Environmental Groups and Sustainable Communities - Term Paper Example

Running Head: SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES Sustainable Communities [The Writer’s Name] [The Name of the Institution] Sustainable Communities Introduction One may often hear sustainable development, sustainable community, sustainable industry, and sustainable agriculture and wonder what these terms mean. Sustainability is related to the quality of life in a community, whether the economic, social, and environmental systems that make up the community are providing a healthy, productive, meaningful life for all community residents, present and future. Sustainability also is the act of living sustainable at an individual level and as a society. Our actions cannot jeopardize the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Some communities have indeed worked towards this goal, with the most successful plans sharing each of the three characteristics in common. First, the community wanted to create a vision that balanced both economic, environment, and social needs. Next, the community as a whole shared these visions. Lastly, the community kept track of its progress in reaching its vision. The community needs to be involved in itself and developed by the people who work and live in the community. A sustainable community is interpreted differently by many people. For example, for business owners it means a healthy economy so their businesses can have a place to make and sell their products. For parents, it means to bring up their children in a safe environment. Everyone needs clean air to breather and clean water to drink in order to survive. Environmental Groups and Sustainable Communities Power relations have been subtly yet substantially reconfigured by the decisive shift away from an environment-centred interpretation of sustainable development. Environmental groups have had to present their arguments with much greater sensitivity to social and economic issues, while development groups have been able to draw on the legitimacy which derived from the government's interpretation of sustainable development including the 'high and stable economic growth' objective. The shift towards an integrated approach to sustainable development has challenged the privileged role of environmental techniques. The key finding was that where environment-led approaches seemed to offer the potential to make seemingly 'objective' decisions, the need to integrate environmental, social and economic issues brings political choices back to the fore. One of the most interesting things about the experiments with new environmental and sustainability techniques over the past fifteen years has been their complex processes of diffusion. The new techniques have not simply cascaded downwards through the planning hierarchy, nor were they simply transferred upwards through some capillary processes of 'bottom-up' innovation. Rather, the processes tended to involve a rather messy set of policy pulses which continuously ranged across scales. An alternative sequence of events is that new concepts and techniques were championed by particular national advisory or campaigning groups, developed with the help of consultants and then experimented with through local planning authority application. Their underlying values and technical assumptions were then frequently challenged at local planning inquiries. For the planning profession, following these experiments through the professional planning press was an important way of keeping abreast of the techniques being experimented with in other local authorities, providing a source of new ideas about what was currently possible and what was not. Sometimes it took such local experiments and debates to clarify for central government its approach to these new concepts and techniques, which might then become translated into good-practice guidelines in national planning policy guidance, or else be rejected. A key issue in debates about developing new environmental techniques has been how to capture the varying qualities of the countryside. This is particularly evident in the case of debates about protecting the green belts surrounding many metropolitan areas in England. Green belts are a formal planning designation to restrict development around certain metropolitan areas. Some parts of the green belt, however, have only low levels of intrinsic value as habitat or landscape, which means that their value is mainly instrumental, that of containing urban sprawl. Despite the fact that much of the green belt lacks great ecological value, the popular attitude towards these areas remains highly protective, tied into wider notions of the need to protect 'the countryside', for which erosion of the green belt has become emblematic. Green belts have in effect become politically untouchable in the face of most development pressures, and so these pressures have been redirected towards more distant countryside and urban areas. Ecologically Valuable Green Belt Areas In addition to suffering from some of the conceptual problems associated with 'environmental capacity', the critical natural capital approach ran into particular difficulties when it came to dealing with green belt. Large areas of green belt consist of farmland with little landscape or ecological value, and as such would not