Sustainable Development

Sust. Dev. 15, 135–147 (2007)

Published online 26 September 2006 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/sd.308

What Is Stopping Sustainable Building

in England? Barriers Experienced
by Stakeholders in Delivering
Sustainable Developments
Katie Williams and Carol Dair*
Oxford Institute of Sustainable Development, School of the Built Environment,
Oxford Brookes University, UK

ABSTRACT
In England there is both top-down and bottom-up pressure to deliver a sustainable
built environment. However, most new projects display few sustainability features.
This paper presents 12 barriers to achieving sustainability in development schemes,
drawn from qualitative research on five recently completed projects in England.
The barriers that were identified by the stakeholders in the schemes include a lack of
consideration of sustainability measures, real and perceived costs and inadequate
expertise and powers. The paper concludes by suggesting some ways in which these
barriers might be overcome. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP
Environment.

Received 14 November 2005; revised 12 December 2005; accepted 14 January 2006

Keywords: sustainability; building; construction; design; planning; barriers; stakeholders; England

Introduction

HERE IS A GROWING POLITICAL IMPERATIVE TO BUILD SUSTAINABLY IN ENGLAND. FOR THE LAST

T decade the Government has seen planning and construction practices as the main mechanisms
by which to promote and deliver a sustainable built environment (DETR, 1998a, 1998b, 2000a,
2000b). To this end it has instigated a number of initiatives to ensure that sustainable develop-
ment schemes are produced. Different government offices are leading programmes to create sustain-
able communities, reduce energy use in buildings, ensure sustainable building materials and methods
are used and promote private sector interest in sustainable construction (Sustainable Buildings Task
Group, 2004). However, by 2003 there was still a perception that progress in sustainable building was
insufficient, hence a ‘Sustainable Building Task Group’ was established to identify how government and
industry could improve the sustainability and quality of buildings. This group reported in 2004 on the

* Correspondence to: Dr Carol Dair, Oxford Institute of Sustainable Development, School of the Built Environment, Oxford Brookes University,
Gipsy Lane Campus, Headington, Oxford OX3 OBP, UK. E-mail: cmdair@brookes.ac.uk

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment
136 K. Williams and C. Dair

steps required to accelerate a shift to a more sustainable built environment and identified the need for
a recognized code for sustainable buildings, further changes to planning and building regulations and
better information and skills, as well as fiscal incentives for owners and occupiers of buildings
(Sustainable Buildings Task Group, 2004). Many of these recommendations are now being actioned by
government (UK Government, 2005).
There is also considerable pressure by interest groups, in particular environmental and urban regen-
eration lobbies, to consider the impact of new developments on future generations (WWF-UK, 2004;
UK SDC, 2003; Duxbury, 2003). In practice, the aims are to build in sustainable locations (generally in
existing built-up areas), to achieve sustainable urban design in terms of mix of uses and of building
types, design quality and layouts and to employ sustainable construction techniques. What is desired is
a built environment that has both been produced using sustainable processes, methods and materials,
and enables people living and working in that environment to carry out their lives in a sustainable way,
for example by using fewer resources, taking part in developing social capital and supporting the local
economy.
However, it appears that the majority of new developments in England incorporate few sustainability
features. A recent review of sustainable building activity found that a very small proportion of England’s
building stock can claim to be sustainable in any way, whether judged on sustainable construction,
design or performance in use (Williams and Lindsay, 2005). The question then arises of why is this so.
Given such a strong policy drive, what is stopping sustainable developments from being realized in
practice?
This question was addressed in a three-year research project that investigated five recently completed
developments in England first to find out what had been achieved in terms of sustainability, and second
to identify barriers to sustainable practices. The purpose of the research was to establish, from those
involved in delivering the schemes (the stakeholders), why sustainability measures had or had not been
realized, rather than to generalize to populations on the scale of underachievement of sustainability.
Hence, a qualitative case study method, which lends itself to such enquiry, was adopted. In each case
study, qualitative research was undertaken. A number of methods of data collection were employed to
build a picture of what, in terms of sustainability, was achieved or not achieved and why.
The study complements previous research on barriers to the implementation of sustainability that
take a theoretical and classificatory approach (Trudgill, 1990) and those that investigate current practice
(Blair and Evans, 2004; Townsend, 2005; Landman, 1999; Lee, 1998). By tracing the case histories of
the development projects, this study provides material that is of interest in itself (Stake, 2000;
Donmoyer, 2000) but can also form the basis for very tentative analytic generalizations about the ability
of the planning and development processes in England to deliver sustainable building projects (Mitchell,
2000; Yin, 1994).
The paper presents the methods and analytical framework used in the research. It then gives a brief
summary of what was achieved in terms of sustainability in the case studies. Then the barriers to achiev-
ing sustainability that were identified in the case studies are described and illustrated with examples
from the empirical research. The paper concludes by making some suggestions about how the barriers
could be overcome.

