Another chapter in the Upper Heyford story

In October 2023 I thought that the planning fiasco that determined the future of the former Cold War air base at Upper Heyford in Oxfordshire UK had reached a point where the story could be told and the subsequent ripples would be irritating but not significant. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ao76pbJEXou76QQTZzq7howyq76BZUqh/view?usp=sharing I could not have been more wrong. In late 2025 the owners made a planning application for 9000 houses as a pre-emptive strike to gain support from the New Towns Taskforce set up by the Labour Government that had became increasingly aware that building 1.5m new homes a year would not be achievable. And the identification of Upper Heyford was then picked up by the Oxfordshire Growth Commission in its attempt to stoke the construction fire. In normal times there would be close to zero chance of development at scale being allowed on the best preserved remains from the Cold War that is a conservation area including listed buildings and scheduled monuments. But, having pointed out the devastating effect the development would have on this site of pre-eminent heritage value, Historic England advise Cherwell District Council that it understands the need for more housebuilding! 'Normal times' clearly include compromise and hipocracy, dissembling and dissimulation. The fact that neither the New Towns Taskforce nor the Growth Commission consulted Historic England might have made no difference if heritage counts for so little. Even remembering that it is the Cold War that is being represented at Upper Hayford and there seems to be a certain amount of ignorance being displayed about this seismic event. It also transpires that Historic England managed to advise Cherwell District Council on the best preserved remains in Europe, that are also a significant part of US heritage, without reference to the international conventions on heritage and culture agreed at Paris, Granada and Valetta. If these conventions do not apply to a largely intact Cold War air base they might as well be scrapped. On 6 January there was an opportunity to see Emma Squire and Ian Morrison Historic England's CEO and Director of Policy respectively giving evidence to the Culture Parliamantary Select Committee on the subject of 'built heritage' claiming that the UK is taking a leading role in the international responsibilties for protecting heritage assets and capital. No mention of the relevant conventions and how they are being ignored. No mention of the World Heritage Sites in the UK where the status is being threatened. And no mention of the recommendation of the 2011 Panel considering applications for inclusion on the WHS tentative list where the Cold War is un®epresented. No mention of the research that required to see whether Upper Heyford should be included in what they envisaged would be a trans-national designation. Unfortunately I cannot report on the outcome of the current application that seems to be undecided, or the decision of the Labour Government on what new towns should be designated. But comments can still be made via and Cherwell Planning Portal on application number 25/02190/HYBRID and representations to Matthew Pennycook MP the housing and planning minister on how heritage value should sometimes take precedence over housebuilding. Historic England and the Council members and officers are already sharing space in the hall of shame for those whose job it has been to protect Upper Heyford from the degradation it has suffered over the last 30 years. It is quite conceivable that their institutions and the planning system will be further discredited by an approval of this monstrous development. As a last gasp to forestall or prevent this from happening Historic England has been asked to confirm to Cherwell DC that its letter was flawed by its failure to advise on the effects of the relevant international conventions, that the new town taskforce and growth commission should not be relied on and, finally, that HE understands that it should belatedly be doing the research required by the 2011 Panel into the potential of a World Heritage Site designation. Manwhile I will summon the energy to describe this latest chapter of Cold War denial as an addendum to the e-book.

Custom building update

This is a blog about the law relating to self and custom building and how it is working. The Government publicise data on the working of the Act that shows between 31 October 2022 and 30 October 2023, - 4,849 new individuals joined the register and 2,436 were removed, a net increase of 2,413 • 64,233 individuals were on the register as at 30 October 2023, an increase of 4% from 31 October 2022[ • 81 new groups joined the register and 28 were removed, a net increase of 53 • 747 groups were on the register as at 30 October 2023, an increase of 8% from 31 October 2022[ • 5,182 planning permissions were granted for serviced plots suitable for self and custom build, a decrease of 18% from the previous year There is a three year rolling programme so relating households and groups to the provision cannot be exact but there seems to be a considerable shortfall in supply. And demand seems to be growing if not to the levels found by NACSBA in their Mori survey that several million households would like to custom build.The increase in 'groups' is also interesting. In my much more limited survey I can find no recognition of the potential of custom-splitting as a way of meeting the demand for custom-building, meeting housing needs through more efficient use of existing housing stock, ensuring that space and fabric being insulated and heated is meeting housing needs, improving mobility and accessibility and reducing the need for new building with upfront carbon emitted at levels that threaten carbon budgets for the whole economy. I have asked the Department of Housing and Communities whether the above data represents a satisfactory implementation of the Act requiring a proportionate number of serviced plots to be provided and will blog the reply. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/self-build-and-custom-housebuilding

