House of Commons - Environmental Audit

Select Committee on Environmental Audit Written Evidence

Memorandum submitted by Carfree UK

Carfree UK is a voluntary organisation formed by a group of researchers and transport planners, with the aim of promoting "European style" carfree development in this country. We are a member organisation of the World Carfree Network. Some of our members are engaged in research relating to the questions covered in the memorandum. Others have worked on the planning of new developments.

We are not an "anti-car" organisation; our aim is to promote a lifestyle choice which is not yet available in Britain, one with the potential to contribute to broader environmental, social and health objectives. We contributed to the transport guidance for the eco-towns programme, working with other environmental organisations, particularly Sustrans who are also planning to submit evidence to this inquiry. The DfT "Menu of Options" and the CLG Transport Worksheet for Eco-Towns both make reference to Carfree UK, and incorporate some of our suggestions.

Our evidence seeks to address the Committee's questions on eco-towns, with particular reference to transport, which is likely to present the greatest challenge to that programme. Along the way, we will also consider a number of wider questions about planning and transport policies, and their impact on climate change.

SUMMARY

— Reducing car use is essential to reducing both the carbon footprint and the wider environmental and social problems created by road transport.

— Eco-towns may act as pilots or exemplars, but in themselves, they will not reduce the UK's carbon emissions. Any new development with a net positive carbon footprint will make those targets more difficult to achieve.

— The transport CLG/TCPA Transport Worksheet sets out an ambitious vision for sustainable transport, which should be achievable under the right circumstances.

— This vision will not be achievable in the locations short-listed through the eco-towns process. Small satellite towns, and extensions to existing medium-sized towns, are likely to be characterised by high car ownership and use.

— Car ownership is a key determinant of car use. Around 10% of the adult population lives without a car by choice. Research suggests others would be prepared to, under the right circumstances. To enable substantial proportions of their new residents to live without a car, eco-towns must be either:

— Integrated towns, functioning as part of a larger conurbation, or:

— Self-sufficient towns, which are large enough to provide for the great majority of their residents' needs.

— Direct access to mainline rail is an advantage for integrated towns and essential for self sufficient towns. Outside large conurbations, few residents will choose to live without a car if buses provide their only links to the rail network.

— The process has failed to produce a shortlist of sustainable locations because:

— the original prospectus implied a preference for satellite towns;

— "previously developed land" and greenbelt policies (sound principles in themselves) have been applied with little consideration for sustainability; and

— it relied on bids based on existing landholdings.

— A national search should now be undertaken, as was conducted for the post-war New Towns, but with the aim of identifying the most sustainable locations. Public sector land assembly mechanisms may need to be used.

— If sufficient sites cannot be found for "integrated" eco-towns, a single eco city should replace most of the smaller proposals.

— CLG should apply the eco-town principles to a new programme of eco quarters on redevelopment sites within existing towns and cities.

— If the current Government is determined to press ahead with the current plans for eco towns, then future governments should be urged to scrap the programme.

1. Road Transport, Climate Change and Other Environmental Impacts

1.1 Depending on the method of measurement, transport accounts for between approximately a quarter and a third of UK carbon emissions. Of this, cars and vans are responsible for two thirds.[1] Transport is the only sector where carbon emissions were significantly higher in 2005 than in 1990. Unlike many other sectors, emissions from transport are continuing to rise.[2]

1.2 The King Report[3] recommends the "decarbonisation of road transport". Whilst much can and should be done to reduce the carbon footprint of the private vehicle, there are problems with this optimistic scenario. The disadvantages of biofuels have been well documented elsewhere. In the medium term, King echoes the motor industry view[4] that the solution lies in hydrogen fuel cells and/or electric vehicles.

1.3 The text of the King Report acknowledges a difficulty with this approach, which does not feature in the conclusions or the "headlines" of that report, and is generally overlooked by those who propose "technological solutions" as an alternative to, rather than a complement to modal shift and demand management.

1.4 To calculate the carbon footprint of an electric vehicle (or one fuelled by hydrogen produced by electricity) we need to look at the carbon emitted by the marginal or additional units of electricity consumed.