Methodology

Five case studies of residential and mixed-use schemes were undertaken between 2001 and 2004. Brief
details of the schemes and their locations are shown in Figure 1. The cases were chosen randomly with
the exception of the ‘Beddington Zero Energy Development’, a mixed-use scheme known as ‘BedZED’

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 15, 135–147 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
What is Stopping Sustainable Building in England? 137

Newcastle: A speculative, high-density

residential (flats) development, built by a
volume housebuilder on 0.46 hectares.

Abingdon, Oxfordshire: A residential

development built by a local house-builder
on 4.46 hectares. York: A mixed-use (residential, business,
industrial, open space, community use)
development, developed by English
Partnerships, a Housing Association, a
Housing Trust and private developers on
18.5 hectares.

Bristol: A mixed-use development

Sutton: A mixed-use development
(medical education centre and offices),
(residential, leisure, retail, offices),
developed by a Healthcare Trust, on 0.25
known as BedZED, developed by a
hectares.
Housing Trust, on 1.9 hectares.

Reproduced from Ordnance Survey map data by permission of the Ordnance Survey © Crown copyright 2001.

Figure 1. The case study developments

in South London, which was chosen for its sustainability credentials. The objective in including this
development was to analyse the processes involved in a ‘successful’ project alongside those that were
representative of ‘conventional’ schemes. In-depth interviews were undertaken with stakeholders (63
interviews in all), and the content of documentary sources such as planning application files, planning
committee reports and research reports relating to the cases was analysed.
However, before the empirical research could begin, it was essential to understand both who, accord-
ing to statute and good practice, the key stakeholders in the development projects should be, and what,
in terms of sustainability, they should be seeking to achieve. This theoretical and practical knowledge
base was developed through a literature review. Material relating to sustainable planning, design and
development was reviewed alongside literature on sustainability theory.
The outcome of this review was a two part analytical framework to be used in the research. Part one
of the framework is a categorization of stakeholders in the development process. This categorization is
shown in the left hand column of Table 1. The right hand column shows the sources of data used in
the case studies to collect information on actions and decisions made by the corresponding stakehold-
ers. Part two of the framework is a ‘checklist’ of sustainability objectives that can, potentially, be met in
a development project, with examples of how these objectives could be achieved (Table 2). The objec-
tives are split into three themes: environment, economic and social. As could be expected, the develop-
ment of this framework was not a straightforward process: attempting to synthesize a broad and diverse
literature to principles applicable at the development project scale required a deep and full analysis of
theory, practice and existing sustainability assessment methods (see, e.g., SEEDA, 2003; Brownhill and
Rao, 2002).
The framework was the subject of much debate and peer review (see Dair and Williams, 2001, and
Williams and Dair, 2005, for a full account of the framework’s development and theoretical under-

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 15, 135–147 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
138 K. Williams and C. Dair

Stakeholder group Source of data

Stakeholders involved in land use planning and regulation

Group 1. Regulators, statutory consultees, service providers Planning application files
and councillors, e.g. water companies, building inspectors Planning committee reports
Interviews with
• Councillors: 1
• Drainage regulators: 7
• Environment agency officers (water pollution control): 3
• Environmental health officers: 5
• Landscape architects: 6
• Planners: 6
• Urban designers: 3
• Conservation architects: 1
• Crime prevention design advisors: 1
• Highway adoption officers: 2
• Highway engineers: 4
• Building control officers: 6
Group 2. Non-statutory consultees, interest groups, and Planning application files
individuals e.g. chamber of commerce, preservation group Planning committee reports
Stakeholders involved in development and construction
Group 3. Property developers and their professional advisors Planning application files
and developer interests, e.g. landowners, valuers Planning committee reports
Interviews with
• Developers: 7
• Architects (working for developers): 5
• Technical directors: 1
• Project managers: 1
• Engineers: 2
• Landowner/investors: 1
Stakeholders involved in end use
Group 4. End users, e.g. residents, retailers Planning application files
Planning committee reports
Interviews with
• Clients: 1

Table 1. Stakeholders involved in the development process and sources of data for the case studies

pinnings). This said, it served the research well as a reference for the data collection and as a tool for
organizing the data for analysis.
In each case study all relevant stakeholders were identified: not all groups of stakeholders were active
in each development. From those active in the case studies, information on their actions and opinions
was gathered from interviews and (or) documentary sources. Using part two of the analytical framework
as a reference, each stakeholder was asked, in semi-structured interviews, about the sustainability objec-
tives that fell within their sphere of influence or expertise. For example, drainage regulators were asked
about sustainability objectives relating to resource efficiency and pollution, but not about meeting
housing needs. The actions and decisions recorded in documentary evidence were also gathered and
attributed to particular stakeholders. For example, councillors’ actions and decisions were sourced
mainly from planning committee reports, and the actions of non-statutory interest groups and individ-
uals were taken from correspondence in planning files.