Hoisted by its own petard or the Climate Change Act

The Labour Government seems to have lost any sense its members might have had about the legal requirement to comply with the Climate Chnage Act 2008 that was its branchild. Two Tory attempts to produce a compliant carbon reduction plan were rejected by the High Court and Labour has until May 2025 to do better. The main thrust of policy is to generate economic growth which is not a distraction from complying with carbon reduction budgets but, the ways in which Labour proposing, will inevitably fail and presumably attract the ire of the Courts. The 1.5m new houses (some in remote green belt locations and new settlements) could wipe out the whole carbon budget were they to occur (highly unlikely given the way in which the housing inductry is configured). Then there is an announcement that all the expansion plans of regional airports (and road building) are being supported. Under the radar is the electrification of the steel production industry that had been reliant on coal. There is now the quantum leap in AI that implies a massive increase in internet servers. And there are policies and incentives supporting the electrification of heating and road transport. The former is reliant on heat pumps (boiler upgrade scheme) and the latter on charging a growing fleet of millions of EV cars, vans, lorries and buses. If the building industry moves to Modern Methods of Construction this will add to the demand for electricity. Those vehicles being replaced will continue to emit greenhouse gases, and drive at inefficient and highly polluting speeds unless they are re-powered and the speed limit is reduced to 50mph (or below). Some of this growth will maintain if not increase the demand for fossil fuels and some will exceed the ability of the generators and distributors to supply low carbon electricity. I can't see any sector that will reduce demand to any material extent and I doubt that the Court will be convinced by the promises of carbon capture or any other carbon negative technologies. And all this will be occurring as global temperatures have moved past 1.5 degrees C and after the Prime Minister has been on record as increasing the Government's ambition in terms of the speed of carbon reduction??

Presumption in favour of sustainable development

This blog post is for those with an interest in how the planning system operates in England so apologies for those lucky enough to be living and/or working elsewhere. In 2012 the newish Tory Government introduced the National Planning Policy Framework and the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Greg Clark, the minister at the time, did a reasonable job of defining ‘sustainable development’, before the discovery that this would put a brake on urban development that was a significant contributor to carbon emissions and biodiversity loss. From then on the ‘presumption’ operated as a balance tilted towards development with little or no concern about sustainability and the environmental impacts. The Labour Government in 2024 has picked up the baton and decided new development should be accelerated in the pursuit of economic growth. The extent or depth of the denial of the importance of sustainability can be judged by Labour’s revised NPPF that continues with the presumption in favour of sustainable development at the same time as acknowledging that the upfront or embodied carbon from new development is a problem. Come May 2025 when the Government’s carbon reduction plan will be scrutinized by the Courts the problem of upfront carbon from development could be a decisive issue. At a recent housing seminar at the London School of Economics and Political Science Prof Becky Tunstall thought that the issue of embodied carbon emissions justified consideration of a ‘presumption against new housebuilding’. This would not be a moratorium on housebuilding but would enable the planning system to select those forms of new houses that would meet genuine housing need; social housing, housing for older people, co-housers, self/custom-builders, conversions and sub-divisions. If these sustainable forms of housing continued to be permitted as a percentage of general market housing then the overshooting of carbon budgets would be inevitable. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800922002245. Incidentally, this paper was cited twice in the December issue of the TCPA Journal. And Tamworth and Litchfield tried and failed at appeal to successfully argue that the level of under-occupancy should be taken into account when calculating the housing land supply – a good attempt which requires more robust data and policy backup. Mental gymnastics should be unnecessary in the application of planning policy and law and I would recommend practitioners reverting to the original presumption, the one in favour of sustainable development, and ask appeal inspectors and the courts as may be necessary, to find general purpose housing unsustainable due to excessive upfront/embodied carbon (and car dependency) that conflicts with the way in which everybody but the ‘planners’ have been using the word/concept. Why set up a new presumption when the original, that has been accepted by an unwary Labour Government in its latest NPPF, should do?

Impacts of new housebuilding

Much of my time and energy is spent working with One Planet Abingdon Climate Emergency Centre. The principles of one planet living created by Bioregional have been adopted and the idea of a climate emergency centres emerged from Trust the People. More about the the centre can be found at Oneplanetabingdon.org. Every three months we change the focus of our work that from Oct to Dec 2024 is on the impacts of new housebuilding. As a chartered town planner, who is expected to be looking for ways to solve the shortage of decent and affordable homes, it has not been easy to oppose the building of new houses as the politically correct response. A shortage normally implies the need to increase supply. However, if the means of supply causes even greater problems that it might soleve then there should be no hestation to look for alternatives. This is our current project and a survey has been designed to find out what others are thinking. Could I impose on the readers of this blog to spend a few minutes adding to the richness of the data that we will be analysing in December? https://oneplanetabingdon.org/survey-on-the-impact-of-new-housebuilding/ And please pass on to any or all of your contacts. If the link does not work then going t the web site and scrolling under Green Forum to the last item should access the survey Meanwhile I have several unpublished letters written to the Guardian that continues to back new housebuilding. The Government, Labour Together, Labour Housing Group and Labour Policy Forum all refuse to acknowledge the conflict between housing and both carbon emissions and biodiversity loss. Housebuilding is so integral to the Government's plans for growth than an alternative strategy based on refitting and sub-divisions cannot be considered seriously.

