Memorandum submitted by Elizabeth S Pascoe
Elizabeth S Pascoe (Dip Arch BSc Hons Environmental
Science). Besides my formal qualifications I have just been through
a public inquiry to try to save my home, and our community from
demolition for "regeneration"!
1. One thing I feel must be said before
anything else is that the issues regarding housing and communities
and sustainability that we are faced with do not require rocket
science capabilities to understand them.
2. The next thing that has to be said is
that in order not to make these issues that we face rather worse
it is absolutely essential that the overriding need is for good
old fashioned common sense, and almost as much honesty.
3. The issue of housing our people is obviously
long term, and should not be subject to the one-up-man-ship of
party politics. It is so deeply important that a stance of respect
between parties should be taken equivalent to that we have seen
about issues such as going to war. Equally respect for the people
that are to be housed should be at the fore of any considerations.
Expediency or even panic should be totally excluded from considerations,
(as personally I think should "fashion" impressive-ity
and built in obsolescence).
THE ASSUMPTIONS
4. We are almost certainly going to see
considerable climate change within the lifetime of our grandchildren,
which would also be within the lifetime of whatever we build.
Hopefully it will not be that profound that the UK is no longer
habitable.
5. When we invest in such an environmentally
and socially expensive exercise as building then we need to build
"forever". That is common sense is it not? I will not
go into facts and figures here re the exact costings, these can
be found elsewhere. NB I will not say "everything",
just indicate aspects. If we build forever (in terms of hundreds
of years) then we should build well, in terms of design, materials
and craftsmanship. Part of the design-it-well issue is that what
we build has to be both adaptable and maintainable. (Incidentally,
and I tell this anecdote because it is useful, for 20 years I
lived in a 600 year old farmhouse of which 50% of the bulk of
the fabric was clay, unburned, cob. But we will not be sidetrack
to a "weirdo"-ism.
6 The UK is a small country, and therefore
most of the places that it is suitable to build are already built
on. It is insane to build on flood plains first because we know
that these are necessary to dissipate the energy water systems
carry, and also due to the issue of climate change. It is equally
absurd to demolish "salvageable" existing housing that
retains intrinsic quality in order to create so-called "brown
field sites". Typical of this is demolition of many Victorian
terraces. It is also insane to build on good agricultural land
as no-one can predict what our needs might be in 100 years. So
there are a number of restrictions to what can be done.
7. Demographic change in this country, and
elsewhere, is of two forms. There is a tendency for almost everyone
to move to cities, and there is a tendency for households to get
smaller (for several reasons). The first of those tendencies may
be about to decelerate due to the internet.
8. The most important "product"
of any nation is its next generation. Our present lifestyle does
not reflect that. In order to have a next generation on average
most females need to have two babies when they are between 22
and 32 years of age, then spending the vast majority of the first
three child years with each (or both). Again society is structured
in a way not conducive to supporting women (on whom the burden
still falls, it probably will not change as there are inescapable
gender issues for at least those first three years) to do that.
Commitment to the next generation tends to be for life, but certainly
for at least 15 years following the first three it is time consuming,
even if they are at school most of the time (which may change).
Yes it is a huge commitment, but we will look pretty silly if
no-one can be bothered except those who find employment or education
beyond their aspirations. The built environment needs to give
families the best possible chance. For now the priority seems
to be we design it around the motor car, which is a mistake.
9. In the lifetime of the buildings, for
the sake of argument say 150 years, there will unanticipated changes.
Besides climate change (higher winds from unusual directions,
more, or less precipitation, higher or lower temperatures) we
may expect increased danger from diseases that do not respond
to drugs. Designing places where such diseases may easily proliferate
eg covered shopping precincts or malls, may have to be reconsidered.
But for this we are talking housing only.
10. Some people, no matter what fabric they
are housed in, will turn that building into a slum. With some
it will be laziness, disaffection as in lack of "ownership",
or ignorance, not in lack of formal education but lack of "tuition"
in their formative years (from their parents), or some because
they are natural "pigs". In fact pigs (used to keep
a few) also vary, some "spotless". Maybe we could do
"GCSE housekeeping" as an exam. See if kids were capable
of keeping themselves hygienic if left alone for a week, and if
not, build a different kind of housing for those who couldn't
make the grade.