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 15, 135–147 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
What is Stopping Sustainable Building in England? 139

Sustainability objectives Examples of how these objectives can be met in new developments

Environmental sustainability objectives

1. To minimize the use Use renewable and recycled materials; use renewable energy sources; design developments for
of resources minimum waste during construction, life and after-life; use materials with low energy inputs
2. To minimize pollution Remediate contaminated land; reduce air pollution; provide infrastructure for public transport,
walking, cycling; raise densities on sites within 800 m of existing centres, services and
transport corridors; design buildings for minimum energy consumption in use
3. To protect biodiversity Conserve flora, wildlife and habitats on site; provide wildlife refuges; use sustainable urban
and the natural drainage systems to protect rivers and water courses from pollution and flooding
environment
Economic sustainability objectives
1. To enable businesses Reduce energy consumption in construction; reduce waste in construction; provide infrastructure
to be efficient and and buildings that enable businesses to keep energy and water consumption to a minimum;
competitive provide high quality buildings that are flexible and can be adapted with minimum costs
2. To support local Provide higher densities to enhance commercial viability; provide a mix of uses to increase
economic diversity viability and vitality of commercial areas; use locally produced goods and materials in
construction
3. To provide employment Provide a mix of uses to give choice of employment; develop high quality buildings for
opportunities manufacturing and commercial activities; provide a mix of uses to give choice of employment
Social sustainability objectives
1. To adhere to ethical Ensure ethical trading throughout the supply chain of a development; provide a safe and healthy
standards during the work environment
development process
2. To provide adequate Provide space for training; develop good quality energy efficient buildings for community
local services and activities; offer a mix of retail spaces
facilities to serve the
development
3. To provide housing Develop a mix of housing tenure and type; provide affordable housing; provide high quality
to meet needs and flexible buildings that minimize the use of resources; provide secure dwellings
4. To integrate the Provide multiple links to adjacent neighbourhoods; reject or discourage gated developments;
development within create a mix of transport provision with a variety of modal links to services, work, leisure
the locality and homes; provide good access for all
5. To provide high Ensure sensitive, high quality architecture, civic design and master planning; design to reduce
quality, liveable crime; design for road
developments
6. To conserve local Reuse locally valued buildings; design developments to reflect local heritage and use local
culture and heritage, materials
if appropriate

Table 2. The analytical framework

From these sources it was possible to build up a picture, for each sustainability objective, of whether
it had been accomplished, and each stakeholder’s role in that accomplishment, or whether it had not
been achieved and why. It is important to note that not all the objectives are relevant in all schemes: for
example, conserving cultural heritage was not relevant in a case where no value was attached to previ-
ous uses of the site by any stakeholders. In these instances the objectives or examples were recorded as
‘not applicable’. Once this information had been gathered, an analysis was made of the main sustain-
ability achievements and non-achievements in each case study, and the barriers to achievement. Content
analysis of the interview transcripts and the documentary sources allowed a coding and classification of
recurring barriers.

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 15, 135–147 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
140 K. Williams and C. Dair

The Research Findings

In Terms of Sustainability, What Was Achieved in the Case Studies?

The research showed that the achievement of sustainability in the case studies was mixed. As was
expected, of the five case studies, the BedZED scheme came the closest to meeting all the sustainabil-
ity objectives set out in Table 2. It possesses an energy efficient built fabric and minimizes pollution
and the use of resources. The stakeholders involved also considered social sustainability and provided
houses to meet local needs, and delivered an accessible and liveable development. They also used local
suppliers and provided space for economic activities, thus scoring very highly in terms of meeting a
wide range of sustainability objectives. Interestingly, the case study in York met almost all the sustain-
ability objectives too, with stakeholders particularly good at addressing social and economic concerns.
Overall, four out of the five developments met at least half of the objectives, but this left some serious
omissions.
In general, many of the social and economic elements of sustainability were both considered and imple-
mented in the case studies. For example, issues of accessibility, the viability of developments, townscape
considerations, cultural heritage, local service provision and mixed housing types and tenures were con-
sidered and achieved to different degrees. However, many environmental sustainability objectives were
not met. The protection of biodiversity and the minimization of pollution were treated by stakeholders
as important issues, but in all projects (except BedZED) the provision of resource-efficient buildings and
the use of sustainable technologies were almost wholly ignored by stakeholders. An obvious caveat here
is that developments did meet statutory building and environmental regulations, but these prescribe
‘minimum’ standards rather than promoting best practice in energy efficient design and construction.
So, overall, the consideration and achievement of some objectives were uniformly better handled than
others, and there were significant shortfalls in implementing sustainability across the board.

