29 May, 2009
By Tom Bill
There is no oversupply of new-built apartments in the capital according to Savills
There is a looming shortage of new housing in London, according to property agent Savills.
Its latest study found only 916 units were empty and available in the capital in the first quarter of this year, dismissing recent reports the figure was as high as 10,000.
It said: “Tales of our cities being full of vast tracts of empty, newly built apartments for sale are misleading and commentators who think that an oversupply of new housing will depress the market and keep prices falling across the board are wrong.”
Its research for the first three months of the year show there are 29,000 units for sale and/or under construction. Of these, one-third have already been sold off-plan and another third are not yet for sale. The remaining 9,844 new units are mostly being sold off-plan and are not yet complete.
This leaves 916 units that Savills describes as “habitable and on completed schemes and can therefore be described as standing empty and available.”
Yolande Barnes, head of Savills Research, said: “A very conservative estimate is that, in the context of 2008 rates of new build sales, this represents a mere two months’ supply.”
She added: “When put into context of the number of units that people buy in London in a year, (the figures) point to a looming shortage rather than a looming glut of properties in many boroughs - although there are notable exceptions where a potential oversupply is an issue.”
About Me
Sunday, 31 May 2009
Sunday, 24 May 2009
BEDZED - DESIGN PRINCIPLES
* Zero energy—The project is designed to use only energy from renewable sources generated on site. There are 777 m² of solar panels. Tree waste fuels the development's cogeneration plant (downdraft gasifier) to provide district heating and electricity. The gasifier is not being used, because of technical implementation problems, though the technology has been and is being used successfully at other sites.
* High quality—The apartments are finished to a high standard to attract the urban professional.
* Energy efficient—The houses face south to take advantage of solar gain, are triple glazed, and have high thermal insulation.
* Water efficient—Most rain water falling on the site is collected and reused. Appliances are chosen to be water-efficient and use recycled water when possible. A "Living Machine" system of recycling waste water was installed, but is not operating.
* Low-impact materials—Building materials were selected from renewable or recycled sources within 35 miles of the site, to minimize the energy required for transportation.
* Waste recycling—Refuse-collection facilities are designed to support recycling.
* Transport—The development works in partnership with the United Kingdom's leading car-sharing operator, City Car Club. Residents are encouraged to use this environmentally friendly alternative to car ownership; an on-site selection of vehicles is available for use.
* Encourage eco-friendly transport—Electric and liquefied-petroleum-gas cars have priority over cars that burn petrol and diesel, and electricity is provided in parking spaces for charging electric cars.
* High quality—The apartments are finished to a high standard to attract the urban professional.
* Energy efficient—The houses face south to take advantage of solar gain, are triple glazed, and have high thermal insulation.
* Water efficient—Most rain water falling on the site is collected and reused. Appliances are chosen to be water-efficient and use recycled water when possible. A "Living Machine" system of recycling waste water was installed, but is not operating.
* Low-impact materials—Building materials were selected from renewable or recycled sources within 35 miles of the site, to minimize the energy required for transportation.
* Waste recycling—Refuse-collection facilities are designed to support recycling.
* Transport—The development works in partnership with the United Kingdom's leading car-sharing operator, City Car Club. Residents are encouraged to use this environmentally friendly alternative to car ownership; an on-site selection of vehicles is available for use.
* Encourage eco-friendly transport—Electric and liquefied-petroleum-gas cars have priority over cars that burn petrol and diesel, and electricity is provided in parking spaces for charging electric cars.
Bill Dunster's walls
Bill Dunster is, for want of a better word, an ecotect. That is an architect with a passion for green design. He sprang to fame with a project known as BedZed, a development of live-work units built on a disused sewage farm in Beddington, South London. It’s had acres of publicity and is rightly held up as an exemplar of how multiple housing units should be built in the future. But BedZed has now been finished for three years and Dunster has found it a hard act to follow. Developers and social housing landlords have not been falling over each other to repeat “the experiment” and he has been frustrated by planners who haven’t been prepared to loosen the planning corset just because a scheme is green.
But at last, Dunster has another scheme to showcase his talent. This time it’s a four-storey block of key worker flats on the St Matthews council estate in Lambeth, South London. It’s not quite as big or prestigious as BedZed but in some ways it’s more technically advanced. Building carried a feature on it this week, which caught my eye: in particular, the wall detailing. The outer walls are no less than 550mm wide, compared with just under 300mm in conventional housing. They are made up of 150mm blockwork inside 300mm of expanded polystyrene insulation filling the cavity, behind a 100mm brick skin, which is what them outside world sees. The plus point is of course that, with this much insulation, you have got a tremendously low U value – reckoned to be just 0.1W/K/m2. But against this, on a 60m2 apartment, you are loosing up to 25% of the footprint to walling.
Yikes. That’s a hell of a lot, especially considering we are being encouraged to build smaller and smaller units. Dunster is a big fan of heavy mass construction, which means little or no timber frame and little or no off-site pre-fabrication. He believes in the importance of thermal mass (concrete in other words) in regulating the temperature characteristics of a home and in reducing the effects of summer over-heating. But is thermal mass really such a wonderful concept that you have to loose 20% or more of your floor area just to accommodate it? If there wasn’t quite so much south-facing glazing — another of his betes verts — then perhaps the designs wouldn’t require quite so much thermal mass and the walls wouldn't have to be quite so thick.
