UCL Environment Institute, University College London
Pearson Building, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT
HERITAGE & CLIMATE CHANGE:
Protection at any cost?
UCL Environment Institute
The UCL Environment Institute Seminar Series Report
UCL Environment Institute
UCL ENVIRONMENT INSTITUTE
UCL Environment Institute
Heritage & Climate Change:
Protection at Any Cost?
Environment Institute
UCLUCL
Environment
Institute
Workshop
Report by
Lisa Taylor
Professor Joe Flatman
Professor Tim Marshall
Professor Yvonne Rydin
Heritage & Climate Change
Heritage & Climate Change
Introduction
This report stems from a UCL Environment Institute event in May 2011,
convened to help build dialogue and relationships between heritage and planning
communities grappling with climate change.1
Presentations addressed the growing number of tensions in the arena; the
dimension of time; governance and management challenges; and prospects for
commercial leadership.2
The discussion that followed explored key heritage, planning and climate change
approaches as they apply to the retrofit of buildings and places, to renewable
energy, and to land and coastal management.
At closing, it was clear that while there is a will to cooperate, there is a daunting
gap between the call for dialogue and the delivery of coherent policy. This paper
expands on the event by considering temporal and spatial planning and issues
of will and capacity.
With a view to the topics addressed in the May 2011 Heritage and Climate Change workshop, this article
will look at how an imminent threat – climate change – is forcing heritage and planning communities to
choose between opposition and cooperation, and at what issues and options they have. One speaker
summarised this pressure in an earlier work:
“The planning system in the UK has come under fire both from residents who wish to demonstrate their
personal commitment to climate change action, and believe this has been prevented by insensitive
and not fit-for-purpose conservation policies, and from those who object to such alterations to historic
buildings.” (Wilson and Piper, 2010, pp. 216-217).
The dilemma of how to prioritise and/or align climate change responses and heritage considerations
has to be considered through temporal as well as spatial planning. The ‘dimension of time’ ranges
from climate-change timeframes and heritage designation to planning horizons and futures thinking.
The ‘dimension of space’ in this instance includes national v. local scope, terrestrial and marine
environments and rural v. urban priorities.
Addressing the dilemma involves two core sets of requirements: will – political, institutional, economic,
community and individual – and capacity, including knowledge, quantification, management and skill.
Those four factors coexist in effective planning and policy, but the UK is in a state of flux. Central
government’s preoccupation with economic recovery, the localism agenda and streamlining policy –
on top of increased pressure to meet carbon-reduction targets – have meant a scramble for resource
and political support, as well as “a seismic shift in the planning regime.” (UCL, 2011).
If the heritage, climate change and planning communities are to cooperate effectively, “professionals
and communities alike need to form views on the basis of coherent arguments.” (UCL, 2011) Those
arguments clearly need to be developed in light of geographic, cultural and environmental context.
But funding cuts increase the risk of moulding research and projects to available grants – often tied to
supranational drivers such as European Union objectives – rather than starting from reflective analysis
of the problem and its best chance of a solution (Prain, 2011, Sustainable West Midlands, 2010,
Priemus, 2008).
As a result of these pressures, the heritage and climate change arena is defined by tensions: the
climate change agenda v. economic growth; local v. central control; and attachment to tradition v. the
need for the built environment to be sustainable and fit for purpose (Marshall, 2011).
How those tensions come into play across the UK is illustrated by medieval Woking Palace, a Scheduled
Ancient Monument in Surrey. Dr Joe Flatman, UCL Senior Lecturer and Surrey County archaeologist,
said the site’s future involves, at minimum:
• County planning issues (threats; issues; priorities; overlapping responsibilities);
• Climate change issues (adaptation; mitigation and management);
• Historic site issues (site; management and development).
2
3
Heritage & Climate Change
Heritage & Climate Change
Figure 1 Woking Palace.
happen at any given time and place is anyone’s guess (Mayewski, 2002, 2009). This uncertainty
“presents a significant challenge for those involved in day-to-day decision making or long-term
planning.” (English Heritage, 2008, p. 14).