Barriers to the Achievement of Sustainability in the Case Studies

As stated above, 12 barriers to meeting sustainability objectives were identified. These are presented in
Table 3. They are listed in order of frequency of citation by the stakeholders, but this measure must be
treated with caution for a number of reasons. First, some barriers are applicable to more stakeholder
groups than others, and therefore would be expected to appear more often. Second, although some bar-
riers were reported infrequently, when they did occur they had a major impact on the achievement of
sustainability: i.e., no relationship should be inferred between frequency and importance of the barrier
in hindering sustainability. However, it is interesting to see which reasons appeared most regularly in
stakeholders’ interviews and written sources. Each of the barriers is described, in turn, below.

Sustainability Measure Was Not Considered by Stakeholders

By far the most common explanation for the lack of achievement of a sustainability objective in the case
studies was that it was simply not considered by the stakeholders involved. It was usually not the case
that operational or practical difficulties thwarted good intentions, but simply that sustainability issues
were never on the agenda. As would be expected, where particular measures were stipulated in statu-
tory policy and regulations they were addressed. As social objectives, such as meeting housing needs,
were prevalent in local policies, they appeared on stakeholders’ agendas. However, where there were no
regulatory or policy responsibilities, objectives were often not considered. This lack of consideration of
sustainability objectives applied across the stakeholder groups (groups 1–4 in Table 1). This is perhaps

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 15, 135–147 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
What is Stopping Sustainable Building in England? 141

Barrier to acting sustainably Incidence of barrier

1 Sustainability measure was not considered by stakeholders By far the most commonly
recorded barrier
2 Sustainability measure was not required by client (includes purchasers, tenants Commonly recorded
and end users)
3 Stakeholder had no power to enforce or require sustainable measure (in some cases Commonly recorded
it was the responsibility of the client or the contractor)
4 One sustainability measure was forgone in order to achieve another (traded) Commonly recorded
5 Sustainable measure was restricted, or not allowed, by regulators Commonly recorded
6 The sustainability measure cost too much (in some cases the investor would not fund) Commonly recorded
7 Site conditions mitigated against the use of a sustainable measure Commonly recorded
8 Inadequate, untested or unreliable sustainable materials, products or systems Commonly recorded
(including long term management problems)
9 Sustainable measure was not available Commonly recorded
10 An unsustainable measure was allowed by the regulator or statutory undertaker Infrequently recorded
(so no impetus for a sustainable alternative to be used)
11 Stakeholder was not included, or was included too late, in the development process Infrequently recorded
to implement sustainability measure
12 Stakeholder lacked information, unawareness or expertise to achieve sustainable Infrequently recorded
measure

Table 3. Barriers to achieving sustainability in the case studies

surprising, as it might be expected that professional regulators would have more of an interest in sus-
tainability than, say, developers. However, in the cases studied (with the exception of BedZED) a lack of
consideration of some sustainability objectives was found in all groups.

Sustainability Measure Was Not Required by the Client (Includes Purchasers, Tenants and End Users)
Many sustainability measures were not achieved because they were not required by the client of the
development (usually Group 4). Clients could be the purchasers of the schemes or tenants. In the spec-
ulative developments, the clients are defined as ‘the market’, and currently there is little perceived market
demand for sustainable homes, offices or public buildings. This is particularly the case if they are seen
to be more expensive than conventional build. Hence, even if architects or developers wanted to incor-
porate sustainability features, unless the clients showed an interest then these measures were unlikely
to be achieved. The most striking example of this was the lack of client demand for energy-efficient
buildings. In three of the case studies this was the main reason that the buildings in the completed
schemes met only the statutory environmental performance standards, rather than best practice.

Stakeholder Had No Power to Enforce or Require Sustainability Measure (In Some Cases It Was the
Responsibility of the Client or the Contractor)
In any development project, numerous decisions are made on a daily basis about design, construction
processes and materials and many of these decisions have a bearing on the sustainability of the com-
pleted schemes. There is now established best practice in sustainable design, on-site building methods
and choice of resources. However, the regulators interviewed (from group 1) said that in many cases
they lacked the powers to enforce best practice. For example, building control inspectors argued that
enforcing minimum building regulation standards was difficult enough, so for them to suggest the use
of alternative sustainable systems, materials or standards was not usually an option. In some instances

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 15, 135–147 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
142 K. Williams and C. Dair

the responsibility for implementing a sustainability measure was, because of the nature of the legal con-
tracts used in procuring construction services, handed over to the client, contractor or sub-contractor.
Again, in these cases many regulatory stakeholders reported that they had little power to enforce sus-
tainable options ‘down the line’.