Another problem comes with the adoption of a 300mm cavity, shown here in diagramatic form, (ref Building magazine). How do you manage the openings? In particular, how do you ensure that the water penetrating the outer brickwork is directed back out of the external wall rather than dripping down into the joinery? You’ve left the world of conventional construction far behind here: there are no off-the-peg wall ties this long and there are no pre-formed cavity trays this wide. Dunster’s solution has been to design a wrap-around cavity tray around each window. To me, it sounds just like the sort of detail which is likely to fall victim to sloppiness on site. Done perfectly, there should never be any problem but construction isn’t a perfect world.
One other feature of this article stands out. The costings. £1600/m2. This isn’t, in fact, far out of line with many other innovative social housing projects being built around the country at the moment, but it’s about twice the rate that selfbuilders hope to complete their projects for. Why the huge discrepancy? A good question, which will have to wait for another blog.
Labels: Insulation, Low Energy Homes
But at last, Dunster has another scheme to showcase his talent. This time it’s a four-storey block of key worker flats on the St Matthews council estate in Lambeth, South London. It’s not quite as big or prestigious as BedZed but in some ways it’s more technically advanced. Building carried a feature on it this week, which caught my eye: in particular, the wall detailing. The outer walls are no less than 550mm wide, compared with just under 300mm in conventional housing. They are made up of 150mm blockwork inside 300mm of expanded polystyrene insulation filling the cavity, behind a 100mm brick skin, which is what them outside world sees. The plus point is of course that, with this much insulation, you have got a tremendously low U value – reckoned to be just 0.1W/K/m2. But against this, on a 60m2 apartment, you are loosing up to 25% of the footprint to walling.
Yikes. That’s a hell of a lot, especially considering we are being encouraged to build smaller and smaller units. Dunster is a big fan of heavy mass construction, which means little or no timber frame and little or no off-site pre-fabrication. He believes in the importance of thermal mass (concrete in other words) in regulating the temperature characteristics of a home and in reducing the effects of summer over-heating. But is thermal mass really such a wonderful concept that you have to loose 20% or more of your floor area just to accommodate it? If there wasn’t quite so much south-facing glazing — another of his betes verts — then perhaps the designs wouldn’t require quite so much thermal mass and the walls wouldn't have to be quite so thick.
Another problem comes with the adoption of a 300mm cavity, shown here in diagramatic form, (ref Building magazine). How do you manage the openings? In particular, how do you ensure that the water penetrating the outer brickwork is directed back out of the external wall rather than dripping down into the joinery? You’ve left the world of conventional construction far behind here: there are no off-the-peg wall ties this long and there are no pre-formed cavity trays this wide. Dunster’s solution has been to design a wrap-around cavity tray around each window. To me, it sounds just like the sort of detail which is likely to fall victim to sloppiness on site. Done perfectly, there should never be any problem but construction isn’t a perfect world.
One other feature of this article stands out. The costings. £1600/m2. This isn’t, in fact, far out of line with many other innovative social housing projects being built around the country at the moment, but it’s about twice the rate that selfbuilders hope to complete their projects for. Why the huge discrepancy? A good question, which will have to wait for another blog.
Labels: Insulation, Low Energy Homes
Wednesday, 20 May 2009
harvest green project-02, vancouver
Romses Architects has designed “Harvest Green Project-02′ as a part of Vancouver ‘The 2030 Challenge’. Harvest Green Project is rooted in a concept that challenges the status quo of how energy and food is produced, delivered and sustained in our city, neighbourhoods, and individual single-family homes.
Taking cues from the citys eco-density charter, and in particular, it’s new laneway housing initiatives, the Harvest Green Project proposes to overlay a new ‘green energy and food web’ across the numerous residential neighborhoods and laneways within the city as these communities address future increased densification. The city’s laneways will be transformed into green energy and food conduits, or ‘green streets’, where energy and food is ‘harvested’ via proposed micro laneway live-work homes.
Saturday, 16 May 2009
Friday, 15 May 2009
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
Tuesday, 12 May 2009
In defence of the eco-town
By Wayne Hemingway
Last Updated: 9:50AM BST 06 Aug 2008
Young families need decent homes. First-time buyers should be given a chance to buy, without needing a fantasy salary increase. Single people, key workers, the elderly – all these people want and deserve a home in a place they like and where they might choose to put down roots. We have a growing population , people are getting married later in life, people are living longer, there is net inward migration, we simply need more homes. I want to hear what these people have to say about being given the chance to live in a well-designed, attractive place.
At the moment, the strident voices of those opposed to eco-towns are using every trick in the book to win attention. But what about the people eco-towns are being planned to provide homes for? We need to listen to them too. I understand that for decades this country has been particularly good at delivering great new places to live but as chair of Building For Life I can see that there is a movement towards liveability, quality and sustainability and the eco-town programme is an opportunity to set examples that could start to put an end to isolated, identikit housing developments in unsuitable locations away from all facilities.
Related Articles
*
The horrible bingo of growing old
*
Budget 2009: boost for housing expected
*
Alan Shearer given a reality check as below-par Chelsea sink Newcastle
*
Grand Designs' Kevin McCloud hits opposition over eco homes
*
Harley-Davidson V-Rod Muscle review
I am part of a 15-strong panel advising the Government on the design and sustainability elements of eco-towns. This independent panel has been set up by the Government to challenge and push the consortiums bidding to build eco towns so that they really do deliver the best possible communities for those who live there. I spend a lot of my working time designing homes and putting the building blocks in place so that vibrant new communities can develop – and so I have strong views.
