Planning for environmental change. Prof Alister Scott BA PhD MRTPI

Transcription

1 Planning for environmental change Prof Alister Scott BA PhD MRTPI Pr

2 1. What are the key planning issues relating to environmental change?

3 3

4

5 5

6

7 7

8 8

9 9

10 10

11 11

12 12

13

14

15 But

16 2. Why are we stuck in our professional and disciplinary silos?

17

18

19 300000

20

21

22

23 3. How do we break out of silos?

24 24

25 25

26 26

27 The 25 Year Environment Plan should be placed on a statutory footing and progress should be subject to independent scrutiny Natural Capital Committee th report 27

28 Embedding a concept, idea or knowledge from one policy domain. Translating it into daily practice and systems of multiple audiences and decision makers in other policy domains mainstreaming nature 28

29 Mainstreaming modes Retrofit Incremental Challenge led Systemic

30

31 31

32 Parks and green spaces are treasured assets and are often central to the lives of their communities. They provide opportunities for leisure, relaxation and exercise, but are also fundamental to community cohesion, physical and mental health and wellbeing, biodiversity, climate change mitigation, and local economic growth.

33 London s public parks have a gross asset value in excess of 91 billion. For each 1 spent by local authorities and their partners on public parks, Londoners enjoy at least 27 in value. Londoners avoid 950 million per year in health costs due to public parks. 33

34 Green Living Spaces Plan

35 4. How can we apply this thinking to UK government departments?

36 36 I want to be very clear - it is my ambition and it s my department s vision to be the first generation to leave our environment better than we found it since the industrial revolution.

37

38 38 Working at the HM Government environmental interface Finding the common vocabulary 1. Natural Capital Approach (taken into account) 2. Nature as an asset (net gain) 3. Healthier environment 4. Risk 5. Viability

39

40 5. Case studies mainstreaming environmental change

41 Case Study Birmingham

42 Case Study Birmingham

43 Introducing a Natural Capital Planning tool The NCPT can be applied at different scales and different stages of the planning process. It assesses the impact of land use changes on 10 ecosystem services: Harvested products Biodiversity Aesthetic values & sense of place Recreation Water quality regulation Flood risk regulation Air quality regulation Local climate regulation (climate change adaptation) Global climate regulation (climate change mitigation) Soil contamination

44 Ecosystem Service Development Impact Score Average Per-Hectare Adjusted Scores Una Scor 1. Harvested Products Biodiversity Aesthetic Values Recreation Water Quality Regulation Flood Risk Regulation Air Quality Regulation Local Climate Regulation Global Climate Regulation Soil Contamination +0 Development Impact Score -0

45 Birmingham Case Study So Different designs were developed: Eg Green Neighbourhoods Scenario: Increased green space in residential areas: added woodlands (parks), hedgerows Increased green space in school areas: added woodlands, allotments, hedgerows Green features on local streets Some green roof areas in residential and school zones Woodland buffer around sports facilities

46 Central Bedfordshire Case Study Key policy priority on environmental enhancement looking for a net gain

47

48 Central Bedfordshire Case Study Ecosystem Service M ax Possible M in Possible Test 1: Is it a good site? Could development significantly M ax Possible harm/benefit natural capital? Unadj. Scores Ecosystem Service 1. Harvested Products Harvested Products Biodiversity Biodiversity Looking at theoretical min/max possible scores gives an indication of the potential of the site 3. Aesthetic Values Aesthetic Values Recreation Recreation Water Quality Regulation Water Quality Regulation Flood Risk Regulation Flood Risk Regulation Air Quality Regulation Air Quality Regulation Local Climate Regulation Local Climate Regulation Global Climate Regulation Global Climate Regulation Soil Contamination Soil Contamination Development Impact Score Development Impact Score Average Per-Hectare Adjusted Scores Development Impact Score Development Impact Score Total for 66.8 Ha of Assessed Land-use Changes Adjusted Scores M in Possible

49 Central Bedfordshire Case Study Ecosystem Service M ax Possible M in Possible Test 2: Is it a good design? Is the plan working as M ax hard as it could for Possible natural capital? Unadj. Scores Ecosystem Service 1. Harvested Products Harvested Products Biodiversity Biodiversity Look at the actual scores and where they fall within the range Aesthetic Values Aesthetic Values Recreation Recreation Water Quality Regulation Water Quality Regulation Flood Risk Regulation Flood Risk Regulation Air Quality Regulation Air Quality Regulation Case study: Net positive impact but could do a lot more Development for Impact some Score ecosystem services 8. Local Climate Regulation Local Climate Regulation Global Climate Regulation Global Climate Regulation Soil Contamination Soil Contamination Development Impact Score Development Impact Score Average Per-Hectare Adjusted Scores Development Impact Score Total for 66.8 Ha of Assessed Land-use Changes Adjusted Scores M in Possible

50 50 Environmental Standards

51 51 Core Principles 1.Green infrastructure forms a multifunctional network, operating at a landscape scale. 2.Green infrastructure reflects and enhances the character of the local environment. 3.The type, quality and function of green infrastructure responds to the local policy context. 4.Green infrastructure is resilient to climate change and enhances environmental quality. 5.Provision is made for long-term management and maintenance of green infrastructure.

52 52 Wellbeing 1.Green infrastructure is accessible for all and is situated close to where people live. 2.All people are encouraged to use and enjoy green infrastructure. 3.Green infrastructure is designed to be accessible at all times of year. 4.Green infrastructure supports the reduction and/or prevention of health inequalities. 5.Green infrastructure promotes socially sustainable communities and community cohesion. 6.Green infrastructure is integral to the distinctiveness of place

53 53 Wildlife 1.Green infrastructure positively contributes to biodiversity targets and landscape-scale conservation priorities. 2.Green infrastructure creates linkages between habitats within the boundary of the scheme. 3.Green infrastructure positively contributes to the target conservation status of key species. 4.Green infrastructure includes features around and within the built environment. 5.Green infrastructure plays a role in restoring and sustaining wider ecological networks. 6.Green infrastructure secures biodiversity measures in all stages of implementation, and across multiple phases of development.

54 54

55 55 NPPF Viability par173 Plans should be deliverable. Therefore, the sites and the scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened HOW DO YOU MEASURE VIABILITY HOW SHOULD WE MEASURE VIABILITY

56 5 6 What is viable? New Forests Location determined by Market values only: food + timber (i.e. ignoring externalities) Source Bateman Church and Fish 2014 Cost benefit value: - 66million p.a.

57 5 7 Valuing ecosystem services Location determined by Market + Non-Market Values food + timber + greenhouse gases + recreation + water quality improvement + biodiversity improvement Cost benefit value: + 546million p.a.

58 Omitting nonmarket goods Including nonmarket goods 58

59 59 Summary Let s get out of ALL our silos Let s rethink how we value land Let s mainstream environment Let s put back the quality into planning

60 @profalister ac.uk infrastructure.com/ 60