Monday, February 9th, 2009 | Uncategorized | No Comments
writes Chris Twinn
We now have the government’s Planning Policy Statement (PPS) draft on eco-towns. Unfortunately, it sets up the mother of all bunfights, as the eco-towns endeavour to obtain planning approval. According to the PPS, eco-towns should be sufficiently sized and have the services to make viable, separate and distinct communities. They should have the complete spectrum of house types and tenures, together with social, leisure and work facilities and the associated infrastructure. Transport links to ‘higher order centres’ are needed. There should be plenty of clear space between an eco-town and its neighbours.
This all sounds like good stuff, but how does it look for the local communities that eco-towns are turning their backs on? Even transport links to ‘higher order centres’ are bypassing these local communities. Eco-towns don’t seem to be giving anything back to the existing centres, just taking from the countryside amenity. The government says that eco-towns are to follow the conventional planning approval route, via a planning system in which we have spent 65 years empowering local communities – the very people who stand to lose the most.
This is destined to fail. The need for change in direction is clear. A development of critical mass is essential for the quantity of rethinking needed to achieve our green goals. It allows the focus to be placed on achieving the step-change cost-effectively, and finding ways to feed this change into the wider world. Working on a community scale brings down zero-carbon costs. The considerable waste-heat normally produced from power generation is ideal for serving a mixture of existing stock with high-heat demands and new-build’s more modest heat demands. Ecotowns could be catalysts for getting renewable energy into our difficult-to upgrade existing stock. The last thing we want is lengthy work to take place because new and existing housing stock have been treated separately.
New-builds in the wider community should also benefit. Our mild climate means only a month of heating is necessary if super-insulation is used, so why the need for complex and expensive mechanical ventilation with heat recovery? Surely 20A consumer units suffice, instead of the 100A units that are standard? Do we need that £1,200 heat-meter substation in each home? Likewise, beware the cost of the renewables used to run heat-pumps. This may appear pedantic, but if we are trying to reduce resource demand, there should be systems savings – and that money should be directed into the wider community.
This PPS, which directs separation of eco-towns into isolated eco-enclaves, is folly and will grind to a standstill in the planning system. Eco-towns need to be a more integrated initiative, and they need to be seen to give something positive back to the existing communities.
- The Green Deal
- Thought 15 - Edge response to Agenda 15 - February 2014
- Thought 16 - Edge proposals for housing London - May 2014
- Thought 17 - Edge response to Place Alliance discussion paper - August 2014
- Submission to the Select Committee on the National Policy for the Built Environment October 2015
- Educating Architects
- Engineering Timelines - Peter Rice
- Notes from COP18, Doha 2012
- Shared Professional Code
- Leading Edge Voices on Marlow fm
- New Sky Thinking
Edge member Blogs
Books - Edge Futures
Debates (10 most recent)
- Edge Debate 70 – 10th November 2015, Does built environment policy work? And how should professionals engage?
- Launch of Collaboration for Change: The Edge Commission Report on the Future of Professionalism - 18th May 2015
- Edge Debate 69: Using cycling to build a more liveable city - Monday 27th April 2015
- Edge Debate 68 - Educating the Industry: 20th April 2015
- Edge at Ecobuild 2015
- Edge Debate 67: Skyscrapers vs the Planet
- Edge Debate 66: Is it a Problem that Practice and Research do not Connect?
- Edge Debate 65: What is the true ratio? : costs and value of construction
- Debate 64: Buildings for Humans: Are We in Danger of Value Engineering out the Wellbeing of Occupants?
- Debate 63: Edge Commission of Inquiry on Future Professionalism Session 4: Future Value
- 5th Studio
- Adams Kara Taylor (AKT)
- Buro Happold
- Carbon Coach
- Carbon Trust
- Chartered Institute of Building
- Construction Industry Council
- Cullinan Studio
- Davies Maguire + Whitby
- Designing Buildings Wiki
- Exploration Architecture
- Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios
- Hoare Lea
- Institution of Civil Engineers
- Jane Wernick Associates
- Max Fordham
- Mott MacDonald (Fulcrum)
- NCEUB Wiki
- Penoyre & Prasad
- Royal Instit. of Chartered Surveyors
- Society for the Environment
- The Architects Practice
- The Building Centre
- The Institution of Structural Engineers
- The Ove Arup Foundation
- Trees and Design Action Group (TDAG)
- UCL Energy Institute
- Usable Buildings Trust