The following is an article by Professor Mike Jenks which was the core of his presentation to the Town Forum on 9 July 2014.
Introduction
This talk was based on one given to the Fal Energy Partnership’s AGM, jointly with Chris Smith
There is little doubt that Falmouth and Penryn are rich in variety and vitality, are environmentally very special, socially diverse with some extremes of wealth and poverty, and are economically vibrant. Such a mixture leads to a question of where to start from a planning perspective. In fact, there is a clear planning policy context, and also some very significant changes.
First there is the Local Plan, which has been through seemingly endless consultations (hardly changing it at all) from its first emanation in the Core Strategy Document around 2011/12. This is a document required by government, and has to be agreed by them. It contains many good things, albeit at a general level, but also contains hard targets for growth. With respect to Falmouth and Penryn in relation to housing, for example, it highlights the need for a mix of size, type, price, tenure, and covers the issue of student accommodation. A growth target of 2,600 homes over the period 2010-30 is set (of which 1,477 are either built of with planning permission, and 1,123 more are needed). 40% of these should be affordable homes. With respect to the economy, it envisages 9,450 m2 of office and 13,000 m2 of industrial space, to accommodate 850 new jobs.
Then there is the Town Framework. Work started on this about four years ago, but it has yet to be revealed. The only indication was a couple of maps in the Core Strategy Document identifying sites to accommodate the project growth of our two towns. These site were rigorously assessed using a ‘traffic light’ system on multiple criteria. However the framework does not indicate, for example, the form, density or design of development.
Some guidance exists on design with the County’s Design Guide, but this is general to Cornwall, and not specific to Falmouth and Penryn. More work might be needed here, perhaps an updated version of ‘Falmouth by Design’.
Perhaps of most significance to us is the Community Plan. Sadly it now has no statutory status. But it is an excellent document with widespread consultation. 16,500 questionnaires were circulated asking ‘what do you think?’ Ten working groups were set up with 100 representatives as members to draft a report. Then 20 groups with 200 people considered the report in detail. A further 400 people commented in detail. In all over 1,000 people were directly involved in the process. It gives a definitive view of Falmouth and Penryn’s aspirations, much, but not all of which is relevant to planning. However, it was carried out in 2008, so may need to be reconfirmed. Nevertheless it provides a significant starting point.
These are the local policies, but this occurs in a national context. Since the advent of the Coalition Government, a lot has changed recently. In particular, widespread changes have been implemented to planning legislation, and it is questionable whether this could be a planning disaster or opportunity.
So what has changed?
•
Much of planning regulation, guidance and evidence-based policy swept aside
•
It has been replaced by a National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
•
A ‘Neighbourhood plan’ and ‘localism’ have been introduced
On the face of it, one thing in the NPPF sounds promising, and that is that there is an explicit ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’, it states:
At the heart of the planning system is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking
A wicked thought, perhaps cynicism on my part, but it is hard not to notice a striking resemblance to the John Mortimer satirical novels about Rumpole of the Bailey, and his often repeated mantra:
The golden thread that runs through the heart of British justice, is the presumption of innocence
Could it be that those who were charged with drafting this superficial document, and the abandonment of so much planning guidance, thought they would slip in something to show their displeasure?
However, it seems reasonable to ask, if there is a presumption in favour of ‘sustainable development’, what do they mean by it?
The basic definition put forward by the NPPF is that sustainable development means
•
Planning for prosperity (an economic role)
•
Planning for people (a social role)
•
Planning for places (an environmental role)
But read further, and the sub-text largely means economic growth, and certainly the government’s policy context within which it was written makes this clear.
And what of Cornwall Council in its Local Plan? Its headline objective is laudable and that is to: Achieve a leading position in sustainable living. And they go on to define sustainable development in the following terms:
Ultimately this is a balance of decisions around economic, social and environmental issues to meet our present day needs while not compromising the needs of future generations.