Getting on the housing ladder early is now almost impossible. The average age for a first-time buyer is 34. And mortgages now require ten times the earnings of the average first-time buyer – and that could be a young family or a single person.
The eco-town plan is designed to create a workable template so that a few exemplar developments around the country can inform the wider industry how to deliver more homes at affordable prices across England and improve quality of life in a sustainable way for the 21 st century. My role as an adviser is to look at all the applications for the shortlist of eco-towns and ensure that the plans provide for good transport, shops, schools, jobs and leisure and don’t impact negatively on existing communities. To ensure that the plans allow for 30 to 50 per cent affordable housing. And to ensure that the plans pioneer sustainable environmentally-friendly living.
The Government has already warned developers that if they can’t meet these standards, they’re out. We need to create places where people can be happy and enjoy life – where there is space to walk the dog, kick a ball around and walk your child to school.
It is my job, and that of others on the panel, to push developers to make sure that this happens. We have got to get this right as the first eco-towns will be pioneering projects to ensure that all the ingredients are in place and deliver what people want; blueprints for the future.
We also need to make sure that people understand what is meant by “eco-towns”. Most people accept that more homes need to be built – and it makes absolute sense to do our best to make them as environmentally friendly as possible.
In short, homes that don’t cost the earth to run and are designed to deal with climate change; schools, shops, businesses and community facilities with jobs; places to go, a sense of place and a community spirit. This means a mix of people - young families, singles, older families, downsizers and the elderly - from all walks of life. We are talking about creating towns for around 5-10,000 families; and maybe two or three bigger communities for up to 15,000 families - about the size of Morecambe where I was born.
In many ways what we are doing is nothing new. The Victorians created some outstanding new towns and cities because new homes were needed then, just as they are now. They put in place transport links, schools, public buildings and parks. I am working on a scheme in Dartford where getting the infrastructure in place first was vital. We now have a free bus service that links up the entire local area and a fast train link to St Pancras will be opened next year.
We must ensure that eco-towns also relate to towns and cities nearby. They need to join up economically so that businesses can look to the new communities as places for expansion, creating jobs and an entrepreneurial spirit. And many other countries around the world are also looking at building eco-towns and cities for their citizens.
But more than anything, we have to remember why the eco-towns plan was created in the first place and keep that centre stage – to build homes for people who need and deserve them. And, I would suggest, we need to listen to what these people have to say about the homes they want and not just let the naysayers dominate.
Whilst I realise that “nimbyism” is a powerful movement, often soundly based on the housing industry’s mistakes, a great development or two can start to change perception about an area, helping us to catch up with our European neighbours whose thorough planning means new developments are often a welcome prospect.
• Wayne Hemingway is a member of the Eco-town Challenge Panel, an independent group of experts in sustainability and urban development.
Last Updated: 9:50AM BST 06 Aug 2008
Young families need decent homes. First-time buyers should be given a chance to buy, without needing a fantasy salary increase. Single people, key workers, the elderly – all these people want and deserve a home in a place they like and where they might choose to put down roots. We have a growing population , people are getting married later in life, people are living longer, there is net inward migration, we simply need more homes. I want to hear what these people have to say about being given the chance to live in a well-designed, attractive place.
At the moment, the strident voices of those opposed to eco-towns are using every trick in the book to win attention. But what about the people eco-towns are being planned to provide homes for? We need to listen to them too. I understand that for decades this country has been particularly good at delivering great new places to live but as chair of Building For Life I can see that there is a movement towards liveability, quality and sustainability and the eco-town programme is an opportunity to set examples that could start to put an end to isolated, identikit housing developments in unsuitable locations away from all facilities.
Related Articles
*
The horrible bingo of growing old
*
Budget 2009: boost for housing expected
*
Alan Shearer given a reality check as below-par Chelsea sink Newcastle
*
Grand Designs' Kevin McCloud hits opposition over eco homes
*
Harley-Davidson V-Rod Muscle review
I am part of a 15-strong panel advising the Government on the design and sustainability elements of eco-towns. This independent panel has been set up by the Government to challenge and push the consortiums bidding to build eco towns so that they really do deliver the best possible communities for those who live there. I spend a lot of my working time designing homes and putting the building blocks in place so that vibrant new communities can develop – and so I have strong views.
Getting on the housing ladder early is now almost impossible. The average age for a first-time buyer is 34. And mortgages now require ten times the earnings of the average first-time buyer – and that could be a young family or a single person.
The eco-town plan is designed to create a workable template so that a few exemplar developments around the country can inform the wider industry how to deliver more homes at affordable prices across England and improve quality of life in a sustainable way for the 21 st century. My role as an adviser is to look at all the applications for the shortlist of eco-towns and ensure that the plans provide for good transport, shops, schools, jobs and leisure and don’t impact negatively on existing communities. To ensure that the plans allow for 30 to 50 per cent affordable housing. And to ensure that the plans pioneer sustainable environmentally-friendly living.
The Government has already warned developers that if they can’t meet these standards, they’re out. We need to create places where people can be happy and enjoy life – where there is space to walk the dog, kick a ball around and walk your child to school.
It is my job, and that of others on the panel, to push developers to make sure that this happens. We have got to get this right as the first eco-towns will be pioneering projects to ensure that all the ingredients are in place and deliver what people want; blueprints for the future.
We also need to make sure that people understand what is meant by “eco-towns”. Most people accept that more homes need to be built – and it makes absolute sense to do our best to make them as environmentally friendly as possible.
