentsor that they should undertake monitoring,
even ifwe did askfor a Sl 06 it
agreement would go to appeal andfail'(DC 1).

132
This issue was of particular pertinencefor contaminationlong-term monitoring, The
CL intervieweespointed out the potentially large cost involved with such operations
which could not reasonably be required unless-stipulated through planning and
regulations. The significance of the lack of enforcement powers was also stated by
developersthemselveswhich elaboratedon the 'build and forget it' culture of the
developmentindustry (Table 4.6).
'at the momentthere is no money in it, there is a needfor a stick approach
which says you won't get planning permission unlessyou monitor, then we
would all do it(D9).

Somedevelopersand LA intervieweesas well as private consultants,pointed out the

confusion which has been created by the plethora of available sustainability
assessment tools. They indicated that their voluntary and developer-driven nature
reduces the confidence that people have in them. Many of the interviewees were of
the view that there was not a needfor yet anothertool, and this boldly put by a private
sustainabilityconsultant:
'what we don't needis yet another unrecognisedand unenforceabletool, what
do
we need isfor to
someone make a decision as to which tool we are advised
to use,whether it be SEEDA or BREEAM and EcoHomesor a combinationof
all three, and someone to devise a process of integrating these tools into the
planning and development
process'(PC3). -

133
 M
-4
r- -
r_ -
om
um 0

(D
.q
ig . m !2. a
c E
r_ U,3 C:) Co Co CD Co c42 e r- u) Co cf ) cz Q
. ci 1 1 1 1 1

ID) =E
r_ 0Z c3)CL
0 :3
bd
..E 0
CY C) (D C,4 C,4 cli cli C:) o CN CD CD C:) C> CD
E E 1
125
Q) Co
E E
L* 0 CD-E2 E2 4)
92
Z0- CD
. E
00 >
0mc:
C» m c3 p-
.5 CJ k- v) cm m CD m CD m CDU
A
20
Ln 12 Kn
tz. a)
=

ý m :3
. E- (1) E
.?:
CL>M -0 -
2
1e4 1
Ci. Co -F .1 "1 U') r4 U') ý, c). U)
CD
cz
2ý 2m
3 "'
L- .0
. E (5

c2 0) 0 (Z) C: ) (0 c4 cz
cm C-2 CIJ r4 CD
c
2
cm
g 0-
k
_E
(P ýQ
z
'0 A
0 E
cu 23 m - -
m
E 0 E 0
ZZ] CO r_ t--

s0 -0
E .E
0
c 2 2-5 2 r- f- i5 :3 12 le C» (0 le m
9.5. . - CD eli m N
o. rmm r- ri ,
Im

cu rn
Co Co C» r_
«o 2 -:; M
-3

r- g m ci, E
0 r E; .2
-
a
1 8 a) U) 010
m
zm
0
CL 0_
-2 (0
-2 (D
U) cr
E 0
m 1, :2 c
Co s E 2 Co
. cm
CA
m
Q)
*.-3
Co

CM
g cu -r_ :3
0) .0 . C)
cn.
.2c: cl E (L) 0 a) 9 2
0; 0 2 e. cn r_
E e
a) c--
CU 2 0 E c)
. 12 '0 0 .2 LL
E u) <c
1 m :a 8 2
E E
c2.0 0 Oe 0 0
c:
2. r
m_ 15 912 i93 m ýe r_ ý-Co 1.=0
r-

ý 9(L) u)
0 -g
0 c E :e .
G-
0
>
a)
U)
0 m m
i 2
CI Co J 0 ýs m
(D -= r9
CL
0 :3 m
j m JE0 L)e ci
-
-0 Co
-i -. -i
ý-
 W)
en
M

c-
0

! gi2
m
r0_o E
r_ CD Co CD C:) (Z)

E
0Z
CL r-

rq

8 (1) 9 -r_
e -0
>cM
0
c>
CJec- ýC,,<c, (0 Ico
0 CD

0
0 0 >
E-
r3) (D
.c
14 29.0.
0
-he
(0 '-
E Co g M :3
Kn Ln C,
4

CD

cL)E
m=
0Q
CL
Z
C,4

0)
r.
T: -0 m
E
92 r=
. -

r- M
Z 1-- - CO CO

s Co
.
E-

-2 :3E iý (0
cli -d-
CI) -t
C,4 C.)

14
.

c:
Co

>
8 E
0
cn -0 >,
U)
U) .2
m a
tu c
8 E
o
E c:
0
E
E E in -
(D
m
0 gm In 12 -5
(L) 0- 2 m
-0 2c c4 U) 9 U) (n 2
20 en 0r .2
r- Co
U) CM0 10 r M - (D Ci.
r E E
0 (D g
r- a 0 cý..
. c: ( 1'
- 0 8>r_ cu m
Co U) Ci.U) 0 -1 -1
4.6.2. Procedural limitations of sustainability assessment and
monitoring
With regard to the procedural limitations of sustainability assessmentsand
monitoring, the main points have been outlined in Sections 4.2 to 4.7. Time

restrictions and pressures were expressed by all public body interviewees, and this
experience was also confirmed by the sustainabilitytool developers(Table 4.7).

However, the greatest procedural limitation identified by 39 out of the 41

interviewees was the lack of a structured process to carry out the sustainability
assessments. Different justifications were provided by LA and developers, with
developersand private consultantsrequiring a structuredprocessfor knowing what to
basetheir designsandproposalson:
'rather than decisionsbeing madein void'(PC I).

Thereis a needfor a levelplayingfield, at the momentyou don't know what to

expect,things change depending to LA
which you liaise with'(D3).

'this current unstructured approach to decision making takes time and time
means money in this business'(D2).
LA intervieweeswere more concernedwith the lack of a structured sustainability
assessment processbeing integratedwithin the planning process,perceiving a lack of
informational links betweenSEA, SA and EIA:
'there is plenty of monitoring going on for SEA, SA, AAM, the question is
it
whether actually informs decision making(P 1).

All the above issues were thought to be intensified because of a lack of

communicationbetween According
stakeholders. to the current planning processthe
different planning consulteesare required to provide their written consultationvia the
DC officer who collates them. This process however, was criticised by LA
intervieweesfor limiting communication:
'it sometimesfeels the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing
and often you will find conj7icting consultations being provided within the
LA
same on a particular application'. (LAP2)
This phenomenonis recognisedin the literature (Owens and Cowell, 2001; Carley
Christie, 1992) although Susskindet al (2001) comment on the lack of research
and

136
efforts to examine the process through which environmental decision making is

carriedout.

A problemin communicationwas expressed betweenLA and developers,but also

within theprivatesector.
'You will often get consultantswhich write their section of an EIS and
propose mitigation measures without having taken into accountwhat other
areproposing,it canallget quitemessysometimes'(PC1).
consultants

With regard to contaminatedland issues,communicational difficulties which were

attributed to time were
pressures identified betweenthe Environment Agency and the
LA EnvironmentalHealth (EH) departmentsaswell asbetweenEH and DC.
'Sometimesitfeels that we are-laston DCs list... you get applications about to
be approved and we will comeacross them last minute only to point out that
the site is most likely contaminatedand requires a whole batch of testing...
this causesdelaysand makesus very unpopular '(CL5).

The lack of communicationwas also associatedwith the lack of ownershipof existing

monitoring information by
as emphasised seven LA: officers.
'each department may have an officer collecting data for their specific
department and with regard to planning it is the policy officers which
undertake the monitoring and write the monitoring reports. This results in
themnot being read as well as the duplication ofdata collected' (P4).
Policy officers interviewed, who had monitoring duties, expressedconcernthat they
were using valuable time collating data for higher level governmentpurposeswhich
they felt were not being utilised locally (see Section 4-3). An example provided,
relevant to Brownfield regeneration, was the data collation for the Government's
National Land Use Databasewhich involved a lot of officers' time but which was
as being irrelevant to development
or local level decisionmaking.
seen

4.6.3. Limitations of existing sustainability assessment tools and

monitoring practices
Finally,a numberof limitationswereidentifiedwith regardto the actualnatureof
currentsustainabilityassessmenttools and monitoring practices (Table 4.8). A

137
number of intervieweessaw the current approachof existing tools which only address
building performanceand environmentalissuesasproblematic.
'Tools like BREEAM are good but they don't address the wider issueslike

and
regeneration, a development
is so muchmore than the actual building
itsejr. ifyou rely on such tools I think you could end up loosing the bigger

picture'(PO).
This seemedto be of a particular issueto designersand architects:
'from an architect'sperspectiveI am interestedin so much more than building

performance, livability, quality of life, beauty... these are things which no

model can you

assess... need to assesseach developmentin relation to its

surrounding context(A3).

Tool developersrecognisedthat their tools mostly addressedenvironmental aspects.

This approachwasjustified by one tool developeron the basisthat:
'because environmental aspects are much easier to measure and provide
benchmarksfor, you find a proliferation of environmental performance
tools'(TD4).
The inherent issue and difficulty of developing measurablebenchmarks especially
to
with regard social issueswas identified by 24 interviewees.

The lack and need for sustainability indicators or assessmenttools relevant to the
local context was also highlighted. In fact, sevenout of the ten developers(Table 4.8)

statedthe need for a context specific approach:

'you can have simple straighýfbrward devOopmentsand very complex ones

whereyou need to be innovative and creative and this should be reflected in

assessments'(D6).

,its impossible to create one universally applied index of sustainability

becauseeverydevelopmentis different'(D9).

'The scoring Mlem is too simple at the moment.. to the point it can be

misleading... for exampleyou can get brownie points for building on a

brownfield site which doesn't actually reflect the sustainability of the
developmentin itselr(D8).

138
However, a barrier to the adoptionof a context specific approachwas put forward by
tool developers.
'In any voluntary tool which you try and promote there needs to be a

competitiveedgeotherwise the developerwill not do it, at the end of the day

what developers want is to have a certificate which states that their

development is better than others, you cant do that unless you have

standardisedindicators(TD5).

As discussedpreviously (Sections 4.2 and 4.3), the need for a context specific

approachwas also emphasisedby all contaminationrelevant interviewees( seeTable

4.1). They expressed the opinion that, should sustainability assessmentsof
remediationproposalsbe they
undertaken, would have to be on a case-by-casebasis,
the outcome of which would depend on the contaminantson the site, techniques
proposedand developmentenduse.

Finally, thirteen intervieweescriticised the current output approachto monitoring, by

which the number of physical or tangible elements are monitored (for example the
numberof car parking spacesor number of bus sheltersprovided). This was attributed
to the governmentand industry approachof measuringaddedvalue.
'At the moment we are in a part government funded project and the

monitoring we are required to do is all about how much moneywe spendand

what we get in return, it's not about the positive effects to the lives of the
people this money has had.. at the end of the year or coming up to elections
the governmentneedsto say.. I spent this muchand I delivered this muchso...
5 schools, 3 new roads, 10 playgrounds... which explains really this out-put

approach to monitoring its all about addedvalue'(D6).

...

Thus there appear to be a number of barriers to the adoption of development

monitoring and assessment
practicesthat need to be if
addressed, the
sustainability
RAF is to be used. To overcome some of these limitations a summary of the
by interviewees is presented in Section 4.7 and cross-
recommendationsmade
to the theoretical specificationsidentified in Chapter2 (Box 2.7).
referenced

139
4.7. Recommendations for the RAF
The aim of this research is to develop a usable RAF to enable the long-term

evaluation of BRP. To achieve that, Pattons' (1997 and 2002) approach to the
development of evaluation methods which focuses on evaluation users needs to
design the evaluation process was adopted (See Chapter 1). The initial theoretical
RAF (mentioned in Section 4.1) was presentedat each interview, and stakeholders

were asked to make recommendations which would enable its wide application and
utilisation. Therefore, interviewees' recommendationsrelating to the characteristics
which the RAF should have in order to overcomethe aforementionedlimitations are
presentedand serveas the basison which the RAF is designedand evaluated(Chapter
5 and 6).

Recommendationshave been made relevant to distinct thematic topics, and are

summarisedwith their key points as follows:

" Recommendationsof measuresto enable wider adoption of BRP sustainability

evaluation.(Section4.7.1 and Table 4.9).

" Recommendations to overcome the identified procedural limitations currently

hindering sustainabilityevaluation.(Section4.7.2 andTable 4.10)

" Recommendations
regarding the nature of the evaluation (ie ideal indicators etc)
(Section4.7.3 andTable 4.11)

" Recommendationsregarding the participation characteristics of the evaluation

process.(Section4.7.4 and Table 4.12)

4.7.1. Recommendations to enable wider adoption of the RAF

The need to integrate any development sustainability evaluation within existing
by
planning processeswas emphasised the majority of interviewees.
'if the RAF is not part of theplanning process,it won't bear any weight in the

application determination and we won't be able to allocate time for it.

(LPA2)
'the only way you could convinceme as a developerto do a voluntary
assessment is ifyou could demonstrate
to me that by doing the it
assessment
will help me get planning permission or that it will save me time or
money'(D2).

140
LA and private consultantspointed out that ideally the requirementfor sustainability
be
evaluationsshould stipulated in planning policy for LA to have the power to ask
for S106 agreements,stipulating the allocation of money for the purposeof carrying

out the long-term monitoring.

'S106agreements
are a goodwayof ensuringthe monitoringand thefunding
from developers,but there needsto be a policy stating that... like PPG.l3 is
for the Greentravelplan monitoring. (LPAI).

Interestingly, all developersmentioned that they would not oppose carrying out or
funding sustainability assessmentsand monitoring should they be forced to through
legislation.
'As long as monitoring and sustainability assessments are requiredfrom all
developersand notjust the leadersin thefteld, for exampleusing legislation, I
don't see why there should be a problem...all we want is a level playing
field'(D3).
Willingness to pay on the part of the developers is very encouraging, when
the barrier resourcelimitations posedto LAs (Section4.6)
considering

From the review of existing evaluationtools it was identified that the SEEDA
the only tool to make reference to 'existing planning policies, a fact
checklist was
by interviewees (although they have not used
commentedpositively upon a numberof
it) (Section4.3). However, there is no policy stipulating the use of the checklist which
limits its capacity for wider adoption. Nonetheless when interviewing with the
SEEDA tool developers it
and managers, was disclosedthat the SEEDA checklist was
in the process of being improved with the aim of being applied throughout all the
English regions:
'Ideally what we are trying to do is get the checklist into regional policy, but

that isproving harderthanwethought'.

The SEEDA checklist therefore to
appears be the most relevant to the RAF as,
things, it makes reference to planning policies and is aiming to be
amongst other
included in Regional Spatial Strategies.

141
 6 should this happen and the RAF makes use of the SEEDA checklist, it
would then allow for S.
106 agreements to be drawn, stipulating long-term
43
monitoring.

for developersto bearthe cost,the

Additionally,althoughit was seenas necessary
needfor P (asis
partyassessors currentlytheprocessundertaken with BREEAMand
EcoHomes)was emphasisedby a numberof interviewees.
'You needsomeoneindependentcoordinating and overseeingthe assessments,

otherwise I don't think the results would be trusted by eitherparties'(P I).

This points out the need for the RAF to incorporate an independentfacilitator to
executethe process.

All intervieweesacceptedthat evenwith developersbearingthe costsof sustainability

assessment and monitoring requirementsthe RAF could only feasibly be applied to

large developments.Justificationsfor this view included:
'It would simply not be feasible to carry out long-term monitoring and

assessmentsforall developments,you would have to stipulate size thresholds'

(DC2).

4.7.2. Recommendations to overcome procedural limitations

Interviewees
makingreference to the skills and time limitations(Section 4.6)
that
recognised for process
suchan evaluation to work it would have to be simple,
with clear action points and deliverables and not be time consuming:
'ifyou want planners to car?y out this process it will have to havejust a few

straightforward stepswhich are linked to planning'(S 1).

Xrommy experienceifyou wantit to beusedby a LA it needsto madedummy

proof(PC3).

" ThisadvicewastakenonboardandtheSEEDAchecklistwasincorporated into theRAF process

(Chapter5). However,this checklisthasyet to be adoptedasregionalpolicy,andhasnotbeenrolled
out throughouttheregions,dueto apparentproject delays.

142
 Iyou need to think of the knowledge the people taking part in this will have
...
they are neither sustainability experts nor academics ... it needs to be

simple'(TD3).
the needfor any suchprocessto be ableto fit in
Developersin particularexpressed
with planningandprojecttime lines(Table4.10).
'Timing is everything, if it's going to get used it will have to fit within the

planning andproject deadlines' (D5).

What was recommendedby all interviewees,and thus is a fundamentalpoint for the

RAF, is the developmentof a structured standardprocess applicable to all LPA to

enable the sustainability assessmentof development proposals in a way that

influencesplanning decisions.
'what you needis a structuredprocessto integrate theseassessmenttools into

planning'(S 1).

However, a significant number (27) of intervieweesat the same time expressedthe

need for this processto be flexible enough to accommodate the ever-increasingnew

standardsemergingas well as differing LA practices(Table 4.10).

'you needto allowfor change,consideringwhat planning is going through at

the moment(LAP2).

'If the assessments to

are rigid with criteria set in stone,they will be out of
dateassoonasnewpoliciesare introduced(LAPI).

The need for a context specific approach to sustainability evaluation has been
throughout this chapter.However LA officers in particular pointed out the
emphasised
for local objectives, policies and priorities to be reflected within the assessment
need
(Table
andmonitoring processes 4.10).
'what is a sustainabilitypriorityfor this LA or theparlicular area, may not be
the case down South, as a LA we have targets to meet and these have to be

incorporatedsomehowinto the monitoring'(P5).

143
 4
l= -jg
0

E 'E
m* r2
c: (1) E
0" 2, r-
u (0 (0
1
(0
1
Lt) m1 CD ce)
1

CL c:
gm
0
1-- CY C,4 C,4 C»4 ci (2 C:) (D
0
2
m

E C) E
Z

Lo

Co >

CL =
U) p r_
LL CL .
-0
«
> jg
(L) 0 CD
c» Co Co Le)

IS
4..
0
r2
.

r= 1:
3§
.0
E
Z
0
c
m Z c73 C» Co
U.
CD .5g -
10

Z U)
(L) 90
.

42
C) A CJ

:3
0

(D
< 2 (1)
E c: Co
.c CL,
r_
Z -r_ *E cm
r- C2 r- «g %;
--
>O cn Uw tu (U
mm2 i r_ 08
w Z; E
0 :2 tu M: mA
0
EA E 0 JE
1- 0 r- ci. r- Co (1)
5E -U) Lu <
c -c *0 a .2
? Z
C) cn
0 -c, m -
*3 Q g> -0 Z. w CL) o c6
c2. ý 0 r- C-
0 E, ' 10 j2 > cn CD-2 : r=
u) 12 -ö 0 (L) p e
E (D
E
Co ca CM
c0 MLM -=
2
's
(P 8>
E
2 25 =O
JO
U) r
.oe
5 cl.
c2.
W
E-0 a)
*0 (P "
0 f2
r_

U) 99 (L) p a) tu 0 f;(P .ý22 4ý --0

0 r_ 2-11 Z ja 9- i-- 0
U) E lý r- . U)
Ix LU (L)
Co r= 0W0
M -Co= ;G ý;
(D c2. Co (0 ' tu
n (D r- "L2 cn ýe U'0
ýz
ID
(L) LD Z u CO) ce P ?' 2ý
CL

< -5 2 :;
ý 9
m W1 «2 Ci. Co cco- (1) . J?
11;
 W)

OB
i2 P- (0
C.

uc CD (D (0 (0 (0
1 1 1

>". c2

=E
0 :1
CL r-
>:
C" _cgcl cli r4 CD C*.i C,4 cli
0
m
'0 Co
c -
cu 0)
E Lo f2 .0
E 'rL)Z.2E

0
>
(U0
c2 CJ Co Co C-2 CD le

m
(D ,w r=
Z]
cm ,>
0
E Co
- le Ln Ul)

'ö -

Lo
E
cn

2 > (1) 0 ci CD CD
cm 0 ý- C,4 - r. 4 - M

.0
0
E
A r=
E 0
c11 C,4 r4
:33 ý
C»
Z-
E C-4
75

C» CO
c-; o r=

a) cm
.5

'23 0
en mE(L) *5.; E 3:
U) 0
0.2
U)
Tr-
CL v--
9
c37
m
c2.
tm
r_
m
r_
cm
12
.2 Co
ä
= E
m 8-0 12 :2 X
M «ffi E; Co u ; CD E L,
J2

- (L) 0 r- (1) r- ý -? -0 E

EE F.
J. Co 0 -02 LD
t5 0
Co 75 E-8
2!.CoM
Lu ý
! Co
CY) (L) 2 ? UJ 08
v) CL .5-<m
-2
c3) c c) Co -
c: Co)
. b!
(V CD 2
0 «o

cs =
V- Ec 0 cz 0
Co .2
12
E 12 E r--- (n
E jg -, - 08 U) - 08 CO «cn
0 M
*0
mi
8 9
he -cs
a.
ýp (D Q) m
M 10
a) cö = *c3 E .2
-ö ZA c (1) 2 Z0 Cx LDZ(D
m wm cc cu :E0.0c m iz -0 Z c3 c2.
F; .Z
1
--
 110

r-
cb om

0
m !qm m !q0
r- (D
0' i)
ci
r- c:. u2 CD
1
C) CD
1 ß"ü r_ m 0 (0 ci c12
1
4-
(L)

E E
0 :3 CL
c> 0
CD
C:) C:) C) C,4 (D 1 )2
=
0
cmCD cm, c> c:, c>
zm
"0 Co
c:
(L)

E Lo .92
E
E
E E
:3
8 c
r (L) 0g 0) CJ0
Ca

0 0 ci Co 1 0
)2Co ce) Co C) (0

Lo LO
-5 -
=
1,0ýB
2> c2. m
m
E CL)
cm >
be
10 Co u) -
E E
C, Ln cli
LO
(V CD
5 -
j_- cu
Lo
c2. Z
E 2 a> E
-0-
u2 C> vi CD Ln

C'J

0)
E
:3
m Er= -0
:3
C» f- C» Co 00
Z F- Co CO r- m
U-
0
2 s cn
w (1) T3 .
E
II-
0 s
0
2- 2
. . m r- Co Cj e
I-

LD
tu
im r
140 E
"0
»5 E 0 0 .Z
13
c2. E c «c3
0 Co
02 C) 0 E
(L) > c

2
«v a) -0-
75 Z)
(1)
E 92
-5
'
r_
75 c3) m
c
Cr
Co 0 0) 0 0 MO m c
LL m
U) m M
U) (U U)
Co .CL) m
Co)
a.
(1) -0
iý U) r_ - (L) - ZJ U)
r- E
C, E
8
r- U) E u) 2 Co E Mr E
" W. U) - CL 0 E ý6
22 0) .2 '3) G) 0 E .ei .2
2 E 11)U) -0 :3 [2 m c:, 0
cn cn
C CD- 0 4) 0
? *r-
c -r-
U) c2. (D
4) 0 Co cu cý)
G
-0 «a
Co c0
«r3 em
1'< 2
E (L) .9
CK 0 FIJ Z:
cu C . 5. -cl 0 8m
c
cu = m
E-32 . t -Z «v r .2 0 - r_ Co
90
(L)
E
.-0 (L, 0 jý, u) (D
s
m
r- !q
LD 'n
0( P EE .g :s
c>
E E - ý (V A
E ig -a 90 9 0 2:
8 c: c =:
c: cn 0) 8m ,b
0 (0 C) C (L) m (L) ?c n 0 9 (L)0 ý
9)
w
> A, m >8, F- 0-9 , aE8
Z cn_r-.2 (n -c Z .!
.9
ug lw m
4.7.3. Recommendations regarding the nature of the RAF (i.e. Ideal
Indicators)
A holistic approachto sustainabilityevaluationwas proposedin line with the theory

presented in Chapter 2. Interviewees suggested that the assessmentsshould

encompassmore than building performance,developingcriteria to addresssocio-
issues
economic ratherthanpurelyenvironmental ones:
'The RAF should look at the wider impliýationsof developmentincluding
employment,education,crime,you can't do that with BREEAM.'(P5).

Wen assessinga developmentyou also need to take into account any

impactsresultingfrom S106agreements(DCI).
Some intervieweesfelt that a way of setting assesýmentcriteria which were context

specific should be developed and that there should be measurable benchmarks

developedfor the more qualitative socio-economicaspectsof developments:
'You needindicators which are relevant to theparticular area, and relevant to

policies andLA targets'(P2).

With regardto long-term monitoring one intervieweerecommended:
ryou could useSEA and AM baselinesand which are relevantto policies
both local and regional and monitor to see if things are getting better or
worse as a result of the development'
(P6).

Finally, as was presentedin Section 4.6 with regard to the contamination

interviewees
aspects,
sustainabilityassessment were adamantthat a site specific
approachwith input from contaminatedland specialistswould be the only possible

way forward.

4.7.4. Recommendations regarding the participation

characteristics of the evaluation process
In Chapter 2 one of the theoretical specifications for the RAF was that it is

participatory. However, it was established that there are different types of

participation and that the extent of participation should be determined by evaluation

users. Therefore, in order to determine the communicational and participatory

characteristicsof the RAF, the recommendationsmade by interviewees shown in

Table4.12areusedasa basisto designtheRAF engagement Theneedfor

processes.

147
a carefully structured and transparent
participation processwas recommendedby a
majority (28) of interviewees.
fespecially now that planning negotiations and discussionshave beenfront
it is important that you have a transparent
loaded in the planning proCeSS44,

and structuredprocessto thesediscussions

and decisions'(DC1).

'what would be great is if all planning application consulteeswereput in one

room to discusswhat they each wantedfrom the development' (PC3).

A number of LA officers recommendedthat a policy officer should be involved in the

evaluation process in particular referring to the long-term monitoring as they could
use the results to modify policies and also had knowledge of existing LA monitoring
One
schemes. LA policy officer stated:
Gnotonly doesplanning policy have essentially the most to gain out of this

process but it also has a great database of information which would be used
andpotentially minimise the costly duplication ofdata collection'(P4).

A final additional question was asked "what should be the role of the public in the
long-term sustainability evaluation of BRPT' All intervieweesstatedthat the results

of the monitoring and should

assessments be madeavailableto the public.
'Under the Freedom of Information .4ct we need to make all information

available now to the public, but I think that we need to be sensitiveas to how

contamination data is presented we wouldn't want to alarm people

unnecessarily'(CL3).

There were mixed responseshowever with regard to community involvement in the

itself,
assessment being
with variousrecommendations made.
'There is theformal statutory written consultationof communitiesor residents

neighbouring a proposed development, and people tend to forget that there

to
are electedmembers represent them, so I'don't think that Joe Bloggs is best

placed in a committeeroom and devising monitoring strategies. I think it is

very important to the

consult public, don't get me wrong, but there needsto be

44Intervieweereferring to period prior to application submission.

148
 careful considerationof what you ask their opinion on.. you don't want to tire
themeither.' (P5)

A numberof intervieweesmentionedthe new requirementsfor pre-applicationpublic

a
as result
consultation of Statements
of Community
Involvement.
'SCI are still in the making really but there may well be an opportunity to link
with SCL IM not sure how. '(P4).
developmentsustainability assessments

'it would be good if you could have a structured consultation using SCI to
inform the sustainability assessment,like a survey...otherwiseyou tend to get
only consultationsfrom a few individuals which have a major grievance.. for

example the temporary loss of their gardens..never the bigger picture of what
thepublicfeels aboutproposals'.(M). -
Overall, participation was seenas an important elementof the RAF, in particular with

regard to improving communication and transparency of planning negotiation

meetings and statutory consultations. Informing the public of the assessmentand

monitoring results was widely accepted.However, reservationswere expressedwith

regard to whether they should be involved directly in the development of the

indicators. This is in line with the conclusionsdrýwn in the literature (Section 2.5)

about the use of different participation methods with different numbers of

stakeholdersaccording to the purpose of the process. The suggestion for survey
to the public and obtain information feedbackseemsto be endorsed
methods consult
by interviewees.Therefore, all theserecommendationshave been taken on board and

subsequentlyshapedthe RAF participatory processdescribedin Chapter 5.

4.8. Conclusions and final RAF specifications

From the resultspresented in this sectiona number of important points havebeen
Firstly, it was identified that thereis very little, if any, evidence of long-
established.
termmonitoringof both contamination and sustainability. The picturedid not seemto
tools
be muchbetterwith regardto theuseof theplethoraof sustainabilityassessment
identified in Chapter 3, and no sustainability assessments
of remediation strategies

werebeingundertaken.

149
Different stakeholdersperceivedthemselvesto have different decisionmaking powers

and levels of influence of the sustainabilityof developments.

They also seemedto be

using different to
processes the
assess sustainability of projects if they were doing this

at all. These processesincluded governmentpolicy in an unstructured way (which

was the most common), EIA, SA, SEA, LA checklists, SEEDA checklists,

government funding sustainabilitycriteria, as well as BREEAM and EcoHomes, all of

which have their limitations. No sustainability assessmentor monitoring tool was
identified45 let aloneused,with regardto remediationoperationsspecifically.
,

A number of barriers were identified with regard to the adoption of sustainability

practices
assessment and monitoring as well as procedurallimitations. The main ones
consisted of the lack of a structured process for the assessment of developments

which is integrated within the planning system, to mitigate against the profit-driven
'build and forget' culture of the current dev6lopment industry. The lack of

understandingof sustainability, resources,time, skills and communication between

the different stakeholderswere all identified as important limitations.

However, important recommendationswere madewhich havebeentaken on board for

the development of the RAF. What was needed was not another set of indicators or

assessment tools, but a structuredparticipatory processwhich enables the integration

of existing tools like the SEEDA checklist, BREEAM and EcoHomes into the
Thus, the RAF should create a level playing field for discussions
planning process.
and prioritisation of context specific sustainabilityelementsto take place betweenthe
different stakeholders.The need for BRP stakeholdersto make their sustainability
and priorities explicit was also indicated by the confusion over the
principles
definition of the term as well asthe discrepancyobservedbetweenprofessions.

Although intervieweesemphasisedthe need to increasecommunication and dialogue

between LAs, developersand planning application consultees,it was felt that there
be some community in
representation devising the monitoring and assessment
should
indirect. The use of community surýeysand their integration with the
strategy,albeit
of
statement community involvement was
processes also proposed.

's None of the CL intervieweesmentionedor had heardof the RESCUE consortiumor checklist.

150
Additionally, it was established that the RAF should enable the design and
enforcement of site specific sustainability assessmentsand monitoring strategies
which would be funded by developers,yet carried out by third parties, thus limiting

theidentifiedLA resourceandtime strain.

The benefits of such an approachwere seenas the improved communication,and the

structured approach which such a processwould bring to development application
decision making. Furthermore,with regard to the benefits of rrýonitoringthe creation

of a feedbackloop to policy formulation and evaluation as well as the ability to know

what works on the ground was seenas key, thus specifying the function of the RAF.

However, long-term monitoring of contamination was more problematic.

Interviewees felt this was essentialand urgently neededto help remedy the current

gap of knowledge with regard to the effectiveness of remediation technologiespost

ten years. However, the same individuals felt that there would first have to be a

cultural and legislative change before long-term contamination monitoring could

becomea reality, somethingnot practically feasiblethrough this research.

In summary,there are three main potential beneficial purposeswhich the interviewed

BRP stakeholderswould like to seethe RAF achieve,and will be usedto evaluatethe

outcomeof the RAF trials (Chapter6):

1. Enable the structured consideration of sustainability issues in planning

application decision making:
a. Improve communication between stakeholders
b. Improve understanding of sustainability.
2. Provide feedback information to policy and decision makers with on the

effect of the development and their decisions:

a. Mitigate against the build and forget culture

Enhance learning through evaluation.
3. improve the sustainability of the BRP- (Ultimate Goal)

Basedon all the the design

above causal wascompleted,
which resultedin the RAFs
final form presentedin Chapter 5. A refinement of the RAFs specificationswas also

151
achieved (Box 4.1), and is used in the metaevaluation of the case study trials in
Chapter6. As is evident the criteria are similar to those specified in Chapter2 (Box
2.7), althoughthere are additional feasibility criteria which have beenspecified in the

relevant sections.The particulars of all six specificationsare not included in this box

asthey in
aresurnmarised 4.9
Tables to 4.12.

Box 4.1. Refined RAF specification and metaevaluation criteria.

The RAFwould haveto be:

1. Holistic (evaluateenvironmental, socialandeconomicaspectsof the BRP)
2. ContextSpecific
a. (Evaluateat the development level and includeevaluationof
associated impactsresultingfromplanningconditionsandS106
Agreements.
b. Baseevaluation on locallyrelevantbenchmarks andissues
3. Long-term(evaluatethesustainability of all 3 BRPlifecycleperiods)
4. Participatory(enableevaluation usersto maketheirvaluesandrisk
perceptions as
explicit well as develop their own indicators
sustainability based
on those)
5. Integratedwithin existingdecisionmakingprocesses(planning)
a. Relevantto planningpoliciesand communitystrategies
b. Linkedto SEA,SA,EIAand SCIprocesses
6. Feasible:
a. Appropriate durationandtiming
b. Resourceefficient
c. Appropriate to existingskillsand Know-how

basedonthecasestudy
ThesesixcriteriawillbeusedfortheRAFmetaevaluation
tdalresults(Chapter6).

152
Chapter 5. The Redevelopment Assessment
Framework
This Chapter describes the Redevelopment As.sessment Framework (RAF) as
developedthrough the causaldesignprocess(Figure 1.4). This involved the literature

review (Chapter2) through which an initial theoreticaldesign and specificationswere

developed and which were refined through the series of interviews presentedin
Chapter4. Section 5.1 provides a brief generic outline of the RAF to set the context
for describing the case studies and methodology (Section 5.2). The aim of this

research is to develop the RAF to be a usable'process to enable the long-term

sustainability evaluation of BRP. In order to establish whether this aim has been

achieved, it was necessary to trial the RAF in a real life context and evaluate the
successof the trials. The RAF itself is an-evaluationprocesswhich makes use of a
number of research methods. Section 5.3 analyses each phase of the RAF
individually, supplementedwith results from the casestudy trials, and aims to answer
the question: 'What happened when carrying out the RAF?'. In Section 5.4 a
descriptiveaccountof the how the RAF resultswere utilised is provided togetherwith

more general use recommendations. In Sections 5.5 and 5.6 a detailed description

(descriptiveevaluation;Patton, 1997)of the time and resourcesrequired to carry it out

is provided.

153
5.1. The RAF46
The RAF is a process to facilitate the developmentof site specific sustainability
indicators in a collaborative manner.The RAF's main aim is to inform stakeholders

and decision makers about the sustainability performance of a BRP across its life

cycle. Thus it is not an evaluation aimed for decisions such as whether the
development should go ahead or not. Neither is the RAF designed to compare
betweendifferent developmentproposalsor to assistthe design of these.The RAF is
designedto be implementedon a brownfield site which is proposedfor development

and is undergoingits pre-applicationplanning phase.

Basedon statedrecommendationsand issuesexpressedin Chapter4, the RAF hasthe

following characteristics.To overcomethe LA resourcelimitations, the RAF is to be
led by the developer/owner:here called the 'lead partner'. The RAF is aimed at large
developmentsand it is envisagedthat the lead partner would hire a consultantwith
facilitation skills to coordinate the process.To oýercome the time limitations, the
RAF has been designedto be undertakenin two half-day stakeholderworkshops and
backgroundresearchby the lead partner.
one meeting,and also requiressome

Consideringthe RAF's future wider adoption it is important to specify the role and

skills of the facilitator. The role of the facilitator doesnot involve decision making but

collation of the responsesachieved and therefore does not require specialist

rather
knowledge;however,he/shewould needto:
m Have a basic understanding of sustainability issues.

m Be a trained facilitator and have facilitation design skills.

m Be independent
m Have report writing skills.

The RAF can and shouldbe undertakenor reviewedat eachphaseof the BRP life
thus ensuring that all relevant sustainabilityissuesare addressed
as the
cycle,
developmentprogresses.However, basedon the resultsof Chapter
4, to ensurethat

monitoringdoestake place, the RAF makes use of planningconditions and S106

" Two peerreviewedpapershavebeenpublisheddescribingthe RAF SeePediaditi et at (2005c) and

Pediaditi et at (2006).

154
agreements which are determinedin the initial planning phaseof a BRP. The RAF has
also been designedto be compatiblewith the EIA process(as is demonstratedin the
casestudies).Due to the large number of stakeholders involved in the first planning
and design period, and the fact that decisions will affect the operation of the
developmentaswell as its constructionand remediationprocesses,the RAF shouldbe
in
carried out as early possible the BRP lifecycle, yet develop indicatorswhich are
as
applicablethroughoutits life cycle.

The RAF (Figure 5.1) consists of a simple proceduredivided into six clear phases,
through which site-specificindicators can be develQped.The three first phasescover
the preparatory stages undertaken by the lead partner and include information
gathering and team building to enable the subsequent
participatory developmentof
indicators. For each of the RAF phasesanalysedin Section 5.3, where required, the
tools, checklists and guidancewhich have been developed to facilitate the carrying
out of the processare described.

155
 ýc (n (n -C3 06
0) (0 0) (ý
0 m
Em
m3
9)
0-m
Em n
'o -,
0cE 2wM
=0-
0 M uE
_X
m Q)0LL c Z
-ý- a) 0 Q)
CY) cx (D
-0 a a)
-
(A m :3 j (Z (U -
aD -- T 1) r -u l 0) 0
(D 0-- b ý-0ý U) E
ý2 > r0 .2E
0- a) ui t2 U) 000
--rC :3
U,
M= E>0 -2c 0Z U) C (n (n
0
0 -0 (-) (0 0 (n -ýe U U)
9)
" ,c3 '5 g) -y u) -0
> 2 m-Z Z
,2ý 9) -cý-(U Z U) - 0U (U (Z-c in
uV a) ýu 000 ul ý .2 u) V
(U - :3 U) L) Q) G) -U Z: c
-5 - E U)
Jy
(Uc u) L)
Q)Q)C c: 0r- ý5 U) Z c:
a
.T
ýZ 0 0
m >, r ý0
- 7u - Q c
3ý c
9) r
ll bl 00 E
2 3 uZ E (6 00r 'ý t c
r- > :3< U) r"o0 -- -c C) -i 1
<.
w Z).
V
, E 0
E ü) ýLm
(1
in
(D
E< 0 E a) (n Z
E ým
> 5 U) '0 c0 UJ
U) z, 2L n r2U, (U
0) u) -x
0 > '0
ý LU 0 um
0
C--
o U)
Q)
Q) -ý0
Cl c:
00
r-
c Q)
(V 0 -u Z - -.
Q) Mu
(n
u) Z0
ci c
CJIc 0) 00
U)(n
0E
w
cýc ,-
Q) (U
L
jc
(Z 0) ci. m :3 0 (A -
V) -,

Z, >
(n 0 00 O=in ýE
(n C)
c: 0 m 21 11Týo
mV 1 a) 0
1) Mý0 E
0 E a: >>
=0C, :3
r- 0) (0z
'0 M.0 0 or
Ln u mZ Z 22 E
-dý 0.0
ý r- 0) 5 g) >r U) 0-Ec
r
:3
-00 (n c
Q)
_c
f0 V) -0 () C
0c
r- 2r- Z.
)
0,
c) 0)
:2 0) u)b ll
> 3 E c4 ,
(n
lýM0 0- ME .2 mJ (U
Z) ()
C (V C0 00
-c c
2 01 0 mc 0) Q) Z r» r 0)- 1
Z ul ýý c0c
(n Mi 5E
ad r- :3 (n 0
-x 10 c. oý (ým Z) 5 ,- '2 .c
0 2 -2-ý
.c3> q ýpE ri0 r=
U)
ý- (» w bM(
0wZ ü)
x0 o x
u o
u(
lw c2-

60
ro 0
4) 6
ji -0 =
'zý
r 4) m
t 13
00 0

:3
M
(I, (4 J V) (a -0 c
.9ý, L. a .c
w in
U .0 (D c
2 0
u
0)
4) u

a. c0C

0
C
EE
fJ)
Em U)
I)
'i
)aC
(I,
0 m
U
0 U)< :3
J < (1) (1) U)

w
t
w E
CL
00
L6-; E
w > EE
jE
I',
(0

e
LL
5.2. Case study: methods and background

It was establishedin earlier chaptersthat there is limited knowledge of the actual

applicationof the varioussustainabilitytools,andevenlessstructuredevaluationof

their performance in practice. Therefore, having developed the RAF, it was
consideredessentialto trial it in a real life context (objective f, Section 1.2). A case
study approachwas adopted,which was consideredappropriatein this instanceas it
allowed for both theory building and testing (Yin, 1993).This approachusesa variety
of researchmethods(Patton,2002). Yin (1993, p. 59) defines casestudy as:
can empirical inquiry that investigatesa contemporaryphenomenon[in this
case the RAF implementation] within its real life context, addresses a
situation in which the boundaries betweenphenomenonand context are not
clearly evidentand usesmultiple sourcesofevidence'.
Section5.2.1 thereforegives a brief accountof the researchmethodsused for the case

studies and looks at issues such as case study representativeness.Section 5.2.2.

provides detailed background information on the nature of the case study sites and
proposed developments enabling the better understandingof the results obtainedfrom

the casestudy applications(Section5.3).

5.2.1. Case study methodology

Issuesof casestudy sample size and strategywere consideredand it was recognised

that in order to draw broader conclusions on the RAF, different case study trials
would be required according to BRP life cycle period (Figure 1.2), type of
developmentand location, as well as developmentownership.However, resourceand
time limitations resulted in three different BRPs being selectedas part of the initial

casestudy sampledesign (Table 5.1).

157
Table S.1. Initial case study sites characteristics
CaseStudy CaseI Case2' Case3
Type/particularity Mixed 520 residential, 1200residential withsome 4200 residential units and
some industrialunits and completedindustrialunits mixeduse
a school on site.
Location GreaterManchester ThamesGateway GreaterManchester
Ownership Private land and Private land and private Millennium Community
developer, with part developer, no LA Project, public private
governmentdevelopment involvement partnership.
(school)
RAFapplication Full Partial None
Life CyclePhase Phase1 PhaseI Phase1(butmovedto phase2
1 1 beforeRAFImplemented)

These three sites were selectedfrom a portfolio of 20 SUBR:IM sites (see Section
1.4), and had a number of interesting characteristics. All three were in major
regeneration namely
areas, the Thames Gateway and Greater ManchesterArea, but as

explained in Chapter 4 they are distinctly different, particularly with regard to

developmentdemandand economics.A significant difference between the two areas

are land values and development

gain (Cambell et al, 2000). Becausethere is greater
demand for development in the South, LAs are likely to have greater negotiating

power there than those in the North, potentially allowing them to obtain greater
(e.
contributions g. S106 moneys) (ibid). This could have implications with regard to
the negotiatingpower LAs feel they have over developersin order to oblige them to

carry out the RAF. As is evident from Table 5.1, the RAF was trialled only with

respect to its application on a BRP at the design and pre-application period, and
therefore all detailed recommendations proposed are applicable only for
developmentsat the samelife cycle period.

Also the BRPs were characterisedby three distinct patterns of ownership, which
test the capacity of the RAF to be applied on developments ranging from
would
entirely private ownership to formal public private partnershipsprojects. Finally, all
developmentswere proposedon contaminatedsites and were of a large scale mixed
(mainly residential) nature but differed in size ranging from 500 units to 4200!
use
Therefore, based on this initial design more robust conclusions could be drawn
RAF for different size and ownership (mixed
regarding the applicability and use of
use) developments.

158
Rossi and Freeman(1993) point out that casestudy evaluationsencounterdifficulties

and differ from controlled researchprojects becauseof the changesand uncertainties

of interventionsin real life settings.This was in fact an issuewhen carrying out this
researchas only one (case study 1) was fully completed and another (case study 2)
only partially carriedout becausedeveloperswished to withdraw. The final casestudy
failed to start due to incompatibleBRP and researchtime scales.This phenomenonis
discussedin Yin (1993), who statesthat the problems of changesin participation on
the part of entire 'sites' which distort an initial researchdesign are not uncommonin
the field of case study evaluation research.However, Patton (1997) empbasisesthe
value of unique casestudies,as essentiallyin this research,on the proviso that caution
is taken when drawing wider conclusions.

A variety of researchmethods were used when carrying out the case study trials
(Table 5.2) for different purposes.The RAF incorporatesresearchmethodsin itself

which are discussedin Section 5.3. However, in order to evaluatethe application of

the RAF, different types of data neededto be collected to answerdifferent questions.
When carrying out a casestudy evaluation,Patton (2002) proposesthe collection of
data for the descriptive evaluation which answersthe question of 'what happened

when carrying out the RAFT This then provides some of the data required to carry
out the outcomeand processevaluation,which essentiallyform the Metaevaluation 47

analysedin detail in Chapter 6. The data collection processesused for the descriptive

evaluationaredescribed
below.

Table 5.Z Case study research methods used

Methodsfor the evaluationof the RAF MethodsIntegralto the RAFprocess

" Observation
Participant Census
- Community

" Observation
Non-Participant Review
- Document

" RAFDocumentation - Stakeholder

workshop

" Participant (Chapter

questionnaires
evaluation 6)

" Participant interviews

evaluation 6)
(Chapter

47As theRAF is anevaluationin itself(theevaluationof theRAF is anevaluationof anevaluation)

it
characterising asa Metaevaluation(Stufflebeam,
2001; seeChapter 1).

159
5.2.1.1.Participant and non-participant observation
In order to facilitate answering the question of how the RAF works in practice,
different methodswere employedwhich included observingthe group dynamicsand

reactions to the RAF tasks. Participant observation was carried out in an informal

manner by the researcher, whilst trialling the PAF. Although, the information

obtained is internal and highly subjective, it provided important insights into the
issues faced by the facilitator role in the RAF48 Through the long-term (I year)
.
interactions between the researcherand the case study participants, insight into

external issues as
such politics and external events which may have influenced the
trials was obtained.Therefore,where relevant, such information has been included in
the descriptionand evaluationof the casestudies.Additionally, a log was kept of how
long the different taskstook to completeand the resourcesrequired,which forms part

of the descriptiveevaluation in
presented Sections5.5 and 5.6.

However, during the case study workshops, the researcherwas preoccupied with
facilitating the RAF tasks and thus could not pay due notice to the group dynamics

etc. Therefore, non-participant observation was carried out in a semi-structured

manner (Kitzinger and Barbour, 1999) by an independent researcher" from the

University of Cambridge. Observationswere recorded mainly with regard to the

setting,persons,discussionsand relations in the group with the aim of recording how

the group respondedto the various tasks and ranking exerciseswhich it was required
to do. This form of non-participantobservationalso servedthe purposeof an external
evaluator to the process,which otherwise relies heavily on internal evaluations(see
Chapter6).

5.2.1.2. Documentation
Althoughtaperecordingsweremadeat eachof flýeRAF meetingsand workshops,
or analysed.Instead,theresults
dueto resourcerestrictionsthesewerenot transcribed
in this chapterare based on the documentation produced for the purposeof
presented
carrying out the RAF; these include flip charts,group-producednotes and compiled

actedastheRAF facilitatorfor thepurposeof thetrial.

48As theresearcher
49Dr MichaelHarbottle,RA in WPEof theSUBRIMresearch consortium

160
reports and photographs.Eachphaseof the processwas documentedand reportedfor
confirmation to the RAF stakeholdergroup and the descriptionis essentiallybasedon
thosereports(seeAppendices9 and 10 for exampleof reports).

5.2.2. Detailed case study background

In this sectiondetails of the two casestudy sites and proposedBRPs (Table 5.1) are
given to provide the context under which the RAF was trialled. Casestudy 1, referred
to as the GreaterManchester(GM) case study, is describedin more detail as it was
carried out in its entirety and therefore more information was obtained. The
representativenessof the two case studies are discussed in detail including the
conditions which may have influencedthe trials, and in particular the discontinuation
of case study 2, referred to as the ThamesGateway (TG) casestudy. For reasonsof
confidentiality the identity of the BRPs or thoseof the casestudy participants are not
disclosed.

5.2.2.1. Case study site descriptions

The GM case study is located on a brownfield site extending to an area, including
land for highway improvements,of 19.8 ha. The site borders a river and landfill site

under restorationand is located 100rn from a metro station and town centreand 4 kni
from a motorway interchange.The site was previously occupied by a Paper Mill
factory which was closed down in 2000, togetherwith another nearby PaperMill in
1998, leaving around 2000, predominantly local, workers unemployed leading to a
decline in the prosperity of the particular town. The LA has a master plan for the

regeneration of the area which includes the case study site, but it is not incorporated
within wider government regeneration areas. The site surroundings are mainly
residential, with a small number of commercial and institutional uses including a
primary school and small industrial units.

The existing site baseline .

contaminationconditionsand sourcesare summarisedasthe
following. The main sourcesas indicatedby contaminatedland desk study areso:

50Information on ground conditions and contaminationis obtainedfrom a private consultant'sEIA

report.

161
-Historical industrial land use including bleach works, cotton spinning mill, print
works and papermill including boiler house,gasometerand storagetanks;
wThepresenceof filter and settlementlagoons,water lodges,tip areasand landfill;
-The presenceof significant thicknessesof 'Made Ground';
of notifiedlandfillsadjacentto thesite.
-Presence

As a result of a detailed investigation by hired consultants, the following

contaminantswere found to be exceedingguideline levels on the site;

-elevatedlevels of inorganic contamination(Arsenic, Lead, Chromium);
welevatedconcentrationsof the phytotoxic metalsBoron, Copperand Zinc;
-elevatedBenzo(a)pyreneconcentrations;
- hotspotcontaminationof soils with petroleumhydrocarbon.

A number of potential sourcesof hazardousgashave been identified on and adjacent

to the site. These include the former disposal area for boiler ash, paper waste, filter
cake and industrial waste and the adjacentlandfill site, organic-rich alluvial deposits,
infilled reservoirs, granular and cohesive Made Ground, and gas migration from

shallow coal seams. Assessment of these conditions identified that the site
to
corresponds a GasRegime A to
with respect bothmethaneandcarbondioxide.The
remediation strategy proposed combines a mixture of "dig and dump" as well as
onsiteremediation.

The TG casestudy is on a brownfield site of 7.1 ha. The site bordersa river and an A

road and is located close to the city centre. The site has undergone demolition and
partial reclamationin preparation for redevelopmentand containstwo newly built and
partly occupied industrial units. The areathe site is located in is the ThamesGateway

regeneration area. The ward is known for its high unemployment and is ranked
amongst the most deprived areas in England (DETF, 2000, Index of Multiple
Deprivation).

Historic usesrevealing possiblecontaminationon site includes':

" Thefollowinginformationis obtainedfromprivateconsultants investigation

contamination and
remediationstrategy.

162
 Storageof a variety of chemicalsincluding paraffin, waste oils, diesel,petrol naptha
tars, coal gasliquors;
-Paint manufacture;
-Barge repair dock/ blacksmiths.

An intrusive investigation concluded that the soil is contaminatedprincipally with

heavy metals,organic compoundsand sulphates.The metals are in insoluble form and

appear to have been almost entirely imported into the site in materialsused for land
raising. The perched water is contaminatedwith organic compoundsto a limited
extent. Methane was detectedin significant concentrationsand soil gas, and VOCs

were also present at a number of locations. Remediation as proposed in an initial

remediation strategy52was a mixture of "dig and dump", on site treatment and

contaimnent.

5.2.2.2. Descriptions of proposed case study developments

The GM casestudy proposeddevelopmentis surnmarisedas:
"Comprehensiveredevelopmentof theformer XY Paper Mill site to provide

mixed-use development comprising education, employment and residential

useswith associatedhighway inftastructureand schoolplayingfields ".

The developmentarea of 3.6 ha is being allocated for a new secondaryschool (900

school places)with associatedplaying fields. For employment, developmentof some

7375 M2 (gross) floor-spacefor class BI, B2 and B8 employmentunits is proposed.
The developmentof around 6.64 ha of land for residential use, excluding land for
strategicopen space, landscaping and highway infiastructure requirementsto provide

a development of some 520 units at a density of some 78 units/ha -a proportion of

is
which affordable according to councils' Planning
Supplementary Guidance(SPG).

The development is likely to be phased over a minimum of 6.5 years and will
accommodate1,250 people. The school is aimed to be completed in two
potentially
years following planning application approval.

52This remediationstrategywas preparedin 2000, but is not longer valid following the changein the
regulations(seesection 2.4)

163
The developmentwill result in the loss of a bowling greenand club and six purpose-
built areasfor the storageof surfacewater known as lodges.To replacelost recreation
facilities threejunior sized football pitches,a grassathleticstrack and a cricket square

will be provided. Additionally, the development will provide a riverside walkway and
reconfigure one of the previous lodges to incorporate a water /public recreation
facility.

The RAF was initiated at the pre-applicationperiod.of the outline planning pennission
which also required the submissionof a Master Plan, a Design Statementand an EIA.

Casestudy TG, for which the RAF was initiated at the very inception stagesof the
project, consisted of a high density residential development of 1200 units with a
mixture of I to 4 bedroom flats. There were proposals also for 25000ft2 of

commercial space.At the time of the RAF initiation there were no master-plansor

conceptiondesigns.

Both case studies are interesting as they proposethe developmentof sensitive uses
(suchas housing and in the GM casestudy a school) on contaminatedsites,which are
located in deprived areasand on sites which were originally designatedin the local

plans for employment uses. The above elements indicate that these BRP could be

contentious depending on how they are dealt with and harbour the potential for public

risk amplification (Pediaditi et al, 2005b).

The GM casestudy was carried out in full, and thus essentiallyconsistsof a unique

casestudy. Therefore the of

representativeness this casestudy obviously needs to be
in
examined greater detail. Firstly, this GM BRP was not proposed as part of a

governmentfunded pilot project such as Millennium Communities (casestudy 3), and

thus the developerhad no real obligation to prove sustainablepractice. Furthermore,
the developer did not belong to one of the large development corporations which
themselves as forerunners in the field of providing sustainable or
promote
environmentally friendly developments and have'the resources for innovation. In

many ways trialling the RAF on such a 'standard' or small developer provides a
demonstrationthat the RAF is feasible for all developer categories.However, care

must be taken when drawing wider conclusionsregarding the RAF to define which

164
elementsof the RAF processare flexible and also those which are particular to the
casestudy context.

A particularlyimportantaspectof the GM casestudywasthe degreeof collaboration

betweenthedeveloperandtherelevantLA. At thetime of writing therewasno signed
development agreementbetween the two although
parties, thereis scopefor onewith
the developerwilling to make land availablewithin the developmentsite for the
enablethe LA to proceed
buildingof a school.This collaborationwould subsequently
swiffly with the schooldevelopmentwithout having to undergothe delays involved

with Compulsory Purchase So

Orders. although no formal public-privatepartnership
had beenformed,a co-operativeand trust-based relationshipwas established which
enabledthe LA to requirethe undertaking
of the RAF. However,it is believedthaton
a purely private development on private land, suchconditionsmay not exist which
may hinder the of
application theRAF if it is not a regulatoryrequirement.

For the TG case study only PhasesI and 3 and part of Phase2 of the RAF were

completedas the developerspulled out when askedto conduct the community census

required in Phase2 of the RAF (Section5.3.2).They stated:

gwith a community survey we would be opening ourselves to too much

unnecessarycriticism... we also run the risk of being forced to provide and

fund additional things if we negotiate at this early stage with the LA'
(Developer2).

Although the LA were keen to trial the RAF, they felt that they did not have the
to
powers require it from the developers,especially as they were not partners on the
(i. e. they did not own the land or were they part-funders) and thus felt that
project
they did not really have a say in the development. Ibis was the case despite the

location of the casestudy being in the South East where LAs are purported as having

greaternegotiatingpowers (Cambell et al, 2000).

The above phenomenon is important as it demo. nstrates the need for policies or
the use of the RAF, an issue discussed in depth in Chapter 6.
regulations stipulating
Furthermore,the need for a trained facilitator to ensure that the RAF process does not
digressfrom its purpose,of developingindicators,becomesclearfrom the concerns

165
expressed by the TG developer.The developer was afraid that the negotiation would
steer away from measuringsustainabilitytowards measures which should be required
through S106 Agreementsand Planning 'in
conditions order to improve sustainability,

which couldresultin increased

expenditure.

At the time of carrying out the RAF process for both case studies, a number of
changes were taking place in planning which are believed to have hindered the
process. The recentness of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (see
Section 2.3) meant that during the initial three phasesof the RAF trial there was no
formal Statement of Community Involvement procedure and thus additional
persuasion was required to completethe RAF, which failed in the TG case study. In

addition, 'the trial period of the RAF coincided with the period where the Local
DevelopmentFrameworkswere being compiled as well as their SEA and SA reports,

which resulted in delays and uncertainty regarding the quality of baseline indicators

and available data.

However, in the GM case study these issues were overcome through increased
involvement of the LA officer concernedwith compiling the SEA and SA, who had
detailed knowledge of the various data requirements and characteristics. Future

applicationsof the RAF processare unlikely to face such issues.

166
5.3. Going through the phases- detailed RAF description
In this Section each phase of the RAF is analysed individually, followed by a
descriptionof the experiencesobtainedby implementing it in the casestudies.Some

of the results obtained(for exampleindicators developed)are presented,but only for

the purposesof having a visual understandingof the outcomeof the RAF. For the full
set of results referenceshould be made to the relevant Appendicesreferred to in the
text and Section5.4.

5.3.1 Phase 1: Team - Building

PhaseI involvesthe selectionof stakeholdersto be involvedin the RAF processto
form an 'evaluationtask force' (Patton,1997).Accordingto Pattonthe evaluation
taskforceshouldprimarily includethe evaluationusers.In PhaseI the leadpartneris
requiredto identify all relevant stakeholdersinvolvedin the BRP andneedsto make
an informed decision based on the 53
significance of each for
stakeholder the specific
BRPprocesson who to involvein developingthe sustainabilityindicators.A list of
potentially participant
relevant (Box
categories 2.5) hasbeendeveloped to be usedas
a promptin combination with a setof questions (Section 2.5). Howeversomedegree
of subjectivityis inevitablyinvolved in this identificationprocess.Shouldthe lead
partnerbe the developer
and the life cycle phaseof the developmentbe the designor
pre-application the
phase, lead DC be
officer should askedto ratify the selectionand
make recommendations as to whether any otherstakeholdersshouldbe involved. The
list shouldeventuallybe circulatedto all identifiedstakeholders.

Selecting a manageablenumber of stakeholdersis necessary.There are no definite

rules for this, as some sites are more complex, diverse or politically sensitive than

others. Based on facilitation guidance (Environment Council 2002; IEMA, 2002) and
evaluation literature (Patton, 1997; 2002), in situations like the RAF, which require
specific questions and detailed tasks to be undertakenin a limited time frame, small
groups of 10-15 individuals are preferable.Although the RAF by definition doesnot
claim to be a participatory tool, but rather aii evaluation process which uses
participatory methods, this set-up clearly limits public participation to representation

5' SeeSection2.5 for a list of questionswhich shouldbe askedby the lead partner when selecting
whom to participate.

167
(for which elected membersare recommended).Justification and the limitations of
this approach have been analysed in detail in Section 2.5. However, Figure 5.2
illustrates the methods of community representationas well as the mechanismsof
information exchangewhich are elaboratedon throughoutthis chapter.

The stakeholderslisted below havebeenidentified as essentialparticipantsrequiredto

conduct the RAF. This specificationis not only necessarilybasedon the participants'
professional expertise,but also on their capacity to ensurethat the evaluation takes
place and that the resultsareused.
m Developer (s): They are neededto fund the RAF, and their presenceis necessary
to ratify any decisionsaswell as enablethe participationof private consultants.
m Architect or project manager (s): They are neededto provide insight into the
nature of the development as well as to follow through any needed changes
emergingas a result of the RAF process.
m Councillor (s): They are required to democratically the
represent local community
views (see Section 2.5).

m Sustainability or relevant policy officer (s): They are required to facilitate Phase
3 in the identification of relevant existing monitoring information and baselinesas
to
well as ensure that indicators selectedwill feed into policy.
0 Development Control officer (s): They in
are chargeof the statutory consultation
in the
as well as processing planning application, and thus can inform stakeholder

selection as well as coordinate the processing of S106 agreementsto ensure

monitoring takesplace (seeSection 5.4)

168
c),
"0
5.3.1.1.Team-Building In GIVIand TG
In both case studies,using the checklist and questions(Section 2.5), developersand
DC officers were askedto identify potential participants.There was generalconsensus
between the two parties, with both LA and private developers agreeing on

stakeholders. DC officers' knowledge of statutory and non-statutory relevant

consulteesproved invaluable, as developers were uncertain as to who were the
relevant individuals. On the other hand, developershad a clear idea about which of
their consultantsthey wished present.However, for the purposeof future application
of the RAF the process facilitator should ensure that there is a balance between

private and public representation.

As is evident from Figure 5.3, the stakeholdersidentified differed between the two

case studies, which underlines the need for a flexible, context specific approachto
stakeholder identification (see Chapter 4). This flexible approach is also required
becausedifferent LAs have different structuresas well as methodsof consultation;for

example not all LAs have area boards and fora (Fenwick and Elcock, 2004) and
different BRPs have different project managementstructuresaccording to ownership,

and companyoperations. Ward (2000) describesat length the increasingvariations of

local governancestructures (see Chapter 4) and in particular the complexity of

regenerationareabased typical
partnerships, to BRýs.

What can also be ascertainedfrom Figure 5.3 is that stakeholdersidentified are either

representatives or professionals with particular knowledge required to enable

informed decisionmaking for the specific development.For example,in the GM case
the LA educationmanagerwas involved as the development involved a school;
study
however,this was not the casein the TG casestudy and thus his/her participation was

not considerednecessary.

Finally, Figure 5.3 shows that the RAF brings togetherstakeholderswho may or may

not have been consulted individually through the statutory planning consultation

processearly on in the designphaseof a development,

somethingproposedby
in Chapter4.
interviewees

170
 E
c
0 0.
.-=
> 1 ý2
C o c
a)
--1ý11 c
a) >
0
lcý
U) 0
=3 U)
0 U)
a7)
CY).2
cu
c
CU c a z
E
0

LL

CD

_0 -Z
twD
(1)
-ýz
>
CD
!E Ir

a) a;
E*
-
Co
0 0. a:
-i
Z, IZ
z --i=
0-
cu B
.c
m cu
Z;
:3 Z
L) U)

0)

'S 2 Zf) CL
co a0 a)
cu ,
0
E
a) >

T6 (0-0
CD M (V
E It-- (1)
0 L-
CL 0
.4-

cu
E
C7, LL- c
00
': cu M 0)
sg
CL C>U >
(D
S

-D 14
ZZ

-ý E M- m

E LU U)
4-E c:
ý
0.
cu > m
ý: c:
UJ I I
(-X
Iz-

LL
5.3.2 Phase 2: Getting the Facts Right
In order to be able to make informed decisionsabout the likely impactsof the
development and thus to indicators
relevant
select to monitorthem,Phase2 involves
two tasksof gatheringrelevantinformation.The-first requiresthe lead partnerto
collaterelevantinformationon the BRP proposaland site whereasthe secondtask
requirescommunity consultationwith the purposeof identifying the main concerns
andaspirations of the peoplemost likely to be affectedby the proposals.The results
of the casestudiesare following
presented descriptionsof bothtasks.

5.3.2.1. Task 1: gathering relevant Information

For the purpose of obtaining information on the proposed development and the site,

the EIS review criteria shown in Tables 5.3 and 5.4 act as guidance with regard to the
information required. However, these criteria are only for guidance as not all may be

relevant or available. Having collated available information, the lead partner is then

responsible for producing a non-technical summary which is then circulated to all

participating stakeholders.

It needsto be emphasisedthat the information requirementsspecified in Tables 5.3

and 5.4 are deliberately designed,not for the sole use by the RAF. This information

would most likely be required, to different degrees of detail, for any large

developmentplanning applications.Therefore, this requirement of the RAF process

doesnot add additional financial or time burdensto the developerbut rather utilises

existing information for the purpose of developing indicators (see Sections 5.5 and
5.6).

172
Table 5.3 Information criteria for the description of the development
(adapted
Criteria*. from Weston, 54
2000a)
oftheproject:
features
" Principal
" Explains
thepurposes ofthedevelopment.
andobjectives
" Indicates
thenature
andstatus forwhich
ofthedecision(s) theInformation
hasbeen
prepared.
sGives duration
theestimated of theconstruction,
operational decommissioning
andwhereappropriate, phase
andtheprogramme these
within objectives.
" Providesa description of the development comprising Information on the site, designand size of the
development
" ProvidesInformation withregard totheofinfluxofpeople, number ofjobs,resulting fromtheproject.
theImpact
" Identifies ofthedevelopment onservices, e.g. publictransport, schools, healthcare.
" Providesdiagrams plansor mapsandphotographs to aidthedescription ofthedevelopment
" Describes themethods ofconstruction.
" Describes thenatureandmethods of productionorothertypesof activity Involved in theoperation oftheproject.
" Describes any additional services (water, electricity,
emergency services etc)anddevelopments requiredas a
consequence oftheproject.
" Describes theprojects potential foraccidents hazards andemergencies,
" Landrequirements:
" Definesthelandareatakenupbythedevelopment and/orconstruction siteandanyassociated arrangements,
auxiliaryfacilitiesand landscaping areasandshowstheirlocationclearlyon a map.For a linearproject,
describes thelandcorridor, vertical andhorizontal alignment andneedfortunnelling andearthworks.
" Describes the uses to which thisland willbeput and demarcates the different land useareas.
" Describes thereinstatement andafter-use oflandtakenduringconstruction.
" Projectinputs
" Describes the nature and quantities of materialsneeded during theconstruction andoperation phases.
" Estimates thenumber of workers and visitorsenteringthe project site during both construction andoperation.
" Describes theiraccess tothesiteandlikelymeans oftransport.
" Indicates the means of transporting materials and products to and from the site during constructionand
operation andthenumber ofmovements involved.
" Residues andEmissions
" Estimates the types and quantities of waste water, energy (noise, vibration, light,heat radiationetc)andresidual
materialsgenerated during construction and operation of the project, and rate at which these willbe produced.
" Indicates how these wastes and residual materialsare expected to be handled/treated priorto releaseldisposal
andthe routes by which they willeventually be disposed of to the environment.
" Identifies
any special hazardous wastes (definedas) which willbe produced and describes the methods fortheir
disposalasregards theirlikelymainenvironmental impacts.
II

54Criteriahavebeenaddedto describethesocio-economic of thedevelopment

aspects

173
Table 5.4 Information Criteria for the Description of the development environment. *
" Description of theareaoccupiedby andsurrounding theproject
" Indicates the areaexpected to be significantly
affected by thevariousaspectsof the projectwiththeaidof
maps.Explains
suitable thetimeoverwhichtheseimpacts arelikelyto occur.
" Describes thelandusesonthesite(s)andinsurrounding areas.
Describes theareawithregardto unemployment, crimeandconsiders theeffectthedevelopment Is likelyto
haveonthearea.
" Identifies whetherexistingservicesand facilitiese.g. schools,recreational, retail,havethe capacityto
accommodate developmentImpacts.
@Defines theaffected environment broadlyenoughto includeany'potentially significant
effectsoccurringaway
fromtheimmediate areasofconstructionandoperation. Thesemaybecaused by,forexample,thedispersion of
pollutants,infrastructural
requirements oftheproject,
traffic.
" Baseline conditions
anddescribes
" Identifies thecomponents oftheaffected environment potentially
affectedbytheproject.
" Usesexisting datasources
technical including
records andstudies carriedoutforenvironmentalagencies and
forspecialinterestgroups.
" Reviews localregionalandnationalplansandpoliciesandotherdatacollected as necessary55.Wherethe
proposal doesnotconform to theseplansandpolicies thedeparture isJustified
(adapted from Weston, 2000a)"

5.3.2.2. Task 2: Consulting the community

The second task for Phase 2 involves consulting the community with regard to their

views on the proposed development as well as their aspirations and sustainability

principles for their area. The aim of obtaining this information is to guide the

evaluation task force in Phase 4 when developing sustainability indicators to focus on

the priority issues of the community.

