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.

DfT offsetting consultation

The DfT have launched a consultation ‘Carbon offsetting in transport: a call for evidence closing on 26 September 2019.https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/carbon-offsetting-in-transport-a-call-for-evidence

There are a number of points that seem to be particularly relevant starting with the need for travel to be carbon negative long before 2050.  Net zero carbon will only stop the carbon in the atmosphere from going up (plateauing at between 450 and 500ppm), when it actually has to come down to 300ppm. Travel is rarely a basic need like housing, sustenance (food and water) and heating so should experience the most severe cuts in emissions.  The military will continue to be carbon intensive unless wars turn cyber.  The next point is how much easier it would be to regulate the operators of aircraft, ships, trains and coaches than the consumer/traveller.  In either case all business travel should be carbon negative.  Offsetting should only be a short term expedient until carbon negative travel becomes commonplace and must cover the carbon embedded in the related infrastructure; runways, railways, ports and roads.  The DfT is looking for evidence of behaviour changes and it is likely that a combination of price signals and sticks will be needed.  The price signal will be the cost of a ticket increased by the cost to the operators of making the mode carbon negative. The stigma could be a colour of a ticket and/or baggage label (red for excess of the zero carbon target, amber in excess of the 300ppm target and green for on target). The DfT is interested in conveying information to the consumer/traveller and this should be in simple terms, like having carbon counters (412ppm set above 300ppm) in airports, sea ports, railways and variable message signalling on M ways.  The parts of carbon per million will soon be a well known metric as will the alarming gap between imminent catastrophe and safety. 

A green light for self and custom builders

To my knowledge  the appeal decision letter at
https://www.theplanner.co.uk/decision/appeal-inspector-sets-precedent-on-councils%E2%80%99-self-build-provision?utm_source=Adestra&utm_medium=email&utm_term=
is the first to grapple with the challenge posed by the  Housing and Planning Act 2015 as amended.
This is very important and could have been predicted when the legislation was passed.
However, when the Government appreciates the consequences it might either seek
to repeal the act or possibly/preferably 'go with the flow' and celebrate the DIY approach to
meeting the pent up demand.

The Government are keen to see the level of self and custom building
to grow from a measly 8% per annum to something that compares with
examples in other countries (eg <50% in Austria).  It is also aware
that the current housebuilding industry does not have the capacity to
build the 300,000 dwellings deemed necessary (the evidence of need is actually
contestable, and new building at that scale cannot be achieved within
carbon budgets without a sea-change in building techniques/materials).
So, to incentivise self/custom building, there is legislation in place
(the Housing and Planning Act 2015 as amended) that requires planning
authorities to maintain a register of those who would like to build in
the area, and to provide sufficient service plots to reflect the level
of demand on the register. The law also requires the supply of plots to be
permitted at a rate such that  those on the register should not have to wait
more than three years for an opportunity to arise. As the first tranche of
self/custom builders joined the register in October 2016  the first
tests of whether planning authorities have fulfilled their duty will
now emerge.

This appeal decision shows that planning authorities cannot rely on any permission
that is not specifically limited by condition or obligation to
self/custom builders. Landscape considerations are taken into account
but the decision shows that the lack of serviced plots to meet the
registered demand can be a material consideration to override the
local plan policies. I would expect planning authorities to respond to
this decision by reserving significant areas of the larger sites being
allocated and permitted for self/custom building or even allocating
sites specifically for this purpose.  Meanwhile, the absence of an
adequate supply is an invitation for self/custom builders (especially
those already on the registers) to find suitable sites and make
applications based on the fact that the planning authority is failing
in its duty.  This decision might also encourage more people to
register as the prospects of finding  serviced plots will increase
through both the more proactive approach taken by councils and other successful
applications and appeals.

There is also the interesting view taken on viability, indicating that in the area in question, self-building does not create sufficient surplus value to pay for affordable housing.  Given that this should have been deducted from the land value, it might be better to argue that self/custom building is a form of affordable housing (as a fact or material consideration, even if not accepted by the NPPF).