Climate-Proofing Social Housing Landscapes

General

National Id:

United Kingdom_06

Site name:

Queen Caroline Estate; Cyril Thatcher, Eric MacDonald and Richard Knight Houses; and Cheeseman's Terrace

Summary:

Groundwork London, in partnership with Hammersmith and Fulham Council, received LIFE+ funding for the Climate-Proofing Social Housing Landscapes project in 2013. The project, which came to an end in September 2016, has demonstrated an integrated approach to climate adaptation in urban areas by undertaking a package of affordable, light-engineering climate change adaptation measures based around the retrofitting of blue and green infrastructure. Alongside this, the project has also featured in-depth community engagement and awareness-raising of climate change adaptation opportunities, as well as training local apprentices and local authority staff in the skills to implement and maintain such measures. These measures have been implemented in three different social housing contexts in West London, within areas characterised by high levels of multiple deprivation including higher exposure to climate-related risks. Ultimately, the project aimed to demonstrate an integrated approach to addressing climate-related and wider socio-economic challenges in vulnerable urban environments.

Reviewed by:

Benoit Fribourg-blanc

Location description:

The project sought to deliver a holistic package of climate change adaptation solutions in three social housing estates within the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. The Borough is one of the 32 London Boroughs, situated to the western side of Central London. The River Thames forms the borough boundary to the South and South-West. It is the third smallest of the London Boroughs in terms of land area (1,640 hectares) and currently has a population of c.182,500. Population growth is expected to slow over the next decade, however, it is already one of the most densely populated local authorities in England, with around 114 persons per hectare (pph) compared to the London average of 52pph (LBHF, 2010). The three estates, owned by the Local Authority, were chosen as demonstration sites because they reflect different social housing contexts (such as property types and estate sizes) that can be found across EU member states, demonstrate vulnerability to increasingly extreme weather conditions, and have high indices of multiple deprivation. In this way, the project was able to demonstrate how green infrastructure adaptation measures can be implemented in a wide range of urban housing settings.

NUTS Code:

Inner London

RBD code:

UK06

Transboundary:

Data provider:

Groundwork London

Source(s):

Climate Proofing Housing Landscapes

NWRM(s) implemented in the case study:

Longitude:

-0.2259202,17

Latitude:

51.4911875

Site information

Type:

Actual Test Site

Light or indepth?:

In-depth

Monitoring maintenance

Monitoring requirements:

Environmental - technical monitoring; socio-economic - SROI assessment

Monitoring impacts effects:

Maintenance requirements:

These have been specified in a maintenance schedule provided to the local authority and their maintenance contractors. Maintenance costs are similar to usual housing estate grounds maintenance costs.

Monitoring parameters:

Technical monitoring: • Performance of measures during rain events (e.g. infiltration rates) and the development of vegetation captured using fixed-point time lapse cameras at key locations near to the interventions, which took a photo every 15 minutes during the monitoring period (day and night) • Environmental conditions, including the timings and size of rain events, temperature, wind direction and speed, and humidity, monitored using weather stations; this enabled a comparative analyses to be made with the fixed-point photo monitoring and other monitoring data • Aspects such as rain water inputs and infiltration times monitored using flowmeters at inlets (e.g. downpipes from roofs) and pressure sensors in basins, in order to understand the impact of selected rainfall events on surface water run-off, and in turn calculate the amounts of water diverted from reaching the sewer network • Thermal monitoring using a thermal imaging camera to understand the impact on the urban heat island effect, with a focus on key aspects such as green roofs on particularly hot/cold days and comparisons made with untreated surrounding areas • Biodiversity monitoring on the green roofs, using vegetation surveys to understand the floral species diversity (inventories to record every floral species and quadrats to monitor experimental plots on Richard Knight House); % vegetation cover was also monitored through this process • Photographic monitoring during site visits to create an archive of the development of biodiversity and to monitor elements as they develop and mature; residents were also encouraged to participate in this through a photography competition • Simulated storm events to assess how selected interventions would perform in a 1 in 100 year storm event (as they were designed for), by pumping water into the intervention and monitoring data readings from the relevant monitoring equipment such as pressure sensors, as well as undertaking photographic documentation and visual assessment. SROI: This measured the benefit of the climate adaptation interventions to local communities beyond their immediate role of improving resilience to climate change - such as community cohesion, understanding of climate change, and awareness of its impacts.