Source: www.woking-palace.org/palace/palace.htm
Significance
Another unknown is significance: what will be historically important in future is often unknown in the
present. Joseph Bazalgette may have designed sewer pumping stations as architectural monuments
to their contribution to Londoners’ health, but it’s doubtful that medieval barons meant their latrines to
become designated archaeological sites (Small, 2009). How to know what must be protected?
Significance is also the watchword of Planning Policy Statement 5, which will guide central and local
policy on the historic environment until it is replaced as part of a streamlined National Planning Policy
Framework. If the latter goes ahead as drafted, “significance” could be determined solely by the local
authority and/or a developer applying for permission. Further, loss of significance or harm to the
heritage asset could be outweighed by “substantial public benefit” and/or a set of other factors which
are no more clearly defined than significance itself (DCLG, 2011, p 51).
PPS5 takes a broader view, jurisdictionally and conceptually. It defines significance as the holistic
value of the building, open space, archaeological or other site, but it also recognises that significance
may not apply to every interior wall or hidden yard, which allows for unprecedented flexibility in
‘climate-proofing’ sites or making them more energy efficient (DCLG, 2010).
PPS5’s flexibility has also been a weakness. To assess their suitability for energy retrofit, heritage
buildings should be investigated individually. However, with carbon reduction targets of 20% by 2020,
31% by 2030 and 80% by 2050, there may not be time to give them their due – or, if heritage protection
‘trumps’ environmental imperatives, there may not be time to improve enough of the UK’s built stock
to meet those deadlines (Sustainable Development Commission, 2005).
The monument dates back to at least 1272, and was designated for, among other things, ‘its
excellent survival, high diversity, enormous archaeological potential both on the island itself and in the
waterlogged moats and… its historical association with royalty and the amenity value afforded by this
association.’ (English Heritage, 2011a). The site’s survival over 730 years can be attributed in large
part to climate-appropriate siting and construction, mixed-use buildings and land, low-maintenance
local materials, and the resource invested by its owners (English Heritage, 2008, 2011a). These
elements all contribute to a site’s resilience, the trait most commonly associated with climate change3.
They also make this heritage site – and its urban cousins – useful exemplars for climate planning, as
well as alerts to the complexity involved in delivering it.
Climate change timescales
Unlike centuries-old English estates with their understandable contexts and written records, climate
change research spans millennia and is characterised by uncertainty as to timing, location, severity
and duration (Stern, 2006). For instance, while there is evidence of abrupt and devastating temperature
and sea-level change throughout history, “human-forced” impacts will vary geographically. What may
4
It may be that in future, climate resilience becomes an aspect of significance. In her UCL presentation,
Elizabeth Wilson highlighted the contribution of historic buildings to climate planning research, citing
English Heritage:
“The past has witnessed significant climatic change and today’s historic sites, buildings and landscapes
provide an unparalleled source of information on these long-term fluctuations, on human responses
to them and on past approaches to living in a low-energy economy.” (English Heritage, 2008, p.10).
Planning horizons
Looking ahead, one challenge would appear to be planning short-sightedness on the part of some
sectors, and a timing mismatch between others (Figure 2) (Wilson, 2011).
5
Heritage & Climate Change
Heritage & Climate Change
Figure 2 Planning by Sector.
Futures thinking
Source: SEEDA, 2004 in Wilson, 2011.
Finally, looking into the distance, there are strategic tools such as futures thinking and scenario
planning, espoused by groups like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. However, scenario
planning is not politically popular (Wilson, 2011) or easily managed at the community level (Cooper,
2009, Street, 1997). Even amongst committed, single-discipline researchers, the range of possible
futures is staggering (Mayewski, 2009). To be cost-effective, mitigation work to reduce impact and
adaptation work to protect sites against risks like increased flooding should be done at the same time.