In short, homes that don’t cost the earth to run and are designed to deal with climate change; schools, shops, businesses and community facilities with jobs; places to go, a sense of place and a community spirit. This means a mix of people - young families, singles, older families, downsizers and the elderly - from all walks of life. We are talking about creating towns for around 5-10,000 families; and maybe two or three bigger communities for up to 15,000 families - about the size of Morecambe where I was born.
In many ways what we are doing is nothing new. The Victorians created some outstanding new towns and cities because new homes were needed then, just as they are now. They put in place transport links, schools, public buildings and parks. I am working on a scheme in Dartford where getting the infrastructure in place first was vital. We now have a free bus service that links up the entire local area and a fast train link to St Pancras will be opened next year.
We must ensure that eco-towns also relate to towns and cities nearby. They need to join up economically so that businesses can look to the new communities as places for expansion, creating jobs and an entrepreneurial spirit. And many other countries around the world are also looking at building eco-towns and cities for their citizens.
But more than anything, we have to remember why the eco-towns plan was created in the first place and keep that centre stage – to build homes for people who need and deserve them. And, I would suggest, we need to listen to what these people have to say about the homes they want and not just let the naysayers dominate.
Whilst I realise that “nimbyism” is a powerful movement, often soundly based on the housing industry’s mistakes, a great development or two can start to change perception about an area, helping us to catch up with our European neighbours whose thorough planning means new developments are often a welcome prospect.
• Wayne Hemingway is a member of the Eco-town Challenge Panel, an independent group of experts in sustainability and urban development.
Rogers attacks eco-towns as a big mistake
22 May, 2008
By Rory Olcayto
Richard Rogers has launched an extraordinary criticism of the government’s eco-towns project calling it one of the government’s “biggest mistakes”.
Speaking today at a conference on high density housing at London’s building Centre, the Pritzker-prize winning architect and Labour peer claimed eco-towns were inherently unsustainable, and cited a report by the US Green Council that showed that draughty accommodation in a dense urban centre is more efficient than that of an eco-home in a greenfield location.
“I think eco-towns are one of the biggest mistakes the government can make," he said. "They are in no way environmentally sustainable.
“The retention of the green belt is essential. We need to increase density around public transport. We need to invest much more in public transport.”
Rogers’ comments reflect the extent that prime minister Gordon Brown – who personally backs eco-towns - has departed from the principles espoused by Rogers’ Urban Task Force, an advisory body formed under his predecessor Tony Blair.
Last month BD revealed that Rogers had criticised the government for ignoring the Urban Task force’s Towards a Strong Urban Renaissance report produced over two years ago.
Other speakers at the event, chaired by HTA’s managing director Ben Derbyshire, included Pablo Lazo of Arup and Duncan Bowie, a former GLA planner.
By Rory Olcayto
Richard Rogers has launched an extraordinary criticism of the government’s eco-towns project calling it one of the government’s “biggest mistakes”.
Speaking today at a conference on high density housing at London’s building Centre, the Pritzker-prize winning architect and Labour peer claimed eco-towns were inherently unsustainable, and cited a report by the US Green Council that showed that draughty accommodation in a dense urban centre is more efficient than that of an eco-home in a greenfield location.
“I think eco-towns are one of the biggest mistakes the government can make," he said. "They are in no way environmentally sustainable.
“The retention of the green belt is essential. We need to increase density around public transport. We need to invest much more in public transport.”
Rogers’ comments reflect the extent that prime minister Gordon Brown – who personally backs eco-towns - has departed from the principles espoused by Rogers’ Urban Task Force, an advisory body formed under his predecessor Tony Blair.
Last month BD revealed that Rogers had criticised the government for ignoring the Urban Task force’s Towards a Strong Urban Renaissance report produced over two years ago.
Other speakers at the event, chaired by HTA’s managing director Ben Derbyshire, included Pablo Lazo of Arup and Duncan Bowie, a former GLA planner.
Eco-towns: a design for life
They could be the answer to our housing and carbon-footprint problems, so why are people opposed to new towns?
Tom Dyckhoff
It is an unlikely alliance: Germaine Greer, Sir Simon Jenkins, Dame Judi Dench, Richard Rogers, Ben Fogle, Duncan Goodhew, John Nettles and the family of Tim Henman united at the barricades. But then, eco-towns are an unusual opponent, forcing together those who you would expect to oppose them with those you wouldn't.
A YouGov poll in June showed 46 per cent of the public in favour of building eco-towns, with just 9 per cent opposed. Yet there's no disputing the strength of local protest at many of the 13 sites on the Government's shortlist. One group, the Bard campaign, which opposes an eco-town outside Stratford-upon-Avon, has called for a judicial review of the consultation process. Already two from the original shortlist of 15 - Lincolnshire and Staffordshire - have dropped out.
When Gordon Brown announced plans for eco-towns in May last year he was trying to seize the green initiative back from the Conservatives. Brown reiterated the Government's plan to build 3 million new homes by 2020. The problem had always been the vast increase in Britain's carbon footprint that this would entail.
On paper, the latest standards for eco-towns, set down two weeks ago by Housing Minister Caroline Flint, are the epitome of moderation. Ten are to be built, defined by the Government as having between 5,000 and 20,000 homes, built to at least level four of the Code for Sustainable Homes (the Code measures the sustainability of a new home against nine categories of sustainable design). These towns would include at least 30 per cent affordable housing, “high-quality public transport links” and enough community facilities and jobs to avoid them becoming commuter 'burbs. Each would be an exemplar in eco-design, with all buildings achieving zero-carbon status. The average home would be within ten minutes' walk of frequent public transport and everyday neighbourhood services.