1.5 King's statement that "if the electricity generated is from renewable sources| the Life Cycle Emissions can be effectively zero" is misleading. Only when the marginal unit of electricity generation becomes zero carbon (ie when 100% of electricity is generated from renewable sources) would this statement be true. The U.K. is struggling to meet its renewable targets at the moment. Any additional electricity generated to power road vehicles will clearly make the task more difficult.

1.6 The energy involved in car manufacture can be equivalent to around two years' fuel consumption[5]. Car production uses nearly half the world's annual output of rubber, 25% of its glass, and 15% of its steel.[6] Car dependency is associated with many other environmental, social and health problems. These include land lost to road building, waste to landfill, the loss of local services, and the growing problem of obesity[7]. All of these point to the need to reduce car dependency and to build neighbourhoods which facilitate this.

2. Can Eco-Towns Help To Solve the Problem?

2.1 The carbon targets to which the UK is committed through the Kyoto protocol, and the new targets to be set through the Climate Change Bill, will apply to the country as a whole. They are aggregate figures, not per capita, nor per dwelling, nor per town. So any net carbon emitted by a new development must be offset elsewhere, in addition to the savings already required.

2.2 The recently published eco-towns consultation document[8] defines "zero carbon" solely with reference to buildings. The additionality of transport emissions is not a straightforward question (would the people still travel even if no homes were built for them?) but it seems the positive contribution of eco-towns, if any, will be as pilots or exemplars for best practice approaches to be adopted elsewhere.

2.3 Government Transport policy documents generally talk of reducing the need to travel by car, rather than actual travel by car. As outlined below, some iconic new developments designed to "reduce the need to travel by car" have failed to deliver in practice.

3. Transport Objectives of the Eco-Towns

3.1 The Transport guidance for the eco-towns is set out in two documents: a "Menu of Options" from the DfT[9] and a Worksheet published jointly by the T.C.P.A. and CLG[10].

3.2 The aim of the CLG Worksheet is to "equal or better the modal share for the sustainable modes achieved in the most sustainable European communities". It states that: "carfree residential and mixed use|areas should cover a substantial proportion of the eco-town". Following Carfree UK's evidence gathered from elsewhere in Europe, carfree areas are defined by their:

— Traffic-free immediate environments.

— Limited and separated parking.

— Design around travel by non-car means.

Thus, they do not rule out car ownership but they do provide multiple benefits for the residents, the local and global environments. There are several different models working well in a number of European countries. Some of these are referred to in the Worksheet. More information on them is available in Carfree UK's Guide for Planners and Developers[11].

3.3 The evidence from Europe suggests that carfree areas can facilitate extremely low levels of car use. In Vauban, in Freiburg, for example, just 16% of journeys by residents are made by car[12]. Carfree neighbourhoods also provide better environments for pedestrians, for socialising and particularly for independent movement and active play amongst children.[13]

3.4 With appropriate design, carfree neigbourhoods in eco-towns can help to spread these benefits to the town as a whole, by providing attractive traffic-free routes in and out of a town centre, for example.

3.5 The Minister referred to Vauban[14] when defending her aspiration for eco-towns to "follow the most ambitious European models where only half of households rely on a car". As a policy to facilitate this objective, we would commend the Transport Worksheet to the Committee and anyone else concerned with sustainable development. However, it is regrettable that its authors were not asked to comment on the critical questions of eco-town size and location.

4. "Sustainable" New Settlements—A Reality Check

4.1 Car dependence is almost universal across suburban and small town England and Wales. The 2001 Census showed 435 wards—just under 5% of England and Wales—where fewer than 40% of working adults travelled to work by car. More than three quarters of these were in London. Of the remaining 86, 60 were in the inner areas of cities and larger towns. Particular local circumstances, such as the proximity of a University, explain the rest.

4.2 Research in Oxfordshire[15] found that even badly designed suburban extensions close to Oxford generate lower car use than medium sized towns where longer-distance commuting by car is more common. Easy access to the motorway or trunk road network tends to exacerbate the problem.