But with shrinking budgets and memories of failed technologies4, conservationists advocate minimal,
‘no regret’ or ‘low regret’ interventions until more is known (English Heritage, 2008). At the same time,
climate researchers are unable to advise on impacts precisely enough for planners to act (Stern, 2007,
Mayewski, 2009).
The dimension of space
Scale
One conflict that must be addressed for the heritage and climate change communities to cooperate
effectively in planning is differing scale. Climate change operates at global, hemispheric and regional
scales, with effects spreading beyond political boundaries, and some impacts beyond local control no
matter how responsibly people behave (Stern, 2006). Attention is being paid to world heritage issues
and sites, but generally speaking, that work doesn’t help with local spatial planning.
Within the UK, several proposed infrastructure schemes, from wind farms to high-speed rail, would
improve national sustainability but could cause major damage to historic sites (UCL, 2011). On a
regional scale, London’s Crossrail project already poses a risk, as the Crossrail Bill allows central
government to “disapply” heritage protection for listed buildings whose status blocks tunnelling or rail
works (House of Lords, 2008).
“For most sectors, a two- to five-year planning horizon appears to be the norm. Although, as might
be expected, the sectors with long lead times and long life projects (such as biodiversity, planning,
infrastructure and utilities) planned further ahead, many respondents explained that they worked to
all time horizons: for instance, for budgeting, an annual cycle is used, while for those organisations
which worked within political horizons, a three to five year period is important.” (South East England
Development Agency, 2004, p. 4).
Outside Greater London, Manchester and Birmingham, the withdrawal of regional government means
less regional-scale research, information-sharing and planning activity. This would seem particularly
hazardous given that this is the scale at which ecosystems operate, and at which mitigation and
adaptation efforts such as coastal defence may be most useful. The loss may be more critical for
climate change than heritage, but both are affected.
Terrestrial and marine environments
Wilson also argued that there is too much emphasis on “the static three pillars of sustainability
[environmental, economic and social], and inattention to time.” (Wilson, 2011). Her assertion is
supported by sustainability analyses of large-scale infrastructure projects, where the cost-benefit
calculation that triggers approval looks at static “before” and “after” circumstances, but not at what
happens during the process, or at performance in use (Rothengatter, 2008). This type of economically
driven decision-making can have dire consequences for ecosystems and the heritage environment.
6
The planning community must also be aware of impacts across environments. Coastal and sea
changes, vegetation shifts, new pests, erosion or flooding of historic or archaeological sites can all
interact, and can all take a toll (Figure 3) (Brown, 2011).
7
Heritage & Climate Change
Heritage & Climate Change
Figure 3 Ringbrough WWII Coastal Artillery, Humberside.
Rural v. urban priorities
Source: English Heritage, 2011b.
Climate change impacts such as the aforementioned – not to mention seasonal shifts – already
appear to be disrupting agricultural patterns (Worldwatch Institute, 2011). The economic effects on
farming and fisheries in particular are felt far beyond their source, as food prices rise and food security
weakens (Worldwatch Institute, 2011). This is an area where heritage has useful lessons: traditional
(necessarily) organic farms offer less revenue than agribusiness, but manageable size, mixed crops
and local control make them more ecologically resilient and low-impact than mono-cropping operations
(Worldwatch Institute, 2011).
Parts of the coast in this area are
eroding at some of the fastest rates
in the country and the damage being
done to archaeological remains is
only too clear.
The Ringborough World War II coast
artillery gun emplacements and
associated camp were recorded on
aerial photographs over a period of
ten years (English Heritage, 2011b).
Photo 1: 1994
In terms of the built environment, rising energy prices and low-impact awareness may be taking hold
away from major centres, and there is potential for community-scale renewable energy generation
and distribution (Rural Innovation for the Future, 2011). Unfortunately, the regional cuts above mean
fewer resources to inform residents about climate change or heritage benefits, or to help people with
sensitive retrofit or non-invasive microgeneration.
