ROBUST stands for Regeneration Of Brownfield Using Sustainable Technologies. 'Brownfield' is land which has been previously developed, sometimes for industrial purposes, as opposed to 'greenfield' which has never been developed. Brownfield land is sometimes contaminated with industrial pollutants. The majority of new buildings in the 21st Century will be built on brownfield land as the Government is trying to preserve greenfield land. Many brownfield sites require the removal of industrial pollutants (remediation) before they can be redeveloped. Low-value (in commercial terms) brownfield land is often of less interest to property developers and only marginally polluted but these sites are often situated in the heart of communities and provide people's nearest countryside. For this reason, they may have a significant impact on people's health and wellbeing. ROBUST will engage with local communities to reclaim and remediate these low-value brownfield sites with the aim of improving the local environment and enhancing wellbeing.The sustainable technologies in ROBUST involve using 'waste' products from industry. The 'wastes' are actually valuable minerals which have excellent soil remediation properties; these minerals such as manganese oxide are already naturally present in soil and form a large part of the soil's natural defence system against man-made industrial pollution. These minerals will be added to the soil on brownfield land and will help transform organic contaminants such as petrol into harmless byproducts and immobilise any metal contaminants deep within the ground. Using 'waste' products means sending less to landfill and extracting smaller quantities of primary aggregates all of which makes our Society more sustainable.ROBUST will also develop a new piece of field equipment for quicker and safer data collection on contaminants at brownfield sites. We will be using the newly discovered far-infrared terahertz radiation to 'see' contaminants on site. This radiation is completely safe and has wavelengths just beyond visible light. Unlike other forms of radiation (such as ultraviolet radiation) terahertz is very good at identifying contaminants without any interference effects from the background soil. Not only will the new device revolutionise site investigation work, thereby saving the contaminated land industry hundreds of thousands of pounds (by reducing uncertainty about where to drill boreholes and where to remediate) but it will also allow a vast improvement in our understanding of how contaminants interact with minerals in soil. We are particularly interested in how brownfield land remediation technologies will react to various climate change scenarios such as flooding.Pilot studies of the sustainable technologies will be carried out in large Perspex cubic containers where the public will be able to observe a cross-section of the brownfield land (both the soil and the vegetated surface e.g. grass). Leachate generated by rain passing through the soil will tell us about how contaminants move within the soil. The improved data collection provided by the new terahertz field equipment will provide sufficient information to carry out detailed computer modelling of how the contaminants in the soil interact with the remediative mineral. The computer model will help to reduce uncertainty about both public and environmental health risks associated with brownfield regeneration as well as understand how the remediated soil will be affected by events such as flooding which are now happening more often due to climate change.ROBUST aims to work with local communities in a two-way exchange of information. Local communities often hold large quantities of information on brownfield land and can help engineers to understand what and where pollutants might be on site. Local communities can also help engineers understand their perceptions of the site and their ambitions for what end-use they envisage for the site.

This research proposal by the ReVISIONS consortium aims to provide the knowledge for public agencies and companies to plan regional infrastructure for transport, water, waste, and energy, (ranging from large capital schemes to small scale decentralised services), in a more coordinated and integrated way so as to maximise economic competitiveness, reduce environmental and resource impacts, and allow households to live more sustainably with an enhanced quality of life. This research will explore the inter-relationships between infrastructure policies and measures at the regional and local scales and explore the tensions and interactions that exist across these scales, and between sectors. The research builds on the expertise, data, models, and tools of the EPSRC sustainable urban environments projects of SOLUTIONS, (land use and transport), WaND, (water), and SUE-Waste, with additional expertise on energy generation and supply, and building energy demand. The research will aim to develop a holistic and practical integrated framework for the analysis and assessment of the sustainability of regional spatial development. It will devise and test alternative regional spatial strategies integrated across infrastructure sectors and spatial scales to investigate to what extent infrastructure selection, investment, regulation, and pricing can help to achieve more sustainable ways of living. At the regional scale these options will range from focussing new development on the core city of the region, to allocating most of the new dwellings within planned new developments dispersed throughout the region. Regional policies affect the location of development and the density of housing and hence the demand for transport, energy, water and waste services, which has major implications for infrastructure provision. Whilst regional policies can enhance the sustainability of the allocation of land and movement of resources at the regional scale, they also risk constraining sustainable development through limiting opportunities for sustainable action at the local scale. Local solutions clearly have implications at the regional level (via aggregate demand for travel and resources, and waste flows), and have an important role in making efficient use of existing infrastructure capacity and obviating the need for potentially unsustainable capital works. These local sustainability improvements will be re-aggregated to estimate the impacts at the regional level for each of these integrated regional options.The research will be based on case studies of the Greater South East regions, (London, East and South East of England), and contrasted with a case study of a lower growth more polycentric region, such as the North East of England. The research will be carried out in parallel with similar case studies of city regions in other parts of the world to compare and contrast regions of similar size to the Greater South East but at different stages of development. These cases studies will include Beijing, Sao Paulo, and possibly Los Angeles.Each option will be assessed across a wide range of criteria encompassing environmental impacts, use of resources, economy, social inclusion, health, and other quality of life factors. The options will be compared within a multi-criteria assessment framework in full consultation with end users and stakeholders. This will identify the most robust options that perform well for different value judgements and different future scenarios. The research will deliver generic normative guidance and decision support tools for use by central and regional government departments and agencies, regional assemblies, utility companies, developers, planners and designers.

