Planners and Extinction Rebellion

Anybody who has been involved in non-violent direct action (a rebellion) to bring the climate emergency to the attention of government and the public would have seen scientists and doctors against climate change dressed in appropriate garb and explaining why their specialist knowledge motivates them to take to the streets.

Planners have specialist knowledge of the impacts that urban developments are having in terms of carbon emissions (embodied in construction and in operation) and on local ecology- or they should have.  This applies to those promoting developments and those employed in dealing with applications.  However, planners do not appear on the streets as such, either because they are unconcerned about these impacts or regard NVDA as futile or not what they do.

Given that the use and development of land and buildings is directly or indirectly responsible for about 50% of carbon emissions https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2VqOwDufNpbeVE3alBCRnJ4NjA/view (and significant biodiversity loss) the absence of planners (as such) is very disappointing.  When the public is becoming increasingly aware of the  threat of climate change there is little chance of the reputation of the planning profession being enhanced while the planning system is known to be complicit in carbon emissions increasing and its members stand and stare and shrug their shoulders.  Any planner who feel like showing that they care about what is being done with permissions being granted through a system of which they are part should get in touch.

NB The Royal Institute of British Architects has declared a climate emergency but architects have  not been conspicuous on the streets of London.

Planning for growth or sustainability?

Policy Exchange (Jack Airey) has produced a very interesting and challenging report on the planning system: Re-thinking the Planning System for the 21^st Century. https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Rethinking-the-Planning-System-for-the-21st-Century.pdf

The critique illustrates two features of the current system. Local panning authorities are their own worst enemies, exposing themselves and the system to these fundamental criticisms.  But the reason why Airey is right to predict that the recommendations will give rise to ‘scare stories’ is because of the mess that has resulted from most of the contributions the private sector has made to development in the last decade or so.  The justified criticisms of the current system might suggest wholesale reform, were the private sector to have earned or now merit any trust.  The planning system will have imposed costs on the private sector, but there is no reason to believe that greater freedom from regulation would result in greater quality or, importantly, greater levels of sustainability and resilience.  Many of the problems and delays would be sorted were the private sector to deliver quality, sustainability, affordability without the need for protracted negotiations and coercion.  

Policy Exchange chooses to keep the identity of its funding under wraps so readers are unable to see the names of the pipers playing this tune.  Work by PE would also carry greater credibility were its research to informed by the fact that the UK is one of the most unequal societies in the world.  There is no evidence that the wealth of the few will be employed for the benefit of the many if there was less regulation over the use of land and buildings.

PE has also chosen not to declare a climate emergency to ensure that climate change and biodiversity loss inform all its work.  In fact there is a repeated paragraph intended to show that Airey has taken climate change into account:

“Climate leadership.

A reformed planning system will allow the building of infrastructure more easily, not least the infrastructure necessary to achieve the UK target to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 (e.g. more wind farms and better public transport).”

About 2 of the 100 pages purport to demonstrate this, but refer only to on-shore wind, broadband and an abandoned tram.   A reformed planning system is indeed needed to address the carbon emissions and biodiversity loss, but Airey has not shown that this will be achieved by the private sector through less rather than more regulation (and enforcement).  The Building Regulations could do some of this job but sustainability is much more than the structural and thermal performance of buildings and drains.

As he says, beauty need not add to costs, and there is no reason to believe that a freed up private sector is any more capable of delivering sustainable housing than it has been of delivering beautiful environments.  The report describes the limited freedoms enjoyed through ‘permitted development’ rights, but does not mention the way the right to change from office use to residential has resulted in some of the most sub-standard living accommodation since the advent of the planning system in 1947.

The system controlling the use and development of land and buildings does need to change but, for the next decade, this must be in a way that prioritises the need to reduce carbon emissions (including those embodied in new buildings and infrastructure) and not to enable economic growth as measured by Policy Exchange.

Model climate and ecological emergency SPD

Many if not the majority of local councils (and many parishes) have declared climate and ecological emergencies. As the exercise of planning controls could save up to 50% of Carbon emissions it would be surprising if these councils were not looking closely at their development plan policies to see whether they are fit for purpose (ie achieving substantial reductions from the new (and existing development) by 2030.  The Parliament  might have updated the legislation to target net zero by 2050 (rather than 80%), but this does not reflect the 'emergency' situation, nor does it revise the budgets  that the Committee for Climate Change advise are not likely to be met.  The Model SPD (Click here)  discusses these issues and includes references to the official documents/policies that justify the adoption of this supplemental policy that accurately reflects the science. 

Family climate emergency

In the middle of a general election campaign where climate change is barely discussed, despite surveys showing this to be high up on voters' interests, the issue of climate justice should feature more in what people are saying about what could and should be done.  The lack of content in this blog post should leave time to navigate and read through the content of the web site at https://familyclimateemergency.net/
Land use planning might have limited potential in reducing emissions from individual or family/household choices, but a lot more to say about systemic emissions that need to be reduced.  Getting involved in planing debates; plan-making and decision-taking, should be targeted at reducing emissions from new development and arguing that whole life carbon (and biodiversity)  assessments are part of the decision-taking process.