Cities face different climate change pressures, such as transportation, waste, and the Urban Heat
Island Effect, with the temptation it poses to increase mechanical cooling and resultant emissions.
Again, heritage buildings, built with effective thermal mass in a necessarily low-carbon world, have
lessons to teach (Rhee-Diverne, 2011).
The biggest opportunity for cities to mitigate their climate change impact, however, is their built stock,
especially housing (Greater London Authority, 2011). Some 25 million homes nationwide need to be
energy-retrofitted to meet the UK’s 2050 carbon reduction goal. In Greater London alone, an estimated
575,000 of those properties are listed and/or in conservation areas (Bottrill, 2005). If property owners
take up the Green Deal in anything like the numbers government hopes for5, the burden on local
planning and conservation officers could be overwhelming.
The question of will
Photo 2: 2000
Political
Attitudes towards climate change, planning and heritage vary at the best of times; as SEEDA noted,
with a four- to five-year horizon, politicians and civil servants must choose their battles (SEEDA,
2004). Not only is climate change an accepted environmental risk, action on it is driven in part by EU
obligations, and involves energy security and economic opportunity. UK response may be slower than
in European countries like Sweden and Germany, but as evidenced by the ground-breaking Climate
Change Act of 2008, the issue is being taken very seriously.
Photo 3: 2004
8
Planning is not faring as well. Against the backdrop of a weak economy, government antipathy towards
planning is overt, with politicians calling planners “inept” and “authoritarian” (Giddens, in Wilson, 2011).
The National Planning Policy Framework has been drafted to streamline planning, “replacing over a
thousand pages of national policy with around fifty, written simply and clearly” (Clark, 2011). In the same
foreword, Minister for Planning Greg Clark called for planning that is less about scrutiny than creativity,
and in which “Development that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay - a presumption in
favour of sustainable development that is the basis for every plan, and every decision.” (Clark, 2011).
9
Heritage & Climate Change
Heritage & Climate Change
Considering that legal contracts become ever-longer to protect signatories’ interests into the future,
what gets cut out may be significant, and English Heritage has already registered concern about the
NPPF (Hansard, 2011).
2010, p. 129). On the other, unless their area experiences an extraordinary flood, heatwave, landslide
or wildfire, it may be difficult for communities to grasp the importance of mitigation and adaptation. A
recent poll found that although Britons were concerned about energy security, waste management and
overpopulation, only 25% were concerned about climate change; no link was made – or possibly none
was presented – between personal and community impacts and climate change.6 (Ipsos Mori, 2010).
Further muddying the waters, the City of London’s chief planner turned on English Heritage, calling the
organisation the “heritage Taliban” (Hurst, 2011). Away from the build-or-die ethos that can be found
in the Square Mile - as elsewhere in the country - heritage protection gets a mixed reception (Wilson
and Piper, 2010).
One problem for all three disciplines is that, though the UK’s built stock accounts for some 40%
of carbon emissions (GLA, 2011), regulation to date has focused on new build. That is changing,
and the Green Deal financing programme will serve existing buildings, but CLG officials allow that
hard-to-treat heritage buildings may not benefit, as the expense of historic retrofit could exceed the
planned £10,000 cap.
Heritage appears to be easier to engage with, as it is often neighbourhood groups who call for listing, or
appeal for protection from demolition or refurbishment (English Heritage, 2011c), but this often covers
up distributional, class or cultural issues about whose heritage counts, what sorts of neighbourhoods
ask for what – same will apply on climate change local judgements (Marshall, 2011). To serve these
communities well, public consultation must be able to present the cases for low-carbon intervention
and heritage protection clearly and fairly. This is another case for cross-discipline cooperation.
Individual
Institutional
To improve the UK’s listed building stock in a useful timeframe will almost certainly require more
flexibility at the local authority level (Gowthorpe, 2011, English Heritage 2008), and will involve
heritage, carbon-reduction and and planning interests working together to mitigate climate change
risks. Cross-professional cooperation is needed on a broader level as well, which calls for “genuine
cross-boundary knowledge production, transfer, integration and implementation.” (Cooper, 2009).
