Criterion 1: A good example of the modelled concept in planning practice The

assessment tool selected should be one of the most developed and consistent uses of the modelled concept in planning.

2. Criterion 2: A critical example of the modelled concept in planning practice. The tool selected should be a critical example of a modelled concept. In the case of this thesis, a critical case is taken to be: an assessment that significantly affects the way design decisions are made in a specific milieu; an assessment that dominates an area of regulatory practice.

As part of the selection process, a number of assessments were considered and dismissed, the most notable of which are the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Territorial Impact Assessment (TIA). The first of these, SEA, was discussed in Chapter 1. As Fischer notes, this assessment is structured around a pre-conceived idea of ‘sustainable development’, which is used as the basis for systematic evaluation (Fischer, 2003). Fischer’s comments suggest that SEA’s are design around a modelled concept (a modelled concept of ‘sustainable development’) and, thus, broadly meet the first selection criterion. However, Fischer also argues that, since its inception in the 1980s, a range of in-use variations of SEA have developed (Fischer and Seaton, 2002; Fischer, 2010; Fischer and Gazzola, 2006; Silva et al, 2014). Whilst some diversity might be considered an inevitable part of the assessment process, Fischer argues that these differences are significant enough to limit the systematic, cross comparative principles that underpin the assessment’s design (Fischer and Seaton, 2002; Fischer, 2010; Fischer and Gazzola, 2006). Fischer’s comments point to important inconsistencies in the role played by modelled concepts, thus excluding them as ‘good’ examples of the modelled concept used in practice (Criterion 2).

My reasons for dismissing TIA as a candidate for the case study lies in its incompatibility to the second criterion. Whilst modelled concepts have been intrinsic to the design of TIA to date (Abrahams, 2013), these assessments have still to be finalised and used across the European Union’s member states (ESPON, 2012). It is fair to conclude therefore that, in their present state of development, these assessments do not dominate a specific area of regulatory practice (Criterion 2).

After reviewing a number of such candidates for case study selection, I found that a family of assessments developed by the Building Research Establishment (BRE)

109 provided a strong ‘fit’ to the selection criteria above. This family includes, The Code for

Sustainable Homes used to introduce this thesis as well as, BREEAM New Construction, BREEAM In-Use, BREEAM Refurbishment and BREEAM Communities. The following

text demonstrates how this group of assessments meet the selection criteria.

Criterion 1: A good example of the modelled concept in planning practice. This broad

group of BRE sustainable assessment tools are some of the most developed and consistent uses of the essentialist, modelled concept to date. In Chapter 2 I provided a diagram that showed how the modelled concept underpins the Code for Sustainable Homes form of assessment. A similar schematic can be seen in all assessments in this family. BREEAM New Construction, for example, is used to assess newly constructed buildings across all sectors. Like the Code for Sustainable Homes, it is developed around a series of components deemed essential to the core concept, the ‘sustainable building’ (Figure 4). As a broader concept, this model is intended to capture the ‘sustainable school’, the ‘sustainable prison’ and the ‘sustainable supermarket’ for example. Figure 4 provides a graphical illustration of these components and their contribution to the concept.

110 Figure 4: Components and factors to be considered in a ‘sustainable building’.

Source: Abrahams 2013 adapted from BRE, 2011

As with the Code for Sustainable Homes, these essential components are broken down into their material factors for consideration by the design team.

In Chapter 2 I outlined a number of other assessment tools constructed around essentialist modelled concepts. These included, European Territorial Cohesion Indicators (ETCI), the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA) and Housing Quality Indicators (HQI). Whilst these tools are good examples of this phenomenon, none of them have used the essentialist, modelled concept as consistently as the BRE suite. This BRE suite of assessments, therefore, acts as a good case of modelled concept-based tools used in planning and, thus an ideal opportunity to consider and test an alternative.

Criterion 2: A critical example of the modelled concept-based tool. The use of critical

cases to test a theory or proposal is an established method within case study literature (Yin, 2009: 47-48). Not only are the BRE assessments some of the most developed

111 examples of modelled concept-based tools in planning, taken together, they are also some of the most critical examples used in practice.

Whilst these assessments are not mandatory, many local authorities and public sector clients across the UK specify this form of assessment as a condition of planning approval and funding (BRE Global, 2011). According to a survey undertaken by BRE Global, over ‘40% of local authorities in the UK are specifying sustainable building policies in their plans…’ (BRE Global, 2011). Drawing from this data, BRE Global argues that such assessments will continue to ‘shape the nature of planning policy in the UK’ (BRE Global, 2011).

This scenario is not unrealistic. Since its inception, the Code for Sustainable Homes has been a key component in the UK government’s strategy to reduce carbon emissions and has been established as a condition of funding in all new affordable housing schemes built in the UK. The latest addition to the BREEAM family, BREEAM Communities, was published early in 2011. In June 2011, Bristol City Council published a Core Strategy as part of their Local Development Framework. This strategy makes it mandatory for all large urban design schemes in the local authority to be assessed using the latest, BREEAM Communities form of assessment (Bristol City Council, 2011; BRE, 2012). If such efforts are judged successful, it is possible that other local authorities will follow a similar path.

Yet, this support for BRE forms of assessment is not shared across all departments and scales of government. In July 2010, the Department for Education launched a comprehensive review of all capital investments. This review questioned whether it should be mandatory for each new school over £2m to achieve a ‘very good’ rating using the BREEAM New Construction form of assessment (DfE, 2011). Removing this condition, it was suggested, could streamline procurement and reduce additional costs. However, following the passionate and immediate defence offered by representatives of the Chartered Institute of Building, the UK Green Building Council and the Aldersgate group (The Guardian, 2012), these proposals were withdrawn.

Similarly, in 2012 the Department for Local Government and Communities began a much broader and extensive review of regulation and assessment policy through the Housing Standards Review, launched in October 2012 and released in August, 2013.

112 The working group suggested a number of changes for subsequent consultation. One of the most significant of these changes was the proposed ‘wind down’ of the Code for Sustainable Homes and measures taken to integrate these standards into the UK building regulations (DCLG, 2013; DCLG, 2014). Whilst this change has affected domestic assessments it has not impacted on non-domestic assessments. Thus, despite these changes to the Code for Sustainable Homes, the BREEAM forms of assessment remain central to the UK government’s agenda on sustainability.

This literature shows fierce support for the modelled concept-based assessments used by the BRE assessments as well as wider motivations to challenge and re-think their use in practice. Given the intensity of debate surrounding these assessments, I believe they offer a critical case in which to question the normative use of modelled concepts, and to consider whether an alternative is both possible and practicable. If Deleuze can contribute to this alternative, then it may help us re-think the expanding influence of the modelled concept and associated tools.

Researcher’s experience using this modelled concept-based tool: Whilst not used as

part of my selection criteria, I have also taken into consideration the advantages offered by tools in which I, as the researcher, have already developed a strong working knowledge. In Chapter 1, I set out one of many examples taken from my experience and showed how my concerns align with other professionals (see Schweber, 2013). This suggests that my experiences and views do reflect the experiences and views of other experts in the field.