Planning for

environmental change

Prof Alister Scott BA PhD

MRTPI

Pr

1. What are the key

planning issues

relating to

environmental

change?

3

5

7

8

9

10

11

12

But

2. Why are we stuck in

our professional and

disciplinary silos?

300000

3. How do we break out

of silos?

24

25

26

The 25 Year Environment

Plan should be placed on a

statutory footing and

progress should be subject

to independent scrutiny

Natural Capital Committee

2017 4th 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

Retrofit Incremental Challenge led Systemic

Mainstreaming modes

31

• “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.

Green Living Spaces Plan

4. How can we apply this

thinking to UK government

departments?

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.

36

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

38

5. Case studies

mainstreaming

environmental change

Case Study Birmingham

Case Study Birmingham

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

Ecosystem Service

Unadj.

Scores

1. Harvested Products -5.0

2. Biodiversity +0.8

3. Aesthetic Values -0.1

4. Recreation +1.0

5. Water Quality Regulation +0.0

6. Flood Risk Regulation -0.0

7. Air Quality Regulation +0.3

8. Local Climate Regulation -0.0

9. Global Climate Regulation -0.8

10. Soil Contamination +0.0

-0.4

Development Impact ScoreAverage Per-Hectare

Adjusted

Scores

-5.0

+0.8

-0.1

+1.0

+0.0

+0.0

+0.3

-0.0

-0.8

-0.4Development Impact Score

+0.0

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

Central Bedfordshire Case Study

• Key policy priority on environmental

enhancement – looking for a net gain

Central Bedfordshire Case Study

Test 1: Is it a good site?

• Could development

significantly

harm/benefit natural

capital?

• Looking at theoretical

min/max possible

scores gives an

indication of the

potential of the site

Ecosystem ServiceM ax

Possible

M in

Possible

Unadj.

Scores Ecosystem ServiceM ax

Possible

M in

Possible

Unadj.

Scores

1. Harvested Products +0.4 -3.0 -2.0 1. Harvested Products +24.1 -200.3 -130.4

2. Biodiversity +4.6 -0.4 +0.2 2. Biodiversity +305.2 -28.7 +14.8

3. Aesthetic Values +2.6 -1.4 +0.1 3. Aesthetic Values +174.3 -92.8 +7.4

4. Recreation +4.0 +0.0 +1.5 4. Recreation +267.1 +0.0 +98.9

5. Water Quality Regulation +2.0 -2.1 -0.2 5. Water Quality Regulation +136.3 -139.3 -14.1

6. Flood Risk Regulation +6.0 -0.0 +1.6 6. Flood Risk Regulation +397.7 -2.9 +109.0

7. Air Quality Regulation +2.4 -1.2 +0.4 7. Air Quality Regulation +160.2 -80.1 +30.0

8. Local Climate Regulation +3.6 -1.8 +0.7 8. Local Climate Regulation +238.2 -120.2 +44.0

9. Global Climate Regulation +4.0 -1.0 -0.4 9. Global Climate Regulation +266.7 -67.1 -24.6

10. Soil Contamination +0.0 10. Soil Contamination +0.0

+2.0 +135.1Development Impact Score Development Impact Score

-24.6-0.37

+0.0

+135.1+2.02

+0.00

-14.1

+109.0

+30.0

+44.0

Adjusted

Scores

-1.95

+0.22

+0.11

+1.48

-0.21

+1.63

+0.45

+0.66

Adjusted

Scores

-130.4

+14.8

+7.4

+98.9

Development Impact ScoreAverage Per-Hectare

Development Impact ScoreTotal for 66.8 Ha of Assessed Land-use Changes

Central Bedfordshire Case Study

Test 2: Is it a good

design?

• Is the plan working as

hard as it could for

natural capital?

• Look at the actual scores

and where they fall within

the range

• Case study: Net positive

impact but could do a lot

more for some

ecosystem services

Ecosystem ServiceM ax

Possible

M in

Possible

Unadj.

Scores Ecosystem ServiceM ax

Possible

M in

Possible

Unadj.

Scores

1. Harvested Products +0.4 -3.0 -2.0 1. Harvested Products +24.1 -200.3 -130.4

2. Biodiversity +4.6 -0.4 +0.2 2. Biodiversity +305.2 -28.7 +14.8

3. Aesthetic Values +2.6 -1.4 +0.1 3. Aesthetic Values +174.3 -92.8 +7.4

4. Recreation +4.0 +0.0 +1.5 4. Recreation +267.1 +0.0 +98.9

5. Water Quality Regulation +2.0 -2.1 -0.2 5. Water Quality Regulation +136.3 -139.3 -14.1

6. Flood Risk Regulation +6.0 -0.0 +1.6 6. Flood Risk Regulation +397.7 -2.9 +109.0

7. Air Quality Regulation +2.4 -1.2 +0.4 7. Air Quality Regulation +160.2 -80.1 +30.0

8. Local Climate Regulation +3.6 -1.8 +0.7 8. Local Climate Regulation +238.2 -120.2 +44.0

9. Global Climate Regulation +4.0 -1.0 -0.4 9. Global Climate Regulation +266.7 -67.1 -24.6

10. Soil Contamination +0.0 10. Soil Contamination +0.0

+2.0 +135.1Development Impact Score Development Impact Score

-24.6-0.37

+0.0

+135.1+2.02

+0.00

-14.1

+109.0

+30.0

+44.0

Adjusted

Scores

-1.95

+0.22

+0.11

+1.48

-0.21

+1.63

+0.45

+0.66

Adjusted

Scores

-130.4

+14.8

+7.4

+98.9

Development Impact ScoreAverage Per-Hectare

Development Impact ScoreTotal for 66.8 Ha of Assessed Land-use Changes

Environmental Standards

50

51

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.

Core Principles

52

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

Wellbeing

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

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

55

Location determined by Market values only:

food + timber (i.e. ignoring externalities)

What is viable? New Forests

56

Cost benefit value: - £66million p.a.

Source Bateman Church and Fish 2014

57

Location determined by Market + Non-Market Values

food + timber+ greenhouse gases + recreation + water quality improvement+ biodiversity improvement

Valuing ecosystem services

Cost benefit value: + £546million p.a.

Omitting non-market goods

Including non-market goods

58

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

59

@profalister

Alister.scott@Northumbria.

ac.uk

https://mainstreaminggreen

infrastructure.com/

60