UGFxHigh Density Publication MICA by MICA

UGF x High density

Introduction

The London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) and the Mayor of London recognise that the climate and ecological emergency is the biggest threat we face today. According to the UN, the world is on track for a 2.7oC temperature rise by the end of the century. This will have severe consequences for the planet, including here in London. We are already experiencing these impacts first-hand with surface water flooding and overheating.

The 2021 London Plan, takes a co-ordinated approach to tackle the climate crisis and identifies the importance of urban greening as a component of sustainable urban development. Policy G5 requires all major developments to include urban greening as a fundamental element of site and building design. The policy introduces the use of an Urban Greening Factor (UGF) to evaluate the quantity and quality of urban greening provided by a development proposal.

In 2021 LLDC appointed MICA to undertake a Density Study. The Study is available for download:

https://www.queenelizabetholympicpark. co.uk/-/media/lldc/planning/supplementary-plan ning-documents/lldc-density-study-210127-low-res. ashx?la=en

The Study built upon and complemented the LLDC’s Characterisation Study 2019 by providing detailed assessment of existing and planned densities across the area. Through study of various typologies and relevant built examples, the Study examined the various ways that different densities are achieved. This has helped guide and inform discussions about the density of emerging proposals and their relationship to the surrounding context.

The Study highlighted that there was often a tension between the delivery of high density developments and the provision of urban greening.

This led to a subsequent study that Green Infrastructure Consultancy (GIC) carried out. This identified a number of case studies that inform this detailed study into the urban greening of high density residential development.

The key aims of this study are to give the LLDC, and those working within the area, further information

on the best way to deliver urban greening in high density developments. Density is not just a metric and what is considered high density will depend on the character of the context. Across the entire LLDC area it is expected that designs will look to optimise the use of land and therefore this study will be relevant for the majority of development.

The Study builds on the work of the previous study and the identified positives / issues and includes desktop research about UGF examples across the world that have delivered successful Green Infrastructure (GI) in high density, residentially led developments. The Study should be read in conjunction with the LLDC’s Green Infrastructure Guide:

https://live-qeop.pantheonsite.io/sites/default/files/ attachments/Green%20Infrastructure%20Guide_0. pdf

Design Quality Policy:

https://live-qeop.pantheonsite.io/sites/default/files/ attachments/Design%20Quality%20Policy_WEB_0. pdf

and Post Occupancy Evaluation Study of Chobham Manor Phase 1, which evidences the value that residents place upon green infrastructure.

https://live-qeop.pantheonsite.io/sites/default/files/ attachments/Chobham%20Manor%20Phase%20 1%20POE%20revised%20version.pdf

The Study will assist the LLDC, and those working within this field, to provide guidance on the best way to deliver high quality urban greening in emerging high density residentially led developments. For two of the projects, further research and engagement has been undertaken with the developers and landscape architects to determine their priorities relating to GI.

An executive summary sets out best practice in the context of LLDC’s other guidance documents. The summary includes recommendations for each stage of the design and delivery process. It also includes a list of considerations for the greening of different typologies. Finally, a commentary is provided on the UGF policy.

227-255 Ilderton Road Vulcan Wharf

Student accommodation Poland House 30 Marsh Wall

Residentially led Unity Place

Southall Park Avenue Atlas Wharf

17 Admirals Way

Interface with transport Cockfosters Station Nine Elms OSD

Co-location

Kampung Admirality Citygate 2

Student accommodation 240 Margaret Street Brink Tower

Residentially led Green Medina One Central Park CapitaSpring

Interface with transport Eole-Evangile Triangle Sacramento Valley Station Area

Methodology

The Study examines 19 case studies in total; 10 from within London and 9 globally. The projects were selected to cover a range of typologies including:

• co-location of residential and industrial (or other uses with similar spatial characteristics)

• Student accommodation (8-12 storeys and tower)

• 6-8 storey mansion block

• 9-12 storey urban block

• multiple towers on a podium

• 20+ storey tower

• residentially led scheme interfacing with transport infrastructure and/or masterplan

Four of the case studies were identified as part of a previous study by GIC, with the remainder selected to cover all of the identified typologies. For London, the desktop search drew on a range of sources including the GLA Planning London Datahub and London boroughs planning portals particularly searching within opportunity areas and around transport nodes including Crossrail. Three of the schemes were selected based on prior knowledge from MICA and the LLDC. The density and UGF of every scheme was calculated before the final list was confirmed leading to several built examples being rejected.

For the global list of case studies, the desktop search concentrated on the urban greening pioneer regions of western europe, singapore and australia.

The UGF score of each case study has been calculated according to the methodology set

out within the UGF London Plan Guidance (LPG) February 2023.

The surface cover areas of a scheme have been measured by either downloading the relevant landscape plan(s) from the local authority’s planning portal, from online journals, or issued directly from the landscape architect. These were usually in pdf format, which were then scaled back up to 1 to 1, with the areas measured with CAD. It is accepted that this method will inevitably have a margin of error.

The surface cover type was identified either directly from the landscape drawing, where sufficient information for example annotation or a key confirmed the type, or by referring to the design and access statement, landscape and drainage strategy reports. Where an application contained a UGF calculation i.e. a London case study submitted after the London Plan policy came into effect, this was also reviewed. Where the score differs from any figure stated within the planning application of a scheme, this has been identified.

The surface cover area is then multiplied by the relevant factor as shown on the opposite page. The scores for each surface cover type are then added together. The combined score is divided by the total site area in square metres to determine the scheme’s UGF score.

The below UGF LPG extract illustrates an example calculation:

UGF LPG February 2023 extract:

Surface-cover type

Semi-natural vegetation (e.g. trees, woodland, species- rich grassland) maintained or established on site.

Wetland or open water (semi-natural; not chlorinated) maintained or established on site.

Intensive green roof or vegetation over structure. Substrate minimum settled depth of 150mm.

Standard trees planted in connected tree pits with a minimum soil volume equivalent to at least two-thirds of the projected canopy area of the mature tree.

Extensive green roof with substrate of minimum settled depth of 80mm (or 60mm beneath vegetation blanket) –meets the requirements of GRO Code 2014.

Flower-rich perennial planting.

Rain gardens and other vegetated sustainable drainage elements.

Hedges (line of mature shrubs one or two shrubs wide).

Standard trees planted in pits with soil volumes less than two-thirds of the projected canopy area of the mature tree.

Green wall – modular system or climbers rooted in soil.

Groundcover planting.

Amenity grassland (species-poor, regularly mown lawn).

Extensive green roof of sedum mat or other lightweight systems that do not meet GRO Code 2014.

Water features (chlorinated) or unplanted detention basins.

Permeable paving.

Sealed surfaces (e.g. concrete, asphalt, waterproofing, stone).

Bosco Verticale in Milan by Stefano Boeri. Photo: MICA

The following principles (as contained with the UGF LPG) have also been applied:

• The UGF should always be calculated on the total site area, equivalent to the red-line boundary.

• Adjacent areas of land not included in the red-line boundary, irrespective of ownership or management, must not be included.

• Retained surface-cover types should be included in the calculation.

• Vertical surface areas of proposed green walls should be included in the UGF calculation, but not be added to the site’s total area. This may mean it is possible to score a UGF of more than 1, which is equivalent to the whole site area, where extensive use of green walls is proposed.

• Where a surface-cover type is not included, a reasonable assumption of the most relevant factor score should be made.

• Where tree canopies will grow over another permeable surface, the area of the surface underneath the canopy can also be included in the UGF calculation.

• Where land within the site boundary is not under the control of the applicant, for instance adopted roads, these should still be included in the total site area.

• Where trees and other planting are proposed at ground level, but above basements or other underground structures, the relevant UGF score should be given for each surface-cover type used, rather than a generic green roof score.

Each project is then also assessed against the LLDC’s green infrastructure principles set out within their Green Infrastructure Guide. The guide can be downloaded here:

https://www.queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk/-/ media/green-infrastructure-guide.ashx

The ten principles are:

Planning for GI from the outset

Conserving, enhancing and strengthening links with landscape and local context

Conserving and enhancing the historic environment/ heritage assets

Responding to climate change

Protecting and enhancing biodiversity

Ensuring resilience in water and flood management

Enabling access, fitness, play and contact with nature

Securing local food supply

Ensuring ongoing stewardship and management

Generating income and attracting investment

The purpose of assessing each project against these criteria is to understand, above the UGF score, the range of social, environmental and economic benefits that urban greening can deliver.

The London List

Co-location

Student accommodation

Residentially led

Interface with transport

1. 227-255 Ilderton Road, Southwark

2. Vulcan Wharf, Newham

3. Poland House, Newham

4. 30 Marsh Wall, Tower Hamlets

5. Unity Place, Brent

6. Southall Park Avenue, Ealing

7. Atlas Wharf, Ealing

8. 17 Admirals Way, Tower Hamlets

9. Cockfosters Station, Enfield

10. Nine Elms OSD, Lambeth

227-255 Ilderton Road

Industrial Co-Location

Demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a part 2/3, 9 and 28 storey (up to 94.65m AOD) mixed-use development comprising of 3,581sqm including 2,538sqm of industrial floorspace (Use Classes E and B8) at ground and intermediate levels, 598sqm of internal loading yard, 445sqm ancillary plant and equipment; and 253 residential apartments (C3), 35.75% affordable by habitable room, and other associated infrastructure.

Address

Application type

Application

Permission date

Status

Client Architect Landscape

South Bermondsey

Bridge House Meadows

Millwall Football Club ILDERTON

ILDERTON

View looking north west from the Winslade Estate

View of proposed scheme. Image: Maccreanor Lavington

227-255 Ilderton Road Industrial Co-Location

Urban Greening Factor calculation = 0.42

Site area

Extensive green roof

Permeable paving 684sqm

Intensive green roof 632sqm

Trees in connected tree pits 564sqm

Flower-rich perennial planting 24sqm

With a UGF of 0.42, the scheme exceeds the minimum requirement of 0.4. GI is provided at street level in the form of a small element of public realm. Communal residential amenity and play space is largely at podium level, with additional amenity spaces provided as roof terraces.

The UGF score is achieved through various forms of intensive vegetation over structure, extensive green roofs and trees within connected tree pits. The area available for green roof may reduce through technical design due to plant requirements and / or fire regulations. Permeable paving is employed at podium and roof levels where amenity is located. There is a small amount of flower rich planting at street level.

Roof levels

1.Planting within public realm

2.Amenity terrace

& 2: Maccreanor Lavington

227-255 Ilderton Road

Planning for GI from the outset

Early sketch proposals demonstrate that the site layout above podium seeks to balance scale and proportion of communal space with daylight and sunlight provision. The value of outside space has been recognised with the average amount of private amenity exceeding the statutory minimum by up to 20%. Improving the pedestrian environment around the site is identified as a key opportunity of the development. Widening of the pavement to 5m improves conditions for pedestrians and cyclists and gives space to introduce street trees.

Securing local food supply

The inclusion of food growing spaces within the design has the potential to bring people closer to nature, maximising health and wellbeing and also act as an educational activity for children.

Protecting and enhancing biodiversity

The scheme includes an “Ecology Terrace” at seventh floor, accessed from the tower. Planting includes a mix of ornamental grasses, ferns, bulbs, herbaceous perennials, along with bird boxes to enhance the ecology and biodiversity of the space.

Ensuring resilience in water and flood management

The use of sustainable urban drainage has been identified as challenging due to the nature of the urban location. However, with trees and landscape at street level and across two podiums, some interception and evaporation will occur. SuDS features are limited to tree pits, permeable paving and below ground geo-cellular storage. The use of blue roofs or rainwater harvesting for irrigation has not been employed.

Illustrative landscape plan. Image: Maccreanor Lavington, Spacehub

Enabling

access, fitness, play and contact with nature

Signage and guidance on appropriate species has been included to encourage residents to place their own planted pots around the gardens. Along with space to grow their own food, this measure should encourage residents of all ages to engage with nature. The development provides play space for 0-11 year olds only, relying on open spaces a short walk away for 12-18 year olds. However, it will not be appropriate nor desirable for all older children to leave the development in order to play. As with all communal spaces, there is the potential for conflict between various users, particularly if one group feels marginalised by a lack of provision.

Ensuring ongoing stewardship and management

The provision of raised allotment beds and the encouragement of residents to colonise spaces with their own plant pots should engender a sense of ownership amongst residents. To be

effective, this encouragement will need to be reflected by the day to day building manager and gardener.

The scheme has the potential to be an example of successful urban greening of high density industrial and residential co-location. Almost all horizontal surfaces have been used to provide green infrastructure. The amount of publicly accessible or visible greening is limited to a small pocket of planting and street trees. However, this is a function of the podium typology and an improvement upon the existing pedestrian experience.

View of landscaped podium. Image: Maccreanor Lavington

View looking south east into the court

Vulcan Wharf

Industrial Co-location

Demolition of the existing buildings and redevelopment of the site to provide buildings between two and 14 storeys in height to include 457 residential units (Use Class C3), 5,594sqm (GEA) of storage and distribution floorspace (Use Class B8), 3,494sqm (GEA) of light industrial floorspace (Use Class E) and 180sqm (GEA) of retail floorspace (Use Class E), with car and cycle parking and associated hard and soft landscaping.

Address

Permission

Client

Overview of scheme

Aerial of proposed scheme. Image: Assael Architecture

Vulcan Wharf Industrial Co-location

Urban Greening Factor calculation = 0.42

With a UGF of 0.42, the scheme exceeds the minimum requirement of 0.4. GI is provided at street level in the form of a public pocket park next to the canal, a planted pedestrian link from the canal to Cooks Road and with greening along the canal edge. The large podium provides a variety of spaces including play space, areas for sports, allotments, gardens and a terrace. The standalone building has it’s own amenity terrace.

The UGF score is achieved predominantly at street level, through flower-rich perennial planting and new and existing trees in connected tree pits and semi-natural vegetation along the canal edge. This is supplemented with trees above structure at podium level, intensive vegetation and extensive green roofs throughout. The area available for green roof may reduce through technical design due to plant requirements and / or fire regulations. Permeable paving is limited to the podium.

