Popular opinion amongst planners and environmentalists is that neighbourhood planning and climate change don’t go together. But is that necessarily true and what does it mean for the rest of the principles behind localism and planning? In this post I look at choices and decision-making in the context of localism and sustainability. I think there is a way to nudge people into making the best decision for themselves and the planet. Continue reading “Neighbourhood planning and sustainability: mutually exclusive?”
Post-localism Homesick Blues
Working on climate change is rarely an uplifting job in my experience. To add to the normal uphill battles of a cynical tree-hugger, everyone in government is in uncertain and unsettling times. For months we’ve been waiting for the Localism Bill and the Energy Bill. I haven’t written a blog post since August as a result. Now that we have something to talk about, it’s nothing to be excited about. If the buck stops with neighbourhood plans and what residents want, we will never tackle climate change.
I co-led a leadership academy for 25 councillors on climate change a few weeks ago. Councillors seem to be getting on board with the idea that council-led energy projects are worthwhile. The feed-in tariffs and a few step changing councils have shown that there’s money to be made and residents really appreciate the lower fuel bills. Even the self-proclaimed climate change sceptics at the event voiced an interest.
Throughout this two-day event, planning was frequently mentioned as a big barrier. In fact, planning gets bashed at every renewable energy or climate change event I attend. Continue reading “Post-localism Homesick Blues”
Monitoring on-site renewable requirements
The Merton rule is old hat and even ‘Merton plus’ is becoming yesterday’s solution. Planning requirements that are intended to reduce the carbon emissions of a development need to begin with the energy hierarchy, prioritising decentralised energy before insisting on 10-25% reductions from on-site renewable energy installations. If the policy does not allow for flexibility with the on-site renewable contribution it could reduce the overall CO2 savings. Nevertheless, authorities still have Merton-type policies – and considering the time it takes to change planning policies, they may be with us for some time.
LB Westminster planners hosted an event on monitoring renewable energy planning policies in late July. Two ex-Merton officers, Adrian Hewitt and Ed Cotterill, presented an automated energy monitoring system that they have developed. Here’s how it works: There’s a data logging box installed on-site that measures the productivity of renewable energy installations. This information is automatically sent off to a network. A planning officer or developer can log-in to the network and see how the renewable energy installation is doing. Planners or monitoring officers could keep track of compliance with the carbon reduction policies for all developments that had on-site technologies. As you might expect, this recently developed technology has exposed some underperforming energy installations.
It’s obvious if you think about it. Calculations are done using estimates and a technology is approved by the planning service (this is not a clean-cut process). A building is then fitted with PV panels or a wind turbine and the job is done. But what if the PV panel wasn’t properly connected or the wind hardly blows in that area? Continue reading “Monitoring on-site renewable requirements”
Carbon is invisible, money is tangible
The recently abolished Sustainable Development Commission held a launch event for their report on empowering communities to improve their neighbourhoods a few weeks ago. I went along because I needed some convincing to support the Big Society concept and how it might work for sustainability. I’m not at all convinced, but after some time to reflect over my summer holiday I think I’m finally able to put my thoughts into words. Many planners and sustainability professionals will agree that community groups are more likely to form and raise their voice on issues they oppose, rather than organising themselves to build schools and local energy schemes.
Phillip Blond, Director of ResPublica, spoke at the SDC launch event about the ‘increasingly fragmented’ nature of our society and how people are not associating. He spoke about how it’s problematic to get people to form groups on lots of separate issues like crime and health because it leads to disaggregated communities. Not everybody in the audience agreed with this but I found it very thought provoking. In terms of the environment, he said that climate change is the only topic on the environment agenda, but people just don’t get it. Carbon is invisible: “have you ever seen any?” Continue reading “Carbon is invisible, money is tangible”
policy and sustainability – what I didn’t say in the case study
Consideration should be given to using supplementary planning documents for aspects of climate change (as a temporary measure) to speed up implementation. Higher sustainable building standards should be set nationally to reduce the burden to local authorities for evidence gathering and justifying viability. Development plan documents should set carbon reduction targets rather than energy supply targets. These are just a few paraphrased highlights from the slew of recommendations in a CLG commissioned report published a few months ago. I wanted to talk about some of its findings in our latest case study about using supplementary planning documents (SPDs) to address climate change, but this isn’t the kind of thing PAS case studies cover. (Don’t get me wrong, it’s not censorship. It’s just about using the appropriate media for the topic at hand. PAS case studies share good practice. They don’t comment on what national policy should say.)