The minimum consultation requirement involves 57

a census questionnaire (see
Appendix 4) which as a minimum should be sent out to the population of the

catchment area as specified in planning regulations regarding planning application

consultation.The lead partner is responsiblefor funding and carrying out the census;
however the relevant LA should be contactedto agreeon the catchmentarea of the

study and provide the This

addresses. is a very simple processand does not take up
LA time as addressesare logged electronically on all LA Geographical Information
Systems (GIS). However, consideration should be given by both the LA and
developer,about whether they think it is appropriateto extend the censusto a wider

area.

" It is recommended thatbaselineconditionsrelevantto all policiesarereviewedbasedon AMR, SA

andSEAreports.
Criteriahavebeenaddedto describethesocio-economic aspects of thedevelopment
Thecensusrequiresall peoplein a specifiedpopulationto beprovidedwith a questionnaire rather
the
than surveywhich requiresa representativesample of the population. A census is insisted upon
even thoughsurveysoftengive better
results.As thecensus is theonly stipulated
process in the RAF
where the community
affected can expressits views with regard to a particularproposal,
democratically everybodyshouldhavetheopportunityto express theiropinion.

174
The census(Appendix 4) is standardformat for all BRPs. It containsboth open and

closedquestionsand is devisedto enablethe resultsto be utilised in a structuredway

in Phase4. Briefly, it containsthe sameexercisesof impact identification as well as

sustainability objective prioritisation which is undertakenin the Phase4 workshop.

This allows the evaluation task force (stakeholdersin the workshop) to comparethe
difference between their and the community's perceptions, thus facilitating the
inclusion of community views. Thus, it is proposedthat in future RAF applications
the census questions are not modified but are used as a standard format5s.The
questionnaireis divided into five sections:
a) Identifying the significance of the development
on specific impact categories,as
would be undertaken for a scoping study, and supplementedwith a qualitative
questionrequiring justification for the scoreprovided.
b) Two open-endedquestionsrequiring the respondentto identify his/her three main
concernsaboutthe developmentand threemain aspirationsfor the area.
C) A ranking exercise of general sustainability principles based on Government
sustainabilityprinciples andmodified from Dair and Williams (2004) (seeChapter
2).
d) A Likert scalequestionaskingfor a definition oý the extentof their perceivedrisks
in different risk typesresulting from the development.

e) Likert scale questions about the extent to which they are satisfied with the
consultation they have received so far as well as the extent to which they feel
positively or negatively affectedby the proposeddevelopment.

Including open questions in the questionnaire can make data analysis more

cumbersome but it does enable the analysis and interpretation of the quantitative
impact scoresand helps to decipherthe underlying reasonsbehind certain responses.

However, the censusdoes not consist of two-way communication, consideredideal

for risk communication, and making values explicit as discussed in Section 2.5.
Therefore,the censusis proposedas a minimum requirementto conduct the RAF and

should not be considered as a substitute to other formal forms of community

consultationrequiredprior to planning application submission.

58Introductory information to questionnaireshouldbe modified to describethe individual BRP.

175
Best practice community consultation literature proposes the use of a variety of

methods, including community workshops, open days, local press publicity (Sanoff,
2000; ODPM, 1998; SNIFFER, 1999; RTPI and ODPM, undated). More recently

methods such as 'Enquiry by Design' (Prince's Foundation, 2000) and 'Planning 4

Real' (NeighbourhoodInitiatives, undated)have been promoted as best practice with
to
regard obtaining community input into the design of master plans and proposed
developmentsin the UK. The use of suchprocessesis encouraged;however, they are

not within the scopeof the RAF, as they are to

processes inform the design, whereas
the purpose of the RAF community consultation is to inform the decision of what
should be evaluated. Ideally, as best practice, the RAF recommendsthat separate
workshops are carried out in combination with the census in order to obtain
community input (Figure 5.2). It is proposedthat the community workshops follow
the sameformat as those conductedin Phase4 (See Section 5.3.4) to ensurethat the
resultscan feed into Phase4 decisionmaking.

Since the implementation of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004,
developersare required to provide Statementsof Community Involvement (SCI) (see
Section2.5) to demonstratetheir efforts to consult the community with regardto their
Although
proposalsat a pre-applicationphase. SCI guidanceis still limited and vague,
the community consultationrequirementsfor the RAF can be incorporatedas part of
the SCI, thus minimising the additional expendituresrequired. Additionally, SCI can
be used as an enforcementmechanismby LAs to require the RAF or, at a minimum,
the community census,as is evidentfrom the casestudies.

To summarise, with the completion of Phase 2, the lead partner should have
developeda non-technicalsummarywith informationregardingthe site and the
proposeddevelopmentas well as a report the
presenting resultsof the community
censusand, whererelevant, the community workshop
consultation outcomes. This
informationshouldthen be providedto all the RAF evaluationtask force for their
considerationprior to the Phase4 workshop (Section5.3.4).

176
5.3.2.3. Gathering relevant Information for the GIVIand TG case studies
When carrying out the casestudy trials it becameapparentthat a trade-off is required
betweenhow early on in the BRP processthe RAF is undertakenand the availability

of information. In the TG case study particularly, there was hardly any information

available, as the RAF was initiated even before a draft designhad been developed. It

proved very difficult to collate information at this phaseand thus it is recommended

that time is allowed for an initial design to be developedprior to carrying out this
process. Trade-offs regarding information provisiori were also experiencedin the GM
casestudy. An example,was the requirementfor detailed quantities of contaminated
material to be moved from the site (Table 5.3) when, in fact, at the time the RAF was
being carried out, detailed ground condition surveys had yet to be completed.
However, carrying out the RAF at that early stagein the GM casestudy allowed for

sustainability priorities and principles as well as community aspirationsto be taken

into accountin the refinementof the initial design.

In the GM case study, information had already been collected by appointed

consultants and contractors (albeit in a fragmented and partial manner), therefore

extensive(and expensive)work was not required for this task. Also additional socio-

economic information on the locality, which is publicly available from the LA, was
considered.Where information gaps were identified using the criteria of Tables 5.3

and 5.4, they were made clear in the non-technical summary presented to all

participants.

For the TG casestudy, although broad information on the developmentwas obtained

(see Section 5.2), information gathered was primarily socio-economic information
from the LA website.As the casestudy was discontinued,no further information was

sought.

5.3.2.4. Consulting the community for the GIVI

and TG case studies
For the GM casestudy, the questionnairewas sent'to 1200 addressesand achieveda

rateof 123 replies, 10%,

approximately which is broadly typical of this type
response
of survey(Pediaditi
et al, The
2005b). LA logo wasused on the envelopes containing

177
the questionnaire,making the surveymore official and thus potentially improving the
responserate.

The report containing the results of the censusas presentedto the evaluation task
force is provided in Appendix 5 and discussedin Pediaditi el al (2005b).Interestingly,

although the site had been publicly announcedto be contaminated,this was not
considered to be an important issueby the community, and perceivedhealth risks as a
result of the development
rankedamongstthe lowest concerns.

As a result of section (e) of the questionnaire,where it was ascertainedthat some

community groups felt dissatisfiedwith the extent they had been consulted,both the
developerand LA carried out finther consultation.This was with specific community

groups who had identified themselves, such as the Anglers Association and the
Cricket Club who expressedparticular frustrations.'

The value of the open ended questionsbecameevident as the responsesprovided a

holistic picture of the aspirationsof the community as well as preciseconcernswhich

could be addressed. For example, one respondent commented on the poor water

pressure in the locality and expressedconcern over the impact additional demand

resulting from the development

would have. This was an issuepreviously unknown to

the developer,who was then able to contact the utilities companies in time to ensure

that appropriate infrastructure and design features were in place to mitigate against
this problem, potentially making big in
savings relation to post-developmentissue
identification.

The GM case study censuswas eventually incorporatedas part of the Statementof

Community Involvement (SCI) which came into force prior to the application
and thus enabledthe minimisation of expenditurefor the purpose of the
submission
RAF andavoideddelayson thebehalfof the developer.A communityworkshopwas
held, which was organised by
independently a separatefacilitation companywhich
opporhinity to apply the (slightly
quesiionnaire modified), the
provided another

178
results of which were also included in the report handedto participants" (Appendix
5).

With regardto the TG casestudy,althoughthe LA waskeento havethe community

consultation,the developerrefusedto collaboratefor fear of receiving negative
criticism.Since,at thetime of this casestudy,the SCI requirementhadnot comeinto
force,theLA did not haveleverageto demanda communitycensusandthusthe RAF
was discontinued.This emphasises
the importanceof integratingthe RAF into
regulatoryandplanningprocedures.

5.3.3 Phase 3: Preparing the Ground

As identified in Chapters2 and 4, there is an abundanceof directly or indirectly
relevantexistingevaluationprocedures,frameworksand guidelines.In Phase3, the
leadpartneris requiredto considercollectivelyall the BRP monitoringinformation
provisionobligationsto ensurethattheyareappropriately addressedwhendeveloping
the sustainabilityindicatorsand to avoid data duplication.For the purposeof the
RAF, guidancehas beendevelopedto enablethe identificationof individual BRP
as well as potentiallyrelevantexistingindicatorsand data
evaluationrequirements
which couldbe used(Table 5.5).It is that
emphasised not all maybe relevantassome
of thesemay not exist in certainLAs or may not be relevantto the specificproject
beingconsidered.

The logic behind the consideration of existing LA relevant indicators is that they
should essentially reflect policy and, in the caseof community strategies,SEA and
SA should havebeensubjectedto public scrutiny. RICS (2003 p. 1) state:
'the public sectorholdspotentially valuableinformationbut again not in a
format that is alwaysconducivetofacilitateanalysis".
In fact,therearea numberof complicationswith the LA indicatorswhich needto be
highlighted. Firstly, at the time of this research,planning was undergoing significant

changewhich, amongst other things, had addedemphasison monitoring. However,

I
when carrying out the researchand conducting the case study, significant gaps and

59The community workshop was Carriedout early on aspart of the LA master-planexerciseand thus
the RAF was not fully developedat the time. However, it would havebeenpreferableif that
community consultation had been tailored as discussedabove to include the RAF workshops.

179
problems were identified with regardto the quality of the data being utilised for LA
monitoring. The issues identified which should be considered when carrying out
Phase3 of the RAF are the following:
m Lack of consistencyof use of indicators;for example,will this indicator be present
in three years?

n Lack of knowledge as to who collects the data (different departmentswithin LA

are responsible for collecting different data; until recently there was no
centralisationof information).

m Who developedthe indicators,are they relevantto policies and have they beenput
through public scrutiny?

180
 a)
>
... 4
00
V-4
«a r-
a
el ? :i
Z
la * m
M-9 .s 0
:a
5 E
- ýa U)
.
km*Z
U)
tu Co
-r -6
& d2 >,

125 E g0 E 15 Z
91
C%Co
:5
-5 a =8
Co %g3ii

0
c
"0 22
ý,
ll Aai 2-
2111 11 8 -
-1. .
Z
e r- F.
m
8,6
8 oý C
(D
(0
(A
CD m Zo>,-0 ei ,M2,0
'0
m CL U) .=19 > Co M
A .2
H

90 ý < r_r
(D lz Co um w 12 Co E (D
.-
ze

Jc
i12 c)
m Co 0 -5
LL,
m:
7c2 Lo ri 2 :5 2 0 t»-a
Co *.'m
f§ L
' o 0 - en ti
.=M
0s
-0
ä 9.
E 2ý
ja

2-
D 42 ýE
2 e
-5
«bä
ta -
'
0
12 22-0
00qe0 ec
G
'5 cm 578
E- 0
ja-
ýA 11 1
-12
g u a) cn
15 99A
' - 22- Ai
=,-ej-s
gn -Q im ,
r- (L) f, - 5. -12
en Co c
(02 0- -
Hä-
5n,-5 eE 'E
0 Co
1
cn
:3Z
&
A:E9-32 g> - in s
N= 0
-6-
E
r-
Ln -- l' H 12 '%
ýet c-
cm Ew 0% fi 1,
=-,
09i.
cu ý0
,
i;
-, ,0c,
0 e, Co 0 In
0. CD2 '0' >, saw. g ýu
C CO. & c (D ch
7 -, -- A
E '0 13) -e
. t- » j2 r- 03
CL) C:
22
LC CE tu «9 (P E ju-
- m 0 cr A2 E
,20Q E gn Z. , tn E
E
E -2 .2
(D
Ee rl=p
E
0
'ES -A ,e U)
tn
DM 0m0.2 0
u) ja
= Ja U)

>

E v:
0 t5 «c3 = E- 12 C ZL
-im 20
a) 0 ý` i s&E M
13 ma i il - -r-
(0 -5Q - 0
r_ E Co 00 (D cl.
L' 80 E'
0
t4 0Z-LU sA 0ý
-2
, 8 ,Q» e2
LO»
LOA M. 5 r-
D 10 lu

s, - ) E >. tä 'ý 11) 0

.e -5 .8L.CU -2 . ig -2 > Co > TZ 42
(L)
Z
c2
. a) .2
E
to Er
-A 2 0) - ,M c- (»
L,
E0
E -2 CL)
to CI) cn
cl. c ts :i :F. 8> e
< 0-
CZ iz 8 0 10 U,
U)
Ln
U) 2 c22 r= c2 :E u)
-
0
1 c»
-,-
cm 0 - . .

r_
j2 m

im ,l) =
j9 m tu
4) 2ý J C= -- 0 t2
2 12 0 IU
EA -E -0 Zm0
j2 j ar
k --
r=-a
U) %p r- (P 0: 2
u E- C) 0 = ,E
a) ..Z
2.
0 02.5
00
=
.-2 2
VO 2 är ch E to m to 0 r= -: -Z3
.! to < Er
gn ý- =
b- m= 0 :1
mm « CLci 0 CL u) 000 ei u 2. 0

siuaweiinbeN
;uewssosse
pue 14111qeulelsns
eupolluow luawdoio,
&8(]

to
F4
 Other planning Whichassessments are requiredas partof As above All assessments
wereincluded AMassessments were
application the planningapplication? withinthe M includedwithinthe Elk
Do theyspecifypost-monitoring
assessments e.g.
Traffic Impacts requirements?
assessment
Other? e.g Code for NA Stillto be developed NA NA
sustainable buildings
Community Strategy Doesthe LA havea communitystrategy? Havingreviewedrandomly15community They were considered but They were as relevant
Indicators If notdoesit havean LA21strategy? strategies,it was identifiedthatthe qualityin agreedby the groupthat they and had baselines.
0 Are its indicatorsconsistent? do they particularof the indicatorsvaried. were not relevant, and lacked
cc -
havebaselines? Theyoftenreporton theLAperformance whichis baselines.
.2
,a
not relevantto thedevelopment scale.
.9
2: 1 Hasan SEAor SAscopingreportbeen LA arecurrentlyin theprocessof collatingexisting
SEA and SA LDF SEAandSA indicators were SEAandSA indicators
indicators carriedout forthe LDFor a relevantarea monitoringinformation for the purposeof SEAand collatedfor selectionin Phase werecollatedfor selection
cc Man? SA. However,
fromdiscussionswithpolicyofficers, 5.Policyofficerindicated in Phase5.Report was
.S Whataretheindicators/ inconsistencies
indatacollection byprivate
cc arethey wereanissue. inconsistencies. prepared
co (discuss
consistent? withpolicyofficer) consultantssoLAwere
U) notcertainof
inconsistencies.
Annuall-DF Hasa LDFannual reportbeen
monitoring Asabove.Similarif notidenticalindicators
utilised AMUwasinprocess of AMUwasinprocess of
monitoring Report prepared? forAMR,SEAandSA. However,
preparation. the However,
preparation. the
indicators Whataretheindicators/
whichonesare Indicators
canchange policies, indicators
to reflectspecific werealmost identical indicators
werealmost
consistent? andthusthereisanissueofconsistency. Theyare to SEAandSAindicators. to SEAandSA
identical
Cl)U) oftenpredetermined bychanging governments. indicators.
0 cc
O. .Q Best Value Aretheindicators to thestateof
relevant Best Value performance indicatorsoftenfocus BVPlsfocused onLA BVPIsfocused onLA
r 'D in delivering
Performance theenvironment purelyon LA performance services performance
andwere performance onlyand
indicators DotheyonlyfocusonLAperformance? If ratheron reportingon baselineconditions and considered
nonapplicable. werenotapplicable.
LU10 1 't beused.
sotheyshouldn therefore
arenotalways relevant.
1

182
It is thus strongly recommendedthat, at least until the 'teething years' of SEA, SA,
Local DevelopmentFrameworkAnnual Monitoring Reportsare over, the lead partner

undertaking Phase 3 of the RAF should communicate with the policy officer
responsiblefor these reports. However, once these processeshave been established
and all LAs have collated their monitoring data,Phase3 should be a simple matter of
downloadingthesepublicly availabledocumentsfrom the LA website.

Regarding the identification of relevant sustainability monitoring or assessment

requirements,it needs to be emphasised that Table 5.5 serves more as a guidance

checklistas not all theserequirementsare relevantto all projects. The thinking behind
this approach is to develop a one stop shop to development monitoring. For
example,we could considerthe caseof adevelopment required to undertakean EIA
and thus having post-monitoring requirements,but at the same time is receiving
governmentfunding which also requiresmeetingparticular sustainability criteria. The
RAF in this casewould proposethe collation of all theserequirementsso they could
be addressedcollectively, minimising duplication and overlap. This list is not

claiming to be exhaustive;for example, it is envisagedthat the Code for Sustainable

Buildings will be published in the next year (ODPM, 2005e) and then should be

considered as part of these assessmentrequirements.This flexibility has purposely

beendesignedinto the RAF (following recommendationsin Chapter4) to enableit to

stay relevant regardlessof changesin the planning system and in

advancements the

evaluationand sustainability field.

5.3.3.1. Preparing the ground for the GIVIand TG case studies

For the GM case study, the SEA and SA baseline indicators of the scoping report and

the draft Local Development Framework and Annual Monitoring Report indicators

found to be relevant and considered in Phases 5 and 6 (Table 5.5) of the RAF.
were
Although a Community Strategy had been developed, it was obvious when examining

the indicators that they had been developed from the LA health department as 15

health related indicators were provided and only one on the environment. The SEA

and SA indicators covered a whole range of issues as they referred to policies and

government specified sustainability categories.

183
Regarding the GM case study development'sexisting sustainability monitoring and
the
requirements,
assessment development
required an EIA, including a traffic impact

assessmentwhich incorporated a green travel plan with subsequentpost-monitoring

However,
requirements. the relevant LA did not a have a developmentsustainability
checklist and no governmentfunding monitoring requirementsapplied to the project.
Therefore, the RAF monitoring schemedevelopedas a result of the overall process
would combine the EIA and traffic impact assessment
post-monitoring requirements
and could make use of the dataavailable from the Local Authority SEA, SA and LDF
Annual Monitoring Report.

Phase3 was also carried out for the TG casestudy althoughthe identified indicators
were never used (Table 5.5). What is interesting,however, is the difference between
the two projects regardingthe relevantmonitoring requirements.For example,the TG
casestudy developercompanyhad internal monitoring indicators which they used for

their annual Corporate Social Responsibility reports, but these were not detailed
enough to evaluatethe sustainabilityof the individual development.
'Me difference in

the quality of the community between

strategies the'two authoritieswas also apparent.
The TG casestudy LA community strategywas more holistic and containedbaselines

and benchmarkswhich would have been relevant to the development.

Finally, the TG

case study LA had an SA and SEA report with baselines and relevant indicators;

however, following discussionswith policy officers, it was identified that the reports
had been preparedby consultants,and thus detailedknowledge of the consistencyof
indicators and of the departmentswithin the LA which held the data was lacking.
However, the TG LA pointed out that this was an issue they were dealing with and
that they be
would not contractingthis work out in the future.

Certainly there is a wealth of existing information as well as monitoring obligations

relevant to BRP which need to be consideredwhen carrying out the RAF. However,

flexibility to adjustto the particulardevelopmentrequirementsand scrutinyof the

qualityandrelevanceof existing data arealso Adopting
required. such an approach is

necessaryif the RAF is to adjustto the needs of individual LAs,

projects, developers

andthe advancements in the field

sustainability aswell asnew planningrequirements.

184
5.3.4. Phase 4: Setting Priorities
It was establishedin Chapter2 that sustainability is a value basedconceptwhich is
difficult to define, operationaliseand evaluate. It was concluded that in order to
developcontext specific sustainabilityindicators,there would have to be a processof
defining sustainability and its objectives for each proposeddevelopment.Therefore,
Phase 4 is designed to focus on this issue by asking stakeholdersto define a
sustainabilityvision for the BRP as well as put forward their aspirationsand concerns
regardingthe development
proposals.

In Phase4 the identified evaluationtask force (seePhase1) is brought together in a

half day workshop where participants are asked to consider the background
information and community consultationresults obiainedin Phase2 and to undertake

collectively three tasks (Figure 5.1) which are described below. As will become

apparent,a lot of work needs to be undertakenin a limited period of time by a diverse

mixture of stakeholders with different backgrounds and vestedinterests.Therefore, it
is imperative that the process is co-ordinatedby a trained facilitator and that the

proposed facilitation structure described below is followed. The workshop is divided

into three sessionsto reflect the three tasks,which are describedin turn followed by
in GM 60
the experiencesof their application the casestudy .

It needs to be highlighted that, prior to commencing the workshop sessions,the

groundrules need to be statedand in particularthe purposeof the workshopagreed

i.
uponcollectively, e. the identificationof priorities
sustainability for the appropriate
developmentof indicatorsratherthan negotiationover the natureof the proposed
development.

5.3.4.1Task 1: Identifying a vision, concerns, and benefits

In Session1, the evaluation task force should be split up into groups of no more than
five participants each.Participants are provided with 'post-it-notes' and are required
to write on them their main individual short- and long-term, concerns,visions and
benefits for the site and proposeddevelopment(Figure 5.4). The post-it-notesshould

RAFprocess
11TheGMis theonlycasestudywhichcarriedouttheremaining in
asTGdiscontinued
Phase3.

185
be placed by individuals after group discussions into themes on posters, for example,
design visions, employment visions, environmental visions (see Figure 5.5). ('are

should be taken to ensure that in the smaller groups there is a mix between private and
public sector participants. A combined carousel and nietaplan I'acilitation technique"'
is proposed in order to enable all participants to view what others participants have

stated and to add to them where they feel appropriate.

Figure 5.4. Participants in groups identifying visions for the site, concerns and benefits

Following this exercise, every group makes a presentation on each of the topics; i. e.

on the main concerns, the main benefits and the main visions for the pro.lect emerging
from the exercise, based on the PoSt_itS62.Participants are asked to state both their

long-term concerns and benefits as well as the short terni ones. Short term, for the

purpose of this exercise, is defined as the construction period ofthe development. The
individual comments made on post-its at the workshop and the main points of the

presentations should be recorded by the facilitator and presented in a report in Phase 5

of the RAF. At this point, the results of the community consultation should be

presented and the table opened for discussion. The evaluation task force should then

consider the difference in the views presented by the community and those of the

group. Based on the discussion, agreement should be reached on a few main benefits

which must be ensured and concerns which need to be monitored.

" Carousel, is a common tacilitation technique used to enable participants to undertake more than one
task, answer more than one question in one workshop session. Participants need to rotate to differcnt
stations (within a room) to read what other participants have commented lor example on post-it-notes.
.
and make their own contribution. Metaplan is the facilitation technique described using post-its on
posters which arc then grouped in themes. See F.nvironmental Council 2002 fi)r a description ol'thesc
general facilitation techniques. Please note that processes have been niodilied by author lor the purpose
of the RAF.
62All participants get to comment on all topics but only present one according to the collective results.

186
Figure 5.5. Individual's visions put into themes by groups

Theme] T2T3 T4 T 115 T6

p
IIILOP

5.3.4.2. Task 2: Prioritising Sustainability Objectives

In Session 2, bearing in mind the results of' Session 1, a priorit'sation exercise"' of'

general sustainability objectives should he undertaken. Thcsc stistainahility oh.jectives

(Table 5.6) are an adaptation of the objectives presented by Dair and Williams (2004)
(Box 2.1) which were originally based on the government sustamahilitý ohjectiýes
but modified to reflect BRP issues.

Table 5.6 Sustainability objectives to be used in session 2. (Adapted from Dair and
Williams, 2004)
SocialObjectives EnvironmentalObjectives EconomicObjectives
To provideadequatelocalservices To minimisethe use of resources To enablebusinessesto be efficient
to servethe development and competitive
To providea safe environmentfor To minimisepollutionand To provideemployment
peopleto work and live in remediateexistingcontamination opportunities
To providehousingto meet needs To protectbiodiversityand the To promotethe localeconomy
naturalenvironment
integratethe developmentwithin To protectthe landscape To providetransportinfrastructure
the locality to meet businessneeds
To providegood accessibilityfor all To protectheritageand historic To supportlocal businessdiversity
buildings

Posters with economic, social and environmental sustainability objectives should he

presented and participants provided with sticky dots to state their priorities (Figure

0 Prioritisation refiersto the facilitation technique using sticky dots to matc prd'erence or importance
(Environment Council, 2002).

187
5.6)64.Participants must prioritise between objectives within each ob.lective category

to ensure that, say, economic issues do not take precedenceover environmental, thus

minimising the opportunity for trade-offs between the three pillars 01'SLIstainahility,
something identified as an issue by Owens and Cowell (2002), particularly in
property-led regeneration projects (I lenderson, 2004).

This should be followed by a presentation of the results of' the sarne prioritisation

exercise undertaken by community consultation respondents and sustainability

objectives of the LA Community Strategy (see Section 3.3). This process allows the
evaluation task force to clearly see whether there are differences between their
sustainability priorities and those of the community. Open discussion should follow
and an agreement reached over the main sustainability objectives. At the end of' this
session, the evaluation task force should combine the themes of session I as well as
the agreed priority sustainability objectives identified in session 2 to derive a list of
site specific sustainability objectives for which they feel indicators should be
developed.

Figure 5.6 Prioritisation of sustainability objectives

V!, ý
, ". ':
.
4,, -l .,.
0 go
:

U !. I-- " 14 -'A,. er 44 0- VA

-- to :&-

ýxa

64participantsareaskedto write their individual priorities on a pieceof'paperprior to placing the sticky

dotson the poster,to minimisetheir views being influencedby other participantsviews.

188
5.3.4.3.Task 3: Agreeing on the nature of the evaluation- (procedural Issues)
In Session3, practical aspectshave to be addressedwith regard to the nature and
function of the fmal indicators. Task 3 consists of an exercise whereby workshop

participantsare presentedwith an indicator selectioncriteria checklist and are asked

to individually rank the criteria (see Appendix 6). An open table discussionshould
follow to arrive at a mutual agreementabout the nature of the indicators. In addition
practical issues must be discussedsuch as: Who should manage the monitoring

process? Who should collect the data? Who should utilise the results? This is
important as the answerswill in turn affect the natureof the indicators and, according
to Patton (1986), will help introduce realism into the developedevaluation strategy
and thus increase its practicality, feasibility and ultimately its utility. This task
completes Phase 4, and the facilitator is responsiblefor writing up the results in a
report to be circulated to the group. However, it is important to seehow Phase4 of the
RAF worked in practice when implementedat the GM casestudy.

5.3.4.4. Identifying a vision, concerns and benefits of the GM case study

According to the non-participant observer,'sessionI ran smoothly with participants
dealing well with the task in hand and a lot of interaction and conversationgoing on'.
The session resulted in a few main themes being developed which participants
thought were in line with the community consultation results and which they
perceived required evaluation. By utilising a carousel and metaplan technique, a

number of points were achieved.Firstly, participantshad the freedom to expresstheir

'individual concerns and visions' on post-its but then the discussion following the

considerationof the community surveyresultsmovedto 'group concernsand visions'.

5.3.4.5. Prioritising sustainability objectives of the GM case study

Eight main priority sustainability objectives were developed which participants

agreedreflected the sustainability issuesand objectives which should be monitored

and against which the development proposals should be assessed(Box 5.1). The

preparedreport which includes the results of this sessionis presentedin Appendix 7.

Interestingly, the evaluationtask force was surprisedto seethe difference in their and
the community's priorities. However, in some casesthe councillor expandedon the
issuesand clarified someof the themesemergingfrom the communityconsultation,

189
which were then incorporatedinto the 8 priority objectives (Box 5.1). For example,
through the community survey, reduction of crime was identified as a priority.
However,membersin the evaluationtask force reportedthat crime rateswere actually
decreasing.The councillor explainedthis phenomenonby pointing out that perceived

crime was in fact an issuein the community and that residents,mainly elderly people,
felt threatenedby teenagersand thus were concernedabout the building of the high-
school.Additionally, contaminationwas not consideredas an issueby the community
(See Pediaditi et al, 2005b and Appendix 5), but the evaluation task force felt that

none the less it be This points out the importanceof having

should carefully assessed.
public in
representation the evaluationtask force aswell asprofessionals.

Box 5.1. GIVIcase study development priority sustainability objectives

i. Improvedimageandintegration
of theareain termsof architecture,
designandsocial
aspectaswellasthecombination
of all.
forpeopletoworkandlivein.
A safeenvironment
Improved intermsof academic
education andinfrastructure
achievement anddesign.
localeconomy,
Improved withregardto smallbusinesses
particularly andthecreation
opportunifies.
of qualityemployment
Improved mixbetween andbusinesses
housing aswellastypesof housing.
Theneed
to createa newhousing balance -a ladder
property enabling to
people stayin thearea.
Improved intermsof habitatcreation
blodiversity andwatermanagement.
7. Improved (trafficmanagement
accessibility links).
andtransport
8. Ensuresafetywithregardto contamination.

5.3.4.6.Agreeing on the nature of the evaluation and procedural Issues In the

GIVIcase study
During the casestudy trial, it was swiftly realisedthat it was inappropriateto carry out
this exerciseon an individual basis.The non-participantobserverstated 'participants
found it hard to chooseone criterion over another'. Commentslike: 'it depends' 'we
to
need put this into context' 'it is hard to chobse they are all important' were
recorded. Therefore, an open table discussion of the various characteristics of
indicators (presentedin Appendix 6) was carried out, focusing on which elements

190
 be to
should used select indicators in Phase5. Due to the different backgroundsof
people attending, such as engineersand planners, consensuswas not achievedwith
regard to a particular criterion. However, participantsrealised the differencesin their

perceptionsand understandingof monitoring. Therefore, consensuswas achievedfor

the use of different types of indicators, i.e. qualitative versus quantitative depending
on the issuein question.For it
example, was agreedthat issuessuch as contamination
would have to utilise strictly scientific and quantitative indicators whereasqualitative
indicators would be more suitable for community issues such as the perception of

crime.

No conclusions were reached about who would conduct and fund the monitoring.
However the evaluation task group agreedto collaborate and share responsibilities.
The use of existing LA data where appropriate was also approved. The session
concluded with the evaluation task force agreeing to revisit the issue in the final

workshop.

5.3.5. Phase 5: Designing the indicators

In this phase,all the information collated from previous phasesis consideredfor the
of developing an initial set of long-term sustainability indicators as well as
purpose
the selection of sustainability criteria for the assessment of the development

Due to the limited time realistically available for the RAF process, this
proposals.
be in between the lead partner, his/her
phaseshould preferably undertaken a meeting
consultantand relevant DC and policy officers, should the RAF be applied at
planning
the designphaseof its life cycle. Additionally, wheretime permits, this exercisecould
initially be undertakenutilising electronic consultationtechniquesand provided to all

participants for comment prior to the meeting. In *eachcase, accountability and the

need for information sharingremainswith the wider stakeholder

group.
Phase5 is divided into three distinct questions:

a) What is alreadymonitored?
b) What do we want to monitor?

c) What indicators monitor this?

Thesequestionsrequire the following material in order to be answered:

191
" The Phase3 list of relevant indicators and monitoring requirementscollated using
checklist (Table 5.5);
" The updatedpotential EIA post-monitoringrequirements(when relevant);
" The stakeholderratified Phase4 results report, which contains agreed priority
sustainabilityobjectivesfor which indicators shouldbe developed(Appendix 7);
" The complete SEEDA or relevant Regional DevelopmentAuthority development
sustainabilitychecklist;
" The RESCUEremediationsustainabilitycriteria, when relevant65(Appendix 8).

The meetingis divided into two sessions:the first consistsof identifying development
proposal sustainability assessmentcriteria, the second deals with the long-term
monitoring indicator development. Each sessionis now described followed by an

accountof what happenedwith the GM casestudy.

5.3.5.1 Session 1: Selecting BRP sustainability assessment criteria

In Session I the thematic topics or priority sustainability objectives identified in Phase
4 (e.g. Box 5.1) requiring development evaluation and monitoring are put to the group
for consideration throughout the whole meeting. The SEEDA development

sustainability checklist, which contains a number of predefined sustainability criteria,

is put forward to the group for the selection of griteria which are relevant to the

specific BRP's sustainability objectives determined in Phase 4. Additionally, the

RESCUE contaminated land criteria are put forward for consideration of the

contaminationsustainability objective, where relevant, as the SEEDA checklist does

not cover this issuein detail.

Although the SEEDA checklist contains pre-specifiedcriteria, it is provided for the

following reasons(seeChapter3):

-It considersthe development

as a whole rather than purely building performance;
-It provides benclunarksrelevantto policy and governmentguidance;
bolistically
-It addresses environmental,social and economicissues;

a
-it requires justificationof the benchmark
attributed performance;
-Criteriaare transparent and use of the is
checklist free.

hasbeenidentifiedasa priority sustainability

Thatis whenremediationof contamination objective.

192
Additionally, it was establishedthat the SEEDA checklistwas in the processof being
launchedthroughoutthe regionsandwas being aimedfor useby LAs, and thus would
basis
provide a standardised for which sustainabilityevaluationscould be carriedout.
Although the SEEDA checklisthasan interactivewebsitein which a developmentcan
be scored and overall performance results provided based on pre-set criteria
weightings,the web basedelementof this tool is not usedthrough the RAF but only
the criteria. This weighted web-basedmethod is not endorsedby the author and
thereforea paper version of the checklist is used for participants to choosecriteria
which arecontextspecific.

In summary,sessionI requiresof participantsto identify, whilst taking into account

the agreedsustainabilityobjectivesof Phase4, relevantcriteria from the SEEDA and
RESCUE checklist for considerationby the whole group in Phase6. It should be
highlighted that at this Phase5 meeting and at the Phase6 workshop there is the
flexibility andopporhmityto addadditionalcriteria whereconsideredrelevant.

5.3.5.2. Session 2: Developing long-term BRP sustainability Indicators

Session 2 involves the development of indicators to monitor the long-term

sustainabilityof the development.Again the Phase4 sustainabilityobjectivesshould

be put forward for consideration;i. e. the question: 'What do we want to monitorT
togetherwith the list of existing indicatorsidentified in Phase3 which deal with the
question of 'what is already monitored'. The main task of session 2 involves the
group initially identifying which of the Phase3 indicators are relevantby themeto the
sustainability objectives, so asking the question: 'What indicators monitor thisT.
Participantsare then asked to examine in more detail the chosen indicators and
*
identify whether they are relevant in scale, timing etc, and whether additional
indicatorsarerequired.

The result of this process should be a draft report which describesthe process
undertaken including a list of sustainability assessmentcriteria and long-term
indicatorsdeveloped.This draft report shouldbe presentedto the whole stakeholder

group for further deliberation. The report should provide specific questions for

193
stakeholdersto consider (Appendix 9; see Boxes 5.2 and 5.3 for example of
questions)regarding each criterion and indicator. Individual consultationson the
report should be provided to the facilitator prior to the commencementof the
workshop.The facilitator shouldcollatethe consultationsandpresentcommentsat the
Phase6 workshop.

5.3.5.3. Selecting BRP sustainability assessment criteria for the GM case study
The results of carrying out this session were interesting, with group members
identifying which SEEDA criteria reflected the eight sustainability objectives (Box
5.1), but indicating difficulty in selecting or evaluating the contaminated land
RESCUE indicators. It was thus agreed by the group that the selection should be

undertaken by the LA contaminated land officer and examined by the private

contaminated land consultants. Only the education relevant objective (Box 5.1) was
found to be excluded from the SEEDA checklist and therefore the use of the
BREEAM standard for schools was proposed. Participants expressedcontent with the
SEEDA checklist, particularly its reference to planning policies. However, it was felt

that some of the criteria could not be determined at an early outline planning

permission stage.

5.3.5.4. Developing long-term BRP sustainability indicators

The above process was followed for the case siudy, and although a number of
indicators from the Phase 3 collated list were identified as relevant, additional
indicators were also proposed. In some casesit was felt that the scale of the indicators

was too large to reflect changes occurring as a result of the development. Therefore it
was suggested that the baseline of certain indicators is utilised as a benchmark, and
that more site-specific data collection is undertaken. Moreover, when selecting
indicators the policy officer was questioned by the group about the likelihood of the

particular indicators being in use in ten years time, for example. This discussion was
very useful in ensuring continuity and availability of data in the long-term.

Having revieweda numberof SEA, SA and Local DevelopmentFrameworkrelevant

indicators,it is recognisedthat theseissuesmay be presentin many of the caseswhere
the RAF is applied. It is thus emphasisedthat there needsto be a group collective

194
decision with regard to the suitability of indicators and consideration of scale,
baselinesand likely continuity, apartfrom relevance.

5.3.6. Phase 6: Putting it all together

In this phase,the evaluationtask force meetsfor the final half-day workshop in order
to deliberateon the proposedindicatorsand assessfiientcriteria to agreeon a final set
and a monitoring strategy.All stakeholdersat the time of the workshop should have
had the opportunity to provide their individual feedbackand thus the aim of this
processis to enabledeliberation and agreementon a final version. To achievethis
Phase6 is divided into threestructuredand facilitatedsessionsdescribedbelow.

5.3.6.1. Agreeing on sustainability criteria and Indicators

In Sessions I and 2a combined Nominal Group Technique" (NGT) and carousel are

recommended: the workshop stakeholders are divided into groups of four and seated
at different tables. Each table requires a stationary participant (dubbed 'the station
master') who is selected based on his/her knowledge of the particular sustainability
objective. For example, if the sustainability objective is 'effective transport
management', the station master should ideally be either a LA highways officer or the
transport private consultant. The station master's role is to facilitate the answering of
the questions (Boxes 5.2 and 5.3) with the rotating group participants (Figure 5.7) and
then to collate and present the conclusions to the whole group at the end of each

session. This exercise can be imagined as a type of speed dating (participants'

description) (see Figure 5.7). At each rotation, the new group guided by the station

master needs to answer the questions listed in Boxes 5.2 and 5.3 for each of the
presented long-term indicators and criteria, and to make a final selection as well as
propose any alternative indicators. The rotations ensure that all stakeholders, except

the station masters, get to discuss the indicators for all sustainability objectives.

" NGT is a facilitation processwherebyparticipantsareseatedinto groupsand haveto discuss

amongstthemselvesand carry out taskslike prioritisation exercises,and thenreport back to the whole
groupat the end of the exercise.It is a methodusedfor detail6i tasks;seeEnvironmentCouncil,
(2002).Ile NGT hasbeenmodified asdescribedin the text to suite the purposesof the RAF.

195
Box 5.2 Task and questions to be tackled by stakeholders in Session I of Phase 6

Task for Stakeholders:

Reviewlong-term indicators presented by answeringthe following questions in the
task boxes. DA = I)isaqree, N= Neutral, A= Aqree.
Indicator Review Criteria OA N A Comments
Does this indicator appropriately
inform the sustainability objective
stated?
Is this indicator useful i.e. provides
information which can be used in
decision making?
Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Is it cost ef f ective?
Do you have any other comments?

Indicator Characteristics Review DA N A Comments

Is the monitoring task specified
relevant and appropriate for
obtaining representative information
on the stated indicator?
Do you think the data collection
tim4o7gis appropriate?
Do you think the sample
representative?
Do you agree with the stated
benchmarA-s; P
Do you agree with the additional
Informatlon collected or do you think
there should be more?
Do you have any other comments?

196
Box 5.3. Task and questions to be tackled by stakeholders in Session 2 of Phase 6

Task for Stakeholders:

Reviewthe sustainability criteria presented by answeringthe following questions
presented in the task boxes. I)A = Disagree,N= Neutral, A= Agree

Indicator PeviewCriteria bA N A Comments

Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Doesthis criterion appropriately
assessthe sustainability objective
stated?
Do you consider the criterion's
stated benchmarkis appropriate
regarding the proposeddevelopment
and locality
Duringwhich phaseshould these Outline planning Detailed application
criteria be used to assessthe application
sustainability of the development?
(circle appropriate answer)
tw you have any other comments?

Figure 5.7 Participation technique proposed for Sessions 1 and 2 of Phase 6

Groupsofrotating Topics5&6
4
stakeholders.
rotabons/group
90

00
0

topic1 and2
Thematic

W
StationMastercollatesanswersfromgroups

197
Attention should be paid to time keeping and to ensuring that each team lias a 11lix()I

private and public sector participants. Station masters can change between sessions I
and 2. It is also very important that ground rules are agreed collectively, including

agreement on the purpose of the workshop at the onset (see Section 5.3.4). Having
completed the rotations ensuring that all participants have selected long-tcrin
indicators and provided comments on all priority sustainability objectives, station

masters should make a short presentation on the collective results and these should be
recorded by the facilitator. The floor is then opened to discussion, FocLising

particularly on any areas of disagreement.

5.3.6.2. Session 3: Agreeing on the procedural issues

Finally, in Session 3, a simple NGT exercise should be carried out requiring

participants to answer in groups the questions in Box 5.4, to be followed by in open

discussion. Each participant however has a questionnaire with the same questions to

answer individually. Session 3 is sensitive in nature, as it deals with funding and

resource issues, so it is appropriate to enable each participant to express their views in

writing to ensure that dominant participants do not influence decisions.

Box 5.4 Questions to consider in Session 3 of Phase 6

Task for Stakeholders: Answer the following questions.

Question 1:
please select preferredoption:
1. The developershould be responsiblefor the preparationof the monitoringreport as
well as the surveys and for obtainingand collatinginformationfrom the LA.
2. The developer should put some money aside for the surveys and monitoring
frameworks, yet it is the LA responsibility to analyse the data and write the
monitoringreports ( this can also be undertakenby obtainingconsultanthelp)
Question 2:
Should the results of the assessmentof the developmentbased on these criteria be reported
in a sustainability assessment to be handed into LA for consideration with the. FýIAitild
planningapplication?
Question 3:
How public should the results of the assessmentand monitoring surveys be made? Should
they be made available to the local communityor should they be used purely to inform LA,
regionaland other relevant governmentbodies.

198
5.3.6.3.Agreeing on sustainability criteria and Indicators: the GIVIcase study
When carrying out SessionI for the case study, Ibng-term indicators were selected
and alterations and comments made on the data collection strategy. In some cases
individuals were aware of more suitable or more robust existing indicators which

could be utilised; for example the educationrepresentativeknew that school specific

data could be provided at no extra cost rather than using the general school Borough
data.

When carrying out Session2, participantsidentified a number of SEEDA criteria for

eachsustainability objective but also requestedftirther data to be included within the

EIA. An issue identified in Phase5, regarding the lack of available information to
determine some of the SEEDA criteria, was also underlined by the evaluation task
force in this phase.Participantsfelt that certain criteria were important and shouldbe
included in the assessment,but could not be determined at the outline planning

application phase. It was collectively agreed at the open discussion stage that the
identified criteria relevant to the detailed planning application phase of the
developmentshould remain in the sustainability assessmentto ensure that they are

consideredat the reservedmattersstage.

5.3.6.4.Session 3: Results of the GIVIcase study

During Session3, all of the casestudy participantsagreedthat the developerwould
fund the long-term monitoring and that S106 agreementswould be drawn to ensureits

realisation. However, it was agreedthat the developer would not be responsible for

carrying out or overseeingthe monitoring. That would be the responsibility of the LA

which proposed hiring consultants for this task. Both parties agreed to make

monitoring and sustainability assessmentresultspublic through the LA. The detailed

results of Phase6 of the case study and essentiallythe end result of the processare

presentedin Appendix 10.

To summarise,it has been demonstrated and describedhow the RAF works in

The
practice. has
process 6 distinctphasesand is flexible in approach
enablingthe
developmentof a contextspecificevaluationstrategy.However,it is importantto
how the evaluationstrategydeveloped
was actuallyenforced
considerwhetherand
and the resultsused (Section 5.4).

199
5A Enforcing and using the results of the RAF
As the main aim of the RAF is for its results to. be used, it is imperative that the

potential use of the evaluationresultsand information is specified.Therefore,in Table

areprovidedas to how the variousresultsof the RAF canbe
5.7 recommendations
utilised. It is emphasisedthat theseare only guidelines and may not be relevantto all
BRPs.The resultsof the different RAF Phasesare listed below and can be utilised for
different purposes(Table 5-7). When examining Table 5.7 it becomesapparentthat
the RAF utilises existing processesand feedsinto different types of decisionmaking.
A core elementof the RAF is its integrationwith the EIA and SEA processwhich is
illustrated in Figure 5.8. From Figure 5.8 it is establishedthat integration betweenthe
EIAI SEA and RAF processesis twofold. Firstly, integration occurs from the use of
information obtained through the EIA and SEA to inform to RAF, such as baseline
data and existing indicators. Secondly,the RAF provides the mechanismto inform

and structuredecision making, during the short term developmentplanning phase,but

also provides long term information feedbackto the SEA process,through the results
obtained from the monitoring. However, how the integration illustrated in Table 5.7

and Figure 5.8 is achievedbecomes more apparentwith the presentationof the case
study results below. Tberefore, in Section 5.4.1, the range of indicators and

assessmentcriteria selectedas a result of the RAF processare presentedfollowed by

an explanation of how these results were used and enforced through the planning

application decisionmaking process.

Table 5.7. Use of RAF results

RAFResults/outputs PotentialApplication/Use
Community census As partof requirements for Statementof Community Involvement.
Resultsof censuscouldfeedIntoa socialimpactassessment.
Sustainability Resultsof theSustainability Assessment basedon thesecriteriacouldbe handedin as:
Assessment Criteria aa standalonesupplementary document to theapplicationform,or
@as padof an EIA.
Long-term nTheindicatorsneedto be enforcedthroughS106 agreements .
Sustainability - Theycanbe detailedIn a separatedocumentor if relevantwithinthe EIApost-
Monitoring indicators monitoringsection.
Resultsof monitoring canbe reviewedby policyofficerto Informpolicyreviewsas well
as otherparticipants to Informfutureplanningapplication decisionmakingand
recommendations regardingS106agreements.
Resultsshouldbe madeavailableto the public.
If monitoringstrategyincludesindicators requiredfromprojectfunders,reportshould
be madeavailableto them.
Siteanddevelopment - Thisinformation is requiredto supportthe planningapplication, or
information. - Thesiteandprojectdescription sectionsof an EIA
Phas.- 4 identified @ Feed intoEIA scoping report,identificationandagreement on significantimpacts
main concerns and requiringa detailed assessment.
benefits

200
 b:
cý

94

0:

0.4

0:

C42

0 ýZ. C,:

-
Sz, .,

-- ---
-. W-

h-4

.A
tZ: 9 ta
2
Fo
-3
ýE;
C) ýi ý <
u-
ci (-1
vl 0
4. 21 -0
C.,
Q)
öz
p
rl Ký
L Z cn
Z:
w Do
.Z
Ci
ja)
-
C4
c34

(4
I'
I' .. .'
:1:
LL

Vcm
,CC
ru

i7L
5.4.1. Enforcing and using the RAF results - the GM Case study
This sectionexplainshow the different resultsand outputsof the RAF were utilised in
the GM case study. The RAF community censusformed part of the Statementof
Community Involvement for the development,as further consultationwas sought by
the developerfollowing the review of the results.Additionally, information from the
community censuswas included within the socio-economicimpact assessment.

When participants were faced with the results of the community census and the
identified sustainabilityobjectivesfor the development(Phase4), it was agreedthat a

socio-economicimpact assessment
should be included within the EIA. As a result of
Phase4, agreementwas achieved about the significant impact areaswhich the EIA
would have to address by carrying out detailed impact assessments (Scoping opinion
agreement). This illustrates that in practice the development and planning process is
linear be implied by the literatureý7 and often involves iterative
not as as may an
processof re-examining issues based on new evidence. The RAF allows for this. For

example,an EIA scoping decision may not have been provided until detailed effect
assessmentsare already underway, which can lead to delays or waste of resources
which are not necessarilyrequired. When interviewed,
from carrying out assessments
the private planning consultant of the development stated:
'there is a tendencyin EIA to carry out det6iled assessments
of all effectsand

not only of significant ones, in fear that additional assessmentswill be

requiredlater on in theplanning applicationprocess which would result in

project delays'.
The RAF mitigates againstthis issueby enablinga joint consensuson the significant
impact areaswhich would require a detailed invest.igation early on in the application

process.

The site and development information, required as part of Phase 2 of the

development,was obtainedby the EIA consultantsand architect and comprisedof the
information being collated for the purposesof the EIA project and site description.
However, it is recognised that clauses for more site socio-economic information
the description of the environment,as recommendedin Tables 5.3
should supplement
and 5.4.

11Seefor exampleFigure 2.1 for a simplified illustration of the planning process

202
Having identified and agreed on a set of SEEDA sustainability assessmentcriteria and

performance benchmarks, these were provided to the relevant developer's consultants,

for example transport criteria to the transport consultant, design criteria to the

architect. Consultants were then requested to establish the proposed development's

performance using the SEEDA benchmarks. By design, the SEFDA sustainability

criteria require those carrying out the assessment to justify the performance scores
they allocate for each criterion (see Box 5.6 for an example of the justifications

required for each SEEDA criterion). This process thus enhances transparency and
provides an additional layer of scrutiny of the developments performance results,
elements which were found to be problematic in Chapter 4. Results from all relevant
consultants were then collated and introduced as a distinct sustainabifity assessment
chapter within the EIS. The performance results for each of the eight SLIstainability
objectives were collated and presented in the form of bar charts, clearly indicating the
overall development performance (see Figures 5.9 to 5.12 and Boxes 5.5 to 5.7 for
GM results). This is recommended to enable EIS reviewers (e.g. councillors) to

undertake a rapid appraisal, yet be provided with the detailed information of the
assessment should they wish it. The selected indicators and assessmentresults are
presented below, for illustrative purposes only. They consist of the case study
participants' selection rather than the author's and their appropriateness is discussed
in Chapter 6.

Figure 5.9. GM case study results obtained for the sustainability assessment of
objective 1. (see appendix 10 for complete criteria description and benchmarks)
Sustainability Objective 1: Improved Image and integration of the
area in terms <)f architecture design and social aspects as wall as
the combination of all
0 best practice
11good practice
m rrýimimurn

a CL
CL

-o Wi
(4 r

203
Box 5.5 GM case study results for Sustainability objectives 2 and 3

Objective2: To providea safeenvironmentfor peopleto work andlive in.

Objective What%of buildingshasbeendesigned

to'SecureBy Design'or equivalent
standards?

Minimum:

3.(9)
Question < 60%
GoodPractice:
60-80%
Targets/
Benchmark BestPractice:

> 80%

TheGreaterManchester
PoliceArchitectural
LiaisonOfficerhasbeenengagedpre-application
to
bydesign'acrosstheentiretyof thesite.
adviseoncrimeprevention/'secure
Justification

Objective3: Improvededucationin terms of academicachievementand infrastructure

anddesign.

The SEEDA sustainability does not make reference specifically to schools especlallý

with regard to academic achievement. However, there are standards for school

environmental performance and design, namely the BREEAM School Standard,

which should be met; see: http: //www. breeam. /schools.

orv, htmi not included in this

report. This is an assessment tool in itself and incorporates a number of criteria

referred to above. The school element of the development is proposed to be

designed to achieve at least a 'very good' BREEAM rating. The BREEAM School
Standard is intended to help schools and LEAs to set environmental targets for new

and refurbished school buildings and serve as a useful tool for dernonstrating the

environmental performance of desions.

204
Figure 5.10. GM case study results for sustainability objective 4
Sustainability Objective 4: Improved local economy, In particular vAth
regard to small businesses and the creation of quality employment
M Best Practice
0 Good Practioe
M Mnimum

Sc4.1 contribution Sc4.2 Promote Sc4.3 attract Sc4.4 create Sc4.5

tosustainable business growth invard investmerd additional Encouragement of
econorric vitality perrnanent jobs start up &
expanding
business

Box 5.6. GM results for sustainability objective 5

Objective 5: Improved mix between housing and businesses as well as types of

housing. The need to create a new housing balance -a property ladder, enabling
people to stay in the area.

Sustainability Toattracta diversenewcommunity demographic

thatreflectsthesurrounding trends
criterion5.1

Hasa statementbeenprepared explaining howthedevelopment to therequiredmixof

contributes
housingforthearea,in termsof type,size,tenureandreflecting
theneedsof thecurrentand
prospective
community demographics?
Targets/
Benchmark
Oneissueaddressed
Minimum:

Twoissuesaddressed.
GoodPractice:

N
All issuesaddressed
BestPractice:

Justificatim

TheDesignStatement andOverview Statementprovidea clearindication

of a rangeof house
types,sizesandtenuresto reflecttheneedsof thelocalcommunity andprovidechoice- 1,2/3
bedflats,2/3bedterracedhouses,2 bedsemi-detached houses,3 bedsemi-detached house
and3 and4 beddetached houses- effectivelycreatinga propertyladder.

205
 Figure S.11. GM case study results for sustainability objective 6

1 Sustainability Objective 6: Improve biodiversity in terms of habitat

M Best Practice
[3 Good Practice
15 ki ýZ5I- 'E 2 4) 4) 0
M Mnimum
g 15 .0 (3 Non-confirmable
3 aE&mps0 r M. m
-0 A2
CL

..
to
V2? cc 0 :3

c (D 0
0 04 w
(D
00
0
0

Figure 5.12. GM case study results for sustainability objective 7

Sustainability Objective 7: Improved accessibility (traffic management

& transport links)

e Best Practice
I Good Practice
i Mnimum
3Non-confýmsble

U) c
-,c
S) 'E5
CCU
U)
(D 00A2
1; E c) 25.3 "': 2 rl-
it > a. -
E0 r-ý co
Lo
EX
0
0

206 ý.1

-
Box 5.7 GM case study results using RESCUE criteria for objective 8
Objective 8: Ensuresafetywith regardto contamination
The following criteria have been selected by the stakeholders, from a list of'criteria
presented in a sustainability assessmenttool recently developed
research consortium RESCUE
reclamation.
Project Monitoring and
evaluation
Has the project identified
the risks and the
mitigation measures to be
put in place to reduce the
human health and
environment risks
associated with exposure
to hazardous substances?
Will the project include on
going remediation
by the F uropean
which looks at the sustainability ofcontarninated site
Description of the monitoring system pu( in place, objectives, use of indicators,
periodicity timing and what action to be taken if problem is identified.
,
Yes.
The site investigation was devised and conducted in accordance with accepted
protocols (BS5930: 1999 Code of Practice for Site Investigations and
BS10175: 2001 Investigation ofpotentiallycontarninated sites-Code of practice)
Tier I Qualitative Risk Assessment of soils and groundwater has been undeitaken
in accordance with accepted UK approach to contamination (Environment
Agency/DEFRA Contaminated Land Exposure Assessments) to indicate the
presence/absence of contamination for appropriate end-uses of the site. This is
based on sourc e-pathway- receptor analysis for the determination of contamination.
Elevated concentrations of metals and hydrocarbons have been identified at the
site.
An extended Hazardous Gas monitoring programme has been undertaken to
determine the "characteristic situation" and gas control measures required,
Controlled waste has been identified in an unconfined landfill.
Tier I Assessment has indicated a requirement for Tier 2 Quantitative Risk
Assessment in respect of the potential risk to controlled waters and human health
from elevated concentrations hydrocarbon in soils and groundwater
Tier 2 QRA has devised site specific target concentrations to be protective of'
human health and controlled waters.
A remedial strategy has been devised for the site to reduce the risks associated with
the proposed end uses to an acceptable level. The remedial strategy will he
accepted by the Local Authority Environmental Services Department (I lurnan
Health) and the Environment Agency (Controlled Waters)
Remedial measures include
" Ex-situ remediation of hydrocarbon impacted soils in order to minitnise
waste materials.
" Placement of capillary break layers and clean cover (to BRE Standards)
to break pollutant linkages.
" Basic Hazardous Gas control measures to buildings,
Yes
207
Project Monitoring and
evaluation
performance verification
in terms of cost, efficiency
and schedule in order to
reduce corresponding
risks?
Will the project include
post validation
remediation performance
verification in terms of
cost, efficiency and
schedule to measure the
success of the remediation
process?
Will the project include a
risk management
framework involving
identification planning and
a minimisation plan?
Will the project consider
the key environmental
legislation related to the
industrial sites ( IPPC,
EIA), treatment of
contaminated land, energy
efficiency, waste
minimisation and
pollution control
(EMAS)?
Description of the monitoring systernput in place, objectives, use of indicators,
periodicity timing and what action to be taken if problem Is identified.
,
Remedial works will be supervised by a qualificd engineer to ensure:
0 Verification that requirements of the remedial strategy are adhered to.
0 Effectiveness of remedial techniques.
0 Validation of site specific target concentrations of remedial works
0 Validation testing of site won and imported materials to ensure fitness for
purpose.
0 Verification of cover system and thicknesses.
0 Quality Assurance and Quality Control of Gas Control measure..,,.
No
Performance validation during the remediation stage is considered to satisfactorily
safeguard end users from potential risks.
Yes
Qualitative and Quantitative risk assessment is based upon published toxicological
data (EA/Defra TOX reports) for key contaminants with an assessment of intake
values from identified pathways. Where possible published soil guideline values
have been adopted, however where necessary site specific values will be
determined using toxicological data where necessary in order to ensure that risks to
end users of the site are reduced to an acceptable level.
Yes.
The following legislation has been considered:
9 BS5930: 1999 Code of Practicefor Site Investigations
0 BS 10175: 2001 Investigation ofpolentially contaminated sites- Code of
practice.
a Parl IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 "Thc Contaminated
Land Regime"
Planning Policy Statement 23: Annex 2 Development on Land. lffi, clcd
0
bli, Contamination
EA/Defra Contaminated Land Exposure Assessments, CLR7,9,9,10
0
(2002),
0 EA Science Report P5-090/TR3 (2005). The UK approachfor evaluating
human health risksftorn petroleum hydrocarhons in soils.
0 NHBC Standards (1999).
The primary aim of the remedial strategy is to ensure waste ininimisation at the site
during remedial works through:
208
 Project Monitoring and Description of the monitoring system put in place, objectives, use of indicators,

evaluation periodicity timing and what action to be taken if problern is identified.

,

" Reclamation ot'suitable nialcrials tot rc-usc

" Re-use of demolition material on-site.

" Composting of vegetation/topsoil for re-use.

Has the project used Yes

decision support tools to

The cover requirements for contaminated soils have been deviscd in accoldancc
assist in environmental
with BRE 465 (2004) "Cover systems for land regeneration- thickness ofcover
decision making
systems for contaminated land"
(characterisation strategy,
Gas Risk Assessments have been conducted in accordance with CIRIA Report 149
remediation techniques
'Protecting Development from Methane' (1995) and Wilson and Card 1999
etc)?
"Reliability and Risk in Gas Protection Design". Ground Engineering.

The long-term indicators agreed upon in Phase 6 were detailed as part of the post-

monitoring requirements of the EIS in a separate section, for the purpose of

facilitating a S106 to cover all post-monitoring requirements. This method was

recommended following Tinker et al (2005) and the results obtained from interviews
(Chapter4) whereby some intervieweesstatedthat ofien proposedmeasuressuch as
EIA post-monitoring requirementsare omitted from S106 agreementsbecausethey

are dispersedthroughout the EIS. Boxes 5.8 and 5.9 presentthe long-term indicators
developedas a result of the RAF. For details regardingbenchmarks,data collection,
sampling and timing see Appendix 10.

Participants agreed that the results would be made available to the public and

proposed the use of the standardLA publicity channels such as the LA website aiid
bulletins. There was consensusthat the resultsof the indicators,once obtained,wotild
be circulated to all involved participants and would be reviewed in detail by the policy
to existing policies and overarching LA indicator trends. Because
officer with regard
the BRP long-term indicators are essentially based on LA SA and SEA indicators,

they can use the same baseline. It is therefore possible from the results obtained to

determine if the development with regard to a specific issue (for example perception
is perfon-ning better or worse than the Borough as a whole. It could
of crime)

subsequently be determined whether the specific policies enforced which influenced

the nature of the development (at that time) are having the desired outcome or require

modification.

209
Box 5.8 GIVIcase study long-term Indicators developed for objectives I to 7 (see
appendix 10 for details)*
*Please note that in this box are not included the indicators proposed for EIA and TIA
post monitoring- rather only the indicators created specifically for the RAF.

Sustainability Objective 1: Improved image of the area In terms of

architecture, design and social aspectsas well as the combination of all.
-Indicator: % of residentswhofeel their urhood
neighbo. has got worse in the last
two years.

Sustainability Objective 2: To provide a safe environment for people to work

and live in.
-Indicators: a) % ofsite residentsand neighbouring residentssurveyedwhofeel
fairly safe' or 'very safe' after dark whilst outside in their neighbourhoodor the
ELPMsite.
b) % ofsite residentsand neighbouringresidentssurveyedwhofeel 'fairly safe'
or 'very safe'during the day whilst outside in their neighbourhoodor the ELPM
site.

Sustainability Objective 3. Improved education in terms of academic

achievement and infrastructure and design.
%
mIndicators: ofpupils newin school achieving 5+ GCSEs (A *-C) at newschool.
@Indicators: Destination ofschool leavers (116)
e.g. full time education,
employment,governmentsupportedtraining

Sustainability Objective 4: Improved local economy, in particular with regard

to small businessesand the creation of quality employment opportunities.
-Indicators: SP7 b) Proportion ofjobs per working age resident 6obs density).
nIndicators: EG2: a) Town1district centre Vacancy rates

Sustainability Objective 5: Improved mix between housing and businessesas

well as types of housing. The need to create a new housing balance- a property
ladder, enabling people to stay in the area.
mIndicator SP4 Number /% ofdwellings on large -housing schemes (above 25
units) that areprovided under affordable housingplanning policy.
wIndicator: Contextual indicators ofdevelopment including, population size and
characteristics, total households and average size as well as work location of
residents.

Sustainability Objective 6: Improve Biodiversity in terms of habitat creation

and water management.
-Indicator: Monitor water quality of lodge.
Sustainability Objective 7: Improved accessibility (traffic management and
transport links)
-Indicator: ENI means of travel by modal split.
EG4 travel to worklout commuting. *
-Indicator:

210
Box 5.9 GM case study monitoring strategy for objective 8

Sustainability Objective 8 Ensure safety with regard to contamination/ pollution

deviseda RemedialStrategyfor theXX PaperMill Site.This is presented

XX [consultancy]have in XX
issuesin orderto protect
ReportNo. XX. Theaimsof theRemedialStrategyis to resolvecontamination
andrenderthesitesuitablefor theproposed
receptors
environmental development.

All siteworkswill besupervisedby a suitablyqualifiedengineer

whowill monitorall siteactivities,ensure
thattheRemedialStrategyis beingcompliedwith andwhowill obtainsamples to ensurevalidationof the
protectivemeasures including.

" verificationthatrequirements of theremedialstrategyareadhered

to;
" effectiveness of remedialtechniques;
" validationof sitespecifictargetconcentrations
of remedialworks;
" validationtestingof sitewonandimportedmaterialsto ensurefitnessfor purpose;
" verificationof coversystemandthicknesses; and
" qualityAssurance andQualityControlof GasControlmeasures.

completionof all theworkstheEngineerwill preparea VerificationReport.TheVerification

On satisfactory
Reportwill standascertificationthattheremedialandgroundpreparatoryworkshavebeencarriedoutin
accordance with thisRemedialStrategy.

with theXX landfill theXX PaperMill will notrequirelong-term

Otherthanlong-termmonitoringassociated
monitoring.
TheRemedialStrategywill be agreedin writingby regulators
priorto thestartof remedialworks.
by a Geo-environniental
Remedialworkswill besupervised whowill ensurethattherequirements
engineer of
of theEngineershallinclude,but not belimitedto, the
theRemedialStrategyaremet.Theresponsibilities
following:

" ensuring that all sitepersonnelare suitablyqualifiedand givenan appropriate inductionat the beginning
of
theirfirst day;
" supervision of theremedialandgroundpreparatory works;
" adviceon thecorrecthandlingof materialsandconditionsencountered;
" guidance ontheappropriate protectiveclothingandsafetyequipment thatis to bemadeavailableandused;
" ensuringthatpersonalhygienearrangements areadequate;
" retrievalof soil and watersamples and thesubsequent schedulingof appropriate laboratory
analysisto enable
validationof various aspects
of theworks, and to advisethe Project
Manager of progress;and
" liaisonwith statutoryauthoritiesasrequired.

TheEngineerwill maintainrecordsof theworksto includethefollowing:

" daily recordsheetsto includea summaryof thedaysactivities;
" dateandweatherconditions;
" plan%personnel andvisitorspresent;
aspects relatingto HealthandSafety,Environmental Control,or non-compliance with eitherthisRemedial
Strategyor theContractor's MethodStatement;
to
" sitesurveysasnecessary record the locations
of demolition,excavation
and filling activity;
" testresults.

Other participants could use the monitoring information, to improve practices and
improvements or changesneed to be made for future developments
ascertainwhether
ftuther mitigation action needsto be undertakenon behalf of the LA. For
or whether
the LA required the development to achieve a high Secure by Design
example,
the aim of reducing the perceptionof crime which was identified as an
standard,with
issuein Phase4. However, by monitoring long-term residents' perceptionof crime, it

211
can be ascertainedif in fact the Secureby Design standardsactually help improve
perceptionsof crime and thus should be enforcedfor all developments,or if in fact
they have had no effect and thus alternative measuresshould be identified. Thus
through this processan information feedbackloop is created,providing information
which decisionmakersactually need,and can use!

5.5. When and how long does it take to carty out the RAF?
In Chapter4, time constraintswere identified as a seriousbarrier to the take up of
sustainability assessmentand monitoring practice. In particular LA officers pointed
out that they barely had time to carry out their statutory requirementsand therefore

would find it difficult to devote time to sustainability monitoring and assessment.

Developers, when interviewed, emphasisedthe need for any such process to be
compatiblewith planning and project time lines (Chapter 4). This was also identified
by Deaking ei al (2002) who pointed out the limitations with regardto monitoring due
to the actual limited time span of processessuch as the planning and construction
phase, which typically do not take more than two years to materialise,thus indicating

the need for a rapid appraisal approach (Bell, 1996). The above conclusionshad a

significant impact with regard to the RAF causal design (Figure 1.4) and in particular
with regard to the type and extent of participation and consultation which could be

carried out as well as the complexity of the process. This is a logical approachin the

sense that one cannotspenda year or more trying to identify and involve stakeholders
to develop indicators,by which time the planning application may already have been
determined.

In order to assessthe feasibility of the RAF as an eýaluationprocess(Chapter6), it is

important to calculate and describe the time which was required, based on the case

study results, to carry out the RAF. Also the timing with regard to when the RAF

be carried out needs to be specified in detail. The time required to undertake

should
the different Phases of the RAF for key stakeholders in the process is presented in

Table 5.8. However, the length of time indicated is Pased on the premise that both LA

and developersare keen to undertake the processand thereforedo not require

convincing(aswasthe casefor this pilot trial).

212
Table 5.8. Time required to carry out the RAF, accordino to stakeholders
RAF Steptasks Developer Facilitator Other DC Community
Steps s time s time stakeholderstime time survey
Step1 Identification
of 30m 1h 0 30m 0
participants
Contact 1h 3h 0 1h 0
participants
Step2 Collectionof site 0 8h 0 0 0
andproject
information
Preparation and 0 16h 0 0 30 daysto
sendingout respondbut
community survey 1Ominto fill in
I survey
Surveyanalysis 0 8h 0 0 0
andreport I
Step3 Identification
of 0 4h 0 1h 0
existingmonitoring
requirements
Workshop 30m 4h 30m 30m 0
preparation
Step4 Workshop1 4h 4h 4h 4h 0
Resultsreport 0 4h 0 0 0
writeup
Consultation of 30m 0 30m 30m 0
resultsreport
Step5 Indicatorinitial 2h 2h 0 2h 0
development
meeting
Resultsreport 0 4h 0 0 0
writeup
Report 1h 0 1h 1h 0
consultation
Step6 Workshop 0 4h 0 0 0
preparation
Workshop 4h 4h 4h 4h 0
Resultswriteup 0 4h 0 0 0
Total RAFtime/ 13h30m 70h 10h 14.5 10M
stakeholder
To carryoutthe sustainabilky assessment, will requireaprox3 hoursfromeachrelevantdevelopers'
consultante.g. ecologist,transportetc Inthiscase8 consultants x 3hwork,24h consultanttime

The optimum timing for the RAF to be initiated as a process is during the pre-

application negotiation period. The length of this period is highly dependenton the
complexity and scale of the development,but is rarely less than 3 months for large
developments.In the case of the GM case studý it has been 18monthS68.In the
development industry, some developers adopt a strategy whereby they hand in
development applications without having conducted pre-application negotiations.

