Compact living for a greener Britain?

Last week, the Rt Hon Phillip Hammond MP set out his Autumn Budget. As eye-catching promises such as scrapping Stamp Duty Land Tax for nearly all first-time homebuyers – something Bright Blue had been calling for – caught the headlines, other measures have seemingly slipped under the radar. One such ambition is to increase housing density in urban areas – which the Chancellor believes can be achieved through policies such as making it easier to convert retail land into housing, greater support for the use of compulsory purchase powers, and introducing minimum density requirements on new projects in city centres and around transport hubs.

In London, where the need for housing is perhaps most acute, Mayor Sadiq Khan has recently released a draft of ‘The London Plan’ – a strategy document for spatial development in the capital – in which numerous ideas for achieving higher-density housing, such as developing on brownfield sites and on surplus public sector land, were mooted.

A White Paper issued earlier this year by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the Rt Hon Sajid Javid MP, set out measures intended to rectify the problem of Britain’s low-density housing. It proposed policies such as making it easier for existing buildings to be extended upwards and allowing more flexibility in the planning application process. Density, it would appear, is something very much on the political agenda – and for good reason.

Land space is finite in a way many other resources are not, thus making it particularly important to utilise effectively. Almost 11% of Britain has already been built on, but within the nation’s towns and cities, such development has all too often been done inefficiently with regards to space. In London, for example, there are only 150 dwellings per hectare, and the average for England sees that number fall to just 42. In this respect, Britain ranks woefully against its international counterparts: New York manages to fit 480 homes into an equivalent area, and Hong Kong a staggering 775 dwellings. Whilst some of this discrepancy can be explained by consumer preference, it is doubtless that government regulations are a significant causal factor in Britain’s tendency for low-density development.

Denser living, better environment

Increasing the density of development in Britain would have obvious benefits for the natural world, most evidently in the way that simply less of it will have to be sacrificed to buildings. Consequently, more habitats and ecosystems can go undisturbed – allowing wildlife a precious chance to flourish. Limiting the extent to which development impinges upon habitats will be a welcome reprieve for Britain’s animal species, 56% of which have seen their numbers decline over recent decades.

But there are other environmental advantages associated with increasing population density. When towns and cities sprawl outwards, people living in them have to make invariably longer journeys, because whilst their jobs and livelihoods will remain centrally located, their homes will not. Longer journeys equal more time for vehicle exhausts to emit the dangerous pollutants which contribute to poor air quality and climate change. Moreover, when people are housed further away from where they need to be on a daily basis, more environmentally friendly forms of transportation – be that walking, cycling, or using public transport – may become less attractive. This would likely increase the amount of people using private vehicles, thereby exacerbating the problems of air pollution and climate change.

The benefits of more compact living are not solely environmental. Utilities and public services which have relatively high fixed costs, but relatively low marginal costs, are more economically viable to provide in areas of greater population density, because of the ability to exploit economies of scale (that is, when diminishing average costs are realised with the supply of one extra unit of good or service). One example of this could be a public transportation network, which, incidentally, would in turn have benefits for the environment if it acts as a disincentive to private vehicle travel, and frees up land space for nature by reducing the need for certain infrastructure such as purpose-built car parks.

It should be noted, however, that some environmental disadvantages exist with regards to density achieved primarily through high-rise developments. Studies suggest that taller buildings can be more energy intensive on a day to day basis, and often have greater amounts of ‘embodied energy’ within them because of the materials they must be made from – for instance, reinforced concrete and steel. Any impetus towards increasing density, therefore, should be done sensitively, with such concerns in mind.

Conclusion

This is not a hymn to transform Britain’s conurbations into canyons of concrete, devoid of individual character and any sense of harmony with the natural environment – indeed, there are plenty of examples of developments which have increased the nation’s housing stock without being obvious eye-sores. The changes which could be implemented to prevent urban encroachment need not be radical, either. Introducing ‘permitted development rights’, allowing for an extra story or two on a housing development, encouraging terracing by updating certain planning requirements, making it easier to build on brownfield land, and relaxing Green Belt restrictions would all be practicable options which conserve perhaps the most vital and precious resource of all – space.

Eamonn Ives is a Researcher at Bright Blue

More green homes: building houses and improving the environment

The UK has a housing crisis. The Conservative Party’s manifesto for the 2015 General Election pledged to build one million homes over the course of the parliament, or 200,000 new houses a year. But many believe this is insufficient. For instance, an independent report by KPMG found that, owing to demographic change, 250,000 new homes a year are required. But current building rates lag well behind even the Government’s modest target, with just 140,000 new build homes completed last year.