Roof and podium levels

Ground level

3. Canal edge

4. Street planting

Vulcan Wharf

Co-location

Planning for GI from the outset

The land take of the development appears to have been driven by the need to meet London Plan policy that aims to maintain London’s industrial capacity. This has resulted in a large multi-storey podium which in turn has limited the applicant’s ability to incorporate landscape connections to two locations. The amount and variety of spaces provided on the podium demonstrates that the economic value and benefits of GI has been recognised.

Conserving, enhancing and strengthening links with landscape and local context

The scheme design creates two pedestrian links from the river through the site to Cooks Road, to the benefit of all residents within Pudding Mill. The opening up of the river strengthens the character of Pudding Mill as an “island”. The use of semi-natural vegetation, including native species, along the river edge has the potential to strengthen the distinctiveness of this industrial / residential setting.

Conserving and enhancing the historic environment/heritage assets

In addition to enhancing the canal landscape character, the landscape design further seeks to strengthen the sense of place with links to a lost past heritage. Objects within the landscape, modelled on past heritage, assist with level changes and incorporate incidental play. The proposal will reconstruct the river wall and make it accessible to maintenance vehicles, in some areas for the first time.

Protecting and enhancing biodiversity

The incorporation of linear landscape features along the river edge with locally distinctive habitats such as wet woodland, supports the conservation and restoration of an ecological network by creating linkages. The provision of biodiverse green roofs and habitats within the public realm will encourage wildlife. The lighting design has considered the sensitivity of the river edge.

Illustrative landscape plan. Image: Assael Exteriors

Securing local food supply

The provision of food growing spaces in the form of raised bed allotments has the potential to strengthen ties between residents and empower them to participate in the ongoing maintenance of their wider landscape. It is also an educational opportunity for children growing up in the development.

Ensuring resilience in water and flood management

Rebuilding and raising the river wall as well as raising the internal site levels to form a ridge parallel to the river will act as a flood defence mechanism. Surface water is captured through a combination of drainage channels, soft landscape and permeable paving and attenuated via below ground storage crates. Blue/green roofs at the upper levels provide further attenuation. Infiltration has not been proposed due to the likely contaminants from historic industrial use of the site.

Enabling access, fitness, play and contact with nature

The podium provides a range of spaces and activities for all to enjoy and has the potential to be well used.

Ensuring ongoing stewardship and management

The inclusion of an outline management plan at application stage demonstrates an understanding of the value that GI creates. The inclusion of space for growing food may help to galvanise a sense of ownership in residents.

The scheme has the potential to be an example of successful urban greening of high density development. The large podium, with a variety of spaces and planting types will require ongoing long term maintenance by the Client who has a track record in investing in their estates. The improvements in access to the river and provision of new public space, promises to make an important contribution to Pudding Mill as a whole.

View within Heylyn Gardens

View of new public space/pocket park. Image: Assael Architecture

Poland House Student accommodation

Demolition of Poland House (Sui Generis –Student Accommodation) and erection of a Purpose-Built Student Accommodation (Sui Generis) building ranging in heights from 8 to 12 storeys to provide 282 student rooms (including 14no. accessible rooms), together with 160 sqm (GIA) of community floorspace (Use Class F1) at ground floor level, with associated hard and soft landscaping, car parking and servicing, cycle store, boundary treatments and other associated works.

Address

Application type

Application

Permission date

Status

Client

Architect

Landscape

Stratford

Poland House Student accommodation

Urban Greening Factor calculation = 0.4

With a UGF of 0.4, the scheme meets the minimum requirement. GI is provided at the rear of the property with a sunken garden and at roof level with a small terrace.

The UGF score is achieved predominantly through extensive green roofs, rain gardens and green walls. The area available for green roof may reduce through technical design due to plant requirements and / or fire regulations. Greening also includes a number of trees, flower-rich planting and intensive vegetation above structure. Permeable paving is used throughout the sunken garden.

The applicant has also put forward proposals for a pocket park as a meanwhile use of the adjacent site. These proposals are not included within this study.

Sunken garden

Sunken Garden: Privacy & Screening

2. Green wall

3. Sunken garden

1. Street planting

Poland House Student accommodation

Planning for GI from the outset

Initial massing studies demonstrate that student amenity space has been part of the site strategy from the outset. The amenity space to the rear is recognised as providing multiple benefits including acting as a buffer to the adjacent residential gardens.

Conserving, enhancing and strengthening links with landscape and local context

The local area has and continues to undergo significant change with a large number of high density schemes being brought forward. As such, the prevailing local landscape character is difficult to define. The scheme takes cues from the adjacent vacant plots with a “wasteland” character, and from the wider area’s industrial and riparian heritage.

Responding to climate change

The scheme incorporates biophilic design including green walls and roofs, new street trees along Stratford High Street, rain gardens, green

and blue roofs to improve building performance. These features combine to facilitate surface water management, urban cooling, enhanced biodiversity, improved air quality, health and wellbeing and noise reduction.

Protecting

and enhancing biodiversity

The proposed landscape design will enhance the biodiversity of the site and its surroundings. Year-round plant coverage and tree underplanting will create enhanced structure and cover for wildlife, nectar-rich and berry producing species are included and birch groves will offer bird nesting opportunities. The extensive rain gardens will add to urban habitats for native butterflies, birds, and various insects. Flower-rich perennials will attract bees and other insects. Lichens, moss, algae and small flowering plants will be used by insects and other invertebrates as food. Gravel and rocks will provide cover for fauna. Native climbing plants, such as ivy, up walls and facades attract a diverse range of species.

Ensuring resilience in water and flood management

A combination of blue roofs, amenity areas with paving and surface water storage within cellular storage or voided sub-base material below, attenuate discharge with sufficient storage for a one in one hundred year event plus 40%.

The sunken garden is, due to it’s level, unable to discharge to the sewer by gravity and is therefore pumped from an underground tank. The infiltration rate of the ground has yet to be tested, but given the character and design of the sunken garden, it would be a missed opportunity to not maximise the functionality of the rain gardens and gravel pits.

Enabling access, fitness, play and contact with nature

With areas of seating amongst planting, the sunken garden has the potential to be a quiet, relaxing space surrounded by nature, somewhat atypical of student accommodation schemes. The areas of gravel should be of an appropriate specification for wheelchair use.

Ensuring ongoing stewardship and management

Careful management of the garden and amenity terrace will be required to ensure the planting takes hold and remains robust against significant use. The inclusion of larger spaces for use by groups should help with this.

The scheme has the potential to be an example of successful urban greening of high density development on a small site. Green walls provide a significant contribution to the UGF score and it remains to be seen if the large expanses on the southern flank wall will satisfy evolving fire safety regulatory hurdles during later design stages. If implemented and maintained properly, the south facing sunken garden will be a high quality example of characterful amenity.

View of sunken garden. Image: JCLA

30 Marsh Wall

Student accommodation

Demolition of existing building and erection of a 48 storey building (plus basement and lift pit) to provide 1,068 student accommodation bedrooms and ancillary amenity spaces (Sui Generis Use) along with 184.6sqm of flexible retail / commercial floorspace (Use Class E), alterations to the public highway and public realm improvements, including the creation of a new north-south pedestrian route and replacement public stairs.

Untitled M ap

Address 30 Marsh Wall, Tower Hamlets, E14 9TP

Application type Full Application PA/20/02588

Permission date 28/07/22

Status Planning

Client Tide Construction for P&C Architect

Key UG features within the scheme:

Canary Wharf

Heron Keys

Middle Dock

Sunset view of 30 Marsh Wall within cluster Artist impression

Aerial view of proposed scheme. Image: EPR Architects

30 Marsh Wall Student accommodation

Urban Greening Factor calculation =

With a UGF of 0.53, the scheme exceeds the minimum requirement of 0.4. GI is provided at street level in the form of a public pocket park, a new pedestrian link along the western edge of the site and around reconfigured public steps connecting Cuba Street and Marsh Wall. A small terrace at first floor and a larger roof terrace at the top level provides communal amenity for students.

The UGF score is achieved predominantly at street level, through flower-rich perennial planting and new and existing trees in connected tree pits. This is supplemented with trees above structure at ground and first floor, and planting, a green wall and a mixed intensive and extensive green roof.

Roof terrace

Roof and canopy levels

CUBA STREET

MARSHWALL

4. Public steps

3.First floor terrace

2. Pedestrian link 1. Roof terrace

Illustrative Masterplan - Roof Terrace + Roof Level

Planning for GI from the outset

The inclusion and design of GI has been a determining factor in the proposed use of the site for student accommodation. Residential led applications by previous landowners failed partially due to the requirement for private and communal amenity and play space, whereas the amenity requirements for student accommodation are less onerous. The integration with “future context” at Cuba Street has been assisted by both developments having largely the same design team including the landscape architect Spacehub.

Conserving, enhancing and strengthening links with landscape and local context

The local context can be characterised by high density buildings with predominantly hard surfaced public realm. Other than the nearby amenity of the docks and river Thames, there is limited landscape character within the immediate vicinity. The landscape design takes cues from the nearby Cuba Street development under construction, with similar tree and planting species, providing a visual link.

Responding to climate change

The new landscaped link will encourage more sustainable modes of travel by creating a pedestrian friendly environment. Together with wider improvements made by LBTH Liveable Streets initiative as part of a Section 278 agreement, lower carbon behaviours will be facilitated. The UG measures will help to reduce the impact of flooding as well as moderate temperature examples within the public realm.

Protecting and enhancing biodiversity

The scheme responds to Tower Hamlets’ LBAP through the creation of a biodiverse green roof with a variety of features including mounding, hollows, wildflowers and log piles. The provision of hibernacula for bats, birds and insects will increase peoples’ awareness, understanding and enjoyment of the natural environment. The use of green walls will create additional habitat for birds in an area of restricted space.

Ensuring resilience in water and flood management

Soft landscaping interception storage is used in the flower rich planting around the perimeter of the site. This reduces runoff rates and surface water volumes as well as treating pollution. The first floor roof terrace has a blue roof system to attenuate short periods of rainfall. Rain gardens and tree pits allow for some direct infiltration. Permeable paving has not been specified at ground level due to gradients in excess of 1 in 12.

Enabling access, fitness, play and contact with nature

The rooftop garden provides a range of spaces and activities for all to enjoy and has the potential to become a strong focal point for the student community. It is designed to be accessible to all with spaces that cater to all needs, for example the inclusion of areas of quiet, which may help to mitigate the lack of private amenity.

Ensuring ongoing stewardship and management

The inclusion of an outline management plan at application stage demonstrates an understanding of the value that GI creates. The proportion of hard landscape at roof level may be a reflection of the potential occupancy levels, however the specification of artificial grass is a missed opportunity to provide additional greening.

The scheme has the potential to be an example of successful urban greening of high density development on a small site. The reliance upon tree planting and flower-rich perennial planting to deliver the majority of greening will require careful detailed design and species selection, installation and rigorous ongoing maintenance to overcome the micro-climatic conditions of overshadowing and wind speeds. Nonetheless, it has the potential to be a valuable addition to an area that is lacking in greenery.

SECTIONAL ELEVATION D-D’

137

30 Marsh Wall - Design & Access

View looking down Marsh Wall / new Marsh Street Pocket Park

Section through pedestrian link. Image: EPR Architects

View of public pocket park. Image: Spacehub

Unity Place

6-8 storey mansion block

Demolition of 209 existing dwellings and garages at Gloucester House and Durham Court and erection of 4-8 storey blocks comprising of 236 flats (134 private and 102 affordable (social rent)), an energy centre for the South Kilburn Neighbourhood Decentralised Heating System, basement car-park, associated landscaping and general amenity space, provision of replacement public play space and stopping up of existing public footpath between Cambridge Road and Kilburn Park Road. 0.46 UGF

Address Durham Court and Gloucester House, Kilburn Park Road and Cambridge Road, NW6 Brent

Application type Full

Application 14/1896

Permission date 23/09/14

Status Built

Client London Borough of Brent

Architect Feilden Clegg Bradley Alison Brooks Gort Scott

Landscape Architect Grant Associates

uses

of units

(C3)

Aerial view of proposed scheme. Image: Feilden Clegg, Gort Scott, Alison Brooks and Grant Associates

Unity Place

6-8 storey mansion block

With a UGF of 0.46, the scheme exceeds the minimum requirement of 0.4. GI is provided within each courtyard in the form of communal residential amenity. A public, landscaped street separates the two courtyards with a pocket park and children’s play space.

The UGF score is achieved predominantly at street level, through flower-rich perennial planting and new and existing trees in connected tree pits. This is supplemented with hedges, rain gardens and extensive green roofs. Permeable paving is limited to the southern courtyard which is above a basement car park.

1.Communal garden

2.Landscaped street

3. Children’s play areas

Isometric view

Photographs 1-3: Feilden Clegg Bradley, Gort Scott, Alison Brooks and Grant Associates

Unity Place 6-8 storey mansion block

Planning for GI from the outset

The inclusion of high quality green infrastructure was a key aim of redeveloping the site. The existing arrangement of high-rise blocks set within an incoherent landscape lacking little definition between public and private areas had failed. The new arrangement of buildings set around two courtyards with a pedestrianised “play” street through the middle provides communal amenity for residents alongside wider benefits to the community.

Conserving, enhancing and strengthening links with landscape and local context

The east/west route strengthens links to local green infrastructure by linking up with an existing pedestrian route next to the Church making it easier and safer for pedestrians to walk to Paddington Recreation Ground.

Conserving

and enhancing the historic environment / heritage assets

The character of Grade 1 listed St Augustine’s Church has informed the massing, layout and public realm of the development. There is a sewer running through the centre of the site preventing any development in this location, but the angle of the buildings and shape of public space has been designed to open out towards to the Church, maximising views and reinforcing a sense of place.

Responding to climate change

The new landscaped link will encourage more sustainable modes of travel by creating a pedestrian friendly environment. Together with wider improvements made by the South Kilburn masterplan, lower carbon behaviours will be facilitated. The UG measures will help to reduce the impact of flooding as well as moderate temperature extremes within the public realm.