One Sustainability Measure Was Forgone in Order to Achieve Another (Traded)

In many instances, when sustainability objectives are implemented they conflict with one another. For
example, objectives to provide homes may conflict with objectives to preserve natural habitats. In the
case studies there were several instances where one sustainability objective was ‘traded’ to achieve
another. For example, in the Abingdon case study, economic objectives to provide commercial premises
were traded to provide housing, and thus meet social sustainability objectives. In such instances both
sustainability objectives had been considered, but local circumstances and priorities deemed one option
more desirable than the other.

Sustainable Measure Was Restricted, or Not Allowed, by Regulators

In many instances, stakeholders were unable to implement sustainability objectives because the mea-
sures they proposed were not allowed, or were restricted, by the regulators. This barrier was mostly expe-
rienced by group 2. In some cases it seemed that policies and regulations were lagging behind best
practice; in others local circumstances meant that sustainable measures were not appropriate or accept-
able in that particular case. In the BedZED development the architect wanted to incorporate a ‘home-
zone’ type street layout, with reduced space for cars and more space for pedestrians and cyclists.
However, this layout was not permitted by highway regulators because they deemed the configuration
as suitable only for housing developments and this scheme also contained a commercial element.

The Sustainability Measure Cost Too Much

Cost figured prominently as a barrier to achieving sustainability objectives. In many instances, although
cost differentials had not been thoroughly investigated, developers (found in group 3) were certain that
anything other than ‘business as usual’ would be more expensive. In other instances experience had
shown that sustainable options were more costly. Most developers argued that meeting statutory oblig-
ations, imposed through planning requirements, such as archaeological investigations (which were
required in three case studies), wildlife surveys, contributions to off-site highway provision, affordable
housing and land remediation were already onerous, without extending their actions to ‘optional’ sus-
tainability measures. Speculative developers pointed out that the cost of providing environmentally sus-
tainable buildings and developments is significantly higher than for standard schemes and most were
not convinced there is a widespread demand for such buildings. The views of two service sector end
users (a medical training organization and an insurance company) of large scale buildings in the devel-
opments supported this view.

Site Conditions Mitigated Against the Use of a Sustainable Measure

Not all the sustainability objectives (or examples of how to achieve them) could be realized in all of the
case studies due to site conditions. For example, one site was located on a major aquifer, which pre-
vented the use of sustainable urban drainage systems. In another instance (the York case study) the
method chosen to deal with land contamination meant that some established trees that it would have
been beneficial to keep had to be felled. In these instances, the sustainable options were considered, but
could not be realized for practical, localized, reasons.

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 15, 135–147 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
What is Stopping Sustainable Building in England? 143

Inadequate, Untested or Unreliable Sustainable Materials, Products or Systems (Including Long-Term

Management Problems)
Some aspects of sustainable development can be achieved through the use of sustainable technologies
or materials, for example, rain or grey-water recycling systems or porous paving. However, the research
uncovered reluctance to use such technologies by those stakeholders who stood to suffer the conse-
quences of any failures. These consequences could be inconvenience, damaged reputation or loss of
time on a project. Such stakeholders included developers, service providers such as water suppliers and
sewerage undertakers, highway authorities and local councils (i.e. stakeholders from groups 1 and 3).
First, it was evident that problems over the supply of sustainable materials, products or systems
formed a deterrent to their extensive use in all but the BedZED development (and even here not all the
desired products could be sourced, see below). One developer explained that his company does not con-
sciously seek to use sustainable materials because it encounters enough difficulties in sourcing stan-
dard materials. In its experience some materials can only be obtained from one supplier and so the
developer has to take whatever is available. At BedZED the full-time services of an organization
specializing in sourcing sustainable materials and technologies were required to meet sustainable pro-
curement objectives; in the other cases this approach was not taken.
Another deterrent is the unreliability, or the perceived unreliability, of sustainable products and
systems. Many of the stakeholders were averse to the perceived risk of using what they considered to be
untested technologies. For example, one volume house-builder investigated sustainable energy and grey-
water recycling systems, but concluded that the technology was not yet sufficiently robust for widespread
use. The developer in the BedZED case study took the opposite view and installed water recycling
systems. However, standard water and sewage systems were also provided as a back-up.
Maintenance and responsibilities for sustainable systems are further barriers. For example, it was
clear from the research interviews that there is ambiguity surrounding the long term maintenance of
sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS): it is not clear whether local authorities or sewage under-
takers should have responsibilities, therefore both parties are reluctant to provide or adopt such systems.
However, this problem was overcome in the BedZED development when an alternative water company
specializing in sustainable systems agreed to supply and maintain an on-site grey water recycling and
sewage system. There are also concerns over the management of recycling facilities. In the Newcastle
case study, the environmental health officer pressed for the developer to provide an on-site recycling
service but the developer refused to accept the on-going burden and the matter was dropped.