Related Links
* Living: Is this the future?
* Eco-town residents face £500 surcharge
Shoddy design, that curse of so much British housing, would be avoided with “a commitment to high standards of architecture”, an architectural competition in each town, and designs overseen by various professional bodies. The Housing Minister at the time, Yvette Cooper, promised “a mix of styles” not “the grand vision of a single architect” that still blights many of the postwar towns. What's not to like?
“On the whole it's a good thing,” says Bill Dunster, the designer of the UK's largest carbon-neutral development, BedZED in South London. “It's very clever, because it instantly creates a market for carbonzero homes. Left alone, housebuilders would move slowly to meet the new green housing standards. This, though, is like rocket fuel to the cause.”
The protestors would beg to differ. Yet beneath some of the nimbyism lie key concerns, says Kate Gordon, the senior planning officer at the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England. The first is the policy's top-down imposition. “It cuts across the planning system and disrupts regional plans that have been put in place democratically over years,” she says. “We support the aspirations of eco-towns, just not how the policy is being carried out. Without co-ordination, the feet will be going one way and the head the other.”
“Of course eco-towns will not be ‘imposed' without local support,” counters Gideon Amos, director of the Town and Country Planning Association, whose former chairman, David Lock, came up with the eco-towns idea. “They'll have to go through normal planning. If they're faulty, they'll fail.”
Dunster understands the concerns, however. “We've had 20 years of poor development on greenfield sites,” he says. There are enough disused airfields, old quarry sites and 'damaged' countryside we can use before we start on the green fields.”
Both Kate Gordon and Richard Rogers propose “retrofitting”: densifying and making green existing towns before building new ones. The problem is that building on brownfield sites is less profitable, while “densification” is as controversial for city dwellers as “concreting the countryside”. The fact is, building ten eco-towns is barely going to dent our housing and carbon problems. We need to improve existing cities and housing urgently and build eco-towns.
It's the poor transport links of many of the proposals that are the biggest headache. For example, plans for Middle Quinton, southwest of Stratford-upon-Avon, Coltishall in Norfolk, Rossington in South Yorkshire and Ford in Sussex all require substantial transport improvements to prevent them becoming isolated or forcing residents into cars to commute to work.
But still the general guiding principle of eco-towns should be embraced. “Instead of asking, 'Why should we build eco-towns?', I'd turn the question round,” Amos says. “Why have we been so blinkered not to build new towns?” The policy, he thinks, is a corrective “against the inherent attitude in Britain that all new development, especially that on greenfield land, is automatically bad. This is our chance to become a flagbearer.”Britain has a good record in building new towns. Bath was once a new town. The beautiful terraces of Edinburgh's New Town were once exactly that, as was the philanthropic housing at Saltaire, New Earswick and Port Sunlight. The 19th-century precursors of the suburb were in London, in Camden Town and Bedford Park, while garden cities such as Letchworth and Welwyn have been influential all over the world. Many were once regarded as blots on the landscape; now they are thought of as stunning examples of town planning.
But, looking at the record of British housebuilders in the past few years, few would be optimistic. Despite exceptions such as the Greenwich Millennium Village, Accordia, a Cambridge housing scheme on the Stirling Prize shortlist, and Dunster's BedZED, our record on new developments is poor. How can the Government make the building industry comply with its new, green regulations?
The Government points to Hammarby Sjöstad, a suburb of Stockholm, as a foreign exemplar. But it was designed 17 years ago when the impacts of climate change were less widely known, so much of the architecture doesn't reach the equivalent of level six of Britain's Code for Sustainable Homes. Dunster thinks that it is “not particularly relevant to Britain's climate and culture. It relies on a whopping great wind turbine or power plant.”
Better, he thinks, to design neighbourhoods that don't demand as much energy in the first place, such as his RuralZED plans. “It's appallingly basic. If you build higher-density, higher-rise neighbourhoods, you need more technology to keep them carbon-neutral because of simple things like less sunlight and warmth reaching the flats. For 70 per cent of the UK, all you need is a simple wood-pellet boiler and solar thermal collectors, not all these wind turbines and photovoltaics.”
Britain already has government-sponsored eco-settlements under way. English Partnerships is creating “eco-villages” on sites from Bristol to Doncaster - all homes built to levels five or six of the sustainable homes code. In 2006, before eco-towns were a glint in Gordon Brown's eye, a new community of 9,500 homes for 24,000 people at Northstowe, outside Cambridge, was announced, an eco-town in all but name, now being considered by South Cambridgeshire District Council. It doesn't conform to the lofty standards of the Eco-towns Prospectus, but with plans for south-facing windows, rainwater harvesting, porous pavements and solar water heating, it gives us a hint as to what to expect. The future is inescapably green.
Tom Dyckhoff
It is an unlikely alliance: Germaine Greer, Sir Simon Jenkins, Dame Judi Dench, Richard Rogers, Ben Fogle, Duncan Goodhew, John Nettles and the family of Tim Henman united at the barricades. But then, eco-towns are an unusual opponent, forcing together those who you would expect to oppose them with those you wouldn't.