Photographs: Feilden Clegg, Gort Scott, Alison Brooks and Grant Associates

Protecting and enhancing biodiversity

The entire scheme is surrounded by hedging, which in some places is 3m wide and consists of a mix of 6 different native species. This creates a significant wildlife resource in the area and makes a reasonably significant contribution to the Brent Local BAP. Key areas within both courtyards are planted with both native and non-native evergreen perennials and deciduous plant species, creating a tiered structure of shrubs and ground flora with a wide variety of flowering times and flower forms. This variation has visual appeal and contributes to biodiversity.

Ensuring resilience in water and flood management

The inclusion of living green roofs across every building increases the attenuation storage capacity of the development, improving the streetscape’s ability to withstand short term impacts. This is complemented with a network of rain gardens and tree pits which further increase attenuation, storing water for reuse, irrigating the

amenity lawns and community growing spaces.

Enabling access, fitness, play and contact with nature

The development meets the quantum of play space required for children under 12 with doorstep play within each courtyard and two areas of equipped play within the public realm. This is a focal point for the community both within the development and beyond, encouraging social cohesion and intergenerational play. Overlooking from ground floor homes and provision of seating within the street ensures passsive surveillance.

The scheme is a built example of successful urban greening. Designed and delivered prior to the New London Plan 2021, it demonstrates that thoughtful landscape design, that considers issues of use, climate change, biodiversity and sustainable drainage should inherently meet or exceed the urban greening policy.

Illustrative landscape masterplan. Image: Grant Associates

Southall Park Avenue

Block

Demolition of existing buildings and the erection of 5 blocks of between 5 and 25 storeys to provide affordable and market Class C3 dwellings and flexible Classes E and F2 floorspace, public realm, landscaping, amenity/ play space, alterations to vehicle and pedestrian access, car and cycle parking and refuse storage, associated works including roof level plant.

Address Land South Of Park Avenue Southall, Ealing, UB1 3AD

Application type Full Application 216991FULR3

Permission date 02/03/23

Status Planning

Client Paragon Asra Housing

Architect Maccreanor Lavington Gort Scott

Landscape Architect Turkington Martin Building uses

(C3)

(F2)

Axonometric

Southall Sidings

Merrick

Southall Park Avenue Urban Block

Urban Greening Factor calculation = 0.43

With a UGF of 0.43, the scheme exceeds the minimum requirement of 0.4. GI is provided at street level in the form of public pocket parks, play space and communal gardens for residents. Additional amenity and place space is provided for residents across multiple raised terraces.

The UGF score is achieved predominantly through intensive vegetation at both roof and terrace levels and trees in connected pits at street level. This is supplemented with flower-rich planting, hedges and rain gardens at street level and with trees at the terrace levels. Permeable paving covers the majority of the remaining available area at ground level with additional areas to the terraces.

Roof

Terrace level

3. Raised garden terrace

1.Play and socialhub

2. Residential garden

Southall Park Avenue

Urban Block

Planning for GI from the outset

Massing and green infrastructure has been considered in tandem, with a number of options explored to determine the scale and proportion of spaces between buildings. The massing along the railway consists of three towers with amenity spaces on podiums in between. These spaces are south facing and will receive good levels of daylight and sunlight in the middle of the day. These spaces also provide another aspect for the towers allowing inset balconies to face east or west, rather than directly onto the railway.

Conserving, enhancing and strengthening links with landscape and local context

Southall is an area undergoing a significant amount of change, with high density development either under construction or consented on both sides of the railway. The design responds to both the existing and future context: a new public space at the western edge seeks to resolve land ownership boundaries, provide access to the railway for network rail and

accommodate the landing of the new Merrick Road pedestrian and cycle bridge.

Responding to climate change

The variety of urban greening measures will help to moderate temperatures within the amenity spaces. Together with neighbouring developments, the scheme will encourage pedestrians and cyclists by providing pleasant, comfortable connections through the neighbourhood.

Protecting and enhancing biodiversity

The landscape design enhances the ecological value and support for biodiversity of the site with a mosaic of plant communities creating significant habitats that are able to support a diverse range of wildlife. The existing woodland edge habitat corridor is enhanced with a mix of native cultivars and multi-stem ornamental trees underplanted with shrub species with herbaceous and groundcover layers. Every roof

Aerial view of development. Image: Maccreanor Lavington

Aerial view of building C play garden & A2 raised terrace garden

grasses, creating a mosaic of habitats and habitat features. At podium level, intensive green roofs are planted with a variety of trees, shrubs and perennial planting that flowers throughout the year, providing an ongoing source of food.

Ensuring resilience in water and flood management

The sustainable drainage strategy incorporates green roofs with attenuation. Rain gardens are incorporated within the public realm to capture rainwater runoff and slow the rate at which it enters the drainage system. They also provide additional benefits of amenity and biodiversity.

podium and roof level, for residents to enjoy. However, the development does not provide the full requirement on site. Analysis by the applicant demonstrates that nearby open spaces, including Southall Park, has a good mix of facilities including a play ground, play centre, MUGA and adult exercise areas.

The scheme has the potential to be an example of successful urban greening of high density development on a large site. The green infrastructure within the design works hard to fulfil a number of functions including amenity, biodiversity, sustainable drainage and facilitating links to the wider context as well as mitigating some of the impacts of high density development, for example wind.

Atlas Wharf

Multiple towers on a podium

Demolition of existing structures and redevelopment to provide three buildings ranging in height from 9 to 30 storeys linked by a landscaped podium, comprising 682 sqm of Class E commercial uses at ground floor with 457 residential units (Class C3) and rooftop plant above, together with an access and servicing route from Atlas Road, a new pedestrian access route to the Grand Union Canal and works to the towpath, parking, landscaping and public realm, and all associated works.

0.4 UGF

Address Land at Atlas Wharf, Atlas Road, Ealing, NW10 6DN

Application type Full

Application 21/0214/FUMOPDC

Permission date 23/11/22

Status Planning

Client Pocket Living Architect GRID

Landscape Architect Townshend

Willesden Junction

View of proposed scheme. Image: GRID and Townshend

Atlas Wharf

Multiple towers on a podium

Urban Greening Factor calculation = 0.4

With a UGF of 0.4, the scheme provides the minimum amount of greening. GI is provided at street level in the form of a landscaped edge to the canal and a planted route from canal to street. Residential amenity is provided through a landscaped podium and multiple roof terraces.

The UGF score is achieved predominantly through intensive and extensive vegetation at both roof and podium levels and trees in connected pits at street level. This is supplemented with a rich mix of hedges, rain gardens, semi-natural vegetation and green walls. Permeable paving is limited to the canal edge and link through to street level.

The area available for green roof may reduce through technical design due to plant requirements and / or fire regulations.

Roof

Atlas Wharf Multiple towers on a podium

Planning for GI from the outset

The development is located in area with limited green spaces and as such seeks to maximise the amount of amenity space provided on site. Landscape has been used to mitigate some of the impacts of high density living: the planting design of the podium garden creates a sense of enclosure to mitigate against overlooking; planting is used to create defined spaces within the garden to allow multiple people to use it together without a sense of encroachment; enclosure is enhanced through mounding.

Conserving, enhancing and strengthening links with landscape and local context

The new connection to the Grand Union Canal towpath will improve it’s permeability and connectivity. This will become increasingly important as the Channel Gate masterplan comes forward and ensure that residents of this scheme are able to enjoy the waterfront.

Responding to climate change

As the first major residentially led development in the area, the greening of Atlas Road is a key first step in encouraging a shift to walking and cycling. Similarly, by opening up access to the canal, residents will have a pleasant route to local public transport connections. Planting beds along Atlas Road will reduce the impact on the drainage network by providing bio-retention whilst also providing amenity, seasonal interest and urban greening. Proposed tree planting will also help to reduce air pollution from vehicle traffic.

Protecting and enhancing biodiversity

The planting has been designed to achieve a biodiversity net gain. Varied planting will allow a prolonged flowering season and planting fruit and nectar rich species will provide food for birds and insects and in turn food for bats. The form and structure of the planting will also create nesting opportunities for birds.

NOTE: The revised illustrative visual incorporates the amendments proposed in Addendum 1, issued May 2022.

Enabling access, fitness, play and contact with nature

The majority of play space is incorporated at podium level. Formal play equipment is located in clusters with seating. The lawns provide space for informal play. Within the public realm, canal link and canal frontage, there are further pockets of space for incidental play.

The scheme has the potential to be an example of successful urban greening of high density development on a small site. However, this will rely on careful detailed design and implementation; with a score of 0.4, there is little room for manoeuvre if for example rooftop plant sizes increase during the technical design stage, reducing the space available for the extensive green roof. The erosion of the natural landscape character of the canal edge may or may not be offset by increased pedestrian connectivity. The design demonstrates consideration of all possible users and particularly that it is possible to meet the play space quantum requirements for all ages on a small site.

View of proposed podium. Image: GRID and Townshend

17 Admirals Way

Standalone tower

Demolition of the existing building (Use Class E) and the comprehensive redevelopment of the site to provide a single tall building (205m AOD to the top of the building and 230m AOD to the top of the spire) providing residential accommodation (Use Class C3) along with a mix of flexible commercial uses (Use Class E) at ground floor level with associated hard and soft landscaping including the delivery of a new pocket park providing general public realm improvements.

Address 17 Admirals Way, Tower Hamlets, E14 9XQ

Application type Full Application PA/21/00952/A1

Permission date 19/12/22

Status Planning

Client Far East Consortium

Architect Maccreanor Lavington

Landscape Architect Spacehub

Canary Wharf

Heron Keys

Middle Dock

South Dock

River Thames

Aerial view from southwest showing proposal

17 Admirals Way

Standalone tower

Urban Greening Factor calculation = 0.39

Trees in connected trees pits

Flower-rich perennial planting

Intensive green roof

Trees in tree pits

With a UGF of 0.39, the scheme falls just short of the minimum requirement of 0.4. GI is principally provided at street level in the form of a public pocket park.

The UGF score is achieved largely at street level, through flower-rich perennial planting and new and existing trees in connected tree pits. This is supplemented with hedgerow planting along the edges of floors one to five and trees (with low soil volumes) also on floor five. Around half of the roof has an intensive green roof. The area available for green roof may reduce through technical design due to plant requirements and / or fire regulations. Permeable paving covers the remaining space available at ground floor with the exception of Admirals Way.

Isometric view

Images 1&2: Maccreanor Lavington

Fig. 108 Retention of existing mature trees

Fig. 109 Facade planting

Fig. 110 New tree planting

Fig. 111 Landscape

2. Tree planting

17 Admirals Way

Standalone tower

Planning for GI from the outset

Early site layout strategies demonstrate that the size, location and coherence of the public amenity space was a determining factor on the design on what is a constrained site. The ability of Admirals Way and the area under the DLR to provide urban greening is limited to permeable paving.

Conserving, enhancing and strengthening links with landscape and local context

The local context can be characterised by high density buildings with predominantly hard surfaced public realm. The design provides some relief to this with greenery and a safe legible public realm. Together with the neighbouring development, a pedestrian route under the DLR will improve access to South Quay, where a footbridge crosses the water and links to Jubilee Park.

Responding to climate change

The pedestrian experience will be greatly improved by the landscape and public realm design that will create spaces that people want to dwell in and move through. Together with neighbouring developments, the public realm has the potential to be a defining characteristic, giving the area a sense of place.

Protecting and enhancing biodiversity

The provision of a biodiverse roof will create viable habitats for wildlife. Variations in depth of substrate and use of different materials will provide nesting and hibernation habitats. Wildflowers within the planting and seed mix provide a nectar and pollen rich habitat for priority pollinators, larval food plants for butterflies and a foraging habitat for birds. Overshadowing of South Quay has the potential for moderate impact on the biodiversity of the water. This will be offset by introducing floating ecosystem platforms.

Illustrative view. Image: Spacehub

Fig. 40

Proposed pocket park

floor. Image: Maccreanor Lavington

Ensuring resilience in water and flood management

Surface water run-off from within the public realm and the DLR structure is managed by a geocellular sub base beneath the permeable paving. This will attenuate the water, slowing down the discharge rate to the sewer. Ground conditions mean that infiltration isn’t possible.

Enabling access, fitness, play and contact with nature

The public realm and pocket park has been designed to be simple, open and contain defined areas of greenery where people can dwell. Play space at ground floor is limited to natural incidental play within the areas of soft landscape, and movable elements under the DLR. Further play space for children under aged twelve is provided on an open air deck at the fifth floor and mezzanine levels, but greenery is limited to planters around the perimeter and a number of trees.

The affordable homes within the scheme, which are located at the lower levels have private balconies, unlike the private sale homes which do not but have a larger internal area. This is compensated for by access to communal amenity including a clubhouse, which has an external terrace.

Ensuring

ongoing stewardship and management

The inclusion of an outline management plan at application stage demonstrates an understanding of the value of GI in creating a welcoming, pleasant setting for the development.

The scheme is an example of maximising urban greening on a constrained site. The ability of the development to provide greening has been limited by the constraints of the site rather than the density of the scheme, which whilst high, covers a relatively small proportion of the site.

Fig. 39 Site Layout

Land adjacent to Cockfosters Station

Interface with transport infrastructure

Erection of four buildings, with part basement area, ranging in height between 5 and 14 storeys, and comprising 351 new residential dwelling units (Class C3) with flexible retail ground floor unit (Class E and/or drinking establishment (Sui Generis) uses), replacement Train Drivers Accommodation (Sui Generis), cycle parking, public realm and open space, car parking, hard and soft landscaping, access and servicing, plant and associated works.

Aerial view of proposed scheme. Image: Hawkins\Brown, Mae, JCLA, Adriette Myburgh (illustrator)

Land adjacent to Cockfosters Station

Interface with transport infrastructure

With a UGF of 0.42, the scheme exceeds the minimum requirement of 0.4. GI is provided across the entirety of the site

vegetation

Permeable paving 1516sqm

Trees in connected tree pits 1106sqm

Flower-rich perennial planting 914sqm

Extensive green roof 873sqm

Amenity grassland 440sqm

gardens 320sqm

Intensive green roof 123sqm

Trees in tree pits 60sqm

Land adjacent to Cockfosters Station Interface with transport

Planning for GI from the outset

The inclusion and design of GI has been considered from the outset. The proposed landscape has been designed to bring the character of Trent Park into the centre of Cockfosters. The generosity of public space is recognised as an opportunity to strengthen the local community. As is the value of amenity in promoting a healthy lifestyle.

