smart growth uk


Jon Reeds
Jon Reeds is a freelance journalist and author of Smart Growth, From Sprawl to Sustainability


Nigel Pearce
Nigel Pearce is a former civil servant, now grappling with local planning issues as a member of the Eynsham Planning Improvement Campaign EPIC.


Blog Archive


Keep up to date with the latest news

Twenty Twenty-one Vision

However you look at it, 2020 was a dog of a year.
Inevitably, coronavirus dominated the headlines. Many people lost loved ones, fell sick themselves or suffered long-term issues. Many more lost their jobs or saw their businesses damaged or destroyed.
All of us have been denied many of the simple pleasures that contribute to the quality of our lives, even basic things like contact with family and friends.
Most of us have also been frustrated to see contrarians claiming the intensive scientific exercise devoted to understanding and tackling the virus is all a myth and it's either caused by 5G phones or an attempt by 'them' to control us somehow. Next year guys, take your meds.
It's sometimes difficult to remember that life beyond the pandemic has continued and that policies that will affect us in the long-term have continued to evolve, occasionally beneficially.
Whitehall remains mired in its pursuit of unsustainable transport and planning policies, for England at any rate.
The summer saw the confused housing targets paper and the planning white paper.
Smart Growth UK was one of those organisations that pulled the wretched mess to pieces, with four documents produced (on minimal resources) in the space of two months.
We were particularly proud of our response to the CCPS paper and the papers we produced on what the constraints to development should be and on the need for public involvement.
The Government has wisely railed back on its housing targets paper and its alternative even includes some limited Smart Growth elements, proving that progress is possible. The planning white paper, however, remains a threat. That battle is yet to come.
And the current sprawl-dominated planning policies continue. Flagship of the sprawl lobby is the garden communities programme, our third report on which we produced this year. This contained advice from seasoned campaigners on how to see off these destructive ideas, advice already bearing fruit at local plan inquiries.
And the Oxford-Cambridge Arc remains a threat to a vast area of land despite the Government's stated ambition to rebalance the economy which it threatens. Expect further action against it soon.
English transport policy remains the same hopeless unsustainable mess, despite the DfT's exercise in decarbonising transport, for which we submitted a lengthy response.
The Department remains committed to its destructive multi-billion pound motorway building programme and airport expansion. And while it plans to borrow eye-watering sums for railway investment, most is going on the ill-designed HS2 scheme rather than the vast range of projects that need it.
Some of these we set out in our decarbonisation response, others in our well-received report on the obstacles to rail reopenings.
The devolved administrations, meanwhile, are clawing their way towards a more sustainable future, though destructive projects like the A9 dualling remain curiously hard to abandon.
Both Scotland and Wales have also produced land use strategies which clearly point a way ahead.
So, although Covid-19 is proving an even more implacable enemy than we thought, 2021 is not going to be all about it. Even bigger threats like climate change, destruction of biodiversity and shortage of resources are becoming ever more pressing.
Smart Growth remains, as ever, a growing international movement setting out a way of bringing together the disparate responses to these issues. We will continue to advance it in the year to come.
So, despite all the challenges, let's make 2021 a memorable year, for some of the right reasons this time.

Posted by Jon Reeds on 31 December 2020


A Home Of Your Own

Communities secretary Robert Jenrick has always been clear that a central motive for his passionate desire to build more greenfield housing is to enable more young people to own their a home of their own.
'We will keep building and build back better, delivering the homes people need, and ensuring those who dream of owning a home of their own are able to do so,' he told a conference last month.
The dream of home ownership is a potent one and its fruits are enjoyed by a large percentage of households.
The big growth in owner-occupation in the past half century may have had more to do with lenders' 1977 decision to start giving out mortgages on pre-1914 property than the Right-to-Buy. The latter has, however, reduced significantly the amount of property available to the large and growing percentage of the population that doesn't aspire to owning a home because it knows that national wealth inequality will always prevent it from doing so.
Recently, however, there's been a shift in tone both from Build-Build-Build politicians and from the murky swirl of property industry interests, consultants and flakey think-tanks who advocate smashing up the planning system to further accelerate car-dependent-sprawl.
What's crept in is the assertion that we need to build-build-build to accelerate the supply of privately rented property too. And it's certainly working.
Over the past 10 years of ultra-low interest rates, many small savers have eschewed traditional saving in favour of buy-to-let. And now build-to-let is accelerating sharply as investors scent the weakness of the house buying market despite the temporary stamp duty holiday.
A recent study by AMA Research notes that build-to-rent completions have quadrupled since 2016.
'Quarterly data for Q3 2020 indicates circa 37,000 units are under construction and approximately 84,000 are in planning,' said senior researcher Alex Blagden. 'However, several additional proposals were announced in October and November which suggest over 90,000 are expected to be in planning by the end of 2020.'
The study notes an influx of institutional investors into the market.
Currently about one in five English households occupies a privately rented dwelling, as indeed do I. While average mortgage costs are now actually lower than average rental costs, lack of access to mortgage finance and insecurity of income means more people than ever are privately renting.
Which is presumably why the former cheer-leaders of home-ownership are now claiming that covering the English countryside in unsustainable housing would have a significant effect on rents.
Of course, if that were the case, the builders would slow even build-to-rent construction, but the market is so complex and so many factors are in play, they aren't worried about that.
A shift from owner-occupation to private renting does, of course, have profound implications for distribution of wealth. And those private renters who need universal credit or state pensions to help pay their rent represent a large and growing Government subsidy to private investors, something Mr Jenrick surprisingly doesn't seem concerned by.
But if the Government is genuinely serious about helping more people into home ownership, rather than helping those who invest in the housing market, it would take measures to make build-to-rent and buy-to-rent much less attractive.
Over to you, Mr Jenrick.

Posted by Jon Reeds on 28 December 2020


World Soil Day

World Soil Day is with us once again, given enormous importance by the handful of national and international bodies that realise soil needs as much protection as air and water, and ignored by those still stuck in a 20th century time-warp of cars and urban sprawl.
To mark the Day, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation has launched a report highlighting the role of soil organisms in ensuring sustainable food production and mitigating climate change.
The State of Knowledge of Soil Biodiversity notes that far less attention is given to biodiversity in soil than to above-ground or marine life. 300 scientists produced the report which details the threats to soil biodiversity.
Among those threats is urbanization.
'The initial process of urbanization significantly alters soils and their biodiversity in many ways, especially through removal and replacement of topsoil, compaction, sealing (paving) and addition of anthropogenic materials,' it says. 'Within urbanized environments, pollution, landscape management, invasive species and the urban heat island effect, among other variables, further directly and indirectly affect soil properties, including those in remnant native habitat patches that have become surrounded by urban land uses.'
But, it warns, knowledge about urban soil biodiversity needed to guide sustainable planning and management of their environments is 'woefully underdeveloped'.
Much the same could be said about protection of soils through the planning system, in England at any rate. Even protection for the most productive farmland has been systematically downgraded in planning guidance over the long term to the point of invisibility. Food, soils and farmland rated not a single word in the recent planning white paper.
The whole report offers a fascinating window into the hidden world beneath our feet.
'As a Chinese proverb says, soil is the mother of all creatures on earth,' said FAO director-general Qu Dongyu. 'Do not forget the mother when you are getting nourishment from.'
Sadly, those responsible for planning England's future appear to have completely forgotten Mother Earth. They should remember the words of Elizabeth Maruma Mrema, the executive secretary of the Convention on Biological Biodiversity to mark World Soil Day: 'We urgently need to recognize that soil biodiversity is indispensable to food security and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals'.

Posted by Jon Reeds on 05 December 2020


A Recurring Theme

In his biography of William Shakespeare, Bill Bryson mentions Sir Thomas Gresham (1519 to 79), a financier who came from a wealthy London merchant family.
He is known for some 'good works', such as reducing royal debt and founding a university college in London. But, 'at just the time that he was making a fortune in London, Sir Thomas Gresham was also systematically evicting nearly all the tenants from his country estates in County Durham, condemning them to the very real prospect of starvation so that he could convert the land from arable to grazing and enjoy a slightly improved return on his investment'.
This reminded me of the planning white paper. The six-person Task Force of experts assembled to advise the government on its proposals are all based in London. Several, like Sir Thomas, are Oxbridge-educated.
During their impressively successful careers, one may wonder how much first-hand experience they have had of the lives of those living in Hartlepool, Blackburn or Barrow-in-Furness.
Or, if they have any, whether they have kept it in mind.
Certainly one of their number, Dr Tim Leunig, does not appear to be overly sympathetic towards the north. Maybe he was misquoted, or his words were taken out of context, or he has since changed his mind, but his report Cities Unlimited for the Policy Exchange think-tank argued that, instead of pouring money into 'failed' northern towns and cities, the Government should direct housing and industry support to London and the south, where people would prefer to be based.
He has taken a similarly dismissive view of rural and coastal England, saying that the food sector 'isn't critically important' to the UK, and farming and fishing 'certainly isn't'. He has argued that the UK could copy nations such as Singapore and import all its food.
Another Task Force member, Bridget Rosewell, among her other positions, is a co-founder of Volterra, 'a niche consultancy specialising in the economics of transport and property development', the perfect combination for championing the 'Growth Arc' and the Expressway from Cambridge to Oxford via Milton Keynes. She was also, of course, one of the commissioners in the National Infrastructure Commission which, under the leadership of Oxford-educated Lord Adonis, dreamed up this lopsided, southern-centric proposal.
It is therefore not surprising that one of the implications of the planning reforms would be the acceleration of development in the already overheated south-east at the expense of the north and other less advantaged areas of England. Nor is it surprising that a word search of the white paper for 'soil', 'farm', 'agriculture', 'fishing', 'food' and 'food security' will find no mention of these terms.
The title of Shakespeare's poem Venus and Adonis springs to mind, but sadly the obsolete planning attitude that gave birth to the white paper, and to the Growth Arc and Expressway, is not a myth.
Not yet, anyway. The Treasury is at last changing its formula for investment in order to favour the north more, and voices of protest at the white paper proposals are multiplying across the political spectrum.
We can but hope that common-sense will prevail, with the right homes and investment in the right places without wrecking the countryside, further decimating its wildlife and abandoning the principle of home-grown food security.