In some ways, the climate change threat may be useful institutionally: Flatman “argued that the culture
of heritage planning needs to change, and that the climate change agenda is just a driver for this
change.” (Flatman, 2011 in Rydin, 2011).
Economic
There is some leadership coming from the commercial sector. Acknowledging the potential cost of
climate change damage globally, the European re-insurance industry has become very active in
supporting research and action (Selin and VanDeveer, 2009). Leadership like this may help spur
market development at the level of adaptation and mitigation efforts like heritage retrofit. Common
wisdom is that there is no real demand for retrofit yet, but in his UCL presentation, Arup’s John Brown
argued that development can encompass heritage, mitigation and adaptation concerns. To get there,
he called for peer leadership, awards and publicity as motivators, along with local planning guidance
(Brown, 2011).
Community
When it comes to climate change, there is perplexing problem at the community level. On one hand,
the timescales involved can “blur the distinction in the Brundtland conception of sustainability between
meeting the needs of the present generation and those of future generations.” (Wilson and Piper,
10
Finally, on the individual level, a major issue is lifestyle, and how it has changed over time. When
historic homes were built and first occupied, rooms were heated individually, residents were used to
colder temperatures, there was a “make do and mend” attitude, and there were no electric or electronic
appliances to speak of. Shifting the population back to a less comfortable, less convenient lifestyle will
be difficult, if not impossible (Lowe, 2011).
In terms of motivation to change, Green Deal proponents claim that removing the up-front cost of retrofit
work should encourage millions to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. Evidence to support
this financial argument is mixed. The government’s 2010 boiler upgrade scheme ran out of its 125,000
vouchers in two months, and private companies are now replicating the offer (BoilerGuide, 2011). On
the other hand, a 2010-11 Green Deal-style pilot in Sutton saw only 400 households respond to the
offer, and only six percent of those opted for the financing deal (Green Deal Guide, 2011). A recent
British Gas offer of free home insulation is yet to be reviewed; given the government’s emphasis on
involving energy suppliers in carbon reduction, its results could be especially important.
The question of capacity
Knowledge
The 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review and the realignment of government departments have
meant deep cuts in the Department for Communities and Local Government, local authorities and
English Heritage. Entities such as the Sustainable Development Commission and the Commission for
Architecture and the Built Environment were shut down, and others such as the London Development
Agency and Government Office for London were swallowed by the Greater London Authority.
These cuts involve a dispersal of expertise and experience and a loss of cohesion. The professionals
affected are not just less able to designate, protect or prosecute. They are also less able to study,
share information, strategize or educate. All these networks will have to be rebuilt.
11
Heritage & Climate Change
Heritage & Climate Change
Management
One of the underlying issues in the governance and management regime for heritage is that the
UK has a proactive heritage system, with a listing and protection approach, but a reactive planning
system, where local government officials must respond to applications and outside influences. This
mismatch is unproductive, and must change if government carbon reduction targets are to be met
(Flatman, 2011).
Up to a quarter of UK homes in 2050 will have been built before 1919, with single-glazed windows and
solid-wall construction (Wilson, 2011). “Questions arise as to the extent to which such homes can be
modified to adopt mitigation measures, either directly (such as the installation of microturbines or solar
panels on listed buildings or in conservation areas), or indirectly through the contribution of historic
landscapes and gardens.” (Wilson and Piper, 2010, p. 216). If carbon cuts can’t be delivered through
affordable technology, something’s got to give in planning or heritage.
In cases where mitigation isn’t an option, such as severe coastal erosion or other ecosystem disruption,
large-scale response may be required. Who manages this is not yet defined, but central government:
“…is placing considerable stress on the roles of the statutory agencies – Environment Agency, Natural
England, English Heritage and local authorities – in terms of establishing an evidence base about
coastal processes and a range of possible options for coastal defences, managed realignment or
community resettlement.” (Wilson and Piper, 2010, p. 128).
