ua-menu

Fundamental Questions From Freiburg

100_3287Last night’s 2015 RTPI Scotland Sir Patrick Geddes Commemorative Lecture was presented by Wulf Daseking, Professor at the University of Freiburg’s Institute of Sociology. It was an inspiring talk but also a frustrating one.

Freiburg is an excellent example of a town which has sought to create the best possible urban living conditions for its people. Along with Copenhagen, it’s as good a benchmark as any to be found in Europe.

It’s success in delivering sustainable urban living is built on a clear vision, a focus on delivery and an ambition to put people before private cars. Average car ownership in both Germany and the UK ranges from 550-700 cars per 1000 people. The latest Freiburg neighbourhood development has brought this down to 85 cars per 1000 people by offering easy access to homes, work and leisure on foot, bike and by public transport.

The real key to success has been a willingness to wrestle with fundamental questions, embrace honest answers and face the often challenging consequences. For example, promoting renewable energy solutions as an alternative to Germany’s nuclear power plans during the early-1970s oil crisis was a controversial and prophetic step. To a large extent it set Freiburg on its unique path towards a sustainable future.

Many people present at the talk would have been asking themselves why we haven’t already followed this path ourselves and how we might now do so. Without wishing to put a damper on the positive message, there are a number of factors which make it difficult to follow Freiburg’s example.

For one thing, energy policy is fundamental to sustainability. It’s reserved to Westminster, so beyond Scottish Government control. Recent policy changes undermine renewable energy and turn us back towards an over-subsidised reliance on nuclear power. Energy provision is a fundamental question we are unable to answer. Too many other questions relating to welfare, poverty and inequality are also unanswerable at present.

At the local authority level we are challenged by scale, with our administrative boundaries covering diverse areas far larger than our European neighbours. Smaller, locally-focused administrations could be transformational in terms of place quality. It can’t be done? Well, the rest of the continent seems to manage it just fine. Having said that, some of our urban-centred local authorities ought to be able to deliver a stronger vision: Edinburgh could do much better; Dundee is probably as good as we have.

For any of this to succeed, we’ll need to rebalance public and private delivery. We rely too heavily on the private sector to deliver social benefit, hoping (without much of an evidence base) that commercial considerations will be tempered, as egalitarian developers build a utopia. It’s not happening and no amount of s75 legal agreements can change that. Don’t blame the private sector – it’s only doing its job.

In response, Freiburg has reasserted delivery by public agency. Controls on land values (and by implication land supply) have made it possible for public authorities to service land and provide high quality public realm, open space and facilities which meet the needs and aspirations of its population. The cost of providing land for development with physical and social infrastructure already in place is reflected in the price developers pay for sites. The size of land parcels sold is restricted to ensure variety in design – and it enables a large number of often locally-owned companies to survive in the market, rather than just a handful of huge shareholder-owned companies.

We already have the powers to do this in Scotland. We’ve been talking about doing it for years. Yet the housing crisis continues to grow and place quality remains as another unanswered question.

With the exception of Dundee Waterfront, there are few examples of this kind of action in Scotland. A lack of knowledge, skills and experience may be partly to blame. If so, let’s roll out the Dundee model elsewhere. Let’s not wait another 5, 10 or 20 years.

One final point to note is that we shouldn’t simply blame planners and local authorities for a lack of progress. There’s undoubtedly a need for leadership and vision and both have a key role in providing this. However, the fundamental change we need can’t simply be enacted on behalf of society with its implied support. We need a fully engaged population which raises its sights and quickly turns baby steps into giant strides. That brings us back to fundamental questions, honest answers and the need to confront challenges. A few exemplary planning projects isn’t going to be enough.

Land Reform In One Easy SLUP

DSCF2680We’re working with Falkland Estate in Fife – home of the Centre for Stewardship – on estate visioning and master planning. Today we helped host a visit from the Scottish Government’s Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment committee (RACCE). The visit was part of the committee’s land reform fact-finding tour, which is working its way around the country. In a brief presentation, we explained the importance of long term spatial planning and visioning for estates and large land holdings or sites.

At Falkland, we’re effectively merging the PAN 83 urban master planning model we’ve applied for private estates at Bowmore, Inveraray and Forres recently, with the feasibility model for community land ownership studies at Culbokie, Lochmaddy and Great Bernera (working with Dr Calum MacLeod’s team).

The aim is to facilitate sustainable land management. The model works for both private and community land ownership. It’s as good an indication as any that the landowner is committed to  sustainable use of the land.

These days, there’s a statutory requirement for major planning applications to be accompanied by a Design Statement (see PAN 68). Quality of place is a high priority for the Scottish Government, with cross-party support. The requirement for a Design Statement reflects this. It’s still disappointing that many Design Statements are accepted by planning authorities despite being half-hearted box-ticking exercises, but that’s another blog….

Like quality of place, the Scottish Government has made land reform a priority. Again, there’s broad cross-party support (with the exception of the Conservatives, who take a more cautious position). One aspect of the current Land Reform (Scotland) Bill 2015, is the contentious matter of sustainable land use and the potential for communities to be granted rights to purchase land which is not being used sustainably.

At this stage, it’s unclear what that means. What mechanisms might the Scottish Government apply to define sustainable land use? How might land owners illustrate a commitment to sustainable use? If a Design Statement proves a commitment to quality place making, could an estate master plan or vision do the same for sustainable land use?

We think so.

A document similar to PAN 68 could set out advice on preparing a Sustainable Land Use Plan (SLUP!) and encourage land owners to follow best practice and prepare their own. The forthcoming Land Reform (Scotland) Act could explain the scenarios where the proposed Scottish Land Commission might request a SLUP as evidence of effective land management.

There’s an obvious resource issue in rolling out this kind of study but our experience suggests that it proves cost effective by unearthing investment opportunities, financial efficiencies and greatly enhanced relationships with stakeholders and communities. That applies to land in private or community ownership.

Land reform may be a polarising issue, but most people seem to agree that sustainable land use is a valid ambition. A tool like SLUP can add value across the spectrum. Why wouldn’t we use it?