Monday, December 12, 2016

Greenprint for survival

The Blueprint for Survival was written by a number of people associated with The Ecologist. Although the problem of greenhouse gases had not emerged in 1972, all the other existential problems have got steadily worse. 

I would highly recommend reference to the blogger who writes under ‘Greenprint for Survival’ and having said that, I would like to add my own take on this concept following on from a thought provoking conference held by Sustain into ‘common good land uses’.  It seems that there is a stark choice between pursuing these minority pursuits as exceptions to the norm which can be demonstrated to be beneficial to some and not harmful to the majority (ie not against the public interest). Or, in order to be accepted (eg to get planning permission) it should be explained how these uses of land and buildings are an important and indispensible part of how the mainstream should be looking in the creation of a sustainable and resilient society (ie in the public interest).

Whilst I believe that diversity should be celebrated and that the planning system should find space for individuality, imagination, innovation and the ‘quirky’ (the inspector’s view in supporting a shark sculpture in a suburban roof) I think that it is important that common good land uses should mainly be presented and explained as being in the common and public good.

This is a big ask that I think is predicated on a fair description of the really big issues that will be faced in 2017 and for the foreseeable future. 

The public issues in the most critical position appear to be:
-       loss of biodiversity and soils,
-       insecure supplies of trustworthy food,
-       a transport system that cannot cope with increase in motorized mobility,
-       to set a trajectory to peak GHGs by 2020 and zero by 2050,
-       to finance and run acceptable health and social care services
-       inequitable supply and distribution of housing,

On the last two points I would like to quote Angela Brady past president of the Royal Institute of British Architects, "Were running out of time
for this tidal wave that's coming towards us. I'd like to see London
Mayor Sadiq Khan say that 10% of new development is given over to
co-housing. We need exemplars for others to follow.)  That is 10% of
say 30,000 per year? which equals 3000 units or 100 schemes.  That's a few
more then are being planned today?

On the questions relating to nature/food and carbon I would propose that the preparations of bio-regional plans become the norm.  All development plan are drawn up subject to extensive public consultations.  Unfortunately, the test of soundness is mostly limited to what is in the plan (eg is there a 5 year housing land supply) and not what is missing. However, if NGOs or local residents can show what dire consequences would arise from the plan as submitted, this would be an opening for pro-activity and the presentation of a different or additional plan which deals primarily with natural capital at a regional scale.  Data could include, inventories of flora and fauna, wildlife corridors, river catchments, soil types and quality, farming regimes (arable or pasture), designated nature reserves, forests and woodlands.  The mapping (with OS help?) could show areas of decline and areas designated for improvement.  There could also be a carbon account which identifies the potential for carbon sequestration in plants and soils.  Such a plan would be  a huge undertaking and would always be ‘work in progress’. However, it would be providing information that should be used and relied on by decision-makers when considering the use of all undeveloped land.  There could also be signals for use in urban areas, including the recreation and health care needs of the urban  population.

It would be this kind of framework or Greenprint that common good land uses could be most easily seen to be in the common good and public interest.

The crisis not mentioned but real nonetheless is in the type of 'democracy' we will be experiencing while these important decisions are waiting to be made.

Friday, December 9, 2016

Making comments on local and neighbourhood plans

Apologies for the blog length but this might be useful for those prepared to engage with the planning system

A guide for making representations on development plans:unitary plans, local plans and neighbourhood plans

Food and Planning
I am afraid that the length of this paper breaches all rules for Blogs but I feel that there is an important message that the NPPF might actually be fit for many purposes and what really matters is the lead being given by the person sitting in the position of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.  The position is now held by Sajid Javid- formerly a Business Secretary.  The level of ignorance of planning in Government does not give much hope for the future unless those with an interest in these matters make concerted efforts to engage with the planning system at local and national levels. 

Although there has been a consultation on revising the NPPF no details have been published.

1.Could the existing framework of law and policy legitimately support local food systems? And, If not, what changes would be reasonably necessary?

  1. Since the 1947 Act, whatever public interest depends on the use and development of land and buildings can be delivered by the planning system.
  1. Example: There was no difference recognised by the planning system between a dwelling that was affordable to local people and one that was not until a High Court judge found that a refusal of planning permission by a local authority based on that contention was within the powers of the 1947 Act.   It would seem to follow that If it can be shown to be in the public interest to facilitate access to affordable land and associated housing to support the growth of local food systems ie production, processing and distribution, the planning system could and should deliver.
2.National Planning Policy Framework
The following extracts show that the NPPF is not hostile to and in many ways could be reasonably interpreted to support the development of local food systems.

