08635 Making the Case for Gi Final Pages

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/338834617
Making the Case for Green Infrastructure: Lessons from Best Practice
Technical Report · December 2019

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27410.81607
CITATIONS READS
0 1,641
10 authors, including:
Sarah Payne Anna Gilchrist

The University of Sheffield The University of Manchester
26 PUBLICATIONS 211 CITATIONS 11 PUBLICATIONS 199 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Ioanna Tantanasi Gareth D. Clay

The University of Manchester The University of Manchester
4 PUBLICATIONS 16 CITATIONS 69 PUBLICATIONS 1,104 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Sarah Payne on 27 January 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Making the Case for Green
Infrastructure: Lessons from
Best Practice
FEBRUARY 2020
Project partners:
2
UK Green Building Council | Making the Case for Green Infrastructure: Lessons from Best Practice
Contents
Introduction4
Case study 1: City of Trees 6
Case Study 2: Wild West End 10
Case Study 3: Victory Oak 14
Case Study 4: Kingsbrook 18
Case Study 5: Marks & Spencer Newcastle 22
Green Infrastructure Decision Making Route Map 24
Insights26
References27
3
Introduction
Green Infrastructure (GI) can make a This report explores five Green Infrastructure
number of positive contributions to the case studies;
urban environment. These can include • City of Trees
environmental performance improvements • Wild West End
such as enhanced climate change adaptation • Victory Oak
and resilience, to the delivery of socio- • Kingsbrook
economic benefits such as improved societal • Marks & Spencer Newcastle
well-being and economic return. Integrating
GI within the development process is a This report was funded as part the Natural
challenging prospect. As well as the need Environment Research Council (NERC)
to integrate GI within other development ‘Green Growth Project’ (NE/N01748/1). It
needs, it requires, amongst other things, was prepared by the UK Green Building
working with a wide array of stakeholder Council (UKGBC) along with the University of
interests, complex regulatory procedures Manchester and the University of Sheffield.
and the ability to work within the constraints The report compliments other outputs
presented by location. produced as part of the project. These
include:
This report aims to provide built
environment professionals with case study • Practical How-to Guide: Developing and
insights into the nature of GI decision Implementing a Green Infrastructure
making. Insights are shared from the project Strategy
teams and stakeholders involved. These
cover the GI benefits attained, the decision • Understanding Green Infrastructure at
making process followed and the barriers, Different Scales
solutions and lessons learned.
4
This report also features a ‘Green KEY
Infrastructure Decision Making
Route Map’. This provides a synthesis of
Scale
the current GI best practice which applies
to different decision making stages in the
development life cycle. Mi Micro: an individual or average sized site or
development and its immediate surroundings.
This was created based on interview centred
research conducted for the NERC ‘Green
Growth Project’ and follows the key steps set
out in the Practical How-to-Guide.
Me Meso: typically spans multiple micro locations.
Spatially, this may be a neighbourhood or settlement.
We hope this report acts as a resource which

Macro: is the regional level and typically spans
informs how projects are approached and
enables the creation of more and better
Ma multiple meso locations. Spatially, this may include a
quality green and blue space for wildlife, city, region, or combined authority area.
people and business.
Project types
City
Residential
Retail
5
Case study 1: City of Trees
Location: Completion Date:
Ma Manchester Ongoing
Key actors: More information:

• Bury City Council (strategic partner) • About City of Trees
• City of Trees (delivery initiative) • Cleavleys Wet Woodland
• Environment Agency (advisor) • A Wet Woodland Case Study – Catchment
Based Approach
• Greater Manchester Combined Authority
(strategic partner) • Pioneering street tree research project
could hold answer to urban flooding
• Heritage Trees (strategic partner)
• New street trees unveiled along A56 as
• Natural Course (funder)
part of regeneration scheme
• United Utilities (strategic partner)
• Urban Vision (contractor)
• Rivers Trust (strategic partner)
• Salford City Council (strategic partner)
• The University of Manchester (strategic
partner)
6
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
City of Trees is an initiative aiming to introduce GI solutions into Greater Manchester. It does
this by creating and diverting water courses, managing existing woodland, and tree planting.
The initiative seeks to create new ecosystem services and better connect people with nature.
Project objectives include:
• Plant 3 million trees, one for every person in Greater Manchester

(450,000 trees planted to date)
• Bring 2,000 hectares of unmanaged woodland back into community use

