Removal of Zero Carbon Homes target

I have just received a response to my request to see the officer advice to ministers behind the decision by the Chancellor and Business Secretary to remove the Zero Carbon Homes  (and Allowable Solutions) target found in their publication "Fixing the Foundations".  I was referred to two well reasoned reports on Allowable Solutions in which I could find no justification for abandoning the ZCH target and a suggestion that the position will be reviewed by 2021 when a recent small upgrading of the building regulations had bedded in.

This is my letter  in response (copied to my MP.

"Dear Mr Hayward

Thank you for your letter in response to my attempt to understand the removal of the Zero Carbon Homes (and Allowable Solutions) by the Chancellor and Business Secretary (I remain unclear what part Mr Clark played in this).

My first reaction is that the two reports on Allowable Solutions have been extremely well argued and presented but do nothing to support the case for lowering of the energy efficiency of new build houses. Quite the opposite.

You then deny me the opportunity to see the advice on which the overarching ministerial advice was based (I assume this to be the Chancellor).

I then have a list of other reasons why this downgrading is so unfortunate without being able to understand if these are point already taken into account.

1.We know from DECC that the UK is seriously below its carbon reduction commitments.
2.We know that agriculture, transport, and manufacturing (inc imports)have next to no chance of contributing to the required carbon reduction targets. Power generation could have done were it not for the Government's recent attack on renewables.  That leaves new buildings that could very easily have moved to carbon negative.
3. The collapse of the Green Deal will leave 80% of the housing stock at the equivalent of EPC D for the foreseeable future.
4.The removal of ZCH and AS will add over a million dwellings by 2021 requiring expensive retrofits to add to the 25million existing.
5.The building industry did not seem best pleased as the 'goal posts' were moved once again but with a suggestion that this might be temporary.  How can they know the price of building land if the implied costs keep changing?
6. Community energy schemes that could have represented 'allowable solutions' are collapsing around the country.
7.One of the most frequently asked questions about new building is why 'the planners' allow new buildings without PV?
8. There is still the 'presumption in favour of sustainable development' in the NPPF. Mr Clark says that the main purpose of the planning system is to achieve sustainable development (as is s39(2) of the 2004 Act) which should not disadvantage future generations. How can they seek to require developments to 'consume their own smoke' in accordance with the Community's Secretaries wishes and their statutory duty whilst being undermined by the Chancellor?

In summary, the refusal to provide the official advice to ministers leaves me with the impression that the retreat on energy efficiency standards has been made for ideological and short term economic reasons in the face of carbon reduction targets and the interests of industry."

Expert Panel on Local Plans

Apologies for posting this after the date for submitting evidence has (just) past but the panel appointed by the Planning and Housing Minister to investigate ways of improving the system of local plan preparation and approval of local plans is now considering the evidence.  

My views were,"The Panel has been set up due to existing problems in the timely approval of development plans.  However, in the pre-occupation with speeding up (and possibly simplifying) the process there is a danger that the system will continue to operate under the conspiracy of silence and avoid the challenge implied by the test of soundness which is compliance with  s39(2) of the 2004 Act.  There are no  development plans that are actually “contributing to the achievement of sustainable development” or following the para 14 of the NPPF/Framework    where development in accordance with the plan would necessarily benefit from the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development.

Development plans are current being produced by local government planners faced with interpretations of the Framework by inspectors and Secretaries of State that have prioritised economic development at the expense of any proper consideration of the social and environmental limbs of sustainability.  The contributions being made by private sector planners through representations during the plan preparation and at the examination are  being made in the interest of clients seeking to advance the prospects of  development giving rise to profits to landowners and builders  under existing models that are adding to the problematic  scale of unsustainable development that will need to be re-visited and fixed before 2050. 

In the context of a s78 appeal  (Ref Appeal Decision APP/N2345/A/12/2169598) an inspector expressed surprise at the lack of help being given to him by the professional experts.  The examiner of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan is being faced with the proposition from the  LPA that the EU and UK  carbon budgets  (under the Climate Change Act and para 94 of the NPPF) are unrealistic, and the need to reduce carbon emissions by about 60% during the plan period should not be an impediment to the  40% planned growth in housing, jobs and associated infrastructure.  The Sustainability Assessment  has identified the ‘negative impacts’  that almost all the proposed development will have on carbon emissions with no ‘major positive’ impact to start the transition to a low carbon economy.  The response from the Inspector was a question as to whether this conundrum had been raised before any othe inquiry/examination?

