Strong suburbs; from redevelopment or sub-divisions?

Policy Exchange do not invite comments on their publications. The think tank just assumes that most if not all its recommendations will be picked up by a Conservative Government.  Their housing and planning researcher is installed in No10 and this latest report is endorsed by Mr Jenrick the Sec of State if only as 'continuing a conversation'.   It would be wrong to attempt a summary of the 75 report that can be found at 2021https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Strong-Suburbs.pdf .  One criticism is that it goes into too much detail, but this might be because it is so close to a Government  that likes the phrase if not the reality (see Brexit and social care) of 'oven ready'.  It is also based on so many assumptions that the detail covers the bases and amounts to an 'all or nothing' proposal.

Briefly, the idea is to meet housing needs through gentle intensification of suburban post 1918 housing, based on 'street votes' where a majority of residents (owners and renters) support the idea of redevelopment at much high densities.  The claim is that new floorspace the  equivalent of 40m new dwellings could be built  and, "... the average participating homeowner would make £900,000, while the local authority would get an average of £79,000 for every new property delivered". The authors include net zero requirements for the new housing, suggest car clubs to meet the increased demand with no increase in parking, net biodiversity gain, custom -building and support for SMEs, and the use of Modern Methods of Construction -What's not to like!? Whilst the proposals might fit within the 'Renewal Areas' proposed in the Planning for the Future White Paper, the authors explain that new legislation is not required (Local or Neighbourhood Development Orders might suffice).

Tenants would be given a generous pay-off, but it was unclear whether there would be any rental properties at social rents being provided.  The steep decline in home ownership was a justification for the proposal so maybe not?  Given the timing of the publication, it was surprising not to find how Working from Home was to be worked in (eg offices and workshops woven into the schemes). The garden areas would be protected and overshadowing strictly controlled but there would be many fewer household having access to a garden (there could be roof gardens on some mansion blocks).

The main issue relates to the construction carbon. Reference to the UK Green Buildings Council framework and acknowledgement that construction carbon can be half the lifetime emissions (but occurring in the critical short term) does not mean that the scale of rebuilding being proposed could meet housing needs within carbon budgets.  Recycling materials and offsetting is unlikely to be good enough. The report refers to more ambitious 'housing need targets' without understanding that 'need' is a measure and not a target. There are currently about 1m more dwellings (28m) than households (27m) and about half the existing residential space is not meeting genuine housing needs.  This is a platform from which to build a programme of green sub-divisions and not for large scale rebuilding. The need is for a fairer distribution of the housing fabric and space and for this to be affordable (including fuel/running costs). 

The 'street vote' gentle densification scheme could be worth a try and, importantly, is an example of a proposal as radical as relying on residential sub-divisions and comes from a very influential think tank. When, as it must be, priority is given to carbon budgets (without relying on offsets), sub-divisions (including custom-splitting) would seem to be preferable.  Could Policy Exchange explore how this could become part of the conversation with the Sec of State?

Future Buildings Standard by 2025 or zero carbon now?

The Government claims that agreeing the proposals in the Future Buildings Standard (for England only) consultation  (ending 13 April 2021) would provide a pathway to highly efficient non-domestic buildings which are zero carbon ready, better for the environment and fit for the future. At https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/the-future-buildings-standard and responding online at

  https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/FutureBuildingsStandard/

The Government’s preferred option is to increase the standards in Part L of the Building Regulations in readiness for the proposed introduction of the Future Buildings Standard from 2025.   Given that the building sector is not having to wait for any technological innovations to achieve net zero or negative carbon there is no excuse and no evidence id provided to delay the raising of standards in 2021 or 2020 at the latest.  A systems analysis indicates that the demand for electricity in transport and manufacturing requires the demand from the buildings sector to be minimised as soon as is possible.