4.3 A similar pattern has been observed even in regions such as Metropolitan Stockholm where satellite towns are well planned, and transport links are generally good[16]. Although the centres of such towns achieve better modal shares than the Stockholm suburbs (due particularly to good rail links), this is counterbalanced by longer journey distances.

4.4 Many claims have been made about more recent developments in the UK, allegedly breaking the mould of car dependency. Poundbury, a suburban extension to Dorchester in Dorset, was an early and influential example. By the end of its first phase the proportion of people driving to work (64.5%) was higher than the averages for England (55%[17]), Dorchester and the (mainly rural) district of West Dorset. Over three quarters of residents made their regular shopping journeys by car or van[18]. When we spoke to the planning department of West Dorset Borough Council last year, they believed the situation had not significantly changed as Poundbury had grown.

4.5 Cambourne is nine miles west of Cambridge, connected by a regular bus service but no railway. A recently published study[19] was conducted last year when just over half of its projected 4,250 dwellings were built. 95% of households owned a car (national average 75%). 56% owned two or more. 81% of the working population drove to work. The author of the report was "sceptical that eco-towns will achieve significantly lower levels of car use even if they have superior links to main centres."[20]

4.6 Although the relationship is not straightforward, car ownership is a key determinant of car use; households with more cars travel further and more often by car.[21] So if the vast majority of residents decide they need to own a car, attempts to promote sustainable transport through design or persuasion are likely to have only limited success.

5. Under What Circumstances Will People Choose to Live Without Cars?

5.1 Two of our members[22] have been researching the question of potential demand amongst home buyers and tenants in Britain, for housing in new carfree neighbourhoods. Initial findings have been published for one[23].

5.2 Although car ownership is strongly correlated with income, most people who live without a car could probably afford to buy one if they had to21. Those who choose to live without a car ("carfree choosers") tend to be younger than average, often single, with significantly higher incomes than other non-car owners. There is another group of people who say they would like to give up their car under the right circumstances, and have actually done this at some point in the past23. These people ("carfree possibles") tend to be older than the carfree choosers, have higher incomes, and more children.

5.3 This study did not attempt to quantify the national proportions of these groups. A 2005 study using a representative national sample in Scotland suggested that people who live without a car by choice represent about one in 10 of the population[24].

5.4 In the more recent study23, some respondents were asked whether, and under what circumstances, they could see themselves moving to carfree neighbourhoods in eco-towns. The carfree concept was often greeted with approval, even delight, qualified on further questioning by practical considerations, particularly relating to employment—the principal determinant of location for those of working age. The following quote illustrates one typical line of response:

5.5 "But isn't the issue with them [the eco-towns] that where a lot of them are planned to be, that there's no transport there. They're not on railway lines, for example, so you have to have a car. It's more likely that you'll need a car to get in and out of them. Is that right?"

6. Implications for the Eco-Towns

6.1 Drawing on the evidence briefly outlined here, Carfree UK and Sustrans submitted a paper to CLG recommending that eco-towns should be selected from one of two broad categories:

— integrated towns: physically close to, and designed to function as part of a larger conurbation, or:

— self-sufficient towns: designed to grow over time to become a larger town or city with a higher degree of self sufficiency.

6.2 A third category of "satellite towns" was likely to encourage car dependence and should be avoided.

6.3 To enable people to live without a car, an integrated town would need to be part of a conurbation of sufficient size to provide for the vast majority of destinations within it. It would also need to "plug into" an existing transport network (rather than a separate "in and out" service). Integrated towns would normally be urban extensions, although some separate locations may fulfil these criteria.

6.4 The relationship between size and self-sufficiency is not straightforward, but clearly size does matter. Given the right policies, eco-towns may achieve greater self sufficiency than existing settlements of a similar size. The maximum guideline of 20,000 homes is small for a self sufficient town, but the Prospectus did raise the possibility of further longer-term growth in some cases.

6.5 If an eco-town is designed to achieve self sufficiency in the longer term, then it needs to be designed as such from the start, so that the centre is large enough, for example. It also needs to be surrounded by land suitable for future growth without overriding environmental constraints.