A YouGov poll in June showed 46 per cent of the public in favour of building eco-towns, with just 9 per cent opposed. Yet there's no disputing the strength of local protest at many of the 13 sites on the Government's shortlist. One group, the Bard campaign, which opposes an eco-town outside Stratford-upon-Avon, has called for a judicial review of the consultation process. Already two from the original shortlist of 15 - Lincolnshire and Staffordshire - have dropped out.
When Gordon Brown announced plans for eco-towns in May last year he was trying to seize the green initiative back from the Conservatives. Brown reiterated the Government's plan to build 3 million new homes by 2020. The problem had always been the vast increase in Britain's carbon footprint that this would entail.
On paper, the latest standards for eco-towns, set down two weeks ago by Housing Minister Caroline Flint, are the epitome of moderation. Ten are to be built, defined by the Government as having between 5,000 and 20,000 homes, built to at least level four of the Code for Sustainable Homes (the Code measures the sustainability of a new home against nine categories of sustainable design). These towns would include at least 30 per cent affordable housing, “high-quality public transport links” and enough community facilities and jobs to avoid them becoming commuter 'burbs. Each would be an exemplar in eco-design, with all buildings achieving zero-carbon status. The average home would be within ten minutes' walk of frequent public transport and everyday neighbourhood services.
Related Links
* Living: Is this the future?
* Eco-town residents face £500 surcharge
Shoddy design, that curse of so much British housing, would be avoided with “a commitment to high standards of architecture”, an architectural competition in each town, and designs overseen by various professional bodies. The Housing Minister at the time, Yvette Cooper, promised “a mix of styles” not “the grand vision of a single architect” that still blights many of the postwar towns. What's not to like?
“On the whole it's a good thing,” says Bill Dunster, the designer of the UK's largest carbon-neutral development, BedZED in South London. “It's very clever, because it instantly creates a market for carbonzero homes. Left alone, housebuilders would move slowly to meet the new green housing standards. This, though, is like rocket fuel to the cause.”
The protestors would beg to differ. Yet beneath some of the nimbyism lie key concerns, says Kate Gordon, the senior planning officer at the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England. The first is the policy's top-down imposition. “It cuts across the planning system and disrupts regional plans that have been put in place democratically over years,” she says. “We support the aspirations of eco-towns, just not how the policy is being carried out. Without co-ordination, the feet will be going one way and the head the other.”
“Of course eco-towns will not be ‘imposed' without local support,” counters Gideon Amos, director of the Town and Country Planning Association, whose former chairman, David Lock, came up with the eco-towns idea. “They'll have to go through normal planning. If they're faulty, they'll fail.”
Dunster understands the concerns, however. “We've had 20 years of poor development on greenfield sites,” he says. There are enough disused airfields, old quarry sites and 'damaged' countryside we can use before we start on the green fields.”
Both Kate Gordon and Richard Rogers propose “retrofitting”: densifying and making green existing towns before building new ones. The problem is that building on brownfield sites is less profitable, while “densification” is as controversial for city dwellers as “concreting the countryside”. The fact is, building ten eco-towns is barely going to dent our housing and carbon problems. We need to improve existing cities and housing urgently and build eco-towns.
It's the poor transport links of many of the proposals that are the biggest headache. For example, plans for Middle Quinton, southwest of Stratford-upon-Avon, Coltishall in Norfolk, Rossington in South Yorkshire and Ford in Sussex all require substantial transport improvements to prevent them becoming isolated or forcing residents into cars to commute to work.
But still the general guiding principle of eco-towns should be embraced. “Instead of asking, 'Why should we build eco-towns?', I'd turn the question round,” Amos says. “Why have we been so blinkered not to build new towns?” The policy, he thinks, is a corrective “against the inherent attitude in Britain that all new development, especially that on greenfield land, is automatically bad. This is our chance to become a flagbearer.”Britain has a good record in building new towns. Bath was once a new town. The beautiful terraces of Edinburgh's New Town were once exactly that, as was the philanthropic housing at Saltaire, New Earswick and Port Sunlight. The 19th-century precursors of the suburb were in London, in Camden Town and Bedford Park, while garden cities such as Letchworth and Welwyn have been influential all over the world. Many were once regarded as blots on the landscape; now they are thought of as stunning examples of town planning.
But, looking at the record of British housebuilders in the past few years, few would be optimistic. Despite exceptions such as the Greenwich Millennium Village, Accordia, a Cambridge housing scheme on the Stirling Prize shortlist, and Dunster's BedZED, our record on new developments is poor. How can the Government make the building industry comply with its new, green regulations?
The Government points to Hammarby Sjöstad, a suburb of Stockholm, as a foreign exemplar. But it was designed 17 years ago when the impacts of climate change were less widely known, so much of the architecture doesn't reach the equivalent of level six of Britain's Code for Sustainable Homes. Dunster thinks that it is “not particularly relevant to Britain's climate and culture. It relies on a whopping great wind turbine or power plant.”
Better, he thinks, to design neighbourhoods that don't demand as much energy in the first place, such as his RuralZED plans. “It's appallingly basic. If you build higher-density, higher-rise neighbourhoods, you need more technology to keep them carbon-neutral because of simple things like less sunlight and warmth reaching the flats. For 70 per cent of the UK, all you need is a simple wood-pellet boiler and solar thermal collectors, not all these wind turbines and photovoltaics.”
