The concept

heritage square

to Arundel/
railway station
wetland centre

The objective was to establish a regional-scale

strategy for the lower Arun to improve regional fresh water
flood-risk management, enabling redevelopment meadow
Littlehampton
of the harbour site. The proposal (Figure 2.55)
town centre
was to use parts of the historic floodplain as
green Square
storage by diverting water from the river during
peak levels, protecting Littlehampton and
blue square
Arundel upstream. This would include dramatic
transformation of the lower catchment into a tidal wetland
tidal lagoon and multifunctional landscape, Littlehampton
supporting habitat, recreation and tourism. salt marsh sea front
golf
ferry/
Managing flood risk to the lower Arun would bird hide course
bridge
protect existing settlements supported by nature
wider regional measures to restore the natural reserve
visitors’
floodplain and wetlands. A mix of traditional nature
centre
reserve
buildings, on land raised with the spoil
from the lagoon excavation, would be built mirador

alongside flood-resilient (wet-proof ) buildings

in low-lying defended areas. All of these would
be linked to safe havens in the renovated
historic neighbourhood.
55
The tidal lagoon would provide opportunities
for large-scale renewable power sources,
including wind, tidal and heat exchange. The
below-ground aquifer would provide the energy 2.52 The mouth of the River Arun at 2.54 The sites overlaid with the Flood Zones
demand for a zero-carbon development and Littlehampton 2.55 The development masterplan for the
potentially surplus energy for the local town. 2.53 The Harbour Site Harbour Site and Lower Arun area

87
Waterfront planning

A concept was developed that would provide

the first stage in a long-term, sea level rise
linked, flood-risk management strategy for the
River Arun and its regions. A regional strategy
was proposed to use the historic floodplain to
create a control system capable of directing
storm water away from towns and into flood
storage areas. At lower levels, farmland would
be excavated and spoil used to raise parts
of the site above flood level. Sluice gates
56
introduced in the river defences would allow
the tide into the farmland, transforming it into
a tidal lagoon. A new mixed-use development
would pay for flood defences to existing
properties and regenerate a rundown part of
the town. The whole development (shown in
Figure 2.56) would be arranged perpendicular
to the river, allowing views between
buildings to the water. This would also allow
through-routes for flood water should the
defences ever be overtopped.

2.56 Waterfront planning proposals

2.57 Elevated housing, Christchurch
2.58 Hydroscape proposals
2.59 Salt marsh, Cornwall (illustrating lagoon
hydroscape) 57

88
Hydroscape

A range of hydroscapes would be generated

within the development area and surrounding
lagoon and river area as shown in Figure 2.59.

Within the lagoons, land could flood during

each tide, creating an opportunity for mixed
and transitional intertidal habitats such as deep
ponds, tide pools, mudflats, salt marsh, reed
beds and grazing marsh. This inland lagoon
would provide water recreation adjacent to
58
the development and habitat for wildlife in
intertidal regions (mudflats and salt marsh)
beyond. The lagoons would be an attractive
backdrop to the development and a unique
regional attraction.

Where flood defences would be required to

protect residential areas, they could form a
waterside promenade complete with play
areas and seating. These could be terraced,
cascading down from a higher level to the river,
to provide a soft edge of intertidal habitat
and reed beds. Green roofs and underground
rainwater harvesting tanks would limit runoff,
which is particularly important during high
tides when drainage can be inhibited.

59

89
Water and energy infrastructure

Figure 2.60 shows the integrated energy

strategy for the site. Twelve tidal turbines
could be installed within channels designed
to direct the flow of water in and out of the
lagoons; these would generate energy for five
hours during each successive tide. Figure 2.61
shows a cross-section through the turbine and
sluice system.

Wind turbines, solar hot water panels, aquifer

heat exchange and tidal turbines could meet 60
all energy demands on site without the need
for solar electric panels or biomass power.
This would free roof space that could then
be used for rainwater attenuation. The space
around the lagoon would be far enough from
development to be used for large 2MW wind
turbines, such as those shown in Figure 2.62.

