The following is an extract from a recent blog I wrote in regards to the draft NPPF, out for consultation at the moment, in which both within the ministerial foreword and in the text the word 'place' is used, seemingly at the expense of using 'landscape'. Landscape in my opinion is a word that has evolved to become all emcompassing and has the potential to be the 'bridge' across the many chasms that now seperate the horticultural industry from the planners, from the foresters and of course the public and government, both central and local. In terms of the landscaping industry its' importance is a reflection of the health of the industry itself - if that word is disenfranchised, those who work in the industry are also, if not already.
'Despite a period of several years where we have seen publication after publication of material from central and local government, quangos and NGOs, we