C O N T E X T 1 5 0 : J U L Y 2 0 1 7 17 This article seeks to use the findings from the Norton Folgate case study, and examine their relevance in the wider concern of ‘conservation and urbanism’. The sustainability sector emerged from a position in the 1970s of fringe concern for loosely connected environmental issues to a mainstream interest which attracts significant political attention in the present day. The 1987Brundtland Report is credited with establishing a unified sense of direction for these environmental issues, crucially expanding the purview of responsive action to include social and economic agendas with the environmental, and so form the ‘triple bottom line’ of sustainability. The accepted definition of sustainable development as ‘development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’, also came from the Brundtland Report.1 The evolution of awareness and widespread recognition of the sustainability agenda shares similarities to the way in which the conservation of built heritage emerged from ideas strongly held by a small sector of society to general awareness and popular consensus. So too does the intergenerational imperative resonate between the two fields. Conservation of the built environment is often situated in the context of retaining places valued for their capacity to inform identity and inspire a sense of place for present and future generations, in much the same way as sustainable development emphasises that meeting the needs of the present generation should not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Further to similarities in origins and intergenerational ideals, both sustainable development and conservation of historic built environments are given considerable weight in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Conservation of heritage assets ‘in a manner appropriate to their significance’ is one of 12 core principles, and sustainable development as the ‘golden thread running through both plan-making and decision taking’.2 As sustainable development is progressively embraced by planning authorities, and proposals are increasingly tailored to this end, it is worth questioning if there is a risk that schemes satisfying values of sustainable development, but causing harm to heritage assets, could ultimately be considered as a public benefit? In the case of Norton Folgate, elements contributing to British Land’s proposal fulfilled criteria for consideration as ‘sustainable development’, and the public benefits associated with these were determined to outweigh the harm caused by substantial demolition in a conservation area and the loss of undesignated heritage assets. It should be noted that the former London mayor, Boris Johnson, acted as the local planning authority after calling the scheme in following Tower Hamlets Council refusing planning permission for the proposal. The certification of environmental performance of buildings has been a growing field as both market and regulatory pressures demand more efficiency in energy use and construction processes. Ratings frameworks informing certification are gradually expanding to assess wider social and economic impacts of development in communities, in order to reflect the interlinked principles of sustainable development. Using the issues and criteria set out in BREEAM Communities as the framework for the comparative analysis of the British Land and the Spitalfields Trust schemes was a revealing exercise. Given their reputation for highperforming ‘green’ developments, it was not surprising the British Land scheme performed very well against the environmental sustainability criteria, and that their less-developed responses to social and economic impacts on sustainability for the local community would have earned average scores against the BREEAM Communities criteria. The ‘light-touch conservation’ scheme of the Spitalfields Trust, with a high proportion of fabric retention, well-articulated schemes for small business opportunities and a high proportion of affordable housing, would score well in discrete areas, but would fail to attract consistently high scores across the full breadth of factors and criteria. Despite their almost singular focus on environmental factors of sustainability, the British Land proposal for Norton Folgate would have achieved a significantly higher rating than the Spitalfields Trust scheme. This disparity represents a fundamental flaw, not just with BREEAM Communities, but with frameworks assessing the environmental, social and economic impacts of sustainable development generally: the rigid criteria allow only a narrow range of responses to achieve the highest ratings. They afford little scope for acknowledging the unique requirements of projects in historic environments, and the positive contribution which can be made through the conservation of heritage assets to economic vitality and sustainable communities.3 It is evident that sustainability rating systems do not yet take into account the full sustainability value of historic places, nor leave any significant room for References 1World Commission on Environment and Development (1987), Our Common Future, www.un-documents.net/ our-common-future.pdf, accessed 14 May 2017 2 NPPF, paragraphs 14, 17 and 126 3 NPPF, paragraph 131 Norton Folgate Street elevation. Building dates: 1 1950s; 2 1930s (showroom and warehouse); 3 late 19th century (re-clad in the 1930s); 4 1950s (commercial buildings); 5 late 19th century; 6 around late 18th century; 7 late Georgian (house); 8 around 1935 (offices).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=