68Delays occurredon the project, which were not relatedto the RAF.

213
However, according to the changesin the planning system as a result of PPSI, pre-

application consultation has become an essentialpart of the planning process,thus

enablingthe RAF to be undertakenaspart of that. -

In total, including the time required to undertakethe community survey and time in
between workshops, the RAF was easily carried out within the 3 month period.
However,it is dependenton project time lines especiallywith regardto Phase2 and 7.

A draft design specification should be available, at the start of the RAF so that

consultation is not based on a blank canvas. This view was supported by the
experiencein the TG casestudy where there was not enoughinformation at the time
to completePhase2 and continuewith remaining Phasesat such an early stagein the
development life cycle. Therefore, there is a need to have an idea of what
developmentis proposedin order for participantsto be able to identify concernsand

significant impacts.

Furthermore,with regard to Phase7 which is not an integral part of the RAF process
itself but neverthelessimportant, it was identified that a number of the selected
SEEDA criteria were not relevant to the outline planning developmentapplication as
the designsat the outline phasewere not detailed enoughto make such specifications.
However, as a processit is recommendedthat the-RAF is carried out at the outline

phase,as most fundamentaldecisionsare carried out at this point and thus it is at this

stage which the RAF has the greatest potential affecting the sustainability of the
development.

Although the timing of the RAF hasbeenspecifiedas well as the time required for the
individual participants to undertakethe different tasks calculated, it is important to
it is appropriate (Chapter 6). Therefore, Chapter 6 provides an
evaluate whether
overview of participants' views of the time commitment and timing suitability.

5.6. What resources does the RAF require?

In Chapter4, oneof the mainbarriersto theadoptionof sustainabilityassessment and
monitoringpracticeswas seen to be lack of and
resources, in particularthe lack of a
budgetfor LA to fund suchpractices,coupledwith the lack of enforcementpowersto
require such processesfrom developers. The RAF was designed to minimise the

214
requirementsneededto carry out the process.The specific measuresusedto minimise
cost are outlined below togetherwith a summaryof the cost of running the RAF

The RAF is structuredin such a way that the onw for funding for the development

and monitoring of the indicators is on the developer.The payment for the long-term
monitoring is securedby S106 agreementsand is thus agreedat the planning phase,as
was the casein the GM casestudy. However, should the developerbe a public body,
it is envisagedthat the processand monitoring would be publicly funded.This model
has been based on the current trend in planning applications to secure long-term

monitoring through S106 agreementsfor traffic monitoring as part of Green Travel

Plans. However, from interviews conducted(Chapter 4) with LA officers who had
experience of Green Travel plans, exampleswere identified where monitoring had
failed to take place, eventhough set out in a S106agreement,due to the lack of detail
in the monitoring specification.Therefore, great attention was paid to ensuringthat a
detailed monitoring framework was specified, including timing of sampling and

samplesize as well as agreementwith regardto paymentresponsibilities,so that such

issueswill not arise(SeeAppendix 10).

With regard to the cost of carrying out the RAF to the point of developing the
69
indicators and carrying out the sustainability assessment the private planning
,
consultant involved in the RAF case study estimatedthe cost of this processto a
developer at E10,000. This estimate was based on the proviso that a consultancy

would be coordinating the processand the developerwould pay for all the different

consultants' time, including the facilitator, and the RAF community consultation,but

not for LA officers' time (seeTable 5.8).

Resourcesand associatedconsultanttime spent on the RAF has been minimised by
integrating the RAF requirements to existing' statutory planning application

requirements, for example the SCI, EIA Additionally,

requirements. becauseof the
use of the SEEDA checklist and RESCUE criteria which are freely available tools, the

cost is minimised further. However, the above is merely a description and in order to
establish whether the RAF meets the feasibility specification (Chapter 4), a further

evaluation by case study stakeholdersand primarily the developer who funded the

processneedsto be carried out (seeChapter6).

" i.e. not including the long-term monitoring costs,asthis would vary significantly betweenprojects.

215
5.7. Conclusion
In this Chapter the RAF processhas been described with instructions included to

enablefuture replication. The backgroundof the case studieswas outlined including

the additional difficulties associatedwith the transitions in planning at the time of the
trial. The RAF consists of six phases, each of which has been described and
by
accompanied the resultsof the casestudy trial. The elementsof this processwhich
are flexible according to the BRP were specified, including those which are non-
negotiable minimum requirements (e.g. the community census).The RAF is designed
to be context specific and therefore builds in flexibility into each of its phases,to
allow for the formulation of a context specific procedure;for example,it doesnot pre-
specify participants. Best practice is recommendedbut most importantly minimum
requirementsare clearly stipulatedwith the aim of avoidanceof manipulation of the
process. Having described the RAF, it is important to evaluate the process and
identify whetherit is in accordancewith its specifications(Box 4.1; seeChapter6).

As a result of the casestudy implementation,the RAF processwas modified in light

of the experience. Primarily it was established that Task 3 of Phase4 which requires
stakeholders to identify indicator selection criteria was too complex to be carried out
as a prioritisation exercise,and subsequentlyis proposedto be conductedin an open
discussion. Additionally, the RESCUE sustainability remediation criteria were
identified as not adding much to the process.On the positive side, although the RAF
is aimedat developinga BRP specific evaluation,the fact that the developmentdesign

was alteredas a result of the is

process an addedbenefit.

216
Chapter 6. Evaluating the RAF (The Metaevaluation)
This chapter evaluatesthe RAF and its potential for future application (objective g,
Section 1.2) and comprises the third ýnd fmal stage of this project (Figure 1.4).
During the review of existing sustainability evaluation literature, it was established
that very few existing tools are evaluated(Bell and Morse, 2003) which, accordingto
Patton(1997), is common to most evaluationS70.
Therefore,an evaluationof the RAF

was designedinto the researchprocessfrom the onset(Section 1.3).

As the RAF is an evaluationprocessin itself, the evaluationof the RAF representsa

metaevaluation(Scriven, 1969).Stufflebeam (2001 p. 186) states:
'like any other kind of evaluation,metaevaluationsmay have a formative role
in helping an evaluation succeedand a summativerole in helping interested
partiesjudge the evaluation's merit and worth'.
In his guidanceon how to carry out metaevaluations,Stufflebearn(2001 and 2001a)
stressesthe importance of agreeingthe criteria to be used for the metaevaluationwith

evaluationusers,stating 'there needs to be an up-front understanding of the criteria to

be applied in evaluating the target evaluation' (ibid, p. 195) (in this casethe RAF).
Therefore, as part of the causal design of the RAF (Stage 1, Figure 1.4), the

specificationsdeveloped to design the RAF (Box 4.1) are also used to conduct its

metaevaluation.

Stufflebearn (2001) points out the need for both an outcome and process
metaevaluation. The outcome metaevaluation is summative in nature and aims to
the evaluation (the RAF) achieved its aim and purpose. This is
establish whether
carriedout in Section 6.2 of this The
chapter. process metaevaluationis formative,

and usually internal in nature (Patton,1986)and in this caseaims to identify the

strengthsand weaknesses of the RAF and make recommendations for procedural

the experienceof
improvements.In order to conductthis processmetaevaluation,
implementingthe RAF in the casestudiesis judgedagainstthe specificationcriteria
in Box 4.1, conductingwhat is classifiedin evaluationtermsas 'PatternMatching'
betweentheorisedandobservedvariables(seeYin, 1993).
.

70not just sustainabilityevaluationtools

217
Taking the RAF specificationsin turn (Box 4.1) the processmetaevaluationincludes

an evaluationof the RAF's:

-Capacity for long-term monitoring (Section6.3);

-Capacity to be holistic (Section 6.4);

mCapacityto be context specific (Section6.5);

-Feasibility (Section6.6);
-Compatibility and integrationwith existing planning processes(Section 6.7);
-Participatory approach(Section 6.8).

When reading the results of this metaevaluation,it may appearthat the RAF is a self-
fulfilling prophecy. As so much emphasis was given to identifying the BRP

evaluationusers' needs and in involving them in the developmentof the RAF (causal
design,Stage 1), the responsesobtainedin the metaevaluationappearalmost identical
to the specifications and aspirationsof BRP stakeholderspresented in Chapter 4.
Therefore, the appearanceof the self-fulfilling prophecy is anticipated and can even
be viewed as a good result.

The metaevaluationalso aimed to establishthe potential for the wider application (or

use) of the RAF; the results of this investigation are presentedin Section 6.9. This is
followed by recommendations,put forward by RAF case study participants, of

measures required to enable the RAFs' wider use (Section 6.10). However, prior to

presenting the results of the metaevaluation, there is a need to explore the methods
usedto obtain and analyse the data (Section 6.1) of the metaevaluation, which in turn

will help the

establish scopeof the conclusionsdrawn.

6.1. Metaevaluation methodology

As recommended by Stufflebearn(2001),a varietyof datacollectiontechniqueswere
the
usedto conduct metaevaluation (bothoutcome and process).The datacollectionis
basedentirely on the GM casestudy. As this is a unique casestudy, a cautious
approach is requiredwhen drawing generalconclusions, in particularin the caseof
the outcomemetaevaluation (Patton, 1997; See Section 6.2). The methodsused

218
included: observations (see Chapter 5), self-administered participant evaluation
interviews71(seeTable 6.1).
questionnaires,and telephonesemi-structured

Table 6.1. Data collection methods used for Metaevaluation

Method Datacollection periodI responserate.
ParticipantObservation(author)(See Chapter5 for Throughoutthe RAFprocess100%
methoddescription)
Non-Participantobserver(CambridgeUniversity)(See DuringPhase4 and6 workshops100%
Chapter5 for methoddescription)
Evaluation (seeAppendix11)
questionnaires After Phase4 and 6 workshops/ 100%responserate
(15 RA participants)
Semi-Structuredtelephoneinterviews(SeeAppendix Post RAF completion1100% responserate (15 RAF
12for listof questions) participants)

The evaluationquestionnaireswere completedby all participantsin Phases4 and 6 of

the RAF (seeAppendix 11, for questionnaireresults).The questionnairesconsistedof
Likert type questions with scorings ranging from I to 10; with I indicating bad

performance or complete dissatisfaction with regard to the particular RAF objective

and 10 at the opposite of the scale indicating complete satisfaction or excellent
performance. Stakeholders' identities are not disclosed and, where quoted, are

referencedas stakeholders I to 15. Only where the view presented is particularly

relevantto the professionalcapacityof the interviewee is their position mentioned (for

example'developer').

However,the questionnaires
were limited in the informationthey provided,as the
'why' questionsbehind the answerscould not' be addressed.Therefore,semi-
structuredtelephone interviewsof all 15 participantswere carried out (after the
completion of the RAF processincludingPhase 7;ýseeChapter5) againachievinga
100%responserate (seeAppendix12 for list of questions).Morgan (1985,p. 36)
advocates this researchapproach and states 'interviewing participants provides an

effectivesubstitutefor annchair speculationin explqining results'.

Participantswere also questionedwith regardto their opinion as to whether the RAF

should be applied to all (Section

developments 6-9). Participantswere askedto answer
basedon their experienceas professionalsbut also to draw their conclusionsbasedon
their experienceof the process.The limitations of this internal evaluation approach

71Pleaserefer to chapter4 for a descriptionof semi structuredinterview theory.

219
 documented (Patton, 1997) and include potential bias72
; therefore
are widely
conclusions can only be tentative. However, these conclusions are nonetheless
important as they are the opinions of BRP stakeholders who have a working
knowledge of the BRP sustainability evaluation current practice and the limitations

and needswhich such an evaluation should serve,as well as experienceof the RAF.
Therefore, they are well placed to assess the'potential for the RAF's wider
application.

With regard to the process metaevaluation (Sections 6.3 to 6.8), external non-

participant observation results are used in conjunction with internal participant

evaluations (including the author's who reflects, on her experiences as an RAF
facilitator). When carrying out the evaluation below, reference is also made to the
descriptiveevaluationcasestudy resultsof Chapter5.

To obtain a greater understandingof the results presented,it is underlined that for

both questionnairesa 100% response rate was achieved, and all 15 case study

participants involved were interviewed. This provides a robust and complete data set
from which to draw conclusions.In addition, the triangulation of methodsincluding
contributesto anoverallrobustmethodology.
bothinternalandexternalevaluations

6.2 RAF outcome evaluation

The outcome evaluation of the RAF is twofold. It aims to answer the question of

whether the RAF achieved its aim (the development of a long-term sustainability
evaluation of the case study BRP) but more importantly to establish whether the
the evaluation as formulated in the causal design and perceived by case
purpose of
study participantswas achieved.

For this outcomeevaluation,conclusionsare only drawn with regard to the GM case

It be that becausethe RAF achieved its aim in one casestudy
study. cannot assumed
it do
that will always so. Furthermore,the RAF by design has multiple purposesand
built-in flexibility, and requiresparticipantsto specify the exact purposeat Phase4 of

72As participantsare askedto evaluatea processthey havebeenpart of, they can be consideredbiased,
in the sensethat they are most likely to be positive in their evaluations.

220
the RAF. This has the implication that eachtime the RAF is carried out, it could have
a slightly modified purpose; for example, emphasiscould be placed on feedback to

policymakers or on informing development funders. The discrepancies between the

causal design purpose of the RAF (Section 4.7 and Box 4.1) and those purposes

perceived by case study participants are therefore pointed out. For ease of
comparison,the potential uses the RAF should fulfil as specified by the interviewed
in
stakeholders Chapter4 were:
the
mEnable structured considerationof sustainability issues in planning application
decisionmaking.
o Improve communication.
o Improve understandingof sustainability.
@Provide feedbackinformation to policy and decisi6nmakerswith regardto the effect
of the development and their decisions.

o Mitigate againstthe build and forget culture

o Enhance learning through evaluation.

-Improve the sustainability of the BRP (ultimate goal).

From the descriptiveevaluationin Chapter5 and the reports in Appendices9 and 10 it

is obvious that indicators to evaluatethe long-term sustainability of the project were
developedand used as specified in Section 5.4. The nature of developedindicators is
in Sections 6.3 to 6.5; however, it is important to establish whether the
evaluated
felt that the of
objectives the RAF hadbeenmet.
participants

The questionnaires asked whether participants felt that the objectives of the

workshops had been achieved. The average scores achieved were 7.2 for the first
7.3 for the second,with 10 being the maximum score. Consensus
was
workshop and
in the selection of indicators and criteria, as confirmed by the non-
achieved
participantobservantwho stated:
bodyianguage
&overallconsensuswasachievedand waspositivewith people
nodding leaningforward
assent, etc'.
participants claimed in the interviews to be satisfied with the sustainability
indicators selected. This is an important
assessmentcriteria and monitoring
considering the difference in the values and understandingof
achievement,
which,
sustainability as in
discussed 2
Chapters 4nd 4, can affect the selectionof

221
indicators (seealso Section6.3). It can thereforebe concludedthat with regardto the

aim of developing a sustainability evaluation strategy, the RAF was generally

successful.

More important, however, is whetherthe RAF processwas perceivedas being useful,

which relatesto whether it was thought to have achjevedits intendedpurposes.When

carrying out the interviews, the answerto this question was obtainedby questioning
participants, 'Do you think this is a processwhich should be applied to all major
developments? '. All participantsstatedthat the RAF processshould be applied to all
73 but whenjustifying their answersthey
developments to the
major , referred purpose
of the RAF. Therefore, although a direct answerto the question of whether the RAF
its
achieved purpose has not been 74
obtained , participants' justifications of why the
RAF should be widely applied, provided the answerto the purposeand use they saw
the RAF fulfilling.

This questionwas not askeddirectly as it becameapparentthat different stakeholders

perceived the RAF to fulfil a different function, which in many caseswas related to
their role in the BRP process. So, for example, the policy off icer saw the main
purpose of the RAF as a tool informing future policy, whereas the building control
officer saw it as a useful communication process.However, stakeholdersexpresseda
number of common uses which they saw the RAF as achieving, discussed
below.

One of the universally acceptedroles of evaluationsis that of providing information

(Stufflebeam, 2001; Patton, 2002). Nine out of the 15 participants advocatedthe

wider use of the RAF, basedon the perceivedfunction of the RAF as an infonnation

provisionmechanism,with the ability to improvefuturedevelopments

andpractice.
For examplethe developerstated:
'this processwill be of valuebecauseI will be able to havea recordof what

works and what doesn't on the ground which I can use for future
developments'.

73Discussedin Section6.6
74Mainly dueto thedifficulty of explainingthedifferenceto interviewees
betweenobjectivesand
purposewithout influencing theanswers

222
This is in line with conclusions drawn by Marshall (2005) who identifies the

generationof knowledge of which measureswork on the ground as an incentive for

EIA follow-up monitoring. The lack of systematicinformation gatheringwith regard
to the sustainability and wider impacts of regeneration projects is widely

acknowledged in the literature (Law, 1988; Gissendanner,2003; see Section 2.3). LA

casestudy participants,as in Chapter 4, commented on the current lack of feedback

with regard to the efficacy of measures implementedand noted how the RAF should
overcome this through the monitoring proposed during the construction and post-
developmentperiod:
'Once we have our monitoring results back we will be able to know if what we
did was right and maybelearnfrom our mistakes,makingsure we don't do the
same thingsfor other developments'(S2). -
For example, one of the major issuesidentified by participants was the loss of jobs
following the closure of the Paper Mills. Although, the proposeddevelopmentwas
housing it was envisaged that the influx of people would result in
predominantly
greater income expenditure in the locality which would have subsequentpositive
businesses opening and new employment opportunities. However, as is
effects of new
by Imrie and Thomas (1993), this is an assumption which in similar cases
emphasised
be
hasproved to wrong. Therefore,by stipulating indicators to monitor the numberof

jobs created, town centre vacancy rates and contextual indicators of incoming
(see Box 5.8), the LA could obtain an understanding of whether its decision
residents
to allow a property led in
regenerationproject was effective generatingemployment,
inform decision making for future developments.
which could subsequently

Imrie and Thomas (1993) point out that much urban policy is based on misleading
like that of the economic-trickle down effect of property led regeneration
assumptions
to poorer communities. In Chapter4 one of the functions proposed for the RAF was

the generationof development level information with regard to the effect of policies
the ground. Interestingly, the metaevaluation results showed that the RAF was
on
as a useful process for providing information for policy formulation and
perceived
which is in line with the initial purpose.In fact, the policy off 1cerstated:
examination,
'Currently, we have broad indicators monitoring the effect of policies;
however,there are no indicators relating to the actual effect of developments,
in
which a senseare wherepolicies are implemented, by
so using the RAF we

223
 wereable to createa link betweentheresultswe achievethrough SEA and SA
monitoring and EIA or in generaldevelopmentmonitoring. In the long-term
should this be adoptedwidely and carried out by the LA for all major
developments, be to
we will able createan importantdatabasewhichwill give
usa muchmoreaccuratereflectionof theeffectofpolicies on theground.

The RAF was also seen as a useful tool to aid planning decision making basedon
sustainability criteria and this was used to argue for the wider adoption of the RAF.
Planning decision making was perceived to be aided by a range of RAF

characteristicsdescribedbelow. Participantscommented on how the RAF increased

their understandingof the different sustainabilityissuesand of the developmentas a

whole which, in turn, they felt facilitated decision making. The use of the SEEDA
checklist criteria and its benchmarks was particularly favoured by the developer,who
felt that a clear understandingwas obtainedof the priorities for the site as well as the

specifications which needed to be designedinto the development in order to perform

well on the sustainability benchmarks. A numberof stakeholdersalso commentedon
the benefit of the RAF process in providing a collaborative setting in which to carry

out discussionsin way,

a non-adversarial which in turn facilitated decision making.
the
Stakeholderssupported wider adoptionof the RAF based on its featureof bringing
the different together
stakeholders to shareexpertiseand knowledge. One participant
summarisesthe views nicely, stating:
'by hearingall differentspecialists'opinionson the development,
it's like a
jigsaw comingtogether,only then do you understandwhy somethingsare
happeningand why othersnot, so Ifeel i(brings realism to the discussions
beingcarried out... thisprocesshelpedfocusdiscussionwith regard to what
wasneeded and what was which
possible, is very important.
I think realisticis

a keywordfor this (S
process' 11)
-

Someparticipantsmerelystatedthatthe RAF shouldbe widely adoptedasit enhances

communicationand, in the words of the DC officer, 'helps smooth the planning
process'. Many of the abovepoints relateto the participatorynature of the RAF
is
which evaluated furtherin Section6.8.

224
Finally, the overarchingpurposeof the RAF was seenby many of the stakeholdersto
be the improvement of the BRP's sustainability. Participants commented on the
RAF's ability to help implement sustainability in the design of the development

proposal.Intervieweeswho had seenthe application since its submissionwere pleased

that a number of the elements proposed through the RAF were subsequently
introducedin the revised design statements.For example,one of the SEEDA criteria
(Appendix 10) was the provision of safe pedestrianand bike routes around the site

and to facilities. In order to obtain a high benchmark score (see Figure 5.11), the
designstatementwas amendedto include cycle and pedestrianroutes on-and off-site,

and agreedthrough subsequentdiscussions with the LA. However, the modification

of proposed BRP designs was not an explicit aim of the RAF process (see Section
4.7). In fact, the negotiation of BRP characteristicswas not allowed during the

workshops. However, through the statementof sustainability priorities and extensive

discussions,these issuescan (as proven in this case)become explicit, to the extent
that developersdecideto alter the design.

Another way participants felt that the RAF improved the sustainability of the BRP

was through making decision makers take long-term responsibilities. Participants

commentedon the way that the RAF forced people to think long-term and to take

responsibility.
'I found it very beneficial to have that time out and as a group to sit and

reflect on the long-termpriorities and aims for the area and create indicators

to ensurethat they are realised, becauseall too often there is this mad rush to
sort out the details and get the development on the ground that it is easy to
losefocus ofwhat it is you really want to achieve' (S14).

A numberof positivecommentswereprovidedaboutthe ability of the RAF to enable

the group to clearly assign responsibilitieswith regard to future monitoring
(see
obligations Section6.3).

felt
In summaryparticipants thattheRAF wasusefulin:
1. Aiding decision making in the planning application process;
2. Providing feedback information on the results of the development with
the purpose of:

225
 a. improving future development
decision making (basedon accumulated
experience);
b. informing policy;
3. Improving the sustainability of the proposed development through:

a. increased sense of responsibility and consideration of long-term

impactsin decisionmaking;
b. changesin the proposeddesign made in order to achievea good score
on the SEEDA checklist assessment.

Participants perceived the RAF to be capable of achieving the aforementioned

purposes, which are very much in line with its causaldesign (Section 4.7). However,

caution is recommended with regard to the conclusions which can be drawn. The BRP

at the time of these interviews was yet to be c9mpleted and no monitoring had

actually been carried out. Although changeswere madeto the design as a result of the
RAF, it cannot be assumedthat the RAF improved the sustainability of the proposed
development.In order to draw conclusionsas to whether the changesto the design
improved the overall sustainability of the development, the monitoring results
the 9 monitoring period75would have to be
obtained at the end of year stipulated
This
obtained. issueis further
explored in Chapter
7.

However,the outcomemetaevaluation result of the RAF is that its objectiveto

developa sustainabilityevaluationstrategywas achieved;and it is positive that
felt RAF a number of purposes for its future
participants the wasuseful,proposing
applicationbased on their casestudyexperiences. Ideally, it would be recommended
that researchon the particularBRP is continuedover the next 9 yearsto establish
the monitoring is how
undertaken, it is used and whether the proposed
whether
developmentperforms sustainablyas a result.

6.3. Evaluation of the RAF's capacity for long-term monitoring

As describedin Chapter5, the RAF aimsto evaluýtethe long-termsustainabilityof
at the planning phase as well as
BRPs by carrying out a one-off assessment

75Ideally,assustainabilityis a dynamicconceptmonitoringresultswouldhaveto becollectedand

indefinitely,
although this is very difficult in practice.
analysed

226
developing long-term indicators to evaluate their sustainability during the

constructionand operationphase.The long-term monitoring was securedthrough the

developmentof a S106 agreement,which proved to be a useful way of overcoming
the enforcementbarrier identified in Chapter4 (seeSection6.7).

The follow up metaevaluationinterviews found that participantswere in generalvery

satisfiedwith both criteria and indicators, all stating agreement
with the final selection
aswell as the use of S106 to
agreements securefunding for long-term monitoring. All
15 stakeholdersstatedthe importanceof the RAF with regard to securing long-term

monitoring with commentssuchas:

'this is thefirst time that long-term monitoring has been highlighted at this
early stage...this is important because otherwise, monitoring becomesan
afterthought once the developerhas gone, and the responsibility and bill then
falls to the council, this process value is in *thatit enabled us to deal with the

monitoring issueupfront. '(S 13)

Although participants were in general very satisfied with the long-term monitoring

securedand indicators proposed,there are discrepancies between the results of the

case study and theoretical best practice. Long-term monitoring for the casestudy was
'
secured for nine years. There are two methodological limitations to this approach.
Firstly, ideally indicators shouldbe developedto evaluatethe sustainability of BRP at

each distinct life cycle period. However, in the way that the RAF was carried out,
long-term monitoring indicators were developed in the planning phase in order to

overcome the enforcementbarrier. It cannot be guaranteed that following the nine

developmentperiod these initial indicators would be what the end
year case study
users of the developmentwould have selected,or that the monitoring will continue
beyondthe nine years.

In fact in the proposedmonitoring framework timescales (Appendix 10), post-

is
developmentmonitoring restricted to three years and is not granted indefinitely,

thusreducing the ideal systemicapproach in thernýthodology.This is clearlyan issue

to implicationsand feasibilityissues(seeSection6.6). The nature of the
related cost
development, is
which predominantly housing (seeChapter5), also has an effecton

227
the longevity of the proposedmonitoring. This point was elaboratedon by a number
of participants.
I it is very rare you will get any developerwanting to take long-term interestin

a development,as time passes it becomesa liability; this trend is obvious

when you look at the number of developmentcompanies declaring bust and
changingnameyear after year' (S 14).

'it is much easier to carry out long-term monitoring of industrial units or

retail space because you can transfer the onus to the owner, for example
Tesco's, however when you are dealing with mixed use or a housing
development,you cannot possibly require individual house owners to carry

out long-term monitoring'(S2).

It becomesobvious that trade-offs are required. L6ng-term monitoring ad infinitum,

though desirable for an evaluation of BRP sustainability (Chapter 2), currently
even
seems impossible due to the cost and ownership issues involved, especially for

housingor multiple owner developments.However,this doesnot render the proposed

RAF life-cycle evaluation approach obsolete. In the case study, even though

predominantlya housing development,

monitoring through the planning, construction
limited post-development period was secured.This would have the potential to
and a
identify any major issueswhich the LA may wish to follow up and, as statedby one

stakeholder:
is
'this process a big step forward in the direction we ought to be moving
regarding ensuringsustainability and monitoring it(SIO).

This issueis exploredRifther in Chapter7.

6.4. Evaluation of RAFs holistic approach

in
it wasestablished the design
causal thattheevaluation shouldbe holistic; i. e. assess
social and economicissues as well as the development as a whole,
environmental
than the building alone. In Chapter 5 it was described how the RAF was
rather
designedto achieve the above, for examplemaking use of the SEEDA sustainability
well as designing the workshop exercises so there was no scope for
checklist, as

228
participants to trade off or prioritise between social, environmental and economic
issues.

This approachwas recognisedand valued by all participants.They commented

positively on the opportunity which the RAF provided to consider in a structured
approach the different aspects of sustainability as well as the wider issues involved in

a development:
'this process madeus think about all the different sustainability issues,usually
in
we work our own small silos and have our own priorities, here we had no
option, we had to consider social, environmental and economic aspectsas
well as how they allfitted into the wider picture'(S2).
This phenomenonof silo thinking and decision making in LAs is elaboratedupon in
Carley and Christie (1992), who underline that sustainability issuescannot be dealt

with in the sameway as other governmentactivities and recommendthe setting up of

what they classify as 'action centred networks' which have many characteristicsin

commonwith the RAF participantgrou

andtools, it wasestablished
In the examinationof existingevaluationprocesses that
the systematicconsiderationof social effects was limited. Therefore, the participants'
that the RAF dealt with social issues appropriately is encouraging.
perception
Interviewees saw the consideration of social and wider development issues as an
important novelty:
'I think the value of this process is that it enables the greater acceptanceof

social matters to have a bearing on the development rather than looking

purely at the position and design of buildings; it's about how people will
interact in that and I think it is always difficult for one to guess... yet it is

possibly one of the most important areas. I felt this process helped us to
describe these issues,quantify them as well as qualify them worthy of the

attention which they deserve'(S 12).

However, by looking at the sustainability objectives selected for the BRP by the
(Box 5.1) and the developed indicators and criteria (Section 5.4), it could
participants
be arguedthat the balancehas been shifted with an over-emphasisof socio-economic
issuesin relation to environmental.Sheate(2002,p. 474) states:

229
 'care is needed that, in developing sustainability tools, environmental

are not undervaluecr.

considerations
This raises the question as to whether a numbqr of pre-specified environmental

objectives and criteria should be required to addressthis issue. However, it could be

argued that this would limit the context specific approach of the process, a point

elaboratedupon in Section 6.5.

It was established in Chapters 2 and 4 that there is a need for sustainability

evaluationsto addressthe effects of developmentsas a whole rather than just the

building aspects.The RAF aimed to addressthat by using the SEEDA checklist and

asking participants to think of the wider implications. Interestingly, from an

examination of the indicators and criteria selected, it is apparent that wider
community implications feature in a number of these.Again it could be arguedthat
the environmental performanceof buildings did not figure strongly enough in this
process (Section 5.4). Participants commentedpositively on the RAF's capacity to
evaluatethe development as a whole:
4especiallyfor regenerationprojects whoseimplications are meant to be much
larger than the developmentitseIC,the RAF process was very useful as we
focused on the long-term and wider sustainability aimsfor the area and how
thesecould be achieved' (S5).

In relation to the RAF's capacity to evaluate the long-term sustainability of

remediation processesholistically, the results obtained from the trial were less

positive. It was established through the causaldesign (Chapters 2- 4) that long-term

sustainability indicators of remediation did

processes not exist, and would have to be
developed for the specific BR With regard to the short term assessmentof the

proposed remediation strategy, the RESCUE criteria were used. However, an

examination of these (Appendix 8) demonstrates that they do not address all

remediationsustainabilityissuesholistically.

It was Ithus not surprising that the feedback regarding the use of the RESCUE

checklist was not very positive. Participating contaminated land professionals

the RESCUE checklist for not containing benchmarks to assessperformance
criticised

230
and for mainly addressingissuesalreadycoveredby regulations.For instance,the LA

enviromnental health officer stated:

'this checklist is ve?y vague; I don't think it contributes anything new with
to I mean its criteria ýonsist of questionssuch as 'have
regard sustainability.
you undertaken a risk assessment, things which are required by regulations
anyway'.

He also commentedon the inability to enforce someof the criteria proposedthrough

the RESCUEchecklist.
I can't refuse the remediation strategy on the basis of these sustainability
criteria... as long as they prove they are going to clean up the site, there is
I
nothing can do; there need to bepolicies or Regsto back this.

In fact, when one examinesthe long-term remediationmonitoring strategy proposed

for the casestudy (Box 5.9), it is apparentthat it all relatesto regulatory requirements

regarding landfill gas monitoring etc, as well as health and safety work practice

regulations.Based on the above, it can be concluded that the RESCUE checklist is far

from ideal, with regard to evaluating the sustainability of remediation strategiesas

well as ensuringlong-term contamination monitoring. More researchis required in the

development of sustainability assessmentcriteria and monitoring indicators of

remediationprocesses.

6.5. Evaluation of the RAFs context specific approach

In order for any definition of sustainability to be implemented or it
operationalised,
to be (Breheny, 1994).'Therefore, the RAF was designed
needs made context specific
to evaluatethe sustainability objectiveswhich were relevant to the particular BRP as
defined through the community census and participant workshops (see Box 5.1).
Participantswere questionedabout whether or not they felt that the RAF enableda
evaluation of the development.All participants perceived this was the
context specific
indicative commentsare presented in Box 6.1.
caseand a number of

231
Box 6.1 Comments supporting the RAFs context specific approach

allimportant
'I feltwehaveaddressed issuesforthelocality
andthetypeof development(S
I)'.

andcriteriaweremuchmoredetailed
'theindicators androbustthanwehadexpected
theycouldbe(S2)',

'byselectinganddevelopingc4itedaandindicators for thespecificdevelopmentwhichwererelevant to the

localcontext, yougota clearerpictureof whatto expectfor as wellas put thediscussion intoa realistic
I
perspective, feel
thisprocess
was importantin determining to expect(S10)'.
whatwasrealistic
andtheopportunity
'Theflexibility to changethingsto suitthedevelopment
wereveryimportant
andI thinkit
gaveusalla greater oftheprojectasa whole(S7).
senseof ownership '

A particular element of the RAF method which was perceived as helping select

context specific criteria and indicators was the community censuswhich was viewed
by all 76
stakeholders An indicative comment by one participant
positively . provided
was:
6weall think we know what the community needs and wants, andfrom the

results of the survey I think we were all surprised to find out that we all have
different perspectivesand that they are not necessarilycompatible to thoseof
the community, so taking into account the survey results when selecting the
indicators was very worthypart of thisprocess' (S8).

Although it is very positive that participants felt that the RAF was able to produce

context specific indicators and criteria, there are elements in the design of the RAF
methodology which are a departurefrom theoretical best practice. Bell and Morse
(1999) and Ukaga and Maser (2004), recommendthat stakeholdersshould design
their own sustainability evaluation indicators and benchmarks.However, following
the advice provided by interviewees in Chapter 4, in particular with regard to
simplicity and current skills and sustainability evaluation know-how, the RAF
proposed the use of the SEEDA checklist as well as existing SEA and SA indicators

as a basis. This approachcould be arguedto mininlise the systemismof the RAF and
the capacity of the evaluation to be truly context specific. However, the RAF
stipulates that SEEDA criteria selection is undertaken by BRP stakeholders
themselvesbased on the identified BRP sustainability priorities and where relevant
other criteria can be added.

" More analysison the community censusis provided in Section6.7

232
In its present state, the SEEDA checklist is a web based tool with pre-weighted

criteria. The web element of the SEEDA checklist is not usedby the RAF. Insteadit is

stipulated that the selection should be guided by the sustainability objectives which

are context specific as they are establishedin Phase4 of the RAF process by the

workshop participants,as well as the results of the community census.

Interestingly, case study participants were in favour of this approach,commenting

positively on the use of the SEEDA checklist as a basis but also on the flexibility to

amend or add other criteria where appropriate. The use of a pre-determined list of
to
criteria choosefrom was not seenas a negativething. On the contrary, it was stated
that:
'Having the benchmarksand criteria was really helpful as it also givesyou a

clearer idea to
of what expect,not many of us have the expertise or time to
develop our own new criteria each time, so tailoring the checklist to local

circumstancesis definitely the way to do it'(S6).

it can therefore be concluded that the balance between stakeholdersusing the pre-

specified checklist with establishedbenchmarks and providing the ability to choose

context relevant criteria from that list was successful-inthis case.

However, the author does have some reservationsover the amount of flexibility that
be introduced.In the casestudy, wider sustainability issuessuch as energyand
should
did not feature in the evaluations (i. e. participants didn't identify
water conservation
them as priorities) even though they are international and national sustainability

objectives (See Section2.1). It is a concernthat these issuesmay rarely be prioritised

under such local sustainability processes,in particular when they are based on
immediate issues such as open space
community views; as other more visual and
may well take precedence (Fenwick and Elcock, 2004;
provision and employment
Burningham and Thrush, 2001). Weston et al (1999) point out the need to take into
issueson a national aswell as local scale and demonstratehow
account sustainability
this can complicate local planning decision making. It is thus recommendedthat

further researchis undertakento establish some acceptableobligatory criteria from

the SEEDA checklist such as minimum standards of energy efficiency, water
and waste minimisation. Such an ap&oach would enable both local as
conservation
well as intergenerational
and trans-boundary sustainability issuesto be addressed.

233
With regard to the ability of the RAF to develop long-term sustainability indicators

which are context specific, interesting comments were made by participants. As

described in Chapter 5, the RAF proposes, where relevant, the use of existing
indicators or baselines. In the case of the pilot, SEA and SA indicators were

considered relevant (Table 5.5). However, flexibility was introduced with the
opportunity to proposealternativeindicators as well asbenchmarks.

77
5
During Phase of the RAF pilot, was observed that participants felt that the scale
it

of the LDF SEA indicators were, in many cases, too large to be relevant to the
specific BRP proposal, thus limiting their context specific nature. The issue of
indicator scale limiting relevanceto local level decision making is one identified by
Therivel (2004) as a problem even regarding SEA data collection and analysis.
Therefore, in the GM case study adaptationswere made to overcome this issue.
Although the same indicators were used as in the SEA and Annual Monitoring
Report, the data collection sampleswere modified..For example, the SEA indicator
'% of residentssurveyedwho feel 'fairly safe' or 'very safe' after dark whilst outside
in their neighbourhood' (Box 5.8) was used, which refers to and provides a baseline
for the whole Borough. However, for the purpose of the RAF monitoring strategy

proposed (Appendix 10), the sampleareawas modified, requiring data collection only
in the BRP site and neighbourhoodsurroundings.This would enablethe effect that the
BRP is having on the neighbourhoodto be determined.However, the value of using
the SEA indicators as a basis is that the results obtainedcan then be comparedto the
Borough trend, and therefore it will be possibleto ascertainwhether the development
is performing better or worsethan the wider local area.

In conclusion, participants perceived the RAF to be capable of enabling context

despite its use of existing criteria and indicators. However, a
specific evaluations,
the results obtained from the casestudy lead to some reservationsover the
review of
of flexibility which should be allowed, and it is suggestedthat a number of
extent
environmentalperformancecriteria should be made mandatory. Finally, with regard
to the evaluation of the remediation.phaseof BRP, the RESCUE criteria were found

77by the author in the capacity of RAF facilitator

234
to be of limited value, and it is thus proposedthat further researchis neededto enable
the development of remediation process sustainability indicators, criteria and
benchmarks(seeChapter7).

6.6. RAF Feasibility evaluation

In this section an evaluation of the feasibility of the RAF processis conducted.The
feasibility criteria used for this metaevaluationare basedon the recommendationsof
BRP interviewees (Chapter 4). The RAF would have to be feasible with regard to
time and resourcerequirements,as well as to ensurethat it considersthe skills of the
evaluationusers.A descriptiveevaluation of how thesefeasibility elementshavebeen
designedinto the RAF and carried out in the casestudy has already beenpresentedin
Chapter 5. In the sub-sections below, the results of the process feasibility
based
metaevaluation 78
on casestudy participants' views arepresented .

6.6.1. Duration and Timing

The time required and appropriatetiming to carry out the RAF were describedin
Section 5.5. However, during the metaevaluation interviews, participants were

questionedabout their views on the timing and duration of the RAF. They were asked
to consider whether if the RAF was widely adopted (for example required through
legislation) they would feel that the time required by the process was reasonable

considering their workload. By framing the questionin this way, broader conclusions
regarding the of
appropriateness the time required to carry out the RAF could be
drawn.

With regard to timing (i. e. how early in the planning process should the RAF be
initiated), the timing of the GM casestudy was seenas ideal. In fact, the early
initiation of the RAF processwas statedas one of the main strengthsof the process,

andperceived as enabling the RAF to achieveits defined purpose(See Section6.2):

'The early consideration of the sustainability issuesallowed their application
in the revised design statementsand gave the opportunity to improve the

overall sustainabilityof the development

and notjust to evaluateit, so ifyou

11Theseresultsarebasedon questions
6 to 8 (Appendix12)aswell astheevaluationquestionnaire
Appendix11.

235
 ask me the RAF has to be undertakenearly on in the pre application phase'
(SI5).

'Byfollowing this structuredprocessand bringing monitoring to theforefront

consultantsneed to consider their in

mitigation measures much greater detail

as well as design and propose more robust and valid indicators and a
monitoring framework to monitor their success something which doesn't
usually happen' (Developer'splanning consultant).

Both theseperceivedbenefits are in line with Wood et al (2006) who commenton the
value of early participative scoping exercises in EIA. However, based on the
experience of the TG case study, there needs to be at least a draft proposal or design

specification / master plan proposed, before the RAF can be undertaken. So, early
initiation is recommended, on the proviso that a draft proposal is available to
79
evaluate .

Delays in the planning processare a widely acknowledgedproblem (Cullingworth

and Nadin, 2001) with the governmentproposing measuresto streamlinethe process,

one of which includes front loading negotiations and discussions prior to the

submissionof the planning application (ODPM, 2005). The RAF, through its design,

promotespre-application submission Therefore,

discussions. it was interesting to find

that many stakeholdersincluding the developerfelt that the RAF process had the
out
ability to speedup the planning processoverall:
'evenfrom thefirst workshop both sides gained an understandingof at least

who in thefuture they would have to liaise with, they obtained contacts and
understanding of their work remits and specialisms which in the long-term
lot
savesa of timeand increases 14).
cooperation'(S

'Getting everyoneinvolved early in the process gives you the opportunity to

work out what theproblems are likely to be beforeyou hit them'(S7).

" Other methodssuch as Enquiry by Design and Planning for Real are more appropriatefor
participatory design of masterplans.

236
Other stakeholders(8,4,15,10) commentedon how the involvement of stakeholders
in the early phasesof the planning processenabledthe avoidanceof delays, usually

createdthrough the duplication of requestsfor information. For example,the building

controlofficer stated:
'From a building control perspective this was an extremelyusefulprocess to
be involved in, as usually we are involved vqrYlate on in theprocess. Usually
by the time we get the plans the developershave already gone through the

consideration of all the issues and have appointed contractors and are
starting the day the plans reach our desk and we are not involved with
developmentcontrol. So when we get involved we start askingfor information
that hasprobably already beenprovided but sometimeswe raise an issueand
it is thefirst time it is raised so it is definitely beneficial, even iffrom a purely
time savingperspective,if we are involved early on in the process as we were
with the RAF.'

This potential capacity of the RAF to speedup and facilitate the planning application

process is very important considering the results of developers' interviews (Chapter

4). Developershad pointed out that in the absenceof legislative requirementsto force

sustainability evaluation, the only other relevant incentives would be for the RAF to

enable and facilitate the obtainment of planning permission. Although encouraging,

these results are highly, situational, and therefore the conclusion that the RAF can
speed up the planning process cannot be generalised or guaranteed for all
developments.

of the time expenditurerequirements

In orderto establishthe appropriateness of the
RAF, stakeholders 'Do
werequestioned: you feel the time spenton carryingout this
was
process reasonable? '(Appendix 12). Importantly,all including
stakeholders the
developerstatedthat the time they wererequiredto allocatewasreasonable andthat
theprocessmadevery efficient useof the limitedtirhe available.Comments included:
'personallyI think it wasvery reasonable, I attenda lot of meetingsand this
to
seemed makeveryeffective
useof thetimeavailable'(S11).

237
However, when stakeholderswere questionedin general: 'Were there any problems

associatedwith carrying out this processT only one issuewas raised (by 10 out of the
15 stakeholdersinvolved), who mentionedthat:
'the secondworkshopseemeda bit too rushed'(S1).
This commentwas also made by the non-participantobserverwho noted that
'participantsappearedto wantmoretimeto completetasky'.Whenstakeholders were
asked aboutwhat could be doneto overcomethis 'issue,
includingwhetherthey felt
moreworkshops were the
required, feelingwas that that would depend
greatlyon the
size and complexityof the development. Three participantsrecommended that the
secondworkshopcould havebeena full day workshopratherthana half-dayone.A
was:
commonresponse
'yes I think the time spent was reasonable,.the second workyhop could have
been a little longer, but whether that is realistically feasible I don't know. I
think it is a matter of getting the right balance according to the scale of the
developmentand I think in this caseit wasprobably about right knowing what

peoplesschedulesare like. ' (S9)

Nine out of the ten stakeholderswho felt the second workshop was pressured
to having read the initial report (with the initial set of criteria and
admitted not
indicators)prior to attendingthe meeting,ashad beenrequired. They thus had to read
the report for the first time during the workshop,which subsequentlyslowed down the

process.
'I think that should the participants at the second workshop had done the

preparatory work necessaryand gone through the report provided in advance

of the I
workyhops, think the time would have beenlesspressured'(S 14)

Overall, then, it seemsthat the time allocated for the RAF process was considered
More formalised, potentially electronic, individual consultation prior to
reasonable.
the second workshop was proposed to reduce thq sense that this session was too
What also emerged though was that flexibility could be introduced with
rushed.
regard to the time allocated. The two workshops are proposed as a minimum
but be whether more or longer workshopswould
requirement participantscould asked
be preferable.However, it is vital (and referredto as the Achilles heel of participatory
that there is continued involvement of participants(Patton, 1997).
evaluationprocess)

238
It is thus preferablethat two workshopsare carried out and that all participants attend
both times (as in the casestudy), rather than more workshopswith the risk of lack of

continualattendance.

6.6.2. Resources
In Section5.6 a descriptiveevaluationof the resourcesrequired to undertakethe RAF

was madeand therefore be

will not reiterated.However, it is important to presentthe

participants' own evaluations of the resource eff icioncy of the process.In general,all
participantsconsidered that the cost of the RAF had been reasonable. The developer's

consultantstated:
'ifyou cost up all the consultants' time and the survey it would probably cost
the developeraround Y10,000which is not unreasonableconsidering the key
role it has had in the ES, Statementof CommunityInvolvement SCI and its
other benefits'.

As funder of the RAF, the developerwas askedspecifically whether he consideredthe

cost of f 10,000to be He
reasonable. responded:
Wat I appreciated was the realistic and co-operative approach which the
LA took; for examplewe all looked at the possibility of using existing data,

and no one was unreasonable in terms of monitoring requirements.Also the

LA provided the rooms andfacilities to undertaketheprocess which I think is
helps build collaboration without being an excessiveburdenfor
positive and
the developer... Now whether it is valuefor money... I am a developer and
ideally wouldprefer not to pay; however,theprocesshas made effectiveuseof
time and has been usedfor different elemeýtsof the ES as well aspart of the
SCI, and in a senseI feel it has helped the planning process, which is an

added bonus,so in this contextIfeel the cost is not '.

unreasonable.

Therefore,the multipurposeuse of the RAF results (Section 5.4) resulted in the initial

for conducting the RAF being perceivedas feasibleor not unreasonable.

cost

The RAF proposesa flexible approach to the funding arrangements of the long-term

evaluation.During the second workshop (Phase 6 of the RAF) there was

sustainability

239
discussionabout who would fund the monitoring and who would carry it out. The

observernoted that:
'Consensuswas reachedby all participants that the monitoringwould be
funded by the developer,but the onus would be on the LA to higher
consultantsto carry out the work; thus increasingconfidencein the results'.

This approachwas evaluatedpositively by a number of stakeholders(6). The reasons

included feasibility issues,such as the lack of timie on behalf of the LA, as well as
issuesof trust betweenthe developerand the LA. Indicative connnentsincluded:
'as a councilwedon't havethestaff to carry out thisprocessandfrom whatit
seems the developerdoes not want to be dealing with the development
in such
detail in 9 years time, so by getting a payment up front and us hiring an
independentconsultant to carry out the monitoring I think is the best way of

going about this'(S2).'

Although the specific funding set up agreedin the case study may be relevant and

appropriate for a number of BRPs, it is important that each case is examined

individually and that funding arrangementsare agreedbetweenparticipants (although
is
there the presumptionof the paymentonus being on the developer;Chapter5).

6.6.3. Appropriateness evaluation of RAF: skills and know-how

In Chapter4 oneof the mainbarriersidentifiedto the adoptionof sustainability
assessmentand monitoringpracticeswas a perceivedlack of skills and know-how
to
with regard and
sustainability its Therefore,
evaluation. interviewees in 4
Chapter
that
stipulated theRAFwouldhaveto:
abesimple;
theunderstanding
simprove of sustainability.

The RAF was therefore designedto bring together the different experts and enable
to
them maketheir valuesexplicit, as well as facilitatethe sharingof sustainability

principlesandknowledgego.

goLearning is seenas a result of the participatory processand thereforeevaluatedin section6.8.

240
Designing a simple evaluationis difficult as it requires taking into account the likely

skills and knowledge of the potential users, which vary between sites. Through the
causal design processwhere the RAF was designed (refined) in collaboration with
BRP stakeholdersas well as potential evaluationusers,a lot of emphasiswas given to
the skills and know-how issue.From the initial theoretical design to the final version
presented in Chapter5, the RAF was extensively simplified by cutting out extraneous
tasks and elements.In general, it can be concludedthat the RAF required extensive
structuring, organisationand simplification of procedures,sustainability criteria and
indicators,to enableuseby non-experts9l.

Participantswere asked: How effective did you find the methods used in achieving
the objectives of today's 82
workshop?. An averageof 7.6 was achieved for the first
workshop whereas an averageof 6.5 was achievedfor the second.The lower score
achievedin the secondworkshop was explainedby'participants as relating to the time
pressuresdiscussed above. Participantsin the interviews commentedpositively on a
number of proceduralelementsof the RAF, specifically its easeof use. For example,
the use of SEEDA checklist criteria was appreciatedby all stakeholders.Many (12)
criteria benchmarkswould have beentoo time
felt that the developmentof assessment

consuming and difficult (SeeSection 6.5):

'it is good not to have to reinvent the wheel we can use our expertisein the
...
group at the to
workshops identify but
relevance, I don't think we could do
if
sucha goodjob wewerestartingwith a blankpieceofpaper'(S4)
The developerwas also contentwith the use of the pre-developedSEEDA criteria:
'the vaguenesswas removed As a developer I know that in order to be
sustainable the development needs to be a, b, c and that I have to do x, y, z to

achieve it . P83
However, one stakeholderstated:
'it was a lot to take in one afternoon and especiallywith regard to the SEEDA
it be
criteria might good to have backgroundexplanatory information onprior
to the workshop' (S6).

81Non-experts involvedin theRAF

refersto sustainabilityor evaluationexperts,asthestakeholders
areexperts in their fields'
particular e.g. contaminatedland,transport.
82Thisquestionwasin thequestionnaire thatwascompleted at bothworkshops.
" This alsoreinforcestheRAF outcomeevaluationwith regardto beingableto facilitatedevelopment
decisionmakingSection6.2.

241
Therefore the balance between theoretical best practice in participatory indicator
development and simplicity was about right. Taking on board the participants'
it
comments, is thus proposedthat the information the
which usually accompanies
84
SEEDAchecklist is providedto stakeholdersprior to the secondworksho

It needsto be emphasisedthat the RAF processmust avoid patronising expertswho

have in depthknowledge,by replacingtheir individual assessments
with the RAF and
SEEDA criteria. This is of particular relevanceto developmentswhich require EIA

-and have specialist contractors undertaking detailed impact The

assessments. RAF

aims to bring structure,allowing the holistic considerationof the issues as well as to

set some minimum benchmarks, thus creating a level playing field for discussions,

and does not aim to circumvent the detailed existing assessment

requirements(see
Section6.7 for detaileddiscussion).

In order to avoid compromising the various experts' capacity for a detailed impact

assessment, the RAF is designedto be undertakenin conjunction with and to integrate

other development assessments (see Section 6.6). This issue was identified as
particularly relevant to the contaminationissues.
Both LA contaminationofficers and

a private contaminatedland consultantstated:

4assessmentand monitoring with regard to contamination is a highly

scientific, site-specific issue which involves a lot of specialised detail, which

the other participants really could not have commentedupon. However, it did
give us the playorm to initiate discussionsas well as set out the range of
issueswhich we had to address.TheRAFprocess was very useful but it should

not replace, but rather be carried out in conjunction with, individual detailed

assessments.

Anotherfeatureof the RAF processwhich aimsto overcomethe issueof skills and

know-how limitations is the requirementfor an independenttrained facilitator with
the capacity to organise and co-ordinate the whole process. The qualities of the
facilitator required to undertakethe RAF were specified in Section 5.2. However, if

94Seewww. sustainabililý,-checklist.co.uk

242
the RAF it to be used widely, the feasibility of the task assignedto the facilitator
needs to be evaluated". Therefore,a trained facilitator from the Environment Council

was interviewed with regard to whether a facilitator.could be expectedto organiseand

carry out the RAF The
process. responsewas positive:
'Any trainedfacilitator would be able to carry out those tasks...I think
however,dueto the large amountof thingswhichneedto be donein two half
dayworkshopsit is essentialthat thefacilitator whocarriesit out is trainedas
it requires the use of a number of facilitation techniquesas well as
Also
organisation. each development
will -bedifferent and will require the
adjustmentof some of the methodsused, so unless you have training in
facilitation design it could all go horribly wrong... by having a trained
facilitator you can also ensurethat theprocessis carried outfairly and that
onesideor individualdoesnot dominate
theoutcomeof theprocess'.

In a nutshell, the skills and know-how limitation hasbeentackled through the use of a
trained facilitator who can draw together the specialist knowledge of the evaluation
task force, using the designed,structured and organisedparticipatory process (see
Section6.5) as well as the SEEDA checklist.

6.7. Evaluation of the RAFs compati6ility and integration with

existing planning processes
Oneof the key specificationsto enablethe useof sustainabilityevaluationson BRP
was their integrationand compatibilitywith existingplanning (Chapter
processes 4),

something found to be lacking in the majority of tools reviewed(Chapter3). BRP

stakeholdersin the RAF causaldesign stageof this researchrecommended a number

in
of ways which this integration couldoccur including:

-ensuring relevanceto community strategyobjectives;

link to SEA to ensurerelevanceof RAF to local policies;
-creating a
-integrationwith EIA process;
-integrationwith the Statementof Involvement
Community process.

85As the facilitator of the casestudy was the author,externalevaluationwas requested.

243
integration is a term which has many meanings.Scraseand Sheate(2002) identified
14 types of integration with regard to assessments
and planning processes,some of
which they concluded did not necessarily have positive implications for the

environment. Lee (2002) also looks at the different uses of the term integration and
identified threebroad types,two of which are relevant to the aboverecommendations.
He refers to vertical integration as the link betweendifferent impact assessments
such
as SEA and EIA in the different planning processes, including the development

project life cycle. However, he also refers to integration of impact assessmentfindings

in the decisionmaking processes(ibid).

In Chapter5 the different areaswherethe RAF is integratedwith the planning process

and how the infonnation could be used was illustrated. Participants' evaluationsof
bow well the RAF is integratedwithin existing planning processesare presentedin
this section.

one of the recommendationsmadeby BRP interviewees(Chapter4) was to link the

RAF with the Community Strategy. This was achieved by presenting the LA

community strategy key priorities together with the results of the community census
to guide participants"in establishingsustainability priorities in Phase4. None of the
mentioned this link in the metaevaluation interviews.
case study participants
However, the DC officer was questioned specifically about this element of the
His response confirmed the current criticisms in the literature over
process.
and LA21, with regard to the lack of their considerationwhen
community strategies
(e. Doak 1998;seeSection2.3).
reviewing planning applications g.
'itsfunny that you mention that, I rememberyou putting the strategypriorities

up... to be honest it is not somethingwe usewhen determining an application,

'
we look at the plan and policies... it is good to be reminded of the bigger

picture.. but I wouldn't call it integration with the planning process.'

It therefore can be ascertained that, although the RAF attempts to integrate

its they
within process, are not considered to be key elements in
communitystrategies
the planningapplicationprocess,limiting their impact (or limiting their integration

with regardto decisionmaking).

" Considerationof community strategyindicators is also required in Phase3 of the RAF processbut in
the GM casestudy they were found to be of poor quality (SeeTable 5.5)

244
One of the key recommendationswas for the RAF to be relevant to the planning

process through its structuredconsiderationof policies and targets. To achieve that,

the considerationof SEA and SA indicators and their benchmarkswas recommended,
on the assumptionthat they reflected local policies and priority issues.This practice

was viewed positively by many In

stakeholders. particular, the case.study planning
policy officer stated:
'by using the LDF SEA and SA indicators as a basis to develop site specific
indicators, we were able to provide a link betweenSEA and EIA, as well as
have an established baseline which we could use to evaluate the
development'slong-term performance against, by doing it this way we also

ensuredthat the evaluation was in line with existingpolicy'.

Apart from the relevanceof the RAF to planning policy, it was consideredessential
that the RAF processwas compatiblewith other existing planning processessuch as
EIA. A number of both private and LA participantscommentedon the compatibility

and complementarities of the RAF with the EIA process. General endorsing
comments included:
'The fact that the R,4F results have been included in the EIA and SI06

agreements are being drawn based on this process and its results I think is a
demonstrationof its usefulnessbut also its compatibility and integration with
theplanning process (S13)'.

What is positive from the commentswas that participantsdid not perceive the RAF to

subsume the EIA processbut rather saw it as an additional tool which was compatible
the
with, and enhanced, existing EIA process. This is important as a plethora of tools
) EIA, but which essentially are
is being developed which aim to replace (surpass?

modified versions of the same process (Sheate,2002; van der Vorst et al, 1999).
Sheate(2003a, 274) illustrates, using the example of SA, that although it may be

appropriate in encouraging monitoring, 'the inevitable simplification needed in SA

risks the loss of essentialtransparencythat underlies the very essenceofEIA'. This is

true also in the case of the RAF, where the examinationof the indicators developed
identified an overemphasisof the socio-economicaspectsas well as very general

assessmentcriteria, which do not compareto the detailed impact assessments

required
as part of EIA or the Risk Assessment
process.Therefore, the RAF has attemptedto

245
draw on the strengthsand weaknessesof both SA and EIA, to identify potentially
beneficial links and create a mechanismto establish them without undermining the

statusof the existing processes.

Participantscommentedon a number of different areasof the EIA processto which

they felt that the RAF contributed positively. These included EIA scoping, socio-
economicimpact assessment, consultationand EIA post-monitoring practice. Each is

now examinedin more detail.

Participantsbelieved that the RAF contributed pofitively to the scoping exerciseof

the case study EIA. Scoping, regardedby some as the most important stage of EIA
(Weston, 2000), involves identifying the significant impacts likely to result from a
development which require further detailed assessment(Glasson et al, 2005).
Scoping, however, is not a formal requirement under the Regulations for EIA,

although it is for SEA (Sheate,2003). The limitations of current scoping practice are

widely documented (Mulvihill, 2003; Wood, 2003; Weston, 2000; Sadler, 1996 and
Kennedy and Ross, 1992) as well as a range of ideal elementswhich scoping should
Someof theseelements,summarisedin Wood et al (2006), include:
entail.
-Early application,but part of a cyclical process that continuesthroughout EIA;

-Engagementof key actors,and openness to public input;

-Focus upon key issuesand on valued environmentalcomponentsthat are relevant to

decisionmaking;
impactsto be monitored throughoutthe life of the project.
-Identification of

Importantly, many of these elements were thought by participants to have been

through the RAF. As part of the RAF it is proposed that the results from
achieved
Phase 4 (identified sustainability objectives and significant impacts) are used as part
EIA scoping exercisewhere the significant impacts of a development requiring
of the
further detailed investigation are identified. Best practice literature recommends
the scoping phaseof an EIA (Munvihill, 2003 and Wood et al 2006).
consultationat
However accordingto an EIA specialistinterviewed:
'Usually the scoping exercise is carried oýt by private planning consultants
is to the local planning authority for comments,
and the report sent relevant
and very rarely do you get community consultation at this point.

246
However,when ineffective scopingoccurs delaysare causedby additional time being

required to assessinitially unidentified impacts (Weston, 2000; Glasson et al, 2005).

The participating private planning consultantidentified this as a common issuewith
EIA, stating:
' oftenyou get commentsback on scoping reports requiring the assessment of
effects without them really being significant based on the premises that they
are mentionedin someparagraph ofsome policy, howeverthis is not thepoint
of EIA it is meant to assessthe significant impacts of the developmentand
often you get delaysfrom late responsesrequiringfor additional assessments
or requestsfor impact studies on insignifllýant impacts which has time and
resource implications. With the RAF process what I found very positive and
complementary to the EIA process was that we had all the different
in
stakeholders a room and we carried outjointly a form of scoping exercise
as we had to identify concernsas well asprioritise them, and most important y
we all arrived at a consensus, so when the developer left the meeting he was
sure that there was agreementas to what he would have to consider.'

Wood et al (2006) recommendthat different actors (referring to consultants,LA and

statutory should
consultees) deliberateopenly in the scoping process,in preferenceto

the more common written consultations.Based on the commentsof the participants

the RAF provides the forum and structureto do that..

Public consultation at the scoping phase is advocated as best practice but is also

widely known for its absence(Mulvihill, 2003). The Environment Agency (2002, p.
16) states'the early involvementofstakeholders in EIA has benefitsfor the developer
in terms ofgoodpublic relations and obtaining the information about the local area'

and Wood et al (2006) commenton the opportunity which such consultationprovides,

in ensuring that community concernsare addressedthrough the EIA. A number of
(6) the of the community censusand the way it was
stakeholders commentedon value
in fulfilling the role of public consultationat the EIA scopingphase:
structured
'there is no standardisedway of consultingthepublic with regard to a scoping

opinion, and that be

may afactor contributing to thefact that it is hardly ever
done, but the way the questionnaire was laid out you literally got the

community to car?y out their own scoping exercise, and the results where

247
 embedded in the decisionswhich were subsequentlymade... it was definitely

an eye opener with regard to how to go about things in the future and the
council will be using that format from now on, it was very straight
forward'(S6).

In addition to the scoping study, the results of the community censuswere included
within the socio-economic impact assessment chapter of the case studies EIA (see
Section 5.4). In the literature there has been a lot of criticism with regard to the
quality of these assessments (Morris and Therivel, 2001; Glasson and Heany, 1993),
in particular with regard to the lack of involvement of the community whose issues

are being considered (Joyce and MacFarlane, 2001). This element of the RAF was

perceived as positive link between the RAF and the EIA planning process:
'including the results of the survey within the socio-economic impact

assessment is only logical, regardless if its never usually done this way, it is

all too easy to leave a consultant locked up in his office which may have

visited the area once ifyour lucky and which has no knowledge of what the
needs and aspirations of the people are, to determine based on outdated
statistics, what will be a significant social and economicimpact regarding the
development,it is crazy. At least with the community surveyyou got to hear

what thepeople themselves thought would be significant. '(S 10).

Another element of the EIA process is the monitoring of the development's impacts

the effectivenessof the mitigations proposed. However, as identified by

as well as
several authors (Dipper et al, 1998; Wood, 1999; Bisset and Tomlinson, 1988;
Glasson et al, 2005; Wilson, 1998) and in Chapter2, post-developmentmonitoring
is limited. This lack of monitoring is often linked to the fact that it is not
practice
in the regulations, as it is seen as imposing an additional burden on
stipulated
developersand authorities (Sheate,2003). However, the RAF, through its use of a
S106 agreement,securedfunding for EIA post-monitoring which was viewed as an
by interviewees.The private planning consultantin chargeof the EIA on
achievement
behalf of the developerstated:
'the RAF process was good in that it brought the monitoring and long-term
issuesto theforefront so they couldn't be ignored Often youfind consultants

paying lip service to the monitoring specificationsof the EIS and with the R,4F

248
 they couldn't do that, they had clear questionsand instruction to follow. Also
by putting all the monitoring requirementsall into one section in the EIS with
developersresponsibilities describedit was then easyfor the LA to slap on a
SI06 covering all the monitoring aspects,which they normally never do'.
The experienceof the case study indicates that, not only are the RAF and EIA

processescompatible,but also that the RAF has the potential to enhancethe EIA (see
Figure 5.9).

For the GM case study, a sustainability assessmentwas requested for submission

togetherwith the EIA. Such have
sustainability assessments often been criticised for

their vagueness(see Chapter 4; George, 1999). With this in mind the RAF SEEDA
sustainability criteria were used for the Having
assessment. reviewed the EIS and
incorporated sustainability assessment, a number of participants commented
favourably:
'for oncewe havean assessmentwhichis basedon a set ofstructuredcriteria
and benchmarks,
rather thanrandom lants'
consul. opinions'(S15).

'the criteria themselvesrequire consultants to justify the scores they have

in
allocated which a senseprovides another level ofscrutiny'(S I).

However, not all developmentsrequire an EIA; in fact very few do, and thereforethe
RAF was not designedfor exclusive application to EIA developmentsbut rather all

large The
developments. RAF was designedto be -compatiblewith the Statement
of
Community Involvement (SCI) processand a number of participants commentedthat
it was so.
'SCI are very much a novelty and no one is quite sure of how they should be
doneand what theyshouldinclude.I think the way we wentaboutusingthe
RAF was very good and should serve as a blue print for future
developments'(S2).
the
In conclusion,the participantsperceived RAF process to be compatiblewith the
in to existing However,
procedures.
planningprocessand somecasescomplementary
limitation
indisputable of the RAF was its voluntary nature with its implementation
an
dependingupon the developers' willingness to participatein the process. This is a
issuewhich affectsthe future of
adoption the RAF andis in
discussed Section
serious
6.9.

249
6.8. RAF Participation evaluation
The final RAF specification was that it ought to be participatory. In Section 2.5 the
theoretical specifications of 'good participation and risk communication' were
defined. However, the nature of the participatory approachadoptedby the RAF was

significantly modified following the BRP interviews in Chapter 4. The criteria used
for the following metaevaluationhave been distinguished into outcome and process

criteria (Table 6.2 for summary of criteria), both of which are used as they are
inextricably linked. However, someof the criteria (thosehighlighted in bold) such as

resources and timing have already been evaluated in previous sections and will
therefore not be repeated. Also it was established that risk perception and
communication are key in BRP projects and thus, in Section 6.8.1, the way the RAF
dealswith risk communicationis evaluated.

Table 6.2 Outcome and process participatofy evaluation criteria.

outcome criteria Process criteria (Environment Agency1998 and Wehrmeyer
2001)

1. Achievement of consensus on a a. Theextentto whichthe participantsrepresentall stakeholders.

decision. b. Effectivenessof the method in meeting the objectivesof
2. Valueaddedto the decision. the participants.
3. A fair decision (inequities are C. Useof resourcesto their fullest value.
minimised )
as far as possible. d. Balanceparticipationwithfocus.
4. improvement in the publicavailability e. Communicateas fast as reasonablypractical.
of information. f. The extentto whichthe communication methodand mandate
5. Promotion of trust between for stakeholdersparticipationmeetsthe objectivesof different
stakeholders. parties.
g. The degreeof knowledgeand awarenessachievedamong
participants.
h. Compatibilitywith other decision processes, particularly
statutory.

One of the main criteria of a 'good' participatory processis the extent to which the

participants represent all stakeholders(Table 6.2) which is linked to the outcome

criteria of achieving a fair decision. Santos and Chess (2003) underline that the
'
conditions of fairnesshave to do with the equal opportunity to be part of the process,
freely initiate and participate in decision making as well as to be free from

manipulation and have equality with respect to power. However, 'brownfleld

developmentis a complex activity and stakeholderinvolvementis wide ranging with
different stakeholdersactive at different stages' (Dair and Williams, 2004,6), thus

250
highlighting the importance and the difficulty of achieving representativity through
the RAF process.

By limiting RAF participation to the process users, who are essentially BRP decision

makers, two-way public participation is restricted. The reasoning behind this approach

will not be revisited here (see Section 2.5). However, it is important to establish how
RAF participants evaluated the representation, and whether or not they considered this
be fair 87
approach to .