I think it would be great if authorities could use SPDs to set high standards for sustainability – provided that the policies allowed for flexible solutions if a site can show that it isn’t feasible or viable to meet those standards. And that brings us quite swiftly to the crux of the issue: viability.
The concern is that inappropriately high sustainable building standards would put a burden on developers. This would have implications for housing delivery and potentially economic growth. So planners are left with the burden of stopping climate change whilst ensuring that growth and developers’ profits aren’t affected. It feels like an impossible position to be in. Continue reading “policy and sustainability – what I didn’t say in the case study”
delivering climate change policies – it’s not about energy calculations
After a very long bout of writer’s block, I’ve finally had some inspiration. I’ve written about the importance of central government action and local government decision makers to reduce the UK’s contribution to global warming. But what about the role of planning in the delivery of these aspirational central government policies on the ground?
For local planning authorities, the task of reducing carbon emissions through spatial planning isn’t at all straightforward. Each authority works with different targets (some set in the Regional Spatial Strategy and the London Plan) that are worded slightly differently across the country. The targets are set in development plan document (DPD) policies that are based on evidence supporting the viability of those targets. Leaving the challenge of policy writing aside, the crunch point is that development management officers have to interpret these strategic policies and facilitate development that meets the policy aims. This is the case with all planning policy and delivery, but for climate change policies it’s a little more complicated. Continue reading “delivering climate change policies – it’s not about energy calculations”
Copenhagen or not, we have local responsibilities
Expectations for Copenhagen have been a swinging pendulum over the last few weeks. Obama is going…he’s not going. We’ll have legally binding agreements…we won’t have legally binding agreements. In this uncertainty, the LGA held a timely debate earlier this week called Copenhagen: can we turn global talks into action on the ground? The panel was suitably expert to stimulate thought and incite intense frustration (or maybe that’s just me).
Richard Kemp (Deputy Chair, LGA) started off the discussion with a sobering figure on the high percentage of people who still think climate change isn’t caused by humans. Then Chris Church (Low Carbon Communities Network) told a similarly upsetting anecdote of doing a training session in a district authority where a group of councillors came together and said that the council shouldn’t do anything about climate change as it’s not an issue. This points to one of the main issues with the role that councils play in the UK’s response to climate change: we need politicians who aren’t afraid to make a tough decision that might only realise benefits after their time in office. (It would also help if they accepted the causes of climate change in the first place.) Continue reading “Copenhagen or not, we have local responsibilities”
Talk is cheap
The forthcoming National Policy Statements will not be assessed for carbon and the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) is not required to consider climate change in its decisions. So how will we meet carbon reduction targets if major infrastructure is built without adequate consideration of the consequences for carbon? Local planning authorities will need to produce impact assessments for applications being handled by the IPC. How will this be funded and what support will planners have in preparing such assessments? The Westminster Energy, Environment & Transport Forum on Friday raised more questions than it answered.
The topic was The implementation and impact of the Planning Act 2008 and the speakers and audience focussed on the NPSs, the IPC and climate change. To be fair, Sir Michael Pitt (Chair of the IPC) and Richard McCarthy (Director General, Housing and Planning, DCLG) had responses to the above questions, some of which were more convincing than others. But they weren’t nearly as convincing as Hugh Ellis’s characteristically blunt thrashing of the regime. Continue reading “Talk is cheap”
Planning for health and climate change in the UK
I’ve been wearing ‘climate change goggles’ for the last few months. This isn’t nearly as fun as wearing beer goggles, but the consequences are much more constructive. Last week I went to a seminar on using spatial planning to deliver health outcomes. The event was part of the launch of the King’s Fund report on ‘The Health Impacts of Spatial Planning Decisions’ which provides evidence for how planning policy and decisions can affect health outcomes. Viewing the event through the climate change lens allowed me to focus on a few key links between national agendas for health and the environment in the UK.
Climate change and health are cross cutting issues throughout planning policy statements. Work on both climate change mitigation and adaptation have direct effects on health outcomes in the UK. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by collocating services and providing infrastructure for non-car travel will reduce air pollution and ‘obesogenic’ environments, in turn reducing heart and respiratory disease and obesity. Dealing with energy efficiency in new-build and existing housing stock is essential to reduce CO2 emissions but is also vital to address our vulnerability to increasing extreme weather events (e.g. heatwaves like the summer of 2003). Continue reading “Planning for health and climate change in the UK”