Achieving sustainable development
The NPPF cites the UN definition about not disadvantaging future generations that has been interpreted by an appeal inspector (  Appeal Decision APP/N2345/A/12/2169598) as ‘consuming its own smoke’. A helpful judgement has found that, “the presumption cannot apply to un-sustainable development and that somewhere in the process must be an assessment of sustainability ..." Dartford BC v SSCLG [2014] EWHC 2636 (Admin.).

“Core Planning Principles   - 17…proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs. Every effort should be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing, business and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth. Plans should take account of market signals, such as land prices and housing affordability, and set out a clear strategy for allocating sufficient land which is suitable for development in their area, taking account of the needs of the residential and business communities;”

Whilst this might not have been drafted with small-scale agricultural enterprises in mind, if these are needed then the planning system should be delivering both suitable and affordable land and housing

“- take account of the different roles and character of different areas,
promoting the vitality of our main urban areas, protecting the Green Belts
around them, recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the
countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it;”

It would be reasonable to regard a thriving agricultural industry to be fundamental to thriving rural communities

“- take account of and support local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all, and deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet local needs.”

Local food would appear to be suited to meet all these local needs.

Supporting a prosperous rural economy
“28. Planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. To promote a strong rural economy, local and neighbourhood plans should:
● support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings;
● promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses;
● support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit
businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the character of the countryside. This should include supporting the provision and expansion of tourist and visitor facilities in appropriate locations where identified needs are not met by existing facilities in rural service centres; and
● promote the retention and development of local services and community
facilities in villages, such as local shops, meeting places, ...”

No stretch of the imagination is required to read this advice as official/Government encouragement to the growing, processing and distribution of local food.

“52. The supply of new homes can sometimes be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or extensions to existing villages and towns that follow the principles of Garden Cities. (see later comment).

Working with the support of their communities, local planning authorities should consider whether such opportunities provide the best way of achieving sustainable development. In doing so, they should consider whether it is appropriate to establish Green Belt around or adjoining any such new development.”

There is a lively debate about the future of the Green Belt and small scale agriculture aimed at serving the enclosed urban area offers an attractive alternative to both camps; those who would like to see the GB kept free from development and those who would like to see it put to productive use –ie horticulture could be preferred to horsiculture that has become the predominant use, even if this implies a limited level of associated residential development.

Climate Change
“93 Planning plays a key role in helping shape places to secure radical reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, minimising vulnerability and providing resilience to the impacts of climate change…”

There is a debate about the scale of greenhouse gases that can be attributed to agriculture (UNCTAD estimate of about 50% of global emissions down to about 13% estimate of the Committee on Climate Change from UK agriculture).  It is important to collect the evidence to show that local agricultural systems can contribute to the reduction in GHG emissions.

“95. To support the move to a low carbon future, local planning authorities
● plan for new development in locations and ways which reduce greenhouse gas emissions;”

Opportunities for local food growing should be planned for all localities.

Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
“109 minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures;”

The case can be made that (by definition) agro-ecology enriches bio-diversity both above and, importantly, below ground.  The NPPF could be seen to miss the connection between food growing and ‘natural environment’ which is currently seen simply about bio-diversity, geo-diversity and landscape.

Land quality
“112. Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land BMV). Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality.”

This is the vestige of the concern that had been expressed about preserving the food growing capacity of the UK.  Sometimes the protection of BMV is decisive in planning decisions and sometimes not. Generally the smaller the holding the greater reliance on land quality and, If the need for small scale agriculture can be demonstrated, then so would be the need for the planning system to protect and use the best land for this purpose.

Using proportionate evidence in plan-making in terms of ‘business’
“160. Local planning authorities should have a clear understanding of business needs within the economic markets operating in and across their area. To achieve this, they should:
● work together with county and neighbouring authorities and with Local
Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) to prepare and maintain a robust evidence base to understand both existing business needs and likely changes in the market; and
● work closely with the business community to understand their changing
needs and identify and address barriers to investment, including a lack of
housing, infrastructure or viability.”