In the questionnaire, the question 'to what extent did you feel the participants
representedstakeholdersin the (development)?' received an average score of 7.4.
Feedbackfrom the evaluationswas very positive on this aspectwith commentssuch

as:
'it's thefirst time all people involved in a developmenthave been able to sit

around a table a discussopenly' (S2).

A conscious trade-off was made between extensive public participation and focus;

therefore the views of the community were represented at the workshop by the local

Area Councillor 88
the Area Coordinator It important
as well as . was thus to establish
whether participants felt that this approachof indirect community involvement was
appropriate.The responses obtained from the interviews were positive. A number of
points were raised over the difficulty of having true public representation,even when

using direct public participation, an issue discussed in Whitehead (2003) and

Henderson(2004). Participantsexpressedsatisfactionwith the results and the use of
the community census.
Y think the communitysurvey is the best way about things as often you get

public individuals coming along to the meetingswho haveparticular agendas

and individual interests,who are vociferous and in fact don't represent the
communityviews (Sll)'.

" it couldbe arguedthatthoseinvolvedin theRAF workshops wouldbe likely to bepositivewith

regard to the and
representation those critical of theprocesswould be those who had beenleft out (for
the
example community). However, it was neither feasible,
nor desirable
to askthecommunitywhether
or not theythoughttheprocesswasrepresentative.
" TheAreaCoordinatorrepresented moretheviewsof localbusinesses andentrepreneurs.

251
 'We usedelectedmembersto representthe public, that is theirjob after all. I
think it was important that they are there not only to bring the views of the
public but also to be able to report back' (S6).
Although the makeup of the RAF evaluationtask force worked well in the casestudy,
the particular combination of participants is not specified for all BRPs. Flexibility in

stakeholderselection is an important feature of the RAF. Furthermore, although it is

,
positive that participants were happy with the level of public consultation, only the
minimum RAF requirements were carried out and it is unknown whether local

residentswere satisfiedwith their level of involvement and with being by

represented
their elected members. However, the EIA was put out to public consultation as
specified in the Regulationsand, as confirmed by the DC officer, 'none of thepublic
consultationsreceivedmentioned the RAF or monitoring'. This enforcesFenwick and
Elcock's (2004) argumentthat the public are not interestedin the way things are run
(i. e. examplewhat indicatorsare used)but ratherwith the end result.

However, an examination of the composition of the RAF evaluation task force

highlights the difficulty of getting different perspectivesfrom society. Although there

were different representatives(for example, one person representing the school's

interests,anotherthose of elderly people; seeFigure 5.3) all were middle agedwhite
(see Figure 5.4). This is an obvious limitation of the process, as this is not
men
the local community's demographic make-u
representativeof

is
One of the criteria of good participation processes. their ability to achieve focused

deliberation. The RAF required a number of specific tasks to be completed and

decisions made, subsequentlymaking focus a prerequisite. Therefore, participants'
feedback,commentingon how focusedthe workshopswere, was encouraging:
ýpeoplespendtoo longjust talking, here we had clear objectivesand taskswe
had to do and a specifiedtime limit which really helpedfocus the mind'(S7).

'What wasinterestingwasthe inclusionof the communityviews,I don't think

theywerewhat we wereexpectingand I like the way they werepresentedso
theycouldn't be ignoredforonceP(S11)
-

252
Focus was perceived as a result of the structure of the workshop and facilitation

exercises as well as the presentation of information referring in particular to the

community survey results.Comments from the non-participantobserverincluded:
(participants stayed veryfocused throughout and seemedto get on well with

the taskin hand...theworkshopprocessesallowedfor activitiesto befocused

through clearly visible infonnation andpresýntedinstructions'.

These results are encouraging as they demonstrate the appropriatenessof the

participation methods used to achieve the objectives of the RAF including the

enabling of decision making. Care was taken to ensure that participants agreed on
the objectivesof the workshopsand the ground rules of interaction were agreedat the
onset(non-participantobserver).

However, a participatory approach was designed into the RAF with the aim of

achieving the range of widely documentedbenefits associatedwith such processes

(see Section 2.5). In particular, increasing communication and understandingwas
stated as one of the RAFs main purposes (Section 4.7). Therefore the particular

characteristicsand benefits which the participantsperceivedas a result of the process

followed are described.They are drawn from the interview questions'Were there any
benefits from carrying out the RAF processT 'Were there any problems
particular
with
associated carrying out the RAF processT.

One of the main benefits by in

stated all participants the questionnaires
as well as
interviews was the increasedcommunicationachieved.The non-participant observer

commentedthat:
'a high level of participation and co-operation was achieved among

participants and activities energisedparticipants and allowed for in depth

input. Thegroup activities allowed individuals to learn and share ideaswithin

a small setting.'

is
This an important commentas one of the mdin limitations to the adoptionof
identified
sustainabilitymonitoringpractices throughthe interviews in 4
Chapter was
the lack of communication. The results from the participants' questionnaireon the

question of. 'do you feel this process supported communication between
had
participantsT, an high
average scoreof 7.5 for the first workshopand 8.8 for the
All
second. participants'commentswere positive, for example:

253
 'The mostimportant thing was having everyonetogether in one room working

as a team and everybody becomingaware of what each other's role is, and
what the objectives are and how one should work without prejudicing
another's interests(S 1)'.

Although improved communicationis an establishedbenefit of participation, Wood et

al (2006) comment on how some developers wi sh to limit the opportunities for

conversationwith LAs and consulteesat an early stage as they feel this approach
increasesthe risk for project changes.This was in fact an issue in the TG casestudy

which did to
not want continue with the RAF process for fear of receiving negative
criticism and of the LA pushing for S106 monies.Therefore,the GM developerin the
interview was asked whether he had felt threatepedby the prospect of the open
discussionwith such a large number of stakeholders.Interestingly, the developerdid

not feel this was an issue:

'for me as a developer, it was very beneficial having all the different LA

officers together in a room where I was able to understandtheir point of view

and what their aspirations and requirements were, you obtain a closer
working relation with the council which in the future will help speed up
things.'

The LA participants also identified communication as key, acknowledging

interdepartmentalcommunication problems. One participant went as far as to state

that:
,as a result of this process we have identified blockages in communication
channelsand in the way we work togetherwithin the LA which we will have to

address'(S3).
Another key criterion of 'good' participation is the provision of information and the
degreeof knowledge and awareness achieved amongst participants (Table 6.2). The

asked'Do you feel of

awareness different perspectivesabout the project
questionnaire
' 'Do you feel this processsupportedunderstanding between participants? '
was raised?
For the awarenessquestion a high averagescore of 7.5 was achieved for the first
8.1 for the second. Equally, high scores with regard to the process
workshop and
between participantswere achieved, with 7.2 and 8.2 for the
supportingunderstanding
secondworksho The higher scores at the secondworkshops reflect the relationships

254
being built between the participants over time. In -general,all participants said they
felt they gainedgreaterunderstanding(Box 6.2) in relation to:
-the development;
in
-sustainability general;
sparticipants'perspectives.
Box 6.2.Participants'evaluationof the RAFcapacityfor Increasingunderstanding
V felt it wasa very usefulprocessas it gaveme the opportunityto speakwithdifferentpeoplewithdifferent
specialismsand It mademanythingsclearerbetweenus as to whythingsare goingin the locationswhich
they are and not othersand it madeus awareof issueswe had neverevenconsidered.Theprocesswas
overallbeneficialbecauseIt raisedawarenessand understanding not only of sustainabilitybut aboutthe
schemeitseff,it waslikeajigsawwhichcametogether'(S3).
'on a schemethe scalewhichwe are dealingwithI thinkit Is veryusefulto got everyonearoundthe same
tableas I thinkespeciallyfor peoplewhichare not specialisedin one particulararealike the councillorsor
area coordinatorto understandthat thereis a lot behinda developmentwhichdoesn'thave to do with
everydaypolitics.I thinkit gets themto realisethat somethinqsare less achievablethanothersfor proper
and not necessarilypolitics,but proper reasonswhether9 be planning,transportor contamination or
whatever,it essentiallyenablesa senseof reallsation, (S12)'
of a situation.

'thisprocesshelpedto raiseawareness of all the differentIssueswhichneedto be consideredwithregardto

and
sustainability #provided a rounded understanding of the of
effect the development
as wellas thedifferent
perspectivesof the different
participants,
so ft was an excellent leaming experienceandopportunityto include
our considerationsat an earlystage.'(S8)

'sustainabilfty
meanta lot to
more me I
when lefttheworkshop(S4)'

Leaming as a result of participation processesis widely documentedand expressedas

one of the main benefits of two-way deliberative communication (Tonn et A 2000;

Ukaga and Maser, 2004; Sanoff,2000). From the commentslisted in Box 6.2 it can be
that
ascertained participants felt the RAF was useful as a processto facilitate leaming.

This cannotbe verified asparticipantswere not testedto establishlevels of leaming as

a result of the RAF. However, it can be concludedthat one of the key strengthsof the
RAF is that it provides the means for people to share relevant knowledge and
information, to facilitate decisionmaking andpotential learning.

One of the outcomecriteria of 'good' participationpresentedin Table 6.2 is the

trust between Trust
stakeholders. is a term
subjective andthusvery hard
promotionof
to evaluate.Stakeholderswere not questionedaboutwhetherthe processincreased
trust between However,
participants. trust is dependent
on the transparency of the
decisionmakingprocess,the informationprovidedas well as the credibility of the
communicatoror facilitator (Wehrmeyeret al, 2004; Kontic, 2000; Section2.5).
Therefore,an essentialelementof the RAF designwas the transparencyin decision

255
making and the provision of information, as well as opportunity for all participants
-the
to expresstheir views and their concerns.Transparencywas also incorporatedinto the
RAF by using freely available evaluationcriteria and indicators such as SEEDA and
RESCUE.

The non-participantobserverreportedcommentsoverheardfrom participantsasto the

value of having an independent

facilitator. A number of interviewees (6), including
the developer,commentedon the non-threateningand collaborative atmosphereof the
workshops. Additionally, basedon the author's experienceas the facilitator piloting
the RAF, it is essentialthat the objectives of the workshops and ground rules are
agreedby all participants early on, to allow people to focus on the task in hand, i. e.
the creation of an evaluationstrategyrather than the negotiation of S106 agreements
(discussingthe latter would be threateningfor any developer!
)

All the aboveelementsresultedin an essentialkey outcomeof the process,which was

the development of sustainability criteria and long-term indicators (see Section 6.2).
However, the increased communication and understanding developed between

participantsare valuable outcomesof the processin their own right.

6.8.1. Evaluation of the RAF's consideration of risk

As brownfield projects are consideredhigh risk it
developments, was decidedthat the
RAF should incorporateelementsof risk managementand communication.One of the
behind the perception of brownfields as being high risk is the fact that they
reasons
are characterisedby uncertainty due to the lack of environmental and redevelopment
information (Wylie and Sheehy,1999). Therefore,'Phase 2 in the RAF processwas
introduced to put together information on the developmentand enable stakeholder
interaction (Phases4 to 6) to allow for information exchange.

There is, however, a trade-off to be made between the early involvement of

in the decision making processand the availability of information, but
stakeholders
the casestudy achieveda recognition of what information was missing and what the
As
were. stated
uncertainties by the developer:
'it madeus understandwhatwasimportantandwhatwouldfollow in termsof
getting the application ready'.

256
Risk decision making is value based and thus risk assessmentshould take
risk
stakeholders perceptionsinto account(Pediaditi et al, 2005 and see Section2.4).
This line of thought was incorporated into the RAF design, which required

stakeholdersto expressand prioritise their concernsregardingthe developmentin the

workshops. Lay people's risk perceptions were also incorporated through the
community census where they were asked to identify the social, environmental,health
and safety or economic risks they felt they were facing as a result of the proposed
development. The results of the census (Appendix 5) were surprising, with

environmental risks being a priority whereas health and safety risks ranked low
despitethe site being substantiallycontaminated(seePediaditi et al, 2005b).

Kasperson(1986) points out that perceivedcontrol is a factor which can affect the

acceptability of a risk and proposesthe provision of opportunities for risk bearersto

monitor the risks, which could enhancetheir feeling of control and subsequentlyrisk
acceptance.Workshop participants clearly felt that the process increasedawareness
and understandingand realism (as discussed in Section 6.6). The element of control
has also been introduced through the long-term monitoring requirements.However,
there was no two-way communicationwith the public and monitoring has not been
proposed to be undertakenby the public themselvei, but rather by this
consultants; is

undeniably a limitation in terms of ensuring public risk acceptability. However, a

conscious trade-off had to be made following the advice of BRP stakeholders

(Chapter 4) between feasibility and propriety. Nevertheless,it was agreed that all

monitoring information would be made publicly available and this is a move in the

right direction.

6.9. Evaluation of the RAPs future potential

The final objective (g) of this researchwas to examine the future potential of the
RAF. Therefore participants were asked,on the basis of their professional and case

study experience: 'Do you think this is a process which should be applied to all major
' All 15 interviewees stated that the RAF should be widely applied and
applications?
becomestandardpractice due to the rangeof perceivedbenefits describedin previous
However, all participants commented on the fact that the RAF could not be
sections.
to be undertaken for all major developments under the current general
expected
definition of major as:

257
 'schemesof more than 10 houses(or over 0.5 ha where number of units not
defined),for other usesover 100OM2in floorspace or where the site area of
the developmentitsetf is aboveI ha in size I (HMSO, 1995SI 419).
The need for thresholdsto be set was emphasisedby all participants, but there was
disagreementover what a reasonablethreshold would be, and whether the threshold

should be locally developedor set by government. A number of different proposed

thresholdsarepresentedin Box 6.3. To summarise,it was proposedthat:
- EIA thresholdsare utilised, which are nationally set but locally relevant;
-The EIA threshold approach is used, but at a lower level of approximately 100
housesor 1000sqft. (proposedby 7 participants);

-RAF thresholdsshould be defted by each LA whilst utilising the thresholdsset in

LA SO which identify the scaleof developmentrequiring a developmentSCI.
Box 6.3. Proposed thresholds for carrying out the RAF
'Thereneedsto be a thresholdas to whichdevelopments undertakethisprocess;a simplethresholdwould
be theEIAlimitwhichhaspresetteststo establishsignificance andthemeritof an EIA.However,thereare
veryfewdevelopments in theschemeof thingswhichmeritan EIAsoperhapsa lowerthresholdwouldhave
to be set.In orderto set thresholds you wouldhaveto considerthelocationof the development, its classand
sizeand you alsoprobably have to lookat landandthe developmentvalues,because thereis a costinvolved
in thisprocess.Aftematively you couldalsotakethethresholds setby LAsto whichtheyconsidera
development significantenoughto merita SCV(S14).

criteriacanbe usedas an aide-memoirfor all

ApplyingtheRAFwilldependon its scale,thesustainability
developments but theactualRAFprocesswouldrequirethresholdito be set. Theseexistfor EIAandare
ableto takeintoaccountlocalconditions
so / wouldusethose as a for
threshold the RAF(SQ.

Howbigis big?ForthisLA thisdevelopment Citycouncilmaybeits not,so I guess

is bigbut for Manchester
thereis an issueof definitionhereandI thinkit shouldbe definedlocally.

Youwouldhavetobecarefulto fittheRAFwithinanappropriate boxsoratherthansayingeverymajor

development, as majorcan 10
include houses butit canalsoinclude 1000 housesand therearewordsof
differencebetween thetwo.I wouldsaythattheapplication whereEIAaretriggered shoulddefinitely
melitan
RAF,in lesserdevelopments youeitherpitch sizeorscaleforexample
it toa significant I haandaboveOr
something along thelineof 100housesand above of WON of flo6r
space, whateverthecaseI think
it needs
tobepitchedquitehighratherthanrelyingonthePlanning Act'sdefinition theRAFwill
ofmajor,otherwise
become a intensive
fairly process whichis builtintosomething which is faidy in
minor comparison.(DC
Officer)

Withregardtowhoshouldsetthethresholds theDCofficerstated:
asit worksprovides
I thinkthelegislation a process whichsetstfiggers
whichmustbelookedatagainst each
which thenneed to belooked at in terms of certain
providing actions'and I think to the
apply RAF
proposal
is theonlyway forward in terms of setting
national If
thresholds. nottheoutcomes wouldbequite
nationally
differentbetween LA soyouwouldn I getany and
consistency, you would denigrate itsappropriateness,
its
andoutcome, so I think
definitely nationalthreshold
shouldbe devised.(DC officer).
response

It seems there is insufficientknowledge basedon this pilot casestudy to set rigid

thresholds for the UK. However, it is the author'sview that due to the compatibility

of the new Statement of Community Involvement procedure and the RAF that the

258
existing thresholdsdevelopedby LAs which trigger the need for a SCI are also used
as thresholds for the requirement of the RAF process. This approach would not
exclude the vast majority of (as
developments would be the caseif the EIA thresholds

were used), and at the sametime would allow for thresholdswhich are reasonablefor

each LA's particular context or capacity. Further research on this issue is

recommended.

6.10. Recommendations for the wider use of the RAF

A final questionput to participantswas: 'What do you think needsto be done for the
RAF to be widely usedT All intervieweespointed out that in order for the RAF to be
widely utilised it would have to be applied as standardpractice acrossthe country and
be required as part of policy or legislation. A number of reasonswere provided to

supportthis argument.
'If the RAF is applied intermittently across different counties there will be
thosewhich are more enthusiasticand want to adopt it and there will be those
which are not and developerswill say, the authority down the road doesn't do

it, so it is unreasonable,
so wewill not do it'. (S6)
Most participantsnoted that in the pilot study there.was a public and private informal

partnership (See Chapter 5) which increased the collaboration between the LA and
developer.
'the only glitch I can see with the RAF is that you will not always get such a

cooperative developer in
especially purely private developments'(S 14).

'the RAF has to be adopted widely; it is a useful process but unless it is

standard across the country, for developerswho haven't gone through the

process and don't know what it involves it might put them offfrom developing

in aparticular area,just becauseof theperceivedaddedadministration.'(S4)

Thedeveloperhimselfstated:
by aýlmajordevelopments
'I think theRAFshouldbeundertaken butI think it
be to
should madeobligatory provide a levelplayingfield'.

This issuewaspreviouslyraised by developers(Chapter 4), who stated that a barrier

to the adoptionof practices

sustainability was the lack of a level playing field and

259
they argued for the need for legislation stipulating sustainability evaluation
requirements.This is a serious issue with regard to the feasibility of the RAF as a
whole. Even though it proved to be feasible as a process and was endorsedby all
its use
participants, widespread depends
on its ability to be enforcedor statutorily
requiredthroughoutthe country.

The needfor the RAF to be stipulatedthrough policy or legislation rather than being
used as a voluntary processhas also been establishedthrough the experiencewith the
TG case study. Although initially the developerswere happy to go along with the
RAF when asked to carry out early consultation with the public and have the
workshopswith the LA, they felt that they were exposingthemselvesto unnecessary

risk and pulled out (see Chapter 5). As the RAF was based entirely on the voluntary
collaboration of both parties,the LA did not have the enforcementpowers to stipulate
to developersthat they follow the processthrough. In addition, basedon the feedback
of the developer,the novelty of the RAF process and the increaseduncertainty" could
also have contributed to the TG case study failure as the developerssaid they felt :
'we're openingourselvesup to too much risk'. Basedon all the above,the main
recommendation for achieving extensiveuse was through the RAF's inclusion within
national planning policy or guidance (see Box 6.4).

Box 6.4. Recommendations for the RAFS Inclusion witnin policy ancl gUldance
'its got to comefromODPM,it hasto bepartof planningpolicy.(S3)
,Its gotto comefromgovernment guidance or evenas a recommendation of goodpracticefromODPMor
whoever.. I think it needssome clout
political behind it to gotit wide '
spread. (S9).
'I thinkit needstocomefrompolicyguidance fromODPM andI needto emphasise thatuntilit hasthisstatus
therewillbea reluctance bydevelopers tobeengaged inthisprocess. Youneedtorealisethatatthe
moment there is so muchpaper work involvedin a planning that
application, developers would be verymuch
reluctant in taking up any process
additional no matter how good it wasunless it was stipulated byregulation.
SoI thinkit doesneedthestatusofgovernment guidance orultimatelyregulation. I donYseewhythisshould
beaproblem considering how beneficialthisprocess has proved to beforthis development, aswellasits
compatibility and the wayit compliments thenew changes in theplanning system.. ' (Privateplanning
consultant).

99regardingthe RAFs value aswell as the authorscompetence.

260
The need for the RAF to be included within planning policy is also dictated by its
design which makes use of S106 agreementsto ensure long-term monitoring

obligations are carried out and at least part funded by the developer.According to the

guiding principles of the planning system(seeSection2.3), in order to require aS 106

agreement,requirements need to be reasonable and relevant to planning (amongst
other things). Reasonablenessis determined with regard to whether or not it is
by
required planning policy.

Participants identified the overarching need to implement the RAF through

GovernmentGuidance,with the view that it would affect Regional as well as Local
PlanningGuidance.
lit might be enoughfor examplefor our LA having experiencedthe RAF to
decide to developLocal SupplementaryGuidance,and through this guidance

we could try and impose it. However, if the developer refused on the basis of
unreasonablesness and the case went to appeal, we would not have a strong
case to defend our demands as it's not based on regional or government
guidance' (Policy officer).

'I don't think it will be dijfIcult to get thq RAF into government guidance

considering its compatibility with the SCI and EIA process. The results would
have to bepresentedto the GovernmentOffice and as they are empirical and

are proof of a working process, which is much more than what a lot ofpolicy
is basedon trust me, I don't seewhy they couldn't send out an amendmentor
bestpractice guidancewith regard to SCI requiring the RAF"(DC officer).

Other recommendationsmade by participants but proposed as likely to be less

effectivewere:
'the recognition of the RAF process by professional bodies such as the RTPI
(S3)'
-
The private consultantspointed out that it would help if the process and case study

was publicised in industry journals, which are read widely by

experience
The
professionals. developer and private planning consultant statedthe needto write a

manual or guidance describing the RAF processand outlining what is required and its
time implications. The developeradded:
resourceand

261
 'I think it would really help ifyou could add examplesfrom the casestudy in
the manual, or at least mention that this process was trialled and was a
success,because as a developerI see so many tools being promoted but you
don't really have confidencein them unlessYou know they are trialled and

tested.

In summarythe main recommendationsproposedto ensurethe wide adoption and use

of the RAF are:

n Incorporatethe RAF in Government Guidanceand ultimately in Regulation:

o This could be achievedthrough government recommendation of best

practice with regardto EIA or SCI;

o From the Government Guidance, Regional and Local policies should

be developedto reflect the requirementfor its adoption.

0 Develop an implementationmanual for the RAF which can be used by developers

and consultantsand provides:

oa clear specification of the RAF requirements and resource
implications;
o casestudy examplesof what doesand what does not work.

m Get the supportand endorsement from professionalbodies.

n Publicise the RAF widely in journals.

professional

6.11. Conclusion
The purposeof this Chapter to
was evaluate the RAF basedon results obtained from

interviews with casestudy participantsand observationsmade by the non-participant

The RAF was evaluated according to the criteria specified in the causal
observer.
design(Box 4.1)

participants identified a number of usesfor the RAF which were compatible with the

theoretical specifications,and overall perceived the objectives of the processto have

been achieved. Regarding the capacity of the RAF to monitor long-term

was secured it was not ad infinitum. Even though

sustainability, although monitoring
did not perceive this as being problematic, it demonstrates
the difficulty
participants
of securinglong-term monitoring.

262
The RAF was meant to be holistic, enabling the consideration of social,
environmental and economic issues.Participants perceived that this was achieved,
commentingon the value as well as the novelty of being able to consider and assess

all the different issuestogether and in particular to quantify socio-economicissues.

However, a retrospective examination of the priority objectives identified and

indicators selected shows a slight overemphasis on socio-economic aspects of

sustainability in relation to environmental.Participants were very supportive of the

context specific approach of the RAF but, similarly, international issues such as
energyand water conservationas well as wasteminimisation were not addressed.It is

thus proposedthat somemandatoryindicators are used to ensurethat such issuesare

addressed.

A number of outcomes as well as process criteria were identified to enable the

evaluation of the participatory process (Table 6.2). To summarise,participants felt

that the RAF through its structured process enabied consensus to be reached, and
raised awarenesswith regard to sustainability and the project itself. The RAF was
described as a learning tool, which enabled improved communication and

understanding between participants. The value of the community census was

the considerationof different elements of risk and in particular
emphasisedas well as
thoseof lay people.The limitations of the census, regarding two-way communication,
and are
recommendations madefor additional community consultation
are recognised
workshops.

With regard to its feasibility, the RAF was found to be practically applicable with
to its resourcerequirements,timing and duration. However, a weakness was
respect
identified in that Phase6 of the processwas consideredtoo rushed with the need for
formalised preparatory individual work, potentially through the form of
more
forms, prior to the workshops.Otherwise, the methodsused in
electronic consultation
the RAF were to
appropriate
considered the skills andknow-howof the participants.

The RAF was evaluatedwith regard to its integration and compatibility with existing

processes. It was seen by all participants as compatible as well as

planning
to of existing processes with both the developer and DC
complementary a number
that the 'RAF has the potential to smooth the planning process'. Its
officer stating

263
consideration of planning policy through the utilisation of existing SEA and SA

monitoring indicators as a baseline was seen as a significant characteristic, which

enabled a link to be created between SEA and EIA. The compatibility and

complementarityof the RAF to the EIA processwýs identified through its input into

the scoping process as well as its contribution to the socio-economic assessment

through the utilisation of the community survey results, which was perceived as a
novelty. The ability to bring monitoring issues to the forefront was seen as an
achievement,as EIA was perceivedto be lacking in that field.

Finally, overall the RAF was perceivedas being a structuredprocesswhich brought

together different stakeholders and enabled a structured assessment of the
developmentproposals as well as the setting out and enforcement through S106

agreements of a monitoring plan to ensure long-term sustainability. Thus it was

consideredto have achieved its initial aim. In fact, all participants stated the RAF

should be applied to all major developments,on the proviso that thresholds are set
with regard to the scale of development,somethingrequiring further research.From

the recommendationsprovided regarding actions necessaryto ensurethe wider use of

the RAF, the need for its stipulation or inclusion within planning policy and

ultimately regulationswas emphasised.

Basedon the limited evaluationresultsof this uniqiie case study,it canbe concluded
thatthe RAF to it
appears achievewhat setout to do, and that involved
participants in

the processwere content to the its

extent of recommending wider application.
However,a stepbackis neededto evaluatethis researchprojectas a whole, in order
to put into contextthe of
significance thesefindings,and to makerecommendations
for furtherresearchandactions(Chapter7).

264
Chapter 7. Conclusion and Recommendations
In this final Chapter,the researchcarried out for this thesis is examinedto determine

whether the objectives set out in Section 1.2 have been achieved (Section 7.1). In

orderto draw on
conclusions the wider implications
of this research,an overviewof
the limitations faced is provided (Section 7.2). The broader question of whether
brownfield redevelopmentis contributing to sustainability is analysed(Section 7.3),
followed by a discussionof the RAF's potential contribution should it be nationally

adopted (Section 7.4). The RAF's potential contribution to the scientific community
in the eventuality of its wider adoption is also outlined (Section 7.5). Clarifications

regarding what the RAF should not be assumed to do are provided (Section 7.6). As
this researchhas focused on reviewing and developing tools, some methodological
reflections on evaluation methodology design are also presented(Section 7.7). The

thesis concludeswith recommendations for further research(Section 7.8) as well as

someadvice for the policy and planning community (Section7.9).

7.1. Evaluation of the attainment of the research objectives

Objective (a) of this researchinvolved conceptualisingand making operational the
key parametersof a BRP and essentiallyidentifying the key elementsand processes
BRP including the differences in relation to Greenfield developments (see
of a
Section 1.2). A broad approachwas adoptedwhereby considerationwas given to the
impactsand processesrelevant to BRP throughout their land use life cycle in order to

specify the nature of the sustainabilityevaluation.

The main difference between Brownfield and Greenfield projects relates to the
brownfields to be contaminated and thereforebeing considered as higher
potential of
developments, due to increased uncertainty of environmental conditions.
risk
Potential brownfield contamination could also' result in additional regulatory

as well as requirements for land remediation processes, which could

restrictions
harbour further sustainability implications. These findings signify that the RAF as an
process would have to integrate risk considerations as well as adopt a
evaluation
and subsequent development
context specific approach, as ground conditions
between BRP.
processeswould vary

265
However, when investigating current practice in sustainability evaluation as well as
decision making processes,it was establishedthat there is in fact little difference
between Brownfield and Greenfield projects. Apart from the health and safety
for and
requirements risk assessment management relevant to legislation and specific
policies, planning decisionsregardingBRP were mdde in an identical mannerto those
on Greenfields.So in retrospect it could be concluded that the RAF is applicable
to development projects in general.

The life cycle review of BRP impactsand processesemphasisedthe importanceof the

initial planning and design phase of projects due.to its capacity to determine the
sustainability of subsequent phases,as well as the presenceof enforcementpowers
and processes to stipulate long-term evaluation. Thus the RAF as a process was
developedto be implementedduring the developmentplanning application process,
to the
yet enable monitoring of sustainabilitythroughoutthe land use life cycle.

With a determinationnot to reinvent the wheel, objective (b) was carried out whereby
indicator tools and evaluation literature was
a range of existing sustainability
It
reviewed. was establishedthat, despite the plethora of existing tools, there was no
tool evaluatingthe sustainabilityof specifically BRP. From the literature a number of
theoretical specifications which an ideal evaluation should incorporate were
identified. However, when reviewing a range of existing tools, it was identified that
ýot:
they did not meetthosespecificationsas they were
or (usually
transparent being top-down with hidden evaluationcriteria);
nParticipatory
(i.
mHolistic e. addressingsimultaneouslyenvironmentalsocial and economic issues);
(i. throughouta developmentsland use life cycle);
oLong-term e. relevant
to the wider development scale (mostly addressingpurely the building
-Relevant
scale);
to
oRelevant existingplanninganddecision
makingprocesses;

More importantly, the investigation identified limited use of these existing tools.
Through the exploratory interviews with BRP stakeholders and existing tool
developers, a range of barriers to the adoption and use of evaluation tools was
identified and recommendations made to overcome them. One of the main
consistedof integrating BRP sustainability evaluation into existing
recommendations

266
decision making processesand ensuringthe feasibility of the processwith regard to
developmenttime lines, existing processesand resources.

Thereforeobjective(c) of thisresearchinvolvedinvestigatingwhat existingprocesses

were being used by decision makers to implement and evaluatethe long-term
of
sustainability developments. The resultswere not With
straightforward. regardto
of sustainability,theplanningprocesswith its unstructured
the implementation useof
policies was seen as the overarching vehicle for implementing and assessing
sustainabilityat the development level. Intervieweesexpressed the need for a
process
structured to andevaluationof sustainabilitythroughthe
enableconsideration
existing planning applicationprocess,which would enable the considerationof
evaluation findingsin decisionmaking.

With regard to general government sustainability evaluation practice, it was

establishedthat sustainability monitoring is moving up the planning agendaas a result

of a number of changes occurring in planning including the introduction of SA, SEA

and Community Strategies. A range of existing, albeit fragmented, monitoring

baselinedata and indicators was identified. It was establishedthat this information is
being used at a local level, and is by
characterised a lack of ownership by
not really
LA and perceived irrelevance to developmentdecision making. Therefore, the RAF

proposed the use of this information where relevant, with the aim of reducing
information link between development
evaluation costs and establishment of an
decisionmaking and policy making, something also identified as lacking.

There is currently no requirementfor the long-term evaluationof the sustainability of

to and relevant health and environmental
remediatedsites with regard contamination
land
Contaminated
implications. interviewed
professionals elaboratedon the lack of
to stipulate long-term nionitoring of brownfields post-
enforcementpowers
and
remediation development
sign-off.

Finally, throughthe interviews with developers, it was establishedthat a variety of

and assessment is carriedout for developments, although not addressing
monitoring
It
specificallysustainability. was thus týat
concluded a process
was to
needed bring

267
togetherall the different strandsof existing sustainability monitoring and assessment
requirements, to ensure the minimisation of data collection and effort duplication.

In orderto developa usableevaluationprocess,objective(d) wassetwhich involved

the
establishing role of key stakeholders in BRP decision making and monitoring,
developingappropriate participationtechniques to enabletheir input into the RAF and
use of the evaluationfindings.The literaturereview illustrated that there is a wide
throughout
rangeof stakeholders the differentphases
of a BRP with the majority of
decision makers being involved in the planning and design phase. From the
interviews,it wasestablished havedifferentperceptions
thatdifferentstakeholders of
the extentand meansthroughwhich they can ingUencethe sustainabilityof BRP.
More importantly, it was identifled that different stakeholdershave different
definitionsof sustainabilitywhich appearedto be influencedby their professional
capacity.

This conclusionreinforced the needfor a high involvement participatory approachto

evaluation which would allow the different stakeholders to make their values

regarding sustainability explicit, as a failure to agree on the elements of what is

considered sustainable for a particular development would result in obvious

disagreementwith regard to what indicators should be used to evaluate it. The
investigation identified that during the planning process there are a number of
decision makers (application consultees)with different backgrounds,and knowledge
aspectof sustainability.Thereforethe key to the RAF approach
regarding a particular
would be to use a participatory approach which enables all these different

stakeholders,who each hold a piece of the sustainability puzzle, to come together.

The aim was to improve understanding as well as communication between

stakeholders.

I
All the above formed the theoretical basis of the RAF, which was developed

(objective e) and trialled in two case studies (objective f). A lack of evaluation of

sustainability assessment and monitoring tools, which was also contributing

existing
lack of use, established the need for objective (g) which involved the
to their
the RAF. The evaluation was based on the experience of the case studies
evaluation of
to whether the RAF met its theoreticil specifications as defined in the
with regard

268
causaldesign of this research.The results of the metaevaluationhave been presented
in Chapter 6 and thereforewill not be reiterated.Overall, basedon a predominantly
internal evaluation,participantsperceivedthe RAF to be a useful and feasible process

to the extent that they endorsedits wider application. It can thus be concludedthat all
the objectivesof this researchhavebeenachieved.

7.2. Research Limitations

In order to be able to draw conclusionswith regard to the wider implications of this

researchand the potential value of the RAF, it is important to look at the overarching
limitations facedwhen carrying out this research.

Issuesof timing and resourceavailability affected the number of case studieswhich

could be carried out as well as the number of interviews for the causal design (see
Chapter4). Timing in particular was an issue,as the researchand the piloting of the
RAF was constrainedby the difficulty of finding BRIs willing to partake in the case
studieswith appropriate project time lines. Delays in the GM case study9oresulted in

the inability to pilot the RAF in casestudy 3, as by the time the GM case study was

completedthe planning permissionhad been grantedin this casestudy.

The timing of this researchhas also presenteddifficulties due to the aforementioned

changes occurring in the planning regime. Although the changes presented new
for example through the requiremqnt for statementsof community
opportunities,
involvement, they also meant that the RAF had to be modified continuously,

somethingwhich was thereforebuilt into the methodology.More importantly, due to

the recentnessof many of the changes,stakeholdersoften expresseduncertainty and
as to how practices would be established.For example, at the time of
confusion
developing the RAF, SEA and SA monitoring requirementswere only just coming
into force as well as SCL As a result, SA monitoring information was still being
there were no specific SCI procedureswhich causeddelays in terms of more
collated;
time neededby the to
author carry out the RAF than would usually be required.

10Unrelatedto this research

269
Limited resourcesmeant that it was not possible to review existing sustainability

assessmenttools directly as many requiredpurchasingsoftware, licensing, or training.

However, even through a secondaryreview of existing tools and the examinationof
key literature, the points emerging such as lack of use or relevance to BRP were
This
consistent. indicatesthat had the author had the resourcesto, for example,review
10 more tools, it would not have necessarilyadded to this research9l.Through the
literature review it was establishedthat transparency was a key element in any

evaluation. It was thus decidedthat in order to facilitate planning decision making the
sustainability evaluation criteria should be publicly available. However the fee

requiring tools did not make those criteria available, which automatically made them

unsuitablefor the purposesof the RAF.

The choice of methodswhich included an essentiallyunique case study and internal

evaluation have beenjustified and thus will not be reiterated.However, this choice of
methods,undoubtedly limits the wider conclusions which can be drawn in particular
with regard to the wider outcome implications of the RAF.

External evaluationhas beenachievedthrough the use of the non-participantobserver

and through the informal feedbackfrom the project's steering group which consisted

of a 15 member group of industry partners and relevant academicsin the field of

brownfield regeneration(seeAppendix I and Section 1.4). Continuous feedbackhas
been sought from the range of collaborators on the SUBR: lM research
also
Finally, a form of external has
evaluation. been obtained from the peer-
consortium.
made at relevant national and international
reviewed publications and presentations
(see
conferences Appendix 13).

The multidisciplinary nature of this researchrequired investigation and in particular a

the literature spanning a range of disciplines, from contaminated land,
review of
through participation methodologies, to sustairlability indicators and planning
This undoubtedly limited the extent and depth which any of those subjects
processes.
be in this thesis as eachtopic could form a PhD thesis in its own right.
could covered
Where possible, additional information has been covered in some of the authors'

91in relation to how much it would have cost

270
publications. Also areasfor further researchhave been identified and are proposedin
Section7.8.

Themostimportantchallengeof this researchhasbeendevelopment of an innovative

model and its implementation and evaluation in a real life context. Unlike

experimental trials where externalparameterscan be the

controlled, RAF casestudy
trials wereundertaken on realdevelopment projectscharacterised by variableexternal
factorsincludingtheir political games,confidentialityandsensitivityissues.Thetask
of convincingdevelopers
to takethe gambleandundertake the RAF (asanun-trialled
method being proposedby a PhD student)which could influencetheir planning
applicationoutcomewas by no means easy. Proof of the difficulty is the numberof
evaluation tools on the marketwhich are launched without having undergoneany
92
trials or evaluations

The challenge did not end with obtaining developer approval. Each individual case
study participant had to be contactedand have the purposeof the researchexplained.
Support from higher LA management also had to be obtained to justify LA officers'
time being spenton what, to them, was initially just an academic exercise. Only once
the RAF processhad been initiated and involved participants (in Phase 4), was the
the RAF in the of 93;
participants this in the
purpose of established minds resulted
6 involvement of participants. Unfortunately, this did not occur in
continued month
the TG casestudy as the developerwithdrew. Thus, although this research is limited

to a unique case study, the results are significant. The fact that the RAF was
developedand trialled and that the participantsfelt that it worked provides important

proof that the RAF can work.

7.3. Is brownfield regeneration contributing to sustainability?

This researchhas demonstratedthat although a core messageof this Governments'
is the achievement of sustainability, there are limited targeted
planning policy
to establish whether this aim is being adhieved. Although monitoring and
processes

92The RESCUE consortium,which consistedof a large EU fundedproject aimed specifically at

developinga Brownfield Sustainability assessmenttool to be usedby funders,only included I case
study trial!
93Although the purposeof the RAF was explainedto the participantsprior to coming to the workshops,
it was not until Phase4 that they realisedfor themselveswhat the purposeand value of what they were
doing.

271
sustainability evaluation has recently moved up the governmentagenda,mainly with
implementation of the SEA Directive and PPS12,there is limited knowledge as to
how this plethora of information being generatedis affecting action on the ground.
Researchfindings indicate that it is not, with LAs perceiving the data collection to be
too government orientated to be relevant for local decision making and policy
development.

I
For sustainability to be operationalised, it needs be defined in a local context and

translated into implementable and measurable objectives. Interview findings of

stakeholders involved in BRP demonstrated that sustainability is defined differently

according to stakeholders' professional capacities, indicating a persistence of the silo

thinking and decision making described by Carley and Christie (1992). This has
implications with regard to how sustainability is implemented and evaluated at the
development level although many (Sadler, 1996; George, 1999) would argue that it is

not. Sustainability is widely accepted as a complex concept which requires a

multidisciplinary effort for its effective implementation and evaluation (Bossel, 1999;
Mertabu, 1998). However, multidisciplinary problem solving and decision making

requires coordination and extensive communication, which is a challenge considering

the highly diverse and departmentalised nature of local governance (Carley and
Christie, 1992). The difficulties caused by the diversity of existing governance

arrangements, such as area-based development partnerships which incorporate

different partners with a range of interests and agendas as well as perceptions of

sustainability, are particularly prominent in brownfield regeneration projects (Ward,

2000). Effective leadership and coordination were stressed as key with regard to the

achievement of sustainable regeneration projects (Kitchen, 1997). However, McGuirk

(2000) pointed out that compartmentalisation within LA and the range of

competences still remains an issue. Worryingly, this research identified that key

figures such as urban regenerators and developers admit to having limited

understanding of the concept of sustainability and the ways to achieve it (see also
Tinworth, 2004 and Ball, 1999). This emphasisesthe pertinence of examining existing

of BRP decision making and identifying ways of improving knowledge of

processes
issues, and communication in particular with regard to methods of
sustainability
defining and achieving sustainability (see also Susskind et al, 2001, and Gibbs and

Healy, 1995).

272
Imrie and Thomas (1993) pointed out a lack of 'checks' within the planning system

which would ensure that developments are sustainable. The current situation as
identified through this research does not appear to have significantly improved.
Development sustainability is assessedpredominantly through the unstructured

consideration of policies, which many argue is resulting in a trade off between

environmentaland social objectives in favour of short term economic gains (Owens

and Cowell, 2002; Carley, 2000). Despite the plethora of existing evaluation tools in

the market (albeit of limited quality or applicability; see Chapter 3), structured

sustainability assessment of development projects, even at the planning application

stage, is just not happening (George, 1999). Despite its limitations and limited

application only to substantially large projects, EIA is still seen as the most robust
currently available sustainability assessment tool. However, its ability to improve the

sustainability of developments is dependent on the extent to which it is taken into

account in the application decision making process, which according to Weston

(2000) is still not significant.

Despite,the obvious failures of regenerationprojects evenup to the 90s (Loftman and

Nevin, 1995) the examination of existing government sustainability evaluation
demonstrates
that there is still a lack of willingness to enableleaming from
structures
The Government's own definition of sustainability incorporates the
past mistakes.
of intergeneritional equity and yet there are no systemsin place to monitor
concept
the long-term sustainability of development projects. An examination of the
being required for the new Millennium Communities
evaluation processes .
developmentprojects, which are heavily subsidisedwith the aim of being show case
for the development industry promoting sustainability best practice, have no
pieces
It
long-term monitoring stipulated. seems that there is a consistentgovernmenttrend
with regard to what is sustainable (for example if the
of making assumptions
is
development on a brownfield site, it is taken to be defacto sustainable)without
implementing the monitoring mechanismsto es6blish whether their assumptions
So, to answer the question of whether brownfield redevelopment is
were right.
to the
sustainability, is:
answer
contributing
No one knows or is trying tofind out

273
7.4. Can the RAF help?
in this section the RAF's potential to contribute to sustainability is explored. This

analysis is based on the assumptions that the RAF comes to be adopted as standard
practice and that it was fulfils the purposes and functions stated by participants
(Section 6.2). The RAF could contribute both to individual project sustainability,
through improved information and decision making processesas well as more
generally in the long-term. The RAF stipulates the provision of information to the
relevant stakeholders at the end of each BRP life cycle period, thus enabeling
improvementsto be made to the individual development.However, each individual
BRP can also be conceptualisedas the experiencesand knowledge obtained by
individual stakeholdersfrom a project which are used to guide future projects. This
information, however, usually is segmentedto individual life cycle*periods without
feedbackon the consequencesof decisionsmade in the initial periods, and which is

not recorded in any formal way, thus, reducing the transfer of knowledge from one
project to another.

Therefore,the RAF with its systematicinformation collection requirements,should it

be widely adopted,could enableknowledgetransferboth at the scaleof the individual
decision a
maker as well as at policy level.- Individual decision makerscould
project
have follow up information with regard to the effects of their decisions, providing
them with a greaterunderstandingof what works and what does not to inform *future

decisions.With regard to informing local policy, the RAF through its use of
similar
indicators and subsequent accumulated information from BRPs (see
policy relevant
Figure 5.9), could inform policy officers whether current policies are having the
desiredeffect on the ground. This could be achievýdby comparing LA baselinesand
BRPs long-term monitoring results. For example, if a LA urban policies propose
regeneration with the aim of reviving the local economy; the monitoring
property-led
of individual residential regeneration projects will enable to establish whether this

type of development actually revives the local economy, or decimates it 'through the

ofyet another Yuppie paradise which has total disregardfor the needs of the
creation
for new jobs and low cost housing' (Henderson, 2004 p. 24). By
existingpopulation
looking at the indicators selected for the GM case study which require the post
developmentsurveying of the local population, questioning them whether they think
things have improved, or the requirement to monitor the new population introduced

274
and number of jobs created,the LA will be able to establishthe direct impact of this
natureof developmentand alter policies accordingly.

However,this posesthe questionof how long should long-term sustainability

monitoringcontinue. Abeles (1999)discusses
the conceptof time in sustainability,
identifying the difficulties of planningand measuringsustainabilitycausedby the
dynamicnatureof the concept.This is particularlypertinentwhen consideringthe
to
need make decisionstoday, for example, regarding a BRP proposalwhich will
shape the lives and of
opportunities future In
generations. the same way the RAF has
limitations, as it requiresthe selectionof sustainabilityindicators, criteria and
benchmarksto monitor future sustainabilityby which time its definition may have
changed. Furthermore, as was made explicit in the casestudy,the RAF is unableto
monitorover the 15 or 20 year periodwhich PoweK andMumford (1999) proposed is
to
required establish the true implicationsof a regenerationproject, for example its

ability to establisha healthy community or to ensurethe safety of remediation

strategies.Therefore,it canbe arguedthat the long-termmonitoringproposed through
theRAF is not longenough.

However, feasibility issuesneedto be taken into consideration,as well as the purpose

the monitoring. Undeniably, requiring developers to fund 20 year monitoring
of
in be regarded as unfeasible. Furthermore, institutional
schemes most caseswould
have most likely changedwithin that period limiting the capacity for
structureswill
individual learning from past experience.However, obtaining feedback with regardto
the impact of a BRP, only for 3 years post development completion (like in the GM
but a snap shot with regard to long-term sustainability.
casestudy), can offer nothing
Nevertheless, it doesprovide a picture of the direct effects of a development on which
future decisions can be based. Whilst incomplete such feedback is clearly better than

nothing!

With regard to the RAF's capacity to improve thedecision making processesduring

the planning period, there are a number of RAF elementswhich can be consideredto

fulfil that. Turner et al (undated)point out that good sustainability decision making

using logic and information which is currently available, which will

requires
invariably require assumptions and value judgements to be made. Therefore,the

275
importance of recording the process which was used to arrive at the decision is

underlined in order to enable teaming from past,mistakes (Susskind el al, 2001;

Abeles, 1999). The RAF's approach requires stakeholders to record their

sustainability visions and objectives, and assessthe developmentusing the SEEDA

checklist. Therefore,any assumptions which in the future are proven to be wrong will
invariably enable institutional and social teaming, which can help improve future
decisionmaking (Tonn et al, 2000).

However, one of the main perceivedbenefits of the RAF was its capacity to improve

communication and understandingof different stakeholders'perspectivesand visions

of sustainability. Improved communicationand understandingare essentialelements
of improved sustainabilitydecisionmaking (seeSection2.5), albeit short-termones.

Although the casestudy results arevery promising, it cannotbe assumedthat the RAF
is capable of single-handedly achieving all the above based on the views of 15

participants. The RAF has the important limitation of lacking policy and regulatory
backing, making it voluntary in nature and thus its use is dependenton public and
collaboration. Planning application decision making is essentially a political
private
Although the RAF can facilitate decision rxiaking by increasing transparency,
process.
and information provision, it is still down to the politicians whether
communication
they choose to take into account the findings of the evaluation. For example, when
the RAF it be
could established that a particular proposal is anything but
undertaking
sustainable,and the RAF could make this point very transparentand clear. However,

there be the political will for the development to go ahead, there is every
should
opportunity to ignore the RAF findings. Therefore, tmless mandatory,the RAF cannot
have the ability to improve the sustainabilityof a development.
claim to

The RAF does,however, havethe potential to point out the shortcomingsof proposals
improvements
which canbe madeat the designphase,
which could
andrecommend
improve the sustainability of the development. Also the cumulative
subsequently
knowledge from the wider application of the RAF and long-term feedback on the
impacts
developments' could help aid decisionsin the future.

276
7.5. What is the RAFs potentialcontribution to science?
Assumingthat the RAF is widely adoptedand that long-term monitoring is carried out
for all major developments,the RAF could contribute a large data source for the

scientific practitioners to work on and improve practice in a number of fields

examinedbelow.

Post-auditing or post-project assessmentrepresentsa crucial point in testing the

predictive force of the EIA procedure (Branis and Christopoulos, 2005). Several
attempts have so far been made to analyse and evaluate the relationship between

proposed environmental impact and real influence of new development projects in

to
order provide a feedback link in environmentalplanning and management(Bisset
and Tomlison, 1988; Wilson, 1998; Wood, 2000; Wood et al, 2000). All have

concludedthat there is still a lot of improvementto be made in the impact prediction

techniques, yet underline how the lack of data. impedes this, and the need for
systematicpost project (Glasson
assessments et al, 2005; Morris and Therivel, 2001;
Wood et al, 2001; Dipper et al, 1998).In 1994,Glassonstated:
'EISs should include monitoring programmesspecifically related to the issues

and impact predictions covered by the EIS, with well defined, clearly stated
(and achievable) objectives duration methodologiesand strategy, levels of
funding, responsibilitiesand methodsofrepbrting.

It wasthesepreciseissueswhich werecoveredin the RAF reportsandboundby the

S106 agreementand funding provided. Therefore,it could be assumedthat the wider

adoption of the RAF could potentially provide the sourceof data and feedbackwhich
EIA prediction methodologistshave arguedso strongly is needed.This could in turn

enable greater understanding with regard to the meaning and reliability of impact
thus facilitating future development decision making including the
predictions,
improvementof the impact prediction methodsthemselves(Dipper et al, 1998).

Furthermore,the literature points out a gap in the evidenceor information regarding

the effectivenessof developmentimpact measures,
mitigation- in part attributed to the
lack of follow-up and monitoring of the mitigation measure implementation
general
(Wilson, 1998; Tinker, et al 2005; Sanchezet al, 2005). For example, Gault (1997)

and Gilbert and Anderson (1998), in describing mitigation measures for species

277
translocationand habitat creation, emphasisethe need for continued monitoring and
management, but also comment on the risks of potential failure of such measuresand
current lack of knowledge and empirical evidencewhich surroundsthem. In fact a lot

of the mitigation measure effectiveness data is based on carefully controlled

experimentsrather than development industry practices,which have varied workforce

skills, external conditions etc (Glasson et al, 2005). Therefore, should the RAF be

widely applied, an opportunity would present itself to the research community, in

terms of a source of feedback information regarding the efficiency of proposed
This
mitigation measures. information would be publicly available as a result of the
RAF requirements and therefore could be used to improve impact mitigation
technologyand measuresin general.

7.6. What the RAF does not and should not do

As cautioned by Owens and Cowell (2002), it is important to make clear the
limitations of this framework to ensure that it is not used to manipulate decision

making. Theseare as follows:

wThe RAF is no substitutefor formal public consultation;

-The RAF can not assessor monitor the sustainabilityof RemediationStrategies;

RAF
mThe is not a substitutefor Risk EIA,
Assessment, SEA or EMS.

The RAF uses participation methods to try and improve communication and

regarding the sustainability issues of BRP. However, the purpose of

understanding
is to decide whether the developmentshould go aheador not;
such participation not
rather the development of criteria and indicators of sustainability. There are formal

albeit with thdir limitations, and the RAF should

processeswhich are well established,
be perceivedas a complementrather than a substitute. The participation of the public,
is limited in the RAF and although the censuswas perceived by participants as an
it not be usedin isolation.
effectiveway to obtainpublicviews, should

As was concluded from the evaluation of the RAF (Chapter 6), the RESCUE

sustainability criteria are not of great value as they add nothing new to
remediation
the existing procedures required by legislation to address the risk of contamination.
Essentially, the sustainability of the remediation strategy cannot be assessedand

278
ftirther researchis required to develop specific assessmentcriteria and benchmarks
(See Section 7.8). Long-term monitoring according to the current policy and

regulatory regime cannot feasibly be required. Potentially, the costs are prohibitive to
the extent that even a collaborative developer would not commit to funding this
without being required to do so by legislation. Therefore,it can be concludedthat the
RAF should not be consideredcurrently as a processwhich can assessthe long-term
sustainabilityof rernediationstrategies.

Finally, and most importantly, the RAF should not be used as a substitute for risk

assessment, EIA, EMS or SEA. These processes, despite criticisms, are well
establishedand serve a specific purpose. In particular EIA, despite criticisms of its

narrow scope is still described as the 'grandfather of environmentalassessmentand

management tools'(van der Vorst et al, 1999, p. 4) and does provide the meansto
carry out detailed and necessaryassessments of environmentalimpacts (Glassonet al,
2005). A replacementof EIA or any of theseproceýseswith the RAF could result, as
seen from the generic indicators and criteria produced Section 5.4, in a loss of
emphasison environmental aspects,or in the generation of too generalised(as in

lacking robust detailed assessment)conclusions(Eales et al, 2005). What has been

identified in the literature and through the interviews carried out is the lack of means
to affect decision making as well as a lack of
for the results of these assessments
integration of these approaches(Sheate,2002; Therivel and Minas, 2002; George,
1999; Sanchezand Hacking, 2002; Grays and Weidemann, 1999). It is this precise

gap which the RAF has tried to fill, through developing a generic assessmentand

monitoring approach for the consideration of the different aspectsof sustainability

which draw on the findings alongside elementsof the above existing tools. Through

the use of participative and planning the-RAF

processes, aims to integrate findings of
tools
existing assessment into decisionmaking; nothing more nothing less.

7.7. Some methodological reflections on the development of

evaluation tools
When issued with the brief for this research (for VVTD SUBRIM), I was asked to
develop indicators to monitor the sustainabilityof BRP, which I initially set out to do.
However, when reviewing the literature and talking with BRP stakeholders,I soon
that the brief was flawed. The review of existing tools (Chapter3) shows that
realised
be
it can all too to
easy go down the road of 'reinventing the wheel'.

279
Therefore,a substantialpart of this researchwas spent developing the causal design
(Stage 1, Figure 1.4). Researchwas carried out to try and establishwhat type of tool

or processwas actually needed before embarking on its development.The review of

existing tools identified a conglomerationof highly complex tools; many with a Life
Cycle Assessmentmethodological basis aimed at the assessmentof building or

material performance, or else very simple checklists aimed at the public for
environmental self There
assessments. was an evident gap of assessmenttools which
were relevant to decision makers in as much as they were not designed with their
skills and know-how in mind.

Reflecting on the methodsused by the RAF it is apparentthat trade-offs have been

made. Trade-offs betweentheoreticalbest practice, for example indicator accuracyor

public two-way involvement, and feasibility. During the causaldesign the lack of use
of existing tools was Therefore,
unquestionable. insteadof focussingon issuessuchas
scientific accuracy and propriety, a conscious decision was made to research the
feasibility factorsand barriersto the adoptionof such tools and incorporatethe results
in the designof the RAF.

Consequently,BRP stakeholderswere selectedfor interview on the basis of being

potential RAF users. In particular, the approach of redesigning the RAF at each
interview with the participants proved to be very effective as a method. It provided
focus to the interviews with stakeholdersnot talking in abstractbut insteadhaving to
think about their in
recommendations practice. So initially stakeholders, when
presentedwith the RAF would usually state, 'that will never work! '; the remainderof
the interview would be spent altering the RAF to*improve its feasibility. The BRP

stakeholdersinterviewed, whilst not expertsin evaluation or sustainabilityhad a

understandingof the contextof planningdecision making and were able to
working
the RAF in a way that theyperceived would help them whenundertakingsuch
shape
projects.This explainsthe overlapin the RAF specifications and case study trial
observations
participants' of the RAF. Therefore,working with evaluationuserswhen
developingmethodsor toolsis highly recommended.

280
 7.8. Recommendations for further research
In conductingthis thesisa numberof areashavebeen identified which require further
With
research. regard to the RAF, more pilot trials are recommended.Ideally, trials
be
should undertaken in different socio-economic 'contexts,different locations, with
different types, scalesand sizes of developmentsin different political situations and

with different ownership arrangements. Such trials would help establish whether or
not the built in flexibility of the RAF allows its wider utilisation and relevance.These
trials would also provide the opportunitiesto refine the RAF process.As discussedin
Chapter6, further researchin conjunction with the policy and planning community is

required to establishthe appropriate RAF applicability thresholds in relation to the

scaleand nature of developments.

A longitudinal evaluation of the GM RAF case study would also be of significant

value. This could examine whether or not the perceivedbenefits and purpose of the
RAF were achieved,which in turn would help refine the processfurther. It would also
enable exploration of whether the indicators identified in the planning and design

period of the developmentwere seen as relevantby end users after the completion of
the development. Ideally, the RAF process would be undertaken at each life cycle
a development. Thus it would be very valuable to trial it in that manner.
period of

Based on the review of existing sustainability evaluation tools and literature, a gap

was identifiedwith regardto tools that focus on the

assessing wider sustainability
impactsof developments (Chapter3). The scaleof existingevaluationtools mainly
focuseson buildingsratherthan the developmentas a whole and thereforefurther
in
research this field is Although
proposed. the SEEDAchecklistattemptsto cover
issues at the development scale; it is by no means
social, environmentaland economic
In particular; more research is proposed to develop benchmarks to assess
perfect.
performanceon all aspects.

At a development scale a lack of benchmarks against which to assessproject

identified. As an example, the SEEDA checklist, one of the few
performancewas
tools relevant to the development
scale,usesbenchmarkswhich could be criticised for

beingtoo simplisticor There

lenient. is a needfor further to
research establish
whatis

truly best practice. When should a development be branded with excellent

281
performance, given the current technologies available? Does a development which
meets the 'Secure by Design' standardwith excellent, actually mean that the people
living in that areafeel safer?In particular, benchmarksof best and minimum practice
in the socio-economicfield are in their infancy. This is probably becausethey require
is
practice which evaluated in order to be developed.There is a need for intensified

research in this field, as knowledge and technology relevant to sustainability

advances.

Flexibility is advocatedthroughoutthe RAF processin order to achieverelevanceto

context. However, there is a need for more research and deliberation between the

research and policy community as to whether there is scope in stipulating the

achievementof some of the more international and national-sustainability targets

for
regarding example,water, energyefficiency and waste minimisation which would
haveto be met by individual developments.Therefore,further researchis proposedin
developing mandatory performancebenchmarksfor developments,which obviously

should be more demanding than current Building Regulations. This would involve

research, into for example, existing energy efficiency technologies, their cost of
implementation at a development level and their efficacy. Having identified the

potential energy savings of the more feasible solutions, new energy rating standards
be developed and applied throughout the country. Additionally, research into
should
the standardsemployed in other more environmentally conscious countries (like

Sweden) could prove beneficial. What has been an encouraging finding of this
is developers' willingness to improve performance on the proviso that it is
research
of all developers, something which the introduction of more stringent
required
Building Regulations could achieve. Dealing with social and contamination issues

a more context specific approach,further research for which is proposed

requires
below.

7.8.1. Research in sustainable remediation- where to begin?

With regard to the sustainability assessment of remediation strategies it was
that such practice was not occurring and that there were no appropriate
established
However, what was made clear was the need for a
tools to enablesuch an assessment.
specific approach to remediation strategy sustainability A
assessment. site
context

282
specific Multi Criteria Analysis might be a way of identifying, on a case by case
basis, the most sustainablesolution. However, as specified by contaminated land
interviewees and from the literature (Dair and Williams, 2004), feasibility factors

shouldalsobe incorporatedin the assessment.A speculativeassessment matrixwhich

be
could used for the evaluationof different
remediation
strategiesis presentedbelow
(Table 7.1).

Table 7.1. Example of MCA table for sustainabllity options appraisal of site specific
strategies
SiteX DigandDump Containment Naturalattenuation Optiond etc..

Energy
requirements
Green house gas
emissions
Resource
requirements (e.g.
soil)
Contamination
cleanup feasibility
Cost(initial)
Cost(future)
Time
Legislation
Trafficgeneration
SocialAcceptability
Other?Etc

However, there is a lot of researchneededbefore such a method can effectively be

to assessthe site specific sustainability of different remediation strategies.It
used
would not be feasible to conduct Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies calculating
requirements and energy consumption of the different scenarios,for each
resource
individual development.However, there is a need for extensiveLCA work, similar to

the type carried out by Lesage(2005), to try and obtain at least some approximations
the energy intensities of different remediationoptions or, for example,X tonnesof
of
GHG emissionsproduced for the reclamationof 1 tonne of contaminatedsoil using
in-situ containmenttechniqueX. Somecriteria, such as social acceptability, time and
be site specific and have to be identified at that point. Of coursethere
cost will always

283
are other variables to be consideredand variable priority, or weighting, may change
accordingto the site.

With regard to the long-term sustainability implications of remediation options there

is definitely scope for further research.As a pressing priority, it is proposed that
is
research carried out of past remediation projects which have used barrier and
containmenttechniques and which are over 10,20 or even 50 years old to understand
the long-term issues of such methods. In particular, the future behaviour of
contaminantsin in-situ technologiesneedto be examined,taking into accountclimate
change. This is of vital significancewith regard to the ThamesGateway which is in a
high flood risk area and is using containment remediation methods on riverside
development projects. There is a need to examine for example, what will the
implications regarding different water table changes,under different climate change

scenarioswith regard to the in-situ contaminants. When questioned on this issue and
the fact that there was no long-term monitoring being stipulated for remediatedsites,
despite issuesof climate change,an ODPM officihl stated: 'if the place doesflood,
be the last thing the residentswill be worrying about'. However,
contaminationwill
other contaminated land interviewees commented on the pressing need for such

research.

7.9 Recommendations for the policy and planning community

In the concluding section of this thesis recommendations are made for consideration
by policy makersand the planning community. It is recommendedthat government:

mstopsmaking assumptionsand startsimplementing assessments

and monitoring with

regardto sustainabilityand contamination;

odevelops more demanding Building Regulations with regard to sustainability
buildingperformance;
to LAs the development;
on principlesof sustainable and
sprovidestraining
the
smakes RAF a reality by:
o adopting the SEEDA checklist in the RegionalPlan;

o stipulating EIA post-monitoring requirementsin the Regulations;and

o requiring the use of the RAF through policy recommendations.

284
Many of thesepoints have alreadybeendiscussedin the thesis and do not needto be

repeated.With regard to making the RAF a reality, however, it was made explicit by
intervieweesthat a number of actions are required from government. The current

unstructuredapproach to planning decision making is problematic. Both developers

and LAs the

expressed need for a transparent structured processto undertakecontext

specific sustainability assessmentsof development proposals with the aim of

facilitating planning application decisionmaking. LA representativesalso pointed out
to
the need establish an information link between monitoring being carried out at a
generalLA level, which was often perceivedas a processrelevant to ODPMs rather
than local information needs,and information obtainedat the developmentlevel.

At a regional level, the author has alreadyset out to enablethe implementationof the
in
RAF the South East. Through co-operation with SEEDA, it is envisagedthat the
RAF will be launched as the recommendedprocess through which the checklist

shouldbe implemented.There are plans to carry out more casestudy trials of the RAF
in the South East. Also following participants' rec.ommendationsthere is discussion
SEEDA of developing the RAF implementation manual. The potential of this is
with
The SEEDA checklist is the initial trial prior to the planned launch of the
great.
throughout the Regions. Therefore, should the RAF coupled with the
checklist
be adopted in each of the Regions Spatial Strategies, there is the potential
checklist,
for the RAF to be adoptedas a processthroughoutthe UK. Although still speculative,
of
this endorsement the RAF is encouraging.

285
 Epilogue.

Thisresearchhas beena journey like that of Odysseus

settingout to reachIthaca.
Indeedthe road has beenlongfilled with adventuresand hurdles,and in reaching
Ithaca (the conclusionof the PhD and development of the RAF), I realise that the
valueof what I haveachieved is not the RAF or the thesisitseVbut the knowledge I
havegained through undergoingthe adventures.

SoonI hope to set sail again in my questfor a new Ithaca ...andyes, Ipray that the

road is long,filled with adventures

286
References
Adams,D., Disberry, A., Hutchinson,N., and Munjoma, T., 2000, Taxes,subsidies
and the behaviour of brownfield owners, Land Use Policy, 17 (2), April pp
135-145.
Adams, D., and Watkins, C., 2002, Greenflelds,Brownfield and housingdevelopment,
Blackwell ScienceLtd, Oxford.
Adams, J., 1995,Risk, UCL PressLtd, London.
Albeles, T. P., 1999,Forethought,is sustainabilitya viable conceptfor planning?,
Foresight, 1 (3), pp 265-273.
Alberti, M., Caini, L., Calabrese,A., and Rossi,D., 2000, Evaluation of the costsand
benefits of an environmentalmanagementsystem,International Journal of
Production Research,38 (17), pp 4455-4466.
Albin, C., 1993,In theory: the role of fairnessin negotiation,Negotiation Journal,
9(3), pp 223-244.
Aldrich, T.E., Torres, C., andLilquist, D., 1998,Risk Assessmentand Soil
Contamination,Land Contaminationand Reclamation,6 (4), pp 207-213.
Alker, S., Roberts, J., Smith, P., 2000, The definition of brownfield, Journal of
EnvironmentalPlanning and Management,43 (1), pp 49-69.
Anex, R.P., andFocht, W., 2002, Public Participationin Life Cycle and Risk
Assessment:A sharedneed,RiskAnalysis, 22 (5), pp 861-877.
Arnstein, S., 1969, A ladder of citizen participation. AIP Journal, July, pp216-224.
Arvai, J.L., Gregory,R., and Mc Daniels, T1,2001, Testing a structureddecision
approach: Value-focused thinking for deliberative risk communication, Risk
Analysis, 21 (6), pp 1065-1076.
Atkinson, G., Durbourg, R., Hamilton, K., Munasinghe, M., Pearce, D. and Young,
C., 1997,Measuring SustainableDevelopment,Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
AtKisson, andA. Hatcher, R. L., 2001, The compasý index of sustainability:prototype
for a comprehensivesustainabilityinformation system,Journal of
EnvironmentalAssessment Policy and Management,3 (4), pp 509-532.
Attoh-Okine, N., and Gibbons, J., 200 1, Use of belief function in brownfield
infrastructureredevelopmentdecisionmaking,Journal of urbanplanning and
development,127 (3), pp 126-143.
R.
Baker, and Hinton R., in Kitzinger J. and Barbour, R. S., 1999, Developing Focus
theory andpractice. Sage, London.
group research:politics,
Ball, D. J., 2002, Environmental risk assessment and the intrusion of bias,
EnvironmentInternational, 28, pp 529-544.*
Ball, R., 1999, Developers, regenerationand sustainability issues in the reuseof
industrial buildings, Building Research Information, 27(3), pp 140-148.
vacant
Bardos, R. P., Lewis, A. J., Nortcliff, S., Mariotti, C., Marot, F. and Sullivan, T., 2002,
ReviewofDecision Support Toolsfor Contaminated Land Management,and
their use in Europe. Final Report. Austrian Federal Environment Agency,
2002 on behalf of CLARINET, SpittelauerLgnde 5, A-1090 Wien, Austria.
Available from: www.clarinet.at

287
Bardos,R.P., Mariotti, C. and Sullivan, T., 2001, Frameworkfor decision support
used in c9ntaminated land management in EuropeandNorth America., Land
Contaminationand Reclamation,9 (1), pp 58-70.
Bardos,R.P., Nathanail,C.P., and Weenk,A., 1999,Assessingthe Wider
Environmental ValueofRemediatingLand Contamination,A Review.R andD
TechnicalReport P238, EnvironmentAgency, Swindon.
Bardos,R.P., Kearney,T.E., Nathanail,C.P., Weenk,A, and Martin, I. D., 2000,
Assessingthe WiderEnvironmental ValueoýRemediatingLand
Contamination,7h InternationalFZK/TNO Conferenceon ContaminatedSoil
"ConSoil"
htlp://www.r3environmental.co.uk/CONSOIL`/`202000ý/ý2OLecture`/`2OSessio
n%20B2%2OBardos%20et%20al. PDF
Bartsch,C., 2003, Communityinvolvementin Brownfield redevelopment,Washington
DC: NortheastMidwest Institute.
Beck, U., 1992,Risk Society,Sage,London.
Becker,J., 2004, Making sustainabledevelopmentevaluationswork, Sustainable
Development,12 (4), pp 200-211.
Beierle,T.C., 2002, The quality of stakeholder-Baseddecisions,Risk analysis,22(4)
pp 739-740
Bell, S. and Morse, S., 1999,SustainabilityIndicators, Measuring the Immeasurable,
Earthscan,London.
Bell, S., and Morse, 2003, MeasuringSustainability,Learningfrom Doing, Earthscan,
London.
Bentivenga,V., Curwell, S., Deakin, M., Lombardi,.P., Mitchell, G. and Nijkamp, P.,
2002, A vision and methodologyfor integratedsustainableurban development
BEQUEST,Building ResearchandInformation, 30 (2), pp 83-94.
Birch, D., 2002,Public Participation in Local Government:A survey ofLocal
Authorities, ODPM, London.
Bisset,R. and Tomlinson P., 1988,Monitoring and auditing of impacts in Wathern
(ed) EnvironmentalImpact Assessment:Theoryand Practice, Routledge,
London.
Bohneblust,H. and Slovic, P., 1998,Integratingtechnicalanalysisand public values
in risk baseddecisionmaking. Reliability Engineeringand SystemSafety,59,
pp 151-159.
Boothroyd, P., 1995,Policy assessment. In Environmentaland Social Impact
Assessment,Vanclay, F. and Bronstein,D., (eds),pp, 83-126, Wiley,
Chichester.
Bossel, 1999,Indicatorsfor Sustainabledevelopment:Theory,Method, Applications,
A report to the Balaton Group, IISD, Canada
Burningham,K., Barnett, J., Caff, A., Clift, R. and Wehrmeyer,W., (forthcoming),
Industrial constructionsof publics andpublic knowledge:A qualitative
investigationof practicein the UK chemicalsindustry, Public Understanding
ofScience, 16 (1).
Burningham, andK. Thrush, D., 200 1, "Rainforestsare a long wayfrom here". The
environmental concerns ofdisadvantaged groups, JosephRowntree
Foundation,York.
Bradbury, J.A., 1994,Risk in
communication environmentalrestorationprograms,
RiskAnalysis, 14 (3), pp 357-363.