Repowering and sharing fossil cars

I recently learned that Vauxhall (they are part of a conglomerate including other brands) are thinking about giving up car production in the UK due to the "mandate" which requires 20% of its production to be EVs. The problem being that demand for its EVs is not sufficient to enable the company to produce ICEs in the numbers required for profitability. I have written an yunpublished letter to the press (The Guardian), to Citroen (the make of car we are driving) and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (also with no reply) suggesting that a whole production line be dedicated to the re-powering of ICEs by replacing the petrol or diesekl engine with an e equivalent and battery. This would save scrappig the chassis, wheels, windows, body and upholstery. I estimate that giving this job to one of the smaller ans specialist garages would cost far mopre than the car is worth. Doing the job at scale could be half the cost and much cheaper than buying a new EV. Please tell me if I am wrong about the benefits that could be derived from this approach to electrifying road transport. Buses, trucks and dust carts are already being re-powered but it would but affordable re-powering of cars would have far more impact. If this would just sustain car dependency then please ignore this blog. I actually hope that other measures will assist in the change from individual car ownership car sharing of many kinds.

A carbon literacy test for Labour

The new government is adamant about its manifesto based right to do what it can to boost annual housebuilding rates to 370,000 to reach 1.5million new homes by 2029. It could not be unaware that the upfront or embodied carbon emissions from this scale of new building will be hard to contain within the carbon budgets set in accordance with the Climate Change Act 1990 as amended. This was legislation drafted by Ed Milliband the new Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero but has not publically questioned those chanting ‘build, build, build,’ so that the economy can ‘grow, grow, grow’ I am not in the planning business to advocate to increase or maintain the shocking levels of homelessness. But I fail to see sufficient connection between the new housing estates being built, permitted and planned on the edge of towns and villages, on ‘grey belt’ land and in new settlements and those living on the street or in sub-standard temporary accommodation. Neither do I see any real prospect of 29m dwellings being brought up to a zero carbon standard in the next few years. So there is a way of addressing both housing needs and carbon emissions that readers of the blog will know by heart. https://redbrickblog.co.uk/2023/06/sub-dividing-properties-to-meet-carbon-budgets/ The previous Government had not just one but two transition plans/carbon budgets found to be illegal for incompatibility with the Climate Change Act. No minister of official responsible for this travesty was fined or put in prison, unlike those who are arrested and charged with drawing these successive Government failures to the attention of the public. It seems to be more than likely that the new Government will see the manifesto commitment to housebuilding as a reason to sidestep responsible and legal carbon budgeting. There is the Future Building Standards and the NPPF consultation that could reference and Paul Brannen’s book Timber! How wood can help save the world from climate change were the Government interested in at least reducing upfront emissions. I doubt that the additional reliance on wood would be sufficient especially when new services and infrastructure is involved. But I would like to be proved wrong.

The significance of upfront carbon

I have just emerged from a public inquiry that is the result of the Secretary of State recovering the decision to be made on whether a road should be built across south Oxfordshire to serve seeveral thousand new houses planned for the area. The claim being made in support of the road is that it would result in a reduction of carbon emissions. The expert evidence that includes an environmental statement suggested that the very substantial carbon embodied in the building of the road would soon be compensated for through avoiding the gridlock that would occur without the new road. This claim was supported by the chartered civil engineer who specialises in this susbject, the three planning officers representing the county and district councils and the planning consultant ("our practice is always supporting sustainable development") paid by the county to support the application/appeal. The second schoolchild error made by these highly qualified experts was to claim that the carbon emissions involved were "insignificant". I suggetsed that what might appear to insignificant to an emgineer in Didcot might not look the same to a farmer in Bangladesh or a fisherman on a Pacific Island. And what might be insignificant when a mile from a cliff edge was highly significant if we had reached a cliff edge or tipping point. There would not be much good in avoiding carbon emissions one we had fallen over the edge. And then there was me. A chunk of my evidence was taken from the code of p[ractice that applies tp all chartered planners; members of the Royal Town Planning Institute,that points out the paramount importance of reducing carbon emissions. Nobody referred to the expection that climate change should be determinative of the decision. This was aimed primarily at the inspector who was MRTPI. The resto of the proof of evidence explained that upfront carbon emissions were certain and damaging and the carbon avoided from a more efficient transport system was speculative and not necessarility dependent on a new road. Twelve different measures were identified that could have reduced carbon emissions without the road; road user charging, APPGI/ICE report, road user charging, workplace parking levy, lower speed limits, electrification, car sharing, automation, public transport, active travel including E-bikes, and working from home, and/or the Government’s Transport Decarbonisation Plan? The claim by the county that all these possibilities had been in the transport modelwas never discussed but obviously the model which "predicted" an 80% modal shift for all traffic if the road was built could have been adjusted to find a combination of these measures that would shift say 50% of traffic from private car without the road. The point of a model is to investigate "decide or vision and provide". As a mere interested party it was made difficult to be involved in the inquiry. However, my final contributiton was to encourage the inspector to write a report that would recommend the rejection of the road on grounds of the significant level of upfront carbon emissions in a way that would survive legal challenge, unlike the refusal of the replacement of the M&S Oxford Street store where the Secretary of State had seen the upfront emissions being unacceptable despite of promises of a more efficient replacement building. Framing of the decision would be critical and I had given uncotested evidence to make that possible.

