Land use planning and nutrition

One of my ‘hobbies’ is to attend lectures and seminars arranged by various institutes within Oxford University. The standard format is for a world expert to introduce and issue or problem and suggest ‘solutions’ to an audience of academics, postgraduate students and smattering of the public.  Last week I was at a session on food and nutrition where the problem was graphically described by the data showing that a worrying majority of the UK population is buying too much of the wrong kind of foods, and consuming them in the wrong kinds of ways, causing harm to personal and societal health and wellbeing. 

This is in the context where, in theory, the right kinds of food is already available and could be prepared and consumed in the right quantities and in the right way. These practices would not only relieve the NHS from some of its greatest burdens (eg dealing with diabetes) but could also have positive impacts on agriculture/horticulture and the environment.

What made the discussion so interesting, if not unique, was the near complete absence of any agreement on the ‘answers’ to take forward into public policy.

In the desperate search for answers the contribution being made by the planning system is to limit (ie refuse) permission for new fast food shops within 400m from the gates of schools on the theory that this would limit the opportunity for school children to snack on burgers or fried chicken.  Research has shown that this measure is ineffective and should no longer be regarded as a ‘solution’.  There seems to be evidence that a ‘sugar tax’ might have some effect in reducing consumption and/or the quantity of sugar in food products but is unlikely to get where we need to in terms of dietary change.

As usual the only way to have any real and lasting effect is to take a systems approach and analyse the food system from ‘plough to plate’, taking into account that this might conclude that most if not all ploughing is unnecessary.  Taking this holistic view would show that land use planning could play a more effective role than in limiting the change of use of high street premises.  Some of these ‘answers’ appear in earlier blogs (eg January 2016

http://dantheplan.blogspot.com/2016/01/if-agro-ecology-is-different-how-can.html)   that relate to how land use planning could assist in a move away from industrial scale agriculture based on minimising human labour by substituting high and unsustainable levels of fossil fuel inputs, and enable food production under agroecological and agroforestry principles.  Food and nutrition are so important that a case could be made to actually increase the legal scope of the planning system.

Are you happy with offsetting emissions?

The Committee on Climate Change (the CCC) has recommended that the UK emissions be reduced to zero https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/net-zero-the-uks-contribution-to-stopping-global-warming/ by 2050. The strategy/recommendations rely very significantly (ie about 50%) on 'offsetting' the emissions that will continue at 2050.  This would be done through burning biomass (timber and grasses) and capturing and burying the carbon dioxide separated from the exhaust and, in a separate category, the removal of carbon from the air by mechanical systems and tree planting and soils.  Mechanical separating and burial (carbon capture and storage or CCS) has been tried on a relatively small scale but has not even been piloted in the UK.  These processes also required energy as does the mechanical extraction of carbon from air.  Tree planting is a very good thing (carbon sequestration could be seen as a a 'co-benefit' (see  http://www.wwwnationalforestgardening.org/ to enhance the benefits) but there are uncertainties about how effective trees would be in the short term when emissions are still at their maximum and most dangerous (ie not being avoided during the decade which matters most).  There are also questions about how the carbon is kept in the timber and forestry products. These reservations need to be very closely analysed and the CCC challenged to back up its recommendations with research and monitoring. In fact the UK Green Building Council also seems to have accepted that carbon offsetting could enable the building of new housing to continue at scale to minimise the impact of  embodied carbon.
The expression "offsetting is an excuse for business as usual" has started to appear in carbon conversations.   For the last twenty years we have been able to pay (eg Climate Care) a premium on air tickets to enable trees to be planted or low energy light bulbs to be fitted.  The idea of relying of offsetting to enable the building millions of houses during a period (ie 12 years) when net emissions should be moving close to zero requires a huge leap of faith.  Whether or not it is a legal requirement, the CCC takes into account the financial consequences of its recommendations and is unlikely to support or promote measures which significantly disturb or disrupt the status quo.  It may be that a genuinely net zero carbon economy will have to be very different in many important respects and the transition should include and element of 'planning'. By reducing the reliance on offsetting (which should not mean any reduction in tree planting) there would be a greater incentive for 'businesses to become unusual'  and promote and adapt to the new low carbon conditions.