Britain already has government-sponsored eco-settlements under way. English Partnerships is creating “eco-villages” on sites from Bristol to Doncaster - all homes built to levels five or six of the sustainable homes code. In 2006, before eco-towns were a glint in Gordon Brown's eye, a new community of 9,500 homes for 24,000 people at Northstowe, outside Cambridge, was announced, an eco-town in all but name, now being considered by South Cambridgeshire District Council. It doesn't conform to the lofty standards of the Eco-towns Prospectus, but with plans for south-facing windows, rainwater harvesting, porous pavements and solar water heating, it gives us a hint as to what to expect. The future is inescapably green.
The Big Question: What are eco-towns, and how green are they in reality?
By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor
Tuesday, 1 July 2008
Why are we asking this now?
Because yesterday the Government closed its consultation process on 15 potential eco-towns that could be sited across Britain, while protesters angry at the whole idea demonstrated outside Parliament.
So what are eco-towns?
New towns comprising substantial settlements in the countryside of up to 20,000 homes each – that's the key thing to understand, and the main reason for the opposition to them. They would be the first new towns built in Britain for more than 40 years. The difference from previous new settlements is that these would have to be built to meet the highest standards of sustainability, with low and zero carbon technologies, state-of-the-art recycling and water systems, and good public transport. They would also have to consist of between 30 and 50 per cent social housing, as part of the Government's drive to tackle the housing crisis.
What's the problem?
The problem is the thing that estate agents and property dealers bang on about – location, location and location. These are huge tranches of new housing, which weren't in any carefully-considered, much-voted-on local authority housing plans, that are suddenly about to be sited, mostly, in open countryside. Many local communities fear that the character of their districts will be urbanised, and are angry that they were not consulted.
What is meant by 'suddenly about to be sited'?
The whole idea of eco-towns came out of the blue, having been suggested by Gordon Brown in one of his first speeches as Prime Minister just under a year ago. The Government then invited bids from developers, and received nearly 60, which were whittled down to a "long short-list" of 15 by April; it has been inviting comment on these 15 in the consultation exercise which ended yesterday. Some time in the autumn, the Housing Minister, Caroline Flint, will announce which will go ahead (and it will be "up to 10").
So who's protesting?
Organised campaigns against nine of the proposed eco-towns were represented at the demonstration outside the Palace of Westminster yesterday. Campaigners present included Tony Henman, father of the tennis star Tim Henman, who is opposing the proposed 10,000 to 15,000-home new settlement at Weston Otmoor, Oxfordshire, close to his own village of Weston-on-the-Green. He said: "The message we want to convey is that we're certainly in favour of new, affordable housing but it's got to be in the right place."
Mike Brain, a councillor in Stratford-upon-Avon District Council, said plans to build 6,000 houses in a scheme at nearby Middle Quinton was inappropriate for an area with no unemployment, few housing needs and where it went against local planning policy. Other high-profile figures have added their support to protests against the Middle Quinton scheme, among them actors Dame Judi Dench and John Nettles and the author Jilly Cooper.
Isn't this just nimbyism?
Well, one man's nimbysim is another man's local democracy. The background to the whole argument is the conflict between new housing and the countryside which has been a major feature of the Labour Government of the last 11 years. The Government is committed – and this is a strong personal commitment from Gordon Brown – to building three million new homes in Britain between now and 2020. However, many of these will have to be in the countryside, and local rural communities may object.
It is fair to say that with its centralising tendencies, this Government has never been over-fond of local planning powers, and so in 2004 it took away the ability of county councils to decide their own future housing numbers, giving this to the new regional assemblies – which it could much more easily control.
In its latest planning bill the Government is going to shift this power once again, giving it this time to the regional development agencies, whose overwhelming preoccupation is economic growth. Tom Oliver, of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, says this is like "allowing Napoleon to decide who should win the battle of Waterloo".
The announcement of the eco-towns was seen by many people as yet another bypassing of the local democratic process in the pursuit of the housebuilding agenda. Even though those developments eventually chosen will have to go through the planning process, it is a fair assumption that strong Government backing for them would count considerably towards eventual success. Yet some people may feel that to seek to circumvent local planning obstacles in pursuit of housebuilding, when new housing is a pressing social need, is perfectly right and proper.
Don't eco-towns have important green benefits?
In theory, absolutely. A strong case can be made for having new settlements which are examplars of the latest good environmental practice, and which can be beacons for enlightened development elsewhere. However, some critics, and not just local objectors, fear that some of the eco-towns may just be old-fashioned speculative housing projects dressed up in green to get Government approval. After all, the process is mainly developer-led; these settlements are not being built by Greenpeace, but by housebuilders seeking to make high profits.
Concerns have recently arisen as to just how environmentally-friendly some of them are; for example, the Eco-towns Challenge Panel, a review body set up by the Department of Communities and Local Government to assess the current proposals, recognised failings in all of them (although it also recognised benefits.) A commonly expressed concern is that building lots of new houses away from other settlements may only increase dependence on cars and private transport. A more substantial criticism is that it is wrong to "ghettoise" good environmental practice into eco-towns; it should be compulsory with all new housebuilding.
So are they or aren't they good for the environment?
You need to take a balanced view in each case. One of the shrewdest commentators on Britain's housing policy, who is also a committed environmentalist, Tony Burton, the director of policy and strategy at the National Trust, said of eco-towns earlier this year: "It doesn't matter how much energy efficiency and water resource management it has, that can't make a development that's in the wrong place suddenly be in the right one."
So will eco-towns deliver what they promise?