Conserving, enhancing and strengthening links with landscape and local context

The proposed design enhances connections to Trent Park from Cockfosters Road and into the London Outer Orbital Path which runs across the northern edge of the site. Communal amenity space is limited to one roof terrace on one of the buildings, allowing the majority of site to be given over to publicly accessible amenity, strengthening connections between people and their neighbourhood.

Existing trees have been retained where possible

and supplemented with additional planting to ensure a net gain. Woodland spaces to the north and southern ends of the site, with under planting of grasses, perennials and ferns, bring the landscape character of Trent Park into the scheme.

Responding to climate change

The removal of a large number of parking spaces will promote low carbon behaviours by encouraging more people to walk, cycle or take the bus to reach the station. Accessibility and inclusivity is improved by ensuring clear legibility and wayfinding into Trent Park. A significant area of hardstanding has been given over to landscape, helping to reduce the impact of flooding and pressure on the drainage network.

Protecting and enhancing biodiversity

Whilst there will be some loss of habitat due to the development, this is outweighed by the new habitats provided and which lead to a net gain of

Proposed view of open space. Image: Hawkins\Brown, Mae, JCLA, NBV Studio (visualiser)

447%. Mitigation measures include a deciduous woodland area, a swale, grassland areas and a community orchard. In addition, green and brown roofs have been incorporated into the design throughout. Native species will be used predominantly, along with some ornamental species.

Ensuring

resilience in water and flood management

The proposals incorporate significant areas of green and brown roofing which provide interception and water retention at roof level. Some water is retained within the roof system for later irrigation, providing a passive form of water re-use. Vegetated swales, rain gardens and an attenuation pond form part of the drainage strategy, providing biodiversity, play, water cleansing and visual amenity as well as sustainable drainage. The site’s ground conditions are not considered suitable to be

relied upon as a primary means of surface water discharge. Consequently, the western portion of the site discharges to an existing sewer, and the rest to a nearby watercourse.

Enabling access, fitness, play and contact with nature

Rather than formal playgrounds, the design provides a “playful landscape”. This caters for all ages and is accessible to the wider community. Play areas are not segregated but open to all, allowing families and friends of different ages to play together.

The scheme has the potential to be an excellent example of successful urban greening of high density development. Mediating between urban and rural by bringing the character of Trent Park into the site will offer benefits to residents and the neighbourhood beyond.

Nine Elms OSD

Interface with transport infrastructure

Residential led mixed-use development above and surrounding Nine Elms Station, comprising three new residential buildings of 21 storeys, 16 storeys and 17 storeys providing a total of 479 homes (Use Class C3), plus small scale commercial floorspace of 108m2 (Use Classes E / F2 & SG), works within the Nine Elms Station ‘boxes’, a new public square, and associated works.

Key UG features within the scheme:

Address 10 Pascal Street, Lambeth, SW8 4SH

Application type Full “slot-in”

Application 20/02331/FUL

Permission date 17/12/21

Status Planning

Client Connected Living London Architect Assael

Aerial view of proposed scheme. Image: Assael Architecture

PASCALSTREET

WANDSWORTH ROAD

Aerial sketch of proposal in context

Nine Elms OSD

Interface with transport infrastructure

Greening Factor calculation = 0.29*

Urban greening is achieved across three different levels within the scheme. Within the public square between the two buildings, there are flower-rich perennials and tree planting. There is also tree planting within the street to the north, along with rain gardens. Within the first floor amenity gardens, there is a mix of intensive and extensive vegetation, permeable paving and further tree planting. At roof level, there is intensive vegetation, permeable paving and tree planting. The plant areas have an extensive green roof.

*Note that the UGF calculated by the applicant is 0.37 owing to the discounting of part of the site that is to be developed in another stage/by others. At the time of planning submission, pre 2021 London Plan, the UGF policy was emerging and the calculation was included for information only.

2. First floor

3. Publicsquare

1. Street tree planting

Nine Elms OSD

Interface with transport infrastructure

Planning for GI from the outset

The scheme has considered how green infrastructure can be included from the outset. However, the design is constrained by the station box: the scale of the public square, location of retail and residential entrances; access requirements; are all relatively fixed. On the upper levels, the massing has been broken into three buildings and sculpted to incorporate amenity spaces at podium and roof level.

Ensuring

resilience in water and flood management

As part of the drainage strategy, improvements in water quality and lag time into the drainage system have been incorporated into the design through trees and tree pits. The pits incorporate storage crates to increase the potential for storage prior to being released into the station box drainage network. There are also proposed rain gardens to contribute to the sustainable management of surface water.

Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

Pascal Street is adjacent to the site and gives it’s name to Pascal Square. They are named after the mathematician Blaize Pascal and the design of the square references forms from his work and theorems.

Protecting and enhancing biodiversity

The design utilises biodiverse roofs as the primary opportunity to support a range of local birds and insect species. The proposed roofs are a mosaic of nectar-rich low maintenance planting; self-seeded managed vegetation, bare ground, stones, sand, rubble and logs; invertebrate loggeries, nest boxes and shallow depressions for rain water bird washes.

Illustrative landscape plan by Exterior Architecture©

Responding to climate change

The scheme promotes more sustainable travel by virtue of being located above an underground station. Tree planting at street level provides shading and cooling during the summer, removes air pollution and helps with water retention.

Enabling access, fitness, play and contact with nature.

The podium and roof terrace spaces provide a mix of play and amenity for residents of the development. The spaces include seating areas for small groups and individuals, open lawn areas and opportunities for small scale food production. Play space is provided in the form of formal play equipment, natural play, play lawns, “hang out” areas for older children and allotments.

The scheme is an example of how the constraints of a site can effect the potential for urban greening. Whilst the station design clearly considered GI, hence the inclusion of the public square, UGF was not an emerging policy at the time. The later OSD design had a relatively fixed ground floor condition, with opportunities for additional greening limited by access requirements to the station box, including servicing and entrances to the retail and residential. The UGF may be able to be increased during the detailed design stage however this will need to be balanced against the multi-functionality of spaces, particularly when a large number of people need to be accommodated.

View of public square. Image: Assael

The Global List

Co-location

Student accommodation

Residentially led Interface with transport

1. Kampung Admirality, Singapore

2. Citygate 2, Brussels

3. Brinktoren, Amsterdam

4. 240 Margaret Street, Brisbane

5. Green Medina, Eindhoven

6. One Central Park, Sydney

7. Capita Spring, Singapore

8. Eole-Evangile Triangle, Paris

9. Sacramento Station, California

Kampung Admirality

Singapore

Co-location

Kampung Admiralty is a community hub located in Singapore that serves as a one-stop centre for residents of all ages. It integrates housing for seniors, healthcare facilities, social services, and commercial spaces. The development promotes active aging and fosters intergenerational interactions. It features a rooftop community garden, a medical centre, a supermarket, and various amenities. Kampung Admiralty aims to create a vibrant and inclusive community by providing convenient access to essential services and encouraging social connections among its residents.

Address 676 Woodlands Drive 71, Singapore 730676

Status Built (2018)

Client Housing & Development Board

Architect WOHA

Landscape Architect Ramboll Studio Dreiseitl

Key UGF features within the scheme:

Proximity

Kampung Admirality Singapore

Co-location

With a UGF of 0.54, the scheme exceeds the minimum requirement of 0.4. GI is provided on almost every available horizontal surface and across part of the northern elevation.

At street level greening includes trees in connected pits, open water in the form of an “eco-pond” and ground cover planting within the pedestrianised public realm along the eastern edge. At podium and terrace levels, there are a large number of trees and areas of intensive vegetation cover. A green wall on the northern elevation provides almost 10% of the urban greening score.

Urban Greening Factor calculation = 0.54

Groundcover planting

water

Trees in connected pits

Urban Greening Plan

3. Play space

Isometric view

Photos 1-4: WOHA, Patrick Bingham-Hall and K. Kopter

4. Tree planting

Kampung Admirality

Planning for GI from the outset

The integration of landscape spaces is a critical element of the design concept. The multiple levels of greenery at the top of the building free up the ground level for active public uses that require more shade, for example exercise classes. The bringing together of a mix of public facilities and services under one roof, alongside apartments for elderly singles and couples, is facilitated by high quality landscape amenity, designed to support a range of uses and to accommodate a mix of users.

Ensuring resilience in water and flood management

Water is conserved through harvesting, cleansing and recycling rainwater. Vegetated filters, rain chains and the rain garden collect and filter storm water runoff before sending it to the harvesting tank; from here it is redistributed through the building for irrigation. At the ground floor, the cleansing biotope and eco-pond collect and filter surface runoff to irrigate grade-level landscaping.

Securing local food supply

The establishment of a community farm enables residents to rediscover their culinary roots and share their expertise in local produce and traditional cuisine with future generations.

Protecting and enhancing biodiversity

Through a thoughtfully curated selection of plants, encompassing both shrubs and fruit-bearing trees, the area now serves as a magnet for a diverse array of species seeking nourishment and nectar. Furthermore, the inclusion of water features not only adds to the overall diversity but also offers alternative habitats and a vital water source, further enriching the ecosystem.

Responding to climate change

The greenery, open water and contiguous canopy and shading help to bring down surface temperatures on site. This is an efficient and sustainable way of creating pleasant outdoor spaces in the tropical heat.

View of rooftop garden. Photo: WOHA, Patrick Bingham-Hall and K. Kopter

Enabling access, fitness, play and contact with nature.

Residents enjoy a seamless connection with nature throughout their daily routines, fostering enhanced mental well-being and promoting physical engagement, all while minimising the chances of social isolation. Informal interactions are facilitated through strategically placed benches, allowing residents to engage with one another. The community farm offers a collaborative space where residents can work together, while the verdant rooftop gardens provide an inviting setting for exercise. Public access the gardens and the inclusion of play space helps to support inter-generational bonding.

The scheme is an excellent example of urban greening of high density mixed use development. Even without the green wall, which would be challenging to deliver in the UK, the scheme would score above 0.5. It is an example of how well designed green infrastructure can support the mixing of uses to the benefit of all users. In addition, the greenery lowers the thermal load on the structure, reducing the need for air conditioning. The area has become a biodiversity hotspot, supporting the transformation of the ecological value of the neighbourhood.

Awarded “World Building of the Year” in 2018 by the World Architecture Festival, the project is an important model for how to deliver urban greening.

Landscape plan. Image: WOHA

Citygate 2

Brussels

Industrial Co-location

Citygate II is a new district in Petite Île and part of the redevelopment of the Kanaalzone, a former industrial area next to the canal. The project includes around 400 homes and 1,250sqm of light industrial and commercial space. There is also a school at the centre of the district, with library, gym and community centre.

Address Rue de la Petite Ile 1070 Anderlecht, Belgium

Status Planning (estimated completion 2025)

Client Citydev

Architect Sergison Bates noArchitecten

Korteknie Stuhlmacher Architecten AHA Elseline Bazin

Landscape Architect Boom Landscape

Building uses Residential Light industrial Commercial Education Leisure

Number

Floor

Hab. rooms / hectare

Play

Communal

Existing site. Photograph: Sergison Bates architects

Citygate 2

Brussels

Industrial Co-location

With a UGF of 0.54, the scheme exceeds the minimum requirement of 0.4. GI is provided across the site at both street and roof level.

The UGF score is achieved predominantly at roof level with both intensive and extensive green roofs. The area available for this type of greening may reduce through technical design due to plant requirements and / or fire regulations. At street level greening measures include flower rich planting, hedges and ground cover. There are also trees in connected pits throughout the landscape spaces.

3.Southern streetfrontage

2. Schoolyard

4.Flower-rich perennials

5. Landscape proposals to thenorth

Citygate 2 Brussels Industrial Co-location

Planning for GI from the outset

The site layout and distribution of uses demonstrates that green infrastructure has been considered in tandem with built form and throughout the design process. The major industrial uses are concentrated to the southern edge of the site and provide a buffer to the main road. A hard landscaped street, capable of accommodating deliveries for the entire site, frees up the remaining space for soft landscape. Play areas for the school, are located on the rooftops, further freeing up the ground level for intensive greening measures.

Conserving, enhancing and strengthening links with landscape and local context

The scheme has been designed to integrate within it’s wider urban context. The existing north/south road splitting the site into two will have a raised table to slow vehicular traffic and to signal pedestrian priority. Tree planting along this street will connect the site to the linear park proposed along it’s northern edge and to the Bruxelles-Charleroi Canal beyond.

Protecting and enhancing biodiversity

Native trees species have been selected that provide sources of food and shelter for birds and insects. Wherever possible, beneath canopies, there is planting capable of developing in a shady environment. Perennials and flowering plants have been selected to give a mix of foliage structure and together with the tree planting, provide a mosaic of habitats for species.

Ensuring resilience in water and flood management

Careful consideration has been given to the hard surface materials throughout, balancing practicality and sustainability. In the public square, most of the space is covered in gravel, of a size and shape that does not require a binder and therefore a sustainable option that is permeable, allowing water to infiltrate. Native tree species have been selected that tolerate high levels of water underground and retain water.

Landscape plan. Image: A L’IÎle - Sergison Bates architects

Image: Nora Walter Images - A L’IÎle - Sergison Bates architects

Enabling access, fitness, play and contact with nature

In some areas, the sustainable use of rainwater is made visible. A system of gullies allow rainwater to be collected to irrigate the garden. A cistern collects the water from the neighbouring roofs and is connected to a pump that residents can operate to water plants. Formal play space is provided within the school premises, including on the majority of it’s roofscape. Urban greening within these areas is limited to a vegetable garden where children learn how to grow food, about composting and rainwater reuse.