288
Brandon,P.S., Lombardi, P.L. and Bentivenga,V., (eds), 1997,Evaluation in the
Built Environmentfor Sustainability,E& EF Spon,Chapmanand Hall,
London.
Branis,M. and Christopoulos,S., 2005,Mandatedmonitoring of post-projectimpacts
in the ChechEIA, EnvironmentalImpact AssessmentReview,25, pp 227-238.
BRE, 2001,SAP2001, The GovernmentsStandardAssessmentProcedurefor energy
rating ofdwellings, DEFRA and BRE, Watford.
Breheny,M., 1994,Defining SustainableLocal DevelopmentDiscussionPaper, No
23, University of Readingdepartmentof Geography,GeographicalPapers:
SeriesB, Reading.
Briassoulis,H., 2001, Policy and Practice.Sustainabledevelopmentand its indicators:
Through a PlannersGlassDarkly, Journal ofPlanning and Management,
44(3), pp 409-427.
Brown, A., 2003, Increasingthe utility of urban environmentalquality information,
Landscapeand Urban Planning, 65, pp 85-93.
Brugmann,J., 1997,Is therea methodin our measuFement? The use of indicators in
local sustainabledevelopmentplanning,Local Envirom-nent,2(l), pp 59-72.
Cairney,T., 1995, There-useofcontaminatedland: A handbookof risk assessment,
John Wiley & Sons,Chichester.
Cambell,H., Ellis, H., Henneberry,J. and Gladwell, C., 2000, Planning obligations,
planning practice and land-use outcomes, Environment and Planning B:
Planning andDesign, 27, pp 759-775.
Carley, M., and Christie, 1., 1992,Managingsustainabledevelopment,Earthscan,
London.
Carley, M., 2000, Urban partnerships,Governanceand the regenerationof Britain's
cities, International Planning Studies,5 (3) pp273-297.
Carmona,M., Carmona,S., and Gallent.,N., 2003,Delivering new homes,processes
planners andproviders, Routledge, London.
Cartwright, L.E., 2000, SelectingLocal sustainabledevelopmentindicators: Does
Consensusexist in their choiceandpurpose?Planning Practice and Research,
15, (Y2),pp 65-75.
Catney,P., 2005, Sustainabledevelopmentandrisk in UK governmentpolicy on
contaminated land and brownfield developMent, SUBR: IM Working Paper C1,
University of Sheffield, www. subrim.org.uk
Chadwick, A. and Glasson,J., 1999,Auditing the socio-economicimpacts of a major
construction project: The case of Sizewell B nuclearpower station,Journal of
EnvironmentalPlanning and Management,42 (6), pp 811-836.
Chambers,D.E., Wedel, Y-R. and Rodwell, M. K., 1992,Evaluating Social Programs,
Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
Chess,C, Dietz, T. and Shannon,M., 1998,Who should deliberate,When?,Human
Ecology Review,5(l), pp 45-48.
Church,C. and McHarry, J., 1994,Implications of sustainability, Town and Country
Planning, 63 (7 /8), pp 208-209.
A.
Clarke, and Dawson, R., 1999,Evaluation Research, An Introduction to principles,
Methodsandpractice. SagePublications,London.
Clifford, W., Cobb J.B. and Cobb, J., 1994, The Green National Product: A Proposed
Index ofSustainableEconomic Weýfare;University Pressof America, ISBN 0-
8191-9322-4
Coase,R., 1960,The problem of social cost, TheJournal ofLaw and Economics,3,
pp 1-45.

289
Cole, R.J., 1999,Building environmentalassessment methods:clarifying intentions
Building Researchand Information, 27 (4/5), pp 230-246.
Collier, C., 2002, CommunityStakeholderInvolvement,CIRI-6349A, September,
www. safegrounds. com/other guidance. htm
Cooper,1., 1997,Environmentalassessment methodsfor use at the building and city
scales:constructing bridges or identifying common ground? In Brandon, P. S.,
Lombardi, P.L. and Bentivenga,V., (eds),Evaluation in the Built Environment
for Sustainability,E& EF Spon,Chapmanand Hall, London.
CornelissenA. M. G., van den Berg, J., Koops, W.J. and Udo, H.M. J., 2001,
Assessmentof the contribution of sustainability indicatorsto sustainable
development:A novel approachusing Fuzzy Set Theory, Agriculture
EcosystemsandEnvironment, 86 (2), ppl73-185.
Couch, C. and Dennemann,A., 2000, Urban regenerationand sustainable
developmentin Britain. The exampleof the Liverpool Ropewalkspartnership,
Cities, 17 (2), pp 137-147.
Cozens,P., Hillier, D. and Prescott,G., 1999,The sustainableand the criminogenic:
the caseof new-build housingprojects in Britain, Property Management,17
(3), pp 252-261.
CRISP,undated,databasewith over 500 indicators,htt12: HcrisP.cstV.fr
CRISP,2001, Hakkinen, R., 2001, City -related SustainabilityIndicators State-of-the.
art //crisl2.
httl2: cstb. fr/PDF/ýe]2orts/stateofartmaalisku
Crook, A., Jackson,A., Rowley, S., WhiteheadC., Monk S., Curry J. and Smith K.,
2001, Theprovision ofAffordable Housing through theplanning system,
Cambridge,Universitiesof Sheffield and Cambridge.
Cullingworth, B., Nadin, V., 2002, Town and Country Planning in the UK, Routledge.
Curwell, S., Hamilton, A. and Cooper, 1., 1998, The BEQUEST framework: towards
sustainableurban development, Building Research and Information, 26 (1), pp
56-65.
Curwell, S. and Deakin, M., 2002, Editorial, Sustainableurban developmentand
BEQUEST, Building Researchand Information, 30 (2), pp 79-82.
Custance, andJ. Hillier, H., 1998, Statistical issues in developingindicators of
development, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A,
sustainable
161(3),pp281-290.
Cvetkovich, and G. Earle, T. C., 1994, The construction ofjustice: A casestudy of
public participation in land management, Journal ofsocial issues, 50 (3), pp
161-178.
Cvetkovich, G. and Lofstedt, R., (eds), 1999,Social Trust and the managementof
risk, Earthscan Publications, London.
Dahl, A. L., 1997, The big picture: comprehensive Approaches. Part I- Introduction,
in Moldan, B., Billharz, S. and Matravers,R., (eds)Sustainability Indicators:
A report on theproject on indicators ofsustainable development, John Wiley
and Sons, Chichester.
C.
Dair, and Williams, K., 2004, Sustainable Land Re-Use: 7he Influence ofDifferent
Stakeholdersin Achieving Brownfield Developmentin England, Brownfield
ResearchPaper,No. I, Centrefor SustainableDevelopment,Oxford Brookes
University, Headington.
De Oliveira Matias, J.C. and Coelho, D. A., 2002, The integration of the standards
systemsof quality management,environmentalmanagementand occupational
health and safetymanagement,Internationaljournal ofproduction research,
40 (15), pp 3857-3866.

290
Deakin,M., Curwell, S. and Lomberdi, P., 2002a,Sustainableurban development:the
framework and directory of assessment methods,Journal ofEnvironmental
Policy and management,4 (2), June,pp 171-197.
Deakin,M., Huovila, P., Rao, S., Sunikka,M. and Vreeker, R, 2002, The assessment
of sustainable urban development, Building Research and Information, 30 (2)
pp 95-108.
Deakin, M. and Edwards,J., 1993,Theenterpriseculture and the inner city,
Routledge,London.
DEFRA and EnvironmentAgency, 2004, Model proceduresfor the Managementof
Land Contamination,ContaminatedLand Report 11, www. environment-
agencv. gov.uk/commondata/105385/model procedures 881483.12d
Departmentfor Transport,Local Governmentand Regions,DTLR, 2001, Planning
GreenPaper,Planning. Delivering afundamental change,London.
DETR, 1998,Planningfor sustainabledevelopment:TowardsBetter Practice, DETR,
HMSO, London.
DETR, 1999,A better quality oflife: A strategyfor sustainabledevelopmentin the
UK, CM 4345, The StationaryOffice, Londqn.
DETR, 2000, Our Townsand cities: thefuture- delivering and urban renaissance,
DETR, London.
DETR, 2000a,EnvironmentalProtection Act 1990: Part IIA, ContaminatedLand,
Circular 02/2000,DETR, London.
Dipper, B., Jones,C. and Wood, C., 1998,Monitoring andpost-auditing in
EnvironmentalImpact Assessment:A review, Journal ofEnvironmental
Planning and Management,41 (6), pp 731-741.
Dixon, T., Pocock,Y. and Waters,M., 2005, TheRole of the UK Development
Industry in brownfileldregeneration,Stage2 report, College of Estate
Management,ISBN 1-904388-49-3.
Doak, J., 1998,Local Agenda 21 and PlanningPractice:StructuralTransformationor
Window dressing?,WorkingPapers in Land Managementand Development,
I1 (01), pp 8-23.
DoE, 1995, Circular 11195, The in
use of conditions planning permissions,DoE,
London.
DoE, 1997, Circular 1197, Planning Obligations, DoE, London.
Donnelly, A., Dalal-Clayton B. and Hughes, R., (eds), 1998,A Directory ofImpact
AssessmentGuidelines,2ndedition, InternationalInstitute for Environment and
Development,London.
Dorcey, A. H. J., Doney, L. and Rueggeberg, H., 1994, Public involvement in
government decision making. Choosing the right model, Victoria, B. C: The
RoundTable on the Economyand Environment,cited in JacksonL., 2001,
ContemporaryPublic Involvement:towardsa strategicapproach.Local
Environment,6 (2), pp 135-147.
Eales,R., Smith, S., Twigger-Ross, C., Sheate,W., Ozdemiroglu, E., Fry C.,
Tomlinson, P. and Foan,C. 2005, Integratedappraisal,Emerging approaches
to integrated appraisal in the UK, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal,
23 (2), pp 113-123.
Edu1jee, G. H., 2000, Trends in risk assessment and risk management, The scienceof
the total environment, 249, pp 13-23.
Eiswerth, M. E. and Haney, J.C., 2001, Maximising conserved biodiversity: why
ecosystem indicators and thresholds matter? Ecological Economics, 2, pp 149-
166.

291
English Partnerships,2003, Towardsa National Brownfield Strategy,
Http://enRlishpartnerships. co.uk/brownfieldstrategy.htm
EnvironmentAgency, 1998,Consensus Buildingfor sustainabledevelopment,SD12,
EnvironmentAgency, Bristol.
EnvironmentAgency, 2002,A handbookfor Scopingprojects, EA, Bristol.
EnvironmentCouncil, 2002,Dialoguefor sustainability: Facilitation skills and
principles, Environmental council C IN I, London.
Evans,B. andTheobold,K., 2002, Stopthis madness:why collapsing LA21 into
community strategies is a big mistake,EG, 4, pp 1-14.
Schopen,F., 2004, A guide throughthe gatewaysmaze,RegenerationandRenewal,
(Supplement),November,pp 27-30.
Fenwick, J. and Elcock, H., 2004,The new political managementin Local
Government:Public engagementor public indifference?,Local Government
Studies,30 (4), Winter, pp 519-537.
Ferguson,C.C., 1999,Assessingrisks form contaminatedsites:Policy and practice in
16 Europeancountries,Land Contaminationand Reclamation,7 (2), pp87-
108.
Fielding, J. and ThomasH., in Gilbert, N., 2001,2n4edition, ResearchingSocial Life,
Sage,London.
Friendsof the Earth, 2004,Housing: Building a sustainablefuture. Evidenceto the
houseof CommonsEnvironmentalAudit Committeefromfriends of the Earth
htt,p://www. foe.co.uk/resource/evidence/eac sustainablehousinjz.l)df
Fiorino, D.J., 1990,Citizen participation and EnvironmentalRisk: a survey of
Institutional mechanisms.,Sciencetechnologyand human values, 15 (2), pp
226-243.
Fischer,F., 1993,Citizen participation and the democratizationof policy expertise:
From theoreticalinquiry to practical cases. fiolicy Sciences,26, pp 165-187.
Fischoff, B., 1998,Risk perceptionand communicationunplugged:twenty yearsof
process, In Lofsted, R. and Frewer, L., (eds), The earth scan reader in Risk
and Modem society, Earthscan Publications Ltd, London.
Foster,J., (ed), 1997, Valuing nature: Economics,ethicsand environment,Routledge,
London.
Gallopin, G., 1997,Indicators and their use:Information for decision making. In
Moldan, B., Bilharz, S. and Matravers,R., (eds),Sustainability Indicators: A
report on theproject on indicators ofsustainable development, John Wiley
and Sons,Chichester,pp 13-27.
Gault, C., 1997,A movingstory: speciesand communitytranslocation in the UK- a
review ofpolicy, principle, planning andpractice, WWF, Godalming.
George,C., 1999,Testing for sustainabledevelopmentthrough environmental
assessment, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 19, pp 175-200.
George,C., 2001, Sustainabilityappraisalfor sustainabledevelopment:integrating
everything from jobs to climate change, Impact Assessment and Project
Appraisal, 19 (2), pp 95-106.
Gessner, C., Schulz, W. F. and Kreeb, M., 2001, What is a good strategyfor
sustainable development? Greener Management International, 3 6, pp 67-90.
Giampietro,M., Mayumi, K. and Munda, G., 2006, Integratedassessmentand energy
analysis: Quality in
assurance multi-criteria analysisof sustainability,Energy,
31, pp 59-86.
Gibbs, D., 1997,Urban sustainabilityand economicdevelopmentin the United
Kingdom: exploring the contradictions,Cities, 14 (4), pp203-208.

292
Gilbert, O.L. andAnderson,P., 1998,Habitat creation and repair, Oxford University
Press,Oxford.
Gisscridanner,S., 2003, Methodologyproblemsin urban governancestudies,
EnvironmentandPlanning C, 21 (5), pp 651-662.
Glasson,J., 1994,Life after the decision:the importanceof monitoring in EIA, Built
Environment,20 (4), pp 309-320.
Glasson,J., 1995,Socio-economicimpacts 1: overview and economicimpacts,In
Morris, P., and Therivel, R., (eds),MethodsofEnvironmental Impacts
Assessment,UCL, London.
Glasson,J. and Heaney,D., 1993,Socio-economicimpacts:the poor relationsin
British environmentalimpact statements,Journal ofEnvironmental Planning
andManagement, 36 (3), pp 335-343.
Glasson,J., Therivel, R. and Chadwick,A., 1999,Introduction to Environmental
ImpactAssessment,2ndedition, UCL Press,London.
Glasson,J., Therivel, R., and Chadwick,A., 2005,Introduction to Environmental
ImpactAssessment,3ndedition, UCL Press,London.
Gray, R.C.R. and Wiedemann,P.M., 1999,Risk Managementand sustainable
development:mutual lessonsfrom the approachesto the use of indicators,
Journal ofrisk research,2 (3), pp 201-218. '
Greenberg,M. and Lewis, M. J., 2000,Brownfields, redevelopment,preferencesand
public involvement: A casestudy of an ethnically mixed neighbourhood,
Urban Studies,37 (13), pp 2501-2514.
Greenberg,M., Lowrie, K., Solitare,L. and Duncan,L., 2000, Brownfields, Toads,
and the struggle for neighbourhood redevelopment: A case study of the state
of New Jersey., Urban affairs review, 35 (5), pp 717-733.
Gregory, R.S., 2002, Incorporating Value Trade-offs into community based
environmentalrisk decisions, Environmental values, 11, pp 461-88.
Grimski, D., Doetsch,0. and Rupke,A., 1998,Brownfield versusGreenfield sites
under economicand long-term environmental considerations, in Contaminated
Soil'98, pp 651-660,ISBNO727726757,ThomasTelford.
Guba, E. G., (ed), 1990, The paradigm dialog, Newbury Park, Sage, CA.
Guy, G. B. and Kilbert, C.J., 1998, Developing indicators of sustainability: US
Building Research and Information, 26 (1), pp 39-45.
experience,
Gwilliam, M., 1993,Sustainability in action, Planningfor a sustainableenvironment,
Earthscanpublications Ltd, London.
Gyford, J., 1991, Citizens,Consumersand Councili- Local Governmentand the
Public, Macmillan, London.
Hajer, M. and Kesselring, S., 1999, Democracy in the risk society? Earning from the
new politics of mobility in Munich, Environmental Politics, 3, pp 1-23.
Hales, R., 2000, Land use development planning and the notion of sustainable
development:Exploring constraintand facilitation within the English planning
Journal ofEnvironmental Planning and Management, 43 (1), pp 99-
system,
121.
Harbottle, M. J., AI-Tabbaa, A. and Evans, C. W., 2005, The technical sustainabilityof
in situ stabilisation, ConferencePaper, at the International Conferenceon
Stabilisation solidification treatmentand remediation., 12-13April, 2005,
Cambridge.
P.
Hardi, and Zdan T., 1997, Assessing Sustainable Development: Principles in
Practice, IISD, Canada.

293
Hardi, P. and DeSouza-Huletey,J.M., 2000, Issuesin analysingdata and indicators
for sustainabledevelopment,Ecological Modelling, 130,pp 59-65.
Harris, M. R., Herbert, S.M. and Smith, M. A., 1995,Remedial Treatmentfor
contaminated land, Classification and selection of remedial methods,IV,
SP104,CIRIA, London.
Harris, D., 2006,The GatewayEffect, EstatesGazette,614, pp I 10-111.
Hass,J., Brunvoll, F. and Hoje, A., 2003, Overviewofsustainable development
indicators usedby national and international agencies,OECD Papers,3(5)
JT00143033,Statisticsdirectorate,STD/DOC (2002)2.
Healy, P. and Shaw,T., 1994,Changingmeaningsof environmentin the British
planning system,Transactionsof the Institute ofBritish Geographers,19 (4),
pp 425-438.
Hemphill, L., McGreal, S. and Berry, J., 2002, An aggregatedweighting systemfor
evaluating sustainable urban regeneration, Journal ofProperty Research, 19
(4), pp 353-373.
Henderson,S., 2004, Sustainabledevelopment,urban governanceand brownfleld
regeneration: A UK review, University of Reading, www. subrim.orjZ.u
HM Government,2005, The UK Governmentsustainabledevelopmentstrategy,
securing thefuture, CM 6467, HM Stationary Office, London.
HMSO, 1995,StatutoryInstrument1995419 Townand Country Planning (General
DevelopmentProcedure) Order 1995, HMSO, London.
HMSO, 2004,Planning and CompulsoryPurchaseAct
bl!p: //www. opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/20040005. htm
Holland, L., 1997,The role of expertworking partiesin the successfuldesign and
implementationof sustainabilityindicators,EuropeanEnvironment,7, pp 39-
45.
IEMA Institute of EnvironmentalManagementand Assessment,2002,Perspectives,
Guidelineson participation in environmentaldecisionmaking, IEMA,
Lincoln.
Illsley, B.M., 2003, Fair participation-aCanadianperspective,Land UsePolicy, 20,
pp265-273.
I-
Imrie, and Thomas, H., 1993, The limits of property led regeneration,Environment
andPlanning ý C. Government andPolicy, 11, pp 87-102.
Innes, J. E. and Booher, D. E., 2000, Indicators for sustainable Communities: A
strategy Building on Complexity Theory and distributed Intelligence,
Planning TheoryandPractice, 1 (2) pp 173-186.
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), 2006,
http://www. iisd.oriz.measurg/Xrinciples/bpuse.asp
Jaegar, C., Renn, 0., Rosa, E, Webler, T., 200 1, Risk uncertainty and rational action,
EarthscanpublicationsLtd, London.
Jasanoff, S., 1993, Bridging the two cultures of risk analysis, Risk analysis, 13 (2),
23-129.
Joyce,S. and MacFarlane,M., 2001, Mining Minerals and SustainableDevelopment,
Social Impact Assessmentin the mining industry: current situation and future
directions htip://www. iied.orR/mmsd pdf/social impact assessment. pdf
Kasperson,R.E., 1986,Six propositionson public participation and their relevancefor
risk communication, Risk Analysis, 6 (3), pp 275-28 1.
Kasperson, R. E., Renn, 0., Slovic, P., Brown, H. S., Emel, J., Goble, R., Kasperson,
JX and Ratick, S., 1998,The Social amplification of risk: A conceptual

294
 framework, In Lofsted, R. andFrewer, L., (eds) The earthscanreader in
,
Risk and Modern society,EarthscanPublicgions Ltd, London.
Keeney,R.L. and Von Winterfelt, D., 1986,Improving risk communication,Risk
Analysis, 6, (4), pp4l7-424.
KennedyA. J., and Ross,W.A, An approachto integrateimpact scopingwith
environmental impact assessment, Environmental Management, 16 (4) pp
475-484.
Kitzinger, J., and Barbour, R.S., (ed), 1999,DevelopingFocus group research:
politics, theory andpractice. SAGE, London.
Kontic, B., 2000, Why are someexpertsmore credible than others?Environmental
Impact AssessmentReview,20, pp 427-434.
Lash, S., Szerszynski,B., and Wynne, B., (eds), 1996,Risk Environment and
Modernity, Towardsa new ecology,Sagepublications,London.
Law, C., 1988,From ManchesterDocks to Salford Quays:A progressreport on an
urban redevelopment project, Manchester Georgrapher, 9, pp2-15.
Leach,S., Skelcher,C., Lloyd-Jones,C., Copus,C., Dunstan,E., Hall, D. and Taylor,
F., 2003, StrengtheningLocal Democracy-Makingthe Most of the
Constitution,ODPM, London.
Lee, N., 2002, Integratedapproachesto impact assessment:substanceor make
believe?In EnvironmentalAssessmentYearBook, 2002, IEMA, Lincoln.
Lesage,P., 2005,Analyseenvironmentalede la rehabilitation- valorisation deftiches
industrielles urbaines,PhD Thesis,Ecole Politechniquede Montreal,
November,Montreal.
Levett, R. and Therivel R., 2004, Report to the SUE-MoT consortium: Sustainable
Urban Environment-Metrics, Models and Toolkits: Analysis of
sustainabilitylsocial tools, June,Oxford, Unpublished.
Local GovernmentAct, 2000, http://www. ol2si.jzov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000022. htm
Local GovernmentManagementBoard LGBM, 1995,Thesustainability Indicators
research project. Consultants report of the pilot Phase: The role of indicators,
theproject, the pilots experience,guidance menu of indicators, casestudies,
LGO130, LGBM.
Loftman, P. andNevin, B., 1995,Prestigeprojectsandurban regenerationin the
1980sand 1990s:a review of benefitsand limitations, Planning Practice and
Research,10 (3/4), pp 299-315.
Lowndes, V., Stoker, G., Pratchett, L., Wilson, D., Leach, S. and Wingfield, M.,
1998,Enhancingparticipation in Local Government,DETR, London.
Maclaren,V. W., 1996,Urban SustainableReporting,Journal of the American
Planning Association,Spring, 62 (2), pp 184-202.
Manyong, V. M. and Degand,J., 1997,Measurementof the sustainability of African
SmallholderFarming Systems:Casestudy of a systemsApproach, JITA
Research,14/15,pp 1-6.
Marshall, R., 2005, Industry benefits. Environmental Impact assessmentfollow-up
and its benefits for industry. ImpactAssessment and Project Appraisal, 23 (3)
pp 191-196.
S.
Marvin, and Guy, S., 1997, Infrastructure provisibri, development processesand the
co-productionof environmental value, Urban studies, 34 (12) pp2023-2036.
Matheson, andD., Matheson, J., 1998, The "smart" organization: creating value
through strategic RandD. Cambridge, MA: Harvard BusinessSchoolPress.

295
McDaniels, T.L., Gregory,R.S. and Fields, D., 1999,Democratizing risk
management: Successful public involvement in local water management
decisions,Risk Analysis,VI (19), 3, pp 497-510.
Meadows,D.H, 1998,Indicators andInformation SysternsforSustainable
Development.ht!p://www. sUstainer. orp,
Mebratu, D., 1998,Sustainabilityand sustainabledevelopment:historical and
conceptual review, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 18, pp 493-520.
Meppem,T. and Gill, R., 1998,Planningfor Sustainability as a Learning Concept,
Ecological Economics,26, pp 121-137.In Bell, S., and Morse, 2003,
Measuring Sustainability,Learningfrom Doing, Earthscan,London.
Milne, R., 2004, Regenerationgame,Utility Week,ý2 (18), pp 16-18.
Mitchell, G., 1996,Problemsand fundamentalsof sustainabledevelopmentindicators,
SustainableDevelopment,4, pp I -11.
Moldan, B., Bilharz, S. and Matravers,R., (eds),Sustainability Indicators: A report
on theproject on indicators ofsustainable development, John Wiley and Sons,
Chichester.
Moore, V., 2002,A practical approachto Planning Law, 8thedition, Oxford
University Press,Oxford.
Morgan, R., (ed), 1985, Applied qualitative research,Dartmouth Publishing ltd,
Aldershot.
Morris, P. and Therivel, R., (eds), 1995,Methodsof EnvironmentalImpacts
Assessment,UCL, London.
Morris, P. and Therivel, R., (eds),2001,2ndedition, MethodsofEnvironmental
ImpactsAssessment,UCL, London.
Morse, S., McNamara,N., Acholo, M. and Okwoli, B., 2001, Sustainability
indicators: The problem of integration.SustainableDevelopment,9, pp 1-15.
Mulvihill, P.R., 2003, Expandingthe scopingcommunity, EnvironmentalImpact
AssessmentReview,23, pp 39-49.
National ResearchCouncil, 1996,Stem,P. and Fineberg,H., (eds) Understanding
risk, Informing decisions in a democratic society, National Academy Press,
WashingtonDC.
NeighbourhoodInitiatives, undated,Planningfor Real,
hqp://www. nifco. uk/planninjzforreal/
Neumayer,E., 1999,Can sustainabilitybe measured?In WeakversusStrong
Sustainability, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
NICOLE, 1999,Communicationon contaminatedland.
http://www. nicole.oriz/news/downloads/NICOLE`/`20COMMUNICATION`/`2
OON%20CONTAMINATED%20LAND.PDF
Nitz, T. and Holland, 1.,2000, DoesEnvironmentalImpact Assessmentfacilitate
environmentalmanagement activities?, Journal ofEnvironmental Assessment
Policy and Management,2 (1), pp 1-17.
Nugent, R.A., 1996, The sustainability of urban agriculture: A case in Hartford,
Connecticut,Departmentof economics,Pacific Lutheran University Tacoma.
Nurick, R. and Johnson, V., 1998, Towards community based indicators for
monitoring quality of life and the impact of industry in South Durban,
SustainableDevelopment,10 (1) , pp 233-249.
ODPM, (undated),Statutory and non-statutoryconsultationreport: main document,
http://www. odnm.gov.uk/pub/78/AnnexACuffentstatutolyandnonstatutolycon
sultationarrangementsPDF73Kb id1146078. pd

296
ODPM, 1998,Enhancingpublic participation in Local Government,
h!!R:Hodpm.jzov.uk/index.asl2? id=l 137179
ODPM, 1999,Projections of householdsin England 2021 (19 October, 1999)
www. odpm.gov.uk/stelient/groul2s/odpm- hdusing/document/Dage/odpm- hous
e 604206. hcsp
ODPM, 1999a,Planning Policy GuidanceNote 12, DevelopmentPlans, HMSO,
London.
ODPM, 2000,Preparing CommunityStrategies:GovernmentGuidanceto Local
Authorities, b": //www. odpm.jzov.uk/index.asp?id=l 133743
ODPM, 2001, Planning Policy Guidance13: Transport,HMSO, London.
ODPM, 2002 Departmentfor Transport,Using theplanningprocess to securetravel
plans, DTRL, HMSO, London.
ODPM, 2003, SustainableCommunitiesin the North West:Buildingfor thefuture,
HMSO, London.
ODPM, 2004, TheEgan Review,Skillsfor sustainablecommunities,London
ODPM, 2004a,Planning Policy Statement12: Local DevelopmentFrameworks,
HMSO, StationaryOffice.
ODPM, 2004bMaking it happen:the Northern way, HMSO, London.
ODPM, 2004c,Market renewalPathfinders-Learning lessons,HMSO, London.
ODPM, 2005,Planning Policy Statement1, Delivering SustainableDevelopment,
HMSO, StationaryOffice.
ODPM, 2005a,www. sustainable-
develoi2ment. gov.uk/performance/documents/Formerheadlineindicatorsinnews
et,pdf
ODPM, 2005b SustainabilityAppraisal ofRegional Spatial Strategiesand Local
DevelopmentFrameworks: Guidancefor RegionalPlanning Bodies and Local
Planning Authorities, HMSO, London.
ODPM, 2005c,Annual Monitoring Report (AAIR)-FAQs and SeminarFeedbackon
emerging Best Practice 2004105, HMSO, London.
ODPM, 2005d, CircularO512005Planning Obligations, HMSO, London.
ODPM, 2005e,Fact Sheet7, Codefor SustainableBuildings,
http://www. odpm.gov.uk/index.asp?i'd=l 122897
ODPM, 2005f, Creating sustainablecommunities:delivering the ThamesGateway,
HMSO, London.
ODpM, 2005g,Delivering the ThamesGateway,HMSO, London.
ODPM, 2005h,SustainableCommunitiesHomesfor all, HMSO, London.
Ofori, G., Gang,G. and Briffett, C., 2002, Implementingenvironmentalmanagement
systems in construction: lessons from qualitý systems,Building and
Environment,37: pp 1397-1407.
oppenheim, A. N., 1992 2ndedition, Questionnairedesignand interviewing and
attitude measurement, Pinter, London.
Owens,S. and Cowel, R., 2002,Land and Limits, Interpreting sustainability in the
planning process, Routledge, London.
S.
Owens, and Cowell, R., 2001, Going crisply to damnation? Challenging the
metaphorof the 'toolkit', EG, Aug/Sep, pp 12-14.
Oxley-Green,A. and Hunton-Clarke,L., 2003, A typology of stakeholder
participation for company environmental decision making, Businessstrategy
and the environment, 12(5), pp 292-299.
Ozonoff, D., 1998,Integratingvaluesinto science:the view of an un-constructed
philosophical realist, Human Ecology Review, 5(l), pp 49-50.

297
Parr, T.W., Sier, A. R., Battarbee,R.W., Mackay, A. and Burgess,J., 2003, Detecting
environmental change: science society-perspectives on long-term researchand
monitoring in the 21stcentury, Thescienceof the total environment,3 10,ppl-
8.
Partidario,M., 1996,Strategicenvironmentalassessment: Key issuesemergingfrom
recentpractice. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16 (1), pp 31-55.
Patton,M. Q., 1982,Practical Evaluation, SagePublications,London.
Patton,M. Q., 1990,2ndedition, Qualitative Evaluation and ResearchMethods,
Newbury Park, Sage,London.
Patton,M. Q., 1997,3"dedition, Utilization-FocusedEvaluation: TheNew Century
Text,ThousandOaks, Sage,London.
Patton,M. Q., 2002, Yd edition, Qualitative Researchand Evaluation Methods,
ThousandOaks, Sage,London.
Pediaditi, K., Wehrmeyer,W. and Chenoweth,J., 2005, Risk its role in brownfileld
redevelopmentproject decision making and conceptualcommonalitiesto
sustainability, CES Working Paper 02/05, Guildford, UK.
Pediaditi, K., Wehrmeyer,W. and Chenoweth,J., 2005a,Sustainability
implementationand monitoring through land useplanning: a closer look at
brownfileldregeneration,CES Working Paper0 1105,Guildford, UK.
Pediaditi, K. and Wehrmeyer,W., 2005b,Brownfield redevelopment,integrating
sustainability and risk management Proceedings ofEnvironmental Health
Risk 2005 Conference,WITPress, 14-16September,Bolognia, Italy.
Pediaditi, K., Wehrmeyer,W. and Chenoweth,J., 2005c,Monitoring the
sustainability of brownfiled redevelopment projects. The Redevelopment
AssessmentFramework(RAF), ContaminatedLand and Reclamation, 13 (2),
pp 173-183.
Pediaditi, K., Wehrmeyer, W. and Chenoweth, J., 2005c, Developing sustainability
indicatorsfor brownfield redevelopmentprojects,Engineering Sustainability,
159 (March), pp 3-10.
Pediaditi, K., Wehrmeyer,W. and Burningham,K., -2006a,Evaluating brownfield
redevelopment projects: a review of existing sustainability indicator tools and
their adoption by the UK development industry. In Brebbia, C.A. and Mander
U., BrownfileldsIff, Prevention,Assessment, Rehabilitation and Development
ofBrownfield Sites, WIT Press, pp 51-62.
Petts,J., 1994,Contaminatedsites:Blight, public concernsand communication,Land
contaminationand Reclamation, 2,4. In Petts, J., 1996, Risk Communication:
Researchfindings and needs,Land ContaminationandReclamation, 4 (3), pp
171-177.
Petts, J., 1996, Risk Communication: Research findings and needs, Land
Contaminationand Reclamation,4 (3), pp 171-177.
Petts, J., Cairney, T. and Smith, M., 1997, Risk based contaminated land investigation
and assessment, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.
Pinfield, G., 1996,Beyond Sustainability Indicators, Local Environment, 1(2), pp
151-163.
pope, J., Annandale, D. and Morrison-Saunders, A., 2004, Conceptualising
sustainabilityassessment, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24 pp
595-616.
POST, 1998, A brown andpleasant land- Household growth and brownfleld sites,
ParliamentaryOffice of Scienceand Technology,London.

298
Power,A. and Mumford, K., 1999,Theslow death ofgreat cities? Urban
abandonment or urban renaissance, Joseph Roundtree Foundation, York.
Pretty,J. and Shah,P., 1994,Soil andwater conservationin the twentieth Century: a
History of Coercionand Control, University ofReading Rural History Centre
ResearchSeries1. Tomorrow, 1999,3 (IX), May-June.
Prince's Foundation,2000, SustainableUrban Extensions:Planned through Design,
a collaborative approach to developing sustainabletown extensionsthrough
Enquiry by Design, PrincesFoundation,London.
Pritikin, T.T., 1998,A citizens view: The nuts and bolts of co- partnerships,Human
Ecology Review,5(l), pp 51-53.
Public ParticipationDirective, 2003, Directive 2003/35/ECof the European
Parliamentand of the Council, May 2003. euro2a.eu.int/eur-
lex/pri/en/oi/dat/2003/1156/1 15620030625enOO170024. ]2d -
Renn,0., 1998,Three decadesof risk research:Accomplishmentsand new
Challenges,Journal ofRisk Research,1, pp 49-71.
Renn,0., Webler, T. and Lofstedt, R., 2000, Unpublished,The challenge of
integration deliberation and expertise:Models ofparticipation and discourse
in risk management.,2nddraft.
Renn,0., Webler, T., Rakel, H., Dienel, P. and Johnson,B., 1993,Public
Participationin decisionmaking. A three- stepprocedure.,Policy Sciences,
26, pp 189-214.
RESCUE,2005, Workpackage1,Developmentofan. 4nalytical Sustainability
Frameworkfor the contextof brownfleld regenerationin France, Germany,
Poland and Wales.www.resciie-europe. com
RICS, 1999,Researchconference,Thecutting edge1999,Planning obligations and
the structuring ofrelations in the developmentprocess,ISBN 0-85406-980-1
RICS Foundation,2003, BenchmarkingUrban Regeneration,FORE Findings in Built
and Rural Environments, December, RICS.
Ridgway, B., 2005, PracticeReport: Environmentalmanagementsystemprovides
tools for delivering environmentalimpact aspessment commitments,Impact
assessment andproject appraisal, 23(4), December, pp 325-33 1.
Ross, M., 2004, Is leadership in the Thames Gateway in disarray? Regeneration and
Renewal,3, (September),pp 16-19.
Rossi,P.H. and Freeman, H. E., 1993, Evaluation: 5th
a systematicapproach, (ed.),
Sage,Newbury Park, London.
Rossi,J., 1997,Participationrun amok: The costsof massparticipation for
deliberative agencydecisionmaking.North-western University law review,
92(l), pp 173-251.
Roth, E., Morgan, G. M., Fischhoff, B., Lave, L. and Bostom, A., 1990, What do we
know about making Risk Comparisons?,Risk,4nalysis, 10 (3), pp 375-387
Rotheroo, N., Mohon, S. and King, B., 1997, Do the indicators of sustainable
developmentproducedby the UK governmentand indicators developed
within various local agenda 21 initiatives have common characteristics from
which core indicators can be developed?, Proceedings International
developmentres. Conf., Manchester,JRPEnvironment.
Rowan-Robinson, J., Ross, A. and Walton, W., 1995, Sustainable development and
the development control process, Town Plan. ning Review, 66 (3), pp 269-286.
RTPI and ODPM, undated, The communityplanning website, helpingpeople, shape
their cities, towns, and villages in anypart of the world.
http://www. coinmuniMlatininsz.net/index.htm

299
Rudland,D.J. and Jackson,S.D., 2004,Selectionofremedial treatmentsfor
contaminated land, A guide to goodpractice, CIRIA C622, London.
Rydin, Y., Holman, Y., Hands,V. and Sommer,F., 2003, Incoiporating sustainable
developmentconcernsinto an urbanregenerationproject: how politics can
defeatprocedures,Journal ofEnvironmental Planning and Management,46
(4), pp 545-562.
Sadler,B., 1996,EnvironmentalAssessmentin a changing world.- evaluatingpractice
to improveperformance.Final report of the international study of the
effectiveness of environmental assessment, Canadian Environmental
AssessmentAgency/ IAIA, Canada.
SAFEGROUNDS,2002, Goodpractice guidancefor the managementof
contaminated land on nuclear and defence sites, www. safegrounds. com
Sagoff, M., 1988,TheEconomyof the Earth, CambridgeUniversity Press,
Cambridge.
Sanchez,L. E., Figueiredo,G. and Amarilis, L., 2005, On the successful
implementationof mitigation measures,Impact Assessmentand Project
Appraisal, 23 (3), pp 182-190.
Sanchez,L. E. and Hacking, T., 2002, Integrativemanagement:An approachto
linking environmentalimpact assessment and environmentalmanagement
systems, Impact assessment andproject appraisal, 20 (1), March, pp 25-38.
Sanoff, H., 2000, Communityparticipation Methodsin Design and Planning, John
Wiley and Sons,USA.
Santos,S.L. and Chess,C., 2003, Evaluating citizen advisory boards:the importance
of theory and participant-based criteria and practical implications, Risk
Analysis, 23 (2), pp 269-279.
Sarantakos, S., 1993, Social Research, MacMillan Education Australia, PTY, Ltd.
Scrase,J. and Sheate,W.R, 2002, Integrationand integratedapproachesto
assessment: what do they mean for the environment?, Journal of
EnvironmentalPolicy and Planning, 4 (4), pp 245-294.
Scriven, M. S., 1969, An introduction to meta-evaluation. Educational Products
Report, 2, pp 36-38, In Stufflebeam,D.L., 2901, The metaevaluation
imperative,AmericanJournal ofEvaluation, 22 (2), pp 183-209.
Scriven, M. S., 1991, Evaluation thesaurus, 4h edition, Sage, London.
J.
Seargent and Steele,J., 1998, Consulting the Public. Guidelines and Good Practice,
PSI, London.
SelectCommitteeon EnvironmentalAudit, 2006,5thReport, The United kingdom
Parliament,
http://www. pubications.parliament.uk/pa/cm2005O6/cmselect/cmenvaud/779/
77906.htm
SERPLAN, 1998, A sustainable Development Strategyfor the South East, SERP500,
London.
Shane,M. A. and Graedel,T.E., 2000, Urban environmentalsustainability metrics: A
provisional set, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43(5),
pp 643-663.
Sheate, W. R., Byron, H., Dagg, S. and Cooper, L., 2005, The relationship betweenthe
EIA and SEADirectives, Final Report to the European Commission,DG
Environment,August 2005, ht!p:Hec.europa.eu/environment/eia/
Sheate, W. R., 2002, Conference report, Workshop on linking impact assessment and
management tools, Journal ofEnvironmental Assessment Policy and
Management,4(4), pp 465-474.

300
 Sheate,W.R., 2003,The EC Directive on StrategicEnvironmentalAssessment:A
Much NeededBoost for EnvironmentalIntegration,EuropeanEnvironmental
Law Review,December,pp 331-347.
Sheate,W.R., 2003a,EIA: there'slife in the old dog yet- responseto Benson,Impact
Assessment and ProjectAppraisal, pp 273-274.
Sheldon,C., (ed), 1997,IS014001 andbeyond,environmentalmanagementsystems
in the real world, Greenleafpublishing, Sheffield.
Slovic, P., 1986,Informing and educatingthe public aboutrisk, RiskAnalysis, 6, pp
403-415.
Slovic, P., 1987,Perceptionsof risk, Science,236, pp 280-285.
Slovic, P., 1999,PerceivedRisk, Trust and Democracy,In Cvetkovich,G., and
Lofstedt, R., (eds), 1999,Social Trust and the managementoffisk, Earthscan
Publications,London.
SNIFFER, 1999,CommunicatingUnderstandingof ContaminatedLand Risks,
SR97(1I)F, Stirling.
Steele,J., 2001, Participationanddeliberationin environmentallaw: Exploring a
problem-solvingapproach,OxfordJournal ofLegal Studies,21(3), pp 415-
442.
Starck,E., 2003,Evaluating the conceptandpractice ofsustainability checklists,MSc
Dissertation,University of Reading,Departmentof Real Estateand Planning.
Stirling, A., 2004,"Openingup or closing down?Analysis,participation andpower in
the socialappraisalof technology"in Leach,M., Scoones,I. and Wynne, B.,
(eds),2004,ScienceCitizenshipand Globalisation,ZED, London.
Stubbs,M., 2004, Heritage-Sustainability:developinga methodologyfor the
sustainableappraisalof the historic environment,Planning, Practice and
Research,19 (3), pp 285-305.
Stufflebeam,D.L., 2001,The metaevaluationimperative,Americal Journal of
Evaluation, 22 (2), pp 183-209.
Stufflebeam,D.L., 2001a, EvaluationChecklists:PracticalTools for guiding and
judging evaluations,Americal Journal ofEvaluation, 22 (1), pp 71-79.
SUBR:IM, SustainableUrban Brownfield RegenerationIntegratedManagement,
www.subrim.oriz.uk
SUE-MOT, 2004,http://www.sue-mot.orjz.uk
Susskind,L. E., Jain, R.K. andMartinuik A. O., 2001,Better EnvironmentalPolicy
Studies,How to designand conductmoreeffectiveanalyses,Island Press,
London.
SustainableSeattle,1993,SustainableSeattleindicatorsofsustainablecommunity. 4
report to citizenson long-termtrendsin their community,Seattle,
Washington:SustainableSeattle.
Syms,P., 1997,ContaminatedLand, Thepractice and economicsofredevelopment,
Blackwell Science,Oxford.
The Royal Society, 1992,Risk.- Analysis,perceptionand management,Report of a
royal society study group, The Royal Society, London.
Therivel, R. andMinas, P., 1995,MeasuringSEA effectiveness.Ensuringeffective
sustainabilityappraisal.,ImpactAssessment and ProjectAppraisal, 20(2), pp
81-91.
Therivel, R., 2004, StrategicEnvironmentalAssessment in Action, Earthscan
publications.
Thompson,M., Ellis, R., Wildavsky,A., 1990,Culti4ralTheory.WestviewPress,
Boulder,Colorado.

301
Tinker, L., Cobb, D., Bond, A. and Cashmore,M., 2005, Impact mitigation in
environmental impact assessment: paper promises or the basis of consent
conditions, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 23(4), pp 265-280.
Tinworth, A., 2004, Lessonsfor regenerators,EstatesGazette,418, pp 89-91.
Todd, J.A. and Geissler,S., 1999,Regionaland cultural issuesin environmental
performance assessment for buildings, Building Research and Information, 27
(4/ 5), pp 247-256.
Tonn, B., English,M. and Travis, C., 2000, A framework for understandingand
improving environmentaldecisionmaking, Journal ofEnvironmental
Planning and Management,43 (2), pp 163-183.
Topping, R. andAvis, M. M., (eds), 1991, Property development,Yd edition, E& FN
Spon.
Tuler, S., 1998,Learning throughparticipation,Human Ecology Review,5(l), pp 58-
60.
Ukaga,0., 2001, Participatoryvaluation of SustainableDevelopment,Greener
ManagementInternational, 36, Winter, pp 27-36.
Ukaga,0. andMaser, C., 2004, EvaluatingSustainableDevelopment,Givingpeople a
voice in their destiny, Stylus Publishing, Virginia.
UN, 1948, UniversalDeclaration ofHuman Rights
Htti)://www. unorg/-overview/ýiszhts. html
UNCED, 1992,Rio Declaration on EnvironmentandDevelopment,
htti)://www. une,p.org/Documents/Default. DocumentlD=78andArticlelD=l
asl2?
163
UNDP, 1997,Empoweringpeople: a guide to participation,
httR://www. undp.org/csoi)R/CSO/
Urban Mines, 2000, Delivering Regeneration: A Brownfield Renaissance, National
Brownfield sitesproject, Urban Mines Ltd.
Van der Vorst, R., Grafe-Buckens, A. and Sheate, W. R., 1999, A systemicframework
for environmentaldecisionmaking, Journal ofEnvironmental Assessment
Policy and Mangement,1(1), pp 1-26.
Vanclay, F., 2004,The triple bottom line and impact assessment:how do TBL, EIA,
SIA and EMS relate to eachother?Journal ofEnvironmental Assessment
Policy and Management,6(3), pp 265-288.
Vegter, J.J., 2001, Sustainable contaminated land management: a risk-based land
management approach, Land Contamination andReclamation, 9(l), pp 95-
100.
Vik, E.A., Bardos,P., Brogan,J., Edwards,D., Gondi, F., Henrysson,T., JensenB.K.,
Jorge,C., Marrioti, C., Nathanial,P. and Papassiopi,N., 2001, Towards a
Frameworkof selectingRemediationTechnologiesfor ContaminatedSites,
Land Contaminationand Reclamation,9 (1), pp 119-127.
Ward, K. G., 2000, A in
critique Searchof a corpus:-re-visiting governanceand re-
interpretingurban politics, Transactionsof the institute ofBritish
Geographers,25, pp 169-185.
Washington, S., In Guy, G. B. and Kilbert, C.J., 1998, Developing indicators of
US experience, Building Research and Information, 26(l), pp
sustainability:
40.
Water Supply Sanitation Collaborative Council, 2005, Implementing the Bellagio
Principles in urban environmentalsanitation services
http://www. irc.nl/vajze/23403

302
Webler, T. and Renn,0., "A brief primer on participation: Philosophy and Practice"
In Renn,Webler, T. and Wiedemann(eds), 1995,Fairness and competencein
CitizenParticipation. EvaluatingNew Modelsfor environmentalDiscourse,
Kluwer: Boston, pp 17-34.
Wehrmeyer,W., 2001, A guide to communicatingcontaminatedland risk, Land
Contaminationand Reclamation,9(l), pp 21-28.
Wehnneyer,W., and Pediaditi, K., 2004, SUBR:IM. DiscussionPaper
Wehrmeyer,W., Pediaditi, K., Bufton, J. and Lawson,N., 2004, Contaminationand
the public- theory vs. experience,SCIIRSCConference:ContaminatedLand-
achievements and aspirations, 12-15 September 2004, Loughborough, UK,
EPPPublicationsLtd.
Weinberg,A. S. and Gould, K. A., 1993,Public participation in Environmental
RegulatoryConflicts: Treadingthrough the possibilities and pitfalls, Law and
Policy, April, pp 139-167.
WernstedtK., Meyer, P.B. and Yount, KR., 2003, Insuring redevelopmentat
contaminatedurban properties, Public Works Management and Policy, 8(2),
pp 85-92.
Weston,J., (ed), 1997,Planning and EnvironmentalImpact Assessmentin Practice,
Longman,Harlow.
Weston,J., 2000, EIA, Decision-makingtheory and screeningand scoping in UK
practice, Journal ofEnvironmental Planning and Management, 43(2), ppl 85-
203.
Weston,J., 2000a,Reviewing Environmentalstatements:New demandsfor the UK's
EIA procedures,Planning Practice andResearch,15 (1/2), pp 135-142.
Weston,J., Glasson,J., Wilson, E. and Chadwick, A., 1999,More than local impacts:
aggregatequarrying in the national Parks of England and Wales. Journal of
EnvironmentalAssessment Policy and Management,1(2), pp 245-268.
Whitehead,M., 2003, In the shadowof hierarchy:metagovernance,policy reform
and urbanregeneration in the West Midlands, Area, 35, pp 6-14.
Wilcox, D., 1994,Theguide to effectiveparticipation partnership, Brighton
Williams, K., 2003, Five barriers to sustainable brownfield development, Town and
Country Planning, 72(11), pp 344-345,
Wilson, L., 1998, A for
practical method environmental impact assessmentaudits,
EnvironmentalImpact AssessmentReview,18,pp 59-71.
Wood, G, Glasson,J. and Becker,J., 2006, EIA Scopingin England and Wales:
practitioner approaches, perspectives and Environmental
constraints, Impact
AssessmentReview,26, pp 221-241.
Wood, C., 2003, Environmental ImpactA comparativereview, 2nd edition, Prentice
Hall, London.
Wood, G., 1999, Post development auditing of EIA predictive techniques:A spatial
Analytical Approach,Journal ofEnvironmental Planning and Management,
42 (5), pp 671-689.
Woodall, R., Crowhurst, D., 2003, Biodiversity indicatorsfor constructionprojects,
CIRIA WOO5, DTI, London.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), 1987, Our common
future. Oxford: Oxford University Press,pp 43.
WS Atkins Consultants, 2001, Sustainable construction: Company indicators, C563,
CIRIA.

303
Wylie, J. and Sheehy,N., 1999,ContaminatedLand and Risk Communication:
Developing communicationguidelinesusing a Mental Models approach,Land
ContaminationandReclamation,7(4), pp 285-289.
Yin, R.K., 1993,Applications ofcase study research,Applied social research
methods series 34, Sage,
London.

304
Appendices
Appendix 1: List of SUBR:IM partners,projects and steeringgroup members........306
Appendix 2: National DevelopersSurvey,University of Reading............................309
Appendix 3: Questions askedat causal design stage interviews 310
. ..............................
Appendix 4. Community Census-Questionnaire 311
.......................................................
Appendix 5: Report to
provided stakeholderswith results of community census 312
.....
Appendix 6: Indicator selectioncriteria checklist. ....................................................338
Appendix 7: Reportwith phase4 resultspresentedto participants. ..........................341
Appendix 8: RESCUEremediationsustainabilitycriteria......................................... 358
Appendix 9: Report with phase 5 results presented to participants 360
. ..........................
Appendix 10. Report with results of phase 6 provided to participants 434
......................
Appendix 11: Evaluation questionnaire results 467
..........................................................
Appendix 12: Metaevaluation interview questions.................................................... 468
Appendix 13: Publications produced as a results of this research 469
. ............................

305
 Appendix 1: List of SUBRIM partners, projects and
steering group members.
Institutions and Partners
Institution Department
Degartmentof Civil & Structural 11Prof.David
Universitvof Sheffield Enaineerinq 111-erner
lDei)art ent of Town and IlProf. John
:lRe-qionalPlanninq 111-lenneber ly
E ,". -1 TProf.
epartment of Psvchology Dick Eiser
Oxford Brookes Department of Real Estate & lProf. Tim Dixon
Universitv... Construction ,
----.
lking's College London [P--e
of Geography jjDr. Mike Raco
__partMent _, .,
Forest Research 1IForest Research offat
I-- - -- , 111- .1 .-- -- I-
Dr. Sophie
Universitv of Reading Department of Geography
Bowlbv
Department of Real Estate and Doak

RU-niversity
of Camb(idqe;lDepartment of En Ia baa !
-qineerin-q,_____,, ..
Depart ent of Chemical Or Mike Johns
Enqineerin9
Centre for Sustainable ------
Prof. Peter
i Develo ment Guthrie
itv Lf Surre t of Civil En
agineerinq ] Ouki I
_ I
l Centre for Environmental _.,, ,,
Dr. Walter
'IEnqineerinqand Straiegy 1Wehrmeyer i
] School of Biomedicaland -- --j -
IlDr Frans de Leii,
MolecularSciences
BRE Scotland Dr. Stephen
BRE
aa[\ Lin
Universityof School of Geo-qraphv Mr Ni-qelLawson
Manchester
Greater Manchester GMGU
Unit Talbot I
Geolo_qical

306
 Ireland

WPD steering Group

-Mohamed El-haram (SUE-MOT, Dundee University),
-Glynn Roberts (Scott Wilson),
-Sarah Jane Stewart (Skanska),
-Graham Norris (CL: AIRE),
-Bob Barnes (Environment Agency),
-Emma Eagles (Hertsmere Borough Council,
-Alexandra Koj (RESCUE),
-David Nicholas (English Partnerships),
-Claire Lambert (Thurrock Council),
-Jon Atkinson (KBR),
-Steve Hunt (Taylor Woodrow Developments limited),
-Carol Dair (Oxford Brookes University),
-Ian Heasman (Taylor Woodrow Developments),
-Martin Bolton (SEEDA),
-Carol Petit (PURE),
-Steffan Jefferis (University of Surrey)

307
The SUBRAMWork Packages

F-7 besian for Deconstruction VD)

1
ý lBrownfields, flooding and climate LhgncLe
Fo Designing and managing wetland habitat systems on brownfield

Q Governance of Brownfield Regeneration: Institutions, Policies,

Outcomes, and Best Practice in the UK and Germany

308
Appendix 2: National Developers Survey, University of
Reading.

309
Appendix 3: Questions asked at causal design stage
interviews.
To what extentcan you influence the sustainabilityof a BRP?
How canyou influence the sustainabilityof a BRP?

Do you undertakelong term sustainabilitymonitoring or require developersto do so?

If No: Do you undertakeany monitoring?
if Yes: Which methodsdo you use?
Promoter(how long is long term monitoring?)

Do you assessthe sustainabilityof BRP?

If Yes: How?

What do you feel are the benefitsof BRP sustainability?

(a) assessment
(b) long term monitoring

What are the barriersto the adoptionof sustainabilityassessment

and monitoring
practices?

What would be your recommendationsfor an ideal sustainabilityassessmentand

monitoring tool?

What shouldbe the role of the public in the long term sustainability evaluationof
BRP?

DevelopersOnly:
As a developerwhat are the drivers to carry out sustainabilityassessments
and
monitoring?

Contaminatedland intervieweesonly:
Do you feel the fact that there is no long term monitoring is a risk? In particular for
,
barrier and containmenttechnologiesand potential global warming?
Do you think a remediationassessment tool to assessthe sustainability of a
remediation strategy would be useful?

Existing sustainabilityevaluationtool developersquestions:

Who is your tool targetedto?
How much doesit cost to use?
How is the tool implemented?
What is the take up of your in the market?
What problemshaveyou facedin the designand implementationof your tool?
What are the benefits of using your tool?
Is your tool and how is it linked to planning?
I then showedthem the RAF and askedthem for their opinion and recommendations
for improvement.

310
Appendix 4. Community Census-Questionnaire

311
Appendix 5: Report provided to stakeholders with
results of community census.

Report:

Survey results of the "Reinventing XX Three Site Master Plan

workshop" Carried out on the 2ndof Novemberat XX RiversideSchool
& Survey of neighbouring residents opinion on proposed
redevelopments in XX Paper Mill, XV and XX High School sites.
(senton the 8thof February)

Author: KalliopePediaditi
Centrefor EnvironmentalStrategy
Universityof Surrey

SustainableUrbanBrownfieldRegeneration:IntegratedManagement
(SUBR:IM)

312
Contents:

" Section1: Introduction

" Section2: Impacts
" 3: Prioritisedsustainabilityobjectivestakinginto
Section.
consideration thecharacteristicsof XX.
" Section4: Visions& Concerns
" Section5: Respondents attitudetowardsproposals.
Section6: LongTermMonitoringandResidentSatisfactionwith
consultation.
Section7: Conclusions & Recommendations

313
Section1: Introduction
Inthisreportaresummarised theresultsobtainedfromthequestionnaire surveyundertaken
at
the*XXthreesitemaster-plan workshop" onthe2ndof November in XXanda surveysentout
on the8thof Februaryto theneighbouring residents
of the areasaffectedbytheplan.Thetwo
questionnaireslook at identifying
views withregardto the proposed master-plan
as wellas
aspirationsand concerns with regard to the sustainability
of the proposals,The two
questionnairesarevery similarand thereforeconclusions can be drawnfrom bothsurveysas
wellasdifferencesintheopinions of residents
andpeoplepresent in theworkshop.
1.1 TheWorkshopSurvey.
The respondents fromthe workshopwere28 in total and belongto the followingrespondent
classes (Table 1). The questionnaire looked at identifyingimpacts positiveand negativewhich
respondents perceived would occur as a resultof the development (Section2.1).Respondents
were also asked to prioritise the objectivesof sustainable development, thus enablingthe
of the issueswhichare mostimportantto respondents.
identification The questionnaire also
askedrespondents to list theirthree most important visionsfor thearea,ie whattheywouldlike
to see,aswellas theirthreemainconcernswhichtheyperceiveas a resultof the development
(section4.1).Knowledge of theseprioritiescanhelpguidethe development andfocusattention
on identifiedpriorityareas.
TableI QuestionnaireresDondenfcharacteristics.
Respondents Number
local business
men/women I
local interest groups 2
LA officers 13
residents/neiqhbours 0
developer or contractor iI
statutory consultee 3
non statutory consultee i
Consultant 4
Councillor 2
missing values 1

1.2Residentsurvey.
As can be notedfromSection1.1 (Table1) the workshopquestionnaire did not include
representation from residents and it was therefore considered important to conduct a survey to
obtain theirviews on the proposals. The questionnaire Jooked at identifyingimpacts positive
and negative which respondents perceived would occur as a resultof the development (Section
2.2 ). Respondents werealsoaskedto prioritise the objectives of sustainable development,
thusenabling the identificationof the issues which are most important to respondents. The
questionnaire also asked respondents to list theirthree most important visionsfor the area, ie
what they would like to see, as well as their three main concerns which theyperceive as a
result of the development (section 4.1). Knowledge of these priorities can help guide the
development and focus attention on identified priority areas. Furthermore, residents where
questioned on the extent they feltaffected by the proposals and whether they perceived they
be
would affectedpositively or negatively (section 5). Residents wherealsoquestioned on
whether they felt long term monitoring was required, to monitor the impacts or effects of the
proposals as well as their levelsof satisfaction with the received consultation and information
where determined (section 6).In Table 2 the totalnumber of questionnaires andresponse rates
areindicated as well as the geographic localities which the questionnaires where sent to.

314
Table2 SurveyCharacteristicsand responserate
Locality StreetNamescovered Total Number of Total Numberof replies.
Questionnairessent out
XX PaperMillarea 524 58
XX HiqhSchoolarea 540 46
XXI Area 103 19

Thetotalnumberof sent
questionnaires out was1200 andtherewhere123 This
replies. is an
10%
approximate response ratetypicalto suchresident
surveys
and thereis an adequate
from
representation eachlocality.

315
Section2: Impacts
In this sectionthe overallperceivedpositiveimpactsas wellas the impactcategorieswhich
includedsignificantnegativeresultsare analysed.In section2.1 the impactresultsobtained
fromthe workshopare analysedwhereasin section2.2,the resultsfromthe residentsurvey
arepresented andwherepresentdiscrepancies betweenthetwosurveysareidentified.

2.1Impactsperceivedby workshopattendeesoccurringas a resultof proposals.

2.1.1.OverallPositiveimpacts
Describedbelow are the impact categorieswhich where perceivedby the workshop
respondents positive(seeFigure1). An explanation
to be overall,significantly of the results
obtainedfor the impactcategories of socialbenefits,landscape,contamination/pollutionand
economyare providedbelow,basedon the commentsprovidedby the respondents in the
questionnaire.Furtherinsighton the effectsperceivedto occuror visionsfor the area are
providedin section4.1 whichcovera numberof the topicpresentedbelow.Pleasenotethat
onlyimpactsgivena scoreabove+3havebeenconsidered assignificantly
positive.

Figure1: Frequencydistributionof significancevaluesattributedto impactcategoriesof

landscape,social, contamination,and economy perceived to be affected by the
development.
Impact areas which were perceived to be predominantly
positive

14

12

0
Z 10
cu

8 ulandscape
CL
9 C3social
06 E3contarrim.
pollibon
E a econorTic

. -5

impact significance

Socialbenerits
Socialbenefitswhereperceived as beingpositiveandwhererelatedto the improvedimageof
the area and the subsequent increase in prideover the area. However, a numberof the
positiveresponses withregard to issues
social were dependent on the provisionof openpublic
and facilities.
recreational Furthermore, benefits
social where alsorelated the perceived
spaces
in
reduction crime, which would result on the presumption that there will be carefulurban
designwhichwouldconsider issues such as layoutand lighting,

316
Landscape
it wasperceived bythemajorityof respondents,
thatoverallthedevelopment wouldresultin an
improvement of the landscape, althoughthe needfor carefulconsideration of designwas
expressed by some.Thiswasmainlyduetheperception of theexistingsitebeingan "eyesore"
in thearea.Thusanydevelopment
dueto currentdereliction whichwouldresultin the"clearing
the
up"of site was perceivedto bean improvementto thecurrentlandscape.

Contarninatioml
pollution
Overall,respondentsrecognisedthe potentialof existingcontamination
on site althoughthis
was not viewed Through
negatively. the commentsprovidedit was identifiedthe proposed
development wouldhavea positiveimpactas it wouldremediatetheXXPaperMillsite.
EconomkImpacts
Overallit wasperceived by respondents that positiveeconomicimpactswouldresultfromthe
development and was generallyviewedas an opportunityfor the upliftof XX as a whole.
Positiveeconomic impactswhereseenin the potentialincreaseof employment in the areaas
wellas the number of peoplelivingin XX,thus a subsequentincrease
of thespendingpowerin
the area. It was also perceivedthat the new facilitiespotentiallyto be providedby the
development wouldattractthe creationof more businessesin the area and subsequent
generation of employment.
2.1.2.OtherImpactCategories
Beloware analysedthe impactcategories fromthe workshopquestionnaire whichidentified
(-3
significant or more) negative to be occurring as a resultof the proposed development. As
can be notedfrom Figure 2 the results of the perceptions of the distributionof the significance
of the impactvaries substantially for the impact categories of employment, traffic,biodiversity,
soil,waterand air.There is notone clear answer and therefore a more detailed analysisof the
responses obtained is provided below for each impact category.

Figure2. Illustrationof the perceivedsignificanceof the impactsthe developmentwill

haveon the areasand issuesof employment,traffic, biodiversity,soil, water,and air.
Impact areas which were perceived by some of the
respondents as significantly negative

14

12

10 o errployment,
u traffic
8 [3 biodiversity

4 o air

0
*-5
Impact significance

317
Employment
Withregardto theimpactthedevelopment willhaveonemployment, opinionsvary.Therewere
a number thatfeltthattherewouldbea positive
of respondents impactassomejobswouldbe
created,however,the majorityfelt that thosejobs althoughpositivewere not significant
enough. A numberof respondents felt thattherewouldbe significant
negativeImpacts with
to
regard employment, expressing thatthe developmentWasusingupdesignated employment
landfor housingandsomereferredto the development as "a lost opportunity".
ThisIssue
shouldbe consideredcarefullyas respondents whenaskedto prioritisetheirobjectives
for
development
sustainable forthearea,rankedemployment fourthoutof 22.

Trafflc
Trafficwasconsidered to bethemostnegative impactperceived occurringas a resultof the
development. Concerns whereexpressed in comments relatingto theexistingtrafficproblems
inthelocalitywhichwouldbeenhanced bytheresidentialdevelopments butalsobytheschool,
through thenumber of tripsgenerated. Increaseintrafficwasalsoassociated bythelocation of
theproposed schoolandcomments wheremadethatthe proposed schoolanddevelopments
where segregatedfrom existingtown centre. However, therewhererespondents whichfeltthat
trafficwouldnotbe an issuein the future,provided a propertrafficimpactassessment was
carried outandpublictransport facilities
whereprovided.

Blodiversity
As canbe notedin figure2 opinionwithregardto the impactthe proposed development will
haveon biodiversityvaries.Significant impactks perceived
negative withregardsto theloss
of for
habitats wildlifesuchasthelodges. However,
there wherea numberof respondents that
perceivedthat thedevelopment would haveanecologicalmanagement programandplanand
habitats
thatexisting couldbeenhanced ornewonescreated.

Soil
Overalltheimpactthedevelopment wasperceived to haveonthesoilwasnotconsidered to be
with
significant, a number of positive
responses relatingto the decontaminationof thesiteand
remediation of any contaminated soils.However, the loss of soil was consideredby one
respondent to be (5)
significantly negative withregardto land lostfrom the fields.
playing

Water
Theimpacts of thedevelopment withregard to watervariedandtouched upona number of
fromthe fait of the lodgesto surface
issues, runof andfloodrisk.Manyperceived the
development provided to utilisethecanalfor recreational
an opportunity purposes andfor
a riverside
creating However,
attraction. negative
significant impacts whereperceivedoccurring
dueto the lossof someof thelodges. Somerespondents drewattentionto theneedto
implement sustainableurbandrainagealsoto minimise theriskofflooding.
Theutilisation
and
up
cleaning ofthe canalwas lookedbeneficiallyby themajority
althoughthelossof thelodges
wasnot viewed favourably.

Air
In generalthe impactsas a resultof the development on the air wherenot viewedas
significant.A number of felt
respondents there
willbe an increasein air pollution
asa resultof
the however
traffic, otherrespondentspointedoutthatin to theprevious
relation Industrial
uses
onsite the air should
quality beimproved.

318
2.2 Impacts perceived by residents occurring as a result of proposals.