So when recommendations are being formulated as to how the development plan system might be made more efficient and effective, the Panel should take into account that the new system should deal with the question of how sustainability can be dealt with in development planning an honest way (and in accordance with the first two paragraphs of Greg Clark’s Foreword to the NPPF) that planned development does not make the situation worse for future generations.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/466580/180915_LPEG-_call_for_evidence.pdf

I hope that this is interesting if no longer a post that readers can use to join in the debate.

Young Planners

The latest issue of The Planner, the trade magazine of the Royal Town Planning Institute was dedicated to the place of young planners in the profession. I have previously blogged about how their views should take precedence over those of older planners who have clearly failed to do the job of helping create environments in town and country suited to the conditions of the 21st century.  Dismay would understate my reaction to the survey made of the opinions of ypung p[lanners and provoked me to write the folowing letter,

"The search for what is wrong with planning  and its future need go no  further than the snap survey reported in The Planner October 2015.  In the answer to “What do you hope to achieve as a planner?” only 32% hoped to ‘encourage social, environmental, and economic wellbeing’ (ie sustainable development), and only 10% hoped to ‘create a sustainable world’. These could be taken as  measures of realism about the limitations on the role of planners, or it could be that, at a very early stage of their careers, a large majority of planners have abandoned  even the hope of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development (ie a duty under s39(2) of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act), and enabling development that would benefit from the presumption in the NPPF."

I don't know the size of the sample or other details that skew the results of a survey but I have to assume that the RTPI/The Planner  expected the readers to give weight to the results.  The most shocking aspect of this result is that the presumption in favour of sustainable development is the only presumption in planning policy and even the 2010/2015 coalition government described this a golden thread running through decision-taking and plan-making.  For young planners to have abandoned hope of doing what is a principal if not the paramount part of their job specification in either public or private sectors suggests that employers and clients  must be exerting undue influence over these young professionals who should be free and able to carry out their job to enable sustainable development to take place.

A local plan examination

I cling on to the belief that the planning system is (potentially)  one of the best ways for ordinary people to engage in the formulation and application of public policy - and in matters of some real importance; the provision of housing, transport and other services.  At the same time I am aware how off-putting the planning system has become.  I am in the process of writing a book aimed at persuading people to be more engaged and was amused by the response from the first publisher - that they did not think that ordinary people were sufficiently interested in participating in the planning system to buy/read a book on the subject.  Is this a circular argument?

Anyway, I am currently making representations to the examination of a local plan and thought that I should share this experience in case others might want to try their luck.  This has meant that a long written submission had been made at the appropriate time explaining why the draft Plan would not 'contribute to the achievement of sustainable development' in accordance with s.39(2) of the 2004 Act - an important test of soundness of the plan. The submissions were condensed once into a Hearing Statement and then further into reasons to attend the oral examination.  Although these are particular to the Vale of White Horse Local Plan they might create a picture of what I have been saying which might encourage others to challenge plans in their area.

  

"Matter 1

1.2  Is a Sustainability Appraisal  adequate which is behind policies supporting housing substantially in car dependent rural areas,  with minimal specifications for energy efficiency,  unconcerned about orientation, terracing  or the ‘mix’ (ie to balance with size of households) and without sufficient measures to limit the congestion that is making the area progressively unsustainable for new and existing residents and businesses.

1.4(c) The question of compliance with s39(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 – and the contribution that the Plan must/would make to the achievement of sustainable development?  Where is the evidence that carbon emissions would be reduced by about 60% by 2031 while housing and jobs would grow by about 40%?  What measures are included in the Plan to contribute to annual carbon reductions of between 6% and 10%?

Matter 2

2.1(a) & (d)         Does the SHMA properly or adequately take account of the level of under-occupation of the existing housing stock (at least if not more important than the numbers of dwellings) and the declining household size?  Does the SHMA explain the potential for meeting the ‘objectively assessed need’ through building smaller dwellings?

