Westminster Hall Debate: Policy on eco-towns

ePolitix.com has been requested to provide briefing papers for a number of issues that are to be debated in this parliamentary session.

This paper provides a selection of submissions ahead of the Westminster Hall debate on government policy on eco-towns by a number of stakeholder organisations.

The debate is being led by Anne Mclntosh, Conservative MP for Vale of York, and takes place on Tuesday June 3, 2008.

Background to Bill:

On April 3, 2008 the government announced the 10 shortlisted locations chosen to become Britain's first eco-towns. The announcement marked the beginning of a four-stage consultation process that the Department of Communities and Local Government embarked on. The first stage is a three-month consultation, which was opened on April 3 and ends on June 30 2008.

The consultation seeks opinions regarding preliminary views on shortlisted locations and opinions on how the government’s plan to carry forward the eco-towns proposals is being developed. The second stage will be a sustainability appraisal; stage three will incorporate the planning policy statement, which will be discussed and debated in the Commons and stage four will require submission of planning applications.

Shortlisted sites include former Ministry of Defence land, disused airfields and industrial sites. Ministers have promised that no new homes will be built on protected greenbelt land. The government will decide the final list of eco-town locations after local consultation which is due to end in July and will reveal them at the end of the year.
 
Reaction to eco-towns has been strong amid their controversial unveiling, not least from local villages and towns in the vicinity of proposed eco-towns. Arguments against the new eco-towns include claims that they would place too much pressure on existing roads and schools.
 
This has been asserted by Theresa May, shadow leader of the Commons. In the House she stated that two-thirds of the eco-towns proposed were in Conservative seats adding that “many eco-towns are the subject of fierce local opposition, and there are real concerns about the planning process that will apply to them.” She called for Harriet Harman, leader of the House, to allow members to represent their constituents, through debate, in government time. [House of Commons, April 3, 2008]
 
The government has selected an Eco-Towns Challenge Panel to provide expert advice to bidders and support the delivery of the new towns. The housing minister, Caroline Flint (Lab, Don Valley), emphasised that developers must address environmental issues and affordability of housing, to help first time buyers and young families. [Communities and Local Government, May 19 2008].
 
The government believes that the design of the new eco-towns will foster sustainable communities and sustainable transport systems. [House of Commons, May 9 2008]. It also hopes that the new eco-towns will help meet targets for additional housing. The housing minister, Flint, assured those local authorities in which eco-towns have been proposed that the new developments will count towards their future housing targets [House of Commons, May 19 2008].
 
There have been a number of exchanges in the Commons in the lead up to the Westminster Hall debate scheduled to take place on Tuesday June 3. Anne McIntosh, shadow minister for environment, food and rural affairs, has strongly criticised the government on the clarity of the information relayed to constituents claiming that procedures followed by the government “flouts normal planning procedures and the fundamental right of any member of Parliament to represent their constituents on the floor of the House and to hold the minister for housing to account.” [House of Common, April 3 2008]
 
Edward Garnier (Con, Harborough) has criticised the consultation process, arguing that in his constituency they had “no idea about any of the details of the proposals from the Department for Communities and Local Government or from the developers namely the Co-operative Wholesale Society and English Partnerships.” Garnier called for the government to be “more candid”. [House of Commons, May 22 2008]
 
The Liberal Democrats have stressed the transport and environmental implications of the new eco-towns, focusing on transport networks. Julia Goldsworthy, Liberal Democrat shadow secretary of state for communities and local government, raised the issue of accessibility and connectivity, asking “how far the residents of the new eco-towns will be expected to travel to work on average.” [House of Commons, April 21 2008]. Lembit Opik, Liberal Democrat shadow minister for housing, also raised the issue of the impact of eco-towns on regional investment and regeneration [House of Commons, May 19 2008].

Summation of Responses:

Campaign to Protect Rural England 

Is very disappointed with the shortlist (governments provisional shortlist of 15 eco-town locations).
 
Believes many of the schemes are in the wrong place, for example, in remote and unsustainable locations. At the same time, better locations, such as Carrington in the North West, failed to make it onto the shortlist. 
 
Backs the Rural Affordable Housing Commission’s call for 11,000 homes a year in rural settlements. However, has several concerns about the eco-towns initiative. These include an unwarranted level of secrecy surrounding the initiative so far; the fact that it appears to lie outside the planning system, and a lack of evidence demonstrating that these schemes will offer truly sustainable models of living and working.
 