Sustainable Measure Was Not Available

In some cases, stakeholders were planning to implement sustainable measures but were thwarted
because the material, technology or expertise required was simply not available at that time, in that loca-
tion. For example, even in the BedZED case study, the specialist company employed to source materi-
als sustainably could not manage to obtain all they required within a 35-mile radius of the development
(this was one of its policies) (Lazarus, 2003). The manufacture and supply of hardwood, triple-glazed
windows were beyond the scope of local joinery firms, so the windows in the development were pro-
duced by a specialist manufacturer in Denmark.

An Unsustainable Measure Was Allowed by the Regulator or Statutory Undertaker (So No Impetus for a
Sustainable Alternative to be Used)
In several case studies certain stakeholders were keen to introduce sustainable measures, but had little
power to do so because regulations, local policies or a statutory undertaker permitted a less sustainable
option. This is another case of the policy and regulatory framework falling short of best practice. For

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 15, 135–147 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
144 K. Williams and C. Dair

example, in the Newcastle development the environmental health officer was very keen that the devel-
opment should be liveable, and this meant that levels of noise on the site had to be acceptable to resi-
dents. He felt that the predicted noise levels were too high and thus recommended refusal of the
planning application. However, this view was over-ruled and the development went ahead with a per-
mitted, less robust acoustic protection measure. In some cases the regulators could have used their
discretion to allow a more sustainable option, but in general their approach was to be risk averse.

Stakeholder Was Not Included, or Included Too Late, in the Development Process to Influence or
Implement Sustainability Measure
For stakeholders to have an influence over a development they must participate in the development
process. Yet involvement is not automatic for some stakeholders. In the case studies, planning applica-
tions were advertised and local planning authorities consulted broadly with both regulators and third
party interests (e.g. neighbours and conservation groups), but there were occasions where stakeholders
who should have been involved were not. It is impossible to say what impact their involvement might
have had on development outcomes, but it seems reasonable to assume that they might have been able
to make a contribution to sustainability had they been involved.
Another form of stakeholder exclusion relates to the timing of their participation. Very simply, land
redevelopment can be thought of as comprising three distinct stages: pre-planning application activities,
which give rise to development proposals; the granting of planning and building permission and the
implementation of the building project. Collectively, stakeholders have an opportunity to introduce sus-
tainability objectives into the development process at any stage. However, for certain stakeholder types,
participation, and hence the opportunity to introduce sustainability objectives, is limited to specific time
periods. For example, landscape architects need to be involved early in the design stage to have a
significant impact on sustainability. The research showed that important stakeholders were brought in
to the development process too late to introduce sustainability elements. They often argued that they
could have had an influence if only they had been consulted earlier.

Stakeholder Lacked Information, Awareness or Expertise to Achieve Sustainable Measure

In some cases, stakeholders lacked the information they needed to make choices about which develop-
ment options would be more or less sustainable. In other cases they were unaware of sustainable options
or lacked expertise to implement them. Where stakeholders lacked information, they usually opted for
a ‘safe’ solution. For example, one developer who specialized in business units found it difficult to obtain
up-to-date and precise evaluations of energy savings associated with renewable energy, so decided to
carry on with conventional energy supplies. Of course, it would have been possible to undertake research
to address these uncertainties; however, without readily available information, stakeholders reported that
many sustainability objectives simply fell by the wayside. Again, evidence of being hindered by a lack
of information was an experience common to most stakeholder groups. In several cases, stakeholders
admitted to not being aware of sustainable measures or alternatives that fall within their remit. For
example, in one case study neither the planner nor the developers’ engineer was aware of grey-water
recycling systems and how they operate. This is perhaps unsurprising in a fast-developing area of
technology, but is a worrying barrier in terms of future success in delivering a more sustainable built
environment. Similarly, installing sustainable technologies and materials requires new forms of com-
petencies and knowledge, yet it was evident from the research that not all those with responsibilities in
this area had the necessary experience or expertise to meet the challenge. For example, a volume house-
builder in one of the case studies used porous paving for hard surfaces to facilitate natural drainage, but
the contractors charged with laying it did not have the expertise or experience to do it properly. Expert

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 15, 135–147 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
What is Stopping Sustainable Building in England? 145

advice to correct the problem was too expensive, so a switch was made to asphalt. This barrier indicates
a considerable knowledge and skills gap in the construction sector.

