When I first started my career as an amateur neighbourhood planner, I was confused about the use of the word ‘sustainability’ in our local plan. I live in village of about a thousand people in South Worcestershire. The local plan (called the ‘South Worcestershire Development Plan’) covers half the county and has a lot to say about sustainability. But it mysteriously attaches this term to its proposals to concentrate all new rural housing in what it terms ‘Category 1 villages’. These are larger villages which, like my own, have a shop and post office, a pub, and a village school. Category 1 villages come at the top of a hierarchy of rural settlements of decreasing size, with definitions of each successive category (2 to 4) included in the local plan.
Discussions of sustainable development usually begin by quoting the UN report Our Common Future, which defines it as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. Since the population is growing, a key part of meeting future needs must include feeding these extra mouths. How then could it be ‘sustainable’ to build large housing estates next to villages on fields which until then had been producing good crops of brassicas, potatoes and other vegetables? I discovered that developments of this kind were deemed ‘sustainable’ by the local plan because this supposedly reduced transport use compared with building on agricultural land in smaller villages. This idea of ‘transport sustainability’ seems to have originated from the 1990s, and appears in many local plans together with the related idea that there is a hierarchy of rural settlements.
I have never found any evidence to justify this idea of ‘transport sustainability’. It is instead probable that transport use is much the same in large and small villages: in both, almost all people commute to work by car, buy their groceries from urban supermarkets or on-line, and drive their children to school. But ‘transport sustainability’ is useful for developers because it provides a rationalisation for building high-priced housing estates of ‘luxury executive homes’ in larger villages within commuting range of cities. Needless to say, this policy is disliked by people who see their pleasant village turning into a suburban sprawl. But the policy is unpopular in many smaller villages too. This was confirmed for me when I went to a conference on neighbourhood planning. I found that half the attenders were from large villages that wished to prevent large housing estates being built, while the other half were from small villages that wanted more houses but were obstructed in this aim by their local plan. The people from small villages were concerned that without a small amount of new housing, they would be left with a declining and elderly population with minimum access to services. But all attenders at the conference agreed that what their communities needed was housing that met the specific needs of their community, particularly social rented or affordable houses to enable younger members of families to stay near their parents, and small manageable houses so that elderly people could move to smaller and more manageable houses within their own community.
Elderly and infirm people in rural areas are particularly vulnerable to another challenge: the decline of local services in villages, both large and small. The Rural Coalition has estimated that about a thousand village pubs and shops close each year in England. Even where shops remain, reductions in the remuneration of sub-postmasters is causing a decline in village postal services. Meanwhile, the Royal College of General Practitioners has predicted that many small (and therefore rural) GP practices will close because of changes in the NHS remuneration formula. In my own Category 1 village, a pub has recently closed, while the larger village up the road now lacks a shop and a post office. In other words, Category 1 villages are increasingly resembling category 2,3 and 4 villages.
This decline in services will have its greatest impact on the 10% of the rural population who lack their own transport - a group dominated by the very elderly. In the next 20 years, the ONS estimates that the number of people over the age of 80 in my part of Worcestershire will double. A high proportion of these will live alone and need support. It is unlikely that social care funding will rise to take account of this change. The burden of care will therefore, as now, fall on families and increasingly on local communities. This means that a major objective of neighbourhood planning must be to maintain social and family networks. New housebuilding in villages should therefore be of two kinds: smaller manageable houses so that very elderly people can downsize and remain within the communities where they have their friends and where they are known; and social rented housing so that the majority of young families who can not afford to buy a house can stay in their community close to their parents.
Another objective should be to maintain and expand voluntary support. Of course, many services operated by volunteers exist already in rural areas. In my area, several villages co-operate in running a day centre for the elderly, which draws attenders from 25 villages, brought to the centre by a large team of volunteer drivers. Many villages also have clubs and coffee-mornings which provide social links for very elderly people. But there are great variations between villages in the availability of volunteers and the organisational skills to develop their own local services. The people who contribute most to local organisations are generally those who identify strongly with their community and have a sense of mutual obligation to each other. This in turn seems to arise from the sense that they live in a special and unique place. This sense of place is undermined when villages are expanded with identikit housing estates, which make everywhere look alike. Where this happens, the mutual support characteristic of English villages gradually declines to the level found in our more impersonal suburbs.