Upfront carbon

In refusing permission for the redevelopment of the M&S Oxford Street store against the recommendation of his inspector,Michael Gove the Secretary of State for DLUHC relied on the unacceptable level of upfront carbon emissions. This is the sensible term applied to embodied emissions that occur in the short term before the relatively low emissions from and energy efficient replacement building kick in. I particularly like the evidence given by Susan Barfield who "... highlighted that the IPCC told us in 2018 that we have 12 years to avoid a catastrophe, and we see growing evidence all around the world that it is happening – with floods, droughts, fires and melting ice caps. Instead of acting as if there is an emergency, by proposing to throw a huge carbon bomb unnecessarily into the atmosphere, the scheme misunderstands the urgency of our situation. What the science tells us is that what we do in the next 8 years is critical. The brief here was clearly to maximise the site’s potential and the architects have fulfilled their brief well – creating a building minimising operational carbon that 5-8 years ago would have been considered fine. However, now that we understand the upfront impact of embodied carbon it really isn’t. Particularly building two extra basements! They are the worst in terms of embodied carbon.” This decision should make it hard to justify building 300,000 houses every year instead of devising ways to use the under-used space in the existing housing stock. The use of unwanted retail space in town centres as being proposed by the PM would be a step in the right direction but is very unlikely to be sufficient. Sub-dividing some of just a small proportion of the 28m existing dwellings would meet genuine housing needs, including an element of custom-splitting (see numerous previous blog posts).

Too little too late or climate tittle tattle

The planning and development industry is becoming increasingly frustrated with the Government's attitude and approach to both mitigating climate chnage and nature recovery. A letter has been sent coordinated by the UK Green Building Council (UKGBC) and sent to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, levelling up secretary Michael Gove, environment secretary Thérèse Coffey, and energy secretary Grant Shapps. It claims that the planning system is not providing a consistent approach to handling climate change and environmental considerations resulting in delays, costs, and legal challenges. The 100 businesses that have signed the letter are calling on the government to strengthen the current planning bill by including “a new, clear legal duty for planning decisions and plan-making to explicitly align with the UK’s carbon budgets and adaptation goals under the Climate Change Act 2008, and nature restoration targets under the Environment Act 2021”. The letter is on the UKGBC web site.All these businesses should be taking posve action while they wait for a response. Unfortunately the Government is preoccupied by fighting off legal challenges to its dangerously ill informed approach to climate change; the Saltcross Garden Village, coal mining, airport expansions and north sea oil licensing. Instead of steering the UK onto a path consistent with the carbon budgets set by the Climate Change Committee it continues to make unwarranted claims about world leadership and claims that Lord Callanan at Beis is still, after 5 years of trying, up to the job of insulating over 20m sub-standard dwellings to address both fuel poverty and carbon emissions. Having it explained that deploying carbon negative technologies to remove carbon from the atmosphere could trigger rebound effect as carbon will re-emerge from the oceans Beis have confirmed that this effect is not taken into account in the Energy Bill as the focus should be on reducing emissions in the first place. And the Climate Change Committee are issuing its progress report on 28 June 2023 which should analyses the impact of building large numbers of houses with high levels of embodied carbon. Suggestions are welcomed for a collective noun for well meaning but useless individuals and organisations that are failing to deal effectively with carbon emissions that build the Keeling Curve showing concentrations at 424ppm

Builders not blockers but carbon blind

It is not everyday that the Guardian publishes my letter. This is the theme of a Blog sent to rd Brick, rejected on Any Answers but accepted by the paper on second asking subject to a little editing. "Promising to be the "builders not the blockers" might be good electioneering but suggests that Labour is attempting to sidestep carbon budgets when making its policies (Labour plan to free up land to tackle housing crisis 30 May). If new housing is to be added to the existing surplus (currently about one million more dwellings than households) it must be right to focus on registered providers building houses on cheaper land, preferably at social rent. But the proposed 300,000 new dwellings a year would result in carbon emissions embodied in the houses and associated services equivalent to 113% of the carbon budget for the whole of the economy. The crisis is caused by the grossly unfair distribution of housing and, in particular, under-occupation is at unsustainable levels. About 50% of the space and fabric required to be insulated and heated is not meeting housing needs. As under-occupation is also a main cause in the closing of local schools (Primary schools in cities at risk as families move to cheaper areas 30 May) this is where Labour should be focusing its attention." It's nice to have an audience but Labour will take no notice.