normally be considered critical natural capital meriting strong conservation policies. In recent years there has been a growing lobby to consider de-designating the less ecologically valuable parts of the green belt to allow development, while making new extensions to the green belt in areas of greater ecological value. In effect, such proposals suggest that it might be desirable to 'trade off' within the 'environmental capital' category, substituting the loss of an area of green belt by designating another area as green belt. Concepts such as wildlife corridors and green wedges have also been put forward as more suitable ways of protecting areas of environmental value close to cities in ways which better respect their ecological conditions (Elson, 2002, 266-67). These issues emerge with some force in regional planning debates, where an underlying concern was that green belts are not generally drawn up on the basis of sustainability criteria or such positive criteria as public accessibility to green space and may become an obstacle to developing more sustainable development patterns. Any attempt to devalue green belt resulted in a popular outcry, making it very difficult to do anything other than accept that areas covered by green belt designations were inviolable in assessing land for its development potential when producing strategic plans. In government terms, green belts are seen to be of regional importance, while the possibility of designating green wedges is now recognised in planning guidance as covering areas of local importance (Elson 2003, 104-105). Interestingly, in Sustainable Communities (ODPM 2003) the government introduced policies to maintain and enhance the provision of green belt, while also introducing the prospect of improving protection for green wedges and green corridors. The mention of green corridors is intriguing, as it had not previously been clear how the government viewed them in terms of the hierarchy of planning protection (Elson 2003, 104-105). Environmental groups and others, including political parties, which sought to argue against Greenfield development tended to be portrayed by their opponents as extremists. A frequent refrain during our interviews concerned the hidden social agendas of those resisting development, most eloquently expressed not by a developer, but someone from a government conservation agency, who argued that the shire counties were opposed to development outside the conurbations essentially because they don't want the urban poor messing up their green fields. Of the other voices which have emerged to promote alternative approaches to guiding future housing development, perhaps the most distinctive has been the TCPA, another powerful group actively engaged in directly lobbying national government (Stead, 2000, 189-93), presenting at RPG public examinations and conducting press campaigns. With its roots in the Garden City movement, the TCPA has long argued the case for selective new settlements being allowed where proposals can be demonstrated to be creating what are often referred to as 'sustainable communities' - that is, 'in centres which are big enough to sustain jobs, services and amenities in a balanced social mix, but which are small enough to create a sense of community and proximity to open countryside' (TCPA 2002, 44-50). Its views until recently seemed unlikely to prevail, given the forces ranged against it. Recent government announcements on new housing in the South East suggest that this situation may be changing, however. It was out of such concerns that debates on Sustainable Cities, Sustainable Communities and Sustainable Settlements first emerged (Owens 2002, 231-33; Breheny 199, 275-93; Roseland 1998, 59-63), involving a growing critique of the claims and counter-claims of the relative environmental friendliness of alternative urban settlement patterns. From an early stage, however, it was clear that it would be necessary to look beyond environmental concerns at the economic and social functioning of cities, and also the relationship between cities and their wider regional and global hinterlands (Satterthwaite 1997). Urban compaction policies have increasingly come to play a central role in English planning. At the regional scale the current mainstream view is that it is better policy to support further development in existing towns and cities which have a range of employment opportunities and a better-developed infrastructure, rather than imposing substantial new development on smaller settlements. New settlements have generally been out of favour politically, especially following the abortive private sector-led initiatives in the South East during the 1980s. At the urban level, the dominant theme is to counter urban sprawl while seeking to make existing urban areas more attractive. This has typically involved a series of inter-related policies to promote planning for mixed uses rather than the rigid zoning of the past, higher residential densities, improved design of buildings and public spaces, and measures to improve the attractiveness of public transport over the car. These policies reflected the dominant view that weak planning in the past had contributed to the worst of both worlds, with urban sprawl eating into the countryside, together with growing social segregation as investment and jobs