Performance

Performance impact estimation method:

Edge of Field/Plot

Performance impact estimation information:

Cost assessement method:

Social Return On Investment (SROI): this is a framework for measuring and accounting for a much broader concept of value, incorporating social, economic and environmental costs and benefits. The SROI exercise measured the benefits of the climate adaptation interventions to local communities beyond their immediate role of improving resilience to climate change - such as community cohesion, understanding of climate change, and awareness of its impacts.

How cost effective:

The SROI gave a social value of the project as £4.39 in benefits for every £1 invested.

Biophysical impacts

Retained water:

1,286.8

Retained water unit:

m3/year

Information on retained water:

This is the annual rainfall retained and diverted away from the storm drain system by the interventions over the course of a year.

Water quality overall improvements:

Positive impact-WQ improvement

Information on Water quality overall improvements:

Ground level SuDS systems created a 100% improvement in surface water pollution, as no surface water was recorded leaving any of the designed elements and feeding into the combined sewer system.

Reducing flood risks quantity:

The climate adaptation interventions have reduced flood risk across the three demonstration sites

Information on Reducing flood risks, quantity:

• 4,537m2 of land improved • 3,158m2 of impermeable surface diverted from draining directly to the sewer • 100% of rainfall has been diverted away from the storm drain system by the ground level SuDS • 89% (on average) of the rainfall landing on the green roofs has been absorbed • 1,286,815 litres annual rainfall retention and diversion away from the storm drain system by the interventions

Other Biophysical impacts:

Vegetation cover, biodiversity, temperature

Information on Other biophysical impacts:

• 2,630m2 of new and enhanced green infrastructure • Vegetation cover: 782m2 increase in soft landscape • Biodiversity: residential green roof at Richard Knight House: A net increase of 64 species compared to standard flat roof. • Temperature: max 35.73% reduction in temperature on a green roof compared to surrounding grey infrastructure • Green roofs: 432m2 area • Food growing: 24m2 capacity

Lessons, risks, implications...

Key lessons:

• Retrofitting open spaces in social housing environments is both necessary and cost-effective: affordable and socially acceptable light-engineering climate adaptation measures implemented through the project help to demonstrate the role these spaces can play in increasing urban resilience to climate change • Such projects work better when not delivered in isolation: climate adaptation is multi-faceted and requires cross-disciplinary working – from consultation to co-design, from community engagement activities to training and employment opportunities • Communities, in particular residents, are expert users of spaces and have valuable knowledge of their local environment: their involvement from the start of the project has been essential to secure their input and support • A comprehensive approach to monitoring and evaluation can help make the business case for such schemes: as exemplified by this project, this should not only include technical monitoring of the environmental benefits, but also additional evaluation to capture the wider social and economic benefits of the project.

Financing mechanism:

Financing mechanism type:

European and local

Financing mechanism information:

The project has been co-financed by the LIFE+ financial instrument of the European community. Total project budget = 1.6 million EUR, co-funded by the LIFE+ Programme (50%) with match funding from other sources including Hammersmith & Fulham Council and the Greater London Authority

Flexibility adaptability:

A number of the interventions have been designed with greater capacity than was required at the time of installation, so that if the changing climate results in greater rainfall than expected, the measures will be able to withstand this. This has been tested through a storm simulation at one of the swales, in which a 1 in 100 year storm was simulated by pumping 10,000 litres of water into the swale over the course of an hour - at no point during the storm simulation did water pooling in the swale reach the swale’s stormwater overflow.

Transferability:

The project aimed to develop a methodology that would be applicable and transferable to other housing estates, not only within the UK but also across Europe. Various resources have been developed in order to share learning from the project and support other housing providers to develop and deliver similar initiatives, including an Implementation Guide, training materials, a Layman’s Guide, project film and 360 virtual tour. These are available on the project’s dedicated website, www.urbanclimateproofing.london.