Biopharmaceutical manufacturing continues to evolve with an increased emphasis on underpinning science and engineering. Effective deployment of contemporary knowledge in science and engineering throughout the product life cycle will facilitate manufacturing efficiencies and regulatory adherence for biopharmaceuticals. Fundamental to this paradigm shift has been the drive to adopt an integrated systems approach based on science and engineering principles for assessing and mitigating risks related to poor product and process quality. Changes have been enabled as a consequence of the regulatory authorities introducing a new risk-based pharmaceutical quality assurance system. The traditional approach to manufacture has been to accommodate product variability into the specifications and fix operational strategies to ensure repeatability. Developments in measurement technology have invited changes in operational strategy. This revised approach is based on the application of Quality by Design (QbD), underpinned by process analytical technology (PAT) to yield products of tighter quality and more assured safety. QbD is defined as the means by which product and process performance characteristics are scientifically designed to meet specific objectives. Practical improvements therefore demand a knowledge base of science and engineering understanding to identify the interrelationship between variables and integrate the learning into different manufacturing scenarios. The focus of the Centre is to address the challenges emerging from this paradigm shift and to train a new generation of students with competencies in all stages of commercial biopharmaceutical process development. Critical to this is to ensure they have the skills to work at the discipline interfaces in the areas of biosystem development, upscaled upstream process engineering, and the engineering and development of downstream processing. The training will be formulated around three elements that form the backbone of achieving an enhanced understanding of the process. The three elements are (i) Measurement, Data and Knowledge Management, (ii) Enhance Available Knowledge and (iii) Use Knowledge More Effectively. The power of the approach being adopted is that it is equally applicable to established bioprocesses based on microbial and animal cell culture, as well as emerging areas including stem cells, marine biotechnology and bio-nanotechnology. The rationale for proposing a Centre in this area is to address a well recognised problem, a lack of appropriately trained personnel, who will deliver the next generation of biopharmaceutical development. These issues have been clearly articulated in a series of reports. SEMTA reported that over a quarter of bioscience companies do not have sufficient science skills. 39% of bioscience/pharmaceutical companies have long-term vacancies; with 22% having skill shortages in the science arena (five times that for other sectors). Lord Sainsbury, concerned at the rapidly changing nature of the bioscience business, set up the BIGT and commissioned Bioscience 2015. One of the strong messages raised was the serious shortfall in trained staff. Furthermore a quantitative assessment of the increase needed of trained people entering the sector was made by bioProcessUK. They estimated an increase of 100 trained personnel was required on top of the current 150 doctoral level candidates graduating per year. It is not simply a matter of increasing the number of trained persons. The Centre will also address the limitations of the current UG training of engineers, chemists and biologists which does not prepare them for the challenge of working in process development distinguished by disciplinary interfaces. The proposed programme will address a strategic shortfall and produce a new generation of graduates with the appropriate inter-disciplinary skills to drive both the research agenda and knowledge transfer of underlying concepts into industry.