were sucked out of some inner-city areas. For recent UK governments, compaction policies have had considerable appeal, representing a means of satisfying both those seeking to preserve the countryside and those wishing to stimulate urban regeneration. In particular, the compaction approach appears to offer a way of reducing the conflicts which arise from addressing the national need for more housing developments. By emphasising good urban design, policy-makers have been able to argue that it is possible to attract people to return to living in inner-urban areas, occupying Brownfield land without sacrificing the quality of the urban environment. The attempted win-win solution here is that pressure to develop rural land is reduced, yet new houses are provided and city environments continue to be improved. The emergence of compact-city policies in England can be traced through the growing body of planning advice to promote higher residential densities, greater attention to mixed-use developments, and increasing the proportion of new development on 'Brownfield' rather than new ('Greenfield') sites. The Conservative government signalled its intention to move policy in this direction with increasing determination during the mid-1990s. Urban growth should be encouraged in the most sustainable settlement form. The density of towns is important. More compact urban development uses less land. It also enables lower energy consumption through efficient generation technologies such as district heating and through the reduced need to travel, for example, from homes to schools, to shops, and to work.… The scope for reducing travel, especially by car, is dependent on the size, density of development and range of services on offer at centres well served by public transport as well as local centres within walking distance. This policy direction was given teeth through policy guidance which required local authorities to address these issues in their development plans. In its revised arrangements for producing RPG, the government's advice (DETR 2000, 78-81) made the achievement of sustainable urban form a central objective. In the final report, Towards an Urban Renaissance (Urban Task Force 1999, 23-25), urban form, urban design, architecture, good-quality services and crime reduction are brought together to suggest ways of making cities more attractive places to live and work in, while promoting the goals of sustainable development. This work has its roots in a long tradition of European thinking, not least the European Commission's Green Paper on the Urban Environment (CEC 1990, 12-13). The particular importance of the urban renaissance report is that it brought about a new focus on urban design as a key element of city planning, and the need for an integrated approach to sustainable development: 'An urban renaissance should be focused on the principles of design excellence, economic strength, environmental responsibility, good governance and social responsibility' (Urban Task Force 1999, p. 25). The findings of the Urban Task Force generated both considerable debate and widespread support across policy sectors. There was substantial sympathetic press coverage of the report's vision of vibrant and more aesthetic urban living conditions. Unsurprisingly, the CPRE, which had long advocated much of this approach (CPRE 1994, 34-36), was particularly enthusiastic: 'Paradoxically the renewal of our towns and cities is the key to tackling some of our most pressing rural problems. Implementing the report is more important to rural England than new countryside legislation. The report was also supported by development advocacy groups, but in this case the problems of funding development on problematic Brownfield sites is emphasised, along with the consequent apparent need for public subsidy. The government had been waiting for the delivery of the Task Force report before finalising the first urban White Paper since 1978 (DETR 2000, 78-81). In it was set out a new vision of urban living, which sought to marry a concern with promoting urban quality of life, a concern to avoid the past pitfalls of divisiveness within urban communities, and a desire not to upset the powerful countryside lobby by allowing urban sprawl. This new vision is notable for shifting the emphasis in urban policy firmly in favour of engaging with communities, rather than expecting the private sector to lead in developing new proposals. Symbolically, perhaps, bottom-up initiatives, ‘people shapes the future of their community', come first in the list of priorities, while economic investment comes fourth behind urban design and environmental sustainability. In early 2003 the government released its action plan Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future (ODPM 2003), in the process launching some radical proposals for addressing the twin pressures of urban expansion in the South East and the East of England, and housing abandonment, particularly in northern cities. The action plan proposed new powers to intervene in areas with severe problems of housing abandonment, including the establishment of partnerships of local authorities and other key stakeholders to develop strategic plans for whole housing markets and the creation of nine low-demand pathfinder projects. In addition, it announced the government's proposals