The housing need has been assessed over a period of about 16 years covering specific or potential rural locations where there would be a high propensity for people to want to move within their village. Does the Plan make adequate provision for phasing new developments in the rural areas to accommodate these needs?

Matter 3

3.1(a) & (b)         Are there any policies in the Plan that show how the bus services between Abingdon and Didcot can be made a realistic alternative to the car? Or is this area fundamentally unsustainable until such measures are put in place despite the Plan? And should more emphasis be placed on making Didcot an attractive place for residents until the transport system can be made sustainable.

Matter 4

In the context of local and national support for both self-building (that can deliver housing above that which the housebuilders are prepared to provide) and reference in the SHMA to something like co-housing (senior co-housing would be part of the sustainable provision for potential downsizers) is the Plan adequate to deliver these choices (as per NPF para 50)?  

NB    The plan not been positively prepared nor sound as sustainable development is more likely to occur in spite of the Plan rather than due to its policies.  The clear evidence from recent developments in the area is that developers are not building sustainably and will require strong policies in the development plan to do so. But,

·       The Plan does not include a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed requirements of the Climate Change Act and the related carbon reduction budgets.

·       The Plan is not justified because it is not based on the logical implications of the Climate Change Act for the development of land and buildings over the next 15 years. (ie between 6% and 10% annual reductions)

·       The Plan is not based on robust and credible evidence that relates to the necessary reduction in carbon emissions from existing land and buildings as well as all new development.

·       The Plan will not be effective due to the failure to understand the repercussions of the statutory and advisory carbon reduction targets.

·       The development supported by the Plan will not be deliverable in accordance with the criteria in the Plan. Development would need to accord with criteria not included in the Plan in order to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.

·       The Plan is not flexible in the sense that it would need substantial change to be contributing to the achievement of sustainable development.

·       It would not be possible to monitor the contribution it is making to the achievement of sustainable development as it lacks the necessary criteria (eg carbon reduction targets and rates) to carry out that fundamental exercise

·       The Plan is not consistent with national policy in respect of carbon reductions or the Climate Change Act (see NPPF paras 14 and 94)."

(The All Party Parliamentary Group on Housing and Care for Older People found that 8 million people over 60 would be interested in downsizing if the right option was available. Two thirds of whom occupy homes of three or more bedrooms. (Guardian social housing supplement 2015 09 23). Even the Daily Mail is on the case (2015 09 17).)

The inspector seemed to be interested in these submissions and invited me to kick-off the discussions about the sustainability assessment.  I have been in the situation many times where an Inspector appears to be paying a great deal of respect to what I am saying, but only in order to avoid any challenge that I was not given a 'fair hearing', and not with any real intention of giving weight to submissions that could threaten the planning system 'as we know it'.

In this case the inspector was most interested in whether I had objected to any other local plans on a similar basis - rather than questioning the merits of the case.  In fact the QC acting for the Local Planning authority was given the opportunity to rebut the case that the plan did not satisfy s39(2), a response that I don't think made any sense to the Inspector.

This Post is a call to arms so that other inspectors around the country are faced with challenges to local plans (and appeals in respect of development proposals) so that they do not feel isolated in applying the presumption in favour of sustainable development (ie the need to consume its own smoke) in a meaningful way, and not that adopted by the previous Government (we do not know whether Greg Clark is going to be true to his word (see Foreword to NPPF).

Q & A for the House of Lords Select Committee

Apologies for a longer than usual post. This is a response to the HOUSE OF LORDS 
SELECT COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL POLICY FOR THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT that I am now able to share. The Committee is raising some questions about the system that provides me with an opportunity to rehearse some of the issues covered by previous Blogs.

 Introduction

Government will be aware that the planning system is extremely hierarchical; with powers delegated to LPAs but under supervision by the Communities Secretary/Inspectorate through the examination of development  plans and conducting appeals against refusals of permission.  Although those working with the planning system are generally hoping for a period during which there will be no significant (or even minor changes) for them to learn, understand, communicate and implement,  the Communities Secretary does have extraordinary power to bring about positive change through what he says and how Inspectors are briefed. Many if not most changes are based on a misunderstanding of how the system could or should work and are often responsible for making things worse rather than better. Government then blames the ‘system’ for these failings and introduces further misjudged changes. Ministers seem incapable of taking or acting on a holistic or systemic view of the environment.