(260 hectares managed to date)
• Better connect people to trees and woodland (over 12,500 people connected to date)
This case study is split across two City of Trees projects; Cleavleys Wet Woodland and
Prestwich High Street.
CLEAVLEYS WET WOODLAND, SALFORD
City of Trees and partners created a wet

woodland by a tributary of Worsley Brook
in Salford. The aims of the scheme were to
improve water quality, reduce water volumes,
enhance biodiversity and enrich recreational
space for local people.
The site is located within a former council

tree nursery, known as Cleavleys Nursery. The
Environment Agency conducted monitoring
of the tributary in early 2014 and found it was
contaminated with ammonia. The discharge
from the tributary had been contributing to
water quality failures within Worsley Brook
under the Water Framework Directive. The
finished scheme allows for mixed leisure use whilst also acting to attenuate highway runoff and
capture contaminants before they enter Worsley Brook downstream.
The woodlands and wetlands have an abundance of lichens, mosses, sedges, rushes and ferns,
creating habitats for large numbers of invertebrates, amphibians, mammals and birds. The
dead wood provides a specialised habitat not found in dry woodland types which supports
craneflies and other insects. These insects, in turn, make ideal food for bats and other priority
species like the willow tit.1
The scheme has served to reconnect local people to nature, through volunteering and
enjoyment of the woodlands.
7
PRESTWICH HIGH STREET, BURY AND HOWARD STREET, SALFORD
Street trees planted across Greater Manchester have used specially designed tree pits to
channel rainwater; irrigating the trees, providing water filtration and draining excess water
to reduce the need to pump and treat surface flooding. London Plane trees were planted
in Howard Street, Salford, using an innovative modular system called Silva Cell; a 3-layer
system filled with bioretention soil provided by British Sugar. The Soil Cell system uses crates
installed under the pavement which are high load bearing structures that can accommodate
uncompacted soil, allowing water and oxygen to the tree roots. At Prestwich High Street in
Bury, the planting was part of a planned road regeneration scheme.2
GI BENEFITS:
Wet woodlands:
• Provides mixed leisure area for local people
• Attenuation of highway runoff
• Contaminant capture and filtration through aquatic plants
• Urban flood prevention through use of bunds routing water to original channels
• Air quality improvement
• Urban cooling
• Habitat creation for priority species
Street trees:
• Access to clean water and efficient

processing of waste water
• Reduction in surface water flood risk

(average delay of storm water peak flow 68
minutes)3
• Air quality improvement, reducing air

pollution by filtration (NO2 reduced by 9%,
PM10 reduced by +21%)4
• Urban cooling5
• Improvement in aesthetic appeal of the

high street
• 15% increase in revenue for businesses6
8
DECISION MAKING PROCESS:
“Including GI solutions on an
• In the Cleavleys project, a design process based on natural principles was adopted. existing capital project was a
By diverting the straight or modified water courses into meandering, or holding really good opportunity to take
areas, the deposition of chemical components could slow down and allow aquatic advantage of the economies
plants to colonise and further help to remove pollutants. This would have been of scale. Providing the
difficult to achieve if a straight water course had been designed. complementary works avoided
any retrofit costs, saving time
• The design at Cleavleys was based on audit results, iterative flow path analysis and and money and avoided further
flood risk assessment. Material excavated from the existing channel embankment disruption and inconvenience.
was used to create a bund, ensuring that water re-entered the original channel My advice would be to get in
and did not extend beyond the proposed wet woodland area. The river system early when local authorities
now meets “Good” waterbody status as outlined under the area-wide River Basin can integrate SuDS schemes
Management Plan and Water Framework Directive objectives. into existing projects and can
fund-match other sponsors. It
• In the Prestwich High Street and Howard Street projects, it was decided that can be more difficult to make the
although investment in the Soil Cell system would prove more expensive in the short business case with smaller retrofit
term, it would give longer term payback in ecosystem services returns. projects.”
Pete Stringer, Special Projects
Manager at City of Trees
BARRIERS, SOLUTIONS AND LESSONS LEARNT:
• Implementing GI projects in isolation from existing development can be expensive

and disruptive. The Prestwich High Street project in Bury sought to integrate GI
interventions with development activities already being undertaken as part of a
major regeneration scheme. To achieve this, the project partners, including United
Utilities, Environment Agency and Salford City Council, provided match funding to
enable value to be added to wider capital project activities.
• It can often be difficult to negotiate for development solutions which recognise GI

as an integral component of future development proposals. However, the rising
profile of the climate crisis along with the commitments enshrined in the 25 Year
Environment Plan and the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework, have provided
opportunities to explore GI-led investment.
Contributor:
Pete Stringer
Special Projects Manager, City of Trees
References
1 Catchment Based Approach (2019). Wet Woodland 4 Greater Manchester Combined Authority (2016).
Creation – Case Study. [online] Available at: 2016 Air Quality Annual Status Report (ASR) for
https://catchmentbasedapproach.org/learn/ Greater Manchester. [online] Available at: file:///C:/
wet-woodland-creation-case-study/ [Accessed: Users/user/Downloads/GMASR_2016%20(1).pdf
25/10/19]. [Accessed: 25/10/19].
2 Manchester City of Trees (2016). Pioneering 5 Armson, D. (2012). The Effect of Trees and Grass
street tree research project could hold answer to on the Thermal and Hydrological Performance
urban flooding. [online] Available at: https://www. of an Urban Area. [online] Available at: https://
cityoftrees.org.uk/news/pioneering-street-tree- www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/en/theses/
research-project-could-hold-answer-urban-flooding the-effect-of-trees-and-grass-on-the-thermal-
[Accessed: 25/10/19]. and-hydrological-performance-of-an-urban-
area(c203be98-7c4e-4445-83cb-32d8d98796bc).
3 Stringer, P. (2018). GI – A Focused and Evidence html [Accessed: 25/10/19].
Based Approach for Delivery. [online] Available at:
http://www.cityoftrees.org.uk/sites/default/files/ 6 Manchester City of Trees (2018). New street
Pete%20Stringer%20-%20City%20of%20Trees_0. trees unveiled along A56 as part of regeneration
pdf [Accessed: 25/10/19]. Scheme. [online] Available at: https://www.
cityoftrees.org.uk/news/new-street-trees-unveiled-
along-a56-part-regeneration-scheme [Accessed:
25/10/19].
9
Case Study 2: Wild West End
Me London, UK Ongoing
Developers: More information:

• Great Portland Estates
• Wild West End Website
• Grosvenor
• The Crown Estate
• The Howard de Walden Estate
• Shaftesbury
• The Portman Estate
Key actors:
• Arup (technical partner)
• Greater London Authority (strategic
partner)
• London Wildlife Trust (strategic partner)
• Westminster City Council (advisor)
10
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The West End’s largest property owners are currently

working together to improve GI within this iconic area
of London. The partnership is adopting a long-term
shared vision which aims to:
• Enhance biodiversity (particularly bees, bats and

birds) and ecological connectivity
• Improve the wellbeing of residents, workers and

visitors by increasing connections to green space
and nature, and contributing to improvements in
local air quality
• Raise awareness and promote the benefits of

green infrastructure to inspire others to participate
and create similar initiatives
A key component of the scheme is the creation of

green ‘stepping stones’ between the existing areas of
surrounding parkland. This is being achieved through
the combined provision of green roofs, green walls,
planters, street trees, flower boxes and pop-up
spaces. As a priority, the partnership is looking to re-
attract species once common in London such as the
Black Redstart and the House Sparrow.
The project is being supported by a programme of monitoring, target setting, specification

guidance, engagement events and sharing of good practice. The project has the opportunity
to demonstrate the positive impact of urban green infrastructure whilst also offering vital
research insights into the contribution that GI can make in urban areas.
GI BENEFITS:
In addition to increasing the total area of green space, Wild West End seeks to increase
the multi-functional value of each of the green spaces across the partnership. As part of the
project, newly created green spaces must target, as a minimum, at least two of the following:
• Increased biodiversity through habitat provision and ecological connectivity
• Climate resilience through rain water management, sustainable energy or carbon

sequestration
• Enhanced microclimatic conditions through localised air quality improvements and

improved temperature regulation
• Improved wellbeing through the provision of sensory and active green space
• Better social cohesion through increased opportunities for social engagement and
interaction
11
• Establishing the vision for the partnership was an important first step in the decision-making
process, enabling the partners to work together towards the same goals.
• Regular communication between the partners enabled the sharing of good practice,
collaboration on projects and strategic thinking. Engagement with the wider public, through
the partnership’s social media, website and events, aimed to inspire and encourage others
to create similar initiatives.
• At the early stages of the partnership, Wild West End identified the opportunity to
collaborate with London Wildlife Trust, who as a strategic partner seek to raise awareness of
the city’s wildlife, help create a vibrant living landscape, and support the initiative’s partners
in becoming ambassadors for wildlife.
• Wild West End also identified the opportunity to collaborate with the Greater London
Authority in order to demonstrate how the Mayor’s policy framework can be translated
into innovative ways to further green the city. The technical partner, Arup, supported the
development of a framework which defined the processes for partnership working and set
clear targets for Wild West End. Arup continues to provide expertise not just on ecology but
also on landscape architecture, digital communications and wellbeing evaluation.
• Arup developed a Functional Value Matrix for Wild West End to assist in the delivery of GI
which is multifunctional with considerations for climate resilience, wellbeing and social value.
The matrix provides a way to value green space and monitor progress against the targets
set.
• To measure the changes in species distributions and green space value against the targets
over time, the Wild West End partners committed to engage in active monitoring of the
green spaces within their combined portfolios.
• The process has been iterative, particularly to get businesses to uptake GI implementation
as part of the process.
12
“84% of people live in

