Eco-towns update

A number of issues have recently given the Government cause for concern regarding eco-towns. A paper written by housing specialist PRP Architects, Urbed and lobby group Design for Homes entitled 'Eco-towns and beyond' was recently released, arguing that eco-towns are sited in the wrong places, and publication of advice by leading lawyers in a joint law opinion argues that the Government's current approach to eco-town development is open to serious legal challenge. NBS Information Specialist Michael Smith takes a closer look.

Eco-towns and beyond

Eco-towns and beyond warns that the Government's eco-towns are in the wrong locations, being primarily sited in rural areas, and that the whole initiative needs to be rethought. The paper argues that the Government should be concentrating on urban extensions to existing developments.

The report takes lessons from European eco-developments and recommends placing eco-towns on brownfield sites with existing planning permissions. The cost of getting infrastructure into eco-towns, and the carbon emissions in terms of transport, raises a whole series of questions around the locations.

The report analysed a selection of European projects under the themes of connectivity, community, climate proofing, character, cash flow and collaboration. The research comprised detailed studies of developments in Amersfoort (Holland), Adamstown (Ireland), Hammarby Sjöstad (Sweden), Freiburg, HafenCity Hamburg and Kronsberg (Germany). From this, the authors identified some key principles for success:

Vision – the UK can avoid making further mistakes by learning from Europe and earlier British experience with new communities
Planning – a properly funded and comprehensive master plan in spatial, social and economic terms must provide the long-term direction needed to give investors confidence, along with enough flexibility to allow for changing circumstances
Implementation – there has to be a driving force for the life of the project that will secure the commitment of communities and investors alike.

The initial findings have been released as it is felt these results could hold the key to UK eco-town development. The report coincides with the conclusion of the Government's first consultation on its own paper, Eco-towns: living a greener future.

Joint law opinion

John Steel QC and James Strachan were asked to examine the legal issues surrounding eco-town proposals, with a view to providing expert advice to councils, some of whom support proposals in their areas. In their joint opinion, they explain that there are 'sound grounds' for seeking judicial review of the Government's approach to delivering eco-towns.

Their joint opinion states that, "we are of the opinion that the Government's proposed promotion of eco-towns through a new Planning Policy Statement (PPS) is contrary to the basic principle of the plan-led system of development control." They continue, "this conflict is all the more acute because the concept of an eco-town does not appear to be materially different from the concept of providing housing in new settlements in an environmentally sustainable way, something which is already recognised in PPS3 on Housing. There therefore does not appear to be any compelling justification or rationale for seeking to promote eco-towns outside the existing statutory plan-led system, other than the Government's wish to avoid the system due to the need for proper scrutiny, which takes time."

The opinion also adds that the Government's intention to rely on new PPS policy, to be published later this year, appears to be designed to circumvent the normal plan-led process and is therefore is contrary to the legislative intention of development control through a plan-led system. Steel and Strachan's opinion on this point is that there is nothing about an eco-town that makes it exceptional or unusual as compared with the requirements now imposed on housing development generally, and further, that there are already strict requirements being imposed on new housing to ensure that it is sustainable. They also ask, in what respects would an eco-town that used predominantly greenfield land, but achieved zero carbon emissions, necessarily be better than a planned extension to an existing urban area using brownfield land but which achieved very low carbon emissions?

Steel and Strachan's law opinion concludes, "…we are not able to discern any reasonable or logical basis for the proposed departure from the plan-led process. It is not clear how eco-towns can properly be distinguished from housing proposals or new town development… We consider that the proposed eco-town PPS is likely to be unlawful, as on all the information before us we conclude that it will be promoting a policy and process which would be inherently flawed."