The resultsof residents'opinionson whatthe perceivedimpactof the proposalswill be, are

represented accordingto the threedifferentareasXXII,XX High,and XX PaperMill areasin
Figures3,4, and5 accordingly. Fromthe overallresultsit can be identifiedthat thereare few
significantpositiveimpactsenvisagedas a resultof the proposalswith a numberof negative
impactsbeinghighlightedFigure6. However,an examinationof the explanations providedby
the residentsfor their scoring,helps give light to this overall negativepicture,identifying
underlyingissueswhichare affectingmostresultsand whichcouldbe potentiallyovercome
throughimprovedcommunication. Eachimpactcategoryis lookedat in moredetailandwhere
differentresultsarecompared withtheworkshopsurvey.

Figure 3: Net weighting of impact scores attributed,as perceivedby residents of XXI

occurring as a result of the proposals.

319
 Radcliffe High School Area

41) 1.5-
U

(A
4.
u to
m+0.5-
CL
0

.g- I?
V
4) E
>
.0 0- 1

u
CL c
ED
F1
C
-0.5-
cm
CD L.

V)
Q
L-
-1 -
14-

%. S,
'
<"9ý /h C, eec "k ý>. lý.
vo >2 P,
>, oo
/,
Cel ze p/ 0%ý 0>ý
l', -0
pý %
02 c`5
>, ý5.19.
>»
i9
ZO
,;> - c

Figure 4: Net weighting of impact scores attributed as perceivedby residents of XX

,,
High SchoolAreaoccurringas a result of the proposals.

320
 xx Paper Mill Area
2
C

9- 1-

cu
0
!E
Ln

410
CL
E
0
M
0 ß-
4-

>

a
14-
-3-

19.611.
VO. ýz
OCIII.
10/0 Q"P, 'C' 0/
V, z,,,
c".

Figure5: Netweightingof impactscores attributed,as perceivedby residentsof the XX

PaperMill areaoccurring as a result of the proposals.

Throughan examinationof the differencebetweenresponsesin localities,with regardto

impactsthereis no significantdifferencewith approximately the sameissuesbeingidentified
whichare analysed furtherbelow. However, it can be noted that in
residents the XX high school
areadid not perceive any of the issuesas being significantly
negativeor positivewith a mean
of
range -1.5 to 1.5 where as the otherareas felt stronger about potential
negative impacts with
average means of -4 out of 5.

321
 C

7l.
'0,

%Ocl;.
Noc,
Figure6: NetWeightingfor all impactsscoresacrossthe three different localities,
neighbourhoods.

Employment
The impactwhichthe proposalswouldhaveon employment wheredeemedpositiveoverall,
not
although Concern
significantly. wasraisedwithregardto the natureof thejobs whichwould
be created as well as their duration.Most residentsonly saw employmentgeneration
during
opportunities the construction
periodof the developments
ratherthanlongterm.

Landscape
The impacton the landscapewas overallconsideredmarginallypositivewith manyresidents
makingcomments such 'it can not get any worse'. However, an examinationof the responses
obtained in the three different localitiesindicatesthat negative impacts to the landscape are a
mainconcern in the W area with comments such as 'two of the biggest greenfieldsin the
area will be lost forever'featuring predominantly, whereas perceived landscape impactis fairly
neutral in the other two It
localities. is important to point out the difference between the
workshop respondents which identified landscape impacts to be significantlypositivewith
regardto the proposals,such optimism, is lackingin the residentialsurveyresults.

322
Traffic
Trafficwas undoubtedly the mostsignificantnegativeimpactidentifiedby the residentsof all
the localities.In fact concernover traffic resultedin relatednegativeimpactssuch as air
pollution,noiseand generalpollutionbeingidentifiedas issuesas a resultof the perceived
generation of traffic.Howeverthereare some differencesbetweenneighbourhoods. Trafficis
seenby far less'bad'in theXX HighSchoolareathanin the XX papermillareaor evenworse
in XX1.

SocialImpacts
Social impacts identified where found to be marginally negative, which is in contrast to the
workshop survey which classed social impacts as significantly positive. Although in the
workshop survey respondents envisaged positive impacts occurring,on the proviso of facilities
and opens spaces being provided, local residents identified a number of concerns. The
greatest of all was concern over the nature of the housing which would be providedspecifically
with regard to whether it would be privately owned, rented or affordable housing. A clear
preference in all localitieswas for privatelyowned family homes, with commentsfor a greater
social mix. Concernswhere also expressedover a potential lack of facilities and thus 'nothing
for the teenagers to do apart from get into trouble'. It is therefore a valid point to further
question whether residents are dissatisfied with the facilities proposed in the plan or whether
they are unclearover the proposals,which would point out the need for further consultation.

Noise
Noisewas identifiedas a marginallynegativeimpactin all three neighbourhoods and was
attributedas a of
result traffic.Some residents in the XX papermill also identified
the potential
noise issues beinggenerated fromthe childrenat school.

Contamination& pollution
Surprisingly the residentsperceivedimpactof the proposalson contamination and pollution
where considered marginallynegative.This is in clear contrastto the significantlypositive
impactsidentifiedbyworkshoprespondents, whichconsidered thecleanup of the XX papermill
brownfieldsite as positive.However,a closerexamination of the justificationprovidedby the
residents indicatesthat groundcontamination was not the issue of concern.In fact, in no
is
answers ground contaminationreferredto. Pollutionis seenas occurringas a resultof the
traffic and potentialdust and rubble generatedthrough construction.This brings up an
importantquestionof whetherthe residentsare aware' that the XX paper Mill site may be
potentiallycontaminated.

Economic
Overallthe economicimpactof the proposalswhereseen as positivein all localities.The
generation of newjobs as wellas the increased
spending powerof the newresidentswasseen
as an opportunityto revive XX town centre and existingbusinesses as well as a prospectfor
allractingnew ones into the area. However, concernwas raisedagain over the natureof
people which would move into the area, making a preferencefor familiesin privatelyowned
housing,whichcouldpotentiallyhavegreaterspendingpower.

Biodiversity& Wildlife
Theimpactof the proposalson the biodiversity
andwildlifewasconsiderednegativein the XX
paper mill and M Neighbourhoods. the
Particularly drainageof the lodgeswas criticised
heavilyby XX papermill residents,whereasXXII residentswheremoreconcernedover the

323
loss of the greenfieldsand treesand the impactthat wouldhaveon the wildlife,especially
birds.

Soil
Soil was not consideredby many as being affectedby the proposals,howevera few
respondentsperceiveda negativeimpactwith regardto soil loss from development
on green
fields.

Water
Waterwasseenas beingimpacted uponnegatively onlyby XX papermillresidents
which
expressedstrongdisapprovalof thedrainageof the lodges.Alsosomeconcernwasraised
of thewatersystem,
overthecapacity assomeresidents theyareoftenfacedwithlow
claimed
pressureand water supply
cut offs.One respondent concernoverfloodingand
expressed
drainage
provisions.
Air
Air qualitywas seen as beingimpacteduponnegativelyby all localities,and the reasoning
providedwasincreasedemissions fromextratrafficgenerated,

Archaeology
Mostrespondents statedthat they didn'thaveenoughknowledgeon the topic to expressan
opinion,howeversomeresidentswhereconcerned thatthe areasindustrialheritagewouldnot
be respected.

324
Section3. Prioritisedsustainabilityobjectivestaking into consideration the
of
characteristics XX.
in this sectionthe sustainability
objectiveswhichthe respondents identifyas mostrelevantto
the XX localityare prioritised.This helpsidentifyprioritiesand steer decisionmakingand
development effortsandfundingin areaswhichare relevantto XX.Thisobjectiveprioritisation
was carriedout at the workshop(section3.1) as well as in the residentsurveywhichwas
slightlydifferent(section3.2).

3.1 Sustainability objective prioritisation results from workshop survey.

Table3: Rankedsustainabilityobiectivesas relevantto the area

sustainability objective relative priority ranking
ranking 1= the most
score important
improved access to services 119 5
Reduction of social exclusion 96 2
reduction of poverty 74 1_
Improvement of Housing 100 3
reduction of unemployment 112 4
increased safety 138 9
health improvement 120 6
Improve air quality 252 16
minimising use of chemicals and
risk from contamination 237 15
wildlife protection 273 17
protection of the landscape 195 14
protection of heritage/historic
buildings 297 18
efficient use of non-renewable
resources 184 13
increased use of renewable
resources 140 10
greater job opportunities 142 11
increase of skilled and educated
workforce 126 7
higher living standards 164 12
business investment and
supporting infrastructure 128 8

Fromthe abovetableit can be identifiedthat reductionof povertyand socialexclusionas well

as improvement of housing and access to servicesare priority issues. The reductionof
unemployment as well as the increaseof greaterjob opportunitiesespeciallywith regardto
increasein skilledand educatedworkforcehas also been rankedas an importantpriority.
Theseprioritiesshouldbe considered whendecidingwhichimpactareasto address.

2lReside Prioritisationof sustainabilitvobiect ives for the XX master-Oanarea.

2Residents
.
-3
The residentswhere asked to prioritisea numberof differentsocial, environmental, and
economic objectives to
according what they perceived was most important
for the area.Having
ranked the individual
elementsof the they
objectives where then askedto prioritisebetween,
environmental
social and economic. The obtainedresults vary betweenneighbourhoods.

325
Figure7: Averageobjectiveprioritisationof the 3 localities.

obj. ý! - Obj.. t. -

Pleasenote that highest priority is attributed by scoring with the lowest number ie 1 for the most
importantobjective,2 for the secondmostimportantetc.

Unconventionally,as canbe notedfromFigure7, overall,environmental objectiveshavebeen

as
prioritised most important followed by social objectives
and last by economic.However,
therearedifferences betweenlocalitiesascanbe notedfromTable4 below,bywhereXX High
Schoolareahasprioritised socialobjectives followedby environmental
as mostimportant and
finallyeconomic.An interesting figureis the largepercentage whichenvironmental objectives
where rankedfirst at the XX Paper Millsite with 68.4%,which links to the strongdisapproval
expressed withregard to thedrainage of the lodgesas discussed in Section 2.

Table4: Averagerankingsfor sustainabilityobjectivesallocatedby the threelocalities

1st 2nd 3rd

XXI SocialObjectives 44.4% 33.3% 22.2%

Environmental 44.4% 44.4% 11.1%
Objectives d'
EconomicObjectives 16.7% 22.2% 61.1%
00
SocialObjectives 34.8% 50.0% 00
15.2%
Environmental 39.1%
34.8% 26.1%
/0
Objectives
EconomicObjectives 30.4% 10.9% 58.7%
XXPaperMill SocialObjectives 19.3% 68.4% 12.3%
Environmental 68.4% 12.3% 19.3%
Objectives
EconomicObjectives 12.3% 19.3% 68.4%

Howeverit is important
to look at the elements
particular of the different
objectivesand see
howthesewhereprioritised in differentlocalities,

326
 Im to minimise the use of
Environmental Objectives
to minimise pollution and
remediste existing
contamination
to protect biodiversity and
the natural m4ronment
to protect the landscape
to protect heritage and
historic buildings

c
IE

a ab

Location: a= C Xx rl. ab=F XX ah. abc= XXI

Figure8: SocialObjectiveResidentPrioritisation
As canbe notedfromFigure8 the provision of a safeenvironment rankedas a first priorityfor
all localities,
especially in the XX HighSchool area.This issuealso becomesapparentin
section4 wherethe qualitativeanalysisof residentsthreemainaspirationsand threemain
concerns are summarised. Adequateservicesprovisionalsowas ranked quitehigh. However,
housingprovisionwas notseenas a priorityobtainingoneof the lowestrankingswhichis in
contrastto the of
results the workshopsurvey.
Figure9: Environmental
objectiveelementprioritisation

The largestmarkeddifferencebetweenthe three localitiesis found with regardto the

importanceof the differentenvironmental elements.Althoughresourceminimisationand
heritageprotection featuresin all threelocalitiesas a lowpriority,landscape protection is byfar
the greatestpriorityfor the residentsof W, withcontamination remediation and biodiversity
protectionnot featuring as strongly as in the XX HighSchool or XX areas. From the previous
examination
qualitative of impact significance qualitativeresponses, it is clearthat XX1is not
concerned with regard to contamination as building will be occurring on near by Greenfield
sites,thusthe increased concern withregard to landscape protection. However, contamination
may wellbe an issue for the XX site and thus its remediation is considered a However,
priority.
the drainage of the lodges and potential loss of wildlifehas increased the priorityof the
biodiversity
andwildlifeprotection objective.

327

Economic Objectives
to enabl businesses to be
efficienteand competitive
to Provide employment
opportuni0es
to promote the local
economy
to provide transport
infrastructure to meet
business needs

13 to support local business

diversity

c
to
a
2

a ab a
iabzl
Location: aý xxi xx High, abc=i XX

Figure10:Economicobjectiveelementprioritisationby locality.

Thecreationof employment andpromotion

opportunities of thelocaleconomyis rankedasthe
mostimportant for
priorities thethree localities
withregardto the economic Thisis a
objectives.
further
resultrequiring attention consideringthat did
residents notperceivethatthemaster-plan
proposalwould notcontribute to
significantly the generationof jobs(section
2.2).

328
Section4: Visions& Concerns
In orderto try andpriorifiseissueswithregardto thedevelopment whichneedbe addressed
and ensure the visionswithregard to a XX
sustainable areembodied the
within developments
proposal,the questionnaireposed to questions.One askingfor to writedownthe
respondents
threethingstheywouldliketo seemostas a resultof theproposals andtheotheraskingthe
threethingstheyare mostconcerned about.Theanswersobtainedthroughthe workshop
surveyarepresented in section4.1 whereas answers through
obtained theresident surveyare
summadsed in 4.2,
section and where presentdifferences
andmainconclusions areanalysed.
4.1 Visions/Aspirationsand concernsregardingthe XX MasterPlan Proposalidentified
throughth workshopsurvey.
Theanswersobtainedthroughtheworkshopsurveyare presentedin Tables5&6 accordingly.
Wheninterpreting the belowresults.it is importantto rememberthe natureof the respondents
and thus theirinterests,
which may be differentfor the neighboursto the site.Thus it is deemed
importantthat a secondsurveyquestioningneighbourswith regardto the developmentis
undertaken, thus the
establishing views of the people who are most likelyto be affectedby the
development itself.

for the area.(Whatwouldyou like to

Table5: Visionsidentifiedthroughquestionnaire
see?)
Thematic DifferentResponsesobtained
answer
cateqorY
School 0 newschool
0 stateof the art school
0 excellencein education
9 newschoolof highqualitydesignof XX
0 to haveeducationin thetownwhichIs enviedby all otherareas
Access 0 makethe mostof goodpublictransportaccesshighdensities
" maximiserelationship of newresidential developmentwithmetrolink
" improvement of rivercanalfor access
" schoolto be locatedwithgoodaccessto catchments area
" schoolto bewellconnected to walkableneighbourhoods
" schoolto haveaccessto leisurefacilities
morepeopleneartowncentre
openup accessto rearof closepark
maximiserelationship betweennewdevelopment andtowncentre
publictransportlinks
improvedcycleandwalkingroutes
greencorridorsanddevelopoff roadpedestrian routes
Ecology 0 improvedenvironment
0 improvement of rivercanalfor blodiversity
0 sensitivemanagement of ecologicalimpacts/ ecologicalmanagement
0 improvedenvironment leisurewildlife
Transport 0 improvedlightingandbusfacilities/laneson perimeters
0 minimisetrafficgeneration
improved 0 people and families wanting to be in XX
Image 0 a prosperous town
0 netadditionalresidents
9 raiseimagethroughqualitydesign
0 peopleattractedto areawithmoneyto spend

329
 " localcommunity prideandownership
" improved location forpeople to live
" improved imageofXX
" improved imageofXXasa placeto live
general XXimprovement
greater prosperity forlocalcommunity
meeting localneedsinqualityenvironments
raisingtheprofileofthetown
Housing improved housing mix
creation ofgoodqualitymixedhousing
diversify housing stock
affordable housing
newhousing
improved housing offered
greaterlevelsof housing
highdensity andqualityhousing -
improved 0 improved community sportingfacilities
facilities 0 enhanced community facilities
0 landusedforlocalcommunity benefit
0 comprehensive leisure facilities ononesite
0 sharedhighqualitysportsfacilityforfootball bowling cricket
0 recreationalfacilities
* goodpublicspaces
0 schoolplaying fields/wildlifenextto eachother
* distributionofplaying fieldprovision
9 improved leisurefacilities
Strategy/ plan 0 sustainabledevelopment withall3 sitesintegrated
relatedIssues 0 improved strategy forIncrease inresidential
qualityandnumbers
Employment 0 Employment
Improved employment inthearea
Economic additionalspending power
mixedeconomy of provision
improved economy towncentre
morecustomers fortowncentre
Land-use redevelopment ofa derelict brownfieldsite
maximum useoftheland
Built 0 greensustainable development
environment

330
 Table6: Summaryof concernsidentifiedthroughquestionnaire
presentedby thematic
topicsoccurring.

Green- contamination strategy

traffic space Jobs access siteIssues plan facilities housing
proposed lossof lackof easeof concernthatsite thatthe access- will toomuch
schoolsite openspace employmentaccessto ie
constraints redevelopmentpeoplewantto housing
haspoor &green for
school decontamination
ofXX ofthesesites gotherefor
and
access links pupils isaccountedfrowhen donotaddress outofschool
will increase considering the overall activities?
development vision for the
car hips or
require future of the
expensive bus town
provision.
the distance loss of few outside town demolition of heritage that a strategy that the risk of bog
green- employment area Is developed redevelopment standard
pupils will
have to travel, space sites left for how all Ignores sports housing
therefore sites can cultural estate layout
potentially contribute to recreation and
majority of the overall quality of life
journeys Improvement Issues
happening by of XX
car
-Traffic- Protection type of isolated pollution they conflict facilities for expensive
of playing businesses developments with transport young people housing
congestion
fields encouraged not linking to leisure and outside school
or resulting town centre town corridor hours
on site
reductionin links across Phasing notenough design
amenity the river your provision Issues are
space through outside school Ignored
Industrialsite hours
concern over notenough
the way the recreational
different uses provision
will work
together
that all
elements of the
strategy are
deliverable
did not
maximise
regeneration
Achievability

Timing
failure to
maximise
assets eg
canal

4.2: Visions/Aspirations and concernswith regardto the MasterPlan proposalsas

identifiedthroughthe residentsurvey.

Dueto the largenumberof responses a semiquantitative analysiswas conducted of the

responsesobtained.Thus the differentvisionsand concerns where into
classified different
topics,
thematic andthe frequency of their
occurrence The
calculated. different
thematic topics
theiroccurrencewithineach localityas wellas in thetotalsampleis presentedin table7.
and
Subsequentlythemostfrequent issuesidentifiedareanalysed.

331
Table7: Thematictopics of visionsand concernsidentifiedthroughresidentsurvey,
withanindicationof theirfrequency.
topic
Thematic Total Number of Number of Number of Number Of
occurrences occurrencesin XX occurrencesIn XX In W
occurrences
Total sample N= TotalsampleN=58 High SchoolTotal TotalsampleN=19
123 sampleN= 6
Safeenvironment 43/123 15/58 21/46 10/19
Employment 20/123 7/58 11/46 2/19
Access 89/123 40/58 34/46 15/19
School 221123 9/58 8/46 5/19
Improved imag2 21/123 14/58 4146 3119
Pollution 27/123 13158 8/46 6/19
Water 8/123 8/58 0/46 0/19
Noise 19/123 10/58 8/46 1/19
Building proposals31/123 11/58 10/46 10/19
(housing & industrial
units)
Wildlife 15/123 11/58 2/46 2/19
Green & open 29/123 12/58 10/46 7/19
space
Landscape & views 15/123 8/58 4/46 3/19
Facilities 36/123 8/58 17/47 11/19
Employment 19/123 7/58 11/46 1119
Planning & 10/123 5/58 4/46 1/19
consultation

The five maintopicsemergingfromthis qualitative are, in orderof highest

examination
frequency, facilityprovision,
traffic,safeenvironment, buildingproposals
andgreenandopen
spacewhich willbe examinedin combination withwildlife
andlandscape
issues below.

Access
Accessissuesundoubtedly are oneof the greatestconcerns andaspiration themeswhich
for
emerged all three Out
localities. of the 123respondents89 expressedeitheror concern of
an to
aspiration see improvement with to
regard access'provision.
A summary of indicative
as
well as aspirations
particular and concerns are presentedin Table8 whichprovidesan
importantinsightwhichcouldbeutilisedduringdecisionmaking withregardto theproposal.

Table8 Aspirationsand concernswith regardto access.

Aspirations/Visions Concems
_ Reduce Traffic Increase intraffic
"
Provisionof dropped kerbs Noplanning hasbeenundertaken fortheincrease
"
Easieraccess forpeople in scooters Intraffic
"
improved access tox str,y str&z str. Theichoolwillbea longwayforsomechildren
"
Noemergency entrance behind j avenue-
XX1 Pedestrian traffic
Moretrafficcontrol andcalming measures Creating through trafficInX str
Bettertransport links Trafficony str
Walkway provision 0 Thecapacity of themetrolink system
0 Noplanning forextraparking
0 Roadclosures duringworksdiverting trafficaway
frombusinesses

332
 SafeEnvironment
Provision
of a safeenvironmentwasthesecondgreatest fortheareaandespecially
aspiration
fortheXXHighSchoollocality.It is interesting
thatthisissuewasnotfeatureprominently inthe
workshopsurvey andas a resultof theresident surveyit is recommended thatit is addressed
more explicitly the
through Master plan, or thatcommunication withresidentsin enhanced for
purposes.
reassuring Thevisions and concernsare summarised below in Table9.

Table9: Aspirationsandconcernswithregardto a saferenvironment.

Aspirations/Visions Concerns
" Lesscrime 0 Childrencausingproblems
" MonitorcAme 0 Gangsandyouthshangingout
" Saferplacefor the community 0 Concernoverwhatpeoplewill moveIntothe area
" Morepoliceespeciallyto dealwithteenagers 0 VandalismIncreasealongsidethe increase In
" improvedstreetlighting residentialprovision.
" Providefacilitiesto keepteenagersof streets 0 Increasein the numberof kidson streets-littering
I I andvandalism

Facilityprovision
Facilityprovisionalso featuredstronglyin the aspirationsand concernsof the residents,the
facilitiesmentionedwherewith regardto the provisionof leisureand recreationareasas well
as shops and pubs. Some residents also commented on the impact incomingresidentsas a
result of the housing developments would have on the availability
of services
such as doctors
and dentists. It is also important to note that facilityprovision featured more stronglyas an
issuein the XX HighSchooland XXII area (Table7). A summaryof visionsand concerns
expressed are summarised in table10.

Table10:Aspirationsand concernswith regardto facilities provision.

Visions
Aspirations/ Concerns
improvedlocalfacilities Noplansto ImproveshoppingfacilitiesIn XX area.
Bettersportsfacilities Increasing
in housingwouldaddwaitingIn medical
More and improvementof existingchildrenplay centres
areas 0 Lackof socialactivitiesfor teenagers
Morecommunity centres 0 Lossof sportsfacilities
0
0 Moreshoppingfacilitiesandpubs

ProposedBuildingland useprovisions throughthe masterplan.

This thematictopic includesvisionsand concernswith regardto housingand industrialunit
proposed through the Master Plan. However, form the answers obtained confusion as to what
was being proposed was became As
apparent. some residentsargue against the amountof
industrialunitprovisionwhereasothersargueagainsthousingprovisions,some,notcorrelating
It
proposals. is thusproposed thatfurthercommunication is endeavoured with
withmasterplan
to clarifyproposals with The
residents. issues where risen are summarised in Table
residents

Table 11. Aspirations/

visions and concernswith regardto proposedhousingand
industrialunitdevelopments.
Visions
Aspirations/ Concerns
Moreprivatehousing Concernoverthedevelopment
of moreflatsand
Lessgettos homes
affordable
unitsfromhousing
ofIndustrial
Segregation 9 Toomuchhousing
ownedfamilyhomes
Moreprivately 0 ToomuchIndustry
Nomorecouncilhousing
.0

333
Thisis an issuewhichappearedto be of concernandan issueof uncertainty as residents
didn'tfeeltheyknewwhattypeof housingwasbeingproposed. In theworkshop theneedfor
moreaffordable housingwasexpressed,but thisviewdoes not seem to be in linewiththe
respondent in
which
residents, manycases requestedfora greatersocialmix.

Green& OpenSpace
Greenandopenspaceissuesfeaturedas oneof the mainaspirations andconcerns with
regardto the proposals.However, they areclosely linked,
to wildlifeprotection
andprotection of
viewsand thereforewill be examined in conjunction. The issues related to the loss of
Greenfield aswellastheprovision through theproposals for moreandbettermaintained open
spacesand playingfields. With regard to open space and landscape impacts of the
developments, XX1in particularexpressed a numberof concerns overthelossof greenfields
and thedisturbance of views
existing as well as the impact thiswould haveon wildlife.Some
indicativecomments aresummarised inTable12.

Table 12 Aspirations & Concernswith regard to green and open space as well as
landscapeimpactof the masterplan proposals.

Aspirations/Visions Concems
_ Closeandlandscape the local landfillsite 01 do notthinkthe landfillIs safeto buildon
"
some land for wildlife use as a bufferfor 0 Loss of openspace
" retain
existingproperties Loss of greenfieldsandgreenareas
" walkwaysandparks
spaces safe for children to play in
" open

334
Section5: Respondentsattitudetowards proposals.
Residents where questioned on how they
significantly felt affectedby the proposals.The
vary
results between localities 13).
(Table ResidentsfromXXII and XX in feltvery
theirmajority
or extremely affectedby the development
whereas residentsfromthe XX HighSchool area
felt
mostly slightly or moderately by
affected the proposals.Thisdifferenceis statistically
at
significant 95% levelofsignificance 14)
(Table
Table13: Percentageof residentrespondentsperceivingthemselvesto be affectedby
the developmentproposals.
0/.withinlocation
affe tedby the proposd development?
ignificantly
Notat all slightly moderately very Extremely Total
Location XXII 10.5% 10.5% 26.3% 52.6% 100.0%
XX High 13.0% 19.6% 30.4% 21.7% 15.2% 100.0%
xx 1.7% 8.6% 12.1% 25.9% 51.7% 100.0%
Total 5.7% 13.0% 1
118.7%. 24.4% 38.2% 100.0%
1 1 1

Table14:Statisticalillustrationof significantdifferencebetweenXXHighschool
in
perceptions relation to XXI and XX areas.
Chi-SquareTests

Asymp.Sig.(2-
Value df sided)
PearsonChi-Square 25.337(a) 8 001
.
LikelihoodRatio 27.059 8 001
.
of ValidCases 123
(40.0%) have less
count
expected than5. Theminimum count
expected Is 1.08.
a6 cells

Overall57.7%of theresident respondents abouttheproposed

felt positively developments in
the Master Plan,despite identifying
a number of concerns as illustrated
in Section2. However,
theseperceptions varybetween As
localities. can seen from Table 15 Residents in XXII in their
68.4% feelthey willbe affected by the proposals in a negative way. Thisis in contrast
majority
to theXX High School area residentswhich although they do notfeelthey willbe affected to a
greatextent (table 13)theydo perceive in their largemajority of 76.1that they willbe affected
in a positive
way (Table15).

Table 15: Percentage of residentsfrom localities

different whichfeel positiveor negative
perception with regardto the proposals.
0/ Rhin lev-nfinn
...
doyoufeelyouwillbe
ina positive
affected or
negafi way?

Neqatively Positiveiv Total

Location XXII 68.4% 31.6% 100.0%
XXHigh 23.9% 76.1% 100.0%
xx 48.3% 51.7% 100.0%
Total 42.3% 573% V/j
10O.

335
Section6: LongTermMonitoringandResidentSatisfactionwith
consultation.
Residents wherequestioned whethertheythoughtit was importantto conductlongterm
monitoring to ensurethatthe sustainability
objectivesprioritised,andanalysedin section3,
whereachieved. The are
results veryinteresting
asthemajority 85.6%regardless
of residents
of felt
location it was'very important
or'extremely' to undertake long term Table16.
monitoring
Table 16: Percentageof residents which feel it is important to undertake long term
monitorinqof the achievementof the sustainabilityobjectives.
Doyoufee it is importantto monitortheachievement
of these biectives?
,
Notat all Sliqhtly moderately__ very Extremely Total
Location XXII 5.6% 44.4% 50.0% 100.0%
XX High
2.2% 4.3% 10.9% 37.0% 45.7 100.0%
xx 1.8% 12.3% 22.8% 63.2% 100.0%
Total 1.7% 1.7% 10.7% 31.4% 54.5% 100.0%

Withregardto theresidents withthelevelandmeansof information

satisfaction provided
with
regardto the master planproposals, opinionsranged however
considerably, the majorityof
felt
residents to
slightly verysatisfied
withtheinformation (Table
provided 17).
Table17: Residentsatisfactionwith informationprovisionon the MasterPlan proposals
wit information
Doyou ellsatisfied onXXMaster
provided Plan?

Notatall slightly moderately very Extremely Total

Location XXI 15.8% 31.6% 26.3%. 26.3% 100.0%
XXHigh 10.9% 13.0% 41.3% 32.6% 2.2% 100.0%
xx 27.6% 25.9% 27.6% 19.0% 100.0%
Total 19.5% 22.0% 32.5% 25.2% 8% 100.0%
.

Withregardto the opportunitiesandlevelof consultation on the proposals againopinions

but
variedgreatly, mostly ranging fromnot at all to moderately(Table 18). Negativeopinions
are moreevident from XXI and XX residents, posingthe questions of if potentially
more
emphasis
consultation should be made in these areasas these are the onesexpressing the
of
majority concernswiththe development. A significantstatistical
correlation wasestablished
betweenthe residentsfeelingnegativeaboutthe proposalsand residentswho stated
withthe extentof consultation.
dissatisfaction However, thisis simplya statistical
correlation
and doesnotsignifycauseandaffect.
Table18Resident the and
satisfactionwith means level
of consultation
doyou elsatisfied onXXMasterPlan?
offered
withconsultation
Notat all slightly moderately very Extremely Total
-[o-cation XXI 31.6% 15.8% 36.8%' 15.8% 100.0%
XXHigh 21.7% 15.2% 32.6% 30.4% 100.0%
L) I
xx 29.3% 20.7% 36.2% 12.1% 1.7% 100.0%
I
--Total 1 26.8% 17.9% 35.0% 19.5%1 8% 1,00.0%
.

336
 & Recommendations
Section7: Conclusions ,
Fromtheaboveresultsa numberof conclusions canbe drawnandrecommendations made.
Trafficwasidentified in boththeworkshop andresident surveyasthegreatestnegative impact
resulting from the proposed developments. The trafficissue evokedstrongnegativefeelings
fromresidents whichaffectedthe resultsof otherissuessuchas noiseandpollutionbeing
viewed as negatively impacted upon as a result
of the traffic.
Providinga safeenvironment for
people to work and live in was identified asoneof themainsustainability forthearea
priorities
bytheresidents especially thosefromtheXXHighSchoollocality.However, thisissuewasnot
raised in the workshop survey and it is therefore
recommended thatcarefulattentionis givento
thesecurity urbandesignissueswhenfinalising proposals. The'securebydesign'guidance is
to be
proposed consulted aswellaspotentially greaterconsultation withresidents to findways
of dealing withtheissues collectively.
Employment generationwas identifiedas importantin both the workshopand the resident
survey, however, both respondents felt that the proposalsdidn't providemany long term
opportunities for employment. Issue regarding the proposed built developments, emergedin
the visionsand concernssectionof the residentsurvey.Overallit appearedthat residents
wherenot sure about the natureof the housing beingproposedand stateda clearpreference
over good quality owned
privately homes to thus increase
the diversityof the locality.
Residents
also expressedconcernover the natureof the peoplethe proposeddevelopmentswould
and
attract, it is thereforerecommended that further is
consultation pursuedwith residents.

landscape
Finally,open-space, issues,whererankedas prioritysustainability
andbiodiversity
issuesaswellaswherea mainconcern to XXI residents,
especially whichdisapprovedof the
lossof nearbygreenfields.Thedrainage
of thelodgesMasconsidered uponnegatively bya
number of XXresidents.

Overalltherewas a clear requestfor the long term monitoring of the achievement of

objectives
sustainability and overallimpactof theproposed developments. Results showed that
57.7%of resident felttheywouldbeaffected positivelybythedevelopment. However, answers
varyconsiderably between localities.
Overall,
residents of theXX High School localityfeltmore
positivelyaboutthe proposals than the XXI and XX residents yet at the same time felt less
affected overall and also more satisfiedwith the consultation received. Overall residents
with
satisfaction the consultation and informationreceived variedconsiderably rangingaround
to
the slightly moderately satisfied.A correlation
significant was identified betweenresidents
which feltpositivelyabout the proposals and those which where satisfiedwith the consultation
received.Although thisis a statistical and
correlation does notsignify cause and affectit may
berecommendable to enhance consultation
effortsin theXXII andXX

337
 Appendix 6: Indicator selection criteria checklist.
The following was presentedto case study participants on the first workshop
in session 3. Participantsfound it too hard to make selection and proposed an
open discussiontalking through each of the criteria and relevanceto the XX
BRP monitoringstrategy.

Pleasereadthrough thecriteriaandtheirspecificelements circlinga maximumof 2 elements

Thenrankthe criteriaaccording
for eachcriterion. to the levelof importance
youthinkthey
should play when deciding which indicators
to choose.Startbut puttingI for your most
important 2 foryoursecondmostimportant
criterion etcintheboxesprovided.
Criteria Specific elements
0 Development& aBe relevantto local government but also to the ordinary citizen
use of Indicators mRelevantto ordinary citizens as we as to local governmentand easyto
both by Local understand
Government& aEnsureparticipation of decisionmakersto securea firm link to adopted
public policies and resulting action
-Clearly assigningresponsibility and providing ongoing supportin the
decisionmaking process
indicators -Lead to the setting of targetsor thresholds
should enable aLinked to settingtargetsfor action
0
the setting of -The identification of targetsand trendsthat allow progresstowardsor
targets, away from sustainabilityto be determined
thresholds& aComparingindicator valuesto targetsreferencevaluesrangesthresholds
trends or direction of trendsas appropriate.
aDevelop a capacity for repeatedmeasurementto determinetrends;
vShow trendsover reasonabletimescales
Indicators wHave a relationshipto other setsof indicators
0 shouldbe vBe both individually and collectively meaningful
integrating aIntegrating
-Relation to other indicators: aswell as being meaningful on its own does
the indicator have a collective meaning?
Linkage: do they link environmenteconomicand social issues?
Indicators -Measurable(implies that it must be a quantitative indicator)
should be aRelevant to the issuesof concernand scientifically defensible
0 eMeasurable
scientific and
measurable -Expressedin a way that makessensp(percentagerate, per capita,
absolutevalue)
" Stableand reliable: compiledusing a systematicand fair method?
" Make explicit all judgmentsassumptionsand uncertaintiesin data and
interpretations.
" Valid: do they measuresomethingthat is related to the stateof the
system?
Indicators -Sensitive (must readily changeas circumstanceschange)
should be Likely to changeform year to year and more importantly, opento being
sensitive, changedas a result of local action
iterative, Sensitiveto changeacrossspaceana social groups
0 Sensitiveto changeover time
adaptiveand
responsiveto -Responsive:they respondquickly and measurablyto changes?
change. -Proactive: do they act as a warning rather than measurean exiting state?
-Long range: do they focus on the long term?
nAdopt a time horizon long enoughto captureboth humanecosystem

338
 time scales,thus respondingto current short term decision making needs
as well as thoseof future generations.
PBuild on historic and current conditionsto anticipatefuture conditions;
wherewe want to go, where we could go.
aBe iterative, adaptiveand responsiveto changeand uncertainty because
systemsare complexand changefrequently;
-Adjust goals,frameworksand indicators as new insights aregained;
Indicators -Sensitive (must readily changeas circumstanceschange)
should be mLikely to change form year to year and more importantly, open to being
sensitive, changed as a result of local action
iterative, aSensitiveto changeacrossspaceand social groups
0
adaptive and aSensitive to changeover time
responsiveto aResponsive:they respondquickly and measurablyto changes?
change. -Proactive: do they act as a warning ratherthan measurean exiting state?
aLong range:do they focus on the long term?
-Adopt a time horizon long enoughto captureboth human ecosystem
time scales,thus respondingto current short term decision making needs
as well as thoseof future generations.
-Build on historic and current conditionsto anticipatefuture conditions;
wherewe want to go, where we could go.
Be iterative, adaptiveand responsiveto changeand uncertainty because
systemsare complex and changefrequently;
uAdjust goals,frameworksand indicatorsas new insights are gained;
Indicators aBe clear easyto understandand educateas well as inform
0 should be simple nUnderstandable and if appropriateresonant
to understand & nUnderstandable: simple enough to be interpreted by lay persons?
have educational -Be designedto addressthe needsof the audienceand set of users;
value -Aim from the outset for simplicity in structureand use of clear and plain
language.
Promotedevelopmentof collective learning and feedbackto decision
making.
Indicators -Provoke changein policies serviceslifestyles etc
0 should be able to vPolicy relevance: relevance to public or corporatepolicy?
influencepolicy, nEnsureparticipation of decisionmakersto securea firm link to adopted
services & life policies and resulting action
stvles
Indicators -Developedwith the input from multiple stakeholdersin the community
should be based Community involvement: were they developed and acceptable by the
0 on broad stakeholders of the systemof concern?
participation -Make the methods and data that areusedaccessibleto all;
*
aObtain broadrepresentationof key grassroots, professionaltechnical
and social groups including youth women and indigenouspeopleto
ensurerecognition of diverseand changingvalues.
indicators @ Have a reasonedrelationshipto sustainabilityat both global and local
0 should consider level
both the local m Linked to sustainability, ideally both locally & globally
scale w Act locally think globally: do they promote sustainability at the expense
and global
of others?
vDefine a spaceof study large enoughto include not only local but also
long distanceimpactson peopleand ecosystemsý____
Indicators aReflect local circumstances
0 should be n Resonance: would the audience empathise with the indicator?
w Representative: as a group they cover the important dimensions of the
context specific
focus area

339
 wBedesignedto addressthe needsof the audienceand set of users;
nSupportingdevelopmentof local assessmentcapacity.
Indicators wComparability: is the indication capableof comparisonwith other values
shouldbe reportedelsewhere?
comparable - Standardisingmeasurementwheneverpossibleto permit comparison
Data shouldbe -Providing institutional capacity for data collection maintenanceand
0
madepublicly documentation;
aMeasurableeither by the local authority or by a body that can make the
available
dataavailable
Indicator -Usable (practicable)
Practicality and Available (it must be relatively straight forward to collect the necessary
procedural data for the indicator)
issues -Cost effective (it should not be a very expensivetask to accessthe
necessarydata)
0 Be based to information
" on relatively easy collect
" Available and timely: can the data be collected on an annualbasis?
" Stableand reliable: compiled using a systematicand fair method?
*A limited numberof indicatorsor indicator combinationsto provide a
clearersignal of progress
aDraw from indicatorsand other tools that are stimulating and serveto
engagedecisionmakers
w Aim from the outset for simplicity in structureand use of clear and plain
language.

340
Appendix 7: Report with phase 4 results presented to
participants.
Evaluating the sustainability of the XX Paper Mill
redevelopment:
Identification of visions for the site, and consideration of the. bellefits jilld
concerns of the proposal, including discussions on the development of
indicators for the sustainability monitoring of the development.

Workshop 1: Phase 4 of RAF: Setting Priorities for Sustainability

Monitoring.
Identification of visions, benefits and concernswith regard to the XXproposal.
17th May, XX

This report summarises the discussions and opinions raised at HIC'I"Vý11LIMIlIg

the sustainability of the XX Paper Mill workshop. The results of flic workshop
recorded in this report will be considered carefully when selecting indicators
to monitor the long term sustainability of the XX redevelopment project.

CES, Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey

SUBR:IM, Sustainable Urban Regeneration: Integrated Managetni, 11t
Research Consortium.

e ý-*aWALt
I

e46
:v
N'*;, '
A1",
-A

Facilitators:
Kalliope Pediaditi, University of Surrey
Contact details: tel 01483686672 email kalliapedialiti@liotiiiail. coni
Paulette Griffiths, University of the West Indies
Michael Harbottle (recorder), Cambridge University

341
342
 1. Delegate Programme for the day

Evaluating the sustainability of the XX redevelopment.

Outline programme

12:30 Registration & Buffet

13:00 Welcome & Introductions
13:20 Session 1: what are our Sustainability Visions and Concerns for the
site?
14:00 Coffee & Biscuits
14:15 Session 2, Prioritising sustainability visions and concerns for the site
15:00 Coffee & Biscuits
15:15 Session 3: Future Actions
16:30 Close

343
2. Attendee List (Restricted for Appendix)

344
3. Background to and the workshop process.
The aim of the workshop was to identify the main visions for the site as
well as the perceived benefits and concernswith regard to the proposed
development.The objective of the workshop, which was achieved,was to
develop a list of main thematic topics which through a deliberative
process have been prioritised as key and which should be monitored as
part of the XX development.

This workshop constitutes Phase 4 of the Redevelopment Assessment

Framework RAF, which is a process being developed through the
SUBRIM government funded researchconsortium with the aim to enable
the development of site specific indicators to monitor the sustainability of
brownfield redevelopment projects like the XX (Seeappendix 1 for more
information on the RAF)-

3.1 Workshop preparation:

In order to carry out the workshop preparatory, actions were undertaken

which consistof Phases 1 to 3 of the RAF.

Phase1: Team Building consistedof identifying the relevant participants

which should be involved in the workshop. A checklist of potential
relevant stakeholders was provided to XX Council, the planning
department, and to the developer. Both parties were asked to identify 12
stakeholders which they thought should attend, which resulted in the
aboveattendee list (Section2) a total of 15 stakeholders.

Phase2: Getting the facts right. This phaseconsistedof a project and site
information gathering exercise,information for which was provided both
from the council and from the developer. This information was
summarised and sent to the delegates prior to the workshop.

in order to increase participation wider, than the workshop delegates

which essentially consist of key decision makers, it was considered
essential that a community survey is carried out questioning neighbouring
residents to the site, on the perceived impacts, concernsand sustainability
objectives relevant to their area and proposed project. This survey was
conducted following the master plan consultation period. The results of
this survey identified the main positive and negative impacts residents
would occur as a result of the development as well as their
perceived
to sustainability objectives for the area. The results
priorities with regard
the survey (Appendix 2) were provided to delegates prior to the
of
as discussed during -the relevant sessions in the
workshop as well
workshop.

345
Phase3: Preparing the ground, has consisted of an investigation into the
relevant existing monitoring requirements of the development as well as
an examination of existing monitoring data and indicators being utilised
by XX Council. A meeting was held with planning policy and the relevant
officers currently in the process of developing Strategic Environmental
Assessmentindicators, and collating a data base of existing data being
gathered. Discussions were also held with regard to the potential for
utilisation of existing indicators for the purpose of the XX development
monitoring.

3.2 The Workshop Process

Phase 4: Setting Priorities is essentially the workshop whose results are

documented in this report. The workshop was divided into three sessions.

In Session1, delegateswere spilt up into three groups, and were required

using postits to identify their main concerns, visions and benefits for the
site and proposed development. A carousel was conducted enabling all
delegates to view what others had stated and to add where they felt
appropriate. Following this exercise, delegates where required to make a
presentation on each of the tasks ie on the main concerns, on the main
benefits and the main visions for the project emerging from the exercise.
The individual comments made on postits are presented in Section 5.1 .
The main points of the presentation weTe recorded and presented in
section 5.2. At this point the results of the community survey were
presented and the table was opened for discussion, which resulted in a
few main themesbeing identified which should be monitored and which
were recorded and presented in Section 5.2.

In Session 2, bearing in mind the results of Session 1a prioritisation

exercise of general sustainability objectives was undertaken. Flip charts
with economic, social and environmental. sustainability objectives were
presented which delegated were provided with dots to state their
priorities. The results of this sessionare presented in Section 6. Following,
this exercise the results of the same prioritisation exercise undertaken by
residents through the community survey were presented. The table was
then opened for discussion.

In Session3 practical aspectswere addressedwith regard to the nature

function the final indicators should have. This consisted of an open
and
table discussion of various characteristics of indicators, presented in
Section 7. Twelve different characteristicsof indicators, which could affect
the indicator selection in Phase 5, were discussed. Also practical issues

346
such as, who should manage the process? Who should collect the data?
and who should utilise the results were also discussed the main points of
which have beenrecorded and presented in section7.

An evaluation exerciseand questionnairewere also handed out at the end

of the sessionthe results of which are presentedin Section8.

3.3 Future Actions & use of Workshop Results

Based on the results of the workshop, a few main issues which require
monitoring were identified. Therefore, these issues will be considered in
Phase5 to design and selectthe appropriate indicators.

Phase5 Designing the indicators, is a processwhich involves only a few

of the delegates from the developers and council who in a meeting,
consider the results of all the previous phases and selecta set of indicators
to monitor the long term sustainability of the project.

Phase 6 Putting it all together, consists of another workshop were all

delegatesare required to participate and evaluate the selectedindicators.
In this sessiontargets for the indicators and practical issues such as who
will collect what data and how it will be utilised is agreedon.

Thus from all the above, the aim of the RAF process will be achieved
which is to develop site specific indicators in a participatory manner
which will allow the monitoring of the long term sustainability of the
ELPM redevelopmentproject.

347
4. Brief Summary of the key points emerging from
the day.
Through the first part of the day the main issueswhich were identified as
deserving future monitoring are summarised below. For these issues
indicators will be developed.

Improved image of the area in terms of 'architecture,design, and social

aspectsaswell as the combination of all.
2. A safeenvironment for people to work and live in.
3. Improved education in terms of academic achievement and
infrastructure and design.
4. Improved local economy,in particular with regard to small businesses,
and the creation of quality employment opportunities.
5. Improved housing mix in terms of mix between housing and
.
businessesas well as types of housirig. The need to create a new
housing balance -a property ladder, enabling people to stay in the
area.
6. Improve biodiversity in terms of habitat creation and water
management.
7. Improved accessibility(traffic managementand transport links)
8. Ensuresafety with regard to contamination.

From the second session,where sustainability objectiveswere prioritised

for the area the following objectiveswere considereda priority.

In terms of social objectives,the integration of the development within the

locality was considered key, in particular to the design for example
avoiding the development of gated communities as well as ensuring the
accessibilityand extensiveuse of facilities as well as the school after hours.
The secondmost important social objective.was identified as the provision
of a safe environment for people to work and live in. At the meeting the
issue of high perceived crime was discussed. It was recognised that
although nuisance has risen in the past years, crime is not particularly
high. Thus the need to design out crime and nuisance was agreed as well
as to createalternative options for youths.

In terms of environmental objectives,the minimisation of pollution and

remediation of existing contamination was -identified as a non- negotiable
priority. The need to potentially monitor soil contamination was
discussed.The protection of biodiversity and the natural environment was
discussions surrounding the potential for
ranked as a secondpriority, with
the development to createnew habitats and improve biodiversity.

348
Finally with regard to economic objectives identified, the provision of
employment was identified as key. However, through the discussion, it
was clarified that the quantity was not sd much an issue but rather the
quality of jobs being created. This was linked with the need for better
educational achievement which would enable locals to obtain and
undertake better quality jobs in the area. The need to improve the
community was also identified as a priority which was linked to the
increasedspending power in the area,resulting from the development.

All these conclusions were in line with the results of the community
survey (Appendix 2).

With regard to Session3 and indicator creation/ selection characteristics,

no firm conclusions were made. However, a few significant points
emerged. It was agreed that a collaboration should exist in the use of the
indicators as well as the data provision and analysis. The potential to use
existing LA indicators was endorsed on the proviso that they are relevant.
It was also agreed with regard to the extent which the indicator results
should be made public, would have to depend on the sensitivity of the
information. Importantly it was also agreed that different types,
qualitative and quantitative, indicators would have to be used according
to what issues are addressed with regard to the site. For example, using
quantitative indicators to monitor soil contamination, yet qualitative
to
indicators measurecrime perceptions or quality of life indicators.

From the above the basis has been built to develop sustainability
indicators as well as in a secondworkshop agree targets and methods of
their implementation.

349
 5. Session 1: Identification of the benefits, concerns
and visions of the proposed. development and
site.

Bellow are initially presentedthe raw results of Session1 as presentedon

the flipcharts (Section5.1), followed by the recorded comments from the
presentation and discussion (Section 5.2).

5.1 Visions., Concerns & Benefits as recorded by delegates.

Visions as presented and themed by delegates

social safety
environmental high quality design visual Impact Employment
opportunity improved (more)
residential improvedbiodiversity maximisingdesign ImprovedImage betterjobs
opportunity opportunities
leisure school long term mixed integrated makingX better In more skilled
ees responsivenessand use terms of public workforce
flexibility of solutions perception

new blood in energy efficiency history Increased

the community resourceefficiency acknowledged employment
on-site power acessibility opportunities
generationusing improved
renewables
kickstartwider a catalystfor future council tax
regenerationin adjacentsites income6
X million
improved providingnew
educational schoolbefter
outcomes education
opportunitiesand
standards
improved more sustainable
health travel cholcýs
reduced
dependenceon car
improved
transparentlinks
aroundthe town

350
 Concernsas presentedand themed by delegates.

Concerns during construction

successfulremediation unattractive neighbourhoodreaction,
appearance changing or loss of community'
environmentalissues, effects on existing loss of local residentsupport
contamination residentshouse
prices
dust pollution public relationswith residents
during constructionAWARENESS
dust & dirt health& safety & Accesibility
security
noise safety from site public ImpatienceIntolerance
contaminants backlash
noise/ disturbance safety in sites and
accessroutes
working hours waste generation
traffic increase planningconstraints
& controls
loss of wil life

LonL,Term Concerns
sustainable maintanance of miss the noise of commercial
development? public space opportunity area
sustainability of comprehensive social / economic viable biodiversity
design master plan development benefits not
and individual completion achieved
buildings

affordable housing deliverability of exclusivity gated flooding

development of community
whole site
highway capacity & consequencesfor future flexibility in watercourse
safety the other sites use of school management
safety contamination? access to environmental
services standards of housing
non=car travel choices community traffic Increase
support / input
schooldoesn't
deliver
changing
community feel

351
 Benefits as presented and themed by delegates

Benefitsduring construction
severalyears
decontamination construction jobs localworkforce_
agreements
communityseeaction
emoureyesores makesit real localsupplychains
endof tippingon evidenceof progress
towerfarmlandfill publicperception Increasedtradefor business
in
startof regeneration changingperceptionencouraging
XX goodPR otherinvestment
endto uncertainty

Long term benefits

use of school premisesby

community a biq Image change removal of contamination

improved pupil performance changing the image of XX housing demand Increase

ripple effect Improve near
adds to sporting Infrastructure new start by areas

improved health outcomes for economic improvement of

children & everyone
improved opportunities &
increased standards for
young people
increased population &
expenditure more effective
use of resources (school)
XX on the map
radcliffe visual improvement
more support of public lift the surrounding area
transport (PPG 13) eg property prices
socio- economic & health
additional support of indicators for population
services etc viability
more sustainable
development location biodiversity enhanced
accessibility by all modes opportunities

regional & architectural focus

on innovative school project improved traffic flows
new employment
ODDortunities

5.2 Records of presentation made by delegates on the

Visions,, Concerns and Benefits of the XX redevelopment
proposal.

Visions presentation records and main themes.

The redevelopmentof the XX was seenas an opportunity to regenerateXX as

The vision included this redevelopmeht being a catalyst for more
a whole.
in the area.The main visions focusedaround the themes of:
projects

352
U Improved Image of the site relating to high quality design
E3Improved image of the site with regard to social provisions and
opportunities.
E3Improved social opportunities in terms of the provision of mixed housing,
including size ie 2 bedroom,3 bedroom, etc as well as a good mix of social
and private housing. Thus providing the opportunity for people moving
up the ladder in XX to remain in the area.
D Improved education,which would be achievedthrough the new school
c3 Improved job opportunities in XX, both in terms of the quality of jobs as
well as the quantity.
Q Improved transportation through improved links, accessibility and
integrated usage.
E3Maintenanceof heritage.
o improved biodiversity and use of renewables

Concerns presentation records and main themes of discussion

Concernsduring construction:
The main concernsduring construction of the XX redevelopment evolved
around:
" The managementof environmental concerns such as dust noise and
pollution.
" Transparent community consultation, with the aim of keeping their
support of their project.

Longternzconcerns:
The main long term concernswith regard to the XX, evolved around the
following issues:
(3 Long term sustainability and questions ovef the long term management
and maintenance of the site.
E3 Long term social function of the site, with fear of gated communities and
limited accessto facilities and a changein the current community feel of
the area.
[I Concerns that the social and economic visions described would not be
achieved.
E3 Highway capacity as a result of the develop! nent and traffic and safety
issuespotentially arising.
a Long term risk and safety with regard to site contamination.
[3 Water management for flooding and biodiversity purposes.

Benefits presentation records and main themes of discussion.

Benqfitsduring construction:
C3 Decontamination of the site
Working with residents to win allegiance, and restore pride in the area.

353
E3Ripple economiceffects,regarding employment, suppliers, merchandising
etc
Longtermbenefits:
E3The school is a major beneficialfactor, providing the opportunity for
improved educationalattainment,and thus the opportunity for residents
better careeropportunities.
E3Improved Health opportunities from the provision of new facilities.
E3Improved housing resulting in people wanting to stay in the area and
restoring the community feel and pride.
13 improved perceptionsof the area,turning XX into a show caseof
regeneration to be emulated.
a Opportunities to improve biodiversity through habitat creation and water
management.

Summary Of the key themes emerging from the session and deserving
monitoring.

[3 Improved image of the areain terms of architecture, design, and social

aspectsaswell as the combination of all.
13 Improved education in terms of academic achievement and
infrastructure and design. .
El Improved local economy,in particular with regard to small businesses,
and the creation of quality employment opportunities.
El Improved housing mix in terms of mix between housing and
businessesas well as types of housing. The need to create a new
housing balance -a property ladder, enabling people to stay in the
area.
" Improve biodiversity in terms of habitat creation and water
management.
" Improved accessibility( traffic managementand transport links)
E3Ensuresafety with regard to contamination.

354
 6. Session 2, Prioritising Sustainability Objectives
as relevant to the XX area and XX site.
In this session the following tables were presented with the different
social, economic and environmental objectives and delegates were
requested to place dots on eachobjective category according to what they
felt was a priority for the area.This was followed by a presentation of the
community survey results of the sameexerciseand a discussion.

Socialobjectives:

Issues Priority (number Rankedby community

of dots attributed accordingto importance with
s) 1 being the most important.
To provide adequatelocal servicesto _by_delegat 3
serve the development
To provide a safeenvironment for 3 1
people to work and live in
To provide housing to meetneeds 1 5
Integratethe developmentwithin the 11 2
L 1(
ocality
To provide good accessibilityfor all 1 21 4

Envirorunental Objectives

Issues Priority (number Rankedby community

To minimise the useof resources
To minimise pollution & remediate
existing contan-tination
To protect biodiversity and the natural
environment
To protect the landscape
To protect heritageand historic
buildings
I-I
of dots attributed accordingto importance with
es) 1 being the most important.
0 5
12 1
4 2
0 3
0 4

EconomicObjectives

Issues Priority (number Rankedby community

of dots) according to importance with
1 being the mostimportant.
To enablebusinessesto be efficient and 0 5
competitive
To provide employment opportunities 12 2
To promote the local economy 4 1
_ 0 3
To provide transport infrastructure to
meetbusinessneeds I1 I
To support local businessdiversity 0 1T

355
 7. Session 3: Future Actions, Identifying the criteria
to be used to choose indicators.
In this session the criteria for indicator selection were identified and
discussed.Twelve thematic categories of indicator characteristics were
presented to the delegates and an open table discussion took place thus
helping to get a clearer idea of what the indicators should be like. The
main feature of this session was the uncertainty about how the indicators
should be. The outcome of the session was that indicator characteristics
should vary according to the indicator thematic topics identified in Session
1, for example contamination indicators would have to be more scientific
and robust than social indicators.

The above discussion led to the consideration of the following questions

of:
L3 who will use the indicator results?
c3 who should collect the data and
ci should existing data be
sources utilised?

While discussion was being carried out main point were recorded,
although some points were inconclusive. The trend was that a
combination of responsibility and use of indicators should occur between
LA and the developer.

below the different indicator selectioncategoriesdiscussed are presented

of the comments made for each. This is followed by the
and some
the on indicator use, collection and data
commentsrecorded on questions
sourcing.

Indic ator selection criteria comments made on criteria

1. Development & use of indicators both policy relevant and LA ( local level site specific)
depending on need
by government & public
- EIA targets, planning guidance thresholds, targets
2 indicators should enable the setting of
. eg set in green travel plans
targets thresholds and trends
eg relevant to employment & education
prating opportunitibs
there should be a mix of both qualitative and
quantitative indicators whose selection should
4 Indicators should be scientific and depend on the topic In question
.
measurable
5. Indicators uld be sensitive iterative, flexible Yýt long term consistency targets
ad ge
6. indicators should be simple to relevance is more Important than educational
understand & have educational value value
Tindicators should be able to influence it depends on the audience as well as point 1
p

356
8. Indicatorsshould be basedon broad
participation
9. Indicatorsshould considerboth the
local and the global scale
10. indicatorsshould be contextspecific
11. indicatorsshould be comparable
12. data should be made publicly
available
13. indicatorpracticalityand procedural
issues
it depends on point 1&6 there needs to be
sensitivity and specialismconsideration
there should be a link to other Indicatorsat higher
levels also depends on points 1,6,8
this dependsthe issue under examination
benchmarkingshould take place were possible
dependingon sensitivity
see questions below tackled

Who will use the indicator results?

[3 Council: planners and all departments
E3 developers
0 Compiling all information in one / centre/ database/ website?
E3 consultation database?
E3 Business groupS chambers of commerce?
El regional central government?
Ll Area boards, feed in to community plans?
El social services / police/ education?

Who should collect the data?

(3 developer?
council?
combination of agencies ?
C3Who should be responsiblefor organising the collection of the data or its
management? Should this be led by the council?
C3What is the time period for data collection?For how long would data be
collectedfor?
[I What data collecting period is sustainable?Should data be collected and
monitoring occur until a set target has beeri met?

Should existing data sources be utilised?

" Council - other agencies eg EA?
" Ask new agencies to introduce new measuring points
ci Developer

Li This answer depends on how the data is presented.

357
 Appendix 8: RESCUE remediation sustainability
criteria.
RESCUE,2005, Administrative tools and incentives, Chapter5 Sustainability
AssessmentTool for Brownfield Regenerationprojects, pg254-258
http://www. rescue-europe.
com/html/results.html

ProjectMonitoringandevaluation Descriptionof themonitoringsystem

put in place,objectives, useof
indicators,periodicity,timingand
whatactionto betakenif problemis
identified.
Willtheprojectmaintain andimprove localair
quality;mitigation measures implemented against
dustgeneration andairpollution duringtheworks?
Hastheprojectidentified therisksandthemitigation
measures to beputin placeto reduce thehuman
healthandenvironment risksassociated with
exposure to hazardous substances?
Hasthenoisepollution beenconsidered duringthe
characterisafion andcleanupphases andmitigation
measures beenimplemented?
Willtheprojectputprocedures inplacetoensure
themonitoring andreportingoftheenvironmental
parameters during the works ( physical, chemical,
from
complaints community)
Willtheprojectputin placemethods to avoidthe
spread of the contamination during thedemolition
process?
Willit promote re-useandrecycling ofwasteand
reduce overall volume of waste produced (waste
hierarchy)
Willit ncourage wastemanagement closeto
(
source proximity principle)
Willtheprojectadopta wastemanagement planto
optimise therecycling andreuseof soilsanddebris
takingintoaccount themethodological guidance
and strategy of the EC?
Willtheprojectwastemanagement planbein
compliance with the localI regional andnational
plans?
_Willtheprojectestimate thequantities of available
materials for recycling and for reuse after treatment
and a material dismantling sequence plan?
Willtheprojectincludeongoingremediation
performance verificationin terms of cost,efficiency
in
andschedule orderto reducecorresponding
I risKs7 I
I theprojectincludepostvalidation remediationI
-Will -

358
 intermsof cost,efficiency
verification
performance
andscheduleto measurethesuccessof the
remediation process?
Willtheprojectusea costmodelin orderto reduce
unexpected costvariationsrelatedto the
remediation?
Willtheprojectcharacterisation andremediation
phasecostsandtechniques be integratedin an
overalleconomic viabilitystrategy?
Haveseveraluseoptionsbeingconsidered and
theircostscalculated?
Willthemanagement of theprojectmakeprovision
for theinclusionof all groupsin information and
decisionmakingduringcharacterisation andclean
up phases?
Willthe projectraiseawareness about
environmental problemsif relevanceon thesite?
Willthe projectputin placean appropriate site
specificriskcommunication to improvethesocial
acceptance of theproject?
Willthe projectprepareandimplement an
emergency actionplan?
Willthe publichaveopportunities to express
comments to technicaldecisionsandaretheconflict
resolutionin the participation plan?
Willit maintainandimprovesurfacewaterand
qroundwaterquality?
Doesthe projectdescription includea plan
demonstrating thataftercleanupthe sitewill be
reusedin a mannerthatleadsto environmental
improvement throughreductionsin pollutionand
resourceconsumption?
Willthe projectincludea riskmanagement
frameworkinvolvingidentification planninganda
minimisation plan?
Willthe projectconsiderthe key environmental
legislationrelatedto theindustrialsites( IPPC,EIA),
treatmentof contaminated land,energyefficiency,
wasteminimisation andpollutioncontrol(EMAS)?
Hasthe projectuseddecisionsupporttoolsto assist
in environmental decisionmaking( characterisation
strategy,remediation techniques etc)?

359
Appendix 9: Report with phase 5.results presented to
participants.
Proposalfor a SustainabilityMonitoringFrameworkand
Assessmentof theXXPaperMill development.
September5/8/2005
Reportof theResultsof theRAFPhase5. Identification
of relevant
indicators.
sustainability
Toberevisedbyallstakeholders
priorto RAFPhase6 workshop.

INTRODUCTION. 361

2. REVIEWING THE SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS AND CRITERIA. 362

2.1. ISSUES TO CONSIDER WHEN REVIEWING THE LONG TERM MONITORING

SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS. 362
2.2 ISSUES TO CONSIDER WHEN REVIEWING THE SEEDA SUSTAINABILITY CHECKLIST
CRITERIA. 364

3. LONG TERM MONITORING SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS. 366

3.1 SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVE 1 366

3.2. SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVE 2 368
3.3. SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVE 3 369
3.4. SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVE 4 372
3.5. SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVE 5 375
3.6. SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVE 6 377
OBJECTIVE7
3.7. SUSTAINABILITY 379
3.8. SUSTAINABILITY 013JECTIVE 8 382
3.9 SUMMARY TABLE OF LONG TERM SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS AND MONITORING
REQUIRED. 383

4. PROPOSED SEEDA CHECKLIST CRITERIA FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF THE

k-X PROPOSAL. 385

4.1 SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVE 1: DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT CRITERIA. 385

4.2 SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVE 2 DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT CRITERIA. 395
4.3 SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVE 3 DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT CRITERIA. 396
4.4 SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVE 4 DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT CRITERIA. 397
4.5. SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVE 5 DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT CRITERIA. 404
4.6. SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVE 6 DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT CRITERIA. 406
4.7. SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVE 7 DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT CRITERIA. 413
4.8. SUSTAINABILITY OBJECTIVE 8: DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT CRITERIA. 428
4.9 SUMMARY TABLE OF RELEVANT SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA. 431

5. CONCLUSION. 433

360
1. Introduction.
In this reportindicators
are presentedfor the longtermsustainability
monitoring of the XX
PaperMill(XX)development, aswellascriteriato assessthesustainability
of thedevelopment
proposals. These indicators
are the result
of a communitysurvey(Appendix 1) as wellas a
facilitated
workshop anddiscussions throughout
withvariousstakeholders theyear(Appendix
2).

Thesustainability criteriaarebasedontheobjectives determined throughtheaboveprocess,

and have been compiled in with
consultation the SEEDA sustainabilitychecklistto providea
robust and replicablemethod of assessment of the of the XX proposals.
sustainability As a
result the here
criteria largely the
reflect priorities
of thelocality
as identifiedbyitsstakeholders.
It is aimedthat,following thereviewof thesecriteriain theforthcoming Phase6 workshop and
theconsensus onthefinalsetof criteriato beusedis reached; a sustainability
assessment will
be carriedout usingthesecriteriawhichwill be provided for consideration withthe planning
application.
Withregardto the longtermindicators proposed in thisreporl:;
theyarebasedon thesame
objectivesas the criteria,
sustainability yet have been'drawn fromthe LocalDevelopment
Framework (LDF)scopingreportthusreflecting localpolicyandminimising the potential
for
duplication Theindicators
of datacollection. proposed in thisreportfollowingtheirreviewand
adoptionin the Phase 6 RAF workshop willbe utilisedto monitorthe long termsustainability
of
theproposed developmentthroughout itsinitialplanning phase,duringconstruction throughto
operation.

theaimof thisreportto present

It is therefore thisinitiallistof longtermindicators
aswellas
to
criteria
sustainability for
stakeholders reviewand consideration to
prior the onthe
workshop
8thof September.

Thestructure of thereportthenfollowswithguidance onhowto reviewthedifferent indicators

and and
criteria the range of differentissueswhichshouldbe considered (Section 2).Section3
presents the long term monitoring indicators
togetherwith indicators
provisional for reviewas
wellassome further information as to howtheywere derived.In Section4 therelevant SEEDA
checklist criteria are presented accordingto sustainabilityobjective accompanied by
information ontheirderivation, limitations
andissuesto consider duringtheirreview.Section5
concludes the report, outliningthe for
expectations the Phase 6 workshopon the 8thof
September.

361
2. Reviewing the Sustainability indicators and criteria.

In the Phase6 Workshop indicatorsandcriteriain this reportwill be reviewed

the sustainability
and agreed upon allowingfor a monitoringand assessment framework for the XX site.
However,thereare a numberof issueswhichwill requireconsideration from all stakeholders
prior to the workshop.These differ betweenthe long term indicators and the sustainability
criteriaand arepresentedbelow.

Basedon the abovethis report has been distributedto all stakeholdersattendingthe workshop
and comments will be anticipatedfor the workshop.

Task f or Stakeholders;
Reviewdocument based on instructions, answer questions and feel free to make
comments. Please email electronic copy to kalliapediaditieyahoo..
co. and bring
-uk
along print out with commentsto workshop.

2.1. Issues to consider when reviewing the long term

monitoring sustainability indicators.

Whenexaminingthe proposedrelevantLDFscopingreportindicatorsin the Phase5 stageof

the RAF,the followingobservations were madewhichhave beentaken into accountwhen
the
preparing final list in
presented 3.
Section

Not all indicatorswere relevantor necessaryas some had significantoverlapwith others.

Thereforea selectionwas madeof the mostrepresentative and informative.Of the LA LDF
SEAscopingreportindicators,althoughrelevantin context,concernswereexpressedthatthe
dataat the level it is
at which collected maynot be detailed
enoughto reflectthe impactwhich
theXXdevelopment will have.

Furthermore, therewas alsoconcernexpressedregardingthe regularityof the datacollection

carriedout on behalf of the council. It was therefore agreed that,whererelevant,a surveywill
be conductedin the XX localityover a periodof 9 yearsat 3 year intervalsto collectthe site
data.
specific This approach will have three main advantages. Firstlyan accuratepictureof the
of the development could be formed with comparative data prior to the
sustainability
development, duringconstructionand post completion,and secondlythese resultscouldbe
compared to the general trends occurring in LA. Thirdly, sustainabilitymonitoringcan be
undertaken over the long term with relativelylittle costs.

However,it was recognisedthat shouldsustainability trendsbe establishedto be negative,it

wouldnot be in the developerscapacity to initiate or be responsible for change. Nevertheless. it
that this would be useful information which the LA could use in future
was established
development proposals as well as to examine the to
possibility take mitigativeactionsin the
area.

Basedon the above the followingissuesshouldbe consideredwhenreviewingthe longterm

in
indicators
sustainability Section3.

