Embodied Energy by T N Laundon FCABE FRICS
My work takes me to most corners of Greater London but occasionally I am diverted away from the metropolis and, on one such occasion, this took me to Merseyside. Following a series of visits to Liverpool over a period of three years between 2015 and 2018, I developed my ideas as to the environmental impacts of the development process in general and the concept of embodied energy in particular.
The subject property was a vacant late Victorian mid-terrace house located in Anfield, some two miles to the north of Liverpool city centre, in the process of comprehensive refurbishment. It was agreed that I would oversee contractors and monitor work with the aim of upgrading the vacant house to an Association of Energy Conscious Builders (AECB) silver standard, whilst the client, an engineer, was abroad. Over several visits to the city the project was completed, full Building Regulations consent received and an application for the AECB accreditation submitted.
Having agreed what was required of the contractors, the opportunity to explore the immediate Anfield area and then further afield to other districts in the city, including Granby, was presented. These six districts of Liverpool formed part of Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder (Pathfinder) government schemes where the ideas of a Birmingham academic prevailed. Similar districts in established residential areas, close to city centres in the English midlands and northern towns and cities, deemed to have suffered residential failure were identified. By the time the research was published, however, the market had recovered and Pathfinder was arguably an already discredited idea by the time it was implemented.
In subsequent months I was to visit Hull, and Oldham and Salford in Greater Manchester which have also been subjected to the Pathfinder treatment, the latter being arguably an abuse of CPO powers. This has resulted in large numbers of houses being acquired at low prices, demolished and the site then handed over to private developers for private sale1
. Similar outcomes have
apparently occurred in Liverpool, the private developer profit motive being central to Pathfinder.
The sight of tinned up terraces (over a decade), vandalism and even what appeared to be arson, was appalling, especially when one considers the potential alternatives. Apparently many, if not most, houses are believed
to have been gutted of all valuable, easily re-saleable materials. Many buildings have been left exposed to the elements, which has caused further deterioration. The abiding memory was one of extensive blight and seemingly abandonment of these depopulated areas.
Through a process of acquisition and partial demolition, it was intended to create an artificial shortage leading to an increase in values, thereby creating more desirable residential districts. In total, nationwide, some 1.5 million buildings were identified with approximately 850,000 houses scheduled for demolition. Liverpool City Council (LCC) had a tie-up with a national developer for each of its six Pathfinder areas, for the purpose of upgrading dated buildings or demolition and rebuilding on acquired sites.
Commercial builders, though, were not going to swamp the market with refurbished houses in areas with weak housing markets.
The Pathfinder scheme was dropped by the new incoming government in 2010, but by then hitherto stable communities had been destroyed.
By any reasonably objective analysis the scheme seemed flawed in principle and by the time the scheme was under way in the early 2000s the market had recovered.
The link-up with large residential developers often meant that completed/ refurbished houses were drip-fed onto the market so that prices were not depressed. This led to widespread stagnation with thousands of houses remaining tinned up and unoccupied over many years.
These are often the same developers who would rather build on greenfield sites as the profit is potentially greater with this approach. Unfortunately, such development tends to result in green belt encroachments, with consequential increased commuting and car use. The Royal Town Planning Institute has recently complained about this type of development being constructed a long way from railway stations. Interestingly, the Anfield district was previously served by four stations within walking distance or connected by a comprehensive tram system!
From a government viewpoint this hardly represents joined-up thinking!
10
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