There is nothing wrong with this, being based closely on the 1987 definition by Gro Harland Brundtland at the UN Rio Summit. That is the three pillars of sustainable development; social, economic, and environmental, and that
sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. But thinking and definitions have moved on since then. Many, including the UK, have added in ‘governance’ and ‘sound science’, and other countries across the world have also added culture as an important element to achieving sustainability. So the more generally accepted headlines for sustainable development could at least be argued to be:
•
Living within Environmental Limits
•
Ensuring a Strong, Healthy and Just Society
•
Achieving a Sustainable Economy
•
Promoting Good Governance
•
Using Sound Science
So if there is a presumption, then it must be for genuinely sustainable development.
The key question then is what does sustainable development really mean in an urban context?
Sustainable development
I am going to talk a bit about sustainable urbanism, and will use an umbrella term – The Compact City. Over the past 20 or so years this has driven theory, policy and practice, and is now part of the mainstream. As you can see from the words on the slide, there are many other terms that have been used, and probably many more, but scratch the surface and they mean much the same thing.
It is a term that covers a whole range of approaches to achieving sustainable development. The source for ideas about the Compact City originated in a rather romantic view of European city, based around medieval centres that have been held by many theorists as an ideal city model. The Compact City concept as a sustainable form, was developed in 1990 in an EU Green Paper, and is claimed to be an urban form that is humane, as well as being environmentally, socially and economically sustainable. And if the concepts have become widespread in design, planning and policy, it is the central areas of cities like Amsterdam or Barcelona that have been held up as models to follow. So why is the Compact City claimed to provide sustainable development?
First it is claimed to be
spatially sustainable because the town or city is contained, that is it does not spread out in low density suburban sprawl. This preserves agricultural land, and because the boundaries are constrained, it requires the efficient use of urban land (for example brownfield sites).
Second the Compact City is
environmentally sound because more compact forms mean less distances to travel, and therefore there will be fewer greenhouse gas emissions. Also another claimed benefit is that the higher densities implied by compact forms mean that it is possible to introduce local power generation schemes, such as combined heat and power (CHP).
The third claim, closely associated, is that it is
efficient for transport. Because of the proximity of home, work and leisure, there is less need to travel. The higher densities make the provision of good quality public transport more viable, and proximity encourages more sustainable modes of movement such as walking and cycling.
Fourth, it is
socially beneficial. The compact form means there is better access to key health, social and leisure facilities, and again because of closeness, the access is more equitable, as it is not dependent on a car to get there. Proximity and higher densities are reckoned to support cultural and social diversity, and encourage more citizen involvement and participation.
Fifth, the claim is for
economic viability. More people in an area help to support facilities and services, and also local businesses. The higher densities help to lower per capita infrastructure costs, increasing the economies of scale.
Finally, there is the promotion of
good governance, and the way more compact forms help to foster participation and engagement, and more resilient and empowered communities.
While these claims have not necessarily been proven, they have been put into practice, and there is a general consensus about the characteristics that appear to work.
To summarise, the sustainability claims for a more compact urban form are that it is:
•
Spatially sustainable
•
Environmentally sound
•
Efficient for transport
•
Socially beneficial
•
Economically viable
•
Promotes good governance
And as such urban areas that are more sustainable have characteristics of:
•
A mixture of uses
•
High(er) densities
•
Interconnected streets
•
Social and economic diversity
•
A variety of transport choices
•
Neighbourhoods that are walkable
•
Using renewables and recycling
•
Low/zero energy design
Some examples
How far is it possible to achieve sustainable towns and cities? Here are a few examples that have been claimed to be successful. But first I want to make a small point about drawing on best practice and good design. While best practice often comes with some evidence to support it, good design is more likely to be seen as a matter of opinion. Nevertheless, there are so many good examples, and good design that works in its context, and takes account of massing, density, height, layout and the surroundings. Design does not have to be a backward looking, fake Victorian or Georgian, or Prince of Wales supported pastiche. The latter, of course, is somewhat hypocritical with an unsustainable, car dependent housing development and out of town shopping on the eastern edge of Truro. The examples shown here are drawn from Europe, the UK and worldwide give an insight into forward looking design that is driven by sustainability criteria.
Malmo is a small Swedish flagship development on a 30 hectare brownfield site with 600 apartments and mixed uses including commercial activities. There was a clear environmental brief to (good) designers who were given freedom over ‘style’. It is high on energy efficient design, is pedestrian friendly and relatively car-free, with eco-transport, use of renewables and a CHP plant, and good policies for waste and recycling.