6.6 Access to mainline rail is important for people choosing to live without a car. In big conurbations, it may be possible to provide a carfree neighbourhood which is not immediately served by rail, providing the neighbourhood is part of a conurbation-wide public transport network. Vauban, for example, is 20 minutes by tram from Freiburg's main railway station—it takes about half that time by bike, which is how more people travel.

6.7 For an eco-town growing towards self sufficiency, mainline rail is clearly essential. To function effectively without car dependency, this should be in the town centre. The strategy for many of the eco-towns (and for some "proto-eco-towns" like Cranbrook near Exeter) appears to rely on bus links to railway stations. Outside of big conurbations past experience does not suggest that this is likely to persuade people to give up their cars. Dedicated bus rail links work well for major airports but not for small towns (eg Lewes to Uckfield, stopped in 2002 due to lack of demand). Parkway stations, situated on the periphery of towns are a "largely car based market segment".[25]

7. How Does the Eco-towns Shortlist Measure Up?

7.1 In a word—badly. Setting aside the research evidence, the Committee may want to consider the simple question: would you want to live there without a car?

7.2 Of the 15 shortlisted sites only Pennbury (near Leicester) or Rossington (near Doncaster) could conceivably fulfil the "integrated town" criteria. The Leeds and Rushcliffe locations have yet to be determined. In all the other cases, the "parent" conurbations are either too distant (Norwich, Cambridge, Oxford), too small (Bishops Stortford, St. Austell, Littlehampton, Lichfield, Bordon, Bedford), or both: (Louth, Stratford-on-Avon). Most of the proposals are towards the smaller end of the target range and none of them seem located or designed to grow into larger self-sufficient towns.

7.3 In none of the locations, with the possible exception of Marston, does a mainline railway station near the new town centre seem likely, and the dispersed settlement proposal there raises serious doubts about its sustainability. In several cases rail is mentioned as a possibility, but the line is either at one extremity of the site (Ford, Elsenham, Weston Otmoor), or separated from it.

7.4 Several of the proposals relate to former airfields. It seems their classification as "previously developed land" has weighed considerably in their favour. We question the grounds for this. Why is it more sustainable to build on a disused airfield in a remote location, rather than agricultural land in a more accessible location?

7.5 One of the shortlisted sites, Weston Otmoor, illustrates the danger of greenbelts causing "leapfrogging" development. Proximity to the motorway, and its long thin shape with the railway line at one extremity, are both likely to exacerbate problems of car dependency, however well the town itself is designed.

8. What Should be Done?

8.1 There is to be a sustainability appraisal of alternative sites which could also "include sites or locations that are not currently shortlisted".8 This suggests the possibility of better alternatives. There are two dangers however. One is that this process will be unduly constrained. Another is the "tick box" approach to sustainability appraisal which tends to favour fragmented patterns of development ("because this field scores higher than that one"). An unconstrained holistic assessment is called for.

8.2 The current shortlist has been selected mainly from proposals submitted by private land owners, or in some cases local authorities. Why would the land holdings of developers or local authorities, assembled with different objectives under a different policy regime, reflect the most sustainable locations for building eco-towns?

8.3 A national search disregarding land ownership should now be undertaken, as was done for the post-war New Towns, but with the aim of identifying the most sustainable locations (considering all factors—not just transport). Although the private sector may develop the new towns, public sector land assembly mechanisms may be necessary to facilitate this, whether through local authority CPOs or the New Towns Act. In practice, these may only be necessary as reserve measures.

8.4 If appropriate sites cannot be found for integrated towns, the next alternative should be a single eco-city to replace most of the smaller proposals. This must be surrounded by land with no important environmental constraints and have mainline rail at its centre.

8.5 If the political will does not exist to make these changes, then as an absolute minimum, substantial changes should be made to the shortlisted locations to improve their proximity and accessibility to major centres. If this is not done, then future governments should be urged to scrap the programme.

8.6 If the principles in the Transport Worksheet can be applied to unsustainable remote locations, why not to existing urban areas? The transport objectives would be much easier to achieve within these. CLG should be urged to announce a programme of eco-quarters to be built on appropriate redevelopment sites within existing towns and cities.

23 April 2008