It  is difficult to know what to make of the statement, "We are committed to moving at pace and will implement higher energy efficiency standards to the fastest achievable timeline, Our ambition is for the Future Buildings Standard to be implemented in 2025."? The consultation invites the response that this would be too late, adding to the legacy of buildings needing upgrading.  

The consultation says that many responses to the Future Homes Standard "...raised issues and concerns regarding the energy efficiency of buildings which went beyond the scope of our consultation proposals and the existing Building Regulations. These topics included: embodied carbon; Modern Methods of Construction; suggestions for how we can further address the performance gap of new buildings." Impatience is wearing thin waiting for the Government to address some of the broader and more fundamental questions around how all new buildings are designed and constructed to be fit for a zero carbon future. With a prompt from the Climate Change Committee there is a hint that using more timber in construction will sort the problem of construction carbon, avoiding the issue of sustainable sources, the substantial scale of carbon emitted in constructing services and infrastructure, and the 'building beautiful' agenda where there will be votes in bricks and mortar.

The consultation asks for views on alternatives, Option 1 aimed at a 22%improvement based on services and Option2 (27%) based on fabric. The only assumption to be made on why these are not combined into an improvement equivalent to net zero or negative carbon is the cost. To economise on the energy efficiency of buildings in a climate emergency is the epitome of a 'false economy'. The claim that the proposal is the highest standard for each element which is still cost-effective using a simple measure of payback for investment over the life of the product or work (ie 7 years) is applying a measure that ignores the infinite costs of climate collapse.

The references to 'world leading' are meaningless unless the Carbon Budgets set by the CC are being met. And even then, carbon neutrality by 2050 probably means 3degrees of warming without negative carbon technologies setting course from over 450 parts of carbon per million back to 300ppm.

Saying that improving the energy efficiency of the existing housing stock will be the subject of other government consultations draws attention to the latest 'green deal' already showing signs of failure and scratching the surface of the 25m plus dwellings needing deep energy refitting.

 A specific example of misdirection is 6.6.7 saying that, "Although Option 1 would support a smooth transition to the Future Homes Standard by increasing the skills of people building fabric elements of homes, it may also make it less appealing for some developers to install heat pumps under Part L 2021. This is because the difference between the costs of installing heat pumps and the notional building specification, which has a gas boiler and solar panels, will be reduced. However, a home built under this specification with a heat pump will still have a lower capital cost than one built with a gas boiler and solar panels, at £3134 and £4847 respectively." The Future Buildings Standard, representing a significant level of interference and regulation is evidence that the Government understands that carbon reductions from buildings will not be delivered by the private development industry by applying current measures of profitability.  In these circumstances the Government should be persuaded to take the logical step of ensuring that these regulations are consistent with net zero or negative emissions. 

You could read all 183 pages and comment on the U value of roof lights measured horizontally or at an angle, or take the opportunity to remind the Government that there is an emergency now not in 2025 and that early carbon emission reductions matter most.  Given that the building sector is the easiest to de-carbonise with no technological innovations necessary, all new buildings should be carbon negative in construction (eg timber and lime) and solar positive in operation (ie thermal and PV panels). It is also important to pressure you local council to take these more effective measures.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

 Despite the 2020 Planning White Paper: Planning for the Future telling its very sceptical and expert readership that infrastructure (and affordable housing) needs reform, this is going to take some time as it works through 44,000 responses. Although few are likely to be favourable there will be pulling in different directions that will allow the Secretary of State to plough on.

Meanwhile councils are getting round to revising the schedules for collecting Community Infrastructure Levy and should be carrying out consultations.  There is a real danger that the 2021 CIL schedules will seal our fate by making small changes to present infrastructure 'demands'  and depriving innovative projects. The following was sent to one council clearly expecting something less radical.  

These documents seem to have been prepared before the Council's declaration of a climate and ecological emergency and the commitment to reduce carbon emissions to net zero by 2030? There would also seem to be an absence of evidence relating to the likely or possible changes to the use of land and buildings arising from the current pandemic.

