The integration of heritage conservation into sustainable redevelopment of England’s industrial heritage is under development pressure due to the housing crisis. Additionally, delivery of sustainable redevelopment is essential in response to the climate crisis, not just for the built environment but also through systemic processes and mechanisms. Having explored current conservation imbalances discussed in the literature, this case study research focuses on comparisons between redevelopment proposals. It found that decision-making about building adaptation, redevelopment design, and community engagement is under-researched.
The findings of this research identify recommendations that support future guidance. First, it recognises the challenges that cause redevelopment delays leading to vacancy and disrepair. Second, it explores design strategies to integrate heritage conservation into decision-making processes. Third, it considers effective and ineffective community engagement and how resolving the interconnections between community and tangible and intangible heritage offers solutions to the problems identified.
Case studies
One case study explores the twice-refused proposal at Greencore in Shepton Mallet. The other site at Saxonvale in Frome was subject to two proposals. Saxonvale 1 was voided by judicial review findings. Whereas the permitted proposal, Saxonvale 2, was a community-led planning application.
Findings
Heritage conservation is integrated into sustainable redevelopment as demonstrated by Saxonvale 2
The first finding is that the Saxonvale 2 case study integrated heritage conservation into sustainable redevelopment. The balance achieved had some shortcomings. However, these may be addressed at reserved matters stage. The other case studies did not resolve the tensions between sustainable heritage conservation and redevelopment design in a balanced way. The second finding is that the Saxonvale 2 case study maximised community engagement to successfully preserve cultural significance. The other case studies supported placemaking to lesser degrees through their redevelopment proposals.
In the context of increasing redevelopment needs, Saxonvale 2 proved that positive attributes of industrial heritage assist solutions while balancing heritage conservation and other public benefits.
Saxonvale 2 decision-making theme 1 – community participation yields a placemaking-based design
These ethical approaches are in evidence in the Saxonvale 2 case study to guide decision-making. In response to the research aims, that decision-making is supported by three themes: the role of community participation in placemaking, genuine inheritance of value in its own right, and multiple ethical standpoints. Firstly, Saxonvale 2 delivered community participation, yielding a placemaking-based design. The outcome of Aim 1 analysis is that the tensions between sustainable heritage conservation and redevelopment design can be balanced. This is achieved through interdisciplinary site-wide design codes, balancing heritage management and multi-disciplinary conservation like ecology. In addition, it complements the site’s context within the prescribed development standards. Moreover, it is not an attempt to “re-shape and re- define local identity by emphasising historic connectivity”. However, the limited detail for mill adaptation restricted any opportunity for analysis.
Saxonvale 2 decision-making theme 2 – industrial heritage is a genuine inheritance of value
The second decision-making theme is a new and unique settlement layer that celebrates multi-period assets that are a genuine inheritance. While details are lacking, retaining rather than demolishing industrial buildings facilitates the opportunity for their reuse. Thereby, the outcome of comparing the role of community engagement for Aim 2 is to demonstrate how Saxonvale 2 successfully preserves cultural significance and delivers the opportunity for future sustainable outcomes. This is achieved through design and different levels of consultation. For example, the Saxonvale 2 team’s approach was to consult, involve and collaborate. Moreover, it is a community-led redevelopment. Being so, it is also part of an alternative to the more customary developer-led process. Aylin Orbaşli refers to the shift in power dynamics from authorities and amenity societies to developer-led influences that shape redevelopment. However, Saxonvale 2 provides a community-led redevelopment alternative.
Saxonvale 2 decision-making theme 3 – the importance of plurality and multiple ethical standpoints
Thirdly, both aims incorporate aspects of Salvador Muñoz-Viñas plurality to support decision-making. The process of integration respects multiple ethical standpoints. Saxonvale 2 supports transparent use of meanings of tangible and intangible heritage. It demonstrates that early community involvement reduces pressures on the planning refusal and appeal system, successful long-term association with and reuse of industrial heritage, and that conserving heritage values enables new meanings to evolve. These ethics are supported by the mechanisms chosen for the successful integration of heritage conservation incorporated into sustainable redevelopment.