• Some of the Wild West End project teams have had concerns that cities. We are in the midst
fire regulations unnecessarily impact the ability to implement GI of an ecological and
when retrofitting heritage buildings. The lesson here has been to climate crisis. Now more
bring multiple stakeholders along the journey in order to deliver than ever it is fundamental
GI. By looking at what other stakeholders are doing, they have to make space for nature.
been able to push each other to achieve more. One of our challenges
has been that although
• It is not always possible to deliver GI onsite due to space greening projects exist
limitations but this can be overcome by implementing across London, a project
enhancements in other nearby locations as an offset. This can, in of this scale is still unusual.
some scenarios, offer greater benefits for nature. With London now a
National Park City we need
• GI is viewed by some people as a “nice to have” but something to break free of creating pockets of green space,
which increases costs without creating value for built assets. The and innovate to deliver transformational purposeful
project has shown that whilst the value derived may not always greening at scale across this city. The Wild West
take the form of direct monetary benefits, value accrued can End is a blueprint for how development and the real
include a range of social, environmental and health benefits. estate sector can make space for nature and people
and make our cities greener, healthier and wilder for
• Consideration for the long term integrity of green space is current and future generations.”
needed. When it is first installed it can be of high quality, but it is Emily Hamilton, Senior Sustainability Manager
important to ensure consistency across the whole life span of the at Grosvenor
asset and assess how this will be paid for. Ideally, there should be
a habitat management plan in place, which is regularly reviewed
every five years. The contractors should be encouraged to carry
“As Technical Partner to
out maintenance, particularly during the first years as this is when
Wild West End, ensuring
GI is most likely to fail. This is most effective when built in to the
that the partners did not
contract at the outset.
work in isolation posed
a key challenge at the
• Limitations of space can lead to trade offs with other sustainability
onset of the project.
initiatives. For instance, should a roof be a green roof, photo
To overcome this, a
voltaic (PV) or both? One method employed by the Wild West
framework for regular
End has been to create a green roof with raised PV as a means of
sharing of lessons learned
combining two approaches.
between partners was
established, helping them
• Working in partnership provides the opportunity for more
to tackle issues such as
successful outcomes. For Wild West End it created a broader base
establishing good practice
for engagement and generated cumulative benefits. It also created
in design specification, balancing competing space
a network to share lessons learnt and to build from experience.
demands, and resourcing for planned maintenance
and monitoring. Progress on net gain and functional
Contributors: value is tracked at quarterly meetings, facilitating
discussion on strategic opportunities, collaborative
Emily Hamilton projects and overcoming challenges.”
Senior Sustainability Manager, Grosvenor Emily Woodason, Associate Landscape Architect
at Arup
Emily Woodason
Associate Landscape Architect, Arup
Matt Smith
Interim Head of Sustainability – Real Estate, The Crown Estate
13
Case Study 3: Victory Oak

Me Dorset, UK 2021
Developer More information:

• Sovereign Housing Association • Dorset Local Nature Partnership case
study
Key actors: • Victory Oak Website
• Alaska (translocation specialists)
• Dorset Wildlife Trust (strategic partner)
• Drew Smith (contractor),
• East Dorset District Council (local authority
partner)
• Forestry Commission (strategic partner)
• Highways England (strategic partner)
• Homes England (land owner)
• Johns Associates (ecologists)
• Kendal Kingscott (architects)
• Natural England (advisor)
• Spectrum Premier Homes (client)
• Tetlow King (planners)
14
Victory Oak housing estate has been

developed on the site of St Leonard’s, a
former American military hospital, to create
210 new properties. The project has led
to the restoration and enhancement of
an existing 18-hectare nature reserve and
the provision of ongoing management
support. The site is particularly notable for
the sensitivity of a number of key ecological
features. These include acid grassland/
heathland communities, a population of sand
lizards and other reptiles, rare plants (such as
green winged orchids, autumn ladies’ tresses
and mossy stonecrop).7
The project is notable for the use of a

partnership approach between public,
private and third- sector organisations to
deliver green infrastructure benefits through
residential housing. Key stakeholders
involved in the process included the
developer, the local wildlife trust, the
local authority, statutory consultees, and
environmental consultancies. The project
has recently won a Highly Commended
Certificate from the Royal Town Planning
Institute (RTPI) for ‘excellence in spatial
planning’. This was in recognition of
outstanding collaboration.8
GI BENEFITS:
• Habitat restoration and enhancement
• Resident enjoyment
• Health and wellbeing improvements
• Specific provisions for valued bird and

insect populations
• Improved aesthetic appeal and increased

market value
15
• To ensure a consistent decision-making approach, a Landscape and Ecology Management