Responding to climate change

Designing the site as a permeable network of pedestrian friendly streets begins to promote walking and cycling to neighbouring areas, including to the nearest rail station 16 minutes walk away. However, this is somewhat offset by the inclusion of a basement car park. The use of green roofs will increase heat insulation reducing energy usage in winter months.

The scheme has the potential to be an excellent example of successful urban greening of high density co-location of residential and industrial development. The consolidation of industrial traffic to one area of the site is key in maximising the overall potential for greening. With the exception of one building, every sqm of roof space has been utilised for greening.

240 Margaret Street

240 Margaret Street is a proposed development for a 31 storey purpose built student accommodation tower in Brisbane City. Designed by COX, the tower would provide 930 beds. The proposal incorporates a green podium and double height ground level with a layered facade. The podium levels are dedicated to communal residential amenity and recreation areas as well as an outdoor terrace with landscaped spaces. Several sky terraces are planned on levels 21 and 22 as well as a rooftop sky terrace on level 31.

Urban Context

Key UGF features within the scheme:

Address 240 Margaret Street, Brisbane City QLD 4000

Status Planning (2023)

Client Journal

Architect COX Architecture

Landscape Architect RPS Australia East

Building uses Student accommodation Food and beverage

Number of beds 930

Site area 0.1729 ha

floorspace 23,600sqm GIA

The site is currently occupied by a vacant and neglected 1980’s office building of 8-storeys and a single level commercially operated basement car park. The current occupation offers no street amenity or improvements to the public realm and is currently the subject to a number of CPTED related deficiencies. It is flanked on three sides by dense urban development including tall residential towers, Skytower to the south and the Westin to the south-west, plus smaller commercial towers to the north and northwest. The primary frontage onto Margaret St forms a key opportunity that the proposal adopts to improve engagement with the public realm and provide a new level of activity with a café and alfresco dining offering, and a lushly planted glazed lobby entrance. The population of some 900 plus residents will improve the footfall along Margaret St and provide excellent levels of passive active surveillance of the street, at ground level and podium levels.

Brisbane River

Proximity

green

240 Margaret Street

Brisbane Student accommodation

With a UGF of 0.69, the scheme exceeds the minimum requirement of 0.4 by a considerable margin.

Almost all of the site is covered by the development footprint. At ground level, a series of planters on the edge of the building envelope add to the existing trees in providing greenery to the street. At first floor, the internal envelope has been minimised to provide a large terrace with soft landscaping. The areas expected to receive the most daylight and sunlight have also been planted with small trees and palms. At level two, space is given over to large trees along the street frontage. There are also raised areas of planting and climbing plants around void spaces. At levels 21, 22 and 31, planting with varying depths define different spaces for communal activity.

Maragret street arrival experience

Proposed view. Image: Student Accommodation for JOURNAL by COX Architecture in Brisbane CBD

PLANTING PALETTE

laurina ‘Luscious’

Native Gardenia

ALOCASIA brisbanensis Cunjevoi

HARDENBERGIA violacea Purple Pea

CUPANIOPSIS anacardioides Tuckeroo

TRISTANIOPSIS laurina ‘Luscious’ Water Gum

PLUMERIA species Frangapani

‘rubra’ Bromeliad PEPEROMIA obtusifolia Baby Rubber Plant

PHILODENDRON ‘Imperial Red’

apiculatum Buttons

GREVILLEA ‘Cooroora Cascade’ Cooroora Cascade

BANKSIA spinulosa Hairpin Banksia

NEOMARICA gracilis Walking Iris

240 Margaret Street Brisbane Student accommodation

Planning for GI from the outset

Green infrastructure is key element of the design concept for the scheme. With a built footprint that covers the full extents of the site, the focus has been on finding ways to integrate the surrounding natural context. This has been achieved through vertical and horizontal planes of greenery that interconnect.

Conserving, enhancing and strengthening links with landscape and local context

Links to local landscape are achieved through native species selection. This has been balanced with the need to select species that thrive in low light conditions and within planters.

Responding to climate change

The shade provided by trees and greenery helps to reduce the levels of air conditioning required, reducing the operational carbon impact and running costs. Trees at street level reduce the overall urban heat, improving the walkability of streets. Leaves and foliage filter and absorb pollutants and capture slow rainfall.

Proposed view. Image: Student Accommodation for JOURNAL by COX Architecture in Brisbane CBD

Margaret street podium facade

Enabling access, fitness, play and contact with nature

The multiple open air floors are able to accommodate a mix of different amenity spaces including a basketball court, a weights area, yoga space, event space, amphitheatre and seating. Consideration has been given to the users of each of these spaces, with planting used for visual and acoustic separation, providing areas of quiet and tranquillity in a building with over 900 occupants.

The scheme has the potential to be an example of how to achieve a high urban greening score at very high density and on a small site. It’s success will rely upon a heavy maintenance regime, including irrigation, to ensure the greenery thrives.

Landscape plans. Image: Student Accommodation for JOURNAL by COX Architecture in Brisbane CBD

Brink Tower Amsterdam Student accommodation

The Brink Tower lies at the edge of the neighbourhood of Overhoeks, just across the canal from the low-rise Van der Pek neighbourhood. The 28 storey tower accommodates a mixed program with a commercial plinth, social housing and medium priced rental housing, a residential care facility, community facilities, a community centre and commercial facilities including bowling and a cafe.

Key UG features within the scheme:

Address Overhoeks, Amsterdam

Status Construction (2023)

Client Xior Student Housing DubbeLL

Architect Mecanoo

Landscape Architect De Dakdokters

Building

Buiksloterkanaal

Noord-Hollandschkanaal

Brink Tower

Amsterdam

Student accommodation

With a UGF of 0.41, the scheme exceeds the minimum requirement of 0.4. GI is provided across multiple levels throughout the building.

The UGF score is achieved predominantly through intensive vegetation and extensive green roofs. The area available for this type of greening may reduce through technical design due to plant requirements and / or fire regulations. There are a small number of standard trees across three of the upper floors. Climbing plants cover the facade facing onto the canal at ground floor.

Greening Factor calculation = 0.41

Urban

1.Tree planting

2.Vegetation lining the edgeofamenityspace

Isometric view

Images

Mecanoo

3.Climbing plants at groundfloor

Brink Tower

Amsterdam

Student accommodation

Planning for GI from the outset

The scheme has been designed with GI in mind throughout. A ‘Brink’ is an old Dutch word for a green open space where people meet. Bringing people together to live together in a healthy, plant-filled, and sustainable project is also at the heart of the Brink Tower.

Conserving, enhancing and strengthening links with landscape and local context

The local area is separated from the rest of the city by canals. The tower is at the edge of the Overhoeks neighbourhood, an area undergoing a lot of development. Occupying the corner plot next to a bridge connection, the scheme forms a visual and social link to the adjacent neighbourhood.

Ensuring resilience in water and flood management

The various terraces and roofs are equipped with polder roofs, a system of crates in which rainwater can be stored. In this way, the roof is able to store all of the rain that falls on it and used to irrigate the vegetation.

Protecting and enhancing biodiversity

In addition to gardens on the roof terraces, there are nests and nooks for birds and insects.

Images 1-3: Mecanoo

Responding to climate change

The urban greening measures, particularly blue and green roofs, contribute to the building’s energy positive sustainability strategy. The roofs improve building performance through increasing heat and acoustic insulation and together with photovoltaics on terraces and facades, wind and solar energy harvesting on the roof top, will allow the building to produce more energy than it consumes.

Enabling access, fitness, play and contact with nature.

The mix of residential uses within the building is intended to create a sustainable community, supported by community and commercial facilities. The heavily planted plinth level is designed to become the neighbourhood meeting point.

The project has the potential to demonstrate how concentrated greening measures can make a big contribution to the overall sustainability approach. The green infrastructure created should work in tandem with the building programme to create a great place to live and make a positive contribution to the neighbourhood.

Green Medina Eindhoven

storey block

The Green Medina in Eindhoven was completed in 2002 by Neave Brown. It is an 8 storey residential building on top of a parking garage. The tallest element acts as a barrier against noise and pollution from traffic whilst on the southern side, rows of housing step down to a pedestrian street. Each row is one storey higher than the next and enjoys a roof terrace on top of the one below. Commercial units occupy the bottom floors, lining the vehicular street with a car park in the void below the housing. Key UGF features within the scheme:

Address Vestdijk 106, 5611 CZ Eindhoven, Netherlands

Status Built (2002)

Client Municipality of Amsterdam

Architect Neave Brown

Landscape Architect Neave Brown / Soontiens

Building uses Residential Car parking Commercial

Number of units 73

(estimated)

Aerial view. Photo: Prof. Mark Swenarton.

Green Medina Eindhoven

With a UGF of 0.38, the scheme just falls short of the 0.4 minimum required.

The UGF score is achieved predominantly through green walls and intensive green vegetation on structure. Green walls are located across the scheme, including as horizontal planes running across the terraces in three locations. Large extents of climbing plants have been trained to run up the tallest block on the southern side. Each of the terraces has a public and a private planter, the former maintained by the municipality, the latter by the resident. Many terraces also have climbing plants along the walls between gardens.

Mark Swenarton

2.Green wall

Planning for GI from the outset

Green infrastructure has been planned from the outset of the design of Green Medina. The typology of south facing stepped terraces utilises every sqm of “roof space” for residential amenity and offers multiple opportunities for urban greening.

Responding to climate change

The landscape design includes large expanses of green walls and climbing plants on trellis, in both horizontal and vertical planes. This improves building performance, protects the façades, increases heat and acoustic insulation and reduces solar gain in summer months, reducing energy usage and running costs.

Ensuring ongoing stewardship and management

The southern edge of each terrace has a large planter. The front, public half is planted out and maintained by the development’s gardener, whereas the back half is left for residents to plant, or not, as they wish. The public half is maintained by using cherry pickers and safety harnesses to avoid the need to gain access via resident’s homes. Employing a gardener has clearly been successful, as evidenced by how the greenery has thrived over the past twenty years.

Protecting and enhancing biodiversity

Collectively, the greening measures provide an attractive environment for wildlife. The trees and larger shrubs provide shelter and nesting opportunities for birds and nectar producing plants provide food for insects.

Enabling access, fitness, play and contact with nature

Private amenity has been prioritised within the design. The large terraces can accommodate multiple uses, including exercise, outdoor dining and food growing. Residents can choose how much greenery they want along the overhead

Aerial view of private gardens. Photo: Prof. Mark Swenarton.

trellis, balancing shade with sunlight and daylight penetration. Many residents have planted out the planters running along the party walls, further increasing the amount of greenery.

By bringing nature into the home itself, health and well-being outcomes are maximised, reducing health inequalities. Although communal amenity is limited to a platform at first floor level, the distinctive character of the scheme provides a collective identity.

Conserving, enhancing and strengthening links with landscape and local context

The pedestrian street running through the scheme ties into the wider masterplan for the area, connecting a tree lined square in the northwest to the Dommel river in the southeast. In recent years, the main road to the front of the development, Vestdijk has been downgraded, with the freed up space given over to more street trees, rain gardens and green strips with perennials and mixed grasses.

This project is an example of how successful urban greening doesn’t always result in a high UGF score. It is visibly a “green” scheme and fulfils many of the measures of successful green infrastructure. Opportunities to increase the UGF are limited to the roof of the block fronting onto the main road.

One Central Park

Sydney Multiple towers on a podium

The One Central Park development comprises a 34 story residential apartment tower and a 12 story serviced apartment tower above a common retail podium. The 130m high building is the culmination of the Frasers Broadway development on a former brewery site near downtown Sydney. Key UGF features within the scheme:

Address 614/3 Carlton Street, Chippendale NSW 2008, Australia

Status Built (2014)

Client Frasers Property Australia Sekisui House Australia

Architect Ateliers Jean Nouvel PTW Architects

Landscape Architect Aspect Oculus Jean-Claude Hardy Jeppe Aagaard Andersen Patrick Blanc Turf Design Building uses

One Central Park Sydney Multiple towers on a podium

With a UGF of 0.64, the scheme exceeds the minimum requirement of 0.4.

The UGF score is achieved largely through linear planters integrated into the facade. As these have a substrate depth of greater than 150mm, the greening has been counted as intensive green roof. The planters are complemented with panels of green walls on two of the façades. There are also standard trees at ground, podium and roof level and amenity grass in the adjacent public space.

*Note that on a number of the façades there are wires to enable plants within the planters to climb. The information needed to calculate the potential surface cover area was not available and it would be highly challenging to replicate such a design in the UK.

Urban Greening Factor calculation = 0.64

Isometric view

Photos 1&3: Ateliers Jean Nouvel, John Gollings, courtesy of Frasers Property and Sekisui House

1. Linear planters

2. Green walls

3. Public open space

One Central Park Sydney Multiple towers on a podium

Planning for GI from the outset

The development is part of a wider masterplan for what was a vacant industrial site. A new neighbourhood is being created on the 5.8 ha site of a former brewery and consists of commercial, housing, open space, new linkages and re-use of heritage properties. At the centre of the masterplan, a new public park ties the different plots together. One Central Park develops this further by extending the green space into the site to provide additional amenity.

Ensuring resilience in water and flood management

The planting is irrigated by using reclaimed and treated sewage from the building itself. Fertilisation is carried out by adding nutrients to the irrigation. The nutrient and chemical balance of the planters is monitored and corrected automatically. Lighting design consultant on the project, Arup, modelled annual and seasonal daylight availability to determine the best locations for specific species. Plants that thrive in

sunlight, such as Acacias and Poa were selected for the top of building, and more fragile plants such as gardenia and viola were chosen for the bottom.

Protecting and enhancing biodiversity

The planting across the building’s façades covers 1100sqm and includes 383 species, 200 of which are native to South East Australia.

Responding to climate change

The plants along the facade act as a natural shading device, shielding apartments from direct sun in summer whilst allowing light in during winter. According to the CTBUH Journal, the shelves on which the planters sit reduce the building’s cooling load by 20% and the foliage itself by a further 20%.

Enabling access, fitness, play and contact with nature.

With planting visible at every level, residents enjoy a connection with nature.