Embodied carbon can't be ignored

At the risk of repeating myself, I would like to draw attention again to the issue of carbon embodied in a building at 'practical completion' ie before occupation. Building zero carbon houses or 'passive' houses that emit low levels of carbon over 60 year life is meaningless if most of the carbon is attributable to their construction during the next few years.  It is the very short term that carbon emissions must be reduced (ie the next ten years) for there to be a long term. A moratorium on cement, concrete and masonry while we find a way out of the climate emergency might look like a good idea in the carbon account but if millions of houses are then to be built out of wood, a crisis of another kind (loss of species?) might be hard to avoid.  Being honest about the carbon and material costs (let alone the implications for land take) should mean that we look at alternatives to 'building our way out of the housing crisis.'  (eg see previous posts on sub-divisions and custom splitting)

Given that the scale of embodied carbon is known to Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, the National House Building Council, the UK Green Buildings Council and the Committee on Climate Change (among others), it is dispiriting to see how easily these voices can be ignored.  The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) are well aware of the contradiction, but have no policy to prevent this significant contribution due to the fact that there is "no agreed methodology"!! Since when did Government require agreement on methodology? A reticence reserved for matters of existential importance and high political inconvenience.  So when Homes England, or a Minister, or an Inspector or a Local Council are heard promoting or advocating for new building, they should all be challenged to say how this can be done in accordance with the IPCC maximum of 1.5 degree of warming budget?

Climate Emergency

   The Royal Town Planning institute have just published a booklet on Large Scale Housing with barely a mention about climate change and nothing about embodied carbon. Hanham Hall is featured as an example of a Code for Sustainable Homes Level 6 development  http://www.hta.co.uk/projects/hanham-hall but this was completed by Barratts in 2013 when there was a prospect of the Zero Carbon Homes standard being introduced in 2016, and does not appear to be an example that has been followed.  I responded by suggesting to the RTPI that it declares a "Climate Emergency" to bring it in line with the growing number of councils that have done so, and which employ Chartered Planners and determine planning applications.
    At  Futurebuild 2019 there was a 'meeting of  presidents' that included those from the RTPI and RICS, giving me a opportunity to suggest that planners should familiarise themselves with the Whole Life Carbon Assessments for the Built Environment RICS 2017. I am attracted to the possibility of the institutes recognising the "Climate Emergency" to create a level playing field and a measure of solidarity between the professionals working to adapt the built environment to a net zero economy.
   The question arises as to what is implied by declaring a "Climate Emergency".  The obvious point is that the 1.5 degree C target should be a material consideration in all plan-making and decision-taking.  Those working within councils could also propose the display of a 'carbon counter to counter carbon' in prominent location(s) within the district/city.  Many councils have museums run by the authority and the carbon story from 280ppm (ie the pre-industrial level) to 411ppm  (and rising) could be displayed ending with ideas from the visiting public about what a net zero carbon economy/society might look like.