Plan (LEMP) steering group was formed. This met regularly to ensure the continued
involvement of all stakeholders and alignment with project objectives.
• A significant development issue was that habitat areas had become established in between
the former hospital buildings and any change to the existing footprint could potentially
have an impact. In order to comply with Local Plan provisions, mitigation measures were
established to protect existing habitats.
• The heathlands were known to be visited by night jars from the nearby Dorset Heathland
Special Protection Area. As there was evidence that recreational access would increase
species risk, a Supplementary Planning Document required suitable habitats to be provided
off-site and the attractiveness of the green-belt to be maintained.
• Many of the developer’s key decisions were driven by advice from Natural England. This
enabled them to make informed judgments on options for habitat alteration and species
introduction. Further specialist ecological expertise was provided by Johns Associates
(particularly on the balance between the built and natural environment) and Alaska. The
latter proved essential in advising on maintenance of soil conditions as part of grassland
translocation.
16
“My advice
• Joint decision making enabled aspects of the process to be streamlined. To to those
avoid the need for a separate felling license, tree and scrub clearance was undertaking
authorised through the planning process. This lead to efficiency gains and cost GI projects
savings. is not to
underestimate
• Although, the LEMP steering group was resource intensive, it enabled the the
developer to receive ongoing support. This in turn promoted flexibility and complexities
enabled them to resolve problems as they arose. and restrictions
of ecological
• Management of the reserve hadn’t previously included a maintenance regime. cycles on the project timescale.
Any agreed measures would therefore need to account for management Interactions with bat nesting seasons
post-construction. The solution was to secure a management arrangement. or transposing acid grassland for
Funding has been secured for the next 50 years and Dorset Wildlife Trust has example will mean adjustments
taken ownership of the reserve. The project was able to protect 2ha of sensitive and extensions to phases and
grassland through translocation. To ensure that soil conditions were maintained, budgets, and these changes to the
early planning and expert involvement proved fundamental. programme need to be understood
and communicated. Larger developers
• Partnership working with a cross-section of stakeholder interests revealed ways may need to reconsider their forecast
in which environmental improvements could lead to increased market value sales programme. It’s better to get the
and enhanced community benefits. This resulted in property types which have timespan right from the ecologist and
features uncharacteristic of new build developments. The homes at Victory Oak recognise you can’t short-cut it”.
not only have large gardens but are located in easily accessible and high quality Mary Miller, Commercial
natural surroundings. Development Manager at Sovereign
Housing Association
• The project enhanced an understanding of how existing GI could be improved.
By felling the non-native trees in existence on the site, the original heathland
could be restored. Horses and cattle were also deliberately introduced to keep
the scrub down through natural grazing. This in turn helps reduce maintenance “My advice
costs. Sovereign Housing Association and Natural England split the cost of the to developers
animals 50/50 in recognition of the joint benefits. undertaking
GI projects
• A flexible design approach was key to the site. Street lighting in new housing is to involve
developments can often impact bat flight paths. Lighting at Victory Oak was stakeholders
deliberately positioned away from flight paths and the roosts were positioned right from the
within the flight paths to minimise the negative impact on the bat population. beginning.
We had over
20 years
Contributors:
of interaction prior to planning
Mary Miller permission going ahead. I would also
Commercial Development Manager, Sovereign Housing Association recommend establishing a focus group
to look at ongoing management and
Annette Cattle
help advise on set up”
Project Manager, Land, New Business & Delivery, Sovereign Housing Association
Imogen Davenport, Director
Imogen Davenport of Conservation at Dorset
Director of Conservation, Dorset Wildlife Trust Wildlife Trust
References
7 Dorset Wildlife Trust (2018). Case Study: Dorset’s Natural Influence at its best. [online] Available at:
https://dorsetlnp.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Case-Study-St-Leonards1.pdf [Accessed:
25/10/19].
8 Dorset Council (2017). Victory Oak development is Highly Commended. [online] Available
at: https://news.dorsetforyou.gov.uk/2017/06/08/victory-oak-development-highly-
commended/#targetText=Sovereign’s%20Victory%20Oak%20development%20in,Excellence%20
in%20Spatial%20Planning%20category.&targetText=’’Victory%20Oak%20is%20a%20great,to%20
take%20from%20this%20project. [Accessed: 25/10/19].
17
Case Study 4: Kingsbrook

Me Buckinghamshire, UK 2026 - 2031
Developer:
• Barratt Development
Key actors:
• Aylesbury Vale District Council
(strategic partner)
• RSPB (strategic partner)
More information:
• Barratt Developments Website
• RSPB Website
18
Kingsbrook is a new community development of 2,450 homes to the east of Aylesbury.