A new paper is needed that explores the infrastructure needs of a net zero or negative carbon economy and one that fits with likely post-covid behaviours. The failure to have this as part of the evidence base will result in an SPD that would be funding and lock-in lifestyles that represent the 'old normal', and which is likely to frustrate and not assist the transition to a new net zero and biodiverse environment - a double whammy.

Without pre-judging such research, it is likely to show the emerging importance of local food systems (inc regenerative agriculture and awareness of protecting soils and water), local energy/heat distribution systems, more local working, more active travel, a huge shift from new building to retrofitting (to minimise embodied/construction carbon).

 And this makes the mistake of not underling the need to plan comprehensively for the electrification of road transport (ie publicly accessible charge points associated with desirable parking places) and anticipating more elements of automation and Mobility as a Service.

The point about embodied carbon could be reinforced with problems of resources (eg lithium and cobalt) and the real problem of construction carbon being emitted in the short term with the benefits of electrified vehicles being felt in the medium and longer term while the 'early' carbon is still doing its damage.

Electrification of heat and travel(and industry)

 The Government is keen to see the electrification of heat and travel and the Sixth Carbon Budget (Committee on Climate Change) and Energy White Paper appear to rely on the same for industry if carbon reduction budgets are to be met.  However, there is complete silence over the role being played by the national speed limit (ie 70mph on dual carriageways usually enforced at 80mph or higher). 

GreenSpeed has been campaigning for a 55mph limit for over 25 years due to the multiple and non-trivial benefits: lower carbon, lower noise, power-shift to smaller and more efficient vehicles, modal shift to low carbon buses/trains, cycling and walking, fewer and less serious accidents and associated trauma.  The more efficient driving was resisted by the Treasury due to the reduced tax revenue. The Government was also concerned about the relationship between driver and police! The Treasury now accepts that the emergence of the EV will reduce the tax from fossil fuel use and is looking for an alternative(s).

Since the Environmental Audit Select Committee recommended a lower speed limit to 'reduce carbon emissions from transport' and to indicate to the public that the Government was 'serious about climate change' and 'not running away from tabloid headlines', there is now an even more compelling need for a 50mph speed limit, the move towards electric cars.

An EV has an optimum speed for maximising its range of between 30mph and 50mph.  The range (of between 100miles and 300miles) can be increased with bigger batteries, adding weight and materials to the new car and its batteries. In fact the carbon embodied in a new car creates a carbon 'debt' only recovered by driving many miles (hence the need for car sharing/clubbing). Internal combustion engines are also most efficient at around 50mph but have far greater range and fast refueling.  A 50mph limit would reduce if not remove the competitive advantage of an ICE being driven at 70mph + over an EV being driven to maximise its range.  The differential speed that is responsible for a significant number of traffic accidents would be eliminated (many HGVs already adopt 50mph or less to save diesel).  The speed of coaches using the overtaking lanes could be increased from 60pmh to attract car drivers. The lower speeds tend to reduce congestion that currently wastes time and fossil fuel (when not a motor that cuts out when stationary).  Vehicles designed for a maximum speed of about 50mph are less polluting at lower speeds (ie 20mph). This lower  limit can increase pollution from current ICEs designed for 70mph and above.

These are separate and related reasons that justify the lowering of the national speed limit.  What is emerging from the carbon budgeting is the demand that will be placed on electricity generation and supply implied by EVs, heat pumps and the electrification of the manufacture of new cars and batteries (as well as new buildings the Government says are needed ie through MMC). 

The lower speed limit would make EVs relatively attractive, increase their numbers and, therefore, the demand for en-route re-charging. If the EV fleet was legally limited to 50mph it would reduce the demand for charging points and the time taken for re-charging in the order of 30% (I don't think that this has been modeled). In the context of the surge in demand for electricity for heat and industry this is very significant.  Meanwhile carbon emissions from the tail of the ICE fleet would also be reduced by about 30%.