Ensuring ongoing stewardship and management

Maintenance of the green facade is challenging due to the heights of the buildings and exposure. The soil mix, similar to hydroponics, has been developed to ensure as long a life as possible. Wind exposure and plant selections were tested in a wind tunnel to ensure suitability of the green wall system. Planter box systems, living wall design, soils, irrigation, drainage, mulch layer and access for maintenance were all project specific and had to be tested.

The project is an example of how greening the exterior of a building can achieve a high UGF score. Giving over nearly half the site to new green space is a public benefit and enhances the amenity of the surrounding developments. However, this has necessitated additional height on the western tower, which overshadows the podium below. The heliostat is a design response to this challenge; light is reflected down into the compromised areas.

Greening measures at ground floor have not been maximised; expanses of lawn provide usable amenity space but offer little in terms of biodiversity.

The scheme was the first residential development in Sydney to achieve a 6 green star rating, representing world leadership in environmentally sustainable building practices.

CapitaSpring

Singapore 20+ storey tower

Located in Singapore’s financial district, the 51-storey mixed-use CapitaSpring building incorporates pockets of greenery that are framed around sculptural facade openings. It was built on a site containing a public car park and an open-air food market. The development has a mix of restaurants and office spaces, alongside serviced apartments, car park, food market and a series of gardens.

Key UG features within the scheme:

Address 88 Market Street, Singapore 048948

Status Built (2021)

Client CapitaLand Mitsubishi Estate

Architect BIG Carlo Ratti RSP Architects

Landscape Architect Coen Design International

Building uses

Raffles Place

Telok Ayer SingaporeRiver

Intensive green roof Trees Hedges

Aerial view. Photo: BIG, Finbarr Fallon

CapitaSpring Singapore

20+ storey tower

With a UGF of 1.26, the scheme far exceeds the minimum requirement of 0.4.

The UGF score is achieved almost entirely through intensive vegetation above structure and standard trees. Green infrastructure is provided in three locations; a garden at podium level, a four storey vertical park within the body of the tower, and a rooftop kitchen garden. A large number of trees are also planted across these floors as well as along the perimeter of the car park, where the facade opens up. There are small pockets of ornamental shrubs within the curtilage of the ground floor lobby.

Urban Greening Factor calculation = 1.26

Photos 1-4: BIG, Finbarr Fallon

Planting

CapitaSpring Singapore

20+ storey tower

Planning for GI from the outset

In response to Singapore’s Green Plan 2030, the design seeks to blend “garden and city”. The development has over 8,000sqm of landscape area, which is equivalent to 140% of it’s site area. The incorporation of such a significant quantum of green infrastructure will have required careful planning at every stage of the design process.

Securing local food supply

On top of the building is a sky garden containing 150 species of edible plants, providing food for the building’s restaurants and cafés. Whatever is in season and ready to be harvested on any particular day is provided to the chefs. In return food waste is turned into fertilisers to keep the garden healthy. The sky garden is publicly accessible, providing an opportunity for diners to see how their food has been grown.

Protecting and enhancing biodiversity

The 35m open-air “Green Oasis” garden has been designed to mimic the hierarchy of tropical rainforests with the leaf growth of plants in direct relationship to the availability of light. Shade tolerant plants are located on the floor of the garden with trees and planting with smaller leaf structure on the upper levels. The development includes over 80,000 plants from more than 130 different species, with 60% being native plants. Native shrubs were selected to attract birds such as the Pink-Necked Green Pigeon.

Conserving, enhancing and strengthening links with landscape and local context

At ground level, the former Market Street has been pedestrianised to form a new linear park and public plaza. There is also a 600 metre cycling path around the building’s perimeter, which forms part of the Central Area cycling network connecting to Singapore’s larger cycling network.

View of rooftop garden. Photo: BIG, Finbarr Fallon

The building’s ground level has been designed to be porous and an extension to the new linear park. Taken together, the scheme connects back to an adjacent green lawn space at Raffles Place.

Responding to climate change

Plants have been carefully selected for their ability to thrive in Singapore’s tropical weather and humid conditions and survive at high level. The abundant greenery helps to mitigate the urban heat island effect.

Enabling access, fitness, play and contact with nature.

The open air garden offers a variety of amenities for residents and workers including an amphitheatre, a yoga alcove, jungle gyms, work pods and a cafe. The top floor sky garden and Green Oasis are publicly accessible during weekdays.

The project is an example of how a very high urban greening factor can be achieved for a very

high density scheme. The density of greening is a response to the Building and Construction Authority of Singapore (BCA) requirement for a Landscape Replacement Area (LRA) of “minimally equivalent to the site area or bigger”. The LRA is part of the Green Plot Ratio (GnPR) requirements. Similar to the UGF policy, the calculation is based upon the leaf area of different types of planting.

The use of multiple open air floors of greenery appears to have been driven by the context of very high rise development and the need to maximise values in an expensive location, alongside the desire to make the greenery as accessible as possible i.e. rather than greening the facade for example. It’s success relies upon high quality planting and ongoing maintenance, including irrigation.

CapitaSpring has been certified Green Mark Platinum by the BCA. (Green Mark is a rating system designed to evaluate a building’s environmental impact and performance.)

View of sky garden. Photo: BIG, Finbarr Fallon

Key UGF features within the scheme:

Eole-Evangile Triangle

Paris

Interface with transport infrastructure

The Eole-Evangile Triangle is en enclave between several infrastructures: two railway lines and the rue d’Aubervilliers, a major road linking existing neighbourhoods. The collection of four buildings around a vast garden combines a rich mix of uses including residential, student accommodation, a hostel, shops and offices.

Address

Status

Client

Architect

Landscape

Rosa Parks

Porte d’Aubervilliers

Hedges Amenity lawn Vegetation between paving

View across communal gardens and public street. Photo: OLM

Proximity to existing green spaces and green infrastructure Imagery ©2023 Google. Imagery ©2023 Aerodata International Surveys, CNES / Airbus, Maxar Technologies, The GeoInformation Group I InterAtlas. Map data ©2023 Google.

1. Jardin Promenade Cesaria Evora 2. Square Claude Bernard

Forêt linéaire Sud

Jardin du Ver Têtu

Parc Chapelle Charbon

La Villette

Eole-Evangile Triangle Paris

Interface with transport infrastructure

With a UGF of 0.51, the scheme exceeds the minimum requirement of 0.4. GI is provided across the entirety of the site.

The UGF score is achieved at street level, through mature shrub planting, amenity grass and trees. In some areas, the paving has been designed to allow vegetation to grow between the joints and this has been given a scoring factor of 0.2. Flower rich planting also lines the northern edge of the site alongside the railway line. The garden at podium level have a mix of amenity grass, planting and allotments, all of which has been counted as intensive vegetation as it is above structure and has a substrate of greater than 150mm. There is also a number of trees planted on the podium. At roof level, approximately 50% of the surface area is covered in an extensive green roof.

Eole-Evangile Triangle Paris

Interface with transport infrastructure

Planning for GI from the outset

The development has been designed with a large garden at it’s core. The buildings and landscape have been designed together. The buildings are arranged to allow daylight and ventilation into the garden whilst affording some acoustic protection from the main road and railways on either side.

Securing local food supply

The upper garden level is largely given over to urban farming in the form of vegetable gardens and fruit trees, allowing people to choose to grow their own food. This is an opportunity for people to strengthen their connection to their neighbours, to the local environment and to the way food is grown.

Protecting and enhancing biodiversity

The plant species have been selected to provide continuity with the adjacent green corridor running along the railway. The scheme has been designed to the Biodivercity label, a series of key performance indicators established

by the International Biodivercity Property Council, which ensures schemes provide a diversity of ecosystems, a diversity of species and incorporates opportunities for human interactions.

Conserving, enhancing and strengthening links with landscape and local context

The topography of the site has been modelled to provide connections into the surrounding context. To the north, the garden rises to the level of rue d’Aubervilliers and becomes a continuation of the existing public space at the front of the development. To the south, it rises to the level of the railway tracks, opening up distant views. To the east, a public space leads to the Rosa Parks Station.

Responding to climate change

As part of the ‘zero carbon’ design, the garden and roofs are planted in deep soil to ensure water retention and to maximise thermal performance, minimising operational energy usage.

View of public realm. Photo: OLM

Ensuring ongoing stewardship and management

The lower garden is planted with species requiring very little maintenance whilst the higher garden is dedicated to urban farming, ensuring users feel a sense of ownership and are aware of the need for ongoing maintenance.

The engineering firm CDC Biodiversity and landscape gardening company Les Jardins de Gally were key stakeholders in the design of the landscape, particularly compliance with the Biodivercity Label. Les Jardin de Gally have a base for their operations in the new development. CDC Biodivercity are now the operator of all outdoor areas and have committed to key performance based indicators.

This project an example of successful urban greening on a constrained site, surrounded by transport infrastructure. It incorporates a variety of greening measures that ground the scheme in it’s context and provide amenity for the many different occupants. Newly complete, it’s success will be dependant on ongoing maintenance to ensure the vegetation is able to flourish.

Aerial view of central courtyard. Photo: OLM

Sacramento Valley Station Area

Interface with transport infrastructure

Sacramento Valley Station, California, is being transformed into a sustainable and community focussed mobility centre. It will act as a gateway to the city and a convergence point for all modes of transportation. Plans for the surrounding development feature pedestrian plazas, affordable housing, and a regenerative garden.

Address 401 I Street, Sacramento CA 95814, United States

Status Masterplan

Client City of Sacramento

Architect / Design Team Perkins and Will (Lead consultant and Urban Design) Grimshaw (Transit Design) Arup Nelson/Nygaard Aim Consulting

Landscape Architect EPS

uses

Sacramento Valley

Sacramento Valley Station Area

Interface with transport infrastructure

The UGF of this scheme has been calculated by measuring the proposed site wide landscape i.e. everything except the buildings themselves. Information for the buildings is illustrative and an assumption has been that the majority have green roofs and a realistic amount of green wall, as indicated on visuals.

Urban Greening Factor calculation = 0.40

Site area

83455sqm

Permeable paving 23614sqm

Intensive green roof 12712sqm

Trees in connected pits

10686sqm

Semi-natural vegetation

5478sqm

Rain garden

2903sqm

Flower rich planting

2552sqm

Green wall

2500sqm

Hedges

1331sqm

Amenity lawn

774sqm

2.Treeplanting

within transit plaza

1.Planting

3 . Op en water withincivicplaza

Sacramento Valley Station Area

Interface with transport

SACRAMENTO VALLEY STATION AREA PLAN

Planning for GI from the outset

The masterplan is a clear demonstration of the consideration of green infrastructure from the outset. Landscape is used to define a framework of streets, spaces and routes in which multiple development options can come forward.

Conserving, enhancing and strengthening links with landscape and local context

The design stitches into the local context by loosely continuing the urban grain along the eastern edge of the site. Proposed street tree planting continues out into the existing neighbourhood for at least a block. The major public spaces are located to terminate routes. Two new routes are formed across the railway tracks, reducing north/south severance. The new station bridges the tracks and connects into a planned neighbourhood on the north side. Beneath the highway, a new park provides a pleasant walking route from the station to the nearby Railroad Museum, also connecting into existing paths running along the Sacramento River.

Conserving and enhancing the historic environment/heritage assets

The historic railway heritage of the site is celebrated in the design of the major public space, the historic station fronting one edge, opposite the new station. The Chinese Commemorative Garden recognises the cultural history of the site and of the local community.

Ensuring resilience in water and flood management

Wastewater across the masterplan area will be recycled and delivered back to the buildings to meet all non-potable water demands. Storm water will be treated and infiltrated using rain gardens located next to buildings and public spaces and a regenerative garden will aid in water recycling. By incorporating nature from the surrounding area into the masterplan, the biophilic design will increase community connection to the natural environmental. To optimise energy efficiency, a vacuum sewer system is being considered, which would keep

Landscape masterplan. Image: Perkins and Will

pipes shallow, eliminate inflow and infiltration, and deliver wastewater to the treatment plant without reliance on a lift station.

Responding to climate change

The masterplan is registered for the Living Community Challenge, a certification programme that guides the design and construction of neighbourhoods to be socially just, culturally rich and ecologically restorative. Specific measures within the design to fulfil these aims include carefully placed trees to mitigate the urban heat island effect by providing shade, cooling and cleaner air; pedestrian paths and bike routes connecting the entire site to the wider city network supporting an active and healthy lifestyle; on site management of storm water; a community garden with raised beds for residents to grow food; enhanced habitats for native species such as the Purple Martin and Swanson’s Hawk.

The project has the potential to demonstrate how, over and above improved transport connectivity, transit orientated development can be transformational for a city. Taking a masterplan approach to development offers the opportunity to maximise urban greening measures.

Visual of viaduct park. Image: Steelblue

Interviews

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with two developers and landscape architects of some of the London schemes. One is a developer that focuses on purpose built student accommodation (SR), whilst the other is public body that works in partnership with others to build out residentially led schemes, including build to rent on their own land (JV).

Below is a summary of the key issues and topics of discussion during the conversations.

Client/investor priorities and policy drivers e.g. net zero ambition

The SR developer’s aim is to provide developments that sit comfortably within their environments, whilst also achieving a scale and massing that is consummate with effective development. Accessibility to universities is a key consideration as well as proximity to city centres, with the aim to have a balance of the two.

The SR tends to bring forward design led schemes that enhance the student experience and take pride in having excellent design teams. They look for opportunities for regenerative development including retrofit although for the scheme in this study, the existing building had passed it’s design life and was not fit for purpose or any other use.

Their investors operate on an indirect basis and so usually don’t have a hands on approach to building requirements. However with this project there was an open conversation about the type of offer being delivered. The aim is to build a best in class scheme and therefore this required a slightly higher budget than normal.

The SR developer consider themselves to have higher in-house standards than some, born out of being purpose built student accommodation led in the majority of their projects. They have committed to being carbon neutral by 2030 across all developments.

The JV developer’s priority is to deliver homes in line with targets set by the Mayor of London, with an affordable homes target of 40% across their portfolio. The purpose of entering into a joint venture

is to ensure that the homes being delivered are well designed and of high quality, tenure blind and with good amenity. In addition to this, there is a requirement to deliver a capital receipt back to the public purse, alongside ongoing rental income.