The project is being let by Barratt Developments along with the RSPB and Aylesbury Vale
District Council. It seeks to set a new standard for wildlife friendly housing on a large-scale
conventional development site. As the project seeks to secure both nature-based and
community benefits, a key part of the process has been to engage with the local community
to identify the benefits that they can receive from GI interventions. Central to the ambition of
the project is an attempt to use a GI approach which can be replicated in other development
scenarios.
At Kingsbrook, 60% of land excluding gardens will be established as greenspace for the benefit
of both people and wildlife. This will include ponds, parks, meadows, orchards, allotments and
a 100ha nature reserve. In order to help species move around the site, habitat corridors are
being created using hedges, wildflower strips and gaps under fences. Sustainable Drainage
Systems (SuDS) are also being established to manage rainwater on the site and to provide
refuge areas for wildlife. Approaches include the use of rills, swales and ponds. New habitats
will also be created making use of swift and sparrow boxes, a barn owl box, bat boxes, a
loggery (for the collection of logs), dragonfly perches, wildlife tunnels, bat hop-over points and
a wildlife friendly garden in each show home.
19
GI BENEFITS:
• Health and wellbeing uplift for residents and the wider community
• Habitat provision for wildlife
• Improved development aesthetics
• Reduced flood risk through the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)
• Barratt sought expert advice from the RSPB and Aylesbury Vale District Council to inform
their decision making process and approach.
• Baseline habitat surveys were undertaken using standard ecological survey techniques to
understand the existing ecology on and surrounding the site.
• The ecological survey findings were then used to aid the selection of GI types and species
composition.
• A variety of GI interventions were used with a view to raising development standards, driving
inspiration and demonstrating what can be achieved. Importantly, the GI approach adopted
recognised both local and national needs.
20
“Kingsbrook is
working hard
to raise the bar
• The Kingsbrook development initially struggled to obtain development
for what can
consent from Aylesbury Vale District Council. Ecologists from the council
be achieved on
however, suggested that if Barratt were to partner with the RSPB to create
a large-scale
a development which was mindful of wildlife, they would potentially look
development,
more favourably towards any revised planning application. The three
for the benefit
parties discussed how this might work before Barratt put forward a new
of wildlife but
planning application. Through this early collaboration and joint vision,
also how new
Barratt were able to successfully navigate the planning process.
communities are
inspired and engaged to play their part and
• The partners found that mutual respect was essential for the successful
reap the rewards. Much of the challenge in
delivery of each other’s objectives. For instance, whilst the RSPB needed
delivering a wildlife-rich built environment
to respect that profitability is a strong motivating factor for Barratt, Barratt
is to do with adjusting ways of working,
also needed to understand that only certain development options are likely
but we also need to help translate what
to be sensitive to the needs of wildlife. Understanding and building this
can be quite complex ecological ideas into
collaboration early on saved time and money as well as leading to better
something that is seen as easy, achievable
business and wildlife outcomes. The approach also revealed that inter-
and desirable on any development.”
partner connectivity and an awareness of the knowledge resources held by
Adrian Thomas
each partner was fundamental to success.
Senior Project Manager at RSPB
• Creating a new ethos and culture was found to be paramount in achieving
such a significant change in day to day practice. The partners recognised
that this was something that needed to be present throughout the
development team. Regular tool box talks with contractors (not just the “Green
management team) for example, and the ability to ask for help when infrastructure
needed (i.e. from the RSPB) were found to be helpful. should not just
be seen as
• A common perception of GI is that it is often unattractive. It can indeed an attractive
look messy and bare for long periods, particularly in the early phases of space between
intervention. To overcome this, communities and customers at Kingsbrook housing within
are being engaged on what is being done and why. This process has a development
influenced standard business practice within Barratt Developments. but should
encompass
• The housing industry typically works on a restricted palette of plant every part of a
species, based on favourable tree root types, look and plant availability. For development. Houses, gardens and even
this development a more bespoke biodiversity perspective was required in road frontages can play a vital role in
order to meet different wildlife needs. creating diverse and attractive habitats.
Working in partnership with experts and
• Conservation bodies often have limited awareness of the working practices having faith to rely on that expertise is
of housing developers. Typically, much of project delivery is carried out by crucial. Establishing a common goal within
contractors and sub-contractors. Kingsbrook provided an opportunity for a framework of what each party requires
the RSPB to engage with new working practices, processes, skill sets and is the starting point to building ideas and
information flows. success. From ideas comes practice and
from practice comes culture. There are
challenges in translating these ideas into
Contributors:
the built form but early engagement and
solid communication with contractors
Adrian Thomas
and suppliers can ease these challenges.
Senior Project Manager, RSPB
Continuity also plays a key role in creating
a positive environment where green
Jeremy Alden
infrastructure developments can succeed”
Technical Director, Barratt Developments – North Thames Division
Jeremy Alden
Technical Director at Barratt
Helen Nyul
Developments – North Thames Division
Group Biodiversity Manager, Barratt Developments
21
Case Study 5: Marks & Spencer Newcastle

Mi Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, UK 2015
Developer:
• Marks & Spencer
Key actors:
• ANS Global (product supplier)
More information:
• ANS Website
As part of a wider sustainable refit, Marks & Spencer installed a 167m2 living wall on the
exterior of its Newcastle store. This wall was designed and installed by ANS Global. It is made
up of 16,000 native species including thyme, wild strawberries and cranesbill all of which
provide habitat for insects and birds. The ANS System is a compost-based system specifically
designed for vertical walls and is irrigated using rainwater harvesting.9
Improvements to Marks & Spencer Newcastle follow on from the refit of four Simply Food sites,
which included the installation of living walls. The main aim of the living wall at Newcastle was
to provide an uplift in biodiversity to the high street, whilst also providing a striking vista.
22
GI BENEFITS:
"The refurbishment
• Urban cooling
at M&S Newcastle
• Health and wellbeing improvements signalled our intent
to regenerate
• Provision of bird and insect habitat and food
and invest into
• Improved aesthetic appeal of the high street Northumberland
Street, improving
not only customer
experience, but
also providing
• The living wall was a clear visual representation to customers of the a striking vista
sustainable credentials of the wider refit. on the high street which aims to help
encourage biodiversity. The living wall was
• The size of the living wall was determined by the cost and design process.
one of a number of initiatives to improve
• The species of plants used were chosen by ANS in conjunction with store the sustainable performance of the store,
design and the consistency of the M&S brand. including intelligent door sensors, LED
fridge lighting and a new heat reclaim
system".
Zoe Mountford
Lead Sustainability Manager
• In some cases, acquiring planning permission for new development work at Marks & Spencer
can be a challenge. However, GI often falls within local council priorities and
in this instance Newcastle City Council have an ambition to regenerate the
high-street, something the living wall contributes to. This made it easier to
get planning approval.
• The set-up cost of the wall was significant, particularly when considering
the structural design factors. Additionally, maintenance cost is an ongoing
challenge for the site and wider industry. To overcome this, GI solutions with
low maintenance costs need to be identified and considered upfront.
• In some instances, it can be difficult to decide what sustainable feature to

