Embedding green infrastructure evaluation in neighbourhood masterplans – does BREEAM communities change anything?

Figures & data

Figure 1. Green Infrastructure references in the BREEAM Communities technical manual.

Figure 2. Masterplans as Strategy as Practice with numbered praxes (the enactment of practice by practitioners) and arrows indicating praxis influence (or lack of influence) on other practices.

Table 2. Dominant actors and drivers for GI evaluation and decision-making (*BC applied).

Site	GI episode	Decision-making stage	External drivers	Dominant actor	Agency	Negotiation of GI	Reflexive response
Estate 1*	1. Inclusive view of park	Outline - detailed plan	Rules, norms and mimetic practice	Developer (Local authority – LA)	Practical evaluative	Deprioritised	Compromised
	2. Neighbours street view	Outline plan Detailed plan	Rules, norms, and mimetic practice Rules, norms	Design team Design team	Iterative and practical evaluative Iterative and projective	Deprioritised Prioritised	Compromised Embedded
	3. Overshadowing of gardens and public space	Outline - detailed plan Detailed plan	Rules, norms and mimetic practice Rules	Developer National regulator	Iterative and practical Iterative and projective	Deprioritised Prioritised	Compromised Embedded
Estate 2	4. Courtyard block trees	Outline - Post-construction	Rules, norms and mimetic practice	Design team Developer (LA)	Iterative and practical	Deprioritised	Compromised
	5. Trees and allotment external to block	Detailed plan Construction	Norms and mimetic practice Mimetic practice	Design team Developer	Iterative and projective Practical evaluative	Prioritised Deprioritised	Embedded Compromised
Infill 1*	6. Soft SuDS	Outline - detailed plan Construction	Norms and mimetic practice Mimetic practice	Design team Developer	Projective Practical evaluative	Prioritised Deprioritised	Embedded Compromised
	7. Street trees	Outline - construction	Rules, norms and mimetic practices	Developer	Iterative and practical	Deprioritised	Compromised
Infill 2	8. Link to local park (and SINC)	Outline plan Detailed – construction	Rules and norms Mimetic practice	Design team Developer	Iterative and projective Iterative and practical	Prioritised Deprioritised	Embedded Compromised
	9. Green roof	Outline - detailed plan Construction	Norms Mimetic practice	Design Team Developer	Projective Iterative and practical	Prioritised Deprioritised	Embedded Uncertain
RUE 1*	10. Link to ancient woodland (and SINC)	Outline – construction	Rules, norms, mimetic practice	Developer	Iterative and Practical	Deprioritised	Compromised
	11. Soft SuDS	Outline – detailed plan Detailed plan	Rules, norms Mimetic practice	Local authority Developer (phase2)	Projective Iterative and practical	Prioritised Deprioritised	Embedded Compromised
RUE 2	12. Street trees	Outline plan Detailed plan	Norms Mimetic practice	Design team Developer (private)	Projective Iterative and practical	Prioritised Deprioritised	Embedded Compromised
	13. Amphibian wildlife corridor	Outline - detailed plan Construction	Rules, norms, mimetic practice Norms, mimetic practice	Developer (private) Developer (LA)	Iterative and practical Practical and projective	Deprioritised Deprioritised	Compromised Uncertain

Note: Green: Progressive episodes; Blue: Static episodes; Yellow: Regressive episodes.

Table 3. Barriers and recommendations to embed GI in neighbourhood masterplans.

Barriers to embedded evaluation	Policy and practice recommendations
Differing understanding: GI is not an established evaluative concept, in relation to key principles of long term multi-functionality, multi-scalar connectivity, and inclusive GI provision.	Clarifying GI evaluative intentions: the broad intentions, principles and potential measures for GI evaluation need to be better defined for practitioners and formally integrated into BC.
Anthropocentric intentions: the agency of GI is often missing in formal masterplan evaluations e.g. energy, overshadowing, microclimate, noise, and transport surveys do not consider the impact to and/or by GI.	Recognising GI agency: further research is required to improve formal GI evaluative praxis, to better account for impacts to and by GI in different aspects of masterplan evaluation (energy, overshadowing, microclimate, noise, flood, transport etc).
Weak responsibility: there is a lack of commitment to track evaluative recommendations about GI, especially during construction and in-use masterplan stages.	Assigning responsibility: masterplans should include a GI strategy that specifies how, when, by who and with what resources, evaluative recommendations will be enacted, monitored and responded to.
Exclusion: the weak conceptualisation of ‘inclusive’ GI means that the distributive impact of proposals and knowledge of local actors are not considered in formal evaluative praxis.	Inclusive GI evaluation: the distributional impacts of decisions relating to GI should be evaluated, including a more deliberative process engaging local actors in formal evaluation (e.g. ecology, landscape, tree, over-shadowing surveys) and encouraged in BC.

Figure 3. Constraining and enabling drivers that shape evaluative embeddedness.

Figure 4. Matrix analysis of episode 8: evaluation of GI links between Infill 2 and the local park.

Figure 5. Episode 8, Infill 2: Proposal to drop southern boundary wall, before (bottom) and after (top), (source: Design and Access Statement, 2013).

Figure 6. Episode 8, Infill 2: Early planting along boundary without reference to original ecologically connected planting scheme. (Photo: R. Callway)

Table 1. Case study site data* BREEAM Communities applied on site masterplan.

	Estate 1*	Estate 2	Infill 1*	Infill 2	RUE 1*	RUE 2
Masterplan type	Estate regeneration	Estate regeneration	Urban infill development*	Urban infill development	Rural urban extension	Rural urban extension
Location	A central London estate built 1960–1970s overlooking a large park	An outer London estate built 1950s–1960s, overlooking an allotment and park	North East England, an industrial area connecting the city station to town centre	Inner London, an old hospital site overlooking a woodland park	South West England, on an old golf course	South West England, on an old military barracks
Area	28 hectares	25 hectares	12.1 hectares	1.85 hectares	47 hectares	73 hectares
Dwellings	3,575 units	2,517 units	800 Units	257 units	1,400 units	4,000 units
Density	125 dwellings per hectare	101 dwellings per hectare	66 dwellings per hectare	138 dwellings per hectare	30 dwellings per hectare	55 dwellings per hectare
Affordable units	50%	50%	25%	35%	30%	35%
Client (current landowner)	Local authority (Developer at completion)	Local authority (Developer and housing association at completion)	Local authority and private owners (Developer at completion)	Regional authority (Developer and housing association at completion)	Local authority	HCA / developer
Masterplan timeframe	2010–2032	2011–2027	2011–2032	2012–2020	2011–2035	2012–2037

Note: *Each site is anonymised to protect the confidentiality of the interviewees.