362
 Task for Stakeholders:
Reviewlong term indicators presented by answering the following questions
presented in the task boxes. DA = Disaqree, N= Neutral, A= Aqree

Indicator Review Criteria DA N A Comments

Does this indicator appropriately
inform the sustainability objective
stated?
Is this indicator useful? ie provides
information which can be used in
decision making.
Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Is it cost ef f ective
Do you have any other comments?

Indicator Characteristics Review DA N A' Comments

Is the monitoring task specified
relevant and appropriate for
obtaining representative information
on the stated indicator?
bo you think the data collection
timinq is.appropriate?
C)oyou think the sample is
representative
Do you agree with the stated
benchmark5-.P
Do you agree with the additional
information collected or do you think
there should be more?
t)o you have any other comments?

Oncethis informationfromthe varioussustainability indicatorsis collectedit will be produced

intothreesustainability
performance reportsto be publishedat threedifferentstageswithinthe
developmentslife cycle. A first report prior to developmentcommencement,namelythe
assessment,
sustainability one during construction and final one 2 years postcompletion. An
issuewhichwill be discussedat the workshopwill be how public shouldthese resultsbe
made?

Task for 5takeholders: Answer the following question.

How public should the results of the assessment and monitoring surveys be made?
Should they be made available to the local community or should they be used purely
to inform LA, regional and other relevant government bodies?
11 11

363
Anotherissueto consideris howthedatawill be collected,sourcedandanalysed.Thusfar two
proposalshave been madeand there needsto be a decisionas to the preferredway of
imolementinathe monitorinqframework.

Task for Stakeholders; Select one of the 2 options (circle preference).

U The developer should be responsible for the preparation of the monitoring
report as well as the surveys and for obtaining and collating information from
the LA.
LI The developer should put somemoneyaside for the surveys and monitoring
framework, yet it is the LA responsibility to analyse the data and write the
monitorina ret)ort (this can also be undertaken bv obtainina consultant heli)).

2.2 Issues to consider when reviewing the SEEDA

sustainability checklist criteria.
The SEEDA developmentsustainabilitychecklist was amongst other sources used to draw
sustainabilitycriteria relevantto the eight objectivesdeterminedin the workshop in Phase4 of
the RAF. With regard to the initially presentedSEEDA criteria in Phase 5 of the RAF it was
generally agreed by the stakeholdersthat they were not indicators but rather relevant criteria
for the assessmentof the proposalssustainability,which is useful in itself. There was concern
over the lack of benchmarks, which has been dealt with in this report by the recommendationof
similarcriteriawith associatedbenchmarksderivingfrom the new updatedSEEDAchecklist.

Throughthe thoroughexaminationof the criteriait was identifiedthat some of the issues

although relevant could not be addressed in the outline planningapplicationphase and
thereforein some cases a distinctionwas made betweenthe criteria which would be
considered at this phase of the development(outlineplanningapplication)and the remainder
criteriato be considered at the detailed
applicationphase.
LEevi
Task
a k for Stakeholders:
R iewthe sustainability criteria presented by answering the following questions
rs
presented
present4
p in the task boxes, UA = I)isaqree, Nz Neutral, A= Aqree

N A-
Indicator Peview Criteria DA Comments
is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Does this criterion appropriately
assess the sustainability objective
stated?
Do you consider the criterions
stated benchmark is appropriate
the proposed development
regarding
and locality
During which phase should these Outline planning betailed application
criteria be used to assess the application
sustainability of the development
(circle appropriate answer)
Do you have any other comments?

364
The way the resultsof this assessment shouldbe usedwas discussedin the RAF Phase5
meetingand the followingwas proposed.The resultsof the assessmentof the development
basedon thesecriteriawill be reportedin a sustainability whichwouldbe handed
assessment,
withthe EIAandplanningapplication.
in to LAfor consideration

ask for Stakeholders: Answer the following question.

hould the results of the assessmentof the developmentbased on these criteria
e reported in a sustainability assessment,to be handed in to LA for consideration
ith the EIA and planningapplication?

365
3. Long Term Monitoring Sustainability Indicators.
The differentindicatorsfrom the LDF SEA scopingreport relevantto each sustainability
objectivedetermined in the Phase 4 RAF workshop(Appendix2) are presentedbelow.The
comments and issues in
identified the initial
reviewof theseindicatorsin Phase5 are included,
followedbythefinalmodifiedindicatorsfollowedby proposedbenchmarks.

Task for Stakeholders:

Peviewprior to workshop each long term indicators presented by answering the
questions presented in the task boxes. DA = Disagree, N= Neutral, A= Aqree

3.1 Sustainability Objective 1

improved image and integration of the area in terms of architecture, design, and social
aspects as well as the combination of all.
LDFrelevant SP8,% of residentssurveyedwhoconsidertheirneighbourhood
hasgotworse
indicators withinthe last2 years.
Baseline Indicator Baseline DataSource Frequency
Indicator % of residentssurveyed 26%(2004) LA MBC Every 3
Information whoconsidertheir Community Years
neighbourhood hasgot Cohesion
worsewithinthe last2 Survey(2004
years. I

it wasconsideredappropriatethatthe neighbourhoodssurrounding the XX redevelopment proposalare

surveyed, through
preferably a door to door method,
prior to the commencement of the development
andpostcompletionaskingthe samequestion.Theresultscouldthen be compared
duringconstruction
to otherneighbourhoodsin LA.

it is considered thatthis questionis followedby a questionto residentsof whytheythinkit

appropriate
hasgotworseshouldthatbe the case.

Indicator:% of residentswhichfee/theirn6qhbourhood has worsein the last two Vears.

-qot
MonitoringTask:3 doorto doorsurveys.
Datacollectionsample:Neighbourhoods XXdevelopment.
surrounding
DataCollectionTiming : Priordevelopment commencement, duringconstruction& postcompletion.
AdditionalinformationcollectediWhytheyfeelit hasgotworse?
Benchmarkusing traffic light method:
Red:increasein % of residentsconsideringthe neighbourhoodhas
gotworse.
: Nochange
Green:decreasein % of residentsconsideringthe neighbourhood
hasgotworse.

366
Indicator Review Criteria DA N A Comments
Does this indicator appropriately
inform the sustainability objective
stated?
Is this indicator useful? ie provides
information which can be used in
decision making.
Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Is it cost ef f ective
Do you have any other comments?

Indicator Characteristics Review OA N A Comments

Is the monltorlý7y task specified
relevant and appropriate for
obtaining representative information
on the stated indicator?
Do you think the data collection
timinq is appropriate?
Do you think the sample
representative
[)o you agree with the stated
benchmarks. 2
[)o you agree with the additional
Information collected or do you think
there should be more?
Do you have any other comments?

367
 3.2. Sustainability Objective 2
To provide a safe environment for people to work and live in.
LDF relevant SP5(a)% of residentssurveyedwhofeel'fairlysafe'or 'verysafe'afterclark
indicators whilstoutsidein theirlocalauthorityarea;
(b) % of residentssurveyedwho feel 'fairlysafe' or 'verysafe duringthe d(-1y
whilstoutsidein theirlocalauthorityarea
It wasconsidered appropriateinat tne neignournoodssurroundingthe XX redevelopment proposalare
surveyed,preferablythrougha doorto doormethod,prior to the commencement of the development
duringconstruction andpostcompletion askingthe samequestion.Theresultscouldthenbe compared
to overall localauthorityarea.
Indicators: a) % of XX residents and neighbouringresidents surveved who feel ' fairly safe' or Ve
safe'afler dark whilst outside in their ne4ghbourhood
or the XX site.
b) % of XX residentsand neighbouringresidentssurveyed who feel 'fairlv safe'or 'very safe'during the
dav whilstoutsidein their n6ghbourhoodor the XX site.
Monitoring Task: 3 door to door surveys.
Data collection sample: Neighbourhoods surrounding XX development.
Data Collection Timing : Prior development commencement, during construction & post completion.
Benchmark using traffic light method :
Red: decrease in % of residents feeling fairly of
very safe, after dark
& during the day whilst outside.
Also if % is worse than the LA average.
: No change or if % is the same with the LA average.
Green: increase in % of residents feeling fairly of
very safe, after
dark & during the day whilst outside.

Indicator Review Criteria DA N A Comments

-6oes this indicator
appropriately
inform the sustainability objective
stated?
Is this indicator useful? ie provides
information which can be used in
decision making.
Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Is it cost effective
Do you have any other comments?

Indicator Characteristics Review bA N A Comments

Is the monl'torinq task specified
relevant and appropriate for
obtaining representative information
on the stated indicator?
[)o you think the data collection
timinq is appropriate?
t)o you think the sample/s
representative
r)o you agree with the stated
benchmarks-. 5'
I)o you have any other comments?

368
 3.3. Sustainability Objective 3
Improvecleclucationin terms ot acaclemicachievementand infrastructureand desicin.
LDF relevant SP3 a) % of pupils achieving 5+ GCSEs (A*-C).
indicators b) % of pupilsachievingno GCSEs.
C) Destination of school leavers (%) e.g. full time education,
employment, government supported training.
d) % of working age qualified to NVQ2+
e) % of workingage qualifiedto NVQ3+
% of workingage qualifiedto NVQ4+
% of workinQaae with no aualifications.
UTtneseinaicatorsit wasaeciaeomatnotaii werenecessaryandthatacademicresultsshould
be obtainedto reflectthe performance of the newschool.As a resultthe followingindicators
wererecommended:
Indicators:% of pupilsin newschoolachieving5+ GQSEs(A*-C)at newschool.
MonitoringTask: New Schoolto provideannuallyfiguresof studentsachieving5+ GCSEs
(A*-C).
DataCollectionTiming-Annuallyafternewschoolcompletion.
DatacollectionSample:Studentsattendingnewschool.
Benchmarkusingtraffic light method-
Red:decrease in %of students 5+GCSEsin newschool
achieving
andin comparison to oldschoolsbeingreplaced.
: Nochange orif %isthesamewitholdschools.
Green: increasein % of studentsachieving5+ GCSEsin new
to old schoolsbeinareDlaced.
schoolandin comparison
Indicator Review Criteria DA N A Comments
Does this indicator appropriately
inform the sustainability objective
stated?
Is this indicator useful? ie provides
inf ormation which can be used in
decision making.
Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
is it cost effective
t)o you have any other comments?
Indicator Characteristics Review DA N A Comments
-Ts-the
monitoring task specif ied
relevant and appropriate for
obtaining representative information
on the stated indicator?
t)o you think the data collection
timing is appropriate?
[)o you think the sample
representative
[)o you agree with the stated
benchmark,!O
Do you have any other comments?

369
Indicators: Destinationof school leaversN eq full time education,employment,qovernment
supportedtraininq.

MonitoringTask: Identifythe destinationof schoolleaversfrom new school% eg full time

employment,
education, government supportedtraining.
DataCollectionTiming:Annuallyafternewschoolcompletion.
DatacollectionSample:Studentsgraduating fromnewschool.
Benchmarkusing traffic light method:
Red: increasein % of studentsgoing straight into employmentor not settled and decrease in
% of studentscontinuingeducationor receivingtraining.
: No changeor if % is the same with old schools.
Green: increase in % of students continuing in education or training or decrease in %
of
studentsgoing directly into employmentor being unsettled.

Indicator Review Criteria DA N A Comments

Does this indicator appropriately
inform the sustainability objective
stated?
Is this indicator useful? ie provides
information which can be used in
decision making.
Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Is it cost ef f ective
Do you have any other comments?

Indicator Characteristics Review DA N A Comments

Is the monl'torinq task specif ied
relevant and appropriate for
obtaining representative information
on the stated indicator?
Do you think the data collection
timlý7qis appropriate?
Do you think the sampleIs
representat. ive
Do you agree with the stated
benchmarksý2
C)oyou have any other comments?

370
Indicators:%Workinq aqequalifiedto NVQ2+
MonitoringTask:Identifythe%ofworking agequalifiedto NV02+in XX.
DataCollectionTiming:Annually byNornis(Labour ForceSurvey).
DatacollectionSample:XX,however it is notknowif datais analysed
to thislevel.
Benchmark usingtrafficlight method:
Red:decrease in%of working agequalifiedto NV02+inXX.
: No change
Green: increasein % of working age qualified to NVQ2+ in XX.

Indicator Review Criteria DA N A Comments

Does this indicator appropriately
inform the sustainability objective
stated?
Is this indicator useful? ie provides
information which can be used in
decision making.
Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Is it cost ef f ective
Do you have any other comments?

Indicator Characteristics Review DA N A Comments

Is the moniforIng task specified
relevant and appropriate for
obtaining representative information
on the stated indicator?
Do you think the data collection
timing is appropriate?
[)a you think the sample /s
representative
[)o you agree with the stated
benchmarks;2
r)o you agree with the additional
Information collected or do you think
there should be more?
Do you have any other comments?

371
 3.4. SustainabilityObjective 4
Improvedlocal economy,in particularwith regardto small businessesand the creation
of quality employmentopportunities.
LDF relevant SP7: a) Averageearnings(residencebased)weeklyearnings.
indicators of jobsperworkingageresident(jobsdensity).
b) Proportion
EGI: a)Noof businessstartups( Vat registrations)
No.per 10.000workingagepop.
b) Noof businessfailures( VATderegistrations)
as a% of stock
EG2:a) Town/districtcentreVacancyrates
b) towncentrevields
Not an maicators were consicerea necessary or appropriate. The Following indicators
were proposed :SP7 b, EG2 a. It was also considered appropriate 11ollowing the
completion of the employment units that a survey is carried out to identify the iitimber
and type ofjobs created.
Indicators: SP7 b) Proportionof 4obsper workinq aqe resident('obs density).
Monitoring Task: ObtainannualNomissurvey results for the XX area
Data Collection Timing: Annually but report prior to development commencement,during
constructionand post completion.
Data collection Sample: XX residents, However, it would be better if the sample was the
neighbourhoodssurroundingthe site.
Benchmark using traffic light method
Red:decreasejobsdensity
: Nochange
Green-.increasein iobsdensitv.
Indicator Review Criteria DA N A Comments
6oes this indicator
appropriately
inform the sustainability objective
stated?
Is this indicator useful? ie provides
information which can be used in
decision making.
Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
is it cost ef f ective
E)o you have any other comments?

Indicator Characteristics Review DA N A Comments

T5 the
monitorinq task 5pecif ied
relevant and appropriate for
obtaining representative information
on the stated indicator?
Do you think the data collection
tlMing is appropriate?
Do you think the sample
representative
[)a you agree with the stated
benchmarksý2
Do you have any other comments?

372
Indicators:EG2:a) Town/district
centreVacancyrates

MonitoringTask:ObtainLA vacancyrateresultsfor the XX area

DataCollectionTiming: Resultsobtainedeverytwo yearsbut a reportshouldbe developed
priorto development
commencement, duringconstructionandpostcompletion.
DatacollectionSample:XX.
Benchmarkusingtraffic light method
Red:increasein vacancyrates
: Nochange
Green:decrease in vacancyrates.

Indicator Review Criteria DA N A Comments

Does this indicator appropriately -
inform the sustainability objective
stated?
Is this indicator useful? ie provides
information which con be used in
decision making.
Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Is it cost ef f ective
Do you have any other comments?

Indicator Characteristics Review DA N A Comments

Is the moniforlý7q task specified
relevant and appropriate for
obtaining representative information
on the stated indicator?
Do you think the dato collection
M7M7g is
appropriate?
Do you think the sample
representative
Do you agree with the stated
benchmarks,2
Do you have any other comments?

373
Indicators: The numberand type of iobs createdbv the employmentunits

Monitoring Task, Conducta surveyfollowingthe completionof the employment

units to
establishthenumberandtypeofjobscreated
DataCollectionTiming:postcompletion of development.
DatacollectionSample-Development employment units.
Benchmarkusingtraffic light method:
Red. Lessjobs than predictedof low pay and
skills
: The numberof jobs predicted
Green: More or the same number of jobs predicted but high
of pay
or skill.

Indicator Peview Criteria DA N A Comments

Does this indicator appropriately
inform the sustainability objective
stated?
Is this indicator useful? ie provides
information which can be used in
decision making.
Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Is it cost effective
Do you have any other comments?

Indicator Characteristics Review DA N A Comments

Is the monltorlý7y task specified
relevant and appropriate for
obtaining representative information
on the stated indicator?
[)a you think the data collection
timinq is appropriate?
[)a you think the sample /s
representative
r)o you agree with the stated
benchmarks;; '
Do you have any other comments?

374
 3.5. Sustainability Objective 5
Improvedmix betweenhousingand businessesas well as types of housing.The needto
createa new housingbalance-a propertyladder,enablingpeopleto stay in the area.
LDF relevant SP4Number/% of dwellingson largehousingschemes( above25 units)thatare provided
indicators housingplanningpolicy
underaffordable
SP1Contextualindicator:totalpopulation
trends,totalhouseholds
andaveragesize.
ine auove IFIUKALUIZýwere cunsiaereaouring ine tnase o meeting. it was established that
indicator SP4 could be easily determinedfrom the outline planning application and that the
results would be fed into the LA database. However, indicator SP1 was considered
inappropriateas it is collected every ten years as well as it would be hard to decipher the
contribution the development has made. It was therefore deemed more appropriate to
undertake a survey post developmentto establish the SP1 contextual indicators for the
development.
IndicatorSP4Number/% of dwellingson largehousingschemes( above25 units)thatare
providedunderaffordablehousingplanninqpolicy.
MonitoringTask:reviewofoutlineplanningapplication.
Datacollectionsample.development outlineplanning
application
DataCollectionTiming: Priordevelopmentcommencement,..
Benchmark usingtrafficlightmethod:
Red:sign&antlysmaller %ofaffordablehousingthanrecommended in Localpolicy
%ofaffordable
: slightlysmaller housingthanrecommended in Localpolicy
Green:%ofaffordable housýng
provided asrecommended in Localpolicy

Indicator Review Criteria DA N A Comments

ýoes this indicator appropriately
inform the sustainability objective
stated?
Is this indicator useful? ie provides
information which can be used in
decision making.
Is it relevant to the sustainability

r is it cost ef f ective
J)o you have any other comments?

Indicator Characteristics Review bA N A Comments

-Ts the monl'torlng task specified
relevant and appropriate for
obtaining representative information
on the stated indicator?
C)oyou think the data collection
timin is a ro riate?
r)o you think the sample/s
representative
[)a you agree with the stated
benchmarks.'
I)o you have any other comments?

375
Indicator: Contextual
indicators
of development
includinq,populationsizeandcharacteristics,
totalhouseholdsandaveragesizeaswellasworklocationof residents.

MonitoringTask:Doorto doorsurveyof development households

Datacollectionsample:housingdevelopment
DataCollectionTiming: Postdevelopment completion.
Benchmarkusing traffic light method:
Red:Lackof diversityof type of householdsand out migrationfor
work
: Nodifferencefromcurrentsituation
Green: greaterdiversityof type of households than
, currently
in
available the localityas well as limited out migrationof new
residentsforwork.

Indicator Review Criteria DA N A Comments

-
Does this indicator appropriately
inform the sustainability objective
stated?
Is this indicator useful? ie provides
information which can be used in
decision making.
Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Is it cost ef f ective
Do you have any other comments?

Indicator Characteristics Review DA N A Comments

Is the monl'torlýiq task specified
relevant and appropriate for
obtaining representative information
on the stated indicator?
Do you think the data collection
timin is appropriate?
Do you think the sample/s
representative
Do you agree with the stated
benchmarksý2
Do you have any other comments?

376
3.6. Sustainability Objective 6
IMDrovebiodiversitvin terms if habitatcreationandwater manaaampnf
Baseline Indicator Baseline Data Frequency
Indicator Source
Information EN2:water Chemical waterqualityona scaleofA-F(A EnvironmentAnnual
qualityofmain verygood&F bad):100%of riversinfair Agency/
rivers quality(D)orabove(2003). DEFRA
Holcombe Brook:(VeryGoodA),
PigsLeeBrook(Fair,D),
KirkleesBrook(GoodB),
WhittleBrook(FairlyGoodC),
Irwell(FairlyGoodC). )
EN4:a)net Therehasbeena netlossofacid LAMBC Every10
changeln grassland andheathland habitats. years
semi
priority Woodland coverwas6%in2001,a 2%
habitats-acid increasesince1991.
grassland, The1991and2001Habitat Surveys
heathland, semi recorded thattherearebetween 400and
natural 450pondsandlodgesoverI OM2 withinthe
woodland and Borough. A totalof414waterbodies have
ponds beenconfirmed.
EN4b)number & NoBaseline - DataGap NA NA
typeofhabitats
lostto
developent

The aboveindicators
werenot considered as explainedbelowand therefore
appropriate
wereproposed.
recommendations
alternative
EN2:waterqualityof maindvers.

Thisindicator
wasconsidered toogeneralas thewaterqualityof the riveradjoining
the site
couldbe by
influenced further
activities upstream.

it washowever considered to examine

appropriate thewaterqualityat the sampling
station
immediatelydownstream of thedevelopment priorandthroughout the construction
periodof
Thedatais readilyprovided
the development. by the environmentagencyandis available
throughtheirwebsite.However,anydeclinein thequalityshouldnot be attributed
directlyto
the developmentas thereis an adjoininglandfillnextto the development whichcouldbe
Therefore
responsible. monitoringwouldbe forprecautloýary reasons.

comments:
..........................................................................................
1 11 ..............

EN4:a) netchangein Pýoritvsemihabitats- heathland,

acid-grassland, seminaturalwoodland
andponds

Thisindicator was consideredinappropriate

as it is sampledeverytenyearsandat a toolarge
scaleto be relevantto the development.
proposed
An EIA is being carriedoutwhichwouldprovide detailed
information
abouthabitatlossand
creation on thesite.

377
Comments:
...............................................................................................................

ENO) number& typeof habitatslostto development

This indicatoris inappropriate
as there is no baseline.However,the EIA will providethis
whichcanthenbe utilisedbythe LA.
information,

Comments:

EcologicalIndicatorsderivedfrom the EIA.

An EIAhasbeencarriedouton thesiteassessingtheimpactsof the proposeddevelopment
andproposingwererelevantmitigationmeasures.
Wherepostmonitoring of ecologicalmitigationmeasureshasbeendeemednecessarythe
resultswill be includedin thisreport.

Comments:

ask f or Stakeholders:
ease propose a long term relevant indicator should you think is necessary.
11 .............................................................
........................................ .......... ........................ 11.1..........1 .11
I............................ ................
I..............................................................
..........................
I................

378
3.7. Sustainability Objective 7
( trafficmanagement
Improvedaccessibility & transportlinks)

LDF relevant ENI: means oftravelbymodalsplit

indicators %
SP9: of properties 600m
within walk of a busstopona frequent
busroute
EG4Traveltowork outcommuting
Baseline Indicator Baseline Data Frequency
Indicator Source
Information EM : means of Car- 61.6%, ONS/Census C-ensus
travelbymodalsplit Bus- 7.2%, 2001
Walk- 8.2%,
Work at home- 8.0%,
Cycle- 1.3%
Other- 13.7%
SP9:%of properties 82,557(99-56%)properties LAMBC Every2
within600mwalkof (2004)arewithin 600mwalk of a years
a busstopona busstop(frequencynot known
frequentbusroute andneedsto bedetermined).

EG4Traveltowork/ 39,421LA residents,

48.4%of Census Every10
outcommuting thoseemployedaged16-74work 1991/2001 years
outsidetheBorough(2001).

The aboveindicatorsfrom the LDF scopingreportwere consideredin termsof their

for
applicability longtermmonitoring
of the oftheproposed
accessibility development.

A trafficimpactstudyfor the developmenthasalsobeencarriedout and any monitoring

requirementsproposedas partof that be
should incorporated
in thismonitoring
report.
thatIndicators
It wasconsidered EN1andEG4weremonitored to scarcely
aswellasat a too
largea scaleandthereforeit wasconsidered
to undertake
a surveypostdevelopment to
the
establish aboveindicators.

As for indicatorSP9,it was established thatthisis not a longtermindicatorbut rathera

which
criteria
sustainability can be determinedthrough the planning andwhichis
application
covered bytheSEEDA described
criteria in Section4.7.

ivel by modalsplit.,
MonitoringTask:doorto doorsurveys
Datacollectionsample:XXdevelopment.
DataCollectionTiming:PostDevelopment completion.
Additionalinformationcollected:Schoolsurveyofhowchildren travelto andfromschool.
Benchmark usingtrafficlightmethod:
Red:increase in % of XXresidents travelling
by carin relationto
ONS/Census 2001levels.
Yoflow:Nochange
Green:decrease in %ofresidents
travellingbycar

379
Indic6t6ý','Riview OAý- Cm
-N 0 rnen
Does this indicator appropriately
inform the sustainability objective
stated?
Is this indicatoruseful?ie provides
informationwhichcanbe usedin
decisionmaking.
Is it relevantto the sustainability
objectivestated?
Is it cost effective
Do you have any other comments?

'it6 ch6riicterist! 6ikevie'w""''I"' DA,1 'W,,,ý

I ndiC -entýý
'Comým
Is the monitorhly task specified
relevant and appropriate for
obtaining representative information
on the stated indicator?
Do you think the data collection
timinq is appropriate?
Do you think the somple
representative
Do you agree with the stated
benchmarksP
Do you have any other comments?

380
 Indicator: EG4travel to workl out commuting.
MonitoringTask: doorto doorsurveys
Datacollectionsample:XX development
DataCollectionTiming: PostDevelopment completion.
Benchmarkusingtraffic light method:
Red:increase1%of XX residentsout-commuting
to workIn relation
to boroughstandard.
Yellow:Nodifference
Green:decreasein % of XX residentsout-commutingto work In
relationto borouahstandard
Inclicator'kevie'W-Cýitirfa , `1 bkýý N COMMen
t
,
Does this indicator appropriately
inform the sustainability objective
stated?
Is this indicator useful? ie provides
informationwhichcanbe usedin
decisionmaking.
Is it relevantto the sustainability
objective stated?
Is it cost effective
Do you haveany other comments?

L
I
i'diý6tor"Charý66ter'isticsý'Riýfi%4ýý i N, 1' ýA "Comme
: n
Is the monitoring task specified
relevant and appropriate for
obtaining representative information
on the stated indicator?
Do you think the data collection
timing is appropriate?
Do you think the sampleis
representative
Do you agree with the stated
benchmarkv
Do you agree with the additional
information collected or do you think
there should be more?
Do you have any other comments?

381
3.8. Sustainability Objective 8
Ensure to contamination
safetywithregard
LDFrelevant EN9: Number ofsitesforwhich detailed
sufficient Isavailable
information todecide
whether
indicators remediationofthelandIsnecessary,asa%ofall'sitesofpotenfial
concern'
Baseline Indicator Baseline DataSource Frequency
Indicator EN9: Number ofsitesfor NewBVP1- no LA Notknown
Information which detailed baseline
sufficient data
Isavailable
information to currentlyavailable.
decidewhether remediationMechanisms for
ofthelandisnecessary, as delivering relevant
a%ofall'sitesofpotential information arebeing
1concern' I developed I

It was identifiedin the RAF Phase5 and followingconsultationwith the LA environmental

for the longtermmonitoringof safetywith regardto
Healththanthisindicatoris notappropriate
contamination, and thatsitespecific
measurements shouldbe obtained.

However thatanycontamination
it wasalsoestablished monitoring
schemerequiresexpert
knowledge datawouldhaveto be determined
andthatthe required by the LA environmental
healthdepartment withthe developers
in conjunction expertsshouldtheybe
contamination
deemed necessary thesiteinvestigation
following andremediation
strategy.

Comments

382
3.9 Summary Table of long term sustainability indicators and
monitoring required.
In the tablebeloware summarisedthe indicators
anddatawhichis to be collectedby the
developer. The timingsfor data collectionand reportingare pre-development,during
constructionand postdevelopment.
This enablesthe combination
of different
indicator
data
the
minimising
collection of
number surveys to
required 3.

Additionaldatawill be requiredfromthe LA and educationbodyas well as the environment

agency,which is collectedregardless mainlyon an annualbasisandwhichcan be aggregated
andreported together withthe otherindicators
duringthe above3 set periods.

Theaboveapproach datacollection
minimises andhelpsdevelop
a holisticpictureof thelong
of thedevelopment.
termsustainability
Sustainability Indicator Monitoring
task Data Collection Timing (1) pre.
objective Sample development (2)
construction(3) post
development
1 % of residents who feel their 3 door to door Neighbourhoods 1,2 &3
neighbourhood has gotworsein the surveys surrounding site
lasttwoyears. includingdevelopment
oncecomplete
2 8) % of XX residents and 3 door to door Neighbourhoods 1.2 &3
neighbouring residents surveyed surveys surrounding site
who feel ' fairly safe' or 'very safe' includingdevelopment
after dark whilst outside in their oncecomplete
neighbourhood or theXXsite.
b) % of XX residents and
neighbouring residents surveyed
who feel ' fairly safe' or 'very safe'
duringthe daywhilstoutsidein their
neighbourhood or theXXsite.
3 % of pupilsin newschoolachieving NewSchoolto Students attending 3 post school
5+ GCSEs(A-C) at newschool provideannually newschool. completion.
figuresof (Annually)
students
achieving5+
GCSEs(A*-C).

3 Destination of schoolleavers(%)eg Schoolto identify Students graduating 3 post school

full time education, employment, thedestinationof fromnewschool completion.(Annually)
government supported training. schoolleavers
fromnewschool
3 % Workingagequalifiedto NVQ2+ Nomis (Labour XXarea Annually collected-to
ForceSurvey). be reported In 3
phases
4 Proportion of jobsperworkingage Obtainannual XXarea Annually collectedto
resident(jobs density). Nomis survey be reported In 3
results phases
Town/district centreVacancy rates Obtain LA MBC XX area Collected every
4
vacancyrate years but to be
results reportedIn 3 phases
Thenumberandtypeofjobs Survey Industrialunits -- 3
4
createdby theemployment units
Number/% of dwellingson large Review Development plans 1
housingschemes( above25units) application
thatareprovidedunderaffordable
housin lannin olic
Contextualjr=t

383
 I, ý ol
sizeandcharacteristics,total development
householdsandaveragesizeas
wellas worklocationof residents.
6 Waterqualityof monitoring station ObtainEAjata EAwaterquality 12&3
immediatelybelowdevelopment forspecificwater monitoring
station
qualitystation
6 EIAto provideinformation
on habitat EIA data Development iite
change
6 on habitat EIAdata
EIAto provideinformation Development site 1
loss.
meansof travelby modalsplit. door to door Development 3
survey

7 travelto work/outcommuting door to door Development 3

survey

8 To bedeterminedby Environmental ? ? ?
healthDeptin Consultation
with
Contaminationconsultant

DataCollectionRequirements:

03 doorto doorsurveys.
LI Compilation
of LA,
existing EAandGovernment
data,

Task for Stakeholders; Answer the following questions.

[)o you agree that the data collection requirements are relevant and reasonable?
Are all the above indicators necessary?
Choosethe most relevant indicator for each sustainability objective. (please circlf,
preferred indicator on table above)

384
4. Proposed SEEDA checklist criteria for the
assessment of the XX proposal.
In eachSubsection belowthe differentSEEDAchecklistsustainabilitycriteriafrom relevantto
each objective
sustainability determined in the Phase 4 RAF workshop(Appendix2) are
The
presented. original SEEDA checklistcriteriaare presentedand are followedby the new
SEEDAchecklistcriteriaaccompanied by theirrelevantbenchmarks.

ask for Stakeholders:

Reviewthe sustainability criteria presented by answering the questions
presented in the task boxes below each criterion. DA :: Uisagree, N:: Neutral,
A= Agree

Consider whether all criteria are relevant and required.

4.1 Sustainability Objective 1: Development assessment

criteria.

improvedimageand integrationof the area in terms of architecture,design, and social

aspectsas well as the combinationof all.

4.1.1.Initial SEEDAChecklistCriteria:

SEEDA 2.7.3Formof the Development:

Sustainabilitya) is thegrainof thedevelopment appropriate for the needsandin contextwith
Checklist thesurroundings?
Criteria b) doesthe layoutof theconnecting roads,pavements andspacesachievea
balancebetweengoodaccessintoandthroughthe development andthe
provisionof interesting andusefulspaces?
c) Is the proposedscaleof thedevelopment appropriate in termsof heightand
massingof thebuildings?
d)hasthedevelopment beendesignedto be legible?Visuallandmarkshelpthe
user to orientatethemselves within the development.
Hasthedevelopment beendesignedto encourage vitality?
Buildingswithactivefrontagesto roads,pathsandopenspacesaddinterestto
thestreetsceneandcreatea senseof ownershipandsecurity.Thedeveloper
mustaddressthefollowing:
La Clearly visiblefrontdoors
La Habitable rooms, at
particularly ground level,visibleformthe street.
Ll Elevations with projectionssuch as bays andporches
U Cornerplotsto emphasise andpunctuatea changein direction.
9.7.3SocialEquity& Poverty
a) has the development been designed to enhancethe interactionbetween
people?
b) in the planfor development, is provisionbeingmadefor facilitating
community networks?

385
It wasdecidedthatall pointsin 2.7.3formof the development,
apartfromd couldbe assessed
in the outlinestage.The corresponding criteriaand benchmarksbasedon the new SEEDA
checklistaredescribedbelow.

4.1.2SustainabilityCriteriafor the Assessmentof the OutlineApplication of the XX.

Objective To develop a new place that respondsto local developmentpatterns, and provides frarneworkfor
a
developmentappropriateto the surroundings.

Question Has the surroundingarea been reviewedto determine the appropriate block and
3.5.(1) plot sizes for the
development,with deviationfrom the surrounding patterns fully justified?

Targets/ Minimum: 1 1-1

Benchmark Review of surroundingarea carried out

Good Practice: Findingsfrom review incorporated.

Best Practice:
Good Practiceplus justification for deviance from surrounding
area

Justification

Indicator Review Criteria DA N A Comments

Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Does this criterion appropriately
assess the sustainability objective
stated?
Do you consider the criterions
stated benchmark is appropriate
regarding the proposed development
and locality
During which phase should these Outline planning Oetailed application
criteria be used to assess the application
of the development
sustainability
(circle
appropriate answer)
Do you have any other comments?

386
 Objective To achievebothvisualandphysicallinkswithinthedevelopment
andto integratethe devolopmoril
into
thesurroundingarea.

Question Doestheproposedstreetnetworkprovidegoodaccessintoandthroughthesiteat varyingscales?

3.5.(4) 1) Linksmadetheto streetsystemof theareasimmediately thedevelopment
surrounding
2) Mainrouteswithinthesiteshouldconnectas directlyas possibleto mainroutesin thewiderarea
Targets/ Minimum:
Benchmark Roadnetworkonlyconsidersinternallinks

GoodPractice: Yesto 1)

BestPracticei Yesto 1)and2)

Justification

Indicator Review Criteria OA NA Comments

Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Does this criterion appropriately
assess the sustainability objective
stated?
Do you consider the criterions
stated benchmark is appropriate
regarding the proposed development
and locality
During which phase should these outline planning Detailed cipplication
criteria be used to assess the application
sustainability of the development
(circle appropriate answer)
Do you have any other comments?

387
 Objective Toachievevisualandphysicalconnectivity
thatmakesit easyto findthedevelopment
andto navigate
around.

Question Aretherephysicalandvisuallinksbetweenthedevelopment
3.5.(3) andthesufroundiligar(!;],
1)Arenewroutesintothesitecontinuations of existingaccesspointsfromthesurrounding areV
2) Howdirectaresightlinesof existingneighbourhood streetscontinuedthroughthe silo?
Targets/ Minimum:
Benchmark Yesto 1)

GoodPractice: Yesto 1),andsightlinedepthof oneblock,

BestPractice:
Yesto 1)and2),andsightlinedepthgreaterthanone block

Justification

Indicator Peview Criteria DA NA Comments

Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Does this criterion appropriately
assessthe sustainability objective
stated?
Do you consider the criterions
stated benchmark is appropriate
regarding the proposed development
and locality
During which phaseshould these Outline planning Detailed application
criteria be used to assessthe application
sustainability of the development
(circle appropriate answer)
Do you have any other comments?

388
 I To deliver development
Objective a scalefor all users
at an appropriate

Question 1
Hasthesurroundingareabeenreviewedto determinethp.approprialescaleforthedov,,lopmonjif]
3.5.(2) termsof heightandmassing?

Targets/ Minimum:
Benchmark Reviewof surrounding
scale

GoodPractice: Findingsfromreviewincorporated.

BestPractice:
Appropriatescaleandmassingproposed withinrecommended
height:widthratiosof theUrbanDesignCompendium justifying
deviancefromsurrounding scale

Justification

Indicator Review Criteria DA N A,

--comments
Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Does this criterion appropriately
assess the sustainability objective
stated?
Do you consider the criterions
stated benchmark is appropriate
regarding the proposed development
and locality
-I outline planning Detailed application
During which phase should these
criteria be used to assess the application
sustainability of the development
(circle appropriate answer)
Do you have any other comments'?

381)
 I
Objective To avoiddetrimental
effectsuponthesurrounding andhighlightissuesthal fhe
community
development mustaddress.

Question2.1 Hasa socialimpactassessment

beencarriedoutto examinetheimpactof thedevelopment
on the
existingcommunity?
Targets/
Benchmark
Nosetminimumstandard
Minimum:
I
Yes
GoodPractice:

Yes,withsupplementary
evidenceshowinghowresultsweretaken
BestPractice:
intoaccount.

Justification

Indicator Review Criteria bA N A Comments

Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
boes this criterion appropriately
assessthe sustainability objective
stated?
Do you consider the criterions
stated benchmark is appropriate
regarding the proposed development
and locality
During which phase should these Outline planning 0etailed application
criteria be used to assessthe application
sustainability of the development
(circle appr priate answer)
Do you have any other comments?

390
 Objective Toensurethatcommunity
facilitiesaremaintained
andcommunityhiis mmseof ownership.

Question2.6 Doesthedevelopmenthaveprovisionfor communitymanagement

of facilitiw;,openspace,SUDS,
greywaterschemesetc

Targets/
Benchmark Minimum: No 171

Yesactivelymarketedto potentialoccupiers/ owners

GoodPractice:
F1
BestPractice Yesasgoodpracticeplussupportsourcesidentifiedto helpin
initialstages(localauthority,community
group,charityetc)

Justification

Indicator Review Criteria DA NA Comments

Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Does this criterion appropriately
assessthe sustainability objective
stated?
[)a you consider the criterions
stated benchmark is appropriate
regarding the proposed development
and locality
During which phase should these Outline planning Detailed application
criteria be used to assessthe application
sustainability of the development
(circle appropriate answer)
Do you have any other comments?

J() I
 Objective To promotecommunityinvolvementin thedesignof theduvfdopnif.
-ntto lhý,ir Iox, III(I
knowledgearetakenintoaccountto improvethequalityandacceptability
of thedevelopmeril.
Hasthecommunitybeenactivelyinvolvedin thedevelopment proposal.
A: Hasa stakeholder analysisbeencarriedout (listingthetypesof groupsit is proposedto involve
Question2.2
andhoweachwill be identified/approached/communicated with)
B: Hasconsultation beencarriedoutwiththecommunity as to theneedsandaspirations of their
localityat theconception stage
Targets/
Benchmark
C: Hasa communication campaignprovidinginformation to thecommunityabouttheimpactand
implications of the proposeddevelopment beencarriedoutat an earlystage
D: Hasinformation beenprovidedfor thecommunity informingthemabouthowtheycangot involvfýIi
andinfluencethedevelopment?
E: Arethereopportunities for thecommunityto havecontinuedinvolvement in thedevelopmorli 0 1ho
project?

StandardLAconsultation
Minimum:

3 itemsfromthelist
GoodPractice:

BestPractice:
Entirelistplusdocumentary
evidenceshowinghowissuesand
viewsweretakenintoaccount

Justification

Indicator Review Criteria DA N A Comments

Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Does this criterion appropriately
assess the sustainability objective
stated?
Do you consider the criterions
stated benchmark is appropriate
regarding the proposed development
and locality
During which phase should these Outline planning Detailed application

criteria be used to assess the application

sustainability of the development
(circle appropriate answer)
Do you have any other comments?

392
4.1.3.SustainabilityCriteriato Assessthe detailedapplicationof the XX.
Objective To createa placewitha clearidentitythatis easyto understand
andnavIgale

Hasthedevelopment beendesignedtobeeasyforusersloundersiand
Question anddoesit promotea neighbourhood identity?
1) Haveentrancesto thedevelopment andits differentareasbeendesignedas galewayr"ý
3.5.(6)
2) Havelandmarks,includingmemorable buildings,beenusedto helpusersorientate
3) Haveclearviewsanddeflectedviewsof landmarksbeencreated?
4) Havecornerbuildingsbeenheightened or buildinglinealteredto actas landmarks?
Targets/
5) Havenodesbeenemphasised throughsurfacetreatment?
Benchmark

Minimum:

GoodPractice: <3 pointsaddressed

BestPractice:
Yesto 3 questions

Yesto all questions

Justification

Indicator ReviewCriteria DA N A Comments

Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Doesthis criterion appropriately
assessthe sustainability objective
stated?
Do you consider the criterions
stated benchmark is appropriate
regarding the proposed development
and locality I
- Outline Detailed application
During which phase should these planning
criteria be used to assessthe application
sustainability of the development
(circle appropriate answer) I
Do you have any other comments?

31)3
 Objective Toensurethatbuildingfrontagesencouragepedestrianusageof streetscontributing
to vitalA

Question Have'ActiveFrontageGuidelines' of the EnglishPartnerships

UrbanDesignCompendium beenmetin
3.5.(7) orderto promotevitality?Noteactivefrontagesmeansencouraging pedestrian
entrancesandexits
ontostreets,whicharefrequentlyused

Targets/ Minimum: < GoodPractice

Benchmark
100%achievesat leastGradeC frontage,25%GradeA
GoodPractice:

BestPractice: 100%achievesat leastGradeC frontage,50%GradeA

Justification

Indicator Review Criteria DA N A Comments

Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Does this criterion appropriately
assess the sustainability objective
stated?
Do you consider the criterions
stated benchmark is appropriate
regarding the proposed development
and locality
During which phase should these Outline planning Detailed application
criteria be used to assess the application
sustainability of the development
(circle appropriate answer)
Do you have any other comments?

394
4.2 Sustainability Objective 2 development assessment
criteria.
4.2.1.Initial SEEDAsustainabilityChecklistCriteria
SEEDA 9.7.2Measurestakento reducethe opportunityfor crime
Sustainabilitya) whatpercentage of housinghasbeendesignedto 'secureby design'
Checklist standards?
Criteria b) Doesthe layoutandformof the newbuildingscreatewelldesignedstreets
andplacesthatarewellconnectedandoverlooked?
C) Whatpercentage of parkingspacesandwalkwayshavebeendesignedto
be overlookedby housingor officeswhereverpossible?
d) Whatpercentage of bussheltersarewithin20mof publictelephones?
Whatpercentage of publicplaceshavesecurityliqhtinqandcameras?
-Ftwasnot decidedwhetherthe secureby designstandardsshouldbe assessed -- in the outline
or detailed planning phase,
application yet it was recognisedthat it shouldbe consideredin
both and thereforeno distinctionis made betweenthe two phases.Criteria d was not
considered relevantand aspectsd andc arecoveredin theabovesection.
4.2.2.NewRelevantSEEDAcriteria and benchmarks
Objective To ensurethatbuildingfrontagesencouragepedestrian
usageof streetscontributingto vitality.

What% of buildingshasbeendesignedto 'SecureByPesign'or equivalentstandards?

Question3-(9) Minimum:

F-I
Targets/ rnol.
GoodPractice:
Benchmark

F1
60-80%
BestPractice:
E
> 80%

Indicator Review Criteria DA NI A Comments

Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Does this criterion appropriately assess
the sustainability objective stated?
[)a you consider the criterions stated
benchmark is appropriate regarding the
development and locality
proposed
During which phase should these criteria Outline Detailed application
be used to assess the sustainability of planning
the development (circle appropriate application
answer)
Do you have any other comments?

395
4.3 Sustainability Objective 3 development assessment
criteria.

improvededucationin termsof academic andInfrastructure

achievement anddesign.

doesnot makereference
The SEEDAsustainability to schoolsespecially
specifically with
regardto academic However,
achievement. thereare standards for schoolenvironmental
performanceanddesign
namelytheBREEAM School Standardwhichshouldbemet.

breeam.
See: http://www. htmlnotincluded
orqlschools. inthisreport.

toolin itselfandincorporates
Thisis anassessment a number
of criteria.

Comments: ...............................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................

396
4.4 Sustainability Objective 4 development assessment
criteria.
Improvedlocaleconomy,in particularwith regardto smallbusinessesandthe creation
opportunities.
of qualityemployment
4.4.1. Initial BEEDAsustainabilitY CheCkliStcriteria
SEEDA Business
Sustainability 10.7.1 EnhancedBusiness Opportunities
Does the development
Includea rangeof business premisesto encourage both
startupand
Checklist business?
expanding
Criteria Doesthedevelopment provideforexpansion inIdentified
growthsectors?
a)Does development
theproposed meetthegeneral requirements oftheeconomic
strategy?
b)HowhighIstheabilityofthedevelopment toattractInwardInvestment?
c)willthedevelopmentIncreasethebusiness baseInthearea?
d)willthedevelopment helptomaintainproperty values Inandclosetothedevelopment?
e)willthedevelopment inIncreased
result viability businesses
ofexisting transport?
andpublic
10.7.2 Employment&training
ofthedevelopment
a)whatistheability tocreate permanentjobs?
b)Arethereanyproposals totrainlocalunemployed aspartofdevelopment process?
c)willanynewjobscreated protect/manage theenvironment?
-
Althoughthesecriteriawereconsidered it wasalsoagreedthatbenchmarks
relevant, should
bein placeto assessperformance.ThenewSEEDA checklistcriteriaalthough
notexpressed
in thesamewording coverthesameissuesandhavebenchmarks. It hasnotbeendetermined
benchmarksare for
relevant the and
outline which ior thedetailed planning
which phase.

SEEDAcriteriaandbenchmarks
4.4.2.NewRelevant
Objective
e Toensurethatthedevelopment tothesustainable
contributes vitalityofthelocalareaand
economic
region.

Question spaceincreasel
Doesthenewbusiness theviability
maintain businesses?
ofexisting

Targets/ Minimum: Nominimum set.

standard
Benchmark
Committed anchortenantwithcomplementary
businessto those
GoodPractice-.
Pyictinnin fhaaranictidpnfifiad

BestPractice: Eýonomic study

shows the
that facility
willmeettheneedsof
inthearea
businesses
existing

Justification

397
Indicator Review Criteria DA N AJ Comments
Is it relevant to the sustainability _

objective stated?
Does this criterion appropriately
assess the sustainability objective
stated?
[)a you consider the criterions
stated benchmark is appropriate
regarding the proposed development
and locality
During which phase should these Outline planning Detailed application
criteria be used to assess the application
sustainability of the development
(circle
appropriate answer)
Do you have any other comments?

Objective To promotenewandstart-upbusinesses.

Question Areincubatorunitsbeingbuiltwithclosegeographic
linksto otherbusinesses/academia
in thesector?
7.1.2

Targets/ Minimum
Benchmark
Notaddressed
F-I
Yes
GoodPractice:

BestPractice: Withadvicefromsectorexperts

Justification

398
Indicator Review Criteria DA N A Comments
Is it to the sustainability _
relevant
objective stated?
Does this criterion appropriately assess
the sustainability objective stated?
Do you consider the criterions stated
benchmark is appropriate regarding the
proposed developmen and locality
During which phase should these criteria Outline Detailed application
be used to assess the sustainability of the planning
development (circle appropriate answer) application
Oo you have any other comments?

l
Objective
J CtIv To promotebusinessgrowthwithinregionallyprioritisedsectors.

Question
qu Is thedevelopment
designedto suittheneedsof prioritisedbusinesssectorsas idenlified theRf-s'ý
in
7.1.3

Targets/ Minimum: Nosetminimumstandard

Benchmark
OneSector
GoodPractice:

BestPractice: Morethanonesector.

Justification

Indicator Review Criteria DA N A Comments

Ts- to the sustaincibility
,t relevant
objective stated?
Does this criterion appropriately assess
the sustainability objective stated?
Do you consider the criterions stated
benchmark is appropriate regarding the
proposed development and locality
During which phase should these criteria Outline Detailed application
be used to assess the sustainability of the planning
development (circle appropriate answer) application
Do you have any other comments?

399
 Objective To attractinwardinvestmentfrom businesses fromoutsidethe inimediateareato
andorganisations
increaseeconomicwellbeing

Question designedto attractinwardinvestment?

Is thedevelopment
7.1.4

Targets/ Minimum: Nosetminimumstandard

Benchmark
Demonstrated demand
unmet
GoodPractice:

BestPractice: Identifiedoccupiers

Justification

Indicator Review Criteria DA N A Comments

Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Does this criterion appropriately assess
the sustainability objective stated?
Do you consider the criterions stated
benchmark is appropriate regarding the
proposed development and locality
During which phase should these criteria Outline betailed application
be used to assess the sustainability of the planning
development (circle appropriate answer) I application I
Do you have any other comments?

objective To improvetheconnectivity betweendifferentbusinesses

andcommunication to enh-ancevia!
b!ifity

Question7.2 Is newbusinessspacebeingdeveloped
closeto currentbusinesscentres?

Minimum:
Targets/
Benchmark NoneDone
GoodPractice.
Onidentifiedtransportcorridor
Best Practice:

Withinor adjacentto existingor allocatedbusinesscentres

justification
Indicator Review Criteria DA I N'l AI Comments
Is it
relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Does this criterion appropriately assess
the sustainability objective stated?
Do you consider the criterions stated
benchmark is appropriate regarding the
proposed development and locality
During which phase should these criteria Outline betailed application
be used to assess the sustainability of the planning
development (circle appropriate answer) application
Do you have any other comments?

Objective To createadditionalpermanent
jobswithinthelocalarea.

Question Whatis thepotentialfor thedevelopment to createadditionalpermanent

jobseitherthroughnew
7.3.1 businessor for maintenance of thedevelopment?

Minimum:
Targets/ None
Benchmark
GoodPractice.F; ýý D
in jobsin area

BestPractice:
Increasein jobsandlocalskillsbase

Justification

Indicator Review Criteria DA N A Comments

is relevant
it to the sustainability
objective stated?
Does this criterion appropriately assess
the sustainability objective stated?
Do you consider the criterions stated
benchmark is appropriate regarding the

During which phase should these criteria Outline Detailed application

be used to assess the sustainability of the planning
development (circle. approp!ýiate answer) application
._
Do you have any other comments?

401
 Objective I To ensurethatthedevelopment to regeneration
contributes initiatives.

I
Question2.6 is partof a publiclyfundedregeneration
If thedevelopment scheme,will thecontractors
onyagolociii
labour?

Targets/
Benchmark Minimum. No

Yes,temporary
engagement
of locallabour
or subcontractors
GoodPractice:

BestPractice: Yes,permanent of locallabouror subcontractors

engagement

Justification

Indicator Review Criteria DA N A Comments

Is it
relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Does this criterion appropriately assess
the sustainability objective stated?
[)a you consider the criterions stated
benchmark is appropriate regarding the
proposed development and locality
During which phase should these criteria Outline Detailed application
be used to assess the sustainability of the planning
riate answer) I application I
Do you have any other comments?

I To
Objective providespacefor all businesstypes,bothstartup or expanding,to maintaina diverseandflexioe
businesssectorwithinthearea,andprovidefor faciliti6sforfuturegrowth.

7.4
Question include
Doesthedevelopment a rangeof sizeofbusiness to encourage
premises bothstartupand
business?
expanding

Targets/ Minimum:
Benchmark No

GoodPractice:
Yesprovided

BestPractice:

justification

1102
Indicator Review Criteria DA Ný A Comments
Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Does this criterion appropriately assess
the sustainability objective stated?
Do you consider the criterions stated
benchmark is appropriate regarding the
proposed development and locality
During which phase should these criteria Outline. Detailed applica-tio-n----
be used to assess the sustainability of the planning
development (circle appropriate answer) application
Do you have any other comments?

403
4.5. Sustainability Objective 5 assessment criteria.
Improvedmix betweenhousingand businessesas well as typesof housing.Theneedto
createa newhousingbalance-a propertyladder,enablingpeopleto stay in the area.
4.5.1InRialSEEDAchecklistcriteria
SEEDA 2.7.6.Mixof use
Susta!rabýý!
ý -e-cle-age-,' affordable
homeprovidedmeettherequirements of
Checklist theoeveiopment planandhousingneedsurveys?
Criteria f) Doesthedevelopment contnbute to thediversemixof housingfortheareain
( BSDG)is thegrainof the
termsof type.size.tenureandaffordability
development approonate fortheneedsandin contextwiththesurroundings?

The inital reviewof these cntenain Phase5 of the RAF it was agreedthat these criteriawere
fairly vagueand req'i-ed a IeFnedbercý-a, k, thereforethe followingnew SEEDAchecklist
indicatorsare proposedýe cA
4.5.2. New RelevantSEEDAcriteria and benchmarks
Ot, ecttve -'x ýe'p,- !, e s J,ng demographic
trends

OU&SbDn Has a staler*n! :ýw ptepated ex; ýaining hoA !ne oeveiopment contributes to the required mix of
3.8. (4) housM for Itte area. in terns of type, stze. tenve and reflecting the needs of the current and
prospecWe wrnrwnty dwrographics?

Twg&W I
Bwý Onewue addessed
Milrium

Two tssuesaddressed
Good Pracbm

M rssuesaddessed
Best Practce

Jushfication

indicator Review Criteria bA N' AI Comments

Is it relevant to the sustafnability
objective stated)
Does this criterion appropriately assess
the sustainability objective stated?
Do you consider the criterions stated
benchmark is appropriate regarding the
proposed development and locality
During which phase should these criteria Outline Detailed application
be used to assess the sustainability of the planning
development (circle appropriate answer) application
Do you have any other comments?

404
 Objective To provide residentialunits that can satisfy the housing needs of the occupant
at all stages of their life

Question What percentageof homes are designed to Lifetime Homes standard?

2.5.(2)

Targets/
Benchmark <75%
Minimum:

75%
Good Practice:

75-100%
Best Practice:

Justification

Indicator Review Criteria OA NA Comments

Is it
relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Does this criterion appropriately assess
the sustainability objective stated?
Do you consider the criterions stated
benchmark is appropriate regarding the
proposed development and locality
During which phaseshould these criteria Outline Detailed application
be used to assessthe sustainability of the planning
development(circle appropriate answer) application
Do you have any other comments?

-Ws
4.6. Sustainability Objective 6 development assessment
criteria.
Improveblodiversityin termsif habitatcreationandwatermanagement.

4.6.1InitialSEEDA
checklistcriteria
SEEDA 8.Ecology
Sustainability Conservation
8.7.1.
Checklist a) hasa baselinesurveyof species,habitatsandsignificantnaturalfeaturesbeencarriedout?
b) whatpercentage of all naturalhabitatshavebeenprotected?
C(iteda c) hasthe localbiodiversity actionplanbeenconsulted?
1.7.2 enhancementof existing ecologicalvalue
a)hastherebeenan increaseInthe naturalhabitatseitherby areaor Increasedecological
value?
b)Haveanyadditionalecologicalfeatureslikewoodlandor wetlandbeencreated?
c)Hasa newwildlifecorridorbeenadded?
1.7.3 planting
a) hasexpertadvice( eg iroma qualifiedlandscapearchitecYecologist)beenIncludedIn
designingthedevelopment?
b) will the developmentsignificantlyIncreasethe numberof treesIn the area( afterdeducting
anydestroyedby the development? )
c) hasa mixtureof locallyoccurringnativedeciduousandevergreentreesandshrubsbeen

TheseinitialSEEDA criteriawereconsidered
checklist relevant limitedin termsof the
although
waterqualityand management aspects.Therefore,
the new SEEDA checklistcriteriaare
proposed watermanagement
whichaddress andincorporate
benchmarks.

andQualitySEEDAcriteria:
4.6.2.WaterManagement
Objective Toreduce of deanwaterfornon-potable
theoverallconsumption uses.

Question Incorporate
What%of totaldwellings systems?
greywaterrecycling
1.6.1

Targets/ Minimum:
Benchmark <25%
El
1ý
GoodPractice: 25-50%.

BestPractice:
F1 0
-1-0%
Justification

406
 NIAI Comments
Is it
relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Does this criterion appropriately assess
the sustaincibility objective stated?
Oo you consider the criterions stated
benchmark is appropriate regarding the
proposed development and locality
During which phase should these criteria Outline r)et(iilc. d applicotion
be used to assess the sustainability of the planning
development (circle appropriate answer) application
Do you have any other comments?

Objective To reducethe riskof floodingon proposeddevelopment

sitesandadjacentareasof land

Is thedevelopment
designedto reducethecontribution
it maymaketo flashflooding?

Question1,11 A: SUDSsystemincorporating swales,reedbeds,detentionpondsandinfiltrationbasins

surfacesin carparks,amenityareas,pavements,
B: Useof permeable cycleroutes,bridlew,lys
C: Useof Greenroofsto slowrun-off
Targets/ D: PondsandWetlands
Benchmark

Minimum:

GoodPractice: 2 fromthe list

BestPractice: 3 or morefromthelist

Justification

Indicator Review Criteria DA N A Comments

t
relevant t0 the sustainability
objective stated?
Does this criterion appropriately assess
the sustainability objective stated?
J)o you consider the criterions stated
benchmark is appropriate regarding the
proposed development and locality
C)uring which phase should these criteria Outline Detailed application
be used to assess the sustainability of the planning
development (circle appropriate answer) application
I)o you have any other comments?

.107
 I
Objective To ensure water contaminationoccurring off site does not affect occupiers through the
use of design
measures..

Question Arethereanysourcesof watercontamination

in or closeto thesite,andhowhavethesebown
6.3.3 mitigated?

Targets/ Minimum: Notaddressed

Benchmar k
Studycarriedoutandsomerecommendations
actedupon
GoodPractice:

BestPractice: Studycarriedoutandnosourcesof contamination

or all
recommendations actedupon

Justification

Indicator Review Criteria OA A Comment s

to the sustaincibility _N _ _ ___
Is it relevant
objective stated?
[)oes this criterion appropriately assess
the sustainability objective stated?
[)a you consider the criterions stated
benchmark is appropriate regarding the
proposed development and locality_
During which phase should these criteria Outline Detailed application
be used to assess the sustainability of the planning
development (circle appropriate answer) application
I)o you have any other comments?

408
4.6.3.EcologySEEDAchecklistSustainabilitycriteria.
Objective I To determinethe ecologicalvalue of the habitats in and around the sito in ofdm to ni.willin Irl(j
enhance biodiversityand protect existing natural habitats.

Question 1 Hasanecologicalsurveybeencarriedout,by a qualifiedecologist,to examinehabitalsin aridarmind

5.1.1 thesiteandmigrationroutesacrossthesite?

Targets/
Benchmark
Minimum:
F- Nosetminimumstandard

I
Surveyandmitigations/
harmavoidancestrategy
GoodPractice:

BestPractice: Asgoodpracticewithstrategyforenhancpm(Int,;

Justification

Indicator Review Criteria DA N AI Comments

Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Does this criterion appropriately assess
the sustainability objective stated?
Do you consider the criterions stated
benchmark is appropriate regarding the
proposed development and locality
During which phase should these criteria Outline Detailed application
be used to assess the sustainability of the planning
development (circle appropriate answer) application I
Do you have any other comments?

I
Objective To maintain and enhance biodiversityand any identifiedhabitats

1
Question Whatpercentage of importantor sensitivehabitats(identifiedin ecological-,wvoy)mi t)e
3.5.(7) (Nopointsif anyBAP/protected habitatsdamaged)

F
Targets/ Minimumi <60%
Benchmark
1
60-90%
GoodPractice:

BestPractice: >90%lnoimportantor sensitivehabitatsidentified

justification
 Indicator Review Criteria DA NA Comments
Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Doesthis criterion appropriately assess
the sustainability objective stated?
Do you consider the criterions stated
benchmark is appropriate regarding the
proposed developmentand locality
During which phaseshould these criteria Outline Detailed appliccition
be used to assessthe sustainability of the planning
development(circle appropriate onswer) application
Do you have any other comments?

Objective I To improveandstrengthen
theecological
ValUeof lhe siteandexi-t1of,

Question 1 Willtherebe increasein the

an valuedhabitatseitherby areaor increasedecologicalvalue
5.2.(1) by an ecologist)?

Targets/ Minimum: Nosetminimumstandard

Benchmark
Yesin onehabitat
GoodPractice.

BestPractice: Yesin morethanonphabitaVfio

valuedlmhiý,
ilý dowifio,i

Justification

Indicator Peview Criteria DA N Comments

-is to the sustaincibility
it relevant
objective stated?
J)oes this criterion appropriately assess
the sustainability objective stated?
I)o you consider the criterions stated
benchmark is appropriate regarding the
proposed development and locality
During which phase should these criteria Outline Detailed application
be used to assess the sustainability of the planning
development (circle appropriate answer) application
t)o you have any other comments?

410
 Objective To improve the ecological value of the site and PFOVICJ(ý
additiorml

Question Will any appropriatenew ecologicalfeatures be created on Ihe,site (Ioc,fl BAP,. ind IIA P-; Iv,ij H
5.2.(2) used to identify appropriatefeatures)

Ll
Targets/ Minimum: Noset minimumstandard
Benchmark
Ll
Oneadditionalfeature
GoodPractice:

Ll-
BestPractice: Morethanoneadditionalfeatures

Justification

Indicator Review Criteria DA N A Comments

I's it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Does this criterion appropriately assess
the sustainability objective stated?
[)o you consider the criterions stated
benchmark is appropriate regarding the
proposed development and locality
During which phase should these criteria Outline Detailed application
be used to assess the sustainability of the planning
development (circle appropriate answer) I application
Do you have any other comments?

Objective
J To improve the ecologicalvalue of the site and support the viability of spvcwý by 1-fikinq
and habitats.

Will any new wildlife corridors be created to link habitatswithin the site or link to habitats outside the
Question
Qu stion
development?
3.5.(7)

El
Minimum: Intprnal tn OP.nnlv
Targets/
Benchmark
Link to 2 habitats
Good Practice,

Link to more than 2 habitals

Best Practice.

I
justification
 Indicator Review Criteria DA N A Curnments
Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Does this criterion appropriately assess
the sustainability objective stated?
Do you consider the criterions stated
benchmark is appropriate regarding the
proposed development and locality
During which phase should these criteria Outline Detailed application
be used to assess the sustainability of the planning
development (circle appropriate answer) qp_plication
Do you have any other comments?

Objective I To ensurethatthetreesandshrubsthatarespecified
contributeto the ý( ji _li it, ýýfiý, ý!,

Question Has a mixture of locally occurring native deciduous and vverfjrfýoriIrew,

w, i
5.3.(l)

Targets/
Benchmark
Minimum.
F Rý

ý1-10%
Good Practice: native

Best Practice: >90% native and as specifiedin LBAP or HAP

Justification

Indicator Review Criteria DA N_ A Comments

Is it relevant to the sustaincibility
objective stated?
Does this criterion appropriately assess
the sustainability objective stated?
[)o you consider the criterions stated
benchmark is appropriate regarding the
proposed development and locality
During which phase should these criteria Outline Detailed application
be used to assess the sustainability of the planning
development (circle appropriate answer) application
Do you have any other comments?

L I

412
4.7. Sustainability Objective 7 development assessment
criteria.

improvedaccessibility( traffic management& transport links)

4.7.1Initial SEEDASustainabilitychecklistcriteria.

There are a number of criteria relating to the transport aspects of sustainability.Originally

section 7 of the SEEDA checklist, these have now been replaced by similar new SEEDA
criteriawhich includebenchmarks and which are detailedbelow,

4.7.2 New SEEDA Checklist criteria and benchmarks.

Objective I To
encourage and enable the use uf public tf,iw, pot

Question 1 Is thedevelopment
withinanexistingpubhcli,irvporl ( wridw',,
4.1.(1)

Targets/ Minimum: I LJ
Benchmark Yes- sparecapacityunknownor required

I
GoodPractice: Yes,sufficientcapacityto accommodateusersof development
can
be brouqhton-streamdurinothe buildDrocess

BestPracticeý
Yes,excesscapacityalreadyexistswhichcanaccommodate
usersof thedeveloi)ment

Justification

Indicator Review Criteria I DA INIAI Comments

Is it relevant to the sustainability

Does this criterion appropriately assess

the sustainability objective stated?
Do you consider the criterions stated
benchmark is appropriate regarding the
proposed development and locality
During which phaseshould these criteria Outline Detailed application
be used to assessthe sustainability of the planning
development(circle appropriate answer) application
I)o you have any other comments?
 I
Objective Tomanagetheimpactof trafficgeneratedby thedevelopment
wpontheew,linofraw,liml
infrastructure
andthecommunity.

Question Hasa TrafficAssessment

beencarriedout,?
4.1.(2)

Targets/ Minimum: IE
Benchmark Impactsacceptable
givenbenefitsof development

GoodPractice: Mitigationpossiblefor impactsandplannedn1odesign

-i
F1
BestPractice: r]
Minimalimpacts- littlemitigationrequired

Justification

DA 1N Comments
Is it relevant to the sustainability ___

Doesthis criterion appropriately assess

the sustainability objective stated?
I)o you consider the criterions stated
benchmark is appropriate regarding the
proposed development and locality
During which phaseshould these criteria Outline Detailed application
be used to assessthe sustainability of the planning
development(circle appropriate answer) application
I)o you have any other comments?
 I To
Objective promotetheuseof virtualcommunications
as an alternativeto transportwherepossible

Question Hasthedeveloperinstalledinfrastructure
in hornesandcommori),il / fidw-lfi,fl !,ýriJýn;ý,Ah,
4.1.(3)
allowtheuseof virtualcommunicationsas an alternativeto lraw,port',
'

Targets/
Benchmark to allowself-installation
Minimum:

FibreNetworkthroughout.
GoodPractice:

NoBestPracticeidentified
BestPractice:

Justification

AI Comments
Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective StOted?
Doesthis criterion appropriately assess
the sustainability objective stated?
C)oyou consider the criterions stated
benchmark is appropriate regarding the
proposed development and locality
During which phaseshould these criteria Outline Detailed application
be used to assessthe sustainability of the planning
development(circle appropriate answer) application
Do you have any other comments?

41S
 I
Objective To ensuretheavailability
of frequentandconvenientpublictransportlinksto train,tramor tube

Question Whatisthefurthest
distance thatanoccupioiwould11,1ve
toIraveltoeith(qýiimilorfixod;)ýjhhl
4 2.(1) transport
node(train,tube,tram)ora regular
link(every10-15mins)tomajorfixedpublictransport
node?
Targets/ [ -Local I
Benchmark authority policy
Minimum:

Justification

Indicator Review Criteria OA N A Comments

Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Does this criterion appropriately assess
the sustainability objective stated?
I)o you consider the criterions stated
benchmark is appropriate regarding the
proposed development and locality
F)urinq which phase should these criteria Outline Detailed application
be used to assess the sustainability of the planning
development (circle appropriate answer) I application
I)o you have any other comments?

.110
 Objective I To
allowfor easyaccessto publictransport..

Question Whatis thefurthestdistancethatan occupierwouldhaveto travelto busstop(nowor existing)

4.2.(2)
providinga regularbusservicefromanypointin thedevelopment?

Targets/ L 1
Benchmark Morethan400m
Minimum:
-
200-400m
GoodPractice:

17
BestPracticeý m or less

Justification

Indicator Review Criteria DA NA Comments

Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Does this criterion appropriately assess
the sustainability objective stated?
Do you consider the criterions stated
benchmark is appropriate regarding the
proposed development and locality
During which phase should these criteria Outline Detailed application
be used to assess the sustainability of the planning
development (circle appropriate answer) application
t)o you have any other comments?

1"
 I
Objective To encouragemorefrequentuseof publictransportduringtheentireyear,by havingwaitingareas
whichareconsideredsafeandoutof theweather.

Question Whatprovisionhasbeenmadefor a comfortabip/sale

bus-,hfýllwor waitriq
4.2.(3)

Targets/ ýo
FNo
Drovis
Benchmark pro sionmade
Minimum.