So a major aim of planning in future should be create and maintain sustainable communities rather than ‘sustainable transport’. This would involve looking at each village not as a depository for luxury executive homes built to meet centrally-determined housing targets, but as a place in its own right, with its own need for particular kinds of housing. In many villages, this would probably include housing to enable families to live in proximity to provide support to each other, and housing to let elderly people move to more manageable dwellings within their own community.
Discussions of sustainable development usually begin by quoting the UN report Our Common Future, which defines it as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. Since the population is growing, a key part of meeting future needs must include feeding these extra mouths. How then could it be ‘sustainable’ to build large housing estates next to villages on fields which until then had been producing good crops of brassicas, potatoes and other vegetables? I discovered that developments of this kind were deemed ‘sustainable’ by the local plan because this supposedly reduced transport use compared with building on agricultural land in smaller villages. This idea of ‘transport sustainability’ seems to have originated from the 1990s, and appears in many local plans together with the related idea that there is a hierarchy of rural settlements.
I have never found any evidence to justify this idea of ‘transport sustainability’. It is instead probable that transport use is much the same in large and small villages: in both, almost all people commute to work by car, buy their groceries from urban supermarkets or on-line, and drive their children to school. But ‘transport sustainability’ is useful for developers because it provides a rationalisation for building high-priced housing estates of ‘luxury executive homes’ in larger villages within commuting range of cities. Needless to say, this policy is disliked by people who see their pleasant village turning into a suburban sprawl. But the policy is unpopular in many smaller villages too. This was confirmed for me when I went to a conference on neighbourhood planning. I found that half the attenders were from large villages that wished to prevent large housing estates being built, while the other half were from small villages that wanted more houses but were obstructed in this aim by their local plan. The people from small villages were concerned that without a small amount of new housing, they would be left with a declining and elderly population with minimum access to services. But all attenders at the conference agreed that what their communities needed was housing that met the specific needs of their community, particularly social rented or affordable houses to enable younger members of families to stay near their parents, and small manageable houses so that elderly people could move to smaller and more manageable houses within their own community.
Elderly and infirm people in rural areas are particularly vulnerable to another challenge: the decline of local services in villages, both large and small. The Rural Coalition has estimated that about a thousand village pubs and shops close each year in England. Even where shops remain, reductions in the remuneration of sub-postmasters is causing a decline in village postal services. Meanwhile, the Royal College of General Practitioners has predicted that many small (and therefore rural) GP practices will close because of changes in the NHS remuneration formula. In my own Category 1 village, a pub has recently closed, while the larger village up the road now lacks a shop and a post office. In other words, Category 1 villages are increasingly resembling category 2,3 and 4 villages.
This decline in services will have its greatest impact on the 10% of the rural population who lack their own transport - a group dominated by the very elderly. In the next 20 years, the ONS estimates that the number of people over the age of 80 in my part of Worcestershire will double. A high proportion of these will live alone and need support. It is unlikely that social care funding will rise to take account of this change. The burden of care will therefore, as now, fall on families and increasingly on local communities. This means that a major objective of neighbourhood planning must be to maintain social and family networks. New housebuilding in villages should therefore be of two kinds: smaller manageable houses so that very elderly people can downsize and remain within the communities where they have their friends and where they are known; and social rented housing so that the majority of young families who can not afford to buy a house can stay in their community close to their parents.
Another objective should be to maintain and expand voluntary support. Of course, many services operated by volunteers exist already in rural areas. In my area, several villages co-operate in running a day centre for the elderly, which draws attenders from 25 villages, brought to the centre by a large team of volunteer drivers. Many villages also have clubs and coffee-mornings which provide social links for very elderly people. But there are great variations between villages in the availability of volunteers and the organisational skills to develop their own local services. The people who contribute most to local organisations are generally those who identify strongly with their community and have a sense of mutual obligation to each other. This in turn seems to arise from the sense that they live in a special and unique place. This sense of place is undermined when villages are expanded with identikit housing estates, which make everywhere look alike. Where this happens, the mutual support characteristic of English villages gradually declines to the level found in our more impersonal suburbs.
So a major aim of planning in future should be create and maintain sustainable communities rather than ‘sustainable transport’. This would involve looking at each village not as a depository for luxury executive homes built to meet centrally-determined housing targets, but as a place in its own right, with its own need for particular kinds of housing. In many villages, this would probably include housing to enable families to live in proximity to provide support to each other, and housing to let elderly people move to more manageable dwellings within their own community.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments welcome