Looking at the whole range of jurisdictions and environments, Flatman suggested four courses of
action for heritage protection under climate change: do nothing; managed retreat; protecting some
more sites; and protecting many more sites (Flatman, 2011). He also proposed a heritage offset,
mirroring carbon offsets, wherein mitigation and adaptation measures included some sort of allowance
for heritage protection (Flatman, 2011).
Quantification
Flatman’s proposal “would require explicit consideration of the value of heritage conservation vis-à-vis
preparation for climate change impacts and implementing the mitigation agenda.” (Rydin, 2011). That
consideration would need to encompass the following, at minimum:
•
Sites: technical suitability of structures/sites for low-carbon retrofit and climate-proofing
•
easures: “‘technical potentials’ (best available technology regardless of cost) and ‘cost-effective
M
potentials’” (EU, 2011)
•
S
cale: Large-scale effects and options to meet targets, regional ecosystem effects and options;
individual assessments required to ensure heritage protection
•
Costings: as well as traditional and environmental cost-benefit analysis for the above.
The above are basic requirements, but who will pay for this work? Who will do it? And what will their
bias be? Since it lays the groundwork for planning and action, quantification may be where heritage,
planning and climate change communities most need to cooperate.
Skill
As noted above, recent government cuts have dispersed planning, heritage and climate change
expertise. At the delivery end of the spectrum, there is concern that the UK does not have the skills
required at the scale necessary to improve the built stock quickly or effectively (Ecotec, 2011). However,
the market for retrofit, including heritage works is expected to mature as economic drivers take hold;
Cassar argues that artisan skills tied to traditional buildings should be part of the mix (Cassar, 2009).
Conclusion
In Climate Change and the Historic Environment (2008), English Heritage embraced the UK Climate
Impacts Programme’s risk-based approach to climate change interventions (Willows and Connell
2003), which calls for ‘no regret’ and ‘low regret’ options:
“…considered to be worthwhile now (in that they would yield immediate economic and environmental
benefits which exceed their cost) and which continue to be worthwhile irrespective of the nature of
future climate change. A simple ‘no regret’ option for historic buildings is, for example, to improve basic
maintenance measures in order to minimise risks from storm damage.” (English Heritage, 2008, p 14).
Challenges for Heritage and Climate Change quantification:
12
•
limate Change risks: timing, location, severity, nature, duration, responses
C
•
H
eritage significance: designation, level of protection, type and intensity of use, resource required,
research to be conducted
The position paper also pointed out that while completely avoiding adaptation is no solution, badly
conceived or executed measures “not only diminish the significance of historic assets but also reduce
their flexibility to respond to future climate change.” (English Heritage, 2008).
13
Heritage & Climate Change
Heritage & Climate Change
Speaking of the infrastructure world, which operates on horizons between planning and climate,
Priemus called for an awareness of the problem in the historic, immediate, short, and long term, as
well as a clear definition of who and what is affected (Priemus, 2008). In PPS5, government would
seem to agree that careful consideration is warranted:
Bibliography:
“By taking a narrow and rigid view of what makes a building or development sustainable, opportunities
may well be missed to adapt and enhance what is already there... The historic environment has an
important role to play in addressing climate change. The retention and reuse of heritage assets avoids
the material and energy costs of new development. Many older settlements reflect good practice in
sustainable urban design.” (DCLG, 2010, p. 10).
There are projects investigating the lessons and potential of heritage assets like these. One, Retrofitting
Soho, involves a local authority, university researchers, property owners large and small, business and
resident representatives, among others. People on the steering committee have sat in opposition to
each other in past dealings; now, they must communicate to deliver the best options for this heritage
district, and for their own interests (Max Lock Centre, 2011).