Notwithstanding the important benefits derived from urban food growing up to and including 10 pole allotments, the scale of change that may be required is very much at a business level and scale where LEPs should be interested.  However, planning authorities are likely to need help in assembling the evidence to support the radical policies which will be required to facilitate the shift to ‘real farming’.

“161. Local planning authorities should use this evidence base to assess:
● the needs for land or floorspace for economic development, including
both the quantitative and qualitative needs for all foreseeable types of
economic activity over the plan period, including for retail and leisure
● the existing and future supply of land available for economic development and its sufficiency and suitability to meet the identified needs. Reviews of land available for economic development should be undertaken at the same time as, or combined with, Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments and should include a reappraisal of the suitability of previously allocated land;”

Whilst this might have been intended to apply to the change of employment land to residential, it could equally apply to identifying the most suitable land for ‘real farming’ which could then be a constraint in the identification of land suitable for housing (ie the SHLAA).

● the needs of the food production industry and any barriers to investment that planning can resolve.(my emphasis)

3.Planning Practice Guidance
Support can be found in the NPPG at:
“Health and Wellbeing para 2  •opportunities for healthy lifestyles have been considered (e.g. planning for an environment that supports people of all ages in making healthy choices, helps to promote active travel and physical activity, and promotes access to healthier food, high quality open spaces and opportunities for play, sport and recreation);” and,
“Para 5 •Active healthy lifestyles that are made easy through the pattern of development, good urban design, good access to local services and facilities; green open space and safe places for active play and food growing, and is accessible by walking and cycling and public transport.”
This guidance can be cited in support of the above policy advice in the NPPF.
The only guidance on “agriculture” relates to the unhelpful relaxation to regulations allowing “changes of use of agricultural buildings (eg schools and dwellings)”

4.Local Plans
Back to the NPPF that says, “99. Local Plans should take account of climate change over the longer term, including factors such as flood risk, coastal change, water supply and changes to biodiversity and landscape. New development should be planned to avoid increased vulnerability to the range of impacts arising from climate change. When new development is brought forward in areas which are vulnerable, care should be taken to ensure that risks can be managed through suitable adaptation measures, including through the planning of green infrastructure.”

“150. Local Plans are the key to delivering sustainable development that reflects the vision and aspirations of local communities.
151. Local Plans must be prepared with the objective of contributing to the
achievement of sustainable development. To this end, they should be
consistent with the principles and policies set out in this Framework,
including the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
152. Local planning authorities should seek opportunities to achieve each of the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development, and net gains across all three.”

There should be no need or excuse for trade-offs between the three limbs of sustainable development and agro-ecology epitomises how multiple  social, economic and environmental gains can be achieved.

      5.Neighbourhood   Development Plans
There is no reason why advice on local plans should not also apply to NDPs – and vice versa.

In my not very special village the NDP survey showed 200 out of 2000 adults (on 64% return) desired to be involved in smallholding ie more than an allotment.  The NDP followed advice from the district council not to translate this ‘public interest’ into development plan policy.   This is an example of a failure of localism and a demonstration of how much both planning authorities and neighbourhood forums/parish councils have to learn

6.Green Belts
Although agriculture and forestry are ‘appropriate uses’ it is not a main purpose of Green Pelt policy to actively support these uses. Models of village farms or market gardens encouraged by the planning system (ie providing affordable housing) could be an alternative to new inappropriate development. Such dwellings should be regarded as appropriate as being  ‘buildings for agriculture and forestry’.(NPPF amendment required).  Similarly the policies in National Parks and AONBs should acknowledge the contribution that could be made by ‘agro-ecology.  The regulations applying to National Parks include the advancement of social and economic objectives.

7.Garden Cities   
Whilst new garden cities might not be at a scale that will solve the housing or agricultural crises, they do seem to have cross party support and the door should be pushed open, especially because of the advice at para 52 of the NPPF.  There is a real opportunity for the campaign for real farming to capitalize on the inclusion of ‘market garden’ zones in Ebenezer Howard’s idealised diagram (the ‘homes for inebriates’ might be suitable for plannerd drowning their sorrows?).  Agro-ecology and community supported agriculture would also fit into Howard’s three magnets by providing, “Fields and farms of easy access, enterprise and low prices… [and]…Plenty to do. “

Sustain (please Google and support) describe local food systems as ‘infrastructure’. Just as real farming should be regarded as an integral part of the agricultural industry and rural economy (Colin Tudge confirmed that the Real Farming conference now attracts more delegates than the Oxford Farming Conference) planners might find it easier to adjust to something falling within a familiar category.  If Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) could be invested in local food systems this could be a game changer (but change to regulations and local CIL schedules required).