2.60 Water and energy infrastructure

2.61 Diagram of a tidal energy turbine
2.62 2MW wind turbine at Centre for Alternative
Technology in Machynlleth 61 62

90
Aquatecture

Figure 2.63 shows the building types planned

according to flood risk. The mixed-use
development would be formed of townhouses
and apartments above parking to provide
a flood-resilient lower floor (similar to that
shown in Figure 2.64). The controlled lagoon
space is an opportunity for floating buildings
(Figure 2.65), such as restaurants, offices and
a hotel, in support of the main residential
land-based use. Utilising the defences as
amenity space, cafés and kiosk buildings 63
could be elevated on stilts or designed to be
resilient; this would allow closer access to the
river alongside riverside walkways.

2.63 Aquatecture proposed across the site

2.64 Houses elevated above parking in
Christchurch, to cope with residual flood
risk
2.65 Floating village proposals 64 65

91
92
Lessons learned

2.66 Residential development elevated above

commercial uses with flood resilient
landscape and distant tidal lagoon (left)
2.67 The landscape retains rainwater until the
tides have dropped before releasing into
the river 67

Located in the estuarine lower catchment of
the River Arun, Littlehampton is susceptible
to a range of flood risks; the greatest risk
is from storm surges from the sea. Flood
volumes are too great to accommodate
on the development site. Land raising and
flood defences were needed to provide the
necessary standard of protection. Space was
needed to accommodate improvements to
the defences to cope with future sea level rise.
Structural resilience of buildings was necessary
to cope with residual flood risk behind
defences. The lower catchment was found
to be windy and tidal, providing abundant
sources of renewable energy for a zero-carbon
development. Consideration of regional
strategies was found to help resolve local
site-specific issues.

Key issues Key concepts Key lessons

Coastal low-density development
Compact defended development Requires long-term flood-risk
site, regional and neighbourhood
sites between floodplains management strategy
scale
Lower catchment of the river has
Building resilience to cope with Design for overtopping or failure of
multiple sources of flooding and
residual flood risk defences
energy
Tidal lagoon for flood storage, habitat Harness multiple renewable energy
Large volumes of water
and energy sources on site
Climate change could increase sea
Floating and innovative buildings in
levels, river flows, groundwater levels, Design for future extremes
marginal areas
storminess and surface water flooding

93
Findings > cost analysis of the LifE approach
The costs of delivering the LifE objectives of
making space for water, living with water and
eco-design were found to add to traditional
development costs. However, it was found that
integrating measures could reduce the costs
and provide more extensive environmental
benefits. The renewable energy required for
the eco-design was the most significant cost
and therefore locations where more efficient
technology could be used helped to reduce
the capital cost.
To raise development from UK Building
Regulations 2006 to the LifE standards could
result in a capital cost increase of between 21%
and 37%, indicated in Figure 2.68. It was found
to be possible to reduce this cost increase to
between 11% and 34% on the LifE case study
sites by integrating functions.
The cost to improve the development to LifE
standards for each site was:
• Site 1: Hackbridge (urban, upper
catchment) – 34% increase over traditional.
• Site 2: Peterborough (suburban, middle
catchment) – 32% increase over traditional.
• Site 3: Littlehampton (coastal, lower
catchment) – 11% increase over traditional.
94
The cost increase was due to far higher public transport connections, car clubs and
environmental design standards being reducing car parking provision reduced costs
met.11 The cost of the eco-design measures by 10% to 38% and provided more space for
accounted for 25% of the increase; it should landscaping and flood storage.
be noted that as the base traditional standards
have since risen, the cost difference would Summary
have decreased. The cost of making space for water/providing
ecological flood mitigation is achievable. A
In contrast, the cost of providing ‘space for landscape-led approach to planning can help
water’ was found to be marginally cheaper to reduce capital costs of transport, drainage
than providing flood defences. The cost of and energy infrastructure. It reduces hard
flood-risk management was found to increase surfaces and enables sustainable drainage on
the lower down the river catchment the site the site. By providing space for medium and
was located. However, the range of renewable large wind turbines, which would otherwise
energy sources on site increased; therefore be too close to the development, helps to use
achieving a zero-carbon development became more efficient renewable energy technologies.
more feasible and the overall cost reduced.12
It is expected that the cost of renewable
energy will fall in the future through increased
production and technological advances. This
should then enable more cost-effective use of
technologies such as PV, GSHP and tidal.
The cost of ‘living with water’ by improving
certain buildings to make them flood-resilient
and decrease flood risk increased the
development cost by between 2% and 11%,
depending on the location. Providing better
LifE time costs