Success factor(s):

Type	Role	Comments
Successful coordination between authorities	main factor	Such projects work better when not delivered in isolation: climate adaptation is multi-faceted and requires cross-disciplinary working – from consultation to co-design, from community engagement activities to training and employment opportunities. This project benefited from Groundwork London working closely with the local authority, with a range of teams involved from each organisation and other external stakeholders involved in different aspects of the project - from design, to implementation and evaluation.
Conducted assessments (incl. economic)	main factor	A comprehensive approach to monitoring and evaluation can help make the business case for such schemes: as exemplified by this project, this should not only include technical monitoring of the environmental benefits, but also additional evaluation to capture the wider social and economic benefits of the project
Public participation	main factor	Communities, in particular residents, are expert users of spaces and have valuable knowledge of their local environment: their involvement from the start of the project has been essential to secure their input and support.
Financing possibilities	main factor	Retrofitting open spaces in social housing environments is both necessary and cost-effective: affordable and socially acceptable light-engineering climate adaptation measures implemented through the project help to demonstrate the role these spaces can play in increasing urban resilience to climate change

Financing:

Type	Comments
EU-funds: LIFE+	The project was co-funded by the European LIFE+ programme.
Local funds	The project was match funded using local funds including Hammersmith & Fulham Council and the Greater London Authority

Barrier:

Type	Role	Comments
Other	secondary barrier	Even with utility company drawings and radar surveys for underground services, not all services were identified. This meant some design changes were needed during construction.
Other	secondary barrier	The scheduling of works at the final estate reduced the time available for monitoring. This was solved by using storm simulation tests which allow for spot testing of the performance of interventions. The aim is to extend the monitoring period by up to a year (subject to funding) to better understand the longer-term performance of the SuDS measures.
Attitude of relevant stakeholders	secondary barrier	It was hard to engage some estate residents in the climate change agenda at first as it wasn’t seen as an immediate problem for the estates. The project overcame this by linking wider threats to local issues, such as water pooling and overheating.
Attitude of relevant stakeholders	secondary barrier	Several open spaces on the estates were fenced off and rarely used before the work started. Some residents were concerned that opening up the spaces might encourage anti-social behaviour. In reality, the opposite has happened, with the spaces now more widely used and valued. Construction works close to residents’ homes and altering access routes were also a concern for some residents. This was expected and managed through Groundwork London’s Community Projects Officer and relevant council teams.

Driver:

Type	Role	Comments
Organisation committed to it	secondary driver	H&F Council is keen to be recognised as a lead authority in advancing effective approaches to climate adaptation at a neighbourhood and Borough wide scale. The local authority, who owns the three estates used as demonstration sites in this project, is now using the lessons learned from the project to explore the feasibility of rolling out green infrastructure based climate adaptation initiatives in other housing estates across the borough.
Past flooding events	main driver	The three estates had all previously suffered from surface water flooding, water pooling on estate roads and paths, and located close to Category 1 CSO (meaning that it operates frequently and has adverse environmental impacts).

Financing share:

Share type	Share	Comments
European funds	50%	LIFE+ Programme

Socio-economic

Benefits and cobenefits:

The project has delivered a range of social and economic benefits beyond its core environmental benefits. This has predominantly been achieved through the engagement of local residents as part of a comprehensive community engagement programme delivered throughout the project. Residents have been involved in shaping the open space improvements on their estate, helping to grow their awareness of the implications of climate change and the actions they can take. The project has also helped many residents to use the spaces more, including through food growing and gardening clubs which can help to improve their health and well-being and their sense of belonging. Beyond this, the project has, through its Green Teams, given training and employment to young unemployed Borough residents, involving them in the soft landscaping and maintenance of measures.

Direct benefits:

• 472 residents engaged • 90% of residents reported an increased understanding of climate change • 81% of residents said they agree or strongly agree that the quality of the green spaces has improved significantly • 58% of residents reported their use of the green spaces had increased • 48% of residents reported an increased sense of belonging • 67% of residents reported increased pride in the area they live in • 22 Green Team trainees involved (a training and employment programme for those who are young, unemployed and lacking experience and qualifications) • 11 job outcomes for Green Team trainees

Costs investment:

526,000 EUR

Costs investment information:

Cost of the capital works across all three estates.