I could go on, but the point is we have to start
somewhere, with design parameters. These were my assumptions.
For the rest of what I hope it will be useful
for me to say please skip your paragraph that I am responding
to, which I think it is useful to retain in situ, (although this
response does not restrict itself, as invited, exactly to it),
and continue where the script returns to italics.
Sustainable Housing: a progress report
A. The Environmental Audit Committee (EAC)
today decided to return to the subject of sustainable housing
in light of the Government Response to its predecessor Committee's
report, "Housing: Building a Sustainable Future" and
the publication of the Five Year Action Plan, Sustainable Communities:
Homes for All, by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM)
in January 2005. The EAC Report, which came out the same month,
was critical of the lack of a proper assessment of the environmental
implications of the Sustainable Communities Plan and the proposals
of the Barker review. It also expressed alarm that in ODPM's anxiety
to increase house-building rates, particularly in the South East,
serious concerns regarding infrastructure provision, building
standards and carbon emissions were being sidelined.
Re paragraph A: It seems very deeply entrenched
in the post-modern mind set of acronyms and "throw away"
nomenclature and phraseology such as "Housing: building a
sustainable future". It isn't fresh, the rhetoric has set
like quicksand. Not substantial enough to walk on, neither can
it be navigated or swum through. Even the word sustainable has
been so repeatedly abused, like "development" or "regeneration"
it represents a concept far from what we need. The word like "anxiety"
immediately smacks of expediency and panic. Then we hear of a
five year action plan and so on. (I will tack on the end some
appendices that the reader should take very seriously. With both
my qualifications and experience I can affirm these are spot on).
Immediately that the life of a government is too short to address
the issue worries us all into the same state of anxiety it is
said government is feeling. That is not the way to solve anything.
Don't write like this, it doesn't help. Take out fear of blame,
which is surely what such a state of mind must be about. Honesty
would cure this, possibly not an easy bedfellow. If government
sees itself in partnership with the people and where we find ourselves
(demographic change started with the industrial revolution, hardly
due to any particular political party) then solutions are not
its sole responsibility. Asking people (as does this exercise)
who might know informs government. Over-reaction, over-correction
like a learner driver, swinging from one extreme to the other
seems to be what happens. I presume that the output of the Building
Research Establishment is utilised. The BRE would no doubt provide
informed and experienced advisors to government if requested,
maybe that already happens, I hope so. But that would not cover
aesthetics or social issues. It is so complex, but still not beyond
the wit of man.
Design parameters that dare not be side-lined
are such as the provision of water, consideration of transport,
provision of energy and disposal of refuse. Goodness knows what
building standards are being forgotten in the panic. Again refer
to the BRE. Profit motive is a big enemy, alongside lack of skills
(apprenticeship) in a workforce producing what out to be a product
of extreme longevity and importance to us all, but which, like
food, and children for the matter, is under-rated. All such considerations
are inter-related.
B. The Committee hopes to focus on establishing
what progress, if any, has been made by the Government since the
Report was published. To this end the Committee is seeking views
on the progress of the Code for Sustainable Buildings, including
those elements within it which deal with design, the consultation
process for the new standard for dwellings (LPS2020) and the Planning
for Housing Provision consultation paper. The Committee is particularly
interested in looking at how the new Five Year Action Plan, Sustainable
Communities: Homes for All, published by ODPM in January 2005
addresses the issues of environmental impact and the need to ensure
that the provision of appropriate infrastructure keeps pace with
the provision of new housing.
Re paragraph B: First: To expect to see immediate
progress is already a sign of "immaturity". No doubt
it is possible to see results immediately, but what might seem
to be either good or bad can in the longer term be the opposite.