The JV developer utilises their own in-house sustainable development framework, with a suite of KPIs to set sustainability targets, monitor progress and learn lessons from the outcomes. The JV partner came with their own specifications although this mainly related to the interior spaces. However, they are responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the developments and so did have some requirements for the amenity spaces.

Project brief in relation to GI and summary of approach

The SR developer did not set a specific UGF target as the scheme came forward before the new London Plan. The focus was on appointing an excellent design team and enabling them to bring their vision forward.

The development is targeting BREEAM outstanding and WELL Silver.

There was no specific brief in terms of the amount of GI that had to be provided but the site lent itself to a particular arrangement, maintaining the existing built footprint and having amenity at both ground floor upper levels.

“I think it’s one of the best things that London has done. It’s been adopted because it’s working really well in other countries. It is transforming London; the quality of what is being delivered is in part down to UGF and the requirements for amenity space. UGF covers so many elements of best practice”.

A developer’s thoughts on UGF

The landscape architect of one of the JV schemes stated that the brief they were given was very clear in terms of the desired approach for the scheme to be “landscape-led”, The aspiration was for the development to bring the landscape character and heritage of the context into the site. There were no specific requirements over above policy, relating the quantum of amenity provision, however it was always understood that the play provision would be an area for discussion with the local authority. The driving factor was to deliver the highest quality of public realm possible, within the constraints of the site and the scheme.

The landscape architect of another of the JV schemes felt that their brief went over and above typical requirements for communal amenity and that this was because build to rent occupants have different needs.

Motivation for delivering high quality and quantum of GI

The SR developer recognises that the external amenity space within their scheme is a point of difference to other schemes.

There are three elements of greening to the scheme including greening the existing streetscape making an impact on the overall character. The existing condition is relatively open and lacking in tree planting and planting in general. However, there are a lot of technical challenges due to the amount of services in the ground.

The garden at the rear of the site needs to be an incredible amenity space for those who use it on a daily basis but also a visual amenity when viewed from different levels. This informed the choice of trees and climbers. The garden also picks up on the local wild character.

The upper levels have a mix of extensive biodiverse roof and amenity terraces. The amenity terraces had to be carefully balanced between the amount of greening and the amount of usable amenity space, whilst also thinking about microclimate and shelter and noise levels to adjoining neighbourhoods.

For the JV developer, on one of their schemes, they

recognised that in the face of strong local opposition, the narrative of greening a predominantly brownfield site was key. Opening up a site for public access to landscape, alongside providing new affordable homes was a critical part of the planning argument.

The landscape architect of the scheme stated that the UGF score was not the determining factor of the design. They felt that the intended positive outcomes of the UGF e.g. increasing biodiversity are ingrained in a good landscape architect and that a good landscape design should inherently score well. That said, they did note that the UGF score needs to be monitored continuously throughout a project, as relatively minor changes can have a big impact on the score.

Project specific issues to overcome in order to deliver meaningful GI

For the SR development, it is quite a constrained site, so the spaces have to work hard. The external space needs to achieve as much as possible. They considered introducing vertical elements and climbers to gain additional greening but the detail and quality of this approach needs to be considered.

They felt it was important to think about permeability of services, working closely with the drainage consultant about strategy. Making sure everything is detailed in such a way to achieve the highest score possible.

This level of thought extends to selection of tree species to get decent large growing species that are planted at a good size from day one.

The landscape architect did an initial calculation at the start of the project with the architect to establish a baseline for the massing and external spaces and then this is developed from there. They felt that the policy makes you more conscious about the value of what you are proposing. Generally in a positive way e.g. to put in a more ecological and biodiverse option. However, it doesn’t recognise the value of everything. PVs have an inherent sustainability value that the UGF doesn’t account for.

The landscape architect of one of the JV developer’s schemes found that the constrained nature of their

site really helped to drive a landscape led strategy. A large sewer running through the middle of the site meant that a significant area of land was available for green infrastructure. The heritage of the site, particularly the existing infrastructure and associated quantum of people, was also a constraining factor.

The JV developer felt that SuDS were an issue on the scheme because of the site conditions but also due to a passionate SuDS officer from the LA pushing them to deliver best practice, something which the developer felt was ultimately of great benefit to the scheme in the end.

Similarly, committee members took a close interest in the type of play space proposed and whilst that was a challenge to resolve, the developer notes that GI is an area that can be helpful in getting a scheme “across the line”.

On the JV developer’s other scheme, the landscape architect felt that their biggest issue to overcome was existing infrastructure and the impact that had on build ups for any landscape.

Budgets/costings (if possible) including when UGF was considered in the development programme with any cost/design changes needed to meet UGF targets

The SR developer felt that any cost uplift associated with UGF has been overtaken within the wider scale construction increase over the past three to four years. They are trying hard to deliver what they set out to and not value engineer those areas when coming under cost pressure. Having gone through the value engineering process, they are confident that the landscape elements remain largely intact.

The landscape architect noted that hard landscaping can cost considerably more than soft and therefore increasing greenery can sometimes be seen as a cost saving.

The SR developer recognised that they are going through a learning curve and that the real cost impact of urban greening may be related to ongoing maintenance.

The JV developer felt that on one of their schemes the UGF policy did result in a cost uplift. The

landscape design has been born out of it’s context and site constraints and that allowed the scheme to meet the minimum UGF score, rather than adding in greening measures purely to meet the score.

The landscape architect noted that until the UGF policy, roof gardens and green roofs were usually the first target in any value engineering exercise but were now somewhat protected as they are essential to achieving the minimum UGF score. They also noted that, in their opinion, the UGF policy doesn’t really give appropriate weight to ground floor landscape. Vegetation at the upper levels can count as intensive green roof (with the required build-up) whereas the same vegetation at ground floor would score less well. This has led to some very high density schemes with excellent biodiverse roofs but with quite poor ground floor/public realm conditions.

Maintenance obligations and ongoing management

The SR developer highighted that there are maintenance obligations as part of the section 106 agreement for the scheme and there will be some element of external maintenance regime. The plan is to also have some elements that the students can maintain themselves, thereby improving their wellbeing.

The landscape architect on one of the JV schemes noted that consideration of how landscape grows over time is really important as the UGF, to some extent, only considers what is there on day one (with the exception of the projected tree canopy). They felt the UGF policy doesn’t place additional requirements on a scheme in relation to maintenance and that well designed landscape will have considered ease of maintenance.

Developer assessment of the value of delivering good GI

The SR developer was not aware of any valuation nuance relating to proximity to open space but highlighted that it has non monetary benefits e.g. in students wellbeing and that amenity spaces within their developments are well used.

They predicted that going forward that it will make a difference in the value of schemes. They have had

the scheme looked at by independent valuers and it is valued higher than competitors. This relates to a number of things including internal and external amenity alongside slightly bigger rooms than industry standard. Prospective universities are interested in the scheme because of the quality of offer and they believe students will be willing to pay the higher rent level. The developer pointed out that the value of a scheme is not purely related to the rental income and that security of income over a period of time can be just as important.

They felt that urban greening is one part of a bigger picture for their scheme which certainly has had valuation benefits.

Barriers to achieving or exceeding UGF score for developments

For the SR developer, fire is becoming a challenge, even with climbers on wires up facades rather than traditional green walls. It wasn’t seen as an issue when the project was being designed to planning but they are now having to think about the detail and designing in fire breaks between runs of climbers and ensuring gravel perimeters on roof terraces.

The landscape architect on one of the JV schemes noted that non residential uses on sites, particularly relating to infrastructure was a constraint but not necessarily a barrier. Requirements for parking and greater built footprint are constraining but can be dealt with by really thinking about how to green those hard spaces. They felt that a narrative needs to be provided with all UGF calculations to explain why a score is the way it is.

Commentary on strengths and weaknesses of the project and/or the UGF policy in general

The SR developer felt that there was nothing they could do to increase the UGF score other than add additional trees and planting on the roofs but that would reduce the amount of usable amenity.

The landscape architect felt that the UGF policy is a very useful tool and makes collaboration with other consultants and the client a lot easier. They felt that it is useful to be able to quantify the amount of greening and pushes them increase the biodiversity value of their designs.

From a client perspective, the SR developer felt given the limited cost impact and value added it is a good thing to be doing. Their direction of travel is to always increase ESG requirements and improve the student experience and social benefits.

The landscape architect on one of the JV schemes felt that the policy is fantastic but like all new policies could do with some tweaking. One area of concern was the alignment with biodiversity net gain. They recognised that the two policies have different aims but thought the process of demonstrating compliance with both could be streamlined. The also felt that benefits of rewilding e.g. self-colonising brown roofs were not fully captured within the policy.

The JV developer felt that the method of measurement for UGF was fairer than biodiversity net gain as it based purely on the outcome rather than a comparison against the existing condition, which on some sites can skew the results.

The landscape architect of the JV developer’s other scheme, felt that the UGF is a great tool to validate their design approach and also in helping the client understand where the project sits in relation to minimum requirements. They felt that the calculation could, in any future iteration, look to capture the carbon impact of landscape design, including the construction processes and materials but also any sequestration benefits.

Executive summary

Successful urban greening of our built environment has responded to the key issues fundamental to the design and delivery of GI:

Planning for GI from the outset

All development partners and design teams must ensure that the planning, delivery and management of GI is a primary consideration and taken into account at the earliest stage.

Conserving, enhancing and strengthening links with the landscape and local context

Proposals should respond to the local context and recognise and take advantage of existing landscape features and character.

Conserving and enhancing the historic environment/ heritage assets

All development partners and design teams should reflect the historic or cultural assets and setting of the site in their proposals.

Responding to climate change

Protect, manage and plan GI to help build resilience to the predicted effects of climate change and mitigate against its extreme global impacts.

Protecting and enhancing biodiversity

GI presents significant opportunities to aid the conservation and restoration of biodiversity.

Green Medina

Nine Elms OSD Lambeth

17 Admirals Way Tower Hamlets

Ensuring resilience in water and flood management

The design of new and the management of existing watercourses and drainage systems, including flood risk, should provide for increased resilience to change.

Enabling access, fitness, play and contact with nature

Improving human health, safety and wellbeing is intrinsically linked with the quality of the built environment and the health of the planet.

Securing local food supply

Opportunities to support sustainable local food production should be explored as a key driver of carbon emission reduction and a mechanism for community involvement.

Ensuring ongoing stewardship and management

It is important that meaningful and inclusive community engagement is carried out throughout the process to ensure community ownership and help secure ongoing management of GI.

Generating income and attracting investment

Well designed and maintained green spaces and assets draw inward investment leading to job creation and enhances the value of property, acting as a catalyst for wider regeneration.

Land adjacent to Cockfosters Station

Executive summary

In general, schemes that have a high UGF score will include high quality green infrastructure that fulfils many, if not all, of the LLDC’s green infrastructure principles. However, this is not always the case and as the Study has shown, successful schemes can have low, even non-compliant UGF scores and high scoring schemes can be considered less successful than other lower scoring ones. The reasons for this relate to the limitations of the UGF tool and are discussed in more detail later in this summary.

Of the 19 case studies examined, the 5 highest scoring come from outside of London and there may be several reasons for this. All but one of the London projects are unbuilt, having been designed in the past few years in a challenging economic and

regulatory environment. This may have impacted their ability to include some urban greening measures, for example fire regulations can make the use of green walls challenging, particularly to the extent seen at One Central Park. Similarly, the move towards net zero carbon design can make the benefits of some greening measures more marginal, particularly in cases where additional structure and therefore embodied carbon is required. Water usage and the need for intensive maintenance, which also have a carbon impact, also needs to be considered.

The case studies were selected to, wherever possible, meet a criteria of 3.5 floor area ratio or above, a UGF score of 0.4 or above and to cover a range of typologies. The selection process was time limited

Eole-Evangile Triangle Paris

30 Marshgate Wall

and it is recognised that there may be high density, residentially led schemes within London with UGF scores higher than the case studies examined.

The urban greening policies in Singapore and Australia have been in effect longer than in London and greening measures have matured through iteration and innovation over time. It is possible that their policies may require a higher minimum score, although further study would be required to confirm this.

The quantity and quality of GI seen across Singapore is the result of a decades long effort beginning in the 1960s with the “City in a garden” plan. This recognised the value of GI in maintaining quality of life.

Some of the case studies, despite having a lower UGF score, are arguably more appropriate design responses than higher scoring schemes, particularly those which maximise multi-functional GI on the ground level. Viewed holistically, the most successful examples maximise the social, environmental and economic benefits that GI can provide. Collectively, the case studies provide innovative and inspiring examples of high quality urban greening.

The following checklist, found in the LLDC’s Green Infrastructure Guide ensures GI is considered throughout the design and delivery process. The UGF overlay, provides additional advice where appropriate.

GI Principle Topic

RIBA Work Stage

Planning for GI from the outset

0 Strategic Definition

Has the Local Plan been reviewed to identify specific opportunities in the vicinity of the development including: – any nature conservation designations (such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest or Nature Reserves); – any watercourses or flood zones; – any heritage designations or assets; – existing Public Right of Ways (PROW), cycle routes or bridleways; and – any deficits in a particular type of open space/GI.

Have opportunities for improvement beyond the site been considered?

Does the brief demand a truly landscape led approach to the design? Does it make clear that the quality and quantity of GI is to be maximised?

Does the brief set a target score greater than the minimum?

RIBA Work Stage

Planning for GI from the outset

1 Preparation and Briefing

Have the services of a Chartered Landscape Architect been procured as part of the Design Team in order to ensure proposals deliver the following GI benefits: – connecting green spaces and routes; – improving the setting and quality of life; – encouraging activity and enjoyment; – adapting to changes in climate and flood risk; – protecting nature and heritage; and – providing opportunities to grow food locally?

Does the Landscape Architect’s scope and fee allow for an iterative process with the Design Team to maximise urban greening?

Have the services of a qualified ecological professional been procured as part of the Design Team in order to input in a meaningful way throughout the design and implementation period? Note this involvement should be throughout the project to monitor function, development and management of GI assets.