Posted by Nigel Pearce on 29 November 2020


Planning For The Futile

The planning white paper sets a new path for English planning but, sad to say, mostly over a cliff. It has certainly proved controversial.
Many organisations, including Smart Growth UK, will now be finalising their responses. But the white paper has provoked one question no-one seems able to provide an answer to, so perhaps someone can help.
Planning for the Future's most controversial paragraph is probably 2.8 which says all of England would be divided into three types of area: growth, renewal or protected.
Renewal areas would encompass 'existing built-up areas', but this mystery concerns the fate of England's undeveloped greenfield land which would all have to be rated as 'growth' or 'protected'.
Growth areas would be 'land suitable for comprehensive development' and sites annotated in local plans in this category would have outline approval for development. Areas with certain constraints, including flood risk, could not be considered for growth area status.
OK then, but what exactly does the white paper mean when it talks about growth areas?
Option 1 would mean that the local plan process would issue a call for sites, decide which major greenfield sites in a council's area were developable over the next 10 (or maybe five) years and designate these together as the council's growth areas. More areas would then be added at each five-yearly review.
Option 2, on the other hand, would mean the local plan taking a long-term view on which of the LPA's greenfield land would be suitable or unsuitable for development over the foreseeable future and designating them as growth or protected areas, and simply defining which sites within the growth areas would enjoy outline planning consent in the coming five years?
These are very different, but no-one seems able to say which the white paper intends.
If it's Option 1, we'd have an unstable system where there would be a call for sites, the LPA would decide how much of the offered land it would need and is not constrained and would then define that as its growth area. All undeveloped, greenfield land not in a growth area in Local Plan 1 would then, by definition, become a 'protected area' (non-built-up land can't be a renewal area).
Then, at the next review, it would look at which growth area sites had actually been built on, issue another call for sites, add new sites to enable it to fulfil its housing requirement, and that would form its new growth area.
But to do this, its protected area would have to be mined for housing sites in the new growth area and thus would shrink twice every decade
Option 2, on the other hand, would mean LPAs having to define which (substantial) areas could be built up in the long-term to define them as growth areas.
So either 'protected areas' would start off fairly substantial but would shrink substantially every five years, or councils would have to designate most of their 'unconstrained' land for long-term development, leaving only small areas as protected.
Either of these, may I suggest, far from being the controversy ender the Ministry claims it wants, is a massive recipe for endless disputes and fury with the Government.
There has been a degree of self-satisfaction amongst those who drafted the white paper about the clever way they think they've resolved conflicts.
But it is, quite frankly, a bit of a dog's breakfast. And I can see my dog complaining if we served up something as ill-formulated as this in the morning.

Posted by Jon Reeds on 21 October 2020


Objectives And Objectivity

If the proposals in the Government planning white paper are adopted, would they reduce or further entrench the structural bias already embedded in the planning system which favours land owners, developers and maximum financial returns over non-economic issues and precautionary principles?
One of the clearest ways in which the existing structural bias manifests itself is in the work of consultants who write reports for developers, or for local authorities operating under the cosh of central government diktat. Take a couple of examples from plans for a 'garden village' in West Oxfordshire:
I'm sure the author of a 'Biodiversity Mitigation, Monitoring and Management Framework', the Environmental Dimension Partnership (EDP), commissioned by a developer, is a reputable consultancy in this field and I do not mean to single them out for criticism. But EDP's online presence is revealing.
According to Facebook, EDP 'provides independent environmental planning and design advice to land owner, property and energy sector clients. . . Our founding principles are based around the highest standards of client care we can manage.'
Despite the name, then, the environment itself is not mentioned as a priority. The project examples on their website are equally candid.
EDP's work for Cherwell District Council on North Oxford, has provided 'supporting technical evidence for the local plan submission, including advice on an appropriate revision to the green belt boundary . . .'
The consultancy has worked on the South Oxford Science Village, including 'a GI/pattern book for a major urban extension of up to 3,000 homes . . .'
EDP worked on Valley Park, Didcot. Their 'capacity studies helped to transform the original draft allocation for 2,500 units into an outline permission for 4,450 units'.
EDP even has worked in the garden village arena. A news release of 2017 on its website says: 'Following input from the EDP landscape team, Lugano's Dissington garden village within the Northumberland Green Belt was approved at Planning Committee last week' (2,000 new homes). That particular planning application was later subject to various complaints and withdrawn.
There is no suggestion that EDP acted improperly. Perhaps they are even one of the 27 unsecured creditors of Lugano?
Some consultancies are only too eager to engage in projects that involve covering greenfield sites with thousands of houses. They can be enablers of development. They know what needs to be written down to ease the developer over the next hurdle. This is understandable. It's what they are paid to do. If they said the problems were insurmountable without inflicting irreversible damage, they might not be re-employed.
Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions UK Limited were commissioned by the local authority to produce a report on 'Developing the Transport Evidence Base' for the two large greenfield developments immediately next to Eynsham in Oxfordshire. Where does the environment stand in the hierarchy of Wood's priorities?
Its website says: 'In a world of complex environmental and infrastructure challenges, Wood applies ingenuity, innovative technologies and customer focus to deliver balanced solutions that meet your specific business priorities. Productivity, efficiency, capacity, asset life, costs, schedule, compliance, risk management, resiliency: your priorities are our priorities.'
One of the two main contributors of the report has a revealing LinkedIn entry. Talking about Manston Airport in Thanet, Kent, it says that the author is 'technical lead on the transport submissions for the NSIP (Nationally Important Infrastructure Projects) proposal for 350,000 tonnes of air freight and 1.5 million passengers per year which has included the development of a transport assessment, airport access strategy and parking strategy . . .'
The secretary of state for transport duly granted development consent on 9 July 2020 for 10,000 air cargo movements a year (27 a day), plus passenger and executive travel. Does airport expansion make any environmental sense at a time of climate emergency and biodiversity collapse?
A considerable number of people believe that the planning white paper proposals would further undermine local democracy and the role of local authorities, would not increase the amount of affordable housing built, would exacerbate the divide between the richer and poorer parts of the country and would leave an unnecessarily large area of countryside with no protection from development.
Furthermore, the white paper seems to be handing over the policy as well as implementation of this vital area of national life to landowners and developers, and to the consultancies that benefit from writing reports for them.
Paragraph 5.17 says: 'The cost of operating the new planning system should be principally funded by the beneficiaries of planning gain land owners and developers rather than the national or local taxpayer.'
This proposal sounds fair at first, but it would give far too much power and influence to the land owners and developers, and remove them further from public scrutiny and accountability. The piper calls the tune: the landowner/development sector would inevitably put pressure on local authorities and central government to prioritise its interests.
Land owners and developers should instead be made to stump up more without having that kind of leverage. As it is, they already have too much influence over housing and development policy.
Give them more, and planning will be put in the 'financial returns only' box with the lid closed, leaving social and environmental issues outside hoping to be noticed.

Posted by Nigel Pearce on 12 October 2020


Mutant Thinking

The news that the proposed change in the way the Government calculates the level of house building it will impose on local communities would see numbers rise by 178 percent in Cumbria and no less than 933 percent in rural Richmondshire should surprise no-one.
Dubbed the 'mutant algorithm', the new formula touted in the high-speed MHCLG consultation on changes to the planning system was explicitly intended to force more house building on areas where houses are already expensive.
A growing little group of 'housing economists' suggests the housing market is simply a crude case of supply-and-demand, so build lots more and prices in such areas would tumble. House builders and their apologists know very well that, in the wholly unlikely event of that happening, they would simply slow building in those areas to keep their prices high, so the new formula would just mean a mouth-watering increase in their profits.
Cumbria, with its honeypot Lake District National Park hugely increasing prices in a county, much of which is severely economically depressed, offers some interesting insights.
In Keswick's CA12 postcode, for instance, no less than 794 homes are now self-catering holiday lets and 477 properties are second homes, more than twice the number three years ago. Together they represent about 48 percent of the area's housing stock.
'Keswick would become unsustainable if this continues, with no children growing up and going to local schools, ' local councillor and Keswick Community Housing Trust member Allan Daniels told the local paper.
So would the Government proposals help? No, they would simply demand construction of more expensive market housing, at odds with national park policy and doing nothing for local people. Even the First Homes proposals are simply aimed at very wealthy first-time-buyers to nudge them on to the housing market slightly sooner than they would get there otherwise.
In our response to the consultation paper, our experts tried to find some way of making sense of the Government proposals, without success.
You can't put lipstick on a pig. Or address housing needs by building more expensive homes in the wrong places.
'Our analysis has shown the Government's far-reaching and untested changes to local planning could lead to the worst of all possible worlds, gobbling up our countryside without delivering the affordable homes our rural communities are crying out for, ' said CPRE chief executive Crispin Truman. 'What we need is a major rethink and careful, sensible reform to create a planning system that delivers genuinely affordable homes, protects locally valued green space and countryside, while boosting trust and participation in the planning system of the future. '
As the figures in CPRE's own response show, fast eroding trust in Government stewardship of England's planning system looks set to be blown apart by the consultation and the more destructive still white paper, still open for responses.
We are at a very dangerous time for sustainable development in England. The Government appears utterly determined to ramp up car-dependent-sprawl and to undermine any chance of meaningful response to the climate and biodiversity emergencies.
This could be the last chance to stand up to the greedy people who have sunk so low as to insult planners by comparing them to Soviet officials.
It really is that bad.