When the lifetime costs of a development

(assumed to be 100 years), including
maintenance and running costs, are
considered, a traditional development is likely
to be far more costly than a LifE development.
The costs of future energy supply become less
certain over time, as do the costs of building
improvements to provide flood resilience in
the future. The more intense the effects of
climate change, the more quickly the payback
will be realised.

Renewable energy sources reduce

dependence on imported fuel and may
help to reduce cost uncertainty. Adaptable
and resilient development design may also
68
mitigate expensive retrofitting costs. A
recent research project for the Technology
Strategy Board, called Climate Adaptive
Neighbourhoods,13 showed that small changes
to the design of the building could allow
for future adaptations without significantly
increasing initial capital costs. An important
lesson from this project was to use heavy
construction (such as masonry) from the outset,
firstly to improve the flood resilience of the
building and secondly to moderate peak
temperatures through thermal mass. 2.68 Comparison cost of unintegrated and
integrated design approach

95
LifE lessons
The LifE project demonstrated the potential
of integrated planning to manage flood risk
and deliver more sustainable development.
It showed that sustainable development
requires space: for water, energy and amenity.
It also illustrated that when considering
core elements such as recreational space or
renewable power, the spatial requirements
could individually exceed the footprint of
the site. The spatial needs of each of the
three sites are illustrated opposite. It was
only when synergies between these uses
and programmes overlapped that the LifE
objectives of making space for water, living
with water, and eco-design were possible.
Although any site may be developed
independently, the LifE case studies
demonstrated the benefit of cross-scale
proposals. By developing a flood risk strategy
across multiple development sites, it was
possible to find the best solution for the whole
Hackbridge neighbourhood. By considering
various riverside sites, it was possible to
allocate the best uses according to flood
risk and vulnerability, as well as the needs of
the surrounding city. The cost to redevelop
the harbour site in Littlehampton would be
prohibitive without considering the wider
96
region, due to the extent of flood defences
required relative to the site area.
Integrated spatial planning requires
simultaneous assessment of multiple issues
and criteria. The main drivers for change in
the way development in the UK is planned
in the 21st century are sustainability and
climate change. These are manifest in the
need to make developments zero carbon,
conserve water, reduce unsustainable
transport use (namely cars, including electric
or biodiesel cars unless powered from
renewable sources), reduce overheating
and manage flood risk. There are potential
benefits from measures introduced to
respond to these issues but understanding
which to prioritise is fundamental to good
planning. Of these issues flooding is the
main risk to life and therefore should be the
priority.
As the population expands and our resources
dwindle, the pressure on our land to provide
more with less intensifies. The need to
use spatial and physical resources wisely
becomes imperative and the need for
multifunctionality intensifies. With the added
pressures of rising frequency, intensity and
extent of extreme events we need to provide
more space for water and have a greater
respect for natural processes. Consideration
of the wider context, particularly the location
of the sites within the river catchment, was
essential to understanding the flood risk and
the suitability of proposals. For each of the
sites a transferable message was created
as follows:
Upper catchment > Let rain slow
The key was to slow the flow of rainwater to
reduce the risk of surface water flooding and
reduce peak river flows downstream.
Middle catchment > Let river flow
The key was to allow flood water to flow
through the site in a predetermined way,
without risk to lives or property and without
increasing flood risk downstream.
Lower catchment > Let tides go
The key was to avoid storms and let peak
tides go around development sites, and to
attenuate rainwater on site.
Space for water needs to be integrated
with sustainable design, so that the means
of managing flood risk become an asset to
the development and the wider community.
Multifunctional land use that makes space for
water, energy and play within developments
must be fundamental to sustainable
development in the 21st century if we are to
adapt to the challenges of climate change.
In the following chapters we further explore
designing with water, through waterfront
planning, aqua(archi)tecture, hydro(land)
scapes and water and energy infrastructure.