Future ecological planning

Carolyn HarrisonEmeritus Professor,

Department of Geography

University College London

Ecological planning

The purpose of ecological planning is to:

“ make collective choices about the states of the environment we want, prevent breaches of environmental constraints and make adaptations possible when such constraints have been breached”

Lecture outline Briefly review the environmental and ecological

consequences of London’s ‘muddled growth’ Introduce the RCEP’s 23rd Report 2002 on

Environmental Planning as a framework Review ‘The London Plan’ in terms of the

RCEP’s recommendations Speculate tentatively about future ecological

planning

Metropolitan Green Belt

The environmental and ecological consequences of ‘muddled growth’

A distinctive urban environment: polluted land, air and water, with a heat island, flash floods…

A substantial green estate – quality and character reflect urban density and disturbance

A fragmented green matrix of semi-natural and largely artificial habitats – garden escapes abound

Poor quality inner city environments A global ‘ecological footprint’ far exceeding its

fair share

Brent reservoir: urbanisation and disturbance effects (Batten)

1833 72 bird species Reservoir beyond the urban edge

1970 47 species 65% of catchment urbanised

1980 20 species 100% urbanised ( only birds tolerant of disturbance survive)

London: Index of Deprivation

London’s ecological footprint The area of resource use, on a per capita basis,

required to support the city 293 times the size of the city itself- an area the

size of Spain! Per capita footprint in terms of global resources is

c. 6.3 global hectares: our ‘earth share’ is only 2.18 global hectares

London’s profligate use of resources in comparison to its fair share is unsustainable

RCEP Environmental Planning Found a proliferation of plans on different

topics and spatial scales Absence of an integrated, holistic approach

to planning A ‘predict and provide' approach that

marginalized the environment In the context of sustainable development a

system that was not fit for purpose

Royal Commission on Environmental PollutionRecommendations

1. Clearer policies and objectives for the environment

2. Statutory recognition of planning in protecting and enhancing the environment: goals and targets

3. The introduction of holistic spatial planning covering all aspects of sustainable development

4. Much improved availability of environmental information

5. Engage a wider range of people in decisions about setting and achieving environmental goals so that the public trust the planning process.

The purpose of town and country planning and its statutory role ‘to facilitate the achievement of legitimate

economic and social goals whilst ensuring that the quality of the environment is safeguarded and, whenever appropriate, enhanced.’

(RCEP 23rd Report para 8.33) Statutory role of planning is to develop and set

agreed environmental goals and targets

Spatial strategies

Integrated Spatial strategies should be four dimensional addressing environmental capacity:

the atmosphere ground water the land surface and should look into the future 20-30 years

Recommendations continued All aspects of land use should be included – for

example, proposed development should take account of pressures placed on environmental resources – aggregates and water supply, waste disposal, biodiversity,energy requirements etc.

Improved accessibility of information to assist in target setting and achievement

Greater public participation as a means of gaining public confidence in the planning process

The London Plan 2004

Is consistent with many of these recommendations Takes a long term perspective – 25+ years A spatial plan – addressing all land uses Sets clear targets for environmental policies Establishes base line information against which

progress can be made Involved many groups in consultation and was

scrutinised in public

Five main environmental strategies in the London Plan Waste: EU requires alternatives to landfill by 2010; a

recycling target of 25%; plus re-use and waste reduction Air quality: congestion charge; vehicular emission

standards to be met; increase public transport; proposed central Low Emission Zone

Biodiversity: key species and site protection Energy: reduce CO2 by 20% relative to 1990 level by

2010; introduce zero-carbon developments; sustainable construction practices

Noise: reducing ambient levels

Ecological assumptions underpinning the environmental strategies

Efficiency of resource use – including land recycling, high density development, re-use of waste

Greater self-sufficiency - in energy production, consuming more of its own waste

Reducing levels of waste, pollution, and environmental degradation

‘An exemplary, sustainable world city’?The basic assumptions of The London Plan

Has to welcome all expected growth in GDP and in population

Has to concentrate incremental employment in the central area

Has to expand transport networks to support this structure

All growth has to fit within the Green Belt – a compact city

Necessary powers for implementation or ‘patronage, persuasion, and publicity ?’ The Mayor has limited powers – no significant

tax raising powers Has to work in partnership with London’s

functional bodies: London Development Agency; Transport for London,

The 32 London Boroughs: responsible for their own local plans that should conform to the London Plan,

Plus a host of other statutory organisations,NGOs and the voluntary sector

Connecting with London’s Nature

Thinking ecologically ….the SINC approach Maintaining and enhancing biodiversity

conservation – the intrinsic value of nature and nature that is distinctively urban

Valuing nature for all the benefits it affords society – the multiple values approach

Access to high quality natural areas as a matter of social equality – Areas of deficiency in access to wildspace

A robust system fit for purpose - SINCs are recognised in the London Plan

Biodiversity Targets There is no net loss of important wildlife habitat That a net reduction is achieved in the Area of

Deficiency of accessible wildlife sites

No net loss - losses have occurred and will continue to occur but will new sites be added of equivalent quality and accessibility?

Reduction in Areas of Deficiency? are being monitored and a base line has been established, but how to deliver in practice?

Section 106 Agreements or Planning Gain Entered into by LPA and a developer to deliver

public benefit were development to go ahead. No third party enters negotiations so the process

lacks transparency and fairness National studies show 106s little used for

biodiversity benefits off site In London they are routinely used for social

housing benefits and occasionally for green roofs Inadequate for delivering larger scale

environmental benefits

Conclusions A market led Planning System prevails – not

driven by a central concern for the environment ‘Predict and provide’ continues - pressures put

on natural resources are not fully counted A stronger planning system is needed: habitat

fragmentation will increase; areas deficient in access to greenspace are unlikely to be reduced; sustainable construction practices will marginalize biodiversity; ‘collective needs’ reliant on Section 106s will be insufficiently funded…..

Who is leading on ecological planning? The EU - on air and water quality, carbon trading,

habitat conservation; sustainability assessment The Mayor and his team - on congestion charging,

low emissions zone, energy efficient construction in the public sector

Central Government - lagging behind on climate change; on mandatory sustainable construction practices; changes to the Planning System have not been holistic or fundamental enough to put an ecological approach at its centre.

The future ? We are already confronting the

consequences of breaching environmental capacity manifest in global climate change and rising sea levels.

To adapt we will require a stronger planning system that puts environment and ecology at its centre.