Posted by Jon Reeds on 03 October 2020


Motorway Madness

If anyone now doubts that the climate emergency is taking hold faster than even pessimists expected, they should look beyond recent gloomy stories about trillions of tonnes of ice having melted in recent decades and the rapid failure of the Greenland ice cap.
They should simply look out of the window.
It's no accident we've had two named storms in August for the first time in yonks. Rainfall is now happening in intense bursts, interspersed by periods of drought, a nightmare for farmers and drainage engineers alike. Meteorologists suggest the progressive disappearance of the Arctic polar ice cap each summer may be to blame for the deluge now spoiling things for those rediscovering staycations.
'Something must be done, ' as Edward, Prince of Wales, long ago memorably said. And indeed, central government is doing something.
It's making things worse.
The smug self-satisfaction surrounding a couple of recent announcements might make you suspect ministers actually know that relief from climate change is just around the corner. It isn't.
First there was the DfT's new acceleration unit. This is supposed to 'boost delivery times' of major transport projects and to speed up both rail and road projects. But transport secretary Grant Shapps was quick to make clear which ones matter by launching the unit from the site of the vastly destructive, one-and-a-half-billion-pounds-of-your-money, A14 project in Cambridgeshire.
This project has a key role in keeping freight from Felixstowe to the Midlands off the poor and under-invested rail link between those destinations and on the roads. So billions are being spent on accelerating climate change.
You can always tell if a Government announcement is politically toxic if, like the planning white paper, it's made in August.
So it is with Highways England's equally smug announcement of details of how it plans to waste another twenty-seven-billion-pounds of your money on the trunk road network.
Fourteen-billion of this will be devoted to increasing trunk road capacity and greenhouse gas emissions.
A little ray of sanity is provided by the Transport Action Network legal action against RIS2. Or you could read the recent Smart Growth UK plan for dealing with transport carbon.
But, of course, the DfT will tell you it's already working out how to 'decarbonise' transport, as set out in its paper last spring.
This tells you that endless increases in car traffic don't matter because we'll all be driving electric cars which emit no carbon dioxide. That is, if you ignore all the embodied carbon in their manufacture and scrappage, which accounts for about half of a car's lifetime carbon budget.
As for heavy lorries, to which no-one can see any alternative to diesel anytime soon, that will be dealt with by, er, waffle, bluster, piffle-paffle, wriggle-room, 'headroom', 'net-zero' as not-zero etc..
Hope anyone suffering flooding, or watching their sea defences approach their limit, or indeed farmers with rotten crop yields caused by weird weather, will be reassured to know the Government is spending billions making things worse.

Posted by Jon Reeds on 25 August 2020


There May Be Trouble Ahead

I suppose I should be applying myself to the numbingly dreadful Planning White Paper, but we should not forget the other huge challenges ahead. The attempt to give house builders carte blanche to concrete our entire countryside is only one among several.
The climate emergency is gathering pace and the health emergency is looking increasingly as if it could be here to stay. The economy, meanwhile, has been badly damaged by coronavirus and faces further massive damage from the very hard or no-deal Brexit which now appears inevitable.
A perfect storm, perhaps, and perfect storms are what climate change appears to be producing with increasing frequency. But most people are hopeful that, however bad the health emergency is, at least one of 80-odd vaccine projects around the world will come good.
I, like everyone else, fervently hope so.
But, to judge from the Planning White Paper, the Government expects the housing market to recover and builders to return to car-dependent sprawl in no time at all.
Ministers really need to take their foot off the gas pedal and engage the intelligent drive system.
While an effective vaccine will plainly be enormously welcome, there are many reasons why it may not be the end of the story and we can get back to normal. There are other possibilities.
1. No effective vaccine proves possible.
2. The vaccines only give immunity for a limited time.
3. Vaccines' side-effects are almost as bad as the virus.
4. International travel limits the vaccines' benefits by shifting infection around for a long time ahead.
5. Countries affected by extreme poverty or conflict remain as reservoirs of the infection.
6. The virus mutates sufficiently to make the vaccines useless.
7. An entirely new pandemic takes hold.
Don't dismiss this last possibility. We had very near misses with SARS, H5N1, H1N1, Ebola, MERS and others. The animal kingdom, which we are increasingly in contact with as we destroy nature worldwide, has a huge number of potentially harmful viruses waiting to make the leap to humans.
We don't know how this will turn out. We do know, however, that the economy is uncertain and staff are trickling out of the country from the City of London and other sectors. Even one of Cambridge's most successful high-tech industries is now under threat. Others may follow.
And however much we hope for an end to the health emergency, that's uncertain too. What is certain is that climate change will change everything.
So a shiny future for house builders in southern England is likely to be a mirage, even if the planning system is effectively destroyed to allow them to do what they like.
Though quite why anyone thinks they can rebalance the economy by building millions of homes in southern England to allow it to continue sucking economic activity out of the rest of the country is another mystery.
It's amazingly tiresome, with so many real challenges out there, that we now have to fight the Cummings-Jenrick Plan to wreck our land.
But this bit of 1980s fantasy economics must be seen off.
Fight it we must.

Posted by Jon Reeds on 10 August 2020


A Resumption In Favour Of Sustainable Development

The bizarre obsession with house building that has seized the Treasury, and its subordinates in the rest of Whitehall, for nearly 20 years will be something for historians of British planning to pore over in amazement.
If you want to be a winner in the Government numbers game, remember to shout out the objective of your policy. A cry of 'House' will always do nicely.
It hasn't only been England's planning policy that has been subordinated to the demands of house builders, however. Under pressure from Whitehall even some of the devolved administrations began looking over their shoulders and introducing bizarre 'presumptions' and other consumption-in-preference-to-sustainable-development rules.
Finally perhaps sense is beginning to dawn, even if you will need to be north of Carter Bar to find it.
The Scottish Government has begun consultations on changing a few parts of the Scottish Planning Policy which deal with housing.
Scotland was never quite able to bring itself to introduce the Orwellian Newspeak 'presumption in favour of sustainable development' which has done so much to undermine sustainable development since England's NPPF was imposed in 2012. But it did get pretty near.
The preamble to paragraph 28 of the Scottish Planning Policy, introduced in 2014 at the height of Eric Pickles' reign of error, introduced 'a presumption in favour of development that contributes to sustainable development'.
This wasn't quite as stark as the English version, though that actually appeared verbatim a little later, in paragraph 32. But both presumptions have most seriously undermined the ability of local planning authorities to defend their environment and secure sustainable development wherever central government deems their local plans, for whatever contrived reason, out-of-date.
Now, however, the Scottish Government has decided that the presumption has 'potential for conflict with a plan-led approach and has given rise to significant number of issues it has generated for decision-makers in its application'.
Well that's one way of putting it.
So the presumption has to go and the consultation also proposes changes to what is meant by a 'five-year supply'.
The moves were most immediately prompted by a legal challenge by Gladman Developments over Inverclyde Council's attempt to refuse a 45-home green belt scheme at Kilmacolm.
But the Scottish Government says the issue has greater importance as homes contribute so much to health and well-being and to economic recovery.
'However, to achieve housing development in a sustainable way that works with, rather than against, the needs of communities, we need to overcome current conflict in the system, and actively address the lengthy technical debates we are seeing about the numbers of homes that we will need in the future,' it says. 'This will allow us to focus more on how we can strengthen delivery and enable good quality development on the ground.'
Amen to that of course.
Once changes are finalised, they will feed into the new National Planning Framework 4, expected in draft in September 2021, which will replace the SPP.
Wouldn't it be nice if the Scottish Government stepped back and had a good, long, hard Smart Growth think about the location and form of housing and other development?
That could make Scotland true leaders of sustainable development.
We presume.

Posted by Jon Reeds on 29 July 2020


Soviet Style

It really is quite alarming how the chorus of self-interested voices advocating the smashing up of the English planning system keeps banging on about Soviet-style controls.
It is, of course, a familiar technique in the populist press. Take some casual slander and endlessly repeat it around several newspapers and flaky think-tanks. But this one really is a stinker.
Let us not forget that the Soviet system cynically and deliberately murdered untold numbers of people. Even its admirers admit it murdered millions. Historians say tens of millions, and some believe it was many tens of millions. Executed, starved or frozen and worked to death. Deliberately.
So next time you read something talking of 'Britain's Soviet-style planning system' like yesterday's Telegraph, feel free to use the paper for some unpleasant sanitary purpose.
Or do so if you see a description of planning as 'a relic of the forties' which yesterday's Telegraph did. This is just dog-whistle politics, trying to inflame its readers by citing the Atlee years, which gave us things like, er, the National Health Service.
It's curious how the enthusiasm of the Government, and its cheer leaders in the national press, about smashing up planning waxes and wanes, roughly in line with the fortunes of Mr Robert Jenrick.
Just last week, the Telegraph was assuring us that 'radical planning reforms that would have put extra powers in the hands of Robert Jenrick have been put on hold amid the lobbying controversy surrounding the housing secretary'.
The hold was apparently a brief one. Just five days later the prime minister was proclaiming the Government would, 'launch a planning policy paper in July setting out our plan for comprehensive reform of England's seven-decade old planning system, to introduce a new approach that works better for our modern economy and society'.
Presumably the man in charge threw a wobbly when he saw the earlier Telegraph piece and angrily threw his beanie hat across the room at the door marked 'Dominic Cummings, Protective Suits Must Be Worn'.
Planning wasn't invented in the 1940s. Its origins lie in the Edwardian age. A small degree of democracy was always implicit in it, even though planners themselves are a bit ambivalent about that. Any planner can tell you a horror story about objectors introducing, perish the thought, irrelevant planning conditions.
Irrelevant to official planning policy perhaps, but communities have genuine cares that deserve to be listened to. And right now planners need all the friends they can find.
Apart from those working for consultants planning hypersprawl of course.
This is going to be a tough summer for anyone who cares about England's environment, tackling the climate emergency and a sustainable future.
One of the features of the Soviet system was that the Government cared nothing for those who disagreed, swept aside all opposition and crushed it ruthlessly.
Courageous people fought against it. We may need to recall that courage in the months to come.