New build and bust

Pressure is building for a change to the planning regulations to enable the Government to claim that it is helping young people onto the housing ladder. And any such claim will immediately be exceeded by Labour. The volume of this debate will increase as a general election approaches. Despite there only being a tenuous link between the plight of the thousands of households in need of a decent home and the building of new estates by the volume builders, there is fresh talk of renewing the recently expired Help to Buy scheme that makes it easier to raise deposits on new homes. The explanation that the scheme has increased to price of houses for those both on and those off the scheme is falling on deaf ears. There is a growth in those claiming that even 300,000 new homes a year would not be enough to meet the need without a mention that the embodied carbon would exceed the budget for the whole economy, the 1million empty homes (there are about 28m houses and 27m households) and the 50% of space in existing houses that is not meeting housing needs (but the space and fabric needs insulation and heating). Another current debate is about the meaning of 15min neighbourhoods and how these can be achieved. I have not heard mention of the impact that under-occupancy has on the viability of services in these areas that could be significantly increased if the existing houses were subdivided, enabling downsizing in place and new households creating a home. Meanwhile the statutory self build registers started in 2016 are fading into the distance. For those who spotted the story about the former RAF Upper Heyford in a previous blog, on 9 September 2022 Cherwell District Council approved the 2018 application for a masterplan but did not inform me until 19 December. It has taken 5 months to provide an explanation for a delay that extended beyond the statutory 6 weeks in which to challenge a decision in the courts. An officer who had emailed after 9 September implying that the decision had not been made claimed that there was no delay because the public could and should be tracking applications online. The notification was in response to emails enquiring about progress, but not such an enquiry made within the 6 week period. This will now be a footnote in the book about Upper Heyford and Cold War memory to lower expectations about the delivery of the planning service, describing the lack of remedies for mistakes including the closing of ranks as officers cover for the failings of each other.

The Oxford Real Farming Conference and time for planners to promote agroecology

As is my wont I attend and then produce a blog about the Oxford Real Farming Conference.  This year the conference grew to over 4000 delegates with 1300 in Oxford and the remainder joining online from around the world.  My purpose is gauge where real farming is heading and whether the planning system could help. Nothing I heard dented my conviction that the potential of the planning system continues to be ignored.  The failure of the agroecology movement to engage with the planning system handicaps its growth and  prevents those operating the system from learning whet agroecology has to offer and how it could be supported and encouraged - a true double whammy. When one of the few (I think that there was one other) chartered planners could not even name the Minister for Planning (Lucy Frazer?) it is clear that some steeled status is needed before normal people can be expected to spend time on plan-making or decision-taking. It is almost impossible to understand the impact of existing plans and policies before trying to keep up with proposed changes.  The latest consultation to the National Planning Policy Framework actually signposts further changes scheduled for next year, and then wonders why people find better things to do.

Unfortunately when discussing what the land use planning system could do I also need to recommend changes to the system as well as challenging officers, councillors and inspectors to do what is already possible with existing controls to privilege applications that advance the cause of agroecology.  This includes the allocation of land for smallholding around settlements where there would be a presumption in favour of approving agricultural workers dwellings.  This would complement a practice of requiring all development proposals on the edge of settlements to place land for smallholding purposes into a local community land trust (through the use of s106 undertakings). One or more of the houses being proposed would be transferred to a housing association as part of the social housing quota but with the occupation limited to somebody working all or some of the smallholding land being secured.

It has become increasingly clear that agroecology has a materially different impact on land and soils that industrial farming in ways that can be measured; nutrient density of crops, soil depth and fertility, biodiversity etc.  In these circumstances there are grounds for changing the planning legislation to require permission to be sought than granted for material change of use.  It would be permitted development for farming practices to improve soil depth and fertility but planning permission would be needed for any operations that would harm soils; deep cultivations; applications of artificial fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides.  Industrial farmers would not approve but that is the point.  The expertise in planning offices would have to grow but the distinctions being drawn would be no more detailed than in the change of use of buildings that can be extremely tricky to investigate, measure and enforce. 

This change would excite those who are doing their own thing and to form a critical mass of 'real farmers'.

How can LNRSs benefit from the LURB?

One of the reasons why normal people develop a deep distrust for the planning system must be down the difficulty experienced in trying to understand and track proposals to address its failings and propose improvements. Every new Government seems to see it as a duty to introduce fundamental changes through manifesto pledges, white papers, green papers, and ministerial statements in the press and in Hansard.   During years of grandstanding there will be expressions of public opinion through opinion polls and by-election results, and the publication of reports by NGOs and think tanks.  Eventually a Parliamentary bill will emerge that seeks to meet the test of fundamental change but actually amounts to more than tinkering around the fringe.

 

Welcome to the Levelling up and Regeneration Bill.  Fortunately this bears little if any resemblance to the Future of Planning White Paper drafted by Policy Exchange.  But neither does it meet any of the criteria associated with the levelling up of a divided country.  The unintended consequence is to alienate all those who would like to engage with the planning system to explore the potential to tackle the closely joined crises afflicting the climate and nature.

Borne out of this frustration is another report and Making the Most Out of England’s Land can be found on the UK Parliament website (pdf). Lord Cameron of Dillington, chair of the Land Use in England Committee said,  "Land use in England is facing a growing number of conflicting pressures and demands including for food, nature, biodiversity, net zero targets, housing, energy and wellbeing.  The government cannot afford to deprioritise this issue.”

The proposed  Land Use Commission would be responsible for creating a land use framework which will help identify and address current and emerging challenges and opportunities for land use in England.  The framework should, "replace the current siloed approach to land use policy with a deliberative and cooperative technique in order to make use of the opportunities and synergies that provides".