Do not seek adjustments so drastic that results are immediately
discernible. Then it seems that a great deal of bureaucracy is
involved in all this, and the "tension" is somewhere
between panic and procrastination. There is no need to repeatedly
re-invent the wheel. It is absurd to "create" five year
plans about "Homes for all", when, for example, here
in Liverpool we have 11,000 homes taken out of service, the majority
owned by the social sector, for no good reason whatever, while
11,000 families here happen to be homeless. There is a very long
explanation to that absurd scenario, which again is not rocket
science. It does relate to fiscal incentives, otherwise termed
spanners in the works. That it seems it has been realised housing
cannot be considered in isolation is encouraging. That has to
be repeatedly remembered. Actually the way that architects used
to be taught to design (no longer, now it is all about graphics
skills) would be one way of trying to make sure all the "dimensions"
were included, called in the sixties "design method"
rather like scientific method more of you may be slightly familiar
with.
I would suggest here that "sustainability"
of communities had less to do with housing and far more to do
with employment opportunities, schooling, and other such provisions.
That government should inadvertently fund such as our city council
tried to perform here, the disposal of a community, most of whom
had lived in or close to their homes all their lives, was not
at all about sustainability. That problems can't be solved by
"throwing money at them" has to be remembered at all
times.
C. In terms of infrastructure the Committee
will also examine in greater detail the potential impact of new
housing developments on existing and future water resources and,
in particular, the extent to which the Environment Agency and
the various water companies are planning ahead to cope with the
impact of increased demand from new households.
Your Para C: If we planned our cities/conurbations
as we did of old, namely "where does the water we need come
from" that would be more sensible a choice than worrying
once it is built how to get the water there. Of course education
would help, as would I guess meters. Not necessarily for purposes
of charging people, at least for their fair share, but to encourage
some self discipline (by charging or better still rationing, as
the rich have to be curbed). I am relieved that water is obviously
given priority. There are all sorts of measures to reduce the
impact on, for example the water table, of demand. There are books
on it. Actually instead of commissioning all these reports, it
would be useful if an Inquiry was held, asking various experts
to tell all they knew, to ministers. I would suggest much could
be covered in a month, with about 25 delegates contributing. I
re-affirm, it is not rocket science. And if it was televised then
young people could listen to it all as part of their general studies
education.
D The Committee invites organisations and
members of the public to submit memoranda setting out their views
on these subjects. Some specific issues on which the Committee
would welcome comments are set out below, although respondents
are free to comment on any issues which they consider relevant.
Your Para D: I think people all talking round
a big table, inter-acting with each other is better than writing
you a series of memoranda. Written material is harder to assimilate
(too soporific) and how would we know how much was already known/understood?
One needs the feedback of eye contact. Of the eight years of full
time university education I've received it doesn't take eight
years to tell the gist of what I've learned that would be useful.
And I have done no economics, sociology and so on. And not set
presentations either. I have seen, at another Inquiry (not the
one about my house being demolished) people doing as I have suggested.
It may not be appropriate to call it an Inquiry. Obviously when
we are talking about housing people almost all issues are relevant.
Right at the top of this I gave my date of birth, and said that
was relevant. I have grown up children, the oldest a consultant
A and E paediatrician. I can't make choices for my children never
mind anyone else. Life teaches you that. Too many young politicians
are control freaks, which is OK when your kids are toddlers. Then
you grow up with them.
INQUIRY ISSUES
The Code for Sustainable Buildings
1. Can a voluntary Code possibly deliver the
degree of change needed in the building industry to achieve well-designed,
energy efficient sustainable buildings which have minimal impact
on the local environment?
Short answer NO, forget "building industry"
think "property speculation". It is easy enough to "police"
buildings. I think all local authorities retain a building control
department. These may need to be enhanced, more staff, more jobs,
good thing. Most architects and town planners can tell you the
basic rules of design, in terms of performance not just aesthetics
(the second of which seems to have been forgotten).
Is the Government doing enough to promote the
Code, with the industry and the general public, ahead of its imminent
introduction early in 2006?
I don't know, as in I don't know what you
are doing, so I can't say. I am quite good on common sense, so
if I knew I might be able to say. No I haven't the time to read
everything I "ought" to. Sorry.
Should the Government be introducing fiscal measures
to reward higher building quality and greater environmental performance?
You have to be extremely careful re introducing
any control measures. We know about building regulations, have
been doing it for donkey's years. The issue is so complex you
could easily do more harm than good. You need to read at least
a couple of books to have a clue about better performance, it
is not a yes/no question. If anything at all it might be as well
to give tax incentives to those "recycling" existing
buildings ie refurbishment, ie the opposite of what was tried
last time, which was counter productive, at the point of purchase.