Posted by Jon Reeds on 02 July 2020


Making Communities Wilder

A long-standing tradition among national environmental groups is not to challenge one another publicly.
That is not to say there are no occasional private disagreements, but generally the tradition has worked well. Right now, however, three national bodies have tossed a stick of dynamite on to the fire at the green summer camp.
Maybe it would have been a good idea to consult their members first. Or maybe, if secrecy was essential, to discuss the matter with the rest of the movement first?
As many people will be aware, I'm talking about the extraordinary documents produced by the RSPB, Woodland Trust, Wildlife Trusts, Berkshire Buckinghamshire Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust and the Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire Cambridgeshire Northamptonshire.
The documents vary but the central message, despite some backtracking in response to understandable outrage, is that the 'Oxford-Cambridge Growth Arc' is going ahead and the wildlife bodies want to ensure it does so in ways which produce some benefit to wildlife. Indeed, some have hinted they're quite relaxed about the million homes proposed, if these pay for a bit of nature conservation.
Exhibit A is 'Nature's Arc', endorsed by four of the bodies, but not the Wildlife Trusts nationally. This sets out 'Three Steps to Build Nature into the Proposed Arc'.
The three are protecting existing nature, restoring nature and setting new standards for sustainable development, i.e. environmental design of buildings and 'green infrastructure'.
They also hope that dumping a million homes in this undeveloped countryside would improve quality of life, increase natural capital and put nature first, apart presumably from all the nature that would be destroyed by dumping the equivalent of nine Milton Keynes in the area.
What's clear is that the organisations tacitly accept this cataclysm of unsustainable development and destruction of natural capital as a done deal.
Exhibit B is the RSPB press release.
'With plans starting to take shape to build up to a million new homes in what is known as the Oxford-Cambridge Arc, conservationists are asking the Government to look at this as the perfect opportunity to invest in nature,' it warbles.
Whether they see this as a 'perfect opportunity' because they think opposition is a lost cause or because they really do see trashing England's bread and vegetable basket to build hypersprawl actually might get them a few nature reserves is unclear.
What is clear is that many people disagree with them.
The Wildlife Trusts did not sign this document but came up with one of their own called 100 Miles Wilder.
The Trusts' Exhibit C quite rightly say existing proposals for the Arc won't work and their lack of planning and place making are a failure in climate and extinction terms.
But 100 Miles Sprawlier blunders even more spectacularly into this noisome swamp. It says that the Arc has been identified as location for 'one-and-a-half million homes'.
What do they know? Who have they been talking to? It will soon be two million at this rate.
The Trusts naively believe that a strategic plan, which the Government is actually working on, would deal with the inevitable tide of water stress, unsustainable transport, greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity damage now taking shape in the rapacious minds of the property development industry.
Members of the organisations inevitably reacted with fury, but so far only one, BBOWT, has retracted anything.
Exhibit D is a version of its original supportive statement with a fresh section headed 'Correction' which feels the need to point out it never supported the Expressway and, indeed, took legal action against it. However, it seems to have little understanding of what the Arc is about.
'We have received assurances from MPs and councillors that both the plans for the Expressway and one million homes have been dropped, but if plans come back we will fight them again,' it says.
MPs will, of course, tell constituents whatever they want to hear. But if plans for a million homes had actually been dropped, there would be nothing left of the Arc. Instead of which it's ploughing ahead like the river of juggernauts it wants along its Expressway, or whatever the string of piecemeal but equivalent roads now in planning will be called.
This should have been a great week for Smart Growth, and it's shocking that a group of conservation bodies of all people should come along and spoil it.
The new report from Transport for New Homes has confirmed what we've been saying for the past four years about 'garden communities'. Its Visions and Reality report looked at the woefully unsustainable transport proposals for 20 of these sprawl developments.
Garden communities are at the centre of the Government's plans to use destructive vehicles like development corporations, zoning or development consent orders to impose greenfield sprawl at hopelessly unsustainable locations.
The Jenrick-Cummings Hypersprawl Commission is hard at work on the ideas as we speak.
Its aim is what the prime minister called 'turbo-charging house building'.
The fossil fuel metaphor was, it seems, all too appropriate.

Posted by Jon Reeds on 18 June 2020


Cummings Corporations

Normally, ministers and civil servants consigned to the naughty step like to keep their heads down for a while, but that seems not to be the case with Dominic Cummings and Robert Jenrick.
Both got into trouble over lockdown rules and the public gripes with Mr Cummings would fill a book. Indeed, several are doubtless underway.
Mr Jenrick, meanwhile, has even survived the gold standard of terminal illnesses for Conservative ministers, censure in the Daily Mail.
But rather than sackcloth-and-ashes, the pair are embarking on something set to bring even more public rage down on the Government.
The onslaught on the planning system to facilitate even more low-density, car-dependent, greenfield sprawl goes back to around 2002. Huge structural imbalances in the British economy, like failure to invest in R&D and industry, the easy movement of billions of pounds in and out of the City and our over-reliance on financial services, might have seemed more obvious targets for attack.
But instead, HM Treasury convinced itself that the ups and downs of the economy were all down to our failure to build vast amounts of the wrong type of housing. Dame Kate Barker was employed to write two reviews saying as much.
The New Labour government set about chipping away at planning controls and 'free-market think tanks' then set about trying to blast them out of existence. The Policy Exchange and a handful of academics led the charge, but I won't bore you with their rantings.
The coalition government then ramped things up, the charge led by Eric Pickles with enthusiastic support from Vince Cable. Residential density standards went straight away, but the thermonuclear attack on planning for sustainability came in 2012 with the National Planning Policy Framework. Since then Dumb Growth has proliferated on the grand scale.
So what's proposed now? Dominic Cummings is a man with a plan, you see.
Immediately after the election, he set this out to Conservative MPs and the Sun newspaper which followed with an article that promised the prime minister was going to 'turbo-charge house building'.
The fossil fuel metaphor was surely an apt one.
In March, just as the country was being silenced by lock-down, Mr Jenrick locked-down debate with a non-consultation paper called Planning for the Future.
A better title might have been Much Less Planning for the Future to Enable Much More Urban Sprawl and to Make House Builders Even Richer. I have to admit that might be a rather cumbersome title, but so much more accurate.
The paper contained plans for things like development corporations, zoning, a few carefully cherry-picked recommendations from the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission and some vague promises to facilitate more brownfield building.
Responses were not invited and would, in any case, have been ignored as usual.
Now, according to the Sunday Times, the substance of it is to appear next month, probably with the Budget and the 'Great Recovery Bill', perhaps in the white paper Mr Jenrick has been threatening. The great recovery is presumably aimed at recovering builders' profits, though as they've been given every encouragement to get on building unsustainable homes while the rest of us were locked down, you might not think they'd need it.
But of course, the ups and downs of the housing market continue, despite nearly two decades of the Treasury's one-track response to it. And builders do not build during downturns, however much money MHCLG throws at them.
We're still fairly much in the dark about what will be proposed, but Mr Cummings' plan evidently includes development corporations.
These, you may remember, are designed to strip the last vestiges of democracy from planning and to allow the Government to impose new towns wherever it likes without even the tiresome necessity of compelling a few senior local politicians to back Whitehall plans for 'locally led development'.
These 'Cummings Corporations' need to be challenged. Sadly, there's an element within the planning profession that rather likes the idea of being allowed to carve their names in perpetuity on the landscape, without tiresome local communities objecting.
Some indeed still hanker after the days of the new towns, though the end results were pretty variable. All were low-density, car-dependent sprawl and some were a dysfunctional mess.
Quite a lot of planners these days earn their corn from gaming the system set up by the NPPF and securing unsustainable development. How many remains to be seen.
But surely the time has come for the planning profession to stand up and be counted.
Does it want to be an arm of central government, sweeping community views aside?
Does it want to see its members working for Cummings Corporations while local people vainly protest outside?
And does the Cummings-Jenrick Plan really have a future with a Government whose stated ambition is to have the most environmentally ambitious programme of any country on Earth?

Posted by Jon Reeds on 09 June 2020


Show Me The Way To Barnard Castle

Barnard Castle is an attractive little town, popular with visitors and in the news recently for some unknown reason.
Visitors, of course, have been staying away thanks to lock-down but Barney is lucky its economy is not wholly dependent on them or the small shops also closed up as, unusually for County Durham, it still has a major industry based there.
It's a beautiful old town, rich in history and historic buildings. The Bowes Museum, modelled on a French chateau, is also worth a visit and I'm looking forward to going back there once it's safe to do so.
Particularly attractive should be the Market Place, the town's main street, with its busy market and small shops.
But it's also the scene of what's seriously wrong in Barnard Castle. The town is seriously harmed by trunk road traffic, with the A688 running straight through the main street and seriously degrading its environment.
Anyone deterred by the local road network from visiting Barnard Castle, however, will take heart from knowing, a few years hence, it will be slightly easier to drive there and add further congestion to its streets.
Transport secretary Grant Shapps has announced the go-ahead for plans to spend a billion pounds, yes you did read that right, a thousand million pounds, on an upgrade to the A66 from Scotch Corner to Penrith.
This runs close to Barney and the DfT announcement made clear it would facilitate driving to the area from other cities. Curiously, however, Durham didn't get a mention.
Several miles of this road lie in the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and several more run along its boundary. But nothing must stop this artery of greenhouse gas emissions inflating further.
The route plan involves dualling the few sections of the A66 that aren't already dual-carriageways, a new underpass to a not-particularly busy roundabout at Penrith and a few village by-passes. Though not for Barnard Castle.
Quite how this would manage to blow a billion quid is a mystery, but those with their snouts in the RIS2 trough never find any difficulty in sucking the public purse dry.
The DfT has found lock-down and media wholly distracted with the health emergency all too convenient to pursue its petrolhead and dieselhead agenda.
Civil servants often complain they shouldn't be criticised because they can't answer back. Well I'm sorry, they have enormous power to do harm and the trunk road building programme is harm on the grand scale.
Their Department needs urgent reform. A good start will be support for the Transport Action Network legal action against RIS2.
Give generously.

