Taking advantage of a pandemic

Those concerned about climate breakdown (it seems strange that this does not yet seem to concern every sentient being) are looking closely at the Covid crisis to see what lessons might be learned.  There are conflicting views about transport; will use of public transport stall due to distancing? will car use increase due to the isolation? will big mobility projects (egHS2 and Heathrow) be cancelled?  some people seem to believe that the "unprecedented" (the word/cliche of the crisis) interference by Government and the apparent compliance of the public creates a precedent for the kind of Government actions and behavioural change implied by the transition to net zero carbon.  Possibly?

The most likely outcome will be a Government distracted by getting the Country up and running (and Brexit), and action on climate change might be too much to ask. COP26 will bring the matter onto the agenda when rescheduled for 2021 but in the meantime - and time is very short - individual actions will be the main way for progress to be made.  It is very unfortunate that this seems to be the case, but the 'public' are in a state of 'unprecedented' awareness and could be receptive to more calls to action on top of the call to inaction. This is within our powers and Government can follow (as it often does) when it has tried to repair the economic damage.  If there are common  themes to a post pandemic lifestyle and a low carbon one these should be locked down. 

This leaves the planning system in limbo. Are all existing policies (eg NPPF and local plans) to be taken as up-to-date and Covid will have no lasting impact? Or could planning become proactive and opportunist and seek to consolidate the environmental gains seen over the last few months? This would require a coordinated effort by people, councillors, officers and, possibly inspectors, while the Secretary of State and the Government remain distracted.

Planning for the climate and ecological emergency

The draft of an 'emergency' SPD that was attached to the January blog post has been presented to a Friends of the Earth 'emergency' conference and, with their members' help, is now to be in a form [Climate and ecological emergency SPD] that FoE is prepared to promote and test with their contacts  both in and outside local planning authorities.

The model SPD includes the justification for an LPA drafting and adopting such a document and makes the claim that it would be perverse not to do so, especially for councils that have declared an emergency as most now have done. It then sets out the areas which are under the control of the planning system/regulations and to which development plan/local plan policies would already apply.  And then suggests how these policies could operate in ways consistent with  the climate and ecological emergency.

The advantage of a SPD is the speed in which it can be adopted compared to a new local plan (months instead of years), implied by an emergency situation.  Having an 'oven ready' version would enable councils that are severely short of resources to cover this gap in their formally adopted  development plan documents.  An SPD would not necessarily 'get climate done' even at the local level, but it would make available well grounded evidence for decision-makers (officers, committees, appeal inspectors and the SoS) to take into account as a material consideration under S38(6).  Even if a SPD in this form would stretch beyond the justification for this form of policy-making, a guidance note along similar or identical lines would still receive weight to the extent that it is based on a gamut of up to date and official/Government advice.

Local Enterprise Partnerships and carbon

Since the coalition government of 2010 replaced regional planning with local enterprise partnerships and the duty to cooperate the 38 LEPs have been responsible for substantial levels of central government money being channeled into 'economic growth'. Many operate in areas where most if not all local councils have declared climate and ecological emergencies but have not followed suit.  This might have to change.

The Heathrow judgement could and should be read to mean that all decisions relating to urban development must be seen to have been informed by the UK Governments decision to ratify the Paris climate agreement.  This was to limit global temperature rise to no more than 2 degrees C but to aspire to limit this to 1.5 degrees C.  Since then the IPCC has explained (report October 2018) that there would be a significant difference  in environmental impacts between 1.5 and 2 degrees of warming and the former is now the accepted target. 

Secondly, after considerable turmoil, the PM has chosen the Business Secretary, Ashok Sharma MP as the President of the COP26 to be held in Glasgow in November 2020.   Without over-analyzing this appointment, putting the Business Secretary in charge of the global conference and showing the UK as leaders in the field could be a rare opportunity to make progress on a national front.  BEIS is already in charge of  Community Energy Hubs designed, “…to support Local Enterprise Partnerships and local authorities to play a leading role in delivering low carbon economic growth.”.   Assuming that 'low carbon' is of genuine interest then BEIS must go further and require LEPs to follow suit and only support development that is compatible with the transition to net zero carbon.

All those interested in influencing how the planning system helps (and does not hinder) the transition to net zero carbon should be engaging with their MPs to pressure the Business Secretary to bring LEPs into line.  Beyond that (and beyond the scope of this planning blog), the President of COP26 would be expected to represent a Government that is insisting on trade deals that are carbon neutral  or negative. The US presidential elections take place a week before the COP and the UK Government should be insisting that all the deals being negotiated with the US can be seen to have a carbon neutral or negative outcome on the UK account.

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.