IN Brief:
- Architecture and urbanism practice abc has presented Balance as a place-based carbon assessment service following research involving the University of Strathclyde and innovation partners.
- The approach considers embodied and operational carbon alongside transport, energy, infrastructure, waste and landscape carbon sequestration.
- Work for Angus Council is being used to inform evidence gathering for its emerging Local Development Plan and longer-term planning options.
Glasgow architecture and urbanism practice abc has formally presented its Balance carbon planning service, bringing emissions assessment from individual buildings into wider decisions about neighbourhoods, infrastructure and land use. The approach brings together data on buildings, transport, energy, waste and green infrastructure so development and policy scenarios can be compared on a consistent place-based basis. Its October announcement follows the Balance Symposium held in Glasgow on 9 and 10 September, rather than marking the first day on which the practice developed or offered carbon analysis.
Balance emerged from approximately two years of research undertaken with the University of Strathclyde, Innovate UK and Scottish Enterprise. The practice describes the service as a framework for measuring and visualising emissions across settlements, neighbourhoods and development sites, including the potential contribution from tree planting, hedgerows and other nature-based interventions. abc also offers related services covering building life-cycle assessment, street network analysis, climate risk, retrofit and circular construction advice. The public material does not identify a single standard software package, a published source-code repository or independently certified calculation engine.
A conventional building-level assessment can examine emissions associated with materials, construction and operation, while a planning decision can affect substantially more sources. Changing the location or density of a housing scheme may alter expected travel patterns and the amount of connecting infrastructure required. Different street layouts can influence how residents move between homes and services, and retaining or replacing existing buildings creates distinct material demands. A place-based assessment attempts to put such connected choices within a shared spatial boundary, rather than considering the carbon account of each structure in isolation.
The calculations must still distinguish emissions released during construction from those associated with subsequent operation. Embodied carbon arises from processes such as material production, transport and assembly and may also be influenced by replacement and end-of-life assumptions. Operational emissions depend on future energy use, fuel mix and patterns of occupation. Transport estimates introduce further variables, including journey length, mode choice and the availability of local facilities. The public description of Balance confirms that these subjects are considered but does not disclose its full inventory assumptions, default emission factors or the uncertainty ranges assigned to its forecasts.
The service is also intended to evaluate carbon sequestration through green infrastructure, particularly trees and hedges. Those potential removals occur over time and depend on planting survival, species, maintenance and future land management. They are consequently different from avoided emissions achieved by reducing construction materials or operational energy demand. A planning appraisal can present both, but it would be misleading to assume that a modelled future sequestration benefit automatically cancels immediate emissions from construction. The practice has not published a universal conversion rate or guaranteed offset outcome for the projects examined.
One of the service’s cited applications involves Angus Council, where work is informing evidence gathering for an emerging Local Development Plan. According to the project announcement, the study quantified embodied and operational emissions from housing, transport, energy and waste, while modelling the sequestration potential of existing and proposed green infrastructure. The results are being used to consider land-use options through to 2045. That establishes an ongoing planning application of the method, rather than evidence that a particular final development allocation has already been adopted because of it.
The work is framed in the context of Scotland’s National Planning Framework 4, including its policies on climate mitigation and adaptation. The framework requires planning decisions to take account of climate and place considerations, although presenting a carbon model is not equivalent to obtaining planning permission or demonstrating that every environmental policy test has been met. Decisions can also turn on flood risk, habitat protection, transport capacity, infrastructure costs, housing requirements and other considerations that an emissions assessment must sit alongside. Balance’s stated role is to supply evidence for that process, not replace statutory judgement.
Jonathan McQuillan, a director at abc, explained the service in terms of connecting decisions about where development takes place with travel, infrastructure design and landscape management. Its launch coverage also quoted Dr Fatma Pelin Ekdi, carbon consultant at Balance, on the need for evidence that planners can use to demonstrate alignment with NPF4. Neither statement establishes a quantified emissions saving for an unspecified project. The published Angus example is more concrete because it identifies the geographic planning task, emissions sectors studied and the role of green infrastructure within the assessment.
Balance was listed among the practice’s services before the October announcement, while the September symposium brought together planning and construction interests to examine carbon at different spatial scales. It is therefore more accurate to describe the current news as a formal presentation of an established and developing service than a wholly new invention. No pricing structure, mandatory adoption timetable or independent comparison with other carbon modelling methods has been announced. Further published project results would be needed to establish how alternative designs are ranked in practice and how forecasts compare with eventual built performance.