That multi-disciplinary approach can be applied across research and planning timescales, geographic
and jurisdictional space, and in approaches to motivation and capacity, would seem to be the best
hope for bringing heritage and climate change considerations together.
In his closing remarks at the UCL workshop, Flatman said there will “never, ever be enough political
interest, time or resource” to do this work, and called on colleagues across the disciplines to “change
the system.” (Flatman, 2011). Time will tell whether the professions take up the call.
Brown, J., 2011. Presentation to the UCL Heritage & Climate Change workshop. London, 5 May 2011.
BoilerGuide, 2011. Boiler scrappage scheme [online]. Available at: www.boilerguide.co.uk/articles /
boiler-scrappage-scheme [Accessed 6 Sept 2011].
Cassar, M., 2005. Climate Change and the Historic Environment. London: UCL Centre for Sustainable
Heritage.
Cassar, M., 2009. Sustainable Heritage: Challenges and Strategies for the Twenty-First Century. In APT
Bulletin: Journal of Preservation Technology (40:1) [online]. Available at: www.apti.org/publications /
Past-Bulletin-Articles/Cassar-40-1.pdf [Accessed 13 Aug 2011] pp. 3-11.
Clark, G., 2011. Foreword by the Minister for Planning. In Draft National Planning Policy Framework. London:
DCLG.
Cooper, I., 2009. Sustainable Urban Development and the Professions in the UK: Moving from a ‘Zero-Sum
Game’ Towards More Deliberative Practice? In I. Cooper and M. Symes, eds. 2009. Sustainable Urban
Development Vol. 4: Changing Professional Practice. London: Routledge, pp. 99-126.
Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG), 2010. PPS5 - Planning for the Historic
Environment: Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide. London: DCLG.
DCLG, 2011. Draft National Planning Policy Framework [online]. Available at: www.communities.gov.uk /
documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1951811.pdf [Accessed 2 Sept 2011].
Ecotec, 2010. Skills for Climate Change. Birmingham: Ecotec Research and Consulting.
English Heritage, 2011a. The National Heritage List for England [online]. Available at: http://list.
english-heritage.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1019366 [Accessed 2 Sept 2011].
English Heritage, 2011b. Ringborough WWII Coast Artillery Battery [online]. Available at: www.english-heritage.
org.uk/professional/research/landscapes-and-areas/national-mapping-programme/ yorkshire-coast-rczas-nmp/
ringborough-wwii-coast-artillery-battery/ [Accessed 6 Sept 2011].
English Heritage, 2011c. Knowing Your Place [online]. Available at: www.english-heritage.org.uk/ publications/
knowing-your-place/ [Accessed 7 Sept 2011].
English Heritage, 2008. Climate Change and the Historic Environment. London: English Heritage.
European Commission, 2011. Impact Assessment: Accompanying document to the Working Document ‘Energy
Efficiency Plan 2011’. Brussels: European Commission.
Greater London Authority, 2011. The London Plan. London: GLA.
Green Deal Guide, 2011. Green Deal Style Trial Rejected by Half of Homeowners [online] 11 Aug. Available at:
www.greendealguide.co.uk/green-deal-style-trial-rejected-by-half-of-homeowners/ [Accessed 7 Sept 2011].
Hansard, 2011. Memorandum submitted by English Heritage (L42) in Commons Debates > Public Bill
Committee Debates > Public Bill Committee: Localism Bill, Session 2010-11 [online]. Available at: http://www.
parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/ [Accessed 14 July 2011].
House of Lords, 2008. The Crossrail Bill [online]. Available at: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa /ld200708/
ldbills/070/08070.8-14.html#J621 [Accessed 9 July 2011].
Hurst, W., 2011. Broadgate decision not political, says EH chief. In BD Online [online] 24 June. Available at:
http://m.bdonline.co.uk/news/broadgate-decision-not-political-says-eh-chief/ 5020405.article [Accessed 8 Aug
2011].
14
15
Heritage & Climate Change
Heritage & Climate Change
Ipsos Mori, 2010. Energy security is a top concern for Britons: poll [online] 18 April. Available at: http://www.
ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/2771/Energy-security-is-a-top-concern-for-Brits.aspx
[Accessed 7 Sept 2011].
Trow, S., 2008. The Past as a guide to the future: the long-term view. In Conservation Bulletin 57: Spring 2008
[online]. Available at: www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/ conservation-bulletin-57/ [Accessed 3 Sept
2011] pp 5-7.
Lowe, B,. 2011. Interview with UCL Energy Institute deputy director [private communication]. London, 14 July
2011.
University College London (UCL), 2011. Heritage and Climate Change: Protection at any Cost? [workshop] 5
May 2011.
Max Locke Centre, 2011. Retrofitting Soho outline [online]. Available at: www.westminster.ac.uk/__data /
assets/pdf_file/0017/46133 [Accessed 7 Sept 2011].
Wilson, E. and Piper, J., 2010. Spatial Planning & Climate Change. London: Taylor & Francis.
Mayewski, P., 2003. The Ice Chronicles. Lebanon NH: University Press of New England.
Worldwatch Institute, 2011. Climate Change: The Unseen Force Behind Rising Food Prices? [online]. Available
at: www.worldwatch.org/node/5434 [Accessed 6 Sept 2011].
Mayewski, P. 2009. Interview in in International Polar Foundation: Science Poles [online] 25 March. Available
at: www.sciencepoles.org/articles/article_detail/paul_mayewski_climate_variability_ abrupt_change_and_
civilization/ [Accessed 3 Sept 2011].
Prain, J., 2011. Interview with Energy Saving Trust financial analyst [private communication]. London, 1 Aug
2011.
Priemus, H., 2008. How to improve the early stages of decision-making on mega-projects. In H. Priemus
and B. Flyvbjerg, 2008. Decision-making on mega-projects: cost-benefit analysis, planning and innovation.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Rhee-Diverne, S., 2011. Presentation to the Society for the Preservation of Ancient Buildings: Technical
Review Day. London: June 2011.
Rothengatter, W., 2008. Innovations in the planning of mega-projects. In H. Priemus and B. Flyvbjerg, 2008.
Decision-making on mega-projects: cost-benefit analysis, planning and innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Rural Innovation for the Future (RIFF), 2011. Project Background [online]. Available at: http://riff-tsb.com/
project-background/ [Accessed 7 Sept 2011].
Rydin, Y., 2011. Heritage and Climate Change: Protection at any cost? [workshop report, unpublished].
Selin, H. and VanDeever, S., 2009. Changing climates in North American politics: institutions, policymaking,
and multilevel governance. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Small, J. 2009. English Heritage uncover 13th century toilet system at Helmsley Castle. In York Press [online].
Available at: www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/4206324.English_Heritage_uncover_13th_ century_toilet_system_at_
Helmsley_Castle/ [Accessed 6 Sept 2011].
South East England Development Agency, 2004. Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change [online] Available
at: www.espace-project.org/publications/library/Meeting_Challenge_Climate_Change.pdf [Accessed 3 Sept
2011].
Stern, N., 2006. What is the Economics of Climate Change? [online]. Available at: www.bioenergy-world.com/
americas/2006/IMG/pdf/stern_summary_what_is_the_economics_of_climate_change. pdf [Accessed 6 Sept
2011].
Street, P., 1997. Scenario workshops: a sustainable approach to sustainable urban living? In Futures (29:2).
pp. 139-158.
Street, R., 2008. Projecting the UK’s changing climate. In Conservation Bulletin 57: Spring 2008 [online].
Available at: www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/ conservation-bulletin-57/ [Accessed 3 Sept 2011] pp
3-5.
Sustainable Development Commission, 2005. Sustainable Buildings: The Challenge of the Existing Stock:
Technical Working Paper. London: SDC.
16
17
Heritage & Climate Change
18
Heritage & Climate Change
19
Heritage & Climate Change
20