Posted by Jon Reeds on 29 May 2020


Pompous And Patronizing

When the history of the 2020 coronavirus crisis comes to be written, one thing likely to strike historians is the way the mainstream media took its eye off everything else and devoted its entire coverage to the minutiae of the health emergency.
The results will by then be painfully obvious. While the rest of us were locked-down, the Government was beavering away to push through all the really unacceptable stuff it liked, safe in the knowledge that scrutiny was lacking. And those few brave souls that did try to stand up to it could be dismissed with contempt.
And what contempt. I was reminded of this by an insulting and patronizing letter this week from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to CPRE Oxfordshire in response to a well-reasoned letter to communities secretary Robert Jenrick expressing concerns about Oxford's green belt.
Mr Jenrick is, apparently, much too important to bother responding to letters now he's on telly presenting the Covid-19 press briefing and letting house builders off their tiresome obligations to provide the affordable housing which makes a little hole in their enormous profits.
Instead, the response to CPRE Oxfordshire came from a minion called Luke Stephens who rejoices in the bizarre appellation of 'head of ministerial correspondence'.
And Mr Stephens is no mere stamp licker or envelope sealer. He is empowered to voice his boss's full contempt for the people and environment of Oxfordshire.
Let's just sample some of the patronizing drivel in the letter.
'This Department values the Campaign to Protect Rural England as the passionate defender of the Green Belt and as an informed critic of development and planning policy,' writes Mr Stephens, trying presumably to ape His Master's Voice.
'We both want to see the Green Belt and other designated countryside protected, and the efficient use of urban and brownfield land and you will recognise that meeting affordable housing needs is one of the Government's highest priorities. Whatever extraordinary intervention you may have had in mind, we believe that our aims of sustainable development are best taken forward through the development plans of the elected local authorities of Oxfordshire, in accord with the conclusions reached with care and independence of mind by the examining inspectors. Nevertheless we are grateful to you for iterating CPREs concerns.'
Just savour that 'whatever extraordinary intervention you may have had in mind' and don't feel the need to dismiss the vision of a lofty and bewigged patrician airily dismissing plebeian supplicants.
Savour too the pompous verbiage about the 'elected local authorities of Oxfordshire' and 'independence of mind of the examining inspectors'.
Anyone who has been involved in the destruction by Whitehall of the independence of the local planning process over many years and the way the Planning Inspectorate has been reshaped from a highly respected and impartial body into a force for enforcement of unsustainable house building numbers will know exactly what such statements are worth.
Basically, quite a lot of local authorities have given up fighting and have gone instead for a few teaspoonfuls of cash and the thought that they will at least not be embarrassing ministers of their own political persuasion by opposing them. And, while a few inspectors still take brave stands on genuinely sustainable development, most do pretty much what they're told these days.
It will always be a problem when a brave local authority, in this case South Oxfordshire, decides to jump off the lorry driving the rest of the Oxfordshire flock to the environmental slaughter house. So the full authority of the giant panjandrum, the 'head of ministerial correspondence' no less, must be deployed.
Let's just remember briefly what's happening here. Despite Government planning policy which demands that green belts be kept permanently open except in exceptional circumstances, overwhelming opposition from local people and the obvious fact that Oxfordshire, with its fragile countryside and overheated economy is a totally unsustainable place for further growth, the Government proposes to force nearly 20,000 new low-density homes on to the green belt.
It is, of course, car-dependent sprawl at its most destructive. 'Sustainable development' not.
So I do hope the people of Oxfordshire and as many of their elected representatives, local and national, who still care about their county go on fighting this. It matters.
And meanwhile they should tell Mr Luke Stephens to. . . oh, never mind.

Posted by Jon Reeds on 14 May 2020


We Are Still Watching

It must be an extremely frustrating time to be a journalist, not just because they are confined to barracks like the rest of us, but because they are only permitted to report on one issue.
Of course the health emergency is the main issue of the day and must dominate the news, but it has managed to exclude everything else at a time much else is going on. Everyone who wants to push something through national or local government without media scrutiny appears to be taking full advantage.
It is hard to credit that the Department for Transport should have pushed ahead with both go-ahead for HS2 Phase 1 and the 27 billion quid highway building programme at this time of crisis. Read the Road Investment Strategy 2 document when you've read the Department's Transport Decarbonisation Plan. You will be amazed.
Meanwhile don't expect to see much about the ugly clashes between nature defenders and HS2 security goons in ancient woodland along the route.
But do ask yourself why this has to be done during the bird nesting season well in advance of actual construction. Ask why those podgy security goons are ignoring social distancing guidelines. Ask where the police were during ugly clashes, whatever the rights and wrongs. Ask where the media was.
In planning too, it looks like a good time to push through urban sprawl, with no danger of Whitehall objecting of course.
You might have thought that, with a house price crash now inevitable, now would be a good time to pause and take stock. Not a bit of it. They're pushing ahead as if tackling Covid-19 actually depended on trashing farmland and biodiversity and increasing car-dependency.
Some 'pro-growth', i.e. pro-greenfield-housing-growth, local authorities are still handing out consents too.
One such is Central Bedfordshire Council, a devotee of car-dependent sprawl and fresh from approving an A6-M1 Link Road through the Chilterns AONB.
Now, despite the health emergency and in advance of virtual planning meetings, they have delegated planning decisions during April to the chief executive, with an 'advisory group'. This is likely to include at least one controversial green belt development at tomorrow's 'meeting'.
In years to come when we remember the spring of 2020, we will not only look back on the lives lost, the exhaustion of our health workers, the woeful under-investment in our public services and the businesses lost during the pandemic. We will also ask who took advantage of the crisis.
There are some very fed-up journalists out there just raring to go. And some very frustrated environmentalists ready to hand them the ammunition.

Posted by Jon Reeds on 26 April 2020


Riding Sunbeams, Chasing Moonbeams

If I were to say in this blog that I remain committed to the Smart Growth principles that regular readers are familiar with and then say that I thought they would be best achieved by pursuing policies like housing sprawl, motorway building, airport expansion and distribution shed sprawl, you might rather abruptly sit up.
You might fairly conclude that I had either gone mad or had sold out to the massive PR industry with which those property interests pursuing sprawl developments such as garden communities or the Oxford-Cambridge Arc have armed themselves.
Yet this disjunct between aspiration and policy is just the sort of thing we're expected to applaud in a Department for Transport publication called Decarbonising Transport, Setting the Challenge.
At first sight it looks like a radical change of direction for a ministry long derided as the 'Department for High-Carbon Transport'. And it starts off by making the right sort of noises about the principles of a Transport Decarbonisation Plan which, allegedly, will put us 'on a pathway to achieving carbon budgets and net zero emissions across every single mode of transport by 2050'.
OK, let's leave aside minor quibbles such as the need to be on a pathway to actual zero by 2030 if we're to avoid existential threats to civilisation within many of our lifetimes. Let's just look at what's on offer.
It wisely begins with looking at current and projected GHG emissions from each mode, both with current policies and with a few tweaks.
First up is the mode politicians are most terrified of changing, cars. So, because of this fear, nothing significant is to be done to reduce car mileage despite the infographic up front which proclaims a desire to 'help make public transport and active travel the natural first choice for daily activities'. Amen to that.
Basically what's proposed is battery vehicles and more charging points. Decarbonising is, however, nowhere to be seen. The DfT expects car GHG emissions will drop by just 52 percent by 2050, despite us using bikes, trains and buses for 'daily activities'. Why? Because, in spite of the aspiration, it expects car mileage to increase by no less than 35 percent over the same period.
Battery vehicles are, of course, no route to decarbonisation because of the high embodied carbon in their manufacture and scrapping. Perhaps the DfT intends to redefine driving battery cars as 'active travel'?
Yet despite the commitment to public transport, it expects bus mileage to drop slightly by 2050 and GHG emissions from buses to fall only a dismal 25 percent. And while it expects rail passengers to treble, it expects GHG emissions from passenger and freight trains to rise 19 percent by 2050, a grim indictment of our failure to electrify our railways, which is plainly expected to continue.
But still, it's happy to extol its Riding Sunbeams project to power trains using solar power. This is known in the industry as the Chasing Moonbeams project.
Aviation is dismal as ever. GHG from domestic flights has climbed no less than 6 percent since 2017 while international emissions are still rising too. So what is the DfT's strategy to tackle this major challenge?
'Airport expansion is a core part of boosting our global connectivity and levelling up across the UK,' says the paper. 'The Government takes seriously its commitments on the environment and the expansion of any airport must always be within the UKs environmental obligations.'
Quite astonishingly, the DfT expects demand for both types of flying to go up no less than 73 percent by 2050, though it hopes that somehow better fuels and bigger planes could keep emissions 'broadly flat'. Much like the trajectory of its credibility.
Then we get to freight. Road transport currently accounts for 91 percent of domestic transport GHG emissions and trucks account for 17 percent of this.
And that's rising. HGV traffic in the UK rose from 15.5bn miles in 2012 to 17.1bn miles in 2018. Maybe this has something to do with current DfT freight policy which could be summed up as 'building more motorways and allowing huge HGV-served distribution depots to be built near their junctions'.
The Department does have a policy of reducing truck emissions by 15 percent by 2025 by telling operators to behave better. Beyond that, more moonbeams are being chased in terms of zero-emission HGVs and longer semi-trailers, which would, at least, help operators become richer.
So, by 2050, at which point transport is supposed to be zero carbon, the DfT hopes HGV emissions will have dropped 26 percent, even though it expects mileage to have increased by 7 percent.
Vans, meanwhile, are expected to drive no less than 70 percent more by 2050, with a fall of just 17 percent in their GHG emissions mostly thanks to a switch to battery.
Can you spot decarbonisation? No, I can't either.
Even rail freight, which ought to be one bright spot, manages to look dismal. The Government has challenged the industry to remove diesel-only trains by 2040 but the paper admits, er, 'current alternatives to overhead electrification, such as hydrogen and battery, do not have sufficient power to pull heavy freight trains'. It says perhaps bi-mode locomotives could help.
Well actually they've been around for nearly 60 years now and they can only help if you electrify railways, something which the DfT finds every excuse not to do so it can waste money on motorways, airports and ultra-high-speed rail.
I could go on, but you get the picture. A graph buried on page 58 shows DfT's current optimistic policy projection which suggests UK domestic transport emissions could drop by about a third by 2050. Not exactly net-zero, despite the actual zero long before that's actually needed. 'We will need to go further,' the document admits.
Well, many of us have long advocated the sort of things that are needed to get the carbon out of 'the great car economy'. Having identified the failure of its own long-standing policies, why not adopt them now?
'Whilst we know the scale of the challenge, we do not currently know the optimal path for delivering a decarbonised transport network,' says the document. 'We, therefore, intend to work with business, academics, researchers and innovators, environmental NGOs and the wider public over 2020 to design the package of decarbonisation policies that can serve the needs of both passengers and wider society, and deliver our goals.'
Of the six 'strategic priorities' proposed, only 'accelerating modal shift to public and active transport' looks soundly based. And that won't happen until the current big spend on roads, airports and high-speed rail is diverted into useful things like rail electrification, light rail and metros in all our cities, a national rail freight network, railway reopenings, remodelling of our towns and cities to prioritize public transport and active travel, a run-down of domestic aviation etc..
Forget 'decarbonisation of road vehicles' and 'decarbonising how we get our goods'. That's pie-in-the-sky. You don't need 'place-based solutions for emissions reduction'. We already know why emissions occur round airports and motorway junctions. We'd like to see the 'UK as a hub for green transport technology and innovation'. The country has no lack of such potential. The problem is resistance at, er, the Department for Transport.
The next steps are to be consultations, but they're to be the usual blend of online questionnaire, carefully facilitated workshops and stakeholder involvement with selected participants.
Oh, and let's not forget the big elephant in the room which the document carefully ignores. Planning may not be the DfT's responsibility, but current Government planning policies are presently the main accelerant of high-carbon transport via car-dependent housing sprawl and lorry-dependent distribution sprawl.
Without tackling them, there will be no decarbonisation.
We can only hope they leave the blinds open during their carefully facilitated engagements. They might even catch a few moonbeams.