The provision, access to and maintenance of green space would be a priority in the framework.  Lord Dillington added that, in addition to a land use framework, regional priorities should be encouraged through the proposed Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRSs).  "The government must ensure LNRSs are given appropriate funding and prominence in the planning system to enable them to operate successfully and gain traction amongst farmers and other land managers.”

While it is preferable for the LNRSs to be embedded in the planning system that emerges from its brush with the LURB, the progress of the latter bill through Parliament is so fraught with political infighting that Lord Dillington and his colleagues might be well advised to look elsewhere and promote LNRSs for their own sake and on their own terms.  That is a very unfortunate conclusion to arrive at as the losers will be all those who have been waiting for the planning system to deliver on the regeneration of the environment.  The environment itself will be poorer from these political games as it is treated as something separate from rather than intrinsic to our daily lives.

 

Custom-building and custom-splitting

I am writing this waiting for the dust to settle on the new administration led by Rishi Sunak and starting tomorrow 25 October 2022.  having wasted my time and yours addressing Greg Clarke and then Simon Clarke/Lee Rowley we don't know who will be put in charge of housing.  What we can anticipate is a renewed commitment to building 300,000 houses a year but, possibly, increasing the difficulty by giving more powers to local areas (ie those in blue wall constituencies like Amersham and Chesham that punished the Johnson Government threatening to adopt measures proposed by the Policy Exchange planner moved into Downing Street.

I feel fairly safe in saying that the 2022 administration will say all the right things about self and custom building but lack the imagination or knowledge of the planning system to give this the necessary boost. The custom building champion Richard Bacon MP is on record as describing the planning system as a "thicket". That a good description from somebody who lacks the energy or ability to sort out the wood from the trees.  When properly understood even the current and badly thought out legislation could be used to lift the numbers from under 10k to over 50k. Unfortunately there is not an MP who has the ability to do that.

By far the most read DanthePlan blog is that on custom building and the subject deserves an update since 2016.  The lack of progress could be evidence to support the contention that the is insufficient understanding at local and central level.

The first thing to do is to get onto the Council(s) register that provides the scale of the demand for serviced plots that the planning authority is legally required to be meeting. But, given that custom builders should, be definition, be prepared to go it alone, my next suggestion is to have conversations any housebuilder operating in the area of search. Would they reserve or sell a plot and build a house to my design?  They could be reminded of the Housing and Planning Act that places the responsibility  LPAs to ensure the supply of sufficient serviced plots but the housebuilder will mostly interested in offloading a plot at an acceptable price without depreciating any other.  Asking as a group about a contained part of a site might be more fruitful.  Agreeing the customising of the design(s) should be straightforward, but the involvement of your own labour less so.

An important- no very important - point to make is that there is provision for non-material amendments to be accepted by LPAs without the need for fresh applications.  The judgement of what is non-material one for the LPA but has to be made in the context of the permission as a whole.  In the case of say development of 50 dwellings it would be entirely reasonable for the LPA to agree that a change to a house type (or two or three) would not require a fresh application.  This would remove one of the objections from the housebuilder.

On larger sites the builder might only be expecting to build 30 to 40 units per year so the sale of plots in a discrete part of the site should not interfere with progress over the rest.  I am not going to predict how long or deep the recession might be affecting property prices but now might be a good time to be speaking to builders with unfinished sites.  The investment would have been made in the roads and drains and the prospects of achieving the projected prices for completed houses might have taken a dent.  Any delays might mean additional costs incurred in meeting the new Part L building regulations

Sunak might renew the Help to Buy scheme but might also have become aware that this has maintained and raised house prices mostly to the benefit of housebuilders. Without this kind of incentive (bribe) plot sales to custom builders could make economic sense.

Limited new build should only be encouraged if it is zero carbon in both building (inc materials and services) and then in operation (heating, lighting and appliances). Even if custom-builders are traditionally better than the housebuilders they might have to be better at building terraces that makes the net zero job much easier.  It is easier still for the custom-splitter.  This is more fully explained in a number of other blogs over the years, but starts with finding the owner of a larger house wanting to downsize-in-place and being prepared to partner in the physical sub-division of building and garden on the promise of well insulated, efficiently heated and accessible space suitable for their later years. This could result in the sale or a rent to buy of the new dwelling. The terms could and should be better than the equity release being touted by the finance industry.  I am waiting to see any other suggestions as to how housing needs can be met within carbon budgets or how 20 million existing dwellings can be retrofitted to net zero standards by 2035 (actually many fewer sub-divisions would be adequate to meet most if not all housing needs)?