The town and country planning system engaged in controlling the use and development of land and buildings in the public interest should be empowered to control the changes in agricultural practices where there can be seen to be significantly different impacts being caused in matters already seen to be material planning considerations:
-       Landscape impacts.
-       Bio-diversity
-       Soil health
-       Flooding
-       Employment
-       Transport
-       Sustainability (where not covered by any of the above)
-       Affordable and appropriately located housing for agricultural workers
-       Health and wellbeing of individuals and communities
-       Carbon emissions from food systems (eg transport and fertilisers)
-       Recreation (community supported agriculture)
-       Health and wellbeing

1.        NPPF – Support for ‘food production’ should be expanded beyond the business section of plan-making; given a chapter of its own, or added to landscape, green belt, bio-diversity and health and well-being sections.  However, this does not mean that the NPPF in its existing form is not already fit for the purpose of supporting the growth of real farming in both plan-making and decision-taking.  The definition of ‘affordable housing’ in the Glossary should include those dwellings approved with an ‘agricultural occupancy condition’, removing this as an obstacle for developers concerned about viability. The NPPF should also identify ‘affordable land’ as land made available for farming/growing through planning obligations/s106 only to be sold at values relating to its commercial potential in agro-ecological use.

2.         Local Plans  & Sustainability Appraisals – should have policies supporting agro-ecology in particular requiring the provision of affordable housing (with ag tags) and ‘affordable land’ (secured through s106 planning obligations). These should be reserved out of all new developments on the fringe of towns and villages.  Policies should indicate that the urban fringe is the appropriate location for such developments and could zone land where preference would be given to such uses.

3.         NDPs – market gardening zones and village farm allocations should be made if not already provided for in local plans under NPPF 160/161. There should be a campaign for legislative change to enable Community Right to Grow Orders as counterparts to Community Right to Build Orders.

4.         Green Belts (and Nat Parks/AONBs) – promote agriculture including horticulture – including provision of affordable housing associated with ‘affordable land’.

5.         Garden Cities (and large scale housing developments along the garden city model, should all include market garden zones and require engage with local examples of community supported agriculture.

6.         Community Infrastructure Levy  schedules should include elements of local food systems; eg food hubs for storage, distribution and processing.

7.         Regional food systems should be the focus of attention that would imply a ‘duty to cooperate’ between urban and rural planning authorities (as applied to housing land supply).  It would also be helpful to emphasise that the ‘real farming’ must be encouraged to make contributions to the economy at an industrial scale.

8.         Decisions must by law all refer to the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’.  There is sufficient other policy advice and guidance in the NPPF and NPPG to support proposals for agro-ecological developments.  There is a need for those with knowledge and experience of agro-ecology and real and/enlightened farming to support/propose policies at national and local level as well as backing individual decisions.  Given the discretion available to decision-makers; officers, committees, inspectors and the Sec of State (within the bounds of reasonableness), it is important to bring the considerations material to the promotion of agro-ecology to the fore.

Specific comments

Local Plan should recognize that the food supply chain is a major source of carbon emissions and have clear policies to support and enable low carbon local food supply (and remove barriers in accordance with NPPF para 161).  A fundamental ‘barrier’  that must be addressed by a sound plan is the cost/affordability of both land and associated housing for aspiring farmers/growers.

One readily available policy to enhance local food supply is to require one or two dwellings in all developments on the periphery of towns and villages to be made subject to agricultural occupancy conditions (accepted as part of the affordable housing quota) and the developer (landowner) would be required to include at least 1 ha of land as a smallholding  as well as land for allotments for the new housing.  The preference would be for this to be adjacent, but in any event it must be reasonably accessible, to the new housing. This would be the reasonable to response to the proposals for new agricultural dwellings in the open countryside which should supported if the Plan does not seek to meet the need in a more sustainable way.