Posted by Jon Reeds on 06 April 2020


Negotiating With Nature, Two Examples

In my previous blog on Nature and Negotiation, I described the process of negotiation recommended by Roger Fisher and William Ury of the Harvard Negotiation Project. Since examples are helpful to see how this might work with Nature, here are a couple of illustrative cases.
Among the many responsibilities of Oxfordshire County Council is that of being the local highway authority. This includes managing trees, hedgerows and other vegetation alongside roads. Powers and duties for maintaining footpaths fall on the County, District and Parish Councils and landowners.
It is in the interests of humans that they can gain safe and unimpeded access to footpaths. Likewise, cyclists and pedestrians should not be forced into evasive action and into the road by rampant growth. Clearance of obstacles, branches, brambles, nettles, roots, etc., has to occur from time to time.
Unfortunately, in West Oxfordshire (and elsewhere) the clearance takes place far more often than necessary and at the worst possible time of year for Nature. In March, large vehicles with massive cutting equipment massacre trees and hedges just when they are ready to come into leaf and blossom, thereby removing valuable habitat at a critical moment, and depriving pollinating insects of food in spring and birds and mammals of food in autumn and winter.
I guess this is because the authorities have some kind of fixed timetable for the services they provide, and a fixed way of doing things. But around where I live, the majority of trees, hedges and undergrowth alongside roads and footpaths do not interfere with movement and access at all, and could be left to grow for several years and cut back on a rolling programme to the minimum amount necessary. Nor does it need to be a skinhead cut: just removal of obstacles that have grown enough to cause a nuisance. I suspect that the current mode of operating is also driven by an outmoded addiction to 'tidiness', as if neatly low-cut hedgerows are the only aesthetic outcome that sensitive humans can tolerate.
Here is a perfect example of how negotiation with Nature on equal terms could produce an agreement that meets both its and our interests: a flexible rolling timetable, at the right times of year, with a discerning and minimalist approach to clearance. It would surely be more skilful and rewarding work, knowing that the fostering and recovery of Nature was also part of the job, and it might also save money.
Secondly, there are many reasons to question whether HS2 is anywhere near the best infrastructure option for people of the Midlands and North of England, but for the sake of argument let's suppose that, on balance, it will be more beneficial than damaging to the economic interests of humans in England.
Fine, but what about Nature? Clearly, any ancient woodland, local wildlife sites, and other land officially unrecognised but still rich in biodiversity or soil or both, will have to be avoided and existing connectivity for Nature must be maintained, and preferably increased. Only that way will Nature's interests be met. Offsetting is an inadequate and largely unproven and unaccountable option.
The route of HS2 must therefore avoid these sensitive areas in almost every case. And much of it must be underground. The burying of the A3 at Hindhead in Surrey in a tunnel has had a miraculously beneficial effect on habitat connectivity, wildlife and human wellbeing, while also helping traffic.
Not prepared to spend the extra money to meet Natures interests? Then think of something else: this is the time for inventing options for mutual gain.

Posted by Nigel Pearce on 30 March 2020


Nature And Negotiation

For too long humans have forgotten, or have failed to realise, that our relationship with Nature is based on negotiation.
Instead, we have treated this relationship as an imposition by one party, humanity, on the other, Nature, with no clear voice of its own. So, for the most part, we have not negotiated, thinking we could act with impunity, regarding our demands as non-negotiable.
Nature, being voiceless or at least unheard, has had to rely on humans to negotiate on its behalf, but those who act as its advocates, though growing in number, are still relatively weak.
We have discovered, however, that Nature has non-negotiable assets of its own, such as fire, flood, famine, drought, pestilence and extinction. We need to negotiate collectively and seriously with Nature in order to keep these bargaining chips off the table.
People think of negotiation as a means of reaching a compromise in a competitive context. This has two disadvantages.
The first is a tendency to produce a result that falls well short of both parties' desires and doesn't necessarily address their needs.
The second is the perception, particularly in current turbulent times, that compromise only delivers the half-solutions and uncertainties that are typical of the 'liberal' approach to life.
But compromise does not have to mean either concession to the other party or fudge and muddle. In one of the best books written on negotiation, Getting to Yes, Roger Fisher and William Ury of the Harvard Negotiation Project set out a programme for negotiation with five principles:
1. Don't bargain over positions.
2. Separate the people from the problem.
3. Focus on interests, not positions.
4. Invent options for mutual gain.
5. Insist on objective criteria.
Our 'might is right' approach has probably been more the result of ignorance and thoughtlessness about the effect we have on Nature, than due to wilful destruction or neglect. But if we apply principles 3 and 4 in particular to our negotiation, we can safely withdraw from absolutist stances, in which beating or ignoring an opponent is paramount, and options for mutual gain will then be free to be invented.
However, we have reached a point at which Nature's interests should be considered first, to bring the relationship back into balance, followed thereafter by negotiation on an equal footing. What are Nature's interests?
-Sufficient biodiversity to sustain complete and healthy ecosystems at local, regional, national and global levels, on land, at sea and in the air.
-Sufficient habitat connectivity to allow safe movement of species around different locations in a bearable climate.
-Sufficient sources of food and water.
-Freedom from all harmful pollutants, solid, liquid and gaseous.
-Freedom from over-exploitation.
-Freedom from damaging disturbance, such as noise, artificial light, topsoil removal and other causes of loss of organisms at the bottom of the food chain.
The list could doubtless be longer, but these points seem to cover the basics.
It is noticeable how far they overlap with our interests. In the end, if Nature's interests cannot be met, ours will not be either.
But if we adopt a relationship with Nature based on negotiation between equals, with objective criteria and the aim of sufficiency for both parties, there is hope that both our interests can be met.
In the UK, as elsewhere, such an approach would bring a dispassionate rationality and a welcome long-sightedness to planning, development and land use.

Posted by Nigel Pearce on 26 March 2020


Interesting Times

Expecting the unexpected is one of the trickier things governments are expected to do.
Preparing for the things you do expect is hard enough and the Covid-19 crisis has burst on the scene with enormous speed. The post mortem is, mercifully, a long way ahead and right now we need to concentrate on dealing with it.
But much of the country is meanwhile under partial house arrest and that does mean time to think about, and prepare for, other things. And even if we can't always be expected to prepare for the unexpected, we can at least give some attention to challenges we can definitely expect once this crisis is under control.
So what sort of things should we be preparing for that need a bigger response than they've been receiving?
Climate Change.
Flood and sea defence.
UK food supply.
There are plenty of others, but these are some of the most pressing.
On climate change there is a vast range of things we need to be doing, starting with our transport system which remains stubbornly high-carbon. It won't be decarbonised by electric cars. At best they would reduce things by around 50 percent, better than nothing, but not good enough. Meanwhile we appear to be stuck with diesel HGVs for the foreseeable.
So we need to implement radical solutions, starting with major cities, where rail-based public transport and active travel ought to be the norm for moving people around. And we need an urgent rethink of our freight networks.
Climate change is cruelly exposing deficiencies in our flood defences, designed for more temperate and less extreme times. Billions need spending on protecting both our inland and coastal communities.
Beyond that, the whole issue of sea-level rise needs some serious thought. At the moment it's a few millimetres a year. But what happens when the big ice sheets start to go? Either we abandon low-lying areas which include many of our big cities to the sea, or we go for really radical solutions like the North Sea, English Channel and Irish Sea barrages I mentioned in another recent blog.
Food supply too is a Smart Growth issue. We have repeatedly warned about the folly of building low-density housing on our productive farmland. This needs to stop, as a recent article warning how dire our position is makes clear. A country turning its back on its main trading partners needs to take its need to import nearly half its food very seriously indeed.
And then there's UK biodiversity which we have happily been trashing for at least 5,000 years and which, in some areas, is close to collapse. Feeding ourselves, working and travelling about in ways that protect it is actually an urgent need too.
It behoves those of us stuck indoors to think about these things and discuss them seriously in this era of electronic communication. Some commentators are saying the current radical change in government policies shows that things can change for the better once the crisis is ended. Others are plainly hoping things get back to laissez faire business as usual.
There are some tough times ahead with the health emergency but the danger will eventually pass. The other emergencies are only going to get worse until we face the need for similarly radical action.
Meanwhile, stay safe.