Costs capital:

526,000 EUR

Costs capital information:

Cost of the capital works across all three estates.

Ecosystem improved biodiversity:

Information on Ecosystem improved biodiversity:

Green roofs on all three estates are supporting biodiversity, with a net increase of 64 species identified compared to normal flat roofs. Some of the interventions have also been planted with wildflower turf to further support biodiversity objectives.

Policy, general governance and design targets

Policy description:

The project's core focus has been to demonstrate an integrated approach to climate adaptation in urban areas by undertaking a package of affordable, light-engineering climate change adaptation measures based around the retrofitting of blue and green infrastructure. It focuses on the key challenges of increasing likelihood of climate change impacts on urban areas, and the vulnerability of social housing estates and their residents to these impacts.

Quantified objectives:

The key objectives of the project were to: -Develop a transferable methodology for designing affordable, light-engineering climate change adaptation measures for social housing landscapes using green and blue infrastructure. -Design and implement comprehensive packages of retrofitting measures in three different types of social housing landscapes. -Implement the main measures through employment programmes for long-term unemployed beneficiaries creating local jobs. -Develop a set of training modules for housing and grounds maintenance professionals on the whole cycle of adaptation and green infrastructure relevant procurement systems, design, retrofit and maintenance. -Develop a transferable methodology for resident stakeholder engagement, resulting in site-specific community adaptation action plans and practical involvement in retrofitting and maintenance activities. -Design an evaluation methodology capturing technical performance and social return on investment. -Develop interactive e-learning materials including a film to inform local, national and EU policy, strategy and best practice.

Requirement directive remarks:

Adaptation measures of this nature are covered by European policy under the Water Framework Directive and the EU Floods Directive. These measures also demonstrate practical responses in line with the EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change, which encourages all Member States to adopt comprehensive adaptation strategies and recognises that it makes sense to begin with measures that are low-cost, flexible and good for both the economy and the climate.

Part of wider plan:

Policy pressure:

Policy requirement directive:

Requirement directive	Specification
Floods Directive-mitigating Flood Risk

Policy impact:

Policy wider plan:

Wider plan type	Wider plan focus	Comments
National	Climate adaptation	At the national level, the project has contributed to the development of the UK’s approach towards Sustainable Drainage Systems, inputting to a Defra/CLG consultation in 2014. The project has also contributed to SuDS guidance produced by national bodies including CIRIA.
Regional	Climate adaptation	At the regional level, the project is highly relevant for the London Sustainable Drainage Action Plan, which aims to ensure that London can manage its rainwater sustainably to reduce flood risk and improve water security, and is referred to in the Plan. The project has also contributed to London wide guidance documents, including Transport for London's SuDS Design Guide.
Local	Climate adaptation	The project has also helped to strengthen local planning policies associated with SuDS and climate change proofing of future developments within Hammersmith & Fulham Council’s new Local Plan, and is also feeding into the new Ecology / Biodiversity Policy that the local authority is proposing.

Policy area:

Policy area type	Policy area focus	Name	Comments
	Climate change adaptation policy	Green Infrastructure Strategy	A key relevant policy document is the European Commission’s Green Infrastructure Strategy, which recognises the important role these measures play in a number of areas, including the provision of ecosystem services, the protection and enhancement of natural capital, adaptation to climate change and disaster risk management, as well as offering health and social benefits too.

Policy target:

Target purpose
Runoff control

Design & implementations

Project scale:

Small

Project scale specification:

Three urban social housing estates in West London

Installation date:

June 2015

Lifespan:

20+ years, depending on the measure

Age:

1 year

Area (ha):

0.45

Area specifications:

Area of land improved.

Size:

3360

Size unit:

Max water retention capacity:

107

Max water retention capacity unit:

m3/month

Basis of design:

1 in 100 year storm.

Design contractual arrangement:

Design consultation activity:

Design land use change:

Design authority:

Last updated: 07 Feb 2017 | Top

Miscellanous

Main menu

Climate-Proofing Social Housing Landscapes

Partners