And correspondence with the DfT that is writing its Decarbonisation of Transport strategy suggests that there is nobody looking at the systemic impact that the national speed limit is having!? The DfT official that said in 2006 that a lower speed limit was 'necessary but politically impossible' could not have been more right then, and is being proved to be even more right now, when the case has become even more pressing.

Planning update

 This is not and cannot be a comprehensive update but the discovery of a the youtube site https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=have+we+got+planning+news+for+you

could be of interest.  Five senior planning barristers share their recent experiences and cases. I think that it is fair to say that this will only be intelligible to people who have a good background in planning policy and practice - but there are some themes that can be followed if not  the finer points of law that keep these people in business.  Episode 12 on 8 December had Richard Bacon MP know as the self-build chamion or czar as their guest.  He could point to the realisation of the Government that it has fallen very far short of the ambition expressed by Ministers and the potential  of relevant legal framework to deliver more than the abysmal 7000 self build homes per year.£100m to make public sector land available and £2 billion towards Help to Build might sound a lot but would be unnecessary if the local councils were actually carrying out their statutory duties starting with the publicity and then dedicating permissions to this sector. 

Richard Bacon made the obvious point that the stimulus to the demand side (eg Help to Buy) had caused prices to rise but the proposed stimulus to the supply side would cause supply to increase ie through self and custom building. I wonder whether he voted against the extension to Help to Buy?

Paul Tucker QC ventured that the failure to provide serviced plots in the numbers required would be a material consideration in support of applications for self and custom building on sites not in accordance with the development plan and causing some less than serious harm.  Although there was an expectation that self and custom building would be of higher energy efficiency standards than the volume builder product.  However, there seems to be no understanding of the embodied carbon in new building and servicing and infrastructure.  The reservation of <5% of larger sites was supported but on condition that this was not the back and least salubrious corner of the site.

And on that point readers might be examining the sixth carbon budget and the Energy White Paper to see how carbon emissions from buildings and transport are being addressed. These are not strictly consultations but there is no harm in sending the authors (Committee on Climate Change and BEIS) relevant views.  in respect of  buildings it is construction carbon that needs urgent attention. The reliance on residential sub-divisions and refits so that space and fabric being heated and insulated is meeting genuine housing needs,  needs repeating. Provision of new homes in this way can be done with minimal materials and using existing services and infrastructure and local tradesmen and/or custom builders (see previous blogs on custom-splitting).

On the question of transport a lower speed limit would reduce or remove the comparative advantage of the ICE over the EV and the coach/bus.  This would add to the attractiveness and purchasing of EVs that would be adding pressure to the over-stretched charging infrastructure and energy supplied struggling to cope with the growth in heat pump use. However, EVs maximise their range at between 30mph and 50mph so the lower speed limit reduces demand for both re-charging and energy.

BEIS (and the CCC) seems to have missed these powerful messages.

Family planning

It has been and always will be a problem of describing the profession of 'Town Planning' without qualifying this by adding 'country planning' or resorting to 'land use planning'.  Using the label  'planner' implies some superiority or precedence over other forms of planning including financial planning and family planning - although the latter is normally left to individuals and couples.  Cross posting can be very annoying but visitors to this site can choose whether or not to read the wide-ranging notifications and arguments. So, with that excuse, this post is about the planning of families in a climate and ecological emergency putting land use planning into perspective.

Recent reports of the UN Director General's speech on climate change, and of unaccompanied children being traumatised by seeing their companions die and thrown into the sea between Africa and Europe (ie the Canary Islands), serve to clarify both the urgency of the need to reduce emissions (and possibly capture carbon) and remind us where the burden of environmental breakdown is already falling.

 

It is high emitting countries, states, companies, households and individuals that have to act fast if space is to be preserved for low emitters to secure their lives and livelihoods in a world moving inexorably from 1 to 3 degrees C of warming and towards a 6^th great extinction. There are signs that the scale of the emergency has started to hit home.