Posted by Jon Reeds on 24 March 2020


Melting The Ice

About 30 years ago, the magazine where I then worked made a bit of a laughing stock of itself by claiming a World Exclusive.
Scientists, we reported, were becoming increasingly concerned about the stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. If it melted, we said, it would raise world sea levels by up to 15 feet.
To ram the point home, the magazine's cover carried a picture of the Houses of Parliament with water lapping around the lower floors.
Hoots of derision followed, despite the report's accuracy, but few are laughing now. World scientific opinion believes it's not a question of whether the WAIS melts in response to global heating, but when.
The Sheet is plainly becoming increasingly unstable. If it does seriously erode, it may do so in three stages, with a 3.6m rise in sea levels the first stage. This would drown many world cities, lots of which are located beside the sea or on estuaries or tidal rivers.
No-one is predicting when this will happen, perhaps some centuries, perhaps within decades. But the process is certainly underway.
And it's not the only terrestrial ice sheet causing concern. Some of Greenland's ice sheets are looking increasingly unstable. That means parts of our heavily populated island, quite likely within the lifetime of people now living, will become uninhabitable.
Large areas of eastern England are under threat, along with much of our coastal areas and estuaries. And that includes major cities.
So, what could be done? The obvious first response is rapid action to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions but, with millions of British people still happy to believe wishful-thinking drivel in populist newspapers, politicians remain happy to do as little as possible.
One imaginative suggestion is to enclose the North Sea and Channel in huge sea barriers, like those used to reclaim parts of Holland but on a vaster scale. One would run from northern Scotland, via the Shetlands to Norway while the other would link Cornwall to Brittany.
One might suggest adding barriers between Fishguard and Rosslare and between the Mull of Kintyre and Fair Head to enclose the Irish Sea. More sensible than the 'Boris Bridge' anyway.
It's certainly technically possible, though the cost and engineering challenge would be immense. As would the political challenge. Currently we're squabbling with our European neighbours over who should be allowed to over-fish which bits of the North Sea. Asking for some trillions of euros to save us from the sea is a bigger ask still.
So the Court of Appeal decision on Heathrow expansion ought to be a game-changer. The Court ruled that, although the Paris Accord hadn't formally been transposed into UK legislation, its ratification by Parliament effectively makes it part of our national law.
Campaigners have been quick to threaten legal action against many of the vast numbers of projects in this country that threaten to exacerbate the climate emergency. Chris Packham, for instance, has already launched a challenge to HS2.
I wish them luck, although the Paris Accord has its limitations. The one-and-a-half degree aspirational target is close to being breached already, if recent temperature readings prove accurate. And its two degree target would require some rapid and radical action.
Plainly now, airport expansion and major road building must end. But we urgently need implementation of so many of the Smart Growth principles.
Public transport and active travel replacing cars in our cities.
Rail-based transport replacing flying and much of our passenger and freight road traffic.
An end to car-dependent sprawl and densification of urban areas where appropriate.
An end to expansion of HGV-based distribution systems and their gradual replacement with more sustainable modes.
Rail reopenings and new light rail/metro/tram train services in our cities.
Regional and local democracy taking back control.
Regional rebalancing of the economy.
Protection of biodiversity and heritage.
We live in a time of great peril from climate change, from disease and from expansionist foreign powers.
So, as the ice melts, it's time to turn up the heat on radical, sustainable change.

Posted by Jon Reeds on 07 March 2020


Fit For Purpose

Most new governments over the past 40 years have come to power promising to cull the quango population.
This ambition quickly founders when they discover these bodies are really useful ways of delivering unpopular public services while insulating the minister from blame when things go wrong.
Just at the moment, for instance, the desperately under-funded and under-resourced Environment Agency is proving a useful scapegoat for current levels of flooding. No more ministerial photo-opportunities with a mop for a while, one supposes.
But I was reminded of the need to cull quangos sometimes by a tweet from Henley MP John Howell about a Westminster Social Policy Forum conference he attended on the so-called Oxford-Cambridge Arc.
'Confirmed by Commissioner of NIC that government has no powers to impose 1m houses,' tweeted Mr Howell. 'Collaboration and getting agreement from local councils, or not, at the heart of approach and including in local plans.'
This is so far from reality, it took my breath away. Oddly enough, Smart Growth UK wasn't invited to the conference so I've no idea if an National Infrastructure Commissioner did claim this, or whether Mr Howell has misunderstood. Nor do I know the identity of the commissioner who attended.
Whatever, it's utterly false. Yes, under-funded local planning authorities may be bribed with Government cash to accept the plans for car-dependent hypersprawl in England's bread basket. But if any hold out, the Government has very ample powers to impose as many homes as the building industry orders.
If anyone is in any doubt they should read the NIC's own report on the Arc called, bizarrely enough, Partnering for Prosperity.
Now turn to page 40 and read a section entitled, 'Delivering New Places Through Development Corporations'.
The title gives the game away. The Government has powers to impose a million houses, or two million if it prefers, under its powers to impose development corporations. And that's just what Partnering for Prosperity recommends it to do.
'Without intervention, there is little chance that the market will deliver new and expanded settlements at the scale and pace required,' it says. 'Experience from within the UK and elsewhere in Europe also suggests that transformational levels of growth are unlikely to be realised without direct intervention from appropriately empowered statutory bodies.'
Get the picture? In case you haven't it goes on to make things clear.
'Public sector intervention in the development of large new settlements is nothing new,' says the report. 'Throughout the latter half of the 20th century, 32 new towns were built across the UK by new town development corporations. The last new town designation was, however, made in 1970 (Central Lancashire), and subsequent developments in planning policy have tended to eschew centrally-driven models of development in favour of locally based, market-led approaches. But it is difficult to see how an exclusive reliance on locally-led, market driven development will deliver the homes this arc requires.'
It goes on to urge direct intervention by Government to manage the risks that make development of new settlements commercially unattractive.
Few, I expect, will be surprised by this, least of all anyone involved in exposing the unsustainability of the Arc proposals.
But whether the claim about the lack of Government powers to impose hypersprawl came from an NIC commissioner or not, it highlights once again the urgent need to abolish the Commission.
It's not just the Arc and Expressway it's been the cheer-leader for. It remains enthusiast-in-chief for many outmoded and destructive major infrastructure projects. Read its reports and you're instantly whisked in a time-warp to the 1960s concrete era of motorway cities, jet-set flying and exurbia.
So I was about to say the National Infrastructure Commission should be abolished as it's unfit for purpose. But that wouldn't be true.
It was set up to remove detailed planning scrutiny from huge projects which, er, need the most detailed planning scrutiny. As such it's incredibly fit for purpose.
In an era where we have urgent environmental necessities to address, however, it's a substantial obstacle to progress. It urgently does need to be abolished.

Posted by Jon Reeds on 28 February 2020


Dommy Nation

Back in December, this blog predicted the Government is about to launch a fresh onslaught on the planning system in England, with the aim of stripping local planning authorities of any remaining powers to control house building.
This was no piece of clairvoyance on my part or because I'd hacked into the MHCLG computer. It was because I'd read an article in The Sun newspaper published just six days after the general election setting out Dominic Cummings' plans to smash up planning which is, apparently, one of his numerous pet abominations.
The article predicted the usual demands of the building industry. There is to be 'a major overhaul of the system that gives permission to build to liberate up significant new space'. Wow. Liberation eh?
Then there is to be building upwards on existing buildings and building on green belts where there are already developments. As nearly all green belts have existing developments on them, that would pretty much mean an end to most green belts.
Oh yes, and to ensure chronically under-funded local planning authorities do what the Government wants rather than what their electors want, there are to be stiff penalties for not approving any old rubbish that comes their way in a couple of microseconds.
'Dom made the point that every time a review is done, planning always comes up as a big drag on productivity, but nobody ever does anything about it,' one 'senior Tory source' was quoted as saying. 'But we are going to do something about it.'
The paper predicted new proposals in January, so it was wrong on one count anyway.
But in January, the Government received orders from the Policy Exchange 'think-tank' whence so many of its bad ideas emanate. The report was the usual set of demands for 'Rethinking the Planning System for the 21st Century'. Rethinking, that is, as in smashing up.
All this was to be co-ordinated with the report of the Building Better Building Beautiful Commission which was expected to provide ammunition with which to shoot down critics. Government sources confidently predicted replacing the current development control system for housing with a system based on photographs and design codes for beautiful buildings.
But the Commission's report didn't quite work out like that. Sure, you can find messages about design and design codes, a useful source of good civic design. And much of it had, shall we say, a certain ambiguity, the result, I gather, of robust disputes around the Commission, but it wasn't the Policy Exchange-Lite rant the Government hoped for.
So now MHCLG has the difficult job of cherry-picking the bits of the BBBB Commission report which it imagines might justify the destruction it plans, while ignoring the bits which certainly don't.
But ministers have their orders to impose on England more low-density, car-dependent homes built on flood plains, on productive agricultural land, on land remote from public transport and on sites where you don't actually have to build because the planning consent will yield the profit without actually doing so.
Of course, a Government with 58 months of 80-seat majority in front of it likes to imagine it can do what it likes. And it knows its opponents are fractious and divided.
Well I have news for the Government. Some issues produce a remarkable degree of unity in our divided nation. These include planning and the environment.
Agreement on these matters crosses political divides. And it includes most of the Conservative supporters in the country.
And already they're getting fed up with this tide of Dommy Nation from Downing Street.
So it's time to put differences aside and prepare for battle.