use. This green wall was in part chosen for the added value to customer
experience.
Contributors:
Rustin Cooper
Marks & Spencer
Zoe Mountford
Lead Sustainability Manager, Marks & Spencer
References
9 ANS Global (2019). Marks & Spencer Newcastle. [online] Available at: https://www.ansgroupglobal.
com/living-wall/case-studies/marks-spencer-newcastle [Accessed: 25/10/2019].
23
Green Infrastructure Decision Making
Route Map
This decision route map represents a synthesis of the common barriers and recommended
solutions identified during research conducted for the Green Growth project. It is designed to
follow the key steps in the Practical How-to Guide, and offers a reference tool for project leads,
designers, developers and beyond, to support decision making when planning new developments.
Key:
Barriers Solutions
KEY STEPS POTENTIAL BARRIERS AND SOLUTIONS
1 Identify
stakeholders Few actors are adequately Benefits are
equipped to meet the challenge difficult to
of GI independently convey
Assign a Run focus groups

leadership role and events
2 Engage experts
Internal specialisation is There is a lack of green space
fragmented expertise across disciplines
Liaise with statutory Agree future Work within a clear

Adopt a risk-sharing
bodies environmental and well-developed
approach
management with policy context
local community
and stewardship
group e.g. Wildlife
Trusts
3 Understand policy Professionals are sometimes unsure how development at one scale can
landscape impact GI policy at different scales
4 Assess existing GI
features Lead actors have a tendency to Lead actors don’t always appreciate
favour standardised forms of the importance of enhancing existing
provision GI attributes
Recognise and utilise

GI features already in
existence
24
KEY STEPS POTENTIAL BARRIERS AND SOLUTIONS
5 Develop a GI plan
Professionals are often New knowledge and
unsure how best to justify innovation can be limited
GI interventions by rooted approaches
Create persuasive Establish a series of Don’t reject GI attributes

evaluation tools integrated GI provisions that are harder to quantify
6 Implement, monitor
and manage Uncertainty over necessary level of, and
costs for on-going GI maintenance
Agree future environmental management

with local community and stewardship
groups e.g Wildlife Trust
Incremental or Interventions
Some GI benefits
isolated greening are based on
are less easy to
can be detrimental non-spatially
monetise
to GI integrity specific formulae
Share knowledge and increase

Adopt a risk-sharing approach
capacity long term
7 Consider/embed an GI spans different disciplinary

organisation-level areas, challenging strategic
GI benefits are not
strategy integration
well understood
Develop business
Incorporate
Unify the vision and models which Communicate clear
scientific evidence
create a common allow the economic messages to key
in new business
language of GI potential of GI to be decision makers
models
recognised
25
Insights
This report highlights five case studies planning permission, saving both time and
which show how the multiple challenges money. In some cases, GI may not offer
of successfully integrating GI into built direct or immediate financial returns, but
environment proposals were overcome. can still provide long term value in other
The insights and learnings from these forms including better environmental
are intended to aid the successful outcomes, improved health and wellbeing
implementation of GI in future development of building occupants and greater customer
projects. experience.
GI is typically perceived to lack a return Another common thread that ran throughout
on investment, resulting in low levels of the case studies was the success of a
implementation. However, as shown in collaborative approach. Typically, this was
these case studies, GI can generate a shown to involve working closely with a
multitude of benefits for businesses, the number of stakeholders, some of which are
environment and society. For instance, not traditionally involved in development,
through GI built assets can adapt to such as environmental NGOs. By working
the impacts of future climatic changes together developers and external partners
including the increased risk of flooding and can exchange knowledge, share learnings
overheating. This resilience will generate and collaborate to generate better outcomes
financial returns through the avoidance of for nature and people.
flood damage repair and air conditioning
system upgrades. It was also shown in some It is hoped that the learnings shared in this
of the case studies that implementing GI report can support future project teams in
into the design of the project increases achieving similar or greater gains in GI for
the speed and likelihood of acquiring their own projects.
26
References
1 Catchment Based Approach (2019). Wet Woodland 6 Manchester City of Trees (2018). New street trees
Creation – Case Study. [online] Available at: https:// unveiled along A56 as part of regeneration Scheme.
catchmentbasedapproach.org/learn/wet-woodland- [online] Available at: https://www.cityoftrees.org.
creation-case-study/ [Accessed: 25/10/19]. uk/news/new-street-trees-unveiled-along-a56-part-
regeneration-scheme [Accessed: 25/10/19].
2 Manchester City of Trees (2016). Pioneering street tree
research project could hold answer to urban flooding. 7 Dorset Wildlife Trust (2018). Case Study: Dorset’s
[online] Available at: https://www.cityoftrees.org.uk/ Natural Influence at its best. [online] Available
news/pioneering-street-tree-research-project-could- at: https://dorsetlnp.org.uk/wp-content/
hold-answer-urban-flooding [Accessed: 25/10/19]. uploads/2019/01/Case-Study-St-Leonards1.pdf
[Accessed: 25/10/19].
3 Stringer, P. Manchester City of Trees (2018). GI – A
Focused & Evidence Based Approach for Delivery. 8 Dorset Council (2017). Victory Oak
[online] Available at: http://www.cityoftrees.org.uk/ development is Highly Commended. [online]
sites/default/files/Pete%20Stringer%20-%20City%20 Available at: https://news.dorsetforyou.gov.
of%20Trees_0.pdf [Accessed: 25/10/19]. uk/2017/06/08/victory-oak-development-highly-
commended/#targetText=Sovereign’s%20
4 Greater Manchester Combined Authority (2016). Victory%20Oak%20development%20
2016 Air Quality Annual Status Report (ASR) for in,Excellence%20in%20Spatial%20Planning%20
Greater Manchester. [online] Available at: http://www. category.&targetText=’’Victory%20Oak%20is%20
manchester.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/25718/ a%20great,to%20take%20from%20this%20project.
greater_manchester_air_quality_annual_status_ [Accessed: 25/10/19].
report_asr_2016.pdf [Accessed: 25/10/19].
9 ANS Global (2019). Marks & Spencer Newcastle.
5 Armson. D, (2012). The Effect of Trees and Grass [online] Available at: https://www.ansgroupglobal.
on the Thermal and Hydrological Performance of com/living-wall/case-studies/marks-spencer-newcastle
an Urban Area. Available at: https://www.research. [Accessed: 25/10/2019].
manchester.ac.uk/portal/en/theses/the-effect-of-
trees-and-grass-on-the-thermal-and-hydrological-
performance-of-an-urban-area(c203be98-7c4e-4445-
83cb-32d8d98796bc).html [Accessed 25/10/19].
The authors are grateful to the following project partners:
• Manchester City Council
• Manchester Climate Change Agency
• Building Design Partnership
• City of Trees
Reference: Winch, R., Clough, J., Mant, A., Hamilton-Russell, E., Barker, A., Payne, S.,
Gilchrist, A, Tantanasi, I., Clay, G. and Rothwell, J. (2019). Making the Case for Green
Infrastructure: Lessons from Best Practice, UK Green Building Council (UKGBC), London, UK.
27
UK Green Building Council
The Building Centre
26 Store Street
London WC1E 7BT
T 020 7580 0623

