Planning for Homes, Nature, and Climate
On the 11th of September, OnePlanet and Urbanist on a Mission came together with a range of stakeholders across the built environment to discuss the planning system. Although planning is currently positioned in the news as a tool to “build, build, build”, our session dived into the other interconnected issues that must be addressed.
This included a case study, sharing an example of a self-build Passivhaus in Haringey. The aim of the project was to build a home that promotes healthy living, good design, reduced environmental impact and efficient use of land. In a refreshingly collaborative discussion, we had both the applicant and the planning officer join us to explore the challenges around delivering small scale sustainable projects like this.
The Haringey planning officer, Matthew, noted that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), London Plan and Local Plan all highlight the benefits of small site developments for housing delivery. However, gaining planning permission in practice can be quite difficult. Matthew expressed that there can be a lack of flexibility and information to support case-specific or commercially-sensitive allowances. He also highlighted that there is a common need to prioritise other matters, such as conservation, when assessing projects such as infill development.
Andrew, the applicant, was aspiring to build a low-carbon home. Working closely with his architect, he believed that the proposal complied with the local development framework, aligned with wider ambitions to reach net zero and met a local need for down-sizing housing choice in the area. However, he was ultimately required to make three changes with adverse carbon impacts in order to obtain planning permission. This included:
- Re-designing the house from a two-storey building, to a single-storey with a basement.
- Replacing timber cladding with ‘brick-slips’.
- Reducing PV panels to include a green roof.
Taking the first issue and comparing this to some key NPPF, London and local policies using the OnePlanet tool, we can see that:
- Although this has a positive effect on reducing visual impact and protecting historic heritage (solid line), it has a negative or very negative effect (dashed lines) on the carbon impact and project viability. This is because building downwards increases the carbon intensity and overall cost significantly.
- Conversely, while the two-storey solution may have had a neutral or negative effect, depending on your view, it could have had an overall positive effect on carbon, adaptation and deliverability.
As part of the break-out sessions, the majority of groups felt that general opposition to new development was a key barrier to housing delivery. I believe that using tools like OnePlanet can help us navigate the challenge of striking the ‘planning balance’, for example by supporting:
- Alignment – providing visual summaries of how a proposal does or does not comply with national, regional and local planning policies.
- Collaboration – creating a forum for applicants and officers to work together in order to find solutions for conflicting goals.
- Transparency – allowing the community to see why decisions were taken, the compromises that were made and the overall local benefits that a project could deliver.
MRTPI MSc, Mahsa Ige
If you’d like to see more, catch up with the session below!