Supports a plan-led system of development, therefore has expressed concern that the eco-town initiative appears to lie largely outside the planning system.
 
Believes that eco-towns proposals should be consistent with agreed levels of development set out in regional and local plans.
 
Warns there is a danger that eco-towns will distract from the urgent task of urban regeneration, given current market conditions, limited resources and developers’ preference for green fields.  

Help the Aged

Concerned that the promotion of eco-towns should not detract from important environmental improvements in the current stock of housing, which could have considerable benefits for older people
 
Understands the promotion of assistive technology to allow older people to live independently could also facilitate energy efficiency by allowing greater control over lighting, heating and ventilation.
 
There are a number of schemes that offer repairs and adaptations to older people, including local Home Improvement Agencies and associated handy person services. Help the Aged believes these schemes (along with Warm Front) should be linked together to offer holistic services to greater numbers of older people.
 
Would like both national and local government to look at how they can support local home improvement agencies to help older people improve energy efficiency and water consumption.
 
Is pleased that the government has said that lifetime homes standards will be incorporated into the design of eco-towns.
 
Has developed its own version of lifetime neighbourhoods called Common Ground

Woodland Trust 

Believes that it is undesirable to build on greenfield sites but if building is to take place then it must be respectful of the natural environment.
 
Believes that the use of wood obtained through legal and sustainable sources as part of a strategy of substituting low-carbon materials for high-carbon materials such as cement and steel must be a major component of eco-towns; product substitution is increasingly seen as a valuable contribution to mitigation to climate change
 
Understands that the enhancement of biodiversity should be a central plank of eco-towns, if they are to be worthy of the name.
 
Argues we need to take forward accessible green space standards, such as the woodland Trust Woodland Access Standard.

National House Building Council 

Believes eco-towns could have a significant part to play in the dual government policy objectives of building more homes and building more environmentally friendly homes.
 
NHBC supports the government and industry to successfully deliver zero carbon homes. However, based on NHBC’s research and experience believes there remain some challenges that need to be addressed.
 
Believes that consumers must not be exposed to unnecessary risks and should not be used to trial zero-carbon technologies and systems that have not undergone thorough testing and accreditation.
 
Highlights the importance of ensuring that there is a market for these homes.

Full responses:

Campaign to Protect Rural England

Eco-towns
A Briefing from the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE)
May 2008

1. The Government finally announced its provisional shortlist of 15 eco-town locations on 3 April.  CPRE is very disappointed with the shortlist since we believe many of the schemes are in the wrong place, ie. in remote and unsustainable locations. At the same time, better locations, such as Carrington in the North West, failed to make it onto the shortlist. 

2. Contrary to what many believe CPRE is not anti-development. We support development for which there is an identified need, provided it is carried out in the right way in the right place. CPRE backs the Rural Affordable Housing Commission’s call for 11,000 homes a year in rural settlements. While we support the Government’s aspirations for more sustainable, affordable housing, we have several concerns about the eco-towns initiative. These include an unwarranted level of secrecy surrounding the initiative so far, the fact that it appears to lie outside the planning system and a lack of evidence demonstrating that these schemes will offer truly sustainable models of living and working.

3. Many commentators, notably CABE and the Sustainable Development Commission have highlighted the poor quality of much new development in terms of aesthetic design, functionality and environmental performance.   Moreover, too few of the homes built actually meet needs and we face a chronic shortage of affordable housing. There is therefore a role for exemplar development to lead the way forward.  But rather than automatically assume we need new settlements, we need a more sophisticated approach which considers a range of options for meeting housing and other needs.

4. CPRE has long been a supporter of the plan-led system.  Local and regional plans provide a way of achieving consensus over the scale, nature and location of new development. They are a basis for transparent decision making providing certainty to developers, investors and communities alike.

5. It is therefore worrying that the eco-towns initiative appears lie largely outside the planning system.  This poses a challenge for anyone working to ensure development is properly planned and co-ordinated to achieve sustainable outcomes.   CPRE believes that eco-towns proposals should be consistent with agreed levels of development set out in regional and local plans – indeed they should be a means of delivering these plans - not of undermining them.