Posted by Jon Reeds on 21 February 2020


High-megalomania Rail

There is something about the open countryside between Aylesbury and Rugby that brings out the megalomania in railway promoters.
In the 1890s it was the chairman of the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway, Edward Watkin, who promoted a fast, high-capacity main line south through Nottingham to London. And his ambitions didn't end there. The grandly named Great Central Railway was to be the first stage of a scheme to provide a Berne-gauge railway spine down England to a new Channel Tunnel.
The GCR opened in 1899, but it took nine decades more before the Tunnel was built and the Railway never went beyond its comparatively modest London terminus at Marylebone. Although it carried huge tonnages of coal, it never really prospered and Dr Beeching took great delight in closing it in 1966.
Ever since, its trackbed has exercised a fascination with those who want to promote railways. Part has become a heritage railway, there was a scheme to make it part of a national rail freight route and there have been various sensible proposals to use all or part of it in a revived railway network. Then there was HS2.
Designed by engineers rather than transport planners, part of its route from London to Birmingham runs on, or quite often just somewhere near, the old Great Central line. Like the GCR, whose London terminus was inconvenient and ill-connected, HS2 will have an ill-connected London terminus at Euston and a non-connected and inconvenient Birmingham terminus at Curzon Street.
It won't even realise Edward Watkin's vision of a link with the Channel Tunnel. HS2 passengers heading for Europe will face a long stagger with heavy luggage down Euston Road to St Pancras to board HS1. But no doubt the engineers will love creating a third dysfunctional terminus at Euston to succeed those built by the Victorians and the 1960s.
The decision to go ahead with HS2 is wrong on so many levels, even for those of us who dream of restoring a healthy rail network to the country, that it must raise fears about the new Government's capacity for good governance.
But perhaps the most bizarre aspect of the decision is that it seems to be yet another example of how Government is mismanaged from HM Treasury.
A decade ago, the Treasury ordered Austerity as a response to the huge national debt caused by the 2008 crisis. By 2010 this had risen to an eye-watering 39 percent of GDP.
Ten years of Austerity later, it stands at 84 percent of GDP. Today the Government, on our behalf, owes its creditors well over two trillion quid. Now, apparently, the Treasury is happy to up that another five percent in pursuit of an ill-designed and destructive rail scheme.
Most readers of this blog are, I expect, pretty well versed on what's wrong with HS2 and how some of that hundred billion quid could usefully be invested in other rail projects.
But I suppose the other question people are asking today is whether it can still be stopped? The answer is possibly, but it's unlikely with an 80-seat majority government behind it. Many Conservative MPs are most unhappy about it, but does anyone really rate the likelihood of their organising a successful revolt?
Will it be built? I suspect it's pretty likely the London-Birmingham bit will go ahead, with all the destruction and mess involved.
There are, of course, still serious issues to be addressed, like the new station at 'Calvert Garden City', on which Mr Oakervee had some interesting views. But I'll park that for now and leave you with another thought.
What still looks most unlikely is extending HS2 beyond Birmingham, a project which is supposed to even up the north's economy, though not until the 2040s. Until then consultants and contractors are the only ones whose economy would get 'evened up'.
These sections are even more ludicrously ill-designed than the southern. Does anyone suppose that future Governments will sustain their support for this scheme for the next 15-25 years? The Treasury even, when costs continue to climb?
So those northern mayors seduced by the shiny artists' impressions of fast trains in their cities could usefully have a rethink.
The 'Northern Powerhouse Rail' some believed could be tacked on to HS2 North appears to be shrinking before our eyes. Once planned to link Liverpool with Hull, it's now down to Manchester-Leeds, a sort of Northern Dollshouse Rail. Unlike HS2, NPR was a useful scheme, but it's unlikely to happen now in the foreseeable future.
HS2 was the first big test of the new Government and it failed it comprehensively. Now it's threatening us with another big onslaught on the English planning system.
None of this bodes well for the future.

Posted by Jon Reeds on 12 February 2020


Prepare To Defend The Environment

Action stations. The Government is preparing to launch a major onslaught on the planning system in England.
On Monday, the Policy Exchange think-tank, long an advocate of bashing up the planning system, published a report called Rethinking the Planning System for the 21st Century.
The report proposed the usual toxic potion of market demands and environmental destruction familiar from the works of earlier years, only a bit more extreme than usual.
There's the usual ill-informed litany of complaints about planners 'rationing' land, planning producing 'stunted, ugly and unsustainable growth', uncertainty, constraints on 'dynamic places', redistribution of wealth from renters to owners, costlier real estate and harm to SME builders.
'The planning system has been captured by the noisy minority, ' it complains. Presumably that means democratically elected councillors and maybe even the communities under threat from 'the 21st century liberalised economy'.
Well I won't annoy you with any more of this extremism, read it and weep if you really can't resist a little pain. But significantly it was followed by an article in The Times which suggests the Government is seriously looking at the Policy Exchange rantings.
'Councillors could lose their powers to veto housing applications under plans being examined by Downing Street to speed up planning permissions, ' it says.
'They would no longer be able to stop buildings in their area or prevent shops being converted into housing. '
If they mean it, it's a declaration of war on England's communities and its local democracy. I know the Government has almost five years of an 80-seat majority ahead of it, but does it really want a war with its own supporters?
One nugget in the Policy Exchange report did intrigue me, however. In the biography of lead author Jack Airey is a claim that 'his work on raising house building standards has attracted cross-party support and led to the Government creating the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission'.
Interesting. The Commission's report is published on Friday after what reportedly has been far from the smooth ride those who commissioned it obviously hoped for, and that's nothing to do with its late co-chair, Sir Roger Scruton.
If Mr Airey is right, it's plain the Commission was intended to go away and recommend something to the effect that opposition to garden communities and other sprawl development would vanish if the houses looked a bit like Poundbury.
It was always going to be a tough call to get a serious commission to do that and its interim report contained some interesting thoughts on Building Better, as well as Building Beautiful. Smart Growth UK contributed some serious proposals for this.
But public inquiries are often expected to recommend pretty much what the bodies that commissioned them want to hear. The signs are that the Commission will recommend something like the onslaught on local development control that the Government is seeking. I do hope not, but optimism is presently in short supply.
Meanwhile it's quite clear the Government is gearing up for a major attack on planning and planning bodies seem at a loss how to respond.
So it will be up to local community groups to carry this fight forward. For the sake of our environment and the generations to come, it must be fought, and won.

Posted by Jon Reeds on 28 January 2020


Ebenezer Howard Versus Garden Communities

For a long time now, I have had an uneasy relationship with the late Sir Ebenezer Howard.
He was, without doubt, a remarkable man, whose ideas have spread around the world. He disproves Shakespeare's belief about the evil that men do living after them, while the good is oft interred with their bones. Both Howard's good ideas and his bad ones have survived him.
So there's good news and bad news. Let's get the bad out of the way first. Howard's ideas on spatial development have given Britain, and other countries, a development paradigm for more than 100 years which could be characterised as low-density, car-dependent, greenfield sprawl.
His garden cities morphed into a few new towns and vast numbers of garden suburbs which have squandered our scarce building land, trashed our countryside and left us hopelessly dependent on unsustainable transport.
And the good news? Howard was one of those figures whose work at the beginning of the 20th century led to the modern planning profession and planning system. For this he deserves great credit.
But there's another positive angle to his legacy. Howard's main preoccupation was never garden cities themselves or spatial planning. If you read Garden Cities of Tomorrow, it's plain his main interest was communitarian economics and governance.
Now I'm sure the world would be a better place if his ideas had been followed, but they haven't secured very much traction. His admirers, however, continue to press them.
I was reminded of this by the inspectors' letter to Uttlesford District Council, ripping apart its draft local plan as unsound chiefly owing to its support for three wretched 'garden communities'.
The letter is worth a read for anyone fighting these destructive developments, but it's the findings of the two inspectors on 'Garden City Principles' I found most illuminating.
These days it's the Town and Country Planning Association Howard helped found that lays down the Principles on which, allegedly, the Government's 50-odd garden communities are based.
1. Land value capture for the benefit of the community.
2. Strong vision, leadership and community engagement.
3. Community ownership of land and long-term stewardship of assets.
Valuable principles for any development I would have thought.
The two inspectors cited these principles, but cast serious doubt on the adherence of the proposed Uttlesford garden communities to them.
Now this is not some community group objecting to the inevitable trashing of its local environment that garden communities cause. It's two highly qualified and experienced planners appointed by the Government's Planning Inspectorate to examine the local plan. They raised a whole range of issues.
'All these matters cast some doubt as to whether these vital Garden Community Principles would be met in Uttlesford,' they conclude.
And it means everyone objecting to garden communities throughout the land needs to ask whether their developers and land owners really have signed up to land value capture, community engagement, community ownership of the land and long-term stewardship of assets.
I may be wrong, but I see little sign of it.
Of course, land owners and developers who see potential vast profits heading instead for communities will argue this is just one council naive enough to have insisted on the Principles. But Uttlesford is not alone in this and others have done likewise.
Nor can commercial interests run off to Whitehall and complain they're being bullied. The Government's own Garden Communities prospectus is quite clear on this.
'All proposals must set out a clear vision for the quality of the community and how this can be maintained in the long-term, for instance by following Garden City principles,' it says, and it provides no alternative solution.
Thus both the Government's own stated policy and its Planning Inspectorate are insisting on at least some of Howard's communitarian principles.
So it's time to closely examine the other 40-odd garden community plans and see if the land owners and developers are equally willing to see their profits diverted to communities by this admirable legacy of Sir Ebenezer Howard.
We could start with the Wynyard proposal, dumped into the garden communities programme on the same day as the Uttlesford decision became public, presumably to divert attention.
It's a matter of principle.

Posted by Jon Reeds on 15 January 2020


Augean Stables

I suppose if I had just returned from a long and lonesome space voyage to Mars, I would be delighted to discover the Government is planning to spend around a hundred billion pounds or so on rail investment in England.
But, as we all know, although that cash could pay for many high priorities like light rail or metro for our cities, a national freight network including a new link around London to the Channel Tunnel, network electrification, railway reopenings etc., it won't. It will go to HS2.
Personally I'm not as anti-high-speed-rail as some and I do wish people could put as much energy into opposing road construction. High-speed rail could be the icing on a much needed rail investment cake if, and only if, the schemes are well designed. Well integrated with the existing network too.
HS2 isn't. At last, however, there does seem to be some kind of debate about HS2 going on in 10 Downing Street. The most important figure there is said to favour a review. But enough about Dominic Cummings.
Tony Berkeley's recent minority report to the Oakervee inquiry should have put the current HS2 project to bed but, such is the momentum of the Whitehall Flyer running away down grade with one of its schemes lashed insecurely to a wagon, it hasn't.
Lord Berkeley is well worth a read as someone who understands the rail industry and its needs. The questions he asks about the demand for improved services in the areas HS2 would serve, whether it is the best way to meet that demand and whether there are cheaper and more appropriate solutions must be answered before the country adds seriously to its national debt for this scheme.
I won't go through the arguments in detail here, there are too many and they are pertinent. Most of the benefits HS2 is supposed to generate could be secured at a fraction of the price without the harm it would cause.
The argument that HS2 is vital because it would free up much needed capacity on the existing network also falls apart when it's examined. That capacity is needed for sure, but there are better ways of securing it.
As with so much else in national transport and planning policy, a full and proper debate is needed. It needs to be conducted away from Whitehall whose own 'reviews' are all too often designed to produce the answer that Whitehall was right all along, and probably brilliant to boot.
But the entire HS2 fiasco is yet another example of Whitehall not knowing best. The NPPF, garden communities, the Expressway and the rest of the trunk road building programme, the Arc, fantasy housing targets, airport expansion etc., etc..
Need I go on?
A new Government ought to be an opportunity to ask these questions. We urgently need a proper national debate on HS2, not a closed-doors fudge.
Will we get one? We shall see.

Posted by Jon Reeds on 14 January 2020