Have the services of a soil specialist been procured as part of the Design Team in order to address issues in relation to soil design, creation and retention?

Has investigation been carried out to determine potential for storm water/rainwater management on site?

Have relevant surveys been undertaken to determine GI assets, opportunities and constraints e.g. Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Landscape and Visual Appraisal, Heritage Statement?

If the site is likely to impact on a Habitat Directive protective site or species, has a project level Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) been carried out?

Have the environmental targets been set for the project e.g. BREEAM or similar?

Has an appropriate budget for urban greening measures been included within the cost plan?

Has an urban greening factor calculation of the existing site been undertaken to determine the value of any existing green infrastructure?

Ensuring ongoing stewardship

Has early community engagement been carried out to inform the brief and to ensure understanding of local socio-economic and resilience risks?

GI Principle Topic

RIBA Work Stage

Conserving, enhancing and strengthening links with landscape

2 Concept Design

Have important biodiversity, landscape and water features been retained and incorporated into the GI proposals?

Where there are existing trees/vegetation on or adjacent to the site, has a qualified arboricultural professional been procured to carry out a tree survey and arboricultural assessment?

Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

Ensuring resilience in water and flood management / Responding to climate change

Enabling access, fitness, play and contact with nature

Have important historic and heritage features been retained and incorporated into the GI proposals?

Have buffers between new development and watercourses been provided to manage flood risk, geomorphology, water quality and biodiversity?

Have measures been included to prevent any contact with contamination for people, wildlife, groundwater etc.?

Have SuDS been incorporated into the scheme?

Have SuDS been designed to be multifunctional taking into account opportunities for biodiversity enhancement and recreation?

Has GI been integrated to ensure water pollution absorption?

Have the LLDC standards for play provision been met or will an off-site contribution be made (refer to Local Plan)?

Have the LLDC standards for outdoor sports provision been met or will an off-site contribution be made?

Have the LLDC standards for Accessible Natural Greenspace been met or will an off-site contribution be made?

Securing local food supply

Ensuring ongoing management and stewardship

Responding to climate change / Protecting and enhancing biodiversity

Have opportunities for local food growing/foraging been considered as part of the design?

Has provision of new orchard areas or restoration of existing orchards been considered?

Have opportunities for community involvement/co-management been considered? Is there provision in the design for this to occur in the future?

Have sustainable active transport and recreational links within the development site been considered?

Have sustainable transport and recreational links between the new development and important community assets, including green and blue spaces, been considered?

Has GI been integrated to help absorb and filter air pollution?

Has soft landscape been maximised for carbon sequestration, reducing urban heat island effect, urban greening and biodiversity?

Has a BREEAM assessor been appointed and information provided?

Planning for GI from the outset

Has a UGF calculation been provided and reviewed early in any pre-application process?

Conserving, enhancing and strengthening links with landscape/ Conserving and enhancing the historic environment/ Protecting and enhancing biodiversity/ Responding to climate change

3 Developed Design

Have the relevant surveys and assessments been provided with the planning application e.g. Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Habitats Regulation Assessment, Landscape and Visual Appraisal, Heritage Statement?

Has a plan showing the existing GI assets on and adjacent to the development site (including vegetation, habitat, soils, landform, geology, water) and GI opportunities and constraints for the proposed development been provided within the planning application?

Has a final development layout (for full applications) and a parameter plan (for outline applications) showing the proposed GI to be incorporated into the development proposals been provided within the planning application?

Conserving, enhancing and strengthening links with landscape/ Conserving and enhancing the historic environment/ Protecting and enhancing biodiversity/ Responding to climate change

Ensuring resilience in water and flood management/ Responding to climate change

Protecting and enhancing biodiversity

Has a statement detailing the way in which GI has been incorporated into the proposed development layout, drawing on the constraints and opportunities information above, been provided within the planning application including information on protecting, linking and enhancing habitats and species?

Outside of the LCS, does the application achieve the urban greening factor target and do proposals seek to go beyond this minimum?

Has a SuDS scheme been submitted as part of the planning application detailing all systems?

Does the SuDS include the use of planting as a way to attenuate water close to source?

Outside of the LCS, does the application provide evidence that biodiversity net gain has been achieved, with a focus on: – provision of habitats of principal importance; – incorporation of native species planting; and – provision of features for roosting bats and nesting birds within the built environment?

Note biodiversity offsetting may be appropriate to deliver compensation and enhancement

Has the mitigation hierarchy of avoid, mitigate, compensate, enhance been followed?

Enabling access, fitness, play and contact with nature

Has a plan showing the amount and type of open space to be provided been submitted within the planning application?

Has a plan showing the amount and type of on site play provision for all relevant age groups in accordance with the GLA calculator been provided within the planning application? Note off site provision may be appropriate to deliver the required amount of play for the development

Ensuring ongoing management and stewardship

RIBA Work Stage

Conserving, enhancing and strengthening links with landscape

Where biodiverse green roofs have been included, has adequate substrate depth been incorporated into the design to ensure longevity of the planting and has suitable access been provided for maintenance?

Has been consideration been given to visual access to nature and natural surveillance of both accessible and inaccessible spaces (such as green roofs)?

Has the real UGF been reported at planning submission? Or has the score been under reported in anticipation of needing to reduce areas of greening during detailed design?

Has the UGF drawing been submitted for approval as a drawing and not just included within the design and access statement? Is it the same scale as the landscape plan? Where there is greening on multiple levels, has a separate plan(s) been included for each and every level?

Where there are green walls, have extracts of the elevations been provided?

4 Technical Design

Have measures been put in place to ensure protection to existing trees, vegetation and landscape features in accordance with Arboricultural Method Statement as prepared by qualified arboricultural professional?

Protecting and enhancing biodiversity

Responding to climate change

Ensuring ongoing management and stewardship

Has a competent landscape contractor been appointed to ensure good horticultural practice and quality installation of GI?

Have construction details been developed to ensure healthy development of planting in particular trees?

Have newly planted trees and vegetation been sourced in a manner that limits carbon expenditure and biosecurity risk?

Is plant material local or UK provenance to ensure local biodiversity?

Has an implementation programme been produced to ensure development works minimise impact on nature such as avoiding bird nesting season?

Has a landscape and habitat management plan been developed?

Has consideration been given to climate change adaptation and resilience in the specification and selection of plant material?

Have maintenance requirements been considered in the selection of materials?

Has all evidence been submitted to BREEAM for assessment?

Has adequate provision been made for the future growth of trees and vegetation both in terms of design and management?

Have details regarding the ongoing management and maintenance of the proposed GI been provided and has adequate provision for this maintenance been included in the design such as safe access?

Does the management plan includes measures to protect existing GI assets during development works?

Has stakeholder engagement continued as part of the process?

Where the detailed landscape design has been conditioned, has an updated UGF calculation been provided as part of an application for discharge? Is this drawing in the same scale as previously and have any major changes been highlighted?

Is there sufficient detail within the landscape drawing key or accompanying specification. Does all tree information state projected canopy size, whether or not they are in connected pits and the available soil volume?

Do the number of trees on the drawings match the schedule?

Do the drainage strategy and UGF align?

Does additional information need to be submitted as part of a discharge of a planning condition?

6 Handover and Close Out

Ensuring ongoing management and stewardship

Enabling access, fitness, play and contact with nature

Ensuring ongoing management and stewardship

Has the landscape contractor been appointed to carry out the landscape maintenance as per the landscape management plan including streets, public areas, communal areas and green roofs as necessary?

Have necessary controls been put in place to ensure the protection and ongoing maintenance of all GI assets?

Have the building occupiers and maintenance contractor been inducted by the design team in the GI features?

In Use

Has Post Occupancy Evaluation been put in place to ensure feedback from residents to input into lessons learned?

Have management systems for communally managed areas such as food growing areas/allotments been put in place?

Has a programme been put in place to encourage involvement of local community and therefore sense of ownership providing access to equipment, tools etc.?

Have volunteers/participants in landscape management/ maintenance activities in communal areas received appropriate horticultural/technical training?

Has a programme been put in place to monitor the landscape and ecological management plan?

RIBA Work Stage

The following is a list of considerations for the greening of different typologies.

Co-location with industrial uses (or similar)

– Consider a central delivery point to free up space for greening elsewhere on site.

– Stack industrial uses vertically to minimise built footprint (brings other complications).

– Use greening in strategic locations to ease issues surrounding mixing of uses for example noise and privacy.

– Examine how greening can provide amenity spaces for workers.

– Consider a masterplan approach. Would a solution that splits the site into industrial, residential and park be more appropriate than 6 sites trying to co-locate uses and achieve 0.4 UGF?

– Every sqm of horizontal space needs to be utilised. Need to build into cost assumptions from day one that any roof above industrial space will have to be a landscaped podium with a large enough build up to accommodate trees and planting.

– Consider multi-functionality - how can open water be used to collect water for irrigation and/or infiltration and to boost UGF and enhance biodiversity and be part of the amenity value.

Student accommodation

– Consider landscape design that encourages students to take ownership of their environment and therefore help to maintain the landscape.

– Design in GI at ground level first wherever possible.

– Consider the multi-functionality required of amenity spaces and be realistic about the space needed for large groups of people.

Residentially led

– Standalone towers are generally of a density that requires most of the roof to be filled with plant. GI needs to be planned from the outset. It is very difficult to meet the minimum score without giving over some space at street level to public open space. Designing multiple levels of open air amenity is one way to boost the score. However, the viability, embodied carbon of the structure required and long term maintenance all need to be considered.

– For standalone towers it is very challenging to meet all of the requirements, particularly play space. Consider if high rise towers are appropriate for families.

– Elements such as linear planters on the facade can provide a solution but the embodied carbon in the additional structure needed impacts any sustainability gains. Albeit the thermal load on the building will be reduced due to shading. The carbon impact of intensive maintenance also needs to be considered.

Interface with transport infrastructure and/or a masterplan

– Early understanding of the constraints. Which areas simply aren’t available for greening and what impact will that have on the rest of the site?

– Early engagement with landowners / stakeholders to consider innovative solutions - instead of blanket no touch / access zones, can a more nuanced approach be permitted. For example, could a no build zone be planted with semi-natural vegetation?

Commentary on the UGF Policy

The effect on building form particularly the roofscape

The UGF pushes schemes to have flat roofs everywhere in order to have green roofs. This isn’t always the most appropriate or contextual response.

Lack of consideration of context

It could be argued that in areas of deficiency, a higher minimum UGF score would be appropriate. The London Plan does allow for boroughs to follow this route and set their own score but it is understood that only the City of London does this and only via a different scoring system that was implemented prior to the London Plan policy.

The effect of the red line boundary

The use of the red line boundary to determine the overall site area is probably the only unambiguous and fair method but this can impact the scores particularly when a scheme includes large areas of adoptable highway.

Lack of consideration of site constraints

Applicants often complain that the UGF policy doesn’t allow schemes to have a reduced score on sites with considerable constraints, however the range of case studies show that it is possible to achieve the minimum score on highly constrained sites.

It can push design teams towards landscape solutions that aren’t always appropriate

Trees are high scoring, particularly as the area beneath the canopy can be counted in addition. However a large amount of trees isn’t always appropriate. The amount of daylight and sunlight, sightlines, maintenance, soil depth availability etc all need to be considered. Post occupancy evaluation at Chobham Manor has revealed the importance of good installation and maintenance of in particular green roofs.

Can encourage the design of spaces which aren’t as multi functional or flexible as they need to be

A scheme with anticipated high child population, in an area of play space deficiency, will require large areas of play provision. This is unlikely to have a high UGF score, unless all of the play areas is natural/ incidental play. Dedicated play areas will also have a requirement for safety surfacing which also won’t score highly.

There are cases where hard landscape may be more appropriate

City centre sites with a mix of uses on the ground floor that need to accommodate a large quantum of people or a site layout that facilitates new links, will require hard landscape areas to facilitate movement.

Ambiguity over the feasibility of green walls

Given the current regulatory environment, it may be appropriate for the UGF scoring system to recognise it is increasingly difficult to use green walls by adjusting/boosting the scores of other greening measures.

Permeable

paving vs drainage strategy / capacity

There are schemes where impermeable paving is used to direct water to rain gardens where ground infiltration can occur. That paving scores 0, whereas schemes were water collects below permeable paving and then drains to a tank where it’s eventually pumped into the sewer scores 0.1.

Anything above structure scoring a generic intensive green roof score (with the appropriate build up)

This appears to be rewarding the extra effort that it takes to deliver meaningful GI on a podium / roof but it is unclear as to why this doesn’t then apply to GI above a basement.

The requirement for each and every phase of a masterplan to meet the UGF score independently

The UGF doesn’t allow for flexibility and sensible solutions within a masterplan. In certain circumstances, it may be beneficial to allow earlier phases / constrained plots some flexibility.

Urban greening isn’t a panacea for sustainability

Some of the case studies have shown that greening measures can sometimes have unintended consequences e.g. additional structure required to carry planters on a facade and therefore more embodied carbon, as well as intensive maintenance, thereby negating any impact of the greening.

Overall, the UGF policy introduced in 2021 in the London Plan has the potential to be transformative for London. The impact will only really begin to be felt in the next few years as permitted schemes are built out. However, the built examples in the study show the promise of what is to come.

Photo of Unity Place by Alison Brooks, Gort Scott, Feilden Clegg Bradley and Grant Associates

Acknowledgements

Ingenhoven Associates

Lizzie Botfield (Greater London Authority)

Maccreanor Lavington

Spacehub

Assael

Assael Exteriors

Camlins

Curlew

Henley Halebrown

JCLA

EPR

Alison Brooks

Grant Associates

GRID

Townshend

Hawkins Brown

Exterior

Transport for London

WOHA

Sergison Bates

COX

Mecanoo

Mark Swenarton

Ateliers Jean Nouvel

BIG

Carlo Ratti

TVK

OLM

Grimshaw

Pippa Henshall

Ruth Lin Wong Holmes

Marina Milosev

Rachel Hearn

Paul Wynn

Associate Architect

Jason Sim Architectural Assistant