for new housing in the south of the country, drawing on the initial findings of some sub-regional reviews commissioned as part of the regional planning process. Having reduced the proposed number of new households suggested by the South East RPG public examination panel by around 200,000 in RPG9 in 2001 (GOSE 2001, 51-54), just two years later the government added back 200,000 households to the number of new households it expected to be built by 2016. (ODPM 2003) There are some important developments contained in these proposals. Particularly noteworthy is the attention to addressing the problems of social housing, the clear commitment to working with communities to meet their aspirations, new funding for improving parks and open spaces, a commitment to improving local infrastructure, and the fact that local government rather than unelected business leaders appears destined to be closer to the heart of the new delivery agencies which are proposed. Perhaps most importantly, the very scale of the proposals goes some way to addressing the scale of the problems which are faced. On the other hand, whether the proposals live up to the title Sustainable Communities remains open to doubt, given that so little attention is paid to issues such as water shortage in these areas, while clear measures for improving the eco-efficiency of housing are introduced only for social housing, not private housing (Haughton 2003, 122-27). Sustainable Communities provided a major boost to an initiative which at the time of an intermediate review had been showing mixed signs of success and some concerns about impetus and environmental impacts (Roger Tyms and Partners in association with Three Dragons, 2001). In Sustainable Communities a total of fourteen 'Zones of Change' are proposed within the Thames Gateway area, and these are expected to develop custom-designed delivery bodies. Although the document talks convincingly of the need to reject former models of delivery in favour of locally acceptable models, it then disconcertingly goes on to reveal that the government was negotiating with partners 'towards the establishment of new mechanisms which will use Urban Development Corporation powers in the London Thames Gateway and in Thurrock' (p. 50). Connecting Transport And Urban Renaissance The reformed arrangements for regional planning which were introduced in 1998 included an expectation that each document would contain within it a summary regional transport plan, as part of the move to better integrate planning and transport policies (DETR 2000, 78-81). The critical contextual issue for regional transport planning has undoubtedly been the shift away from a strong focus on new road building during the 1980s towards a growing recognition since the mid-1990s of the need to manage the growth in road transport. During this same period there was an increased awareness of the need for better integration of land use planning and transport policy, including a brief five-year period during which the two relevant ministries were integrated within one government department. The absence of the final studies necessarily severely constrained debates about transport issues during the current policy round. It is worth noting too that improvements in transport infrastructure emerged as key objectives in all the RESs. Most stressed the need for sustainable transport, although in some regions a greater emphasis still seemed to be attached to road rather than public transport improvements. In most regional planning documents, improved transport infrastructure was also seen to be a key ingredient to promoting urban renaissance, helping support the shift to public transport in particular. This was certainly the case in the West Midlands, which is particularly interesting for the breadth of its treatment of urban renaissance themes. Conclusion The provision of adequate shelter for all is a recurrent theme in sustainable development debates, which, looked at from the perspective of the house building and social housing advocacy groups lobby, might well raise concerns about whether the planning system is delivering the amount of development needed to satisfy future demand for houses. So, developers might well argue that planning is failing the principle of futurity by constraining their ability to build enough houses, in the process fuelling price increases and contributing to homelessness. Alternatively, environmental groups might argue that planning best serves the principle of futurity by maintaining strict controls on urban development, thus protecting countryside for the benefit of future generations. Not surprisingly, therefore, many environmental groups are not happy with aspects of the government's proposals for the future of planning, which they consider pay too little attention to their view of what sustainable development entails. Inevitably, then, there are different perspectives on whether the planning system is achieving the principle of futurity, reflecting different attitudes towards the relative importance of providing adequate supplies of housing land to meet future needs and protecting the countryside from development for the enjoyment of future generations. In some respects, most parties seem to feel that planning policy is failing aspects of this principle at the moment, albeit for very different