From my experience builders are rogues. Prof Anne Power, as you
may know, an economist would have far more idea than I.
Sustainable Communities: Homes for All
Does the ODPM Five Year Plan, Sustainable Communities:
Homes for All demonstrate a greater recognition of, and greater
commitment to tackling, the impact of increased house building
on the environment or does it merely pay lip service to it?
If you remember taking A levels or whatever
other exams, and the questions are damned hard, almost beyond
you, then you were probably advised to "start by doing as
much as you can of what you do know" so get the say 40% of
the marks under your belt, and then scratch round for the rest.
As you get more feedback on the "Pathfinders" believe
what you hear. I would guess typically more harm than good has
been done. "Homes for all" (or building Utopia) is possibly
more about winning votes then making the best of the situation
in which we find ourselves. As an architect, with a two sons in
the same business, I can honestly say (as has since been confirmed)
that almost all housing built in recent decades is rubbish. Whereas
a great deal of housing built before the First World War is worthy
of refurbishment. We have homeless people. Why that happens is
complex. About that ask someone from Shelter.
It may not win votes, or then again it may,
you could, in five years, refurbish every building at all worthy,
and possibly have a slight surplus of housing. So then once you
have done "as much as you can" then see what else it
is logical to put together. In some ways five years are far too
short a timescale, but in other ways, which is how Pathfinders
was caught on the wrong foot (in part, and also largely was misinterpreted
I think intentionally here in Liverpool) as the hosing market
picked up. Didn't an economist tell you not to try to alter the
market? Market forces do swing violently seemingly on a whim.
The Wall Street Crash taught us that. BUT people's needs don't
swing much, 2000 calories a day, eight hours sleep, one hour of
activity, 23 degree temperature and so on. Plus where to build,
other than tectonic shift all in geological time, is pretty well
absolute.
Whether it does merely pay lip service or
not, it isn't robust enough, is naïve. Sustainable communities,
as I said, are about so much more than housing.
To what extent does the Five Year Plan address
the environmental implications of the geographical distribution
of demolition versus new build?
This one is so worrying it needs a book.
I am sure others will tell you more There have just been so many
LPS2020
The Government has consulted on the new construction
standard for dwellings (LPS2020). On the basis of that consultation
is it possible to determine whether the new standard will be a
positive force for change and add value to the construction process?
Hopefully it will. But any ruling has loopholes.
As we seem to find ourselves in some sort of housing crisis it
is obvious that attention continues to be paid to new-build. It
seems quite possible that the housing crisis has been orchestrated
to some extent, in the north of England at least. It is better
to ask those who "police" the building industry on this.
Most of us are aware that our planning/building control departments
are under staffed. See to that
Infrastructure
Is the Government doing enough to secure sufficient
funds for the timely provision of infrastructure, such as transport
links, schools and hospitals in the four Growth Areas?
Not really, but then we are not in a perfect
world. Far too much is wasted on bureaucracy I am told by those
several I know in each of those disciplines.
Are the water companies doing enough to secure
the supply of water resources to the four Growth Areas? And is
concern about security of water supply, in the South East of England
in particular, a valid one or simply a knee jerk reaction to a
few hot, dry summers?
It is absolutely valid. Surely you must know
that!
Is there sufficient effort being made by the Government,
the Environment Agency and the water companies to educate people
about water efficiency?
Absolutely not. There are various similar
issues that the public remains dangerously ignorant about. For
example, when it is cold, wear an extra jumper, rather than having
heating turned to high. Look at the absurd clothes in any of our
shops that women are encouraged to wear. Also children's clothes
are no longer warm, so everyone is wasting energy, adding to the
melting of the polar ice, lethal to the majority of cities worldwide.
There ought to be an entire subject for schoolchildren on such
issues alongside citizenship to advise them it is their government
their world, and it is necessary for them to contribute to both
responsibly. It could be pre GCSE, at say 13 years, a sort of
"coming of age" milestone. Please be fully aware, it
is the rich who cause most damage, people know that, and resent
it.
Informative appendices (not my work) follow)
[not printed]
November 2005
| 