Conclusions

The paper has drawn on in-depth qualitative research undertaken in five case studies of recently devel-
oped projects in England. The research has revealed a mixed performance in the realization of sustain-
ability objectives, and a number of key barriers that are hindering progress. As stated above, broad
generalizations cannot be made about the incidence of these barriers in a wider context; however, the
fact that they have been discovered occurring in real projects is cause for concern for those seeking to
deliver a sustainable built fabric. This said, in identifying the 12 barriers, some tentative suggestions can
be made regarding priorities for action in overcoming them, and it is pertinent here to return to the
stakeholder groups identified in the analytical framework to suggest where some advances could be
made. With respect to the stakeholders involved in land use planning and regulation (groups 1 and 2)
it is apparent that the most frequently cited barrier for them is simply lack of consideration of an issue:
sustainability objectives were often just not on their agendas. The barriers related to knowledge of sus-
tainable options, i.e. lack of information, awareness, and expertise in sustainability issues, were also
experienced by this group. This implies that there is a skills and knowledge gap amongst this (largely)
professional group, which needs to be addressed with some urgency. This gap has not gone unnoticed
in England and the government has a number of initiatives in place to offer training, professional devel-
opment and information in sustainability issues for built environment professionals (DEFRA, 2003).
For example, the Department for Trade and Industry is supporting the ‘Constructing Excellence in the
Built Environment’ programme, which exchanges best practice on a number of elements of sustainable
construction (CE, 2005). Further, the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE)
is running a skills programme to improve the general competence levels of those working in the built
environment sector. This programme concentrates heavily on sustainable design issues, which are com-
municated through training for a range of professionals including regulators in local authorities (CABE,
2005). At the regional level, development agencies are also supporting an improved skills base;
for example, SEEDA (the South East of England Development Agency) is supporting an ‘Urban
Renaissance Institute’ to improve awareness and expertise in sustainable urban development (URI,
2005). However, these initiatives may take time to generate results.
In many instances, groups 1 and 2 also lacked sufficient powers to enforce sustainable options because
regulations and policies that they are required to enforce are not stringent enough. Stakeholders from
this group were unable to seek ‘best practice’ in sustainability because policies and regulations on certain
issues allow for less sustainable options. This suggests that there is a need for policy and regulations to
keep pace with best practice in order to allow more regulatory power where it is desired. As the case
studies showed, where policies and regulations are clear and enforceable, for example in the case of
providing social housing, then sustainability objectives were largely met. This applies to statutory poli-
cies only, not local plans, and regulations covering highways, drainage, building quality and so on.
The stakeholders involved in development and construction (group 3) are also facing ‘knowledge-
related’ barriers. There is a lack of awareness of sustainability in general, and a lack of expertise and
experience in building sustainable developments. Again, an improvement of skills in this sector is
required. This may be achieved by some of the initiatives currently promoted by government to improve
expertise in the construction sector (CE, 2005). A number of prescriptive good practice guides are also
now available (e.g. the Housing Forum’s guide to improving sustainability in the housing and con-
struction industry (HFSWP, 2001)). However, this group also faces practical barriers related to avail-

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 15, 135–147 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
146 K. Williams and C. Dair

ability of sustainable materials, products and technologies that need to be addressed (this is also expe-
rienced by group 1, but to a lesser extent). There is a need to stimulate demand for such products (again,
perhaps by strengthening policy) in order to increase supplies and make such technologies more main-
stream. Related to this barrier is that of costs or perceived cost. As suppliers of the built environment,
operating for the most part in normal market conditions, developers are predictably mindful of anything
that they perceive to increase costs. Here there is a need for better comparative information on costs of
sustainable construction techniques, materials and so on. Without such information, those involved in
development either as professional advisors (such as architects and urban designers working for devel-
opers) or developers themselves are unlikely to take what they see as risks to achieve more sustainable
outcomes.
Finally, the stakeholders who ultimately use the developments are key in this achievement of sus-
tainable development (group 4). This ‘end user’ group could be, for example, residents of new homes
or occupants of commercial buildings. They represent demand, and in this research there was very little
evidence of any interest in a sustainable built environment. Until this changes, and developers perceive
a demand for a more sustainable option (or they are forced to act more sustainably through regulations
and policies), they are unlikely to change their practices. End users can effect demand directly through
the commission of a building, or indirectly by choosing to buy speculatively developed sustainable build-
ings in more sustainable locations. However, the case studies indicated that either directly or indirectly
there seems to be little demand for sustainable buildings by their users.
Further research is now required to test the generalizability of the barriers identified in this research,
and to identify strategies to overcome them. Unless the practical problems of implementing sustainable
development policies are understood, a sustainable built environment is unlikely to be delivered.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the interviewees and the case study authorities that contributed to the research.

