Of course they are, says Cabe campaigns director Matt Bell, but AndrewTeacher from the British Property Federation sees a rapidly growingcommitment to sustainable design
Of course they are. Not all. Not all the time. But at design review,we have seen only a handful of schemes in the past two years which aregenuinely designed to be sustainable.

Cost is usually theexcuse. But the problem is largely late costs. The right solutionsemerge from addressing the issue early on. Further on, you only haverecourse to expensive technological solutions — green gadgets insteadof low-tech, passive solutions.

There is hope. Look at the mostrecent sustainability report from Lend Lease for ideas; what peoplelike Paul Edwards are doing at Hammerson; or the approach to landscapeMultiplex is lifting from schemes in Perth. Put that alongside theUrban Splash scheme in Bristol, Argent in King’s Cross, and Crest inBrighton — then you see what the smart guys are doing. But it’s bestpractice, when it should be common practice.

We need adifferent hierarchy in the development team, with the building servicesengineer and landscape architect taking centre stage. What quality ofdesign do we get for second-tier buildings and our streets? This iswhere we need the best designers and a few more developers who care.

Aboveall, we need regulation. We’ll never cajole developers into tacklingclimate change. We need to put a price on carbon; require Breeam“excellent” for planning permission {despite the limitations}; andforce common energy solutions on developers building out neighbouringsites.

Forget what it says: the private sector doesn’t mind regulation. It just hates inconsistency.