Dear Mr Clarke

No, this is not a typo. Simon Clarke has been appointed Secretary of State for Levelling up, Housing and Communities, taking over from Greg Clark to whom the previous blog was addressed. This game of musical chairs says a lot about our system of government; the prime minister rewards her friends with jobs and cabinet membership even if the current post holder might have years' of experience and has not done anythng wrong. Clark's predecessor, Mr Jenrick was retained by PM Johnson even though he had made serious errors of judgement. Three points of interest; the increase of housesharing by the over 50s, the problems with equity share, and the effect of the cost of energy/living on the salability of houses. The housing squeeze is making it hard for those without equity to move into the housing market. There are significant number of older people who are having to share houses in order to afford rent. What is normal for students is less acceptable to the more elderly and sedate. There is a distant prospect of middle aged housemates tolerating similar level of mess, noise, partying etc as in younger days. The problem in the UK is that there are insufficient housng models to accommodate the poor elderly, by what I mean, an absence of co-housing oportunities. Multiple occupation and shared housing does not provide the level of privacy that older people expect without confining them to the other extreme of single bedroom flats. The happy medium of small private areas and generous shared living areas is missing. Mr Clarke is likely to focus on boosting home ownership that has been associated with voting Tory without incentivising the diversity of supply to match our current needs and preferences. The obvious problems with equity sharing are coming to light (or journalists have stumbled across them). All are leasehold and many have high service charges and maintenance bills, both paid by the occupier and not the holder of the remaining equity (usually a housing association). But the problem that is not mentioned is the fact that equity sharing is a device that maintains or inflates the cost of housing that makes equity sharing necessary for so many. Take it away and the price of property would have to fall to meet what most people could afford in terms of both deposit and mortgage payments. Another case of a demand side stimulus rasing prices to require more demend side stimuli to add to the Help to Buy Equity loan Scheme that is reaching its end. Mr Clarke should resist renewing Help to Buy and recommend lending rules that disincentivise the mixture of rent and mortgage payments. High interest rates might do the trick in the short term giving the Minister time and space for a long term measure. In arranging a webinar to look at te impact that the cost of energy is and is likely to have on house prices I have found an estate agent who claims that the EPC has become the second matter of interest after price, having been 'nowhere' in previous months/years. I have struggled with finding a bank or building society to help but, on line, found NatWest to be ahead of the curve.see https://www.natwest.com/mortgages/greener-homes-attitude-tracker.html#download-the-survey. I am surprised by some of these findings (eg scale of EV home charging points) but encouraged by green mortgages and the trend of increasing interest in energy upgrades. This should experience a step change if we have a normally cold winter. Mr Clarke, your predecessors have been negligent in failing to establish a way of upgrading 20million homes, the result of which will be death and misery for those unable to adequately heat their sub-standard homes.

Dear Mr Clark

At least until there is a new Prime Minister on 5 September we have Greg Clark MP as the Communities Secretary. He has responsibility for the work being carried out by inspectors, including the report issued to West Oxfordshire in respect of an Action Area Plan for the proposed Garden Village being called Salt Cross. In this case the inspector recommended the dismantling of the policies aiming to make the development zero carbon and this is the letter and attachment sent to the Mr Clark’s department. 

Dear Sir or Madam 

In congratulating Mr Cark on his appointment as Communities Secretary (and leveling up) I thought that he might like to have to hand his foreword to the NPPF 2012 and commitment to zero carbon housing that was shredded by George Osborn. This only makes sense if national standards were enabling zero carbon.(see extract below) Mr Clark might have become aware of a recommendation made by a development plan inspector during his predecessor’s time and this is admirably summarised by Hugh Ellis in his TCPA blog at https://tcpa.org.uk/pins-assault-on-an-exemplary-net-zero-planning-policy/  I would urge Mr Clark, as a champion of zero carbon, to stamp his authority on the Department and ensure that the inspector's (rogue) recommendation is withdrawn before it is acted on by West Oxfordshire District Council and accepted by the development industry as the position of the Government. 

Regards 

Daniel Scharf MRTPI 

NPPF 2012 

Foreword by Greg Clark 

The purpose of planning is to help achieve sustainable development. Sustainable means ensuring that better lives for ourselves don’t mean worse lives for future generations. 

9. MEETING THE CHALLENGE OF CLIMATE CHANGE, FLOODING AND COASTAL 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, and supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure. This is central to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. 

94. Local planning authorities should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change, taking full account of flood risk, coastal change and water supply and demand considerations. 

95. To support the move to a low carbon future, local planning authorities should: ●● plan for new development in locations and ways which reduce greenhouse gas emissions; ●● actively support energy efficiency improvements to existing buildings; and ●● when setting any local requirement for a building’s sustainability, do so in a way consistent with the Government’s zero carbon buildings policy and adopt nationally described standards. 

I would urge all readers who are concerned about the impact that this decision could have on the development of garden villages and new residential development more widely, to write in similar terms to the Department of Leveling –Up, Housing and Communities to limit the damage that could be caused by a failure to use the planning system to facilitate the transition to zero carbon.