Vauban, Freiburg will be looked at in more detail later, but has an added reputation for strong community participation, and use of solar energy. Linz in Austria makes strong claims as a solar city. And a more neglected option for providing homes people can afford can be found at Almere in the Netherlands. They have set aside a considerable amount of served land, along with an environmental brief to build to. Almere was a 1970s new town outside Amsterdam, and in addition to its self-build policy, it is also transforming itself into a more sustainable city.
In the UK,
Greenwich Millennium Village is so well-known it is hardly worth mentioning, but its design is different, more suitable for large cities, and it is very popular and sought after. It certainly has all the sustainable features mentioned above. Similarly,
BedZED, Sutton, London has many of the features, is a bit old now and controversial. The architect, Bill Dunster has a very individual approach, and of course Jubilee Wharf in Penryn follows the same principles. Whether it works or not is another story. But he claims that now he is able to design and build carbon neutral housing at little or no extra cost, which is certainly a positive move.
These examples have much in common. Largely these are the technical aspects of environmental design. If used as designed, they can be effective in saving energy and reducing carbon emissions.
One of the best?
Of these and many more examples, Freiburg is reckoned to be the best, and its urban extension at Vauban seen as an exemplary scheme demonstrating urban sustainability.
Vauban was a brownfield site, formerly a military barracks, of approximately 38 hectares. The plan envisioned that the 2,000 homes would lead to a population of 5,000 people and support 600 jobs.
The aim was to create a development ‘in a co-operative, participatory way’ which would meet ecological, social, economic and cultural requirements. The idea was to produce a district that created homes and a community, not just houses in a suburb.
Participation was at the core. Most of the individual plots were sold to
Baugruppen (co-housing groups) whose bids were assessed against criteria favouring families with children, older people and local residents. Also, all buildings were to be low-energy or passive energy. The intention was to provide a mix of dwellings for low and higher income groups, as well as the development of open space for cultural and social activities, at the lowest possible cost.
The result is a relatively high density (90 dwellings per hectare), mixed use, environmentally friendly district that is a place where people are involved and want to live. Environmentally, it is one of Europe’s largest solar settlements; it has a local power generation plant using wood chips and natural gas, rainwater collection and recycling, and a vacuum sanitation system to an anaerobic system providing natural gas for the power plant.
Tellingly it is a sustainable community with the necessary infrastructure and facilities needed to support it. The 2,000 homes are supported by: 1 primary school; 3 day nurseries; 1 kindergarten; 2 play groups; 5 playgrounds; 1 children adventure farm; and 5 community green spaces. Supporting the local economy there are: 6 cafés / bistros / restaurants; 1 pub; 1 bakery; 1 food & wine shop; 2 delicatessen shops; a weekly farmers market; 3 stationer’s / book shops; 1 bicycle shop with self-help workshop; 1 bicycle delivery service; 1 music shop; 2 trade centres; 1 pharmacy; 1 bank; 2 cash machines; and a hotel.
The community is supported with a community office and community centre with a market square, a youth centre and 3 small sports pitches. And it is well connected with public transport, with 3 tram stops and two bus stops.
Freiburg itself is compact, well connected with public transport, well-used by cyclists and pedestrian-friendly. Cyclists are provided with good facilities, such as the multi-storey cycle park at its main transport hub in the centre. Vauban is car-free and streets are intended for people to use and children to play in. If you own a car, you have to park it on the periphery at the ‘solar garage’. The annual cost of this is reputed to be 18,000 Euros, but residents have found ways to avoid this.
At the entrance to the Vauban area is the ‘Solar Ship’, a range of shops, commercial and housing, with solar panels on the roofs. There is a hotel and housing for elderly and disabled, a market square, primary school, and tram and bus stop.
The whole site is connected throughout with pedestrian and cycle routes. Although it is car-free, cars can ‘drop off’ for no more than 30 minutes, and this restriction is well policed by the inhabitants themselves. Private and social housing is mixed together, and it is hard to tell which is which.
There is an area for solar housing, and these houses get an income of 6,000 Euros a year from the power they generate, thanks, of course, to generous German subsidies.