reasons. For ourselves, this is a key finding: how difficult it is to find an approach which meets the aspirations of all for what is handed on to future generations, and the degree to which these aspirations vary across regions, across stakeholder groups and across different professional groups. The main losers in regional planning debates have perhaps been the lower-income groups, which have suffered most from the problems of housing abandonment in the North and overheated housing markets in the South East, both of which recent planning policies have contributed to. It is also low-income groups which are likely to suffer most from the loss of brown field sites to development in areas where existing residential densities are high and the provision of local amenities low. The main winners have probably been those who live in prosperous suburbs and smaller settlements, which have seen measures, retained which protect their property values and safeguard their access to open country, notably the decision to retain the green belt and the general presumption against developing on Greenfield sites. Devolution in this sense may not provide a simple picture of benefits emerging under the new system for those groups pursuing approaches to sustainable development which involve a strong emphasis on environmental protection. As we discussed earlier, the North East region, which many place at the forefront in seeking devolution, perhaps had the least 'integrated' approach to sustainable development, giving a strong emphasis to the economic pillar over and above the environmental one. Alternatively, the South East, which initially at least placed a stronger emphasis on the environmental pillar of sustainable development, is likely to be one of the last regions to seek devolution. It is far from certain, then, that regionalism in the short term at least will be a better thing for those seeking to promote environmental priorities. In most respects, however, the government's proposals are likely to improve the legitimacy and the outcomes of future regional planning processes, in particular where the link is made to democratic regional institutions. There are areas of concern in all this, however, some of which have already been alluded to. First, there is considerable potential for regional mechanisms to lead to a deregulatory race to the bottom, especially in aspects of environmental protection. Second, and related, it remains to be proven that the local protectionist instincts will be overcome, which is important in that they have led to many of the more contentious aspects of regional planning being either sidestepped or reduced to a lowest common denominator approach. Third, it will be difficult to move beyond an already introspective regional system towards a greater awareness of how regional strategies might exercise wider impacts. Fourth, though they are meant to be long-term plans, most regional planning exercises rarely make decisions for the long term, largely instead working out short-term compromises to try to deal with long term problems. It remains to be seen whether the new system is likely to be any better on this score than the existing system. Fifth, there is a concern that powerful regional growth machines will marginalise dissenting voices and agendas, steamrollering through policies for achieving short-term political and economic advantage at uncertain future social and environmental cost. References Breheny, M. (1999) 'People, households and houses: the basis to the "great housing debate" in England', Town Planning Review 30, 275-293. Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (1990) Green Paper on the Urban Environment, EUR 12902, CEC, Brussels. 12-13 Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) (1994) Urban Footprints, CPRE, London. 34-36 DETR (2000) A Better Quality of Life: Strategy for Sustainable Development for the UK, The Stationery Office, London. 78-81 Elson, M. (2002) 'Modernising green belts: some recent contributions', Town and Country Planning 71, 266-267. Elson, M. (2003) 'A "take and give" green belt?', Town and Country Planning 72, 104-105. GOSE (2001) RPG6 Regional Planning Guidance for East Anglia to 2016, The Stationery Office, London. 51-54 Haughton, G. (2003) '"Scripting" sustainable settlement', in C. Freeman and M. Thompson-Faucett (eds) Living Space, University of Otago Press, Dunedin, New Zealand. 122-27 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2003) Sustainable Communities, Housing and Planning, http://www.odpm.gov.uk/about/ministers/speeches, accessed November 25, 2007. Owens, S. and Cowell, R. (2002) Land and Limits: Interpreting Sustainability in the Planning Process, Routledge, London. 231-33 Roger Tym and Partners in association with Three Dragons (2001) Thames Gateway Review, www.planning.odpm.gov.uk/thamesgateway/01.htm, downloaded November 25, 2007. Roseland M (1998) Towards Sustainable Communities, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, BC, Canada. 59-63 Stead, D. (2000) 'Unsustainable settlements', in H. Barton (ed.) Sustainable Communities, Earthscan, London. 189-93 Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA) (2002) Green Belts: TCPA Policy Statement, TCPA, London. 44-50 Urban Task Force (1999) Towards an Urban Renaissance, The Stationery Office, London. 23-25 Read More