The Prime Minister wants to rectify this. On the steps of Downing Street after becoming Prime Minister, she included in her list of burning injustices facing modern Britain the fact that young people now find it harder than ever to own a home. In her speech to the 2016 Conservative Party Conference, she named housing as a dysfunctional market that government needs to step up to correct.

But, as it is responsible for around 11% of land use in England, housing’s relation to the environment must also be considered. The most recent State of Nature report, published by RSPB and a range of conservation organisations, finds that in the UK 56% of the species they studied have declined over recent decades, with more than one in ten of all the species assessed are under threat of disappearing from our shores altogether. The Government has committed to turning this around, with its pledge to be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we found it. But it needs specific policies if it is to realise this vision.

This was the context for this month’s housing white paper. And, while many of the measures contained within it are welcome, it is a missed opportunity for both housebuilding and the environment.

Positives from the housing white paper

Let’s start with the positives. First, the Government strategy places greater emphasis on the quality of design of new developments. Under the proposals, local and neighbourhood plans must contain expectations about design standards. Local residents will be able to object to new developments on aesthetic grounds. According to government polling, 73% of people say that they would be more likely to support new homes if they look nice and are in keeping with other properties in the area. This measure will both boost numbers of homes and improve the appearance of the built environment.

Second, the Government plan supports high-density housing. The National Planning Policy Framework will be amended to advise against low-density developments in areas of high housing demand, increase scope for high-density developments in urban areas by redeveloping low-rise warehouses or extending buildings upwards, and increase flexibility over planning restrictions, such as daylight requirements. Greater density of buildings could increase the volume of new homes and improve the environment, as it frees up more land for nature and enables more sustainable transport solutions to be utilised. But this must not mean sacrificing access to urban green spaces, nor must it mean sacrificing high-quality design standards.

The negative: the Green Belt

But the white paper’s greatest shortcoming was that it maintained a very rigid approach to the Green Belt, with councils told not to allow any development except in very special circumstances. The Green Belt was first established around London in 1938, and in 1955 was extended to other cities. Its purpose was to prevent urban sprawl. The Green Belt has largely failed on its own terms.

Cities like London are characterised by low-density housing, a fact that government acknowledges in the housing white paper. For instance, Paris has a population density of 213 people per hectare, while Islington’s (London’s densest borough) is 128 people per hectare. This is because, instead of living in more densely-built homes in central London, London’s workers have just leapfrogged the Green Belt and bought homes in commuter towns throughout the South East of England. This has led to a proliferation of low-density housing developments across a much broader area, and an increase in carbon-intensive commuter journeys to work each day.

The Green Belt shouldn’t be abolished altogether. Its benefits include reducing air pollution, mitigating the impact of flooding, and providing urban residents with access to green space, which can bring positive effects on mental health. But if homes are to be built where people want to live, then some of the Green Belt will need to be built on. Many have proposed limiting these sites to ones within a certain proximity of a train station.

But there is an upside for the environment in allowing building on the Green Belt, beyond merely reducing the number and distance of journeys travelled by commuters. At the moment, much Green Belt land is of poor environmental value. Just over 7% of London’s Green Belt consists of golf courses, for instance. While this isn’t an excuse in itself for scrapping the Green Belt, it demonstrates the urgent need to improve its natural capital. Therefore, in return for being allowed to build on these highly valuable plots of land, developers should have an obligation to improve the stock of natural capital elsewhere in a local authority area, for instance by planting more trees or creating nature trails. This investment should more than reverse the loss of natural capital entailed by the new development. This would deliver more homes and improve the stock of natural capital in England.

Conclusion

Building more homes and improving the environment are not in opposition. More homes, more densely built, should be accompanied by major investment in natural capital in the outskirts of our major cities. As it considers the consultation responses to its white paper, the Government should be bold.

Sam Hall is a researcher at Bright Blue

Rewilding in Britain

Britain is one of the most ecologically depleted nations on earth. We have lost all our large carnivores and most of our large herbivores. While the global average forest cover is 31%, and the European average is 37%, ours is just 12%.  Our ecosystems have almost ceased to function. In the words of David Attenborough “far more species are declining than increasing in the UK, including many of our most treasured. Alarmingly, a large number of them are threatened with extinction. The causes are varied, but most are ultimately due to the way we are using our land and seas and their natural resources, often with little regard for the wildlife with which we share them.” In fact, 60% of all studied species in the UK have declined in the last 50 years.