6. The Government maintains that all eco-town proposals will be subject to a planning application, but appears reluctant to show how, or even if, they will fit with existing plans and strategies.   For settlements to be genuinely "eco" they must be based around walking, cycling and public transport and offer a range of local facilities. They should enhance, not spoil, the surrounding area and landscape, and win the support of the local community. For this to happen, schemes must be agreed via the local planning process rather than attempt to circumvent this.

7. In pursuing the eco-towns initiative in the manner which it has done so far, the Government would appear to be tearing up its own planning system. This approach is short-sighted since it can only lead to uncertainty and risks losing public trust and confidence in the planning system.

8. The Government is currently seeking views on the 15 shortlisted locations. There is a lack of information available on many of the proposals.  Apart from assessing the merits or otherwise of the location, for many schemes there is little on which to base a response.

9. There is a danger that eco towns will distract from the urgent task of urban regeneration, given current market conditions, limited resources and developers’ preference for green fields.   A number of bodies have voiced concerns, including those charged with delivering housing growth, about the proposed schemes. Cambridgeshire Horizons, the organisation responsible for housing growth in the Cambridge Sub-region, has warned that a new settlement at Hanley Grange could hamper its ability to deliver on existing planned sites, including Northstowe, by diverting resources away from these areas.   Similar fears have been expressed by the Leicester Regeneration Company and City Council and in West Sussex by Arun District Council concerned that the proposal could harm regeneration plans for Bognor Regis.

10. Eco-towns represent at most 7 per cent of the 3 million new homes the Government is seeking to build by 2020. To keep the impacts of climate change within manageable parameters, we need to achieve an 80% reduction in carbon emissions (on 1990 levels) by 2050.  Urgent consideration therefore should be given to improving the environmental performance of all development. Since 70% of today’s homes will still be with us in 2050 gains to be achieved from raising environmental standards in existing homes are arguably greater.

11. CPRE believes that decisions on eco-towns should take into account the wider development ‘shadow’. This extends far beyond the developed footprint of the site and can be minimised where building occurs on urban brownfield sites where infrastructure and public transport are already in place or can be provided relatively easily. The Government’s criteria for eco towns currently requires them to be stand-alone new settlements, yet this may not be the most sustainable option for accommodating housing growth.  It is vital, therefore, that eco-towns are subject to the same tests as any other new settlement proposal. For the initiative have credibility, schemes will need to achieve higher environmental standards and create conditions for sustainable ways of living and working.  Rejected development proposals, ie. those that failed to win planning approval in the past, should only be considered where concerns that led to their being rejected in the first place have been satisfactorily addressed.

12. Lessons from eco-towns will be of limited relevance elsewhere unless they address seemingly intractable challenges, such as land remediation and car dependency. This is one of the reasons why it is so disappointing that the bid at Carrington in Cheshire was not shortlisted. Regenerating derelict land and bringing back into use empty buildings should arguably take priority over creating new settlements from scratch. Most new development will, or should continue to take place within and around existing settlements, while the greatest environmental gains can be made by measures to ‘green’ existing property. It is in these areas that we urgently need exemplar schemes not in remote rural locations.  Criteria for eco-towns currently requires them to be stand-alone settlements, yet there is a compelling case for schemes to be based around urban renaissance, such as ‘eco extensions’ or ‘eco-quarters’.

13. CPRE will be scrutinising proposals against ten tests, as follows

• the public and affected communities should be fully consulted on schemes, including the principle of whether or not to have an eco-town in their area; 

• schemes should be tested through regional spatial strategies and local development framework reviews to ensure that decisions take full account of evidence on environmental effects, housing need and alternatives for meeting this;

• decisions on eco-towns should be accompanied by evidence that demonstrates a new settlement to be the most sustainable option for accommodating housing growth compared with other options, such as redeveloping an existing urban brownfield site or an urban extension;

• schemes should demonstrate efficient use of land, with densities capable of supporting public transport and a high priority given to recycling brownfield land and buildings;

• they should be genuinely carbon neutral, taking into account potential emissions from transport (domestic, public and commercial) and buildings (in construction and use);

• they should foster a strong sense of place and community, achieve CABE gold Building for Life Standards, with high quality public spaces, architecture and street layouts that give priority to pedestrians and non-motorised transport, including substantial car free areas;

• they should be subject to an independent landscape character appraisal, be sympathetic to their setting and clearly enhance the local landscape, built and natural heritage, including through the designation of new Green Belt where appropriate;

• they should include measures designed to conserve water and other natural resources, minimise soil, air, noise and light pollution and achieve zero-waste;

• they should be complete communities with homes (with at least 50% affordable), schools, workplaces, shops, recreation, community and health facilities and open space within walking distance and foster active, sustainable lifestyles and civic participation;

• they should be well connected to surroundings with high quality public transport providing good access to nearby settlements and local supply networks, with sourcing of local produce, such as food, fuel and replenishable building materials.

