In the current discussion around planning and development, the government stands accused of polarising the debate: are we anti-development or pro-development; economically driven, or environmentally conscious?
Yet the essence of good planning should not hinge on such a binary viewpoint. It is about the need for balance. Balancing people’s needs, protecting the environment and stimulating the economy.
The challenges of achieving this equilibrium are more difficult still, when the public debate revolves around two critical issues: our failure to build enough homes since the 1950s; and a persistent economic stagnation that followed the 2008 financial crash. Both factors have heightened our urgency to grow the economy.
Critics argue that environmental regulations have become excessively bureaucratic, delaying development and economic growth. From the production of lengthy Environmental Impact Assessments to compliance with complex Habitat Regulations, the level of consents, permissions and regulations can be overwhelming for developers. Take HS2, for example. Despite its ambition, the project was mired in delays, showcasing a planning system that excels at regulating and safeguarding the environment, but falters in delivering timely planning permissions and consents.
A more cynical perspective suggests we are far too bureaucratic when it comes to assessing environmental impacts of development. Take for example protected species, such as bats. Recent headlines highlighted the extraordinary ecological costs associated with the HS2 project, which included spending £100m on a shield to protect bats that was just one of 8,276 separate consents required.
Yet, thorough environmental assessment of our impacts on habitats or climate are critical to meeting our commitments to greenhouse gas emissions targets and to protect and restore protected habitats. The Government’s new Nature Restoration Fund proposal may offer a hint of progress in this regard, allowing developers to pay into the fund and the project to proceed unhindered.
Still the debate is far from settled. Take the contentious issue of a third runway at Heathrow. The Chancellor argues that such an expansion could yield a 0.43% boost to GDP by 2050, yet aviation is among the most significant contributors to climate change and is responsible for around 7% of total UK greenhouse gas emissions.
The stark reality is that expanding air travel in the UK will require monumental carbon offsetting. Commentors suggest this would require the planting of a forest twice the size of Greater London to offset the projected emissions from the Government’s planned expansion of Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton airports.
Instead of questioning whether we can genuinely reconcile economic growth with safeguarding the environment, we should ask how we can work together better to foster development that balances people’s needs. A significant part of this lies in empowering our decision-makers to support sustainable development, rather than opposing it.
This article was written by Lawrence Turner, director of Boyer (part of LRG).
Images via Lawrence Turner and Jan Kopřiva via UnSplash
In related news:
High housing targets are in areas with little public transport – research
Leave a Reply