One of the keys to making Vauban work is related to land prices. The city and planners recognise if land is open to the free market to maximise its ‘value’, then good planning and genuinely sustainable development is not possible to achieve. This is what happens in the UK. Recently, developers are using the Growth and Infrastructure Act (2013) to challenge targets set for affordable homes, and winning large reductions on appeal, arguing that with affordable housing development is ‘unviable’. By contrast, planning in Freiburg uses zoning as a bargaining counter with land owners to moderate land values, and will take two thirds of any rise in land value diue to the zoning to reinvest in infrastructure. To summarise:
•
Freiburg appears to deliver a lot of what sustainable development should do
•
It is planned comprehensively and in an integrated way
•
It delivers ‘passivhaus’ design, solar energy, and has a local CHP ‘cogeneration’ power station
•
It is connected with high quality integrated public transport
•
The mixed use is effective, and social and private housing comfortably sits side by side
•
The suburb is urbanised, with a density of 90 dwellings/hectare
•
Planning is strong and supported by good regulation and governance in the public interest
•
Vauban was owned by the city but in Freiburg land prices are controlled to an extent, and 66% of ‘profit’ is reinvested in social facilities and infrastructure
Of course, this is in Germany and not the UK. But even so can a Neighbourhood Plan lever some of the good things that Freiburg has achieved for Falmouth and Penryn’s benefit. How far can the best examples inspire the process? Can the good ideas in the Community Plan be effectively drawn on, and can local control be exercised to achieve genuine sustainable development, and the best plans for growth?
Changing local perceptions
So what of Falmouth and Penryn, what opportunities do we have here and what constraints do we have to overcome? Does public expenditure and policies controlling private sector investment and development achieve a sustainable local economy and living environment? The answer is probably not, and so perceptions may need to change.
For example,
food: the average item of food in a supermarket trolley may have travelled 3,000 miles, almost certainly in fossil fuelled transport. It is very likely to have been expensively packaged with a one-time use covering, has probably been processed extensively. Yet Cornwall grows and produces plenty of food, and buying and selling locally would keep money in the County. This must be pushing at an open door to win people over to consuming more local fresh food. The balance of
energy production could also shift towards the local, away from the ‘big six’ and from energy dependence on unreliable suppliers such as Russia. Cornwall has an abundance of solar, wind, tide and wave power, and ground source energy which can be drawn on.
Less easy to achieve, but necessary to change is our dependence on unsustainable modes of
transport. We are probably stuck with fossil fuelled trucks moving heavy goods and materials around for some time to come, but when it comes to cars, there is so much potential. Cars certainly have their uses for family outings, transporting bulky objects and medium/long distance travel, but the Freiburg example is one of many starting to reduce car dependency in the urban environment. Cycling has minimal environmental impact and exercise benefit considerations but in Cornwall inclement unpredictable weather, hills and close encounters of the vehicular kind sharing road space mitigate against their use. Finally train and bus use need constant promotion, which is easier to achieve in out towns but less so in the rural areas.
But these are larger than more direct planning matters, and changing perceptions about design is important and a planning and architectural issue. The local authorities and local planners need to understand design better, to be more aware of poor design and discourage it. Maybe locally there is more open-mindedness than developers and others give credit for, for new, better and even ‘modern ‘design. Too often housing expansion means a carpet of standard homes produced by the large housing developers. Their design is characterised by small mean windows, are badly proportioned, and applied everywhere regardless of the locality. And we know that that at around 76m2, are spatially the smallest and meanest in Europe. Estates, more often than not are laid out in a series of formless and meandering dead ends, leading nowhere, which could be anywhere in the UK. It is simply not good enough, and why should Falmouth and Penryn (or anywhere else) accept such miserable products
Of course what is ‘good design’ is often seen as a matter of opinion, but it can be articulated. Examples highlighted by Cornwall Council in its design guidance give some ideas for better design. If development is to be more sustainable, it is necessary to use existing or previously developed urban land – the brownfield sites - as efficiently as possible, and before expanding into surrounding green fields. There are numerous examples of local infill schemes in our two towns, showing that some quite good things can be done. In looking to future plans major projects need to be taken on board, to understand the context and the economic benefits they might bring to our towns. At the same time, the more prominent the building or development, the more important it is to insist on the very best design standards.