For more information please contact Adam Royle, Parliamentary Officer, on 020 7981 2837 (adamr@cpre.org.uk) or Kate Gordon, Senior Planner, on 020 7981 2829 (kateg@cpre.org.uk)

Help the Aged

Help the Aged is concerned that the promotion of eco towns should not detract from important environmental improvements in the current stock of housing, which could have considerable benefits for older people. Help the Aged research revealed that 1.8 million older people are living in homes that fail to meet the Decent Homes Standard, established by the present Government. It is highly probable that the majority of these homes also fail sustainability standards. A lot more could be done to tackle disrepair for older people while at the same time meeting environmental objectives. The promotion of assistive technology to allow older people to live independently could also facilitate energy efficiency by allowing greater control over lighting, heating and ventilation. Positive Government initiatives, such as Warm Front, offer some older people more efficient heating and insulation, which not only helps to reduce fuel poverty but also conserves energy. The design of new housing to allow better ventilation and air cooling in hot weather could also save energy, while protecting the health and well being of vulnerable older people. Help the Aged has argued that all older people should have access to a downstairs shower unit to make washing easier, especially for those with mobility problems. Offering this to all older people not only promotes dignity and independence it also saves water.

There are a number of schemes that offer repairs and adaptations to older people, including local Home Improvement Agencies and associated handy person services. Help the Aged believes these schemes (along with Warm Front) should be linked together to offer holistic services to greater numbers of older people. Handy person services, as well as providing minor adaptations also work with the fire service to improve health and safety through the installation of smoke and carbon monoxide detectors. Some schemes also provide older people with low energy light bulbs and other energy or water saving devices. However this is being offered in a piecemeal, uncoordinated and under-resourced way. We think there is scope for existing services to offer ecological home improvements as well as repairs and adaptations. We would like both national and local government to look at how they can support local home improvement agencies to help older people improve energy efficiency and water consumption. We need to bring together ecological improvements with repairs and adaptations to not only improve the lives of older people but also to benefit the whole community.

We are pleased that the Government has said that lifetime homes standards will be incorporated into the design of eco towns. These standards will ensure that all new homes following basic design features that make homes accessible to everyone regardless of age. The Government is also promoting the concept of lifetime neighbourhoods. This is to guarantee that the built environment meets the needs of all age groups as part of delivering sustainable communities. We believe that all new communities, including eco towns, need to be ‘age proofed’ by following the principles of lifetime neighbourhoods. Help the Aged has developed its own version of lifetime neighbourhoods called Common Ground. The main elements of our Common Ground manifesto are as follows:

Basic amenities within reasonable reach – while everyone needs access to money, healthcare and some shops, neighbourhoods and communities that do not provide these can leave older people isolated.

Safe, secure and clean streets – this matters to all age groups but older people are particularly likely to fear crime. Good lighting, well-kept, clean streets and a police presence should all be prioritised, to help people feel more confident about getting out and about.

Realistic transport options for all –while older people are given free bus passes, many are still unable to get around because physical impairment prevents them from using buses, or because there are simply no routes. Transport options should be available for all.

Public seating – should be made available in many more places: having somewhere to rest means that older people can remain mobile for longer in their communities and that they can enjoy public spaces.

Information and advice – if no one knows about them, services might just as well not exist. Good advice and information on everything ranging from social care to local volunteering opportunities are essential for older people’s well-being.

Lifetime homes – new homes should be built to Lifetime Homes standards and people in existing homes should have access to necessary repairs and adaptations to make their homes last for a lifetime.

Older people’s voices heard – older people must be involved in local decisions that affect them, and their voices heard.

