WHQ provides an overview of the Sustainable Development Commission’s review of Government progress on sustainable communities.
Background
The Sustainable Development Commission is the UK Government’s watchdog on sustainable development reporting to the Prime Minister and the First Ministers of Wales and Scotland. The Commission has undertaken a thematic review of the Sustainable Communities Plan which was launched in 2003 as a major, long-term regeneration and growth programme. Although the Sustainable Communities Plan is English-specific, the findings of the review also have applicability to Wales.
The definition of sustainable communities used in the Plan is:
‘Places where people want to live and work, now and in the future. They meet the diverse needs of existing and future residents, are sensitive to their environment, and contribute to a high quality of life. They are safe and inclusive, well planned, built and run, and offer equality of opportunity and good services for all.’
This compares with the government’s sustainable development principles as set out in the 2005 Sustainable Development Strategy Securing the Future:
‘ we want to achieve our goals of living within environmental limits and a just society, and we will do it by means of sustainable economy, good governance and sound science.’
The review examines in particular the ways in which government interventions in the growth areas of the south east of England and the housing market renewal areas in the west and north of the country are being, and should be, reconciled with the guiding principles for sustainable development.
What are the environmental impacts of the government’s housing and communities policies?
Key findings of the review include the following:
- the climate change and energy supply and demand impacts from new-build housing are likely to be huge, particularly as basic house-building standards are not yet focused around delivering against the needs of a carbon-constrained economy. Although new initiatives, eg on zero carbon development are being developed, it is clear that the majority of current and planned house building between 2006 and 2016 will contribute to overall UK carbon emissions
- housing refurbishment and regeneration programmes need to be tackled with the same vigour as new build in relation to improving energy efficiency
- the housing programme has huge impacts on land and natural resource use. There is an urgent need to develop policies and measures to address water scarcity. Increasing the density of existing towns and cities is much more sustainable than creating new communities outside of them
- the approach to green spaces and the natural environment is highly variable. Government has a role in ensuring a much more systematic approach to enhancement of green spaces in every development. Particular concern is expressed about any changes to planning which could undermine good planning practice or sustainable development
Are the government’s housing and communities policies helping to promote a strong, healthy, just society and sustainable economy?
Key findings of the review include the following:
- achieving the government’s full vision of sustainable communities will require significant public intervention and funding alongside private endeavour for a substantial period of time. It is not clear that the right amount of funding will be available at the right time and with enough certainty, to deliver on good intentions. The housing market renewal areas, particularly, suffer from the very short time horizon for the funding allocations, which makes it difficult to plan and deliver for the long term
- a number of issues emerge in relation to community cohesion. Dormitory housing developments in some areas lack community infrastructure. By contrast, in the housing market renewal areas, demolition programmes have led to significant community resistance. Social and racial cohesion can be dramatically affected by housing planning and design. The degree to which demolition and rebuild in the housing market renewal areas is more attractive than refurbishment of the existing stock due to funding factors is felt to be a perverse outcome from a programme that is designed to deliver sustainability
- good examples of community engagement were identified by the review but these have contributed to negative assessments from the Audit Commission in relation to the speed of action taken in housing market renewal areas. Community engagement needs to be thorough and extensive and needs to be recognised and encouraged through inspection regimes
- examples of serious disconnection between housing provision and the provision of public services such as schools, transport, healthcare etc were found, in part due to the existence of separate funding streams. Forward funding for sustainable transport and public service infrastructure is needed so that it is in place simultaneously with the housing
- communities should be planned and developed from the start to maximise opportunities to improve the health of local people and to reduce health inequalities. If housing and planning policy are taken forward without taking into account the principles of sustainable development, the government’s goals of improving the health of the population, reducing health inequalities and tackling obesity, will be much harder to achieve
- a tendency for road-only solutions to the transport needs of newly developed areas
- the economic regeneration issues that are so critical in many areas of the north and midlands are in some areas not being adequately co-ordinated with the housing agenda
Are the government’s housing and communities policies being delivered and monitored effectively?
Key findings of the review include the following:
- the delivery and monitoring processes set in place by the government tend to measure short-term outputs and housing targets rather than broader sustainable community outcomes
Recommendations
The review makes a large number of recommendations, including the following:
- government to raise the minimum density in planning guidance to an expectation of 50 dwellings per hectare wherever possible
- the national brownfield target to include commercial as well as domestic properties and to increase to 75% by 2008
- planning guidance to be updated with the 2005 principles of sustainable development
- government to develop and promote the use of a Code for Sustainable Homes to apply to existing homes
- government to set out a timetable for raising regulation standards for water efficiency in new homes
- more effective co-ordination between government departments to enable co-ordinated delivery of schools, hospitals and other public services with local housing developments
- government to consider more flexible and long-run timing for spending funds and more flexibility in the split between capital and revenue
- VAT of 5% on all new homes with an equal rate for refurbishments
- publicly funded regeneration programmes to be built at the top level of the Code for Sustainable Homes with good practice refurbishment case studies showcased widely
The full report and accompanying papers are available online
Sustainability in action in Wales
In late 2006, Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council commissioned the development of a housing-specific sustainable development policy as a reference document to inform its local housing strategy.
Undertaken by Powell Dobson Urbanists and the World Health Organisation Collaborating Centre for Healthy Cities and Urban Policy at the University of the West of England, the work made use of the Spectrum Appraisal method. Developed by the Collaborating Centre in partnership with the Environment Agency and various consultancies, the Spectrum Appraisal method enables decision-makers to take a quick, but holistic overview of a particular development project from the sustainability standpoint. It acts as a summary of the strengths and weaknesses of a project, and thus can be useful in public and political as well as professional and technical fora. The method involves identifying a series of criteria against which a development can be judged. Although for each project, specific and tailored criteria would be agreed with stakeholders, areas which it might be appropriate to consider include:
- global ecology – carbon emissions
- natural capital – wildlife, land, water, construction and in use materials
- social provision – housing stock and affordability, social facilities and social space
- access and movement – accessibility, walking and cycling routes, vehicle movement and parking
- local environment – air quality and noise, local heritage, safety and privacy and quality of the public realm
- economic capital – project viability and local job creation
- processes – stakeholder involvement and ongoing management
For each agreed criterion, a project can be judged as to whether it achieves:
- an excellent sustainability level where the sustainability criterion is fully satisfied
- a good sustainability level where the criterion is generally well satisfied, at least to the level we would currently consider best practice
- a negotiable level where there are significant areas of unsustainable or questionable practice which could (at least in theory) be overcome by practicable means
- a highly problematic level where the criterion is not likely to be satisfactory fulfilled without major reassessment, a change in the basic development assumptions, or action in a related (but independent) decision area
- an unacceptable level where the criterion cannot be satisfied
The method notes that the aspiration of investors should be to achieve excellent or good across the whole range of criteria agreed for the specific development. However, the key is to achieve the best solution possible in any given situation. So different options should be compared and those options compared with a ‘do nothing’ or ‘laissez faire’ situation.
Information about the work of the Collaborating Centre for Healthy Cities and Urban Policy is available online