E info@ukgbc.org
W ukgbc.org
View publication stats

08635 Making the Case for Gi Final Pages

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

08635 Making the Case for Gi Final Pages

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

08635 Making the Case for Gi Final Pages

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Technical Report · December 2019

Sarah Payne Anna Gilchrist

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ioanna Tantanasi Gareth D. Clay

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Case study 1: City of Trees 6

Case Study 2: Wild West End 10

Case Study 3: Victory Oak 14

Case Study 4: Kingsbrook 18

Case Study 5: Marks & Spencer Newcastle 22

Green Infrastructure Decision Making Route Map 24

We hope this report acts as a resource which

Location: Completion Date:

Key actors: More information:

Project objectives include:

• Plant 3 million trees, one for every person in Greater Manchester

• Bring 2,000 hectares of unmanaged woodland back into community use

CLEAVLEYS WET WOODLAND, SALFORD

City of Trees and partners created a wet

The site is located within a former council

• Provides mixed leisure area for local people

• Attenuation of highway runoff

• Contaminant capture and filtration through aquatic plants

• Air quality improvement

• Habitat creation for priority species

• Access to clean water and efficient

• Reduction in surface water flood risk

• Air quality improvement, reducing air

• Improvement in aesthetic appeal of the

• 15% increase in revenue for businesses6

• Implementing GI projects in isolation from existing development can be expensive

• It can often be difficult to negotiate for development solutions which recognise GI

Location: Completion Date:

Developers: More information:

The West End’s largest property owners are currently

• Enhance biodiversity (particularly bees, bats and

• Improve the wellbeing of residents, workers and

• Raise awareness and promote the benefits of

A key component of the scheme is the creation of

The project is being supported by a programme of monitoring, target setting, specification

• Increased biodiversity through habitat provision and ecological connectivity

• Climate resilience through rain water management, sustainable energy or carbon

• Enhanced microclimatic conditions through localised air quality improvements and

“84% of people live in

Location: Completion Date:

Developer More information:

Victory Oak housing estate has been

The project is notable for the use of a

• Habitat restoration and enhancement

• Health and wellbeing improvements

• Specific provisions for valued bird and

• Improved aesthetic appeal and increased

• To ensure a consistent decision-making approach, a Landscape and Ecology Management

Location: Completion Date:

Kingsbrook is a new community development of 2,450 homes to the east of Aylesbury.

• Habitat provision for wildlife

• Improved development aesthetics

DECISION MAKING PROCESS:

Case study 1: City of Trees 6

Case Study 2: Wild West End 10

Case Study 3: Victory Oak 14

Case Study 4: Kingsbrook 18

Case Study 5: Marks & Spencer Newcastle 22

Green Infrastructure Decision Making Route Map 24

7 Consider/embed an GI spans different disciplinary