Yes
*They will employ the latest developments in environmental technology
*They will show how whole communities can have a greener existence when planned properly
*They will be beacons of environmental excellence for other developments in the future
No
*They will take up large amounts of open countryside, damaging landscape and biodiversity
*They 'ghettoise' good environmental practice, which should be universal with new homes
*They may even create environmental problems, such as increased car-dependence
Tuesday, 1 July 2008
Why are we asking this now?
Because yesterday the Government closed its consultation process on 15 potential eco-towns that could be sited across Britain, while protesters angry at the whole idea demonstrated outside Parliament.
So what are eco-towns?
New towns comprising substantial settlements in the countryside of up to 20,000 homes each – that's the key thing to understand, and the main reason for the opposition to them. They would be the first new towns built in Britain for more than 40 years. The difference from previous new settlements is that these would have to be built to meet the highest standards of sustainability, with low and zero carbon technologies, state-of-the-art recycling and water systems, and good public transport. They would also have to consist of between 30 and 50 per cent social housing, as part of the Government's drive to tackle the housing crisis.
What's the problem?
The problem is the thing that estate agents and property dealers bang on about – location, location and location. These are huge tranches of new housing, which weren't in any carefully-considered, much-voted-on local authority housing plans, that are suddenly about to be sited, mostly, in open countryside. Many local communities fear that the character of their districts will be urbanised, and are angry that they were not consulted.
What is meant by 'suddenly about to be sited'?
The whole idea of eco-towns came out of the blue, having been suggested by Gordon Brown in one of his first speeches as Prime Minister just under a year ago. The Government then invited bids from developers, and received nearly 60, which were whittled down to a "long short-list" of 15 by April; it has been inviting comment on these 15 in the consultation exercise which ended yesterday. Some time in the autumn, the Housing Minister, Caroline Flint, will announce which will go ahead (and it will be "up to 10").
So who's protesting?
Organised campaigns against nine of the proposed eco-towns were represented at the demonstration outside the Palace of Westminster yesterday. Campaigners present included Tony Henman, father of the tennis star Tim Henman, who is opposing the proposed 10,000 to 15,000-home new settlement at Weston Otmoor, Oxfordshire, close to his own village of Weston-on-the-Green. He said: "The message we want to convey is that we're certainly in favour of new, affordable housing but it's got to be in the right place."
Mike Brain, a councillor in Stratford-upon-Avon District Council, said plans to build 6,000 houses in a scheme at nearby Middle Quinton was inappropriate for an area with no unemployment, few housing needs and where it went against local planning policy. Other high-profile figures have added their support to protests against the Middle Quinton scheme, among them actors Dame Judi Dench and John Nettles and the author Jilly Cooper.
Isn't this just nimbyism?
Well, one man's nimbysim is another man's local democracy. The background to the whole argument is the conflict between new housing and the countryside which has been a major feature of the Labour Government of the last 11 years. The Government is committed – and this is a strong personal commitment from Gordon Brown – to building three million new homes in Britain between now and 2020. However, many of these will have to be in the countryside, and local rural communities may object.
It is fair to say that with its centralising tendencies, this Government has never been over-fond of local planning powers, and so in 2004 it took away the ability of county councils to decide their own future housing numbers, giving this to the new regional assemblies – which it could much more easily control.
In its latest planning bill the Government is going to shift this power once again, giving it this time to the regional development agencies, whose overwhelming preoccupation is economic growth. Tom Oliver, of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, says this is like "allowing Napoleon to decide who should win the battle of Waterloo".
The announcement of the eco-towns was seen by many people as yet another bypassing of the local democratic process in the pursuit of the housebuilding agenda. Even though those developments eventually chosen will have to go through the planning process, it is a fair assumption that strong Government backing for them would count considerably towards eventual success. Yet some people may feel that to seek to circumvent local planning obstacles in pursuit of housebuilding, when new housing is a pressing social need, is perfectly right and proper.
Don't eco-towns have important green benefits?
In theory, absolutely. A strong case can be made for having new settlements which are examplars of the latest good environmental practice, and which can be beacons for enlightened development elsewhere. However, some critics, and not just local objectors, fear that some of the eco-towns may just be old-fashioned speculative housing projects dressed up in green to get Government approval. After all, the process is mainly developer-led; these settlements are not being built by Greenpeace, but by housebuilders seeking to make high profits.
Concerns have recently arisen as to just how environmentally-friendly some of them are; for example, the Eco-towns Challenge Panel, a review body set up by the Department of Communities and Local Government to assess the current proposals, recognised failings in all of them (although it also recognised benefits.) A commonly expressed concern is that building lots of new houses away from other settlements may only increase dependence on cars and private transport. A more substantial criticism is that it is wrong to "ghettoise" good environmental practice into eco-towns; it should be compulsory with all new housebuilding.
So are they or aren't they good for the environment?
You need to take a balanced view in each case. One of the shrewdest commentators on Britain's housing policy, who is also a committed environmentalist, Tony Burton, the director of policy and strategy at the National Trust, said of eco-towns earlier this year: "It doesn't matter how much energy efficiency and water resource management it has, that can't make a development that's in the wrong place suddenly be in the right one."
So will eco-towns deliver what they promise?
Yes
*They will employ the latest developments in environmental technology
*They will show how whole communities can have a greener existence when planned properly
*They will be beacons of environmental excellence for other developments in the future
No
*They will take up large amounts of open countryside, damaging landscape and biodiversity
*They 'ghettoise' good environmental practice, which should be universal with new homes
*They may even create environmental problems, such as increased car-dependence
Friday, 8 May 2009
Tuesday, 5 May 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)