Saxonvale 1 and Greencore redevelopment decision-making contrasts with Saxonvale 2
Saxonvale 1 and Greencore decision-making theme 1 – non-community participation delivering non-contextual design
In contrast, the Saxonvale 1 and Greencore redevelopments supported placemaking to lesser degrees because the design emulated aspects of but also reshaped and redefined the character in scale, massing and materials. The outcome of Aim 1 analysis is that heritage conservation was not sufficiently integrated, which led to community tensions. Moreover, actions in and public online responses to the case studies evidence that both were influenced by the power dynamics referred to by Aylin Orbaşli. Relying on the resulting judicial review and appeal processes to prevent construction of ‘anywhere’ architecture is unsustainable. The theorists consider it a globalising influence empowered by decisions to deliver scale at speed. This risks cultural homogenisation. Furthermore, Saxonvale 1 lacked the details needed to assess future mill adaptation. Details, including meanwhile use, need to form part of planning submissions to enable more informed decision-making. Interim uses are key to conservation within incredibly challenging and long term projects. Therefore, they are really useful. Whereas the indicative drawings for the Greencore proposal enabled decision-making but lacked sufficient details, which were overshadowed by the overall site design. Whereas Historic England “have shown what can be achieved while retaining significance” and guidance is available. Historic England “are addressing questions about ways a design code can help us in reusing mill buildings”. “At the site-specific level (Historic England) are building that portfolio of reuse so people can see the opportunities on these sites”.
Saxonvale 1 and Greencore decision-making theme 2 – exclusion of industrial heritage as a genuine inheritance of value
The second decision-making theme is a genuine inheritance of value in its own right, which was appreciated in terms of some aspects of site significance but
overlooked multiple sub-phases at Saxonvale 1 and multi-period assets at Greencore. Thereby, the outcome of comparing the role of community engagement for Aim 2 is to demonstrate how Saxonvale 1 successfully preserves the cultural significance of the most viable designated heritage but lost community support due to disproportionate densification. However, better sustainable outcomes were delivered by Saxonvale 2. That loss was not sufficiently mitigated by sustainable design and therefore considered unsatisfactory by the community, which eventually led to judicial review. During community consultation at Greencore, the inability to accept local opinion and lack of information and interaction by the developer and his team missed key sustainable heritage conservation benefits. As a result, there was no support from the community or officers for the proposal.
Saxonvale 1 and Greencore decision-making theme 3 – the exclusion of plurality and multiple ethical standpoints
The third decision-making theme connects both aims. The case study approaches focused on expert judgement rather than multiple standpoints. Though multiple standpoints were supported by ethical professional practice, it proved insufficient to win over the developer’s attitude. These points highlight the contrasts between the decisions made within the case studies, which have fundamental implications.
Fundamentally, the Saxonvale 1 and Greencore designs and adaptations reinforce the unsustainable normative behaviours John Ehrenfeld states need to change. He also refers to participatory design to improve how we live, to live more sustainably. Egalitarianism in decision-making is encouraged. This paradigm shift calls for a fundamental reevaluation of our relationship with the world and each other, aiming to create a truly sustainable future through design and cultural change. As an ethical stance, we should at least avoid harmful decision-making. Reducing the environmental crisis through production and consumption constraints is an individual and collective responsibility. The World Heritage Conventions and EU programmes encourage us to recognise this shared duty and responsibility that lead to collaborative solutions. The Saxonvale 2 case study demonstrates how sustainable design aligns with this shared duty and responsibility.
Saxonvale 2 – attributes of industrial heritage that deliver design solutions while balancing heritage conservation and other public benefits
The decision-making balanced holistic economic, environmental, cultural and social benefits as redevelopment outcomes. In the context of increasing redevelopment needs, Saxonvale 2 proved that positive attributes of industrial heritage assist solutions while balancing heritage conservation and other public benefits. Through employment space provision, industrial features offer pre-existing design solutions that also present adaptive design challenges to offer unique contributions to placemaking. In contrast, the other case studies were forced through judicial reviews and appeals, which is unsustainable. John Ehrenfeld recognises this in his focus on cultural transformation and deep- seated societal change, recognising that sustainability is an existential problem rather than merely an environmental or social one.
The Saxonvale 2 case study met the challenges to reap the benefits of sustainably redeveloping industrial heritage in a way that enables sustainable living. Examining these issues has identified recommendations derived from this research to support redevelopment schemes. By grounding the recommendations in these theoretical perspectives, they can effectively guide heritage conservation practices and contribute to sustainable redevelopment schemes involving England’s industrial heritage sites. Beyond immediate outcomes, integrating heritage conservation with economic, social, and environmental goals of sustainable redevelopment considers long-term impacts. Long-term impacts on communities and the environment may be managed through the following recommended measures to maximise public value and long-term sustainability.
No Responses