Consultation Alert: Future Homes Standard

All those concerned about the contribution that the built environment makes to GHG emissions and the need to get to net zero by about 2030 and carbon negative soon thereafter should read the consultation at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/835536/Future_Homes_Standard_Consultation_Oct_2019.pdf and respond by 10 January 2020.
When doing so it would seem to be important to bear in mind that most of the housing stock (ie about 27million dwellings) will still be being occupied over the next ten years and beyond and that all will need a substantial energy upgrade.  To add any substandard (ie not zero net carbon in construction and operation) dwellings to this liability would seem to be a recipe for failure.
Note that the Future Homes Standard is intended to remove the current ability for local councils to impose higher (eg net zero carbon standards) and for the Government to insist on anything less should be resisted, while a leveling up should be strongly argued for and supported.
The problem of carbon emissions arising from the construction of new dwellings (ie about half of lifetime emissions but all occurring in the short term when reductions are most important) does not feature in this consultation as it is not yet seen as a matter for the Building Regulations. However, if the Government is serious about reducing emissions it should be referred to the UK Green Building Council Framework 2019 that sets out the correct way to calculate carbon emissions.
It might also be helpful to remind HMG and Mr Jenrick that housing is one of the few sectors that has the potential to become carbon negative as transport, agriculture, manufacture (and imported emissions), the military and power generations will struggle and look for offsetting. And offsetting will be needed to remove emissions to get from 408ppm to 300ppm in the next ten years and not to mitigate for continuing emitters (see British Airways or Heathrow plotting a route to zero carbon) enabling business/pollution as usual.

Family declaration of climate and ecological emergency

Family Emergency Declaration

Okay, this might not look strictly like a land use planning issue but families making this declaration will not be able to get their emissions down and biodiversity up without the assistance of land use planners and the 'system'. 

The first draft looks like this:

We, the xxxxs, xxxxs, xxxxxs and xxxxxs – and any others who want to join in, pledge individually and collectively to become informed about the climate and ecological crises and to act accordingly.  This is most likely to mean reducing our individual and collective carbon footprints in a way that transparently and honestly follows a trajectory consistent with reaching net zero carbon by 2030, incorporating the most substantial reduction by 2025.  We also commit to increasing biodiversity by our actions as consumers and as householders and local activists. We are acutely aware that, while we undertake to do everything in our power to reduce our emissions and protect and increase biodiversity, there are significant factors outside our control. This declaration extends to lobbying and/or rebelling to effect the necessary systemic change.

If you like the idea then edit to suit and pass on to family members in this country  and across the world

Planning, equality and health

On 22 July the Department of Health and Social Care published and ‘open consultation (Green Paper) Advancing our health: prevention in the 2020s https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/advancing-our-health-prevention-in-the-2020s/advancing-our-health-prevention-in-the-2020s-consultation-document

There is no closing date for responses to the consultation for which an online questionnaire is provided, although a word document could be sent to the social care Minister Caroline Dinenage MP  msc@dhsc.gov.uk 

There are about 15 specific questions relating matters affecting our health and wellbeing.   Most of these questions have been around for a long time and there is good reason to suppose that they will be dragging society down for many more unless and until a more fundamental approach is taken by our central Government.  For the purpose of this blog it is important to note that ‘living conditions’ are identified as an underlying cause of illness, stress and premature death.  So those with concern for housing and green (and blue) infrastructure have the opportunity to suggest to  the Minister that the discovery that trees can contribute to a healthier environment could justify the adoption of  the principles and methodologies being advocated by the National Forest Garden Scheme and to support the movement to promote bioregions as the guiding principle for land use planning.  The Government should be made aware that the housing model being promoted by developers, Homes England, Growth Boards and Local Planning Authorities has produced swathes of anti-social housing.  By pandering to privacy we are the loneliest people in Europe and new models of community-led housing should become the norm.

Another point that could be made is the identification of stress and anxiety being caused by growing awareness of the effects of climate change. This will impact on sleep deprivation (one of the specific questions) and levels of mental health.  In this respect carbon reduction targets are a matter for the Department.

But the main problem is that this and previous Governments will not see these issues as being symptomatic of the levels of inequality that make the UK world leading in this respect.  For example, the percentage of people in prison in a country is directly correlated to levels of inequality and this leads to proposals to build more prisons.  Until we become more equal (even if this coincides with use becoming poorer – see The Spirit Level 2009 by Wilkinson and Pickett) these issues will remain intractable.

A final thought about inequality.  The comparison made in The Spirit Level to show that more economically equal countries have fewer social problems cannot be made between this world and any other.  It is unlikely that any earlier period would reveal a more equal world for such comparative study to be carried out.  However, on an absolute basis, Government should be made aware that inequality has a divisive and corroding effect and fighting against inequalities across the world is likely to have a beneficial effect on its own population.