(Part 4 of a 4-part Series)
How sustainability truly works in practice
This research provides a distinct and valuable understanding of how sustainability truly works in practice, especially with historic places. Understanding the sustainability imperative requires moving beyond mere environmental performance, such as specific energy efficiency measures, to a more profound, ethical, and holistic understanding. It encourages a shift towards “problem dissolving” through systemic change, a more advanced sustainability concept. Through her research Mary addresses:
- sustainability imperatives
- adapting to climate change & resilience
- demonstrating how historic buildings can be inherently sustainable
- championing embodied carbon retention and the circular economy
- addressing the policy-practice gap for sustainability
- unpacking systemic hurdles to sustainable planning
- fostering long-term resilience and proactive management
- promoting ‘true’ or holistic sustainability beyond eco-efficiency
- empowering evidence-based advocacy
- the unintended consequences: systemic delays
Understanding sustainability beyond the usual measures
The work shows that being genuinely sustainable with older buildings means much more than just improving insulation or adding solar panels. It demonstrates that historic places facilitate true sustainability – how we approach our built environment and how we live within it. For instance, walkability, and living and working nearby without the need for communing. The research highlights how projects like Saxonvale 2, which focused on community-led design, achieved a deeper sustainability by connecting people to their place in a meaningful way, not just through energy upgrades and public transport connections. This expands our understanding of what sustainability truly involves, highlighting that it’s about addressing core issues, not just surface-level fixes.
Proving the central role of people and place
This research clearly shows that for projects involving historic sites to be truly sustainable in the long run, the involvement of local people and their connection to the place are essential. The comparative research also shows how projects that built in continuous community dialogue found smoother paths, leading to outcomes that were both green and supported locally. For instance, the research contrasts less effective approaches with those, like Saxonvale 2, where community feedback was truly integrated, resulting in fewer objections and a more accepted outcome.
It provides evidence that listening to local voices, respecting a site’s unique stories, and fostering community spirit are not just good ideas, but critical components that ensure projects succeed and endure over time. For example, in the Saxonvale 2 project, active design workshops with the community led to plans that genuinely reflected local identity and needs, making the new development truly valued and cared for by residents. This new understanding places the social side of sustainability at the very heart of how we think about old buildings.
Pinpointing practical hurdles and better ways
The research identifies specific reasons why plans for sustainable heritage projects often run into trouble. It points out practical challenges, like when local knowledge isn’t fully used, or when decisions are made without genuine two-way conversations. Unsustainable commuter habitation designs result in the persistent need to revert to reapplications of similar proposals for the same site. This repeated effort associated with repeated unsustainable designs increasing the waste of resources, time, and carbon, preventing swift and truly sustainable progress. The research critically examines how current planning policy, specifically the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), is interpreted and applied in practice. The analysis of the planning process reveals that the pursuit of sustainable outcomes is often hampered by inherent inefficiencies and adversarial mechanisms, particularly when early, meaningful engagement is lacking. These impacts are a symptom of deeper, unaddressed issues.
In cases like Saxonvale, if initial concerns regarding overly dense, higher-rise designs on a sensitive village edge had been genuinely addressed through more comprehensive pre-application consultation, and the design subsequently amended to be less dense, lower-rise, and truly responsive to community concerns, it is highly probable there would have been significantly fewer objections and a reduced volume of online comments. The overwhelming number of comments thus points to a failure in achieving early consensus and integrating feedback effectively, leading to sustained public opposition.
Research recommendations include clearer guidance to clarify the terms ‘proportionate’, disproportionate densification “proportionate” assessment and “sustainable development”. This work supports other professionals navigate “relevant heritage legislation, policy and guidance. Insights offered into policy implementation helps professionals understand not just what the rules are, but how they can be better applied or adapted to achieve genuinely sustainable outcomes in heritage regeneration.
Lessons from the toughest challenges
By focusing on complex industrial heritage sites, like those studied in the research, the findings are particularly valuable. It provides insights into how to apply principles of sustainability even in very large and complicated projects. For instance, it demonstrates how the careful reuse of existing structures, rather than demolition, can save vast amounts of energy already put into building materials, even in large-scale redevelopments, as was ultimately championed in Saxonvale 2 compared to earlier proposals for the site. By highlighting cases where demolition was considered but ultimately avoided the research underscores the environmental benefit of retaining embodied carbon within historic structures. It demonstrates how historic buildings are inherently sustainable, providing examples of why re-use is often the greenest choice.
In addition, the focus on reducing vacancy and disrepair reflects upon meanwhile uses. Meanwhile uses can also provide interim income streams for landowners. This allows developers and landowners to test market demand for certain business ideas or urban characteristics, acting as a prototype for future development. This can help shape the final scheme to better meet community and market needs. This offers practical knowledge for tackling even the most difficult projects sustainably by preventing historic assets from deteriorating and enhancing their inherent capacity to withstand future challenges.
However, meanwhile uses do not provide a panace. There are financial and regulatory hurdles including business rates, planning and licensing requirements and landowner risk aversion towards short term solutions. Partnerships and joint venture funding models and partnerships involving private, public, and third-sector organisations, as discussed by Rebecca Burrows , is crucial for the viability of complex heritage reuse projects. By focusing on reducing decay and facilitating adaptive re-use through various strategies, this research contributes to the long-term resilience of heritage assets as a means of adapting to climate change and resilience.
Conclusion
The research provides invaluable insights into shaping sustainable heritage futures. However, a full appreciation of the challenges also requires acknowledging that fundamental systemic issues within the planning process – including the consequences of insufficient early consultation, the unsustainability of inappropriate density, and the impact of judicial reviews – must also be addressed to truly unlock the potential for sustainable and resilient regeneration. This deeper understanding is vital for professionals to navigate the complexities of heritage conservation in the 21st century.
No Responses