References
Blair F, Evans B. 2004. Seeing the Bigger Picture: Delivering Local Sustainable Development. Rowntree Foundation: York.
Brownhill D, Rao S. 2002. A Sustainability Checklist for Developments: a Common Framework for Developers and Local Authori-
ties. Construction Research Communication Ltd by permission of Building Research Establishment Ltd: London.
Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE). 2005. www.cabe.org.uk/skills [11 January 2006].
Constructing Excellence (CE). 2005. Constructing Excellence. www.constructingexcellence.org.uk/default.jsp [11 January 2006].
Dair C, Williams K. 2001. Sustainable brownfield re-use – who should be involved, and what should they be doing? Town and
County Planning 70(6): 180–182.
Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). 2003. Better Buildings Summit: Sustainable Buildings Initiative.
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/energy/betterbuildings.htm [21 October 2003].
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR). 1998a. Planning for Sustainable Development: Towards
Better Practice. HMSO: London.
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR). 1998b. Planning for Communities of the Future. HMSO:
London.
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR). 2000a. Our Towns and Cities: the Future – Delivering the
Urban Renaissance. Stationery Office: London.
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR). 2000b. Building a Better Quality of Life. HMSO: London.
Donmoyer R. 2000. Generalizability and the single-case study. In Case Study Methodology, Gomm R, Hammersley M, Foster
P (eds). Sage: London; 45–69.
Duxbury G. 2003. On the Home Front: Improving the Housing Environment and Delivering ‘Sustainable Communities’. Ground-
work: Birmingham.

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 15, 135–147 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/sd
What is Stopping Sustainable Building in England? 147

Housing Forum Sustainability Working Party (HFSWP). 2001. The ‘e’ Factor: Six Guiding Principles to Improve the Sustainabil-
ity of the Housing Construction Industry. Housing Forum: London.
Landman M. 1999. Breaking through the Barriers to Sustainable Building, Insights from Building Professionals on Government Ini-
tiatives to Promote Environmentally Sound Practices, MA Urban and Environmental Policy. Tufts University: Somerville, MA.
Lazarus N. 2003. Beddington Zero (Fossil) Energy Development Construction Materials Report: Toolkit for Carbon Neutral Develop-
ments – Part 1. Bioregional Development Group: Wallington, UK.
Lee J. 1998. Sustainable Buildings Workshop, Columbia University. http://www.designshare.com/UEF/UEF12_98/UEF4.htm
[17 October 2005].
Mitchell JC. 2000. Case and situation analysis. In Case Study Methodology, Gomm R, Hammersley M, Foster P (eds). Sage:
London; 165–187.
South East England Development Agency (SEEDA). 2003. Sustainability Checklist. SEEDA: Guildford.
Stake R. 2000. The case study method in social inquiry. In Case Study Methodology, Gomm R, Hammersley M, Foster P (eds).
Sage: London; 19–27.
Sustainable Buildings Task Group. 2004. Better Buildings – Better Lives. Sustainable Buildings Task Group. http://www.
dti.gov.uk/construction/sustain/EA_Sustainable_Report_41564_2.pdf [11 January 2006].
Townsend T. 2005. Why don’t we build more sustainable housing? Urban Design 95(Summer): 12–13.
Trudgill ST. 1990. Barriers to a Better Environment: What Stops Us Solving Environmental Problems? Belhaven: London.
UK Government. 2005. http://www.dti.gov.uk/construction/sustain/govres.pdf [11 January 2006].
UK Sustainable Development Commission (SDC). 2003. Mainstreaming Sustainable Regeneration: a Call for Action: Part 1.
http://sd-commission.org.uk/pubs/rengeneration/mainstream/index.htm [5 January 2004].
Urban Renaissance Institute (URI). 2005. http://www.gre.ac.uk/pr/pressreleases/A1120.htm [11 January 2006].
Williams K, Dair C. 2005. Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development Working Paper 4: A Framework For Assessing The Sus-
tainability Of Brownfield Developments. Oxford Brookes University: Oxford.
Williams K, Lindsay M. 2005. Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development Working Paper 5: The Extent and Nature of Sustain-
able Building in England: an Analysis of Progress. Oxford Brookes University: Oxford.
World Wide Fund-UK (WWF-UK). 2004. One Million Sustainable Homes Campaign. http://www.wwf.org.uk/sustainable-
homes/index.asp [17 October 2005].
Yin RK. 1994. Case Study Research: Design and Methods (2nd edn). Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.

Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Sust. Dev. 15, 135–147 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/sd