The recent successful challenge of West Berks and Reading BC to a written ministerial statement which was found to be incompatible with the existing statutory scheme should be taken as a lesson for Government (and its ministers) to be sparing with its interventions and ensure that changes are carried out through due process and are compatible with the system as formally established.

Questions

1.              Are the decisions that shape England’s built environment taken at the right administrative level? What role should national policymakers play in shaping our built environment, and how does this relate to the work and role of local authorities and their partners?

The most important consideration to be taken into account in our planning of town and country is the 2008 Climate Change Act and Carbon Budgets that are formulated by the National Climate Change Committee. It is essential that central government is seen to be adopting these budgets and providing advice to lower tiers of government that they must be adhered to and how. It is unacceptable that the Government appears to be retreating from the implementation of the well-established carbon reduction measures when even these were likely to prove inadequate without further innovation and development.
There does not appear to be any rationale behind the Government's insistence that the appointment/election of mayors is a prerequisite of regional devolution. It is true that the structure of local government is a mess, primarily due to the motivation of saving money. If, however, a more logical system could be (re-) introduced, including regional planning authorities, as were dismantled in 2012, then devolution should not be much of a problem.
Given the obvious problems that are being caused by further development in what is already a very congested South East region, there is also a strong case for a National Spatial Plan.  This should be drawn up primarily from the regions ‘up’ and not from central government ‘down’.

2.              How well is policy coordinated across those Government departments that have a role to play in matters such as housing, design, transport, infrastructure, sustainability and heritage? How could integration and coordination be improved?

Since 2010 the coordination of ‘sustainable development’  has been an unmitigated disaster. Different offices of the Communities Department and different inspectors have been operating like a random number generator in terms of the Code for Sustainable Homes. This, and the Zero Carbon Homes 2016 target have been removed by written ministerial statements of dubious legal authority (post the West Berks/Reading Borough judgement). Local Planning Authorities must be working on development plans and making planning decisions so as to “contribute to the achievement of sustainable development". It is unacceptable that they should be doing so without some coherent and consistent advice from the (new) Communities Secretary so that his offices, inspectors, LPAs, developers, neighbourhood planners, and the public know where they stand and can pull in the same direction.
The National Policy Statements are vague and obscure. The NPS on the national road infrastructure was/is incompatible with the 4th Carbon Budget, mainly in respect of the continued reliance on the growth of use of the private car. The interference by the Treasury in transport decisions (most obviously seen in the planning of new high-speed train services, and recently in regional improvements) results in a very incoherent strategy.  Transport should be the primary job of the Communities Secretary as part of spatial planning.
In respect of housing, the most urgent need is to address the unsustainable levels of under occupancy which could be done through a written ministerial statement, entirely compatible with the existing statutory scheme. There is no place for central government in respect of design, except to encourage adaptability in terms of new dwellings and Lifetime Neighbourhoods, both intended to improve the social sustainability and resilience of residential areas.
Heritage is a matter that has been satisfactorily divided between local and central ‘government’ (eg English Heritage).
The latest unwarranted interference was that by the Treasury/Chancellor the Business Secretary (‘Fixing the Foundations’), with the Communities Secretary’s name not on the document.

3.             Does the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provide sufficient policy guidance for those involved in planning, developing and protecting the built and natural environment? Are some factors within the NPPF more important than others? If so, what should be prioritised and why?

The most important part of the NPPF is the “presumption in favour of sustainable development". The previous administration demonstrated such a low-level of understanding of or interest in the principles of sustainable development that the presumption became meaningless and/or discredited. The Communities  Select Committee has already investigated this matter and recommended that the definition be refined and made fit for purpose.
Whilst there or many advantages of the discretion available to decision-makers in the operation of the planning system founded under the 1947 Town & Country Planning Act, on matters as important as the presumption in the NPPF there should be some clear and effective guidance from the Communities Secretary.  It should not be possible for one inspector to make the following findings:

60. If one considers locational sustainability i.e. being adjacent to an existing

built up area and able to take advantage of any existing services and

infrastructure, then developing this site would score heavily. On the other

hand, if we seek a Bruntland scenario, whereby today's development would

not impose environmental costs on future generations, we are a considerable

way from achieving that. There was certainly no expectation that the

development would 'consume its own smoke'. The application does not deal

in many specifics and targets, other than the aim to reach Code for

Sustainable Homes Level 4.