Young people to the rescue

     For those who have not responded to the Royal Town Planning Institute consultation on its 'vision', 'mission' and principles, could I encourage you to do so (see URL in earlier Post).  The more I think about it and listen to those working with forest gardening and bioregioning and listen to discussions about garden cities and green belts, the greater I see the opportunity to persuade the RTPI to include the natural environment in its main purposes.  The consideration for and regeneration of the the natural environment would have to be translated into the professional code of conduct that should make Members of the Institute answerable to the public when relevant interests are the subject of plan-making or decision-taking.
     Another 'old chestnut' is the RICS 2017 report on Whole Life Carbon assessment for the Built Environment  claiming that 51% of the carbon emissions associated with a dwelling are embodied at practical completion (I assume this includes the services and infrastructure). I have sought rebuttals of this figure and been offered none. Although new dwellings will only be a small percentage of the whole (almost all existing dwellings will require a deep energy efficiency refit in the next ten years), the construction phase and carbon emissions arise in the very short term during which total emissions must fall dramatically, and what happens over the next 60 years is pretty well irrelevant unless the economy gets to net zero between 2030 and 2040.  In this context 1m houses in 5 years or 300,000 a year thereafter, will not be achieved within carbon budgets.
    Finally a word about young people (behaving like adults) and adults behaving like children.  When our politicians look again at issues other than comparing 'soft-Brexit' with 'no-Brexit', they will find it difficult to ignore the moral authority assumed by a generation of younger people making loud noises about the environment and their future.  I would hope that many if not all of these young people would engage with the land use planning system if the health of the bioregions in which they live were given priority.   Every day seems to show another council (planning authority) declaring a "climate emergency" that implies an acceptance of the trajectory of carbon emissions reductions consistent with the recommendations of the IPCC 2108 Report (which refers to urban planning) and the need to keep warming below 1.5 degreesC.

Rebelling and planning to avoid extinction

 Once the BBC had received enough complaints to acknowledge that closing five of London’s main bridges was worth a mention on the news (ironically finding protests at high fuel prices in France more interesting), Extinction Rebellion has had  few grounds for complaint about the coverage of its activities.  For those who have not picked up the messages, XR is a newly formed ‘organisation’ concentrating on non-violent direct action (NVDA) out of frustration that no alternative forms of action or lobbying appears to be proportionate to the urgency of the climate crisis [ie the need to reduce emissions so that global temperatures rise by no more than 1.5degrees from 1992 levels – over 1 degree of which has already occurred, and current pledges are aimed at over 3 degrees].  The scale of the challenge can be illustrated by relying on the assumption that 350parts of carbon per million (ppm) equates to the once assumed to be safe level of warming of 2 degrees warming.   

There are currently over 400ppm and, even if the IPCC recommendation to start to be reaching zero emissions by about 2032 were achieved, the level of carbon would be well over 450ppm and possibly 500ppm.  It is starting to become very clear that some form of untried and untested carbon capture and negative carbon technologies will be required to return to the level below the 350ppm, that equates to 1.5degrees of warming.

Despite some reluctance to engage in anything so mainstream and inactive as land use planning, a local branch of XR has seen the sense in making representations on a local development plan, given that about half of future emissions could be eliminated were the necessary policies put in place (and subsequently applied/enforced). If XR can do it, there should be more people explaining to local councils and inspectors that development plans that would not be consistent with 1.5 degrees of warming, as recommended by the IPCC, could not possibly be found to be  ‘sound’. Only Plans that would achieve ‘sustainable development’; creating a future where all future generations can meet their needs can be sound. Planning for a future with any more than 350ppm of carbon in the atmosphere would amount to Mutually Assured Destruction.  Approaching Holocaust Memorial Day (27 January) it is worth considering that on its current course, climate change threatens to be no less lethal than the previous and still existing methods of mass destruction.

The planning profession

There is a survey being carried out by the RTPI into its corporate strategy 2020 to 2030.   https://www.rtpi.org.uk/briefing-room/news-releases/2018/december/rtpi-opens-public-consultation-to-shape-its-future/?dm_i=1L61,60AFR,RPMAGE,NJRGE,1

There are two points that I believe need to be pointed out to the Institute.

1.     The RTPI has and seeks to continue to place people above (and often at the expense of) the environment. This applies to both biodiversity and to climate change.  Given the reference period of 2020 to 2030, which is the decade within which there must be a step change in the carbon emissions arising from the development and use of land and buildings, the credibility of the Institute and the profession will be damaged if this is not mentioned and regarded as a guiding principle of the land use planning process.

2.     Planning is the profession where there is most often a conflict of interest between the interest of the planner as an employee and as an adviser.  The RTPI should be vigilant in enforcing its code of professional practice to protect planners from the influence of their council or developer employers.  It is the tendency to put employer interest above professional integrity that has so damaged the reputation of the profession in the eyes of the public.

Please respond by 17 March and spread the URL around.