Places to meet and spend time – whether it be a public park, a shared community centre or a village hall, spaces for people to meet are vitally important to all of us and all ages.

Pavements in good repair – all pavements should be smooth and non-slip, with a maximum difference in paving-slab height of 2.5cm (1 inch), so that older people are less likely to fall or to have a fear of falling in their local area.

Public toilets – should be provided in far greater numbers as they are vital to the many older people who suffer from incontinence; without them many people are rendered housebound.

These basic elements need to be incorporated into all the new eco towns and new communities established through the new Housing and Regeneration Bill. We will look towards the new Homes and Communities Agency to ensure that accessibility issues have the same priority as environmental targets in building sustainable communities that work for all age groups.

For further information, please contact Joe Oldman on Joseph.Oldman@helptheaged.org.uk or on 020 72781114.

National House Building Council

NHBC Eco-towns briefing
Eco-towns could have a significant part to play in the dual Government policy objectives of building more homes and building more environmentally friendly homes.

NHBC is committed to supporting the Government and industry to successfully deliver zero carbon homes. However, based on NHBC’s research and experience there remain some challenges that need to be addressed.

NHBC is an independent expert on the housing industry with 20,000 builders on our register and 1.7 homes protected with our home warranty. We are therefore uniquely placed to contribute to the eco-towns debate, offering insight and experience from working with the industry and for the consumer.

Eco-towns require each housing unit to attain level 6 of the Code for Sustainable Homes: each house must be zero carbon.

The house building sector has turned to cutting-edge innovations to meet the Government’s zero carbon target. NHBC is committed to an evidence-based approach to developing and installing new low carbon technologies, based on sound science and thorough research.

Consumers must not be exposed to unnecessary risks and used to trial zero-carbon technologies and systems that have not undergone thorough testing and accreditation. The practicalities of meeting the zero-carbon target and the technologies required must be underpinned by rigorous research. This will guarantee quality and allow innovative construction solutions to be developed which the industry, and consumers, can have confidence in.

Beyond the actual construction of zero carbon homes, we need to ensure that there is a market for these homes. We must engage consumers more in the drive to make all new homes zero carbon. We must ensure we build the homes people will want to live in and be happy to pay for and maintain. 

The NHBC Foundation has published two recent reports that tackle two issues at the heart of the eco-towns policy: the consumer perception of zero carbon living and the readiness of microgeneration technologies to provide this low carbon lifestyle.

For more information see: "Zero carbon: what does it mean for homeowners and housebuilders?"

and

 “A Review of Microgeneration and Renewable Energy Technologies”

NHBC would welcome the opportunity to discuss the aforementioned reports and broader housing and environmental issues with all interested MPs and stakeholders.

For further information, please contact on platimer@nhbc.co.uk or 0207 648 4077.

Woodland Trust

• We believe that it is undesirable to build on greenfield sites but if building is to take place then it must be respectful of the natural environment. This means that building should never result in any loss of semi-natural habitats such as ancient woodland. Buffers should also exist between any building and concentrations of ancient woodland.

• It is also essential that the developments are more than simply the recycling of failed bids from developers and that they present a genuine step forward in terms of sustainable living.

• We believe that the use of wood obtained through legal and sustainable sources as part of a strategy of substituting low carbon materials for high carbon materials such as cement and steel must be a major component of eco-towns; product substitution is increasingly seen as a valuable contribution to mitigation to climate change

• The enhancement of biodiversity should be a central plank of eco-towns if they are to be worthy of the name. This means considering the needs of biodiversity at multiple scales, seeking to extend and buffer existing habitats in the area and to showcase the creation of new habitats.

• Ecologically friendly living means linking environment policy with whole range of other policy areas such as education, energy, transport and community cohesion and showcasing what green infrastructure can achieve.  Public health is an especially good example of this. A healthy thriving natural environment close to where people live is a key contributor to human health.  This means taking forward accessible green space standards such as the woodland Trust Woodland Access Standard.  This recommends:

- that no person should live more than 500m from at least one area of accessible woodland of no less than 2ha in size
- that there should also be at least one area of accessible woodland of no less than 20ha within 4km (8km round-trip) of people’s homes.

The Woodland Trust Access Standard also helps to deliver the Natural England Accessible Natural Greenspace standard. 

More info at http://www.woodland-trust.org.uk/woodsforpeople/