 

A recent survey has shone a light on the phenomenon known a ‘birth strike’ where people in (over)developed countries are choosing not to have children due to the damaged state if the world into which they would be born and nurtured, and the knowledge of how such children are more than likely to add to carbon emissions. This sensitivity to the state of the planet has even led to feelings of regret in having children.

 

In high emitting countries there are many reasons to consider why family relationships are likely to be of growing importance in negotiating what could be a traumatic transition to a net carbon zero economy and society.  Families through mutual obligations and respect can encourage and cooperate in reducing their carbon footprints at the household level, but also offer mutual support where for example, children and, importantly, grandchildren, are born, or not.  The potential of family dynamics in this traumatic phase is discussed at www.familyclimateemergency.net.  The case is also made for relying on extended families that have global reach to raise their game in reducing emissions and restoring wildlife.

 

While businesses keep their eye on commercial survival if not profit, and action by the state appears to be slow if not misdirected, taking action as a member of an extended family avoids individual feelings of isolation and futility and could include almost all citizens around the world in the effort to save the climate and its biodiversity.

Families with the resources to do so, and able to address their behaviours, should be spurred into reducing emissions by the knowledge that parents in Africa see the putting of their children in the hands of human traffickers in the hope of them finding a safe haven, as acts of kindness.

Cultural cleansing and the denial of history

 I don’t usually clutter up this site with cases that I am dealing with.  However, the future of the best preserved physical remains in the UK  from the Cold War could and should be of general interest.  The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) (Karen.Partridge@communities.gov.uk) is currently deciding whether the Council can issue the planning permission (ref. 18/00825/HYBRID) that it has resolved to grant for the masterplan for the redevelopment of the former Cold War airbase at Upper Heyford in north Oxfordshire, or whether this is a matter of more than local importance that justifies the ‘calling-in’ of the application for ministerial determination (after a public inquiry).

There is more than enough material to write a PhD on how the treatment of physical remains from the Cold War by the authorities has been a reflection of the refusal or reluctance to learn about the defining ‘event’ of the last hundred years.  The Panel considering an application to have Upper Heyford included on the tentative list for inclusion as World Heritage Site regretted the absence from the WHS of Cold War sites, and recommended the carrying out of research to identify the potential of a transnational designation of sites that should best commemorate this conflict(s).  Meanwhile heritage delayed is history denied.

The Secretary of State is very reluctant to interfere in local decision-making (unless there is a sense that the delivery of houses is being delayed unnecessarily).  There are a number of reasons particular to Upper Heyford that makes it politically sensitive; the local MP has their office on the site, the Chairman of English Heritage is/was also chairman of the company owning and developing the site, the council is staunchly conservative and has no desire to acknowledge the heritage potential of the site if this implies increasing numbers of visitors (that are being encouraged to visit Crocodile World in a neighbouring district). In considering the heritage potential of the air base, it is unclear whether the MHCLG (or the Culture Minister) have any interest in providing an opportunity for the public to learn and increase their understanding about the Cold War and, incidentally, current relations with Russia.

However, there are a number of aspects of the application that would normally excite the interest of the Secretary of State:

1.     The heritage assessments have been submitted without any scoping – to reveal the potential of the site in terms of materials or audiences.

2.     The National Planning Policy Framework expects the ‘necessary expertise’ to be deployed in assessing the impact on sites of significant historic importance (the heritage plan for Upper Heyford has been prepared by the owner/housebuilder displaying ‘the Englishman’s perverse desire to trivialize’ (Martin Amis)).

3.     The recommendation for refusal by Historic England has been overturned by the planning officers and committee.

4.     No reference has been made to the international heritage conventions of Paris, Granada or Valletta.

If it were not for the perverse desire of the Government to permit houses whatever the other impacts, we should be looking forward to a public inquiry and an exploration of cultural cleansing and the denial of history.