For the very adventurous (possibly those persevering to the end of this blog) A much more pro-active approach could be taken by preparing and presenting a bio-regional plan to the planning authority covering all those matters in para 9 above.  This will be described in my next blog. 

Best of luck

Saturday, December 3, 2016

The best as the enemy of the good

I have just attended a conference on systems analysis applied to the environment.  Of the hundred or so delegates I reckon that over ninety were researchers and three were engaged in implementation; one from Defra, one from BEIS and me.  Whilst all the presentations included compelling evidence that the approaches to air quality, land use, energy and population needed to be based on systems analysis that was already showing some very serious and adverse environmental impacts, the conclusions seemed to be that more research would be needed before policy makers could be persuaded to take necessary if not sufficient action.

I am not the first to observe that the best can be the enemy of the good but this is in the context of rising levels of CO2 and other GHGs which could very soon make redundant proposals that could be effective if implemented today. There is a perverse incentive for researchers to advocate delay while more research is carried out.  There was no clear call for action the results of which could then be researched ie learning by doing. An exception was a suggestion that there should be attempts to encourage necessary and desirable land use changes through price signals (taxes and incentives) and then to address unintended or harmful consequences through regulation.  This approach  was preferred to the alternative of  simply using targeted legislation despite no proposals as to where and when the those responsible for tax systems night be educated to use their powers in this way.

One illustration of dithering  relates to the national speed limit.  in 2006 UKERC published a paper under "Quick Hits" which advocated the reduction of the enforced national speed limit to 60mph. This would achieve a reduction in carbon emissions of up to 29% amounting to about 2million tonnes.  Having rejected this measure (but not the supporting evidence) 20 million tonnes has been added to the atmosphere. When eventually the speed limit is reduced (see the VIBAT Study 2005) "quick" will have been redefined and the "hits" will have to be that much harder.  I am reminded of the report from the Oxford Martin School and its Commission for Future Generations titled "now for the Longer Term".  This was published in October 2013 and raised the  particular question of why we seemed incapable of doing what was already known to be necessary and desirable?  It seems that "now" has also acquired a new meaning and any delay will mean that impacts that were to be avoided in the longer term might now actually happen in the near term.

Sunday, November 27, 2016

Transport planning confusion

Westminster watchers will know that the new Government and its Chancellor is looking for ways to boost the economy and the "in"  word, "infrastructure" has caught his eye.  He is particularly attracted to the proposals in the report prepared by the National Infrastructure Commission at

This blog has said very little about infrastructure in the belief that we should be concentrating resources on fixing and sweating existing assets rather than building more that would increase the need for more fixing.  This is particularly the case in respect of road building.

The NIC report supports the reinstatement of  a rail link between the growing cities of Oxford and Cambridge, via Bedford and Northampton.  But, there is equivalent support for a new Expressway (is that a euphemism for a new motorway?).  In his Autumn Statement the Chancellor mentioned these projects in the same breath.   The first I heard of the 'Expressway' was at a meeting where one of the possible operators of the railway (Chiltern Railways, that is running trains from Oxford and Bicester to London) made some cutting remark about the (im)possibility of the rail link being completed and/or being viable if the road was also being promoted. 

The failure to resist the road building lobby (and mentality) will be just one reason for failing to meet carbon reduction targets. But even in transport planning terms it makes no sense. In 2004 the Government declared that it can no longer hope (or afford) to build its way out of congestion (The Future of Transport. White Paper, Department for Transport, TSO),  but the Chancellor committed £1.3 billion to this exercise in futility and the potential for growth in jobs and housing along this corridor proved too attractive to the Government in the face of advice that the new road would add to the congestion on the network including the A34.  The NIC refers to Science Vale UK and to the possibility of 20,000 houses in Didcot.  Without making this blog too local or parochial, this area is already very congested and the A34 is a main artery that cannot cope with existing demand.

The lesson is that roads and railways are part of an integrated system where the comparative advantages of the private car over the slightly less flexible and more expensive railway (relying on the marginal cost of journeys) must be resisted by our transport (and financial) planners.  The expressway might make the area more accessible on  a map, but the DfT knows that it would make the roads in the region more congested.  On the other hand a railway could take existing traffic off the roads in and around the area.  We should also be concerned about the growing influence of the NIC if it continues to be blind to the multiple problems associated with road transport.