People in Britain have never before spent so little time in contact with nature and rarely gain a sense of just being part of the environment rather than in control of it. Indeed three quarters of our children spend less time outdoors than prison inmates.  This is having a huge impact on health and wellbeing, and has been connected to increased levels of stress, physical inactivity and obesity.

The damage to our natural systems also means our environment is less able to provide the goods and services upon which we depend. Across the whole of the North of England, in late January 2016, about 16,000 homes and businesses were flooded. The preliminary estimate of the cost of the flood damage is £1.3 billion, and rising. The cost in terms of human misery is unquantifiable. It is now increasingly recognised that the impacts of this extreme rainfall were exacerbated by the overgrazing, deforestation, burning and drainage of the uplands and by the canalisation and dredging of the rivers. And there are increasing calls for investment in the planting of trees and changing land management practices to encourage the restoration of natural climax vegetation communities in areas upstream of our towns and cities. 

And it’s not just water – we are losing our soils at an alarming rate and the ability of our habitats to act as carbon ‘sinks’. We now know that the highly simplified ecosystems of the kind that prevail across Britain are also much less resilient to environmental change, such as climate change and invasive species.

Rewilding offers a chance to reverse that. A chance to restore natural systems and all the benefits they provide; to work with communities to restore to parts of Britain the wonder and enchantment of wild nature; to allow magnificent lost creatures to live here once more; and to provide people with some of the rich and raw experiences of which we have been deprived.

Rewilding Britain was set up to promote the large scale restoration of ecosystems in Britain, on land and at sea.  We believe it is not enough merely to try to preserve tiny fragments of our wildlife. Meaningful conservation must involve restoring natural processes and re-establishing missing species. Rewilding does not attempt to produce fixed outcomes. It sees dynamic ecological processes as an essential, intrinsic aspect of healthy living systems. The animals we lack, such as beavers, boar, lynx, pelicans, cranes and storks, are not just ornaments of the ecosystem - they have a role as ecosystem engineers and are essential to an effectively functioning environment. 

By 2030 we would like to see at least 300,000 hectares of core land areas and three marine areas established where nature is starting to take care of itself and key species are starting to become re-established. These areas will be ecologically connected, supported by an engaged and enthusiastic public, and delivering a range of benefits for local communities and landowners.

Rewilding is about the restoration of natural processes. It benefits nature, by connecting nature with nature, creating diversity and increasing the number of niches available, and making room for species to move through landscapes as they adapt to environmental change.

Rewilding benefits the wider environment too. By allowing natural process to function rewilding improves provision of ecosystem services. For example, restoring woodland reduces the flow of water downstream, flattening out the cycle of flood and drought. And increased woodland filters out contaminants that affect water quality, and increases carbon sequestration, helping mitigate climate change. Certain keystone species can have a huge impact. Beavers clean rivers. Their ponds retain silts and trap nutrients and flatten out cycles of flooding and drought.  And predators such as lynx can regenerate forests by reducing deer numbers and allowing saplings space to grow.

But it’s not just about the environment – rewilding can bring significant economic benefits. According to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation, the world on average has just 60 more years of growing crops. Rewilding can be farming’s greatest ally. It helps restore nutrients, worms and mycorrhizal fungi to the soil, provides for pollinating insects, purifies water, reduces flood risk and helps resist droughts. Perhaps rewilding will give us a few more harvests yet?

Rewilding can revitalise local communities. An RSPB report found sea eagle tourism on the Isle of Mull brings in up to £5 million a year to the island’s economy and supports 110 full-time jobs. Examples from around Europe show that new sources of income and jobs, based around wildlife and eco-tourism, offer a great potential to revitalise rural communities, supporting the recovery of the human economy as well as the natural world.

Rewilding is as much about people as it is about the planet. Time in nature improves concentration and behaviour, benefits health and wellbeing, and increases environmental awareness. Which is why rewilding is as much about rewilding ourselves as rewilding land. It’s about experiencing the enchantment of wild nature, about noticing and experiencing what's around us, about an increased connection with the living planet – “to love not man the less, but nature more”.

Rewilding is our big opportunity to leave the world in a better state than it is today. To turn our silent spring into a raucous summer. To introduce one of the rarest of all species into Britain’s ecological vision: hope.

Helen Meech is the Director of Rewilding Britain

The views expressed in this article are those of the author, not necessarily those of Bright Blue.