Bussheltersprovided
GoodPractice:

Comfortable,lit waitingareasin keylocationswithaccessto

BestPractice.
information

Justification

DA IN Comments
Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Does this criterion appropriately assess
the sustainability objective stated?
oo you consider the criterions stated
benchmark is appropriate regarding the
proposed development and locality
During which phase should these criteria Outline betailed application
be used to assessthe sustainability of the planning
development (circle appropriate answer) application
Do you have any other comments?

418
 Objective I To reducelevelsof carparkingavailableas an incentiveto uw publictran-,po(twirl ntfmr
,f
mobilityandcommunication.

QtleOorl How do car parking standardscompare with local au"imily

4.3 (I

Targets/ I
Meets LA standards
Benchinafk Minimum
I
<LAMaxwithparkingrestraintmeasures(limitedon-sitespaces.limited
Good Practice: garagespace,cycleparkingspacein dwellingsandon-street).

Lmea
provision
rovi of alternate transport in addition to gc*d practice
Best Practice.
sures

Justification

Indicator Review Criteria DA N A Comments

is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Does this criterion appropriately assess
the sustainability objective stated?
0o you consider the criterions stated
benchmark is appropriate regarding the
development and locality
proposed
During which phase should these criteria Outline Detailed application
be used to assess the sustainability of the planning
development (circle appropriate. answer) a"lication
[)o you have any other comments?

.111)
 I
Objective To provided flexible space which can accommodateother uses outside the
arem of peak parking
demand.

Question What% of carparkshavebeendesignedto befor flexibleuse?(e g play space Mdfýetsp

4.3.(2) . , ace, when
notbeingusedfor parking)

Targets/
<1 0%
Benchmark Minimum:
FI
GoodPractice:
10-20%
-
BestPractice: >20%

Justification

Indicator Review Criteria DA N A Comments

Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Does this criterion appropriately assess
the sustainability objective stated?
[)a you consider the criterions stated
benchmark is appropriate regarding the
proposed development and locality
During which phase should these criteria Outline Detailed application
be used to assess the sustainability of the planning
development (circle appropriate answer) qplication
_
[)a you have any other comments?

420
 Objective To reducethe impactof heavygoodsvehiclesloa(jinqor,ptjl)l,( highways

Question 1 Has
provisionbeenmadefor off roadHGV/delivery
vehicleloadingspacefor retail,cornruw(ýial
and
4.3.(3) industrialunits?

Targets/ 11Minimum: FI
Benchmark <60% of units

GoodPractice: Yesfor60 - 80%of unitsrequiringHGVservicing.

BestPractice:
Yes,for > 80%of cases

Justification

Indicator Review Criteria OA N A I Comments

Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Does this criterion appropriately assess
the sustainability objective stated?
I)o you consider the criterions stated
benchmark is appropriate regarding the
proposed development and locality
[)uring which phase should these criteria Outline Detailed application
be used to assess the sustainability of the planning
development (circle appro )riate answer)
Do you have any other comments?

421
 I
Objective Promotewalkingaroundthesitein orderto enhanceconvenience,
communityinteraction
andreduce
for privatecar use..
the requirement

Question 1 Has
routesaroundsitpandto Inralfacililw,ýhoon
a networkof safepedestrian
4.4.(1)

Targets/ III Minimum: -- L-1

Benchmark On site network of safe routes provided

I
Good Practiceý On site and surrounding pavement networks linked, and connected
to local facilities.

Best Practice.
Good practice plus pedestrian priority areas / no priority areas
Drovided

Justification

Indicator Peview Criteria DA N

is-, t
relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Does this criterion appropriately assess
the sustaincibility objective stated?
[)a you consider the criterions stated
benchmark is appropriate regarding the
proposed development and locality
During which phase should these criteria Outline Detailed application
be used to assessthe sustainability of the planning
development (circle appropriate answer) application_
______ __
Do you have any other comments?

422
 I
Objective To promote cycling as a real alternative to the use of private cars for shorlof pu(my;, whil-,l
rwiti, inq
the fear of crime.

Question Is therea networkof safehikeroutes10Ioc;11f;l( 111til-,

4.4 (2)
ir I(I owi '"wl,
11f.,
piverlientO

Targets/ Minirriutm I
Benchmark Routes provided on road side

Good Practice: Key facilities served by cycle routes

Best Practice:
Site wide networkwith direct links to neighbouringroutes

Justification

OA INIAI
Indicator Peview Criteria Comments
Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
C)oesthis criterion appropriately assess
the sustainability objective stated?
C)oyou consider the criterions stated
benchmark is appropriate regarding the
proposed development and locality
[)uring which phase should these criteria Outline betailed application
be used to assess the sustainability of the planning
development (circle appropriate answer)
I)o you have any other comments?

.121
 I
Objective To promote cycling as a real alternativeto the use of private cars for 0iorter puttity;. w1,,i,;t tt,,i
the fear of crime.

Question 1
Whatprovisionhasbeenmadefor securebicy(le
4.4.(3)

Targets/ [
Benchmark In line-with local authority policy
Minimum:

11
Studies carried out on likely facility requirementsand conclusion
Good Practice: imDlemented

As goodpractice,vvithringfencedfundsavailablefor facilityadjustment
Best Practice.
accordingto actualuseoncedevelopmeni is completed.
I F1
Justification

I DA Comments
Is it relevant to the sustainability
ob*ective state ?
Doesthis criterion appropriately assess
the sustainability objective stated?
[)a you consider the criterions stated
benchmark is appropriate regarding the
proposed development and locality
During which phase should these criteria Outline Oetailed application
be used to assessthe sustainability of the planning
development(circle appropriate answer) application
Do you have any other comments?

.12.1
 I
Objective To reduceanyneedor requirement
to travelby carto essentialfacilitiesby havingthemwithina
reasonablewalkingdistance..

Question 1 Whichof thefollowingareavailablewithinthe stateddistanceof all dwellin(Is,localod(m i,,,

4.5.1 pedestrianroutesfocusedaroundpublictransportnodes?

a) Shopsellingfoodandfreshgroceries(400m)
Targets/ b) Postbox(400m)
Benchmark C) PrimarySchool(1000m)
D) Playground/ amenityarea(1000m)
E) Localmeetingplace/community centre(1000m)
F) MedicalCentre(1000m)
G) Chemist(1000m)
H) Leisurefacilities(1000m)
1)Childcarefacilities(nursery/creche)(1000m)
J) Religiousbuilding/ placeof worship(1000m)
1)Contemplative features(watergardenetc)(1000m)
m) Cashpointmachine(1000m)
n) PublicHouse(1000m)

<9 fromthelist
Minimum:

GoodPractice:

BestPractice: All itemsfromthelist

Justification

Indicator Review Criteria DA NA Comments

relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Does this criterion appropriately assess
the sustainability objective stated?
()a you consider the criterions stated
benchmark is appropriate regarding the
proposed development and locality
During which phase should these criteria Outline Detailed application
be used to assess the sustainability of the planning
development (circle appropriate answer) application
Do you have any other comments?

'I., ý
 Objective To ensurevehiclespeedsareappropriate
to all roadusers

Question Is therea trafficmanagementplanin placewhichencouragesthe salepassageof vehicles1hrough

th.,
4.6.(1) development, speed?Notethiscouldincludepassivedesignmeasures(e.g Road
at anappropriate
narrowing, surfacetreatmentsetc)
Targets/ Minimum: Ii
Notrafficmanagement
Benchmark plan
F]
GoodPractice: Designstrategiesfor majorroutes

BestPracticei
Designstrategiesfor entiresite

Justification

0A]N]A I Comments
Indicator Review Criteria
Is it relevant to the sustainability
objective stated?
Does this criterion appropriately assess
the sustainability objective stated?
Do you consider the criterions stated
benchmark is appropriate regarding the
proposed development and locality
During which phaseshould these criteria Outline Detailed application
be used to assessthe sustainability of the planning
development (circle appropriate answer) 9pplication
.
Do you have any other comments?
 I
Objective To enableresidentsto useandenjoyspacearoundhomeswhilstmaintaining
vehicularaccess

Question DoesthedeveloPment
have'Homezones'orequivalent?
4.5.(2)

Targets/ Minimum: II LI
Benchmark <60%

1
GoodPractice: 60 - 80% of residential/ mixed use area

BestPractice:
tial/mixedusearea

Justification

Indicator Review Criteria 1)A N mments

Is it relevant t0 the sustainability
objective stated?
Does this criterion appropriately assess
the sustainability objective stated?
Do you consider the criterions stated
benchmark is appropriate regarding the
proposed development and locality
During which phase should these criteria Outline Detailed application
be used to assess the sustainability of the planning
develo2ment (circle appropriate answer) application
E)o you have any other comments?

.427
4.8. Sustainability Objective 8: Development assessment
criteria.

Ensuresafetywith regardto contamination

Thereareno specificSEEDAchecklistcriteriafor thisissue.However,a Europeanresearch

consortiumRESCUE(Regeneration of European Sitesin CitiesandUrbanEnvironments) has
developed a sustainability for contamination
checklistspecifically aspectsintendedfor useby
developersandfunderswhenassessinga fundingapplication siteandits
of a contaminated
remediationstrategy.Thefollowingcriteriaaredescribedbelowas relevantto Sustainability
Objective8 andare proposedfor consideration andanalysisbythe contamination consultants
andenvironmental health officer.

Task for Stakeholders: Answer the following questions.

Are all the criteria below necessary?
Choosethe most relevant criteria below to assessthe sustainability objective of
ensuring safety with regard to contaminationwhilst considering the specific site,
(please circle preferred indicator on table below).
For selected criteria from this list please indicate a benchmark of poor
performance (red), neutral (yellow) and improved performance (green)

ProjectMonitoringand evaluation Descriptionof the monitoringsystemput

Willtheprojectmaintainand improvelocalair
mitigation
quality; measures implemented
againstdust generationandair pollution
duringtheworks?
Hastheprojectidentifiedthe risksandthe
mitigationmeasures to be put in place to
reduce the human health andenvironment
risksassociated with exposure to hazardous
substances?
Hasthe noisepollutionbeenconsidered
duringthe characterisation andcleanup
phases and mitigationmeasures been
implemented?
Willthe projectputproceduresin placeto
ensurethe monitoringand reportingof the
environmental parameters during the works
physical,chemical, complaints from
community)
WI-1-It-he
projectputin placemethodsto avoid
thespreadof thecontamination duringthe
demolitionprocess?
in place,objectives use of indicators,
,
periodicity, timing and what actionto be
taken if problemis identified.
Shouldthedevelopment
be assessedagainstthiscriteria,
Y/N
If yesproposebenchmarks.
Shouldthedevelopment
be assessedagainstthiscriteria
Y/N
If yesproposebenchmarks.
Shouldthedevelopment
be assessedagainstthiscriteria
Y/N
If yesproposebenchmarks.
Shouldthe.development
be assessedagainstthiscriteria.
Y/N
If yesproposebenchmarks.
Shouldthedevelopment
be assessedagainstthiscriteria
Y/N
If yesproposebenchmarks.

41-8
Will it promotere-useand recyclingof waste Should the.development
beassessed thiscriteria:
against
Y/N
and reduceoverallvolumeof waste produced If benchmarks.
yes
propose
(waste hierarchy)
Will it encouragewaste managementcloseto Should thedevelopment
beassessed thiscriteria:
against
YIN
source( proximityprinciple) Ifyespropose benchmarks.
Will the projectadopt a waste management Should thedevelopment
beassessed thiscriteria-'
against
Y/N
plan to optimisethe recyclingand reuseof Ifyespropose benchmarks.
soils and debristaking into accountthe
methodologicalguidanceand strategyof the
EC?
Will the projectwaste managementplan be in Should thedevelopment
beassessed thiscriteria:
against
YN
compliancewith the local / regionaland Ifyespropose benchmarks.
nationalplans?
Will the project estimatethe quantitiesof Should thedevelopment
beassessed this
against criteria:'
YN
availablematerialsfor recyclingand for reuse If benchmarks.
yespropose
after treatmentand a materialdismantling
sequenceplan?
Will the project includeon going remediation Should the'development
beassessed thiscriteria:
ai-ains-t
Y/N
performanceverificationin terms of cost, Ifyespropose benchmarks.
efficiency and schedule in order to reduce
corresponding (isks?
Will the project includepost validation Should thedevelopment
beassessed thiscriteria:
against
YIN
remediationperformanceverificationin terms Ifyespropose benchmarks.
of cost, efficiency and schedule to measure
the successof the remediationprocess?
Will the projectuse a cost modelin order to Should thedevelopment
beassessed thiscriteria:
against
Y/N
reduceunexpectedcost variationsrelatedto Ifyespropose benchmarks.
the remediation?
Will the projectcharacterisationand Should thedevelopment
beassessed thiscriteria:
against
techniques be Y/N
remediation phase costs and Ifyespropose benchmarks.
integratedin an overall economicviability
strategy?
Have several use optionsbeing considered Should thedevelopment
beassessed thiscriteria:
against
Y/N
and their costs calculated? Ifyespropose benchmarks,
Will the managementof the projectmake Should thedevelopment
beassessed thiscriteria:
against
for the inclusion in Y/N
provision of all groups Ifyespropose benchmarks.
informationand decisionmakingduring
characterisationand clean up phases?
Will the project raise awarenessabout Should beassessed
thedevelopment thiscriteria:
against
if YIN
environmental problems relevanceon the Ifyespropose benchmarks.
site?
Will the projectput in place an appropriatesite Should thedevelopment
beassessed thiscriteria:
against
to improve YN .
specific risk communication the Ifyesproposebenchmarks.
social acceptance of the project?
Will the project prepareand implementan Should thedevelopment
beassessed thiscriteria:
against
Y/N
emergencyaction plan? Ifyesproposebenchmarks.
Will the public have opportunitiesto express Should thedevelopment
beassessed thiscriteria:
against
YIN
commentsto technicaldecisionsand are the Ifyesproposebenchmarks.
conflict resolution in the participationplan?

429
Will it maintain and improve surface water and Should
thedevelopment
beassessed thiscriteria:
against
Y/N
groundwaterquality? Ifyesprop6se
benchmarks.
Does the project description include a plan Should
thedevelopment
beassessed thiscriteria:
against
demonstrating thataftercleanupthe sitewill Y/N
Ifyespropose
benchmarks.
be reusedin a mannerthatleadsto
environmental improvement through
in
reductions pollutionandresource
consumption?
Will the project include a risk management Should
thedevelopment
beassessed thiscriteria:
against
Y/N
frameworkinvolvingidentification
planning Ifyespropose
benchmarks.
and a minimisation plan?
Willthe projectconsiderthe key Shouldthedevelopment
beassessed thiscriteria:
against
legislation to the Y/N
environmental related Ifyespropose
benchmarks.
industrialsites( IPPC,EIA),treatmentof
land,
contaminated energyefficiency, waste
minimisation and pollutioncontrol(EMAS)?
Has the project used decision support tools to Should
thedevelopment
beassessed thiscriteria:
against
decision YIN
in
assist environmental making Ifyespropose
benchmarks.
strategy,remediation
characterisation
techniquesetc)?

430
4.9 Summary table of relevant sustainability criteria.

Havingreviewthe newproposedsustainability criteriathestakeholdersneedto agreewhether

and
all arenecessary agreeon a finallist. Beloware surnmarisedthe different
criteriafor each
objective.
sustainability

Sustainability SustainabilityCriteria (pleasecircle which criteria should be used for the XX

Objective development)
Hasthesurroundingareabeenreviewedto determinetheappropriateblockandplotsizesforthe
patternsfiillyjustified?
withdeviationfromthesurrounding
development,
Doesthe proposedstreetnetworkprovidegoodaccessintoandthroughthe siteat varyingscales?
Aretherephysicalandvisuallinksbetweenthedevelopment andthe surroundingarea;
Hasthesurrounding areabeenreviewedto determine theappropriate scalefor thedevelopment in
termsof heightandmassing?
Hasa socialimpactassessment beencarriedoutto examinethe impactof the development on the
existingcommunity?
Doesthedevelopment haveprovisionfor communitymanagement of facilities,openspace,SUDS,
grey aterschemesetc
Hasthecommunitybeenactivelyinvolvedin thedevelopment proposal:
Hasthedevelopment beendesignedto beeasyfor usersto understand andorientatethemselves in,
anddoesit promotea neighbourhood identity?
Have'ActiveFrontageGuidelines' of the EnglishPartnerships
UrbanDesignCompendium beenmetin
orderto promotevitality?Noteactivefrontagesmeansencouraging pedestrianentrancesandexits
ontostreets,whicharefrequentlyused
2 What% of buildingshasbeendesignedto 'SecureByDesign'or equivalentstandards?
Minimum:
3 Whole of BREEAMschoolassessment.
4 Doesthe newbusinessspaceincrease/maintaintheviabilityof existingbusinesses?
Areincubatorunitsbeingbuiltwithclosegeographic linksto otherbusinesses/academia in thesector?
4
Is thedevelopmentdesignedto suitthe needsof prioritisedbusinesssectorsas identifiedin theREST-
4
To attractinwardinvestmentfrom businesses fromoutsidethe immediateareato
andorganisations
4
increaseeconomicwellbeing
Is newbusinessspacebeingdevelopedcloseto currentbusinesscentres?
4
Whatis the potentialfor the development to createadditionalpermanentjobs eitherthroughnew
4
businessor for maintenance of thedevelopment?
4 is partof a publiclyfundedregeneration
If the development scheme,will thecontractorsengagelocal
labour?
Doesthe development includea rangeof sizeof businesspremisesto encouragebothstartupand
4
ex andin business?
5 Hasa statementbeenpreparedexplaininghowthedevelopment contributesto the requiredmixof
housingforthe area,in termsof type,size,tenureandreflectingthe needsof thecurrentand
prospective community demographics?
5 Whatpercentage of homesaredesignedto LifetimeHomesstandard?
What% of totaldwellingsincorporate greywaterrecyclingsystems?
6

431
6 Isthedevelopment designedtoreduce thecontribution it maymaketo flashflooding?
6 Arethereanysources ofwatercontamination Inorcloseto thesite,andhowhavethesebeen
mitigated?
6 Hasanecological surveybeencarried out,bya qualified ecologist, toexamine habitats
inandaround
thesiteandmigration routesacross thesite?
6 Whatpercentage of importantorsensitive habitats (identified Inecological willbeprotected?
survey)
(Nopointsif anyBAP/protected habitatsdamaged)
6 Willtherebeanincrease inthevaluedhabitats eitherbyareaor Increased value(as
ecological
assessed byanecologist)?
6 Willanyappropriate newecological features becreated onthesite(localBAPsandHAPsshouldbe
usedto Identifyappropriatefeatures)
6 Willanynewwildlifecorridors becreated to linkhabitats withinthesiteor linktohabitats outsidethe
development?
6 Hasa mixture oflocallyoccurringnativedeciduous andevergreen treesandshrubs beenspecified?
7 Isthedevelopment withinanexisting publictransport corridor?
7 Hasa TrafficAssessment beencarded out,?
7 Topromote theuseofvirtualcommunications asanalternative totransport wherepossible.
7 WhatIsthefurthest distance
thatanoccupier wouldhaveto travelto eithera majorfixedpublic
transportnode(train,tube,tram)ora regular link(every10-15mins)to majorfixedpublictransport
node?
7 Whatisthefurthest distancethatanoccupier wouldhaveto travelto busstop(neworexisting)
a regular
providing busservice fromanypointInthedevelopment?
7 Whatprovision hasbeenmadefora comfortable/safe busshelter orwaitingrooms?
7 Howdocarparking standardscompare withlocalauthority requirements?
7 What%of carparkshavebeendesigned to beforflexible use?(e.g.playspace,marketspace, when
notbeingusedforparking)
7 Hasprovision beenmadeforoffroadHGV/delivery vehicleloading spaceforretail,commercial and
Industrial
units
7 Hasa network ofsafepedestrian routesaround siteandto localfacilities beenprovided?
7 Istherea network ofsafebikeroutestolocalfacilities neartoandoverlooked by,roadsandpavements
7 Whatprovision hasbeenmadeforsecure bicycle storage atlo ilitiesandattransport
nodes
7 Whichofthefollowing areavailable withinthestateddistance ofalldwellings, locatedonkey
pedestrianmutesfocused around publictransport nodes?
7 Istherea trafficmanagement planinplacewhichencourages thesafepassage ofvehiclesthroughthe
development, atanappropriate speed? Notethiscouldinclude passive designmeasures (e.g.Road
narrowing,surface treatments etc)
7 thedevelopment have'Homezones'orequivalent ?
8 Seesection4.8

432
5. Conclusion.
Alltheaboveindicators andcriteriaaddress themainsustainability prioritiesof theXXareaas
agreed upon in an inclusive and participative
manner, taking into accountthe resultsof the
community survey(Appendix 1) as wellas the RAFPhase4 workshop (Appendix 2). The
objectives for which the proposed development is being assessed andmonitored for, cover
environmental, socialas wellas economic aspectsthusadoptinga holisticapproach. It is
therefore considered thatfollowingtheassessment of thedevelopments at both
sustainability
theoutlineanddetailapplication phasebasedon recognised SEEDA criteriasustainability
can
beincorporated fromtheoutset.Furthermore, theimplementation of thelongtermsustainability
monitoring strategy, can be considered best practicein thesustainability monitoring fieldas it
will provideeveryopportunity to ensurethe longtermsustainability of the XX development.
Finally,theresultsobtained fromthemonitoring strategy, willprovidegreatinsightandonthe
ground evidence of what works and what doesn'tin termsof sustainability for developments
which is a valuable source of knowledgewhich can be transferredto futuredevelopments.

433
Appendix 10. Report with results of phase 6 provided
to participants.

Resultsof 2ndworkshopPhase6 of RAF:Selectionof

Sustainabilityassessmentcriteria and indicatorsfor the
XX PaperMill development.

October 21/10/2005

To be usedby development to conductsustainability

consultants assessment.

Facilitator& Author: KalliopePediaditi

ContactDetails:01483686672
Centrefor Environmental Strategy,Schoolof Engineering,
University of Surrey,Guildford,GU27XH
idifi hotma rom
ka!li,iLýýdi,

4; 4
 1. Introduction.
the resultsof the Redevelopment
In thisreportarepresented AssessmentFrameworkRAF
Phase6 secondworkshop.In this workshopparticipants, whichincludedLA and The
developer three
undertook
representatives, Firstly
tasks. they selected
a number of longterm
indicatorsand agreedon benchmarks whichwill be utilisedto monitorthe long term
of
sustainabilitytheXX (See
development section2 for results).
Secondly,
they selected
and
criteriaand benchmarks,
assessment
agreedon sustainability basedon the new SEEDA
development
sustainability which
checklist, will be used to the
assess development proposals
(see
sustainability 3
section for The
results). results of thisassessmentwill be Included
in the
of
section
sustainability the EnvironmentalStatement. In the finalsessionof the workshop
agreed
participants on the use and financing
of thesustainability theconclusions
monitoring of
whichare summarisedin 4.
section

followed
Theprocess aketheabovetasksis summarised
to underl: below.

Phase 1: Team Building consisted of Identifyingthe relevant participants be Involved In the

workshops of Phase 4&6. A checklist of potential relevant stakeholderswas provided to LA
and P& F Properties. Both parties were asked to identify 12 stakeholders considered
appropriate to participate, based on expertise
representativeness, and/or local knowledge. in
total the following 15 participantswere identified:

435
 2 ý: 0 Cd e
0
.2
4) -1
-2
*zl
lö ý *Z 2
4) t) 0
C;4 -
-0
O=
0
-0 gýs. th uZ 03 -a
9.1 tu 0 J.-
100
r4
40. c03

-0 izjý
.2 0 -8
CZ . fim0 un
>
-d 12 Jol Ei o-20U
ul 12 2
= 3 tý
cl =- -0 .-00u
4) -2 cuIB
0ýgý 13 - ýa -,>
EI 5Z0 9 0,3 L,
12EI 8 C) 0Nc: L. :5.
> OIM 53
.8- -ý:4 -212 2
0 .-
j2 r-- ýc g> mu
cu 0
tim42Mc 0)
&, ýt -m tzw

0
Ei
0.
b-m5C >% -e
t2 0
:i vi
cl«
C)
:
5- EM
0 -3 U00-0C
ýa

4)
9
r. -5 ýa 10 0o t4
-j N, r. *E
q -12 ýc iu .92 -
= Z: (A Q «o - 4A
(A g) ce
t2 k0G; 10 gl A. L-
m 2(L)
to s:i
cl >,
=m ýTCw 9.2*ý
ci ci. :. 9- 0
*e -,3
10
g"
.Z: t:
U
>
40.0
r. 19
2
-m
0 4ý
0 >0 - -2
> rA C-S « a
0,0 ýg 4) u CJ e22:, 20 -.
im. N. 10
W 9)
c:w000 :2< ce j; ed 2 As S
-u 0 40. In tu
cn 'n 8- -3 - re
Me
9) r,
0
0M0uZ:
CJ .52 2?m E- u >0r.
r. -tj u
m

= cu
Z d-
.ý; 0m0Z;
J 22 . cu u
%.

. bd
ci
tz
-ZS 0 d
Ow-0 --0,.o
= ý: .2= Cd ts 'd fi 44
r.
fi .2=c

ns
.5

>
1-ý .2A 00 m iz
0
fh Cl- cý;
w
c3 C)
R Öl) ij
to

ýa
0
1-,
cm c- ý2
00000ö Ici cz w" :iW
.5ý
ý
(A
ti

B
44 0 _d -2--
i i5 .
,902 i: :1 0

.N4. 0202.
CU -Eu.
o008
bo 8.0
g. - C--
I4A)
2 t.
EI

äe
-2
%ZE
00
ýEi
90 b13
JD 0 tu tu
10
ýegz
e0
p
.5,1
< -1
10 Le
jý ýu: ei
(1) 4. -ý 2 bo k -2
21
ýa C) CU
2ý 215 m 10

9
,5m
.0. r.
4) -5
.ý=
9 gn ;2, - to
4)
4, L-
0
;j-
Im t; 'm r3 d *Z 4; 4i ri
2
0<=2 r. 1.1
g ;j5r. 92u-1 0
r. 2u
E- 0
hý le
10 a
P.
ý2
(D'-,
ul; >
10
bý 0AM4.
P.
0.10 ">20
w34
:2 Q) u
Gn
C-
E310
Wc

,
-4 C to 4ý
4) 4)

en V-1 t)4 0
0 cl
-Z &.
0

4 CLJ
W
W2 E-4
0 Cd
J." 9
W-4 4
'A ý o P.ý
=- ýa
4)

4) 0.4
Phase 2: 'Getting the Facts Right'. In order to be able to make Informeddecisions about the
effects of the XX redevelopment, site and project specific Information was collated and
circulatedto stakeholdersprior to workshops.

Most importantlyit was agreed both by LA and P& F Properties that an understandingof the
,
community's visions, concerns and priorities for the area should be established In order to
facilitate the assessment and to identify criteria for monitoring which reflect these and,
subsequently,to Informa context specific approach.

A 1200 address postal questionnairesurvey of occupants of properties In the locality of the

former XX site and XX RiversideSchool East and West Campuseswas undertaken. An 10%
response rate- typical of such surveys - has been analysed and presented In Appendix X. A
similar survey of attendees at the Reinventing XX November Community Workshop was
undertaken-

The results of the surveys were considered at the RAF Phase 4 Workshop to assist In the
Identificationof sustainabilityassessmentcriteria and Indicatorsfor long term monitoring.

Phase 3: 'Preparing The "Ground"' The Universityof'Surrey - with the collaborationof LA

and The developer - investigated the likely requirementsfor post-developmentmonitoring
based upon the environmental topic areas Identified at that stage through the 'scoping
exercise' and also considered the existence of current monitoring programmes and the
availability of existing data. LA Officers responsible for developing Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SEA) Indicatorsand establishinga database of existing Informationrelevant to
sustainability assessment and indicators for monitoring were contacted and questioned in
respect of the potential to utilise existing SEA indicatorsto both assess the development and
monitor the long term sustainabilityof the Former XX site and to Investigateother sources of
informationsuch as the CommunityStrategy.

Phase 4: Setting Priorities. This phase of the RAF was undertaken in a half day
Istakeholder workshop' which essentially consisted of deliberation and agreement on the
sustainability priority objectives for the development. It should be emphasisedthat the Issues
explored were not related to the principlesor design of the development,but were concerned

with the identification of means to evaluate and monitor the 'benefit' defined In terms of
sustainabilityof the redevelopment.

To achieve this aim the workshop consistedof three sessionswith the following alms,

437
Session I- to require stakeholders to state perceived benefits, visions and concerns
regardingthe proposeddevelopment;

Session 2- to prioritise a number of sustainability objectives based on government

sustainabilityobjectives(DETR, 1999);

Session 3- to identify following consideration of the Community Survey results and a

deliberative discussion of the outputs of the first and second sessions - eight priority
sustainabilitY objectives.

XX Development Priority Sustainability Objectives:

Improved imageandintegration of theareaintermsof architecture,

designandsocial
aspectaswellasthecombination of all.
2. a safeenvironment forpeopletoworkandlivein;
3. improved educationin termsof academic achievementandinfrastructure
anddesign;
4. improved localeconomy, in particular
withregardto smallbusinessesandthecreating
of qualityemployment opportunities;
5. improved mixbetween housing andbusinesses aswellastypesof housing. Theneed
to createa newhousing balance- a propertyladderenablingpeopleto stayinthearea;
6. improve in termsof habitatcreation
biodiversity andwatermanagement;
7. improved (trafficmanagement
accessibility & transport
links);&
8, ensuresafetywithregardto contamination.

Stakeholderagreementwas given for these objectivesto be utilised to create the basis from
which to develop sustainability assessment criteria as well as indicators for monitoring the
long term sustainabilityof the development.

The third session also delivered, through facilitated discussion, stakeholder agreement with
regard to the nature of the monitoring to be carried out. It was concluded that it would be
appropriate to apply both quantitative and qualitative indicators to monitor the long term
sustainability of the development. It was also agreed that where appropriate existing LA
monitoringdata should be utilised to avoid duplicationof resources. A collaborative approach
between the LA and The developer would be the best way forward with regard to the
administrationand resourcing of the monitoring framework - the approach most likely to be
finalised as part of a wider Section 106 Agreement.

Phase 5: Designing the Indicators. In this Phase LA Planning Policy and Development
Control officers with knowledge of existing LA monitoringdatabases representativemet with
the facilitation of Surrey University - to identify a provisional list of relevant sustainability
assessment criteria and indicators for monitoring the long term sustainability of the

438
development.The relevanceand selection of criteria and Indicatorswas based on the agreed
PrioritySustainabilityObjectives.

The SEEDA Development Sustainability Checklist - one of the most established and
governmentrecognisedassessmenttools - was used as a basis for as the selection criteria
whilst the LA draft SEA scoping report was used as a basis for the selection indicators for
long term monitoring.Considerationof the SEEDA checklist Identified limitationsIn respect of
the objectivesfor the former XX site Insofaras benchmarksare not provided.

Limitationswere similarly Identifiedin respect of the SEA criteria Insofar as some of the data
was too general to be relevant to the specific effects of the development, necessitatingsite
specific surveys. Nevertheless,reference to both sources enabled a number of criteria and
Indicatorsto be identified which were subsequentlypresentedto the wider stakeholdergroup
for considerationprior to Phase 6.

Phase 6: Putting It All Together.

This is the process the results of which are presented in this report. A second half-day
workshop with all stakeholders in attendance was undertaken to evaluate the provisional
sustainability assessment criteria and indicators for monitoring long term sustainability. Due to

the limitations identified in respect of the applicability of the SEEDA checklist criteria, consent
was obtained from SEEDA to refer to revised criteria being drafted by SEEDA which
incorporate benchmarks. Furthermore, Surrey University collated the comments on the
monitoring indicators and proposed more site specific ones. All stakeholders were given the

opportunity to review the results of Phase § to enable an Informed evaluation in the Phase 6

workshop. Stakeholders were asked to make modifications where considered necessary as

and select the final set collectively through a facilitated process.
well as evaluate

In the foregoing manner a consensus was arrived ai In a transparent process over the
number and nature of the final indicators. Having finalised the criteria to be utilised to assess
the sustainability of the development and the Indicators - to monitor the long term
sustainability - as well as the targets which would signify a sustainable or unsustainable
for each individual indicator relevant to local conditions - the administration and
condition
logistical aspects of the monitoring of the long term sustainability of the development were

agreed upon.

439
 2. Indicators selected to monitor the long term
sustainability of the XX development.
the indicators
In thissectionarepresented by theirbenchmarks
accompanied as developed
andagreed upon bytheworkshop The
participants. different indicators
selected arepresented
to sustainability
according objectives.

Sustainability Objective 1: Improved Image of the area In terms of

architecture, design and social aspects as well as the combination of all.

Indicator: % of residents who feel their nehghbourhood has got worse in the last two vears.

Monitoring Task: 3 door to door surveys.

Data collection sample: NeighbourhoodssurroundingXX development.
Data Collection Timing : Prior development commencement,during construction & post
completion.
Additional Information collected: Why they feel it has got worse?
Benchmark using traffic light method:
Red: increase In % of residents considering the
neighbourhoodhas got worse.
Yellow: No change
Green: decrease In % of residents considering the
neighbourhoodhas got worse.

Baseline to be used for comparison:

LDF relevant SP8, % of residents surveyed who consider their neighbourhood has got
indicators worse within the last 2 years.
Baseline Indicator Baseline Data Source Frequency
Indicator % of residents 26%(2004) LA Community Every 3-
information surveyedwho consider Cohesion Years
their neighbourhood Survey (2004
has got worse within
the last 2 years.

440
Sustainability Objective 2: To provide a safe environment for people to
work and live in.

Indicators: a) % of XX residents and nehqhbourinq residents surveved who feel ' falr1v safe'

or Iverv safeafter dark whilst outside in their n6qhbourhood or the XX site,

b) % of XX residents and nehghbouring residents surveved who feel 'falrlv safe'or Ivery safe'

durinq the dav whilst outside in their n0qhbourhood or the XX site.

Monitoring Task: 3 door to door surveys.

Data collection sample: NeighbourhoodssurroundingXX development.
Data Collection Timing : Prior development commencement,during construction & post
completion.Attention should be made to conduct three survey at the same time of year.
Benchmark using traffic light method:
Red: decrease in % of residents feeling fairly of very safe,
after dark & during the day whilst outside.
Also if % Is worse than the LA average.
Yellow: No change or if % Is the same with the LA average.
Green: increase In % of residents feeling fairly of very safe,
after dark & during the day whilst outside.

E3aselineto be used for comparison: SP5 LDF SEA scoping report indicator

441
Sustainability Objective 3. Improved education in terms of academic
achievement and infrastructure and design.

Indicators: % of r)ur)ilsin new school achieving5+ GCSEs WmC)at new school

Monitoring Task: New School to provide annually figures of students achieving 5+ GCSEs
(A*-C).
Data Collection Timing: Annuallyafter new school completion.
Data collection Sample: Studentsattendingnew school.
Benchmark using traffic light method:
Red: decrease in % of students achieving 5+ GCSEs In new
school and In comparisonto old schools being replaced.
YoUnw:No change or If % Is the same with old schools.
Green: increase in % of students achieving 5+ GCSEs in
new school and in comparisonto old schools being replaced.

Baseline to be used for comparison: Old school performance.

Indicators: Destination of school leavers M) eq full time education, emr)lovment.

supported training.
_qovernment

Monitoring Task: Identify the destination of school leavers from new school % eg full time
education,employment, government supported training.
Data Collection Timing: Annually after new school completion(To be providedby School).
Data collection Sample: Studentsgraduatingfrom new school.
Benchmark using traffic light method:
Red: increase In % of students going straight into
employment or not settled and decrease in % of students
continuingeducationor receivingtraining.
Yollow: No changeor if % Is the same with old schools.
Green: decrease in % of students continuing in educationor
training or Increase in % of students going directly Into
employmentor being unsettled.

442
Sustainability Objective 4: Improved local economy, In particular with
regard to small businesses and the creation of quality employment
opportunities.

Indicators: SP7 b) Proportion of lobs ger working age resident (lobs density).

Monitoring Task: Obtain annual Nomis survey results for the XX area
Data Collection Timing: Annually but report prior to development commencement,during
constructionand post completion.
Data collection Sample: XX wide, utilised sample.
Benchmark using traffic light method:
Red: decrease jobs density
No change
Green: increase in jobs density.

Baseline to be used for comparison: SP7b SEA scoping report.

Indicators: EG2: a) Town/districtcentre Vacancy rates

Monitoring Task: Obtain LA vacancy rate resultsfor the XX area

Data Collection Timing: Results obtained every two years but a report should be developed
prior to development during
commencement, constructiolnand post completion.
Data collection Sample: XX.
Benchmark using traffic light method:
Red: IncreaseIn vacancy rates
Yolfow: No change
Green: decreasein vacancy rates.

Baseline to be used for comparison: EG2a indicatorSEA scoping report.

443
Sustainability Objective 5: Improved
mix between housing and
businesses as well as types of housing. The need to create a new
housing balance- a property ladder, enabling people to stay In the area.

Indicator SP4 Number /% of dwellings on large housing schemes ( above 25 units) that are
grovided under affordable housing planning policy.

Monitoring Task: review of outline planningapplication.& site survey followingcompletion.

Data collection sample: developmentdetailed planning application and post development
completionwith site survey.
Data Collection Timing : Prior development commencement, and post development
completion.
Benchmark using traffic light method:
Red: significantly smaller % of affordable housing than
recommendedIn Local policy
yellow: slightly smaller % of affordable housing than
recommendedIn Local policy
Green: % of affordablehousing providedas recommendedIn
Localpolicy

In order to demonstratea balanced mixed developmentthe number of different types of units

and housing should be clearly stated in the detailed planning application and In a monitoring
report, confirmationof the achievementof these numbers should be made with a site survey
development However there are no benchmarks available as to optimum
post completion.
mix.

Indicator: Contextual indicators of development Including, population size and

characteristics. total households and average size as well as work location of residents.

Monitoring Task: Door to door survey of developmenthouseholds.

Data collection sample: housingdevelopment
Data Collection Timing: Post developmentcompletion.
Benchmark using traffic light method:
Red: Lack of diversity of type of households and out
migrationfor work
Ycllovv: No difference from current situation
Green: greater diversity of type of households , than
currently available In the locality as well as limited out
migrationof new residentsfor work.
Comparisonsshould be made of results also to XX wide ContextualIndicators.

444
Sustainability Objective 6: Improve Biodiversity In terms of habitat
creation and water management.

Indicator, Monitor water quality of lod-qe..

Monitoring Task: Water quality tests

Data collection sample: New Lodge
Data Collection Timing : During Construction,annuallyand 3 years post completion.
Benchmark using traffic light method:
Red: Poor water quality preventing habitat establishmentor
potentialhealth hazard.
Yellow: No differenceto water quality of existing lodge.
Green: better water quality than of existing lodge with
extensivehabitat establishment.

Sustainability Objective 7: Improved accessibility (traffic management &

transport links)

Indicator: ENI means of travel by modal split.

Monitoring Task: door to door surveys
Data collection sample: XX development.
Data Collection Timing : Post Developmentcompletion.
Additional Information collected: School survey of how childrentravel to and from school.
Benchmark using traffic light method: I
Red: Increase in % of XX residents travelling by car in
relationto ONS/ Census2001 levels.
Yellow: No change
Green: decreaseIn % of residentstravelling by car
Indicator: EG4 travel to work/ out commuting.
Monitoring Task: door to door surveys
Data collection sample: XX development.
Data Collection Timing : Post Developmentcompletion.
Benchmark using traffic light method:
Red: Increase I% of XX residents out-commutingto work In
relationto boroughstandard.
YO,tovv:No difference
Green: decrease In % of XX residents out-commuting to
work in relation to boroughstandard.
out commutingdefined as in Boroughstandard.

445
Sustainability Objective 8 Ensure safety with regard to contamination/
pollution.
No long term indicators were identified for this sustainability objective, as it
was not felt necessary to conduct, long term post-monitoring. However,

participants agreed that the contaminated land consultant should describe in

detail any monitoring proposedto be carried out during the remediationof the
site. The consultants monitoring proposals are presented below.

EnciaConsulting Limitedhavedeviseda Remedial fortheXXPaperMillSite.Thisis

Strategy
presentedin EnciaConsultingReportNo. The
5996/3/Rev-A. alms of theRSis to resolve
contaminationissuesin to
order protect
environmental
receptors
and the
render sitesuitable
fortheproposed development.

onthesitethemainhazards
issuespresent
Withregardto contamination to futureusersofthe
sitearethrough dermal
ingestion, and
contact inhalation
of from
contamination thefollowing
sources:
inorganic in
contaminationMadeGroundsoils
localised hydrocarbon
petroleum contamination
hazardousgasgeneratedfromMadeGroundsoilsandfrom TowerFarmlandfill.
theadjacent

TheIRSwilladdress theseissuesbyeffectively usersof thesitefromcontamination

isolating
by,introducing
a cleansoilcover layersin gardenandpublicopenspaceareas,remediating
hydrocarbonimpacted soils to lower the concentrationsof contaminantsbefore
placing
remediatedsoilsbelowareas of hardstand, and ensuring new buildingscontainappropriate
measures.
gasprotection It may be necessaryto install
a gasbarriersystemalong thelineof
theformer Bealey'sGoit
to protect development from the of
migration leachate
and hazardous
Long termmonitoring of these gas protectionmeasures may berequired.
gas.

Allsiteworkswillbesuperivised bya suitably whowillmonitor

engineer
qualified allsite
ensure
activities, the
that IRSis beingcompliedwithand whowillobtain
samplesto ensure
of
validation the measures
protective including.

thatrequirements
Verification oftheremedialstrategyareadhered to.
Effectivenessof remedialtechniques.
Validation targetconcentrations
of sitespecific of remedial
works
testingof sitewonandimported
Validation to ensurefitnessforpurpose.
materials
Verification
of coversystem and thicknesses.
QualityAssurance and Control
Quality of GasControlmeasures.

Onsatisfactory
completion of alltheworks the Engineer
willprepare
a Verification
Report.
The
Report
Verification thattheremedial
willstandascertification andgroundpreparatoryworks
have been in
carriedout accordance withthis Strategy.
Remedial

Otherthanlongtermmonitoring withtheTowerFarmlandfill,EnciaConsulting
associated
measure
remedial willnot long
require termmonitoring.

446
 Info.
Additional

issuespresent
Withregardto contamination onthesitethemainelements
of thisstrategy
are

to and
excavate bio-remediate areasof localisedhydrocarbon contamination forre-use
-
to fill
excavate frominfilledreservoirs
materials and filterbeds,remove deliteriousmaterial
-
andbio-remediate organicallycontaminated material.
of
- reclamation suitable
materials forre-use
- of
construction a gas/leachate/groundwater barrier,
if required, the
along lineof Bealey's
Goit.
and
provision spereading of 450mm of suitable
sub-soil and 150mm of topsoilin garden
areas
-
andpublicopenspaceareas.
TheIRSwill be agreedin Miting by regulatorspriorto the startof remedialworks.

Remedialwork will be supervisedby a Geo-environmental engineerwhowill ensurethatthe

,s
of the. RS are met. The responsibilities
of the Engineer include, butnotbe
requirements shall
limitedto,the *following:
Ensuring that all site personnel are suitablyqualified
and givenan appropriate inductionat the
-
beginningof theirfirstday.
Supervision of the remedial and ground preparatory works.
-
Advice on the correct handling of materials
and conditions encountered.
-
Guidance on the appropriate protective clothing
and safety equipment thatis to be made
-
availableandused.
Ensuring that personal hygienearrangements are adequate.
-
Retrieval of soil and water samples and the subsequent scheduling of appropriate laboratory
-
analysis to enable validationof various aspectsof theworks, andto advise the Project
Managerof progress.
- Liaison with statutory authoritiesas required.

TheEngineerwill maintainrecordsof theworksto includethe

following: I
Daily record sheetsto includea summaryof the day'sactivities.
-
- Date and weather conditions.
- Plant, personnel andvisitorspresent.
Aspects to
relating Health and Safety,Environmental Control,
or non-compliance witheither
-
this RemedialStrategyor theContractor's MethodStatement.
Sitesurveys as necessary to recordthe locations
of demolition,
excavarion
andfillingactivity.
-
- Test results.

447
 3. Sustainability Assessment Criteria.
Thesesustainability
assessmentcriteriaare primarilybasedon the SEEDAchecklist criteria
and have beenselected through
the workshops and theirrelevanceto the identified
relevant
The
objectives. criteriapresented for objective8 ar6 basedon the RESCUEEuropean
research resultsasidentified
projects byworkshop
relevant participants.

2.1 Sustainability Objective 1: Development assessment

criteria.
improvedImageand integrationof the area In terms'of architecture,design, and social
aspectsas well as the combinationof all.

Sustainability Todevelop tolocaldevelopment

a newplacethatresponds patterns, a framework
andprovides for
1.1
criterion development tothesurroundings.
appropriate

areabeenreviewed
Hasthesurrounding todetermine
theappropriate blockandplotsizesforthe
Question development, fromthesurrounding
withdeviation fullyjustified?
patterns
Targets/
Benchmark -7
Minimum: Review
of surrounding out
areacarded

j [17ý
GoodPractice: from
Findings incorporated.
review

BestPractice: GoodPractice f9rdeviance

plusJustification fromsurrounding
area
1171
Justification

448
Sustainability Toachieve
visualandphysical thatmakesit easytofindthedevelopment
connectivity andtonavigate
1.2
Criterion around.

andvisuallinksbetween
Aretherephysical thedevelopment andthesurrounding area;
Question 1)Arenewroutesintothesitecontinuations
ofexisting
access pointsfromthesurrounding
area?
2)Howdirectaresightlinesofexisting
neighbourhoodstreets
continued through
thesite?
Targets/ Minimum:
Benchmark

GoodPractice:
Yesto 1)
Fý
Yesto 1),andsightlinedepthofoneblock.

BestPractice.
Yesto 1)and2),andsightlinedepthgreater
thanoneblock
F1
Justification

Sustainability Todelivera development scaleforallusers

atanappropriate
1.3
Criterion

Hasthesurrounding todetermine
areabeenreviewed scaleforthedevelopment
theappropriate In
termsof heightandmassing?
Question

Minimum: Review
ofsurrounding
scale
Targets/
Benchmark
GoodPractice: from
Findings incorporated.
review

BestPractice: Appropriate
scaleandmassingproposed
withinrecommended
widthratiosoftheUrbanDesign
height: Compendium Justifying
deviancefromsurrounding
scale

Justification

449
 ýustalnabllity Toavoiddetrimental uponthesurrounding
effects andhighlight
community Issues
thatthe
1.4
criterion development
mustaddress.

Hasa socialimpactassessment
beencarried theimpact
outto examine of thedevelopment
onthe
Question existing
community?

Targets/
Benchmark Minimum:
Nosetminimum
standard
El
Yes
GoodPractice:

Yes,withsupplementary
evidence howresults
showing taken
were
BestPractice: Into
account.

Justification

Sustainability Topromote communityinvolvement inthedesignofthedevelopment toensure theirneeds,Ideasand

1.5
criterion knoWedqe aretakenintoaccount to imDrove
the oualityand of
acceDtabilitvthe develoDment.
Hasthecommunity beenactivelyinvolvedinthedevelopment proposal:
A: Hasa stakeholder
analysis beencarriedout(listingthetypesofgroups it is proposedtoInvolve
and howeachwillbeidentified/appmached/communicated with)
Question
B:Hasconsultationbeencarded outwiththecommunity astotheneedsandaspirations oftheir
locality
attheconceptionstage
C:Hasa communication campaign providingInformationto thecommunityabout theImpact and
oftheproposed
implications development beencarded outatanearlystage
D:Hasinformationbeenprovided forthecommunity informingthemabouthowtheycangetinvolved
andinfluencethedevelopment?
E:Arethereopportunitiesforthecommunity tohavecontinued InvolvementIn.thedevelopment of the
project?

Targets/
Benchmark
Minimum:
LAconsultation
Standard
El
3 from
items thelist
GoodPractice:

BestPractice:
Entirelistplusdocumentary howIssuesand
showing
evidenqe
viewsweretakenIntoaccount

Justification

450
 thatiseasytounderstand
Sustainability Tocreatea placewitha clearidentity andnavigate
1.6
Criterion
Hasthedevelopment beendesignedtobeeasyforusersto understand In,
themselves
andorientate
anddoesit promote
a neighbourhoodIdentity?
Question i) Haveentrances
tothedevelopment anditsdifferentareasbeendesignedasgateways?
2)Havelandmarks,including
memorable buildings,beenusedto helpusersorientate
themselves?
3)HaveclearviewsanddeflectedViewsoflandmarks beencreated?
4)Havecomerbuildingsbeenheightened orbuildinglinealtered
toactaslandmarks?
5)Havenodesbeenemphasised throughsurface treatment?

Targets/ <3pointsaddressed
Minimum:
Benchmark
Yesto3 questions
GoodPractice:

BestPractice: Yestoallquestions

Justification

451
2.2 Sustainability Objective 2 development assessment
criteria.

for peopleto workandliveIn.

Toprovidea safeenvironment
Objective Toensure
thatbuilding
frontages
encourage
pedestrian tovitality.
contributing
usageof streets

What%ofbuildings
hasbeendesigned ByDesign'
to'Secure orequivalent
standards?
3.(9)
Question
I
Minimum: F-1
< 60%
Targets/
Benchmark GoodPractice: 60-80%

BestPractice: > 80%

Justification

452
2.3 Sustainability Objective 3 development assessment
criteria.
Improvededucationin termsof academic andinfrastructure
achievement anddesign.
doesnot makereferencespecifically
The SEEDAsustainability to schoolsespecially
with
regardto academic However,
achievement. thereare standards for schoolenvironmental
performanceanddesignnamely
theBREEAM SchoolStandard whichshouldbemet.
breeam.
See: hftp://www. htminotincluded
orqlschools. inthisreport.

toolin itselfandincorporates
Thisis anassessment a number
of criteria.
Comments:

Theschoolelementof thedevelopment
is proposed
to bedesigned
to achieveat leasta 'very
good'BREEAM rating.

TheBREEAM SchoolStandards is intended

to helpschoolsandLEAsto set environmental
targetsfor newandrefurbished
schoolbuildingsandserveas a usefultoolfor demonstrating
theenvironmental of designs.
performance

BREEAM Schoolsassesses newbuildandrefurbishmentschoolprojectsin linewithWES

Assessment
requirements. criteria
are basedon performance
environmental levels ratherthan
design
specific solutions
and includesconsideration transport,
ofenergy, water,materials, land
ecology
use, and to
pollution secure high performance
environmental standards:

453
2.4 Sustainability Objective 4 development assessment
criteria.

improvedlocaleconomy,in particularwith regardto smallbusinesses

andthe creation
opportunities.
of qualityemployment

Sustainability To ensurethatthedevelopment to the sustainable

contributes economicvitalityof thelocalareaand
criterion4.1 region.

Doesthe newbusinessspaceIncrease/maintaintheviabilityof existingbusinesses?

Question

Targets/ Minimum: Nominimumstandardset.

Benchmark
Committed businessto those
anchortenantwithcomplementary
GoodPractice:
existina In tha arRais identifipd

BestPractice: Economicstudyshowsthatthefacility.will meetthe needsof

in thearea
existingbusinesses

Justification

business
Sustainability Topromote withinregionally
growth sectors.
prioritised
4.2
criterion

designed
Isthedevelopment business
to suittheneedsof prioritised asIdentified
sectors in theRES?
Question

Minimum: Nosetminimum
standard
Targets/
Benchmark OneSector
GoodPractice:

BestPractice: Morethanonesector.

Justification

454
Sustainability Toattractinwardinvestmenthm businesses
andorg.
anisations theImmediate
ftornoutside areato
4.3
Criterion Increase
economic wellbeing

Isthedevelopment toattractInward
designed Investment?
Question

Targets/
Benchmark
Minimum: Nosetminimum
standard Fý
0
Demonstrated demand
unmet
GoodPractice:

BestPractice: Identified
occupiers

Justification

Sustainability Tocreateadditional jobswithinthelocalarea.

permanent
4.4
Criterion

forthedevelopment
Whatisthepotential tocreateadditional jobseitherthrough
permanent new
Question orformaintenance
business ofthedevelopment?

Minimum:
Targets/
Benchmark
None
El
GoodPractice: Net%increasinjobsIn
e area

BestPractice:
injobsandlocalskillsbase
Increase

Justification

455
Sustainability Toprovide
spaceforallbusiness types,bothstartuporexpanding, to maintain
a diverse
andflexible
4.5
criterion business
sectorwithinthearea,andprovideforfacilities
forfuturegrowth.
I
Doesthedevelopment
include
a rangeof sizeofbusiness bothstartupand
toencourage
promises
Question business?
expanding
Minimum:
Targetst No
Benchmark
GoodPractice:
Yesprovided

BestPractice:

Justification

456
2.5. Sustainability Objective 5 development assessment
criteria.
Improved housingandbusinesses
mixbetween aswellastypesof housing.Theneedto
createa new housing
balance
-a ladder,
property enablingpeopleto stayInthearea.

Objective Toattracta diverse thatreflects

newcommunity demographic
thesurrounding tends

Question Hasa statementbeenprepared howthedevelopment

explaining totherequired
contributes mixof
3.8.(4) housingforthearea,intermsoftype,size,tenureandreflecting
theneedsofthecurrent
and
prospectivecommunitydemographics?
Targets/
Benchmark Oneissueaddressed
Minimum:

Twoissuesaddressed.
GoodPractice:

Allissuesaddressed
BestPractice:

Justification

457
2.6. Sustainability Objective 6 development assessment
criteria.
Improvebiodiversityin termsif habitatcreationandwatermanagement.

Sustainability Toreduce ofcleanwaterfornon-potable

theoverallconsumption uses..
6.1
Criterion

What%oftotaldwellings
incorporate
greywaterrecycling
systems?
Question

Targets/ Minimum: 1
Benchmark <25%
El
GoodPractice: 25-50%.

BestPractice: 1D
1 >50%

Justification

Sustainability Toreducetheriskofflooding
onproposed development areasof land.
sitesandadjacent
6.2
criterion
Isthedevelopmentdesignedto reduce it maymaketoflashflooding?
thecontribution

A: SUDSsystemIncorporating
swales,reedbeds,detention
pondsandinfiltration
basins
Question B:Useof permeable
surfacesIncarparks,amenity cycleroutes,bridleways
areas,pavements,
C:Useof Greenroofstoslowrun-off
D:PondsandWetlands
Targets/
Benchmark

Minimum:
I fromthelist
F-1
GoodPractice: 2 fromthelist

BestPractice: 3 or morefromthelist

Justification

458
Sustainability Toensure
watercontamination offsitedoesnotaffectoccupiers
occurring theuseofdesign
through
6.3
Criterion measures..

Arethereanysources Inorclosetothesite,andhowhavethesebeen
ofwatercontamination
Question mitigated?

Targets/
Benchmark
Minimum: Notaddressed
El
Study
carried
outandsomerecommendations
actedupon
GoodPractice:

BestPractice: Studycarried
outandnosources
ofcontamination
orall
recommendationsactedupon

Justification

Sustainability Todetermine valueofthehabitats

theecological Inandaround
thesiteInorderto maintain
and
6.4
criterion blodiversity
enhance andprotect
existing ha6itats.
natural

Hasanecological
surveybeencarded out,bya qualified to examine
ecologist, habitats
Inandaround
Question routesacrossthesite?
thesiteandmigration
5.1.1

Minimum: Nosetminimum
standard
Targets/
Benchmark harmavoidance
Survey
andmitigations/ strategy
GoodPractice:

BestPractice: As practice
good with for
strategy enhancements

Justification

459
Sustainability Toimprove theecological
andstrengthen habitats.
valueofthesiteandexisting
6.5
criterion

Willtherebeanincrease eitherbyareaorIncreased
inthevaluedhabitats value(asassessed
ecological
Question byanecologist)?

I
Targets/
Benchmark
Minimum: Nosetminimum
standard
F7
YesInonehabitat
GoodPractice:

BestPractice: YesInmorethanonehabital/no
valuedhabitats
Identified.

Justification

Sustainability Toimprove
theecological
valueofthesiteandprovide
additional features
ecological andhabitats.
6.6
criterion

Willanyappropriate features
newecological becreated
onthesite(localBAPsandHAPsshould
be
Question usedtoidentify features)
appropriate
5.2.(2)

Targets/
Minimum: Nosetminimum
standard
F-I
Benchmark One feature
GoodPractice: additional

BestPractice: Morethanoneadditional
features

Justification

460
2.7. Sustainability Objective 7: Development assessment
criteria.

Improved accessibility (traffic management and transport links)

Sustainability Tomanage theImpactoftrafficgenerated

bythedevelopment
upontheexisting
transport
Criterion
7.1 infrastructure
andthecommunity.

Hasa TrafficAssessment
beencarded
out,?
Question

Targetst
Benchmark Minimum: J Impacts
givenbenefits
acceptable of development

GoodPractice: Mitigation forimpacts

possible Intodesign
andplanned

BestPractice:
Minimal
Impacts
- littlemitigation
required

Justification

Sustainability Topromote
theuseofvirtualcommunications to transport
asanalternative wherepossible.
criterion7.2

Hasthe developerinstalledinfrastructure
In homesandcommercial / Industrialbuildingswhichwill
Question to transport?
allowthe useof virtualcommunicationsasan alternative
Targets/
Benchmark Minimum: Ductingin placeto allowself-installation
F-1
GoodPractice: FibreNetworkthroughout

BestPractice:
No BestPracticeidentified

Justification

461
Sustainability Toensure offrequent
theavailability linkstotrain,tramortube
publictransport
andconvenient
7.3
criterion

Whatisthefurthest
distance thatanoccupierwouldhavetotraveltoeithera majorfixedpublic
Question link(every10-15mins)tomajorfixedpublictransport
node(train,tube,tram)ora regular
transport
node?
Targets/
Benchmark Localauthority
policy
Minimum:

<1.5km.
GoodPractice:

< BOOM
BestPractice:

Justification

Objective theImpact
Toreduce ofheavygoodsvehicles onpublichighways.
loading

Question HasprovisionbeenmadeforoffroadHGV/delivery loading

vehicle spaceforretail,commercial
and
4.3.(3) industrial
units?

Targets/ Minimum:
Benchmark <60%ofunits
Fý
0
HGVservicing.
GoodPractice: Yesfor60- 80%of unitsrequiring

BestPractice: Yes,for 80%

> of cases

Justification

462
Objective Promote around
walking thesiteinorderto enhance Interaction
community
convenience, andreduce
forprivate
therequirement caruse..

Question Hasa network siteandtolocalfacilities

& bikeroutesaround beenprovided?
ofsafepedestrian
4.4.(1)

Targetst
Benchmark Minimum: Onsitenetwork
of safemutesprovided

Onsiteandsurrounding
pavement linked,andconnected
networks
GoodPractice. tolocalfacilities.

BestPractice: Goodpractice priorityareasI nopriorityareas

pluspedestrian
DrovIded

Justification

Objective Topromote carsforshorter

totheuseofprivate
cyclingasa realalternative journeys,
whilstreducing
thefearofcrime.

Question ofsafebikeroutestolocalfacilities
Istherea network nearto andoverlooked
by,roadsand
4.4.(2) pavements?

Targets/ Minimum: 1 Routes 11

Benchmark onroadside
provided
D
GoodPractice: Keyfacilities bycyclemutes
served

BestPractice: 0
withdirectlinkstoneighbouring
SiteWidenetwork routes

Justification

463
Objective Toensure speeds
vehicle toallmadusers.
areappropriate

Question throughthe
planInplacewhichencourages
Istherea trafficmanagement thesafepassage
ofvehicles
4.6.(1) development, NotethiscouldInclude (e.g. Road
designmeasures
speed?
atanappropriate passive
narrowing,surfacetreatments
etc)
Targets/ Minimum:
Benchmark Notrafficmanagement
plan
F7
GoodPractice:ýesign formajorroutes
strategies

BestPractice:
Design forentiresite
strategies

Justification

464
2.8. Sustainability Objective 8: Development assessment
criteria.

Ensuresafetywith regardto contamination

Task for consultant: Answer the following questions.

For selected criteria, Assess how the development performs against these criteria
Justify answer.

I- 11

Project Monitoring and evaluation Description of the monitoring system put

in place, objectives use of indicators,
,
periodicity , timing and what action to be
taken if problem is identified.
Hasthe projectidentifiedthe risksandthemitigation
measuresto be putin placeto reducethe human
healthandenvironment risksassociated withexposure
to hazardous substances?
Willthe projectincludeon goingremediation
performance verificationin termsof cost,efficiencyand
schedulein orderto reducecorresponding risks?
Willthe projectincludepostvalidationremediation
performance verification?? in termsof cost,efficiency
andscheduleto measurethe successof the
remediation process?
Willthe projectincludea riskmanagement framework
involvingidentificationplanninganda minimisation
plan?
Willthe projectconsiderthe key environmental
legislationrelatedto the industrialsites( IPPC,EIA),
treatmentof contaminated land,energyefficiency,
wasteminimisation andpollutioncontrol(EMAS)?
Hasthe projectuseddecisionsupporttoolsto assistin
environmental decisionmaking( characterisation
strateqv.remediation techniques etc)?

465
4. Future Actions, results of session 3 of workshop.
The results drawn from a facilitated discussion regarding the administratlonaland financial
aspects of the assessmentand monitoringwere carried out In a transparent manner and are
presented below. Discussions were held and all stakeholderswere given questionnairesto
answer the following answers. There was unanimity with responses provided which are
providedfollowing each question.

Question 1:
Pleaseselect preferredoption:
The developer should be responsiblefor the preparationof the monitoringreport as
well as the surveys and for obtaining and collating Informationfrom the LA.
2. The developer should put some money aside for the surveys and monitoring
frameworks,yet it Is the LA responsibilityto analysethe data and write the monitoring
reports ( this can also be undertakenby obtainingconsultanthelp)

All stakeholderspresent includingthe developer,agreedthat option 2 would be preferable.LA

pointedout that they would hire consultantsto undertakethe work.

Question 2:
Should the results of the assessmentof the developmentbased on these criteria be reported
in a sustainability assessment to be handed Into LA-for consideration with the EIA and
planningapplication.

All stakeholdersagreed and therefore results be presentedIn a Chapter of the EIS.

Question 3:
How public should the results of the assessment and monitoring surveys be made? Should
they be made available to the local community or shodld they be used purely to Inform LA,
regional and other relevant governmentbodies.

All stakeholdersstated that the results should be made availableto the local community also
as part of feedback to the communityconsultation undertaken so far. It was also agreed that it
was the LA obligation to publicise the information under the newly Introduced Freedom of
InformationAct.

466
Appendix 11: Evaluation questionnaire results
Phase 4 evaluation questionnaire results.
STDIEV
Questions (n 15)
Overall how useful did you find today's workshop? 7.2 1.1
To what extent do you feel the objectives of the workshop were
achieved? 7.2 1.0
How effective did you find the methods used In achieving the
objectives of today's workshop? 7.6 0.9
To what extent did you feel the participants represented
stakeholders In the XX? 7.4 1.2
To what extent did you feel the participants represented the different
issues under consideration? 7.3 1.5
Do you feel awareness of different perspectives about the project
was raised? 7.5 1.1
Do you feel this process supported communication between
participants? 7.5 1.3
Do you feel this process supported understanding between
participants? 7.2 1.1

Phaqp 6 evaluation auestionnalre results.

STDEV
Questions averaqe (05)
How useful did you find today's workshop? 7.0 1.2
To what extent do you feel the objectives of the workshop were
achieved? 7.3 0.8
How effective did you find the methods used In achieving the
objectives of today's workshop? 6.5 1.1
How informative did you find the meeting with regard to XX
sustainabili ? 7.1 1.0
How informative did you find the meeting with regard to sustainability
monitoring? 7.4 1.3
Do you feel awareness of different perspectives about the project
was raised? 8.1 0.9
Do you feel this process supported communication between
participants? 8.8 0.7
Do you feel this process supported understanding between
participants? 8.2

467
Appendix 12: Metaevaluation interview questions.
Pleasenote that were appropriatefurther probing questionswere used.

Q. Whatis your role with regardto theXX development?

Q. Werethereanyparticularbenefitsfrom carryingout theRAF process?
Personallyfor you?
For thedevelopment?
Q. Werethereanyproblemsassociated with carryingout theRAF process?
Personallyfor you?
For thedevelopment?
Q. Whatdid you think of the SustainabilityAssessment criteria?
(like/ dislike/recommendations for improvement)
Q.Whatdid you think of themonitoringindicators?
(like/ dislike/recommendations for improvement)
Q. Do you feel the evaluationstrategydevelopedallowsfor a contextspecific
assessment of the development?
(Yes/ No/ recommendations)
Q. Do you feel theextentandmethodsof communityconsultationwhereappropriate?
(Yes/ No/ recommendations)
Q. Do you feel thisprocessis sufficientlystructuredandintegratedwithin the existing
planningprocesses?
(Yes/ No/ recommendations)
Q. Do you feel thetime spenton carryingout this processwasreasonable? (should
thisprocessbewidely adopted? )
(Yes/ No/ recommendations)
Q. Do you feelthetiming of theprocesswasappropriate?
(Yes/ No/ recommendations)
Q. Do you think this is a processwhich shouldbe appliedto all majorplanning
applications?
(Yes/ No/ recommendations)
Q. Whatdo you think needsto be donefor theRAF to bewidely used?

468
Appendix 13: Publications produced as a results of
this research.
1. Pediaditi,K, Wehrmeyer,W., ChenowethJ.,2006,DevelopingSustainability
SustainabiNly,
Projects,Engineering
Indicatorsfor Brownfield Redevelopment Vol
159,March,pp3-10
2. Pediaditi, K, Wehrmeyer, W., Chenoweth,j., 2005, Monitoring the Sustainability

of Brownfield Redevelopment
Projects.
The Assessment
Redevelopment
Land & Reclamation,
Framework(RAF), Contaminated Vol 13 (2), pg 173-183.
3. Pediadid,K, Wehrmeyer,W., Burningham,K, 2006,Evaluadngbrownfield
redevelopmentprojects:a reviewof existingsustainabilityindicator tools and
they adoptionby the UK developmentindustry.In BrebbiaC. A. & Mander,U.,
III, Prevenfion,
Brownfields Assessment, andDevelopment
RebabiNtadon ofBrvwnfield
Sites,
WIT Press,pg 51-62.
4. Pediaditi,K., & Wcbrmeycr,W., 2006,Assessingthe sustainabilityof redeveloped
in
sites practice: The RAF process,CIAI. AE, SUBRIM Overroming The barriento
BrownfieldRegeneradon,
March 29h2OO6,Imperial CollegeLondon.
,
5. Wehrmeyer,W., Pediadid,K, Buftonj &Lawson, N., (2004),Contamination

and the public-thetheory vs. SCTIRSC

experience, Conference.
Contaminated
Land-

andas
aebievements 12-15
pirations, September 2004,Loughborough,UK, EPP
PubficationsLtd.
6. Henneberry,j., Wehrmeyer,W., Meadowcrofýj., Catney,P., Pediadid,K., 2005,
Monitoring andpolicy makingfor Urban Brownfield
InterlockingProcesses?
SUBRUf, 1st March London).
Regeneration,(CLAIAE, Ist PubAcConference

7. Pediadid,K, Wehrmeycr,W., 2005,Brownfieldredevelopment,integrating

Proceedingý
sustainabilityand risk management., Risk
qfEndronmentalHealtb 2005
Conference,
OT Press,14-16tbSe Italy.
pember,Bologna,

8. Pediaditi,K, Wehrmeyer,W, Chenoweth,J., 2005,SustainabilityIndicators for

Urban
Sustainable
Brownfield RedevelopmentProjects,Proceedings
of Entironments

-EPSRCConference,
University of Birmingham28th of February.
.,
9. Pediaditi,K., Wehrmeyer,W. and Chenowethj. (2005)"Sustainability
implementationand monitoring throughland useplanning7a closerlook at
brownfield regeneration",CESWorking Paper01/05, Guildford, UK.

10. Pecliaditi,K., Wehrmeyer,W. and Chenoweth,J. (2005)"Risk, its role in

469
brownfield redevelopmentprojectdecisionmakingand conceptual

commonalitiesto sustainabilio/,CESWorking Paper02/05, Guildford, UK

470