A Neighbourhood plan for Falmouth and Penryn
The talk so far has looked at the local policies, the national changes to planning and the key change of a ‘presumption’ in favour of sustainable development. What sustainable development might mean, examples of what it might be like, and perceptions that need to change if it is to be implemented have been considered.
It is worth considering what room is left to us locally to achieve the best for Falmouth and Penryn’s growth within a neighbourhood planning process. In June 2012 the OECD launched a major report on Compact City Policies. It reviewed 27 countries that had clear and good policies to help promote sustainable planning and design. It has evaluated case studies in five OECD countries – Australia, Canada, USA, France and Japan (Melbourne, Vancouver, Portland, Paris and Toyama), drawing conclusions and giving advice about what has been found successful in moving toward more sustainable development.
At much the same time, the UK government launched its new planning legislation – making a huge play of the idea of de-regulation and sweeping away past guidance – in fact over 1,000 pages of evidence-based guidance was scrapped, to be reduced down to a 56 page document – The National Planning Policy Framework. Also scrapped was the exemplary policy guidance identified by the OECD. The UK is stepping firmly in the wrong direction – at least 2 steps backwards.
But, in removing a lot of central control, it set up legislation for ‘localism’, and put in place a mechanism for local communities to plan their neighbourhoods, albeit in a very constrained fashion with a Neighbourhood Plan – the half step forward. Can this process be used to bring in the best that has been highlighted by the OECD and many others, into our own local processes?
If it can be achieved, then the Neighbourhood Plan under the NPPF does have legal force. It is not an easy process, and must include people in meaningful participation, engagement and inclusion.
The first stage is to decide on the plan area and boundaries. To be meaningful I suggest that these could be close to the boundaries that were used for both the Community Plan and the Town Framework – most information and work has been done here and so it is a solid base to work from. The process then should move on to defining the vision and objectives, and to developing the plan in detail. The plan then has to undergo a process of independent examination. Once it passes this test, it has to go for a referendum and achieve support from 50% of respondents. If supported it then has statutory force, being adopted as part of the Local Plan.
So do Falmouth and Penryn (together) need a Neighbourhood Plan? I believe the answer is a definite yes. This is because:
•
With the growth in student demand, the proposed Article 4 restriction on houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) needs a local policy context and a neighbourhood plan to give it valididty
•
Without one it is likely to be a developers’ charter for poor and locally insensitive development
•
Genuine sustainable development is desirable, can be insisted on within a plan and will be beneficial to our towns
•
Affordable and social housing and student accommodation can be properly planned
•
Integration and infrastructure can be planned, rather than an accumulation of fragmented developments
•
You can plan ‘urban’ form, layout, infrastructure, manipulate location (to some extent) and densities, housing type and mix, protect green space, and promulgate good and appropriate design
•
You cannot change the growth targets or counteract the local plan (and Town Framework?)
But is it possible to do? Firstly it will need representative involvement. This should include the Town Forum, the Town Councils and organisations and groups that contributed to the Community Plan, and other interested groups, and residents associations and representatives.
It will need support and of course some funds. It is vital that there is a manager (and/or planner) for the time it takes to prepare the plan, undertake the consultation and oversee the process. Where the funding will come from is another matter. The Councils have a modest grant, but this will leave a shortfall. As the plan envisages tackling the sustainable growth of our two towns, perhaps the LEP growth fund could be tapped, or other forms of funding sought.
Consultation has been done in the not too distant past with the Community Plan so it may be possible to undertake a light touch update. More attention will need to be paid to the communities most affected by growth, perhaps with ‘planning for real’ exercises. Also questionnaires and other communication can happen through Fathom and the media.
Finally, the Neighbourhood Plan should aspire to be worthy of our status as the 4th best place to live in the UK (Times), and one of the three UK ‘great towns’ (Academy of Urbanism). It should show how Falmouth and Penryn will be enhanced and benefitted environmentally, socially and economically, that we can be proud of, and that will be held up as an exemplar for others to follow.
(c) Mike Jenks 2014
Posts