61. As for movement, there is little beyond broad principles and these are

largely internally focused. A Travel Plan was submitted with the application,

but this only covers a residential offer. There was nothing about the

employment or leisure uses. Similarly, there were no proposals for energy

generation on the site or firm sustainable drainage projects. When

additional draft conditions were suggested they were accepted, and the

saving grace is that this is an outline scheme and one that could be up-rated

as part of the submission of details, so long as appropriate conditions are

attached at this stage. Such matters as design, layout and even the

orientation of buildings are crucial in this context. www.planningportal.gov.uk/plannInginspectorate 12

Appeal Decision APP/N2345/A/12/2169598

And, for this to remain an honorable exception to the ducking and diving of other decision-makers,  fearful that their considered and professional view of what constitute sustainable development would not be supported by the Secretary of State.

Nothing could be more important than the reduction in carbon emissions.  There is no model or precedent (outside wartime or deep recession) for the scale of carbon emissions required to meet the official carbon budgets (6% per year) or the Tyndall Institute estimate of 10%.  Planning guidance and development plans are fundamentally dishonest in the lack of attention being paid to this existential challenge. The Environmental Audit Select Committee ‘Reducing Carbon Emissions from Transport 2005/6 based its recommendations on an honest appraisal of the problem – advising the Government that a lower speed limit (evidence had been given of the need for a 55mph limit) was necessary, not just to reduce carbon but to send the right message to the general public. 10 years later, denial of the scale of the challenge posed by the required level of carbon reduction far exceeds the insignificant level of denial that climate change is being influenced by carbon emissions. This H of L Committee should take the same rigorous position based on the available scientific evidence but, with ten years of missed opportunities, the challenge has become very much greater. Carbon reductions have largely been achieved by exporting emissions from manufacturing/mining and by picking some low hanging fruit.  The reductions that are now required will have to come disproportionately from buildings, as transport (while the speed limit reduction continues to be rejected), agriculture, industry, and power generation (with the  Government retreating on renewables) sectors will all have more difficulty. New buildings can be carbon negative (solar positive) using existing and affordable technologies (with the added benefit of reducing the incidence of fuel poverty).  We have to talk about ‘one planet living’ starting from now, a time that we are living as if we have three.   

4.              Is national planning policy in England lacking a spatial perspective? What would be the effects of introducing a spatial element to national policy?

Possibly.  One element of a national spatial plan would be to put a stop to HS2.  Improving the regional rail network should be a priority.  Any capacity problems in the routes into London occur within a 50 mile radius that can be addressed by express coaches using the over-taking lanes on the radial m-ways and trunk routes. These coach services can access many more centres of employment than can rail terminuses. Cars would be limited to 50mph to meet the carbon reduction targets (see above reference to Environmental Audit Committee) and car drivers will soon become coach passengers. Commuting coaches will not add to the congestion in the area around Euston that will not be able to cope with the 30,000 additional  in and out movements were HS2 to be built. The few minutes saved on the high speed train journey will be lost on the already congested road and underground system within the Euston area. The regeneration of the area around Old Oak Common is a perfectly good idea but this is not a remedy for the congestion likely to be caused by HS2 and could happen with a normal rail connection.  Railways are essential to the country’s low carbon future but High Speed Trains need a far more objective assessment that the Government seems capable of delivering. The same seems to be the case of additional runway capacity.

5.              Is there an optimum timescale for planning our future built environment needs and requirements? How far ahead should those involved in the development of planning and built environment policy be looking?