Good law to climate rescue

This might not be a planning case but the judgement could and should have profound implications for the land use planning system. In The Queen (on the application of (1) Friends of the Earth Limited(2) Client Earth (3) Good Law Project and Joanna Wheatley v Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2022] EWHC 1841 (Admin) the judge (who had a planning background) decided that the Government is legally obliged to explain how it intends to meet the carbon budgets set out by the Climate Change Committee and officially adopted. The Government has been reluctant to do this because a) it hasn’t a clue or b) it realizes that some of the necessary measures might not be popular with its voters? Two areas that the CCC had highlighted as requiring more attention were home energy and food and agriculture. The rate and extent to which the energy efficiency of houses will have to be improved to meet the 5th and 6th carbon budgets falls outside anything that the Communities or Business Departments have hitherto dared to suggest or offer meaningful financial support. The Government should view the judgement as a blessing in disguise as it can reasonably blame the Courts for any inconvenience caused in bringing the nation’s building stock up to a decent standard. All those involved in the operating the planning system should be considering if its actions are consistent with the carbon budgets. Being an arm of government the planning system must be seen to be operating in line with carbon reduction budgets (and not just the targets). Both candidates for the election of the next Prime Minister have confirmed support for the net zero target for 2050 and both have identified home insulation as a primary target (having been ministers in a Government that has been in dereliction of its duty in that regard since 2010). Congratulations to Client Earth, Friends of the Earth, Ms Wheatley and Good Earth Project for eliciting the help of the Courts in ensuring the planning system plays its (important) part in facilitating the transition to net zero. Zero carbon housing is most likely to involve a reduction in new building and increase in subdivisions (even custom-splitting – see many previous blogs). A zero carbon agriculture (see National Farmers Union net zero by 2040 target) might also need support from the planning system if not a change to the law to bring agricultural practices under control? (see previous blogs)

Who is going to fight for green retrofitting?

As a subscriber to the housing blog  Red Brick (the red corner) I often find myself adding a comment questioning the reliance on new building to meet genuine housing needs.  I am tempted to write in similar terms to  Lichfields (in the blue corner) about a report prepared for the Land Promoters and Developers Federation (LPDF) - Banking on Brownfield - that is all about proving that this strategy would fail to meet Government new building targets and greenfield development is necessary.  The report can be found at https://lichfields.uk/media/7062/banking-on-brownfield_jun-22.pdf

The report is aimed at the Government which is retreating from the 300,000 per year target and the tilted balance in favour of granting permission when 5 year land supply cannot be demonstrated in circumstances where an up to date local plan has been adopted. No mention by Lichfields of the carbon emitted in the construction phase or the claim from Kent University that 300,000 new houses per year would 'embody' the whole carbon budget for all sectors of the economy.

Instead, I am in the green corner concentrating my fire on Channel 4 and John Lewis and Partners who sponsor the 'Homes on 4' series including programmes hosted by Kevin McCloud, George Clarke and Sarah Beeny.  I find it hard to believe that John Lewis or his Partners can be happy with these programmes concentrating on increasing light, space and profits without any mention of energy efficiency. I found a Waitrose cashier/Partner who was as unhappy with the balance of these programmes as I am.

Anybody with clout in this area could join the fight (ie correspondence) to have energy refitting as the main theme for 'Homes on 4' programmes as 20million homes need to have a deep refit in the next ten years. Increasing their size, vaulting the ceilings and having large areas of glass will make this task more difficult.  A discussion about external wall insulation and heat pumps would be very informative but is not seen as sufficiently entertaining for TV audiences? I have also asked the editor of The Planner (the magazine of the Royal Town Planning Institute) to include an article about residential sub-divisions, including custom-splitting, but am not holding my breath - Lichfields and their reports are considered to be more important.

Government finds fracking to be incompatible with Net Zero

 I thought that it was worth quoting from a recent refusal by the Sec of State to allow a fracking survey rig:APP/P4415/W/19/3220577

" 17.The Secretary of State notes that national shale gas policy is set out in a number of Written Ministerial Statements. Although the WMSs remain extant, he has taken into account that specific shale gas policy in the Framework was quashed in 2019 by the Talk Fracking1judgment, following which paragraph 209(a) of the 2019 version of the NPPF was withdrawn (IR7). The November 2019 BEIS WMS introduced a moratorium on the issuing of Hydraulic Fracturing Consents (HFCs) as a result of concerns about induced seismicity.   are not part of the planning system,the Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the 2019BEIS WMS and resulting moratorium is a material consideration in this case (IR584). He notes that the WMS states that ‘the shale gas industry should take the Government’s position into account when considering new developments’, and agrees with the Inspector that any immediate value of the development as an exploratory or ‘listening’ well would be significantly reduced unless and until the restrictions are lifted (IR585).  

18.The Secretary of State has also considered Sheffield Climate Alliance’s representations, in which they question whether the exploitation of shale gas is compatible with the 2050 commitment to reduce emissions by at least 80% (the commitment at the time of the inquiry), and whether there is a strategic need for this proposal (IR469-478). He has also considered the representations made by Dr Andy Tickell at IR462, which submits that the Talk Fracking judgement has established that proper consideration should be given to counter arguments against shale gas exploration and also refers to the UK Committee on Climate Change’s ‘Net Zero’ report.  

19.Taking the above matters into account, the Secretary of State agrees,on the basis of the evidence put forward in this case, that in this case government support for shale gas as set out in the WMSs should carry reduced weight. He has further taken into account the provisions of paragraphs 209 and211of the Framework, and overall he considers that national policy support for the benefits of shale gas exploration in this case carry moderate weight."  

In doing so, the Minister (Stuart Andrew) rejected the inspector's recommendation of approval. This decision could have wider implications where carbon emissions would be expected to exceed  the officially agreed budgets.