There should be no problem with development plans being drafted for about twenty years with frequent if not continuous reviews.   A serious problem has arisen from a misunderstanding of the ‘five year housing land supply’ requirement set out in the NPPF.  If development in a particular area is booming then it could be argued that the lack of 5 years land supply would harm the forward planning of the house-building industry and employers in that area.  If development is sluggish, then a shortage of allocated and permitted land is not harmful and should not form the basis for allowing even more land that is not required (and would deflate the value of permitted sites making their development less profitable and slower to deliver). This leads to arguments about viability; s106 contributions and the proportion of affordable housing. By definition,‘necessary’ infrastructure - including housing affordable to key workers - cannot be sacrificed to artificially  inflated assessments of land values.  Hence, a 5 year housing land supply can only be a suggestion for what would be a sensible target averaging good years for building with bad, and not a justification for allowing more land that is actually needed.  This should be reflected in planning decisions where, in law,  weight should be given to the real harm being caused by a breach of policy and not simply to the breach itself.
The necessary trajectory of carbon emissions reductions does not allow the Government to delay showing that it is treating this matter with the required degree of seriousness and ensuring that their plans, and those of all LPAs, reflect the necessary annual reductions of between 6% and 10%.

6.              What role should the Government play in seeking to address current issues of housing supply? Are further interventions, properly coordinated at central Government level, required? What will be the likely effect upon housing supply of recent reforms proposed for the planning system?

Almost every intervention by the Government has been to the “demand-side"  (Funding for Lending, Help to Buy, discounts for 1st-time buyers) all of which have the effect of maintaining or raising prices and reducing affordability to all those not on that particular scheme. There has never been more housing space per capita and the Government which introduced the pernicious bedroom tax in the social rented sector (this could have been managed satisfactorily were there an adequate supply of smaller dwellings available) must be aware of the even more prevalent under-occupancy by owner occupiers. Under-occupation is, without exception, the most unsustainable aspect to our housing system. A very simple and easily implemented policy would be for the Communities Secretary to require LPAs (and inspectors) to ensure that all new housing is of 2 bedrooms, unless a special case has been made out for larger dwellings. Even in that case, such dwellings should be designed to be easily subdivided. Further, planning conditions should be imposed on new developments to prevent extensions in order to retain  the balance of the size of households (average size approaching 2) and housing (there is already a surplus of larger dwellings), and the energy efficiency. The Government should also revisit the very sensible and important concept of ‘consequential improvements’. This is one of the few ways in which the existing housing stock (80% of existing houses are EPC ‘D’ and below) whereby dwellings cannot be enlarged without upgrading the energy performance of the whole. Why must properties be upgraded prior to rent and not prior to sale? This has become urgent in the context of the demise of the Green Deal.
The government should not continue to change the scope of ‘permitted development’. The ‘permitted’ change from offices to residential without any contributions to affordable housing, infrastructure or sustainability should be revoked. The' permitted' change from agricultural buildings to residential in remote rural areas also comprises unsustainable development.

7.              How do we develop built environments which are sustainable and resilient, and what role should the Government play in any such undertaking? Will existing buildings and places be able to adapt to changing needs and circumstances in the years to come? How can the best use of existing housing stock and built environment assets be made?

Reference has already been made to the unsustainable level of under occupation of the existing housing stock. This should be the first matter for the Communities Sec to address by signalling his support for predominantly smaller dwellings.  Adaptability should also be a requirement of all larger dwellings to enable relatively cheap and simple subdivision (preferably exempted from further planning applications)

8.     To what extent do we make optimum use of the historic environment in terms of future planning, regeneration and place-making? How can more be made of these national assets?

There is a danger that the Government preoccupation with' Brownfield' sites could endanger some sites of very high heritage value. For example  the best examples of Cold War airbases have been substantially harmed by new development. Such sites are in unsustainable locations and their status as 'previously developed land' should not be a justification for inappropriate development.

9.              Do the professions involved in this area (e.g. planners, surveyors, architects, engineers etc.) have the skills adequately to consider the built environment in a holistic manner? How could we begin to address any skills issues? Do local authorities have access to the skills and resources required to plan, shape and manage the built environment in their areas?

The most topical and damaging shortage of skills has been the inability of LPAs to deal effectively with viability assessments. It is extremely encouraging that the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors has been instrumental in setting up an All-Party Parliamentary Group to address planning and housing. Viability assessments have been used to justify material reductions in the provision of infrastructure and affordable housing. The  Communities Sec should ensure that such assessments are made available to both decision-makers and public and the RICS should use powers and influence under its Code of professional conduct to ensure that assessments genuinely reflect the profitability of developments and their ability to pay for necessary infrastructure.

11.           Do those involved in delivering and managing our built environment, including decision-makers and developers, take sufficient account of the way in which the built environment affects those who live and work within it? How could we improve consideration of the impacts of the built environment upon the mental and physical health of users, and upon behaviours within communities?

The Government has been supportive of self-building. This has probably being seen as a way of diversifying the supply of new housing. In fact, self/group/custom-building/finishing could be made into a large and viable and vibrant 'industry' were it to be treated with the required level of seriousness. There needs to be proper definitions of different types of delivery, training, supervision and funding. One of the benefits of these forms of building would be community development and place-making.

12.           How effectively are communities able to engage with the process of decision making that shapes the built environment in which they live and work? Are there any barriers to effective public engagement and, if so, how might they be addressed?

There is increasing evidence that neighbourhood plans are not being produced to include policies with the necessary level of precision, prescription or proscription. Most policies are of a 'permissive’ type that set out what might be allowed but say nothing about what should not be permitted. The fault lies with the supervision provided by LPAs that must now treat 'made' NDPs as the ‘development plan’ for decision-making purposes. This process should receive far more attention and is likely to result in a set of properly worded policies from which parish councils and neighbourhood forums can ‘pick and mix’.
One of the ways in which local people could be enthused about future development within their area would be neighbourhood competitions. Individuals and groups could receive small incentives to submit their development proposals for the use of empty, underused or derelict sites/buildings. The most promising proposals could then receive further funding to demonstrate viability and sustainability.

13.  Are there fiscal or financial measures potentially available which would help to address current issues of housing and land supply? Are there financial or other mechanisms that would encourage better design and place-making by private sector developers?

Since 1947  successive Government have failed to capture the additional value of land attributable to the permissions allowing for its development (see  2015 Housing Review by Sir Michael Lyons).  Most if not all of this value relates to the social and physical infrastructure  which has been created as part of the public domain and the only uplift that should be permitted in the interest of fairness to the landowner would be that sufficient for them to agree to sell. A system that condones land values of < 10,000x agricultural value cannot be in the public interest and is a serious impediment to the provision of housing of sufficient scale, at genuinely affordable prices and of the right quality (including zero carbon – see above).  The fact that developers should be made to pay for the necessary infrastructure (which includes depreciation/renewal costs of roads, schools and public transport as well as housing for key workers and others unable to pay market rates based on inflated land costs), should mean that in most parts of the UK development would pay its way. In fact there would be an immediate impact on land costs that should make all the housing more affordable, so that this would need less cross subsidy from the development.

planning for climate change and migration

Perhaps the biggest challenges for the UK land use planning system are climate change and population growth, of which in-migration is a significant element (just over 50%).

It is the current 'plan', or projection based on current trends, that the population that is currently at about 65m will increase by about 5m over the next twelve years to about 70m. This increase adds to the economy (inc GDP) and immigrants tend, on average, to be younger, healthier and more economically active.  However, more people do put greater demands on infrastructure, including transport and housing  that is already under stress in some parts of the country.  There is no national spatial plan so development and infrastructure provision tends to follow the demand which is expressed in parts of the country already under strain and congestion. For these reasons, both real and imagined, the prospect of a few thousand people and families being accommodated on these isles is of great concern to our politicians who might well be accurately reflecting the majority view of the electorate.  So, instead of 'opening his arms to a significant number of the several thousand people currently 'parked' in east and southern Europe, the Prime Minister claims that his country is generously expending its resources on their welfare closer to their home - citing as an example the Syrians who have resorted to Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon.

The Prime Minister  might not have come across the narrative that points to two factors that contributed to the inflagration in Syria? One was that the armed intervention in Libya (about which he is sufficiently proud as to propose an equivalent adventure in Syria) was taken as a signal by the Syrians opposing President Assad that NATO would extend its interpretation of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) to defend them from the inevitable response response from the repressive regime in Damascus. The second factor is that the uprising started with migrants for the Syrian countryside protesting on the streets of urban areas due to their loss of livelihoods food shortages. And why had they left the countryside for the cities? Many years of drought.  This story continues with speculation about whether 0.8 degrees of the warming of global temperatures was a cause or had contributed to these abnormally dry conditions?

So if the Prime Minister wants to make good his claim that this country is doing its best for people currently living in Africa, Asia and the Middle East from which they are heading for a relatively peaceful and productive Europe, David Cameron should be asking his Minsters to report to him on the connection between climate change and migration patterns, both now and in the future.  If it transpires that some if not all of those who would like to move to the UK are motivated by conditions attributable to weather patterns associated with climate change, the Prime Minister would reasonably be expected to  look at his Government's policy for reducing carbon emissions.  And in so doing he would find a trail of devastation in respect of both solar and wind, the most promising sources of low carbon energy. At the same time, the abandonment of the Green Deal, the Code for Sustainable Homes and the 2016 Zero Carbon Homes target has left the Government without any effective policies to reduce energy demand.

This is a roundabout way of saying that this Government would appear to be less hypocritical in respect of its policies regarding migration and climate change if it eased the door open for some of those currently in transit, and invested (really) heavily in climate change mitigation and adaptation both in the UK and abroad.  Meanwhile (and it could be some time before this penny drops) preparations must be made in any event for the projected 5m population increase, and low carbon technologies (including energy savings of about 8& per year under the Climate Change Act before it is repealed) will need to be rolled out despite this 'greenest ever' Government.

Could the Communities Secretary please stand up?

Having seen one written ministerial statement set aside by the Courts for 'incompatibility with the statutory regime', the Chancellor George Osborne has collaborated with Sajid Javid the Business Secretary in issuing "Fixing the Foundations" which included planning policies equally incompatible with existing statutory framework (ie the removal of the zero carbon target for new housing and 'allowable solutions').  Now the Chancellor has collaborated with Elizabeth Truss the Environment Secretary in producing the Rural Productivity Plan to support economic growth in rural areas.  It says that, "   We will reform planning laws, making it easier for villages to  allocate land for a small number of new homes...". Assuming that the Chancellor (and Environment Secretary) don't know the difference between 'policy' and 'law', I am taking it that they only intend  policy to change.

I might have missed it, but I have not seen the Communities Secretary (or the Planning Minister) endorsing either of these publications.  As a practitioner, I would find it really helpful if changes to the planning system were proposed from the Department responsible for the planning system, properly consulted on and not issued from other departments on an ad hoc basis.  The danger is incompatibility with the system causing incoherence, confusion and rebound effects (actually part of the Judge's comments in the West Barks case finding Mr Pickles' attempt at removing the obligations from small developments to be counter productive - Mr Pickles having a more limited understanding of the purposes of the planning system than The Rt Hon Clark, his successor).  We must be grateful to West Berks and Reading Borough (and Cornwall Council) for challenging Mr Pickles' small development exemption, but cannot rely on similarly incensed and sufficiently endowed councils to challenge every misguided ministerial statement on grounds of 'incompatibility'.   However, it is doubtful that LPAs are getting in the way of small developments in villages (except perhaps in the Green Belt - that Osborne and Truss are unlikely to disturb) and that local plans are probably already addressing these matters in considered and balanced ways that might not be compatible with edicts from Defra and the Treasury.

The Chancellor's idea seems to take the concept of starter homes discounted for the first time buyers targeted at urban brownfield land and replicate such schemes in villages - again free of obligations.  So discounted free market housing is to be supported without the obligation to provide affordable housing for rent? Are landowners already looking to raise the price of potential sites to eat into the proposed discount?

Taking the systemic approach (ie how planning should be practiced) the need is for small dwellings for both starter homes (in high priced areas these are most likely to be for rent, self-build and/or equity share) and suitable for downsizing to release some of the larger family stock that is currently under-occupied, some of which could be divided into smaller units. Developments should mixed and not limited to first time buyers.  Building new smaller dwellings simply as starter homes is a typical narrow minded if not ideological intervention which will more than likely have unintended consequences.  It is likely to be the Communities Secretary who will need to make ad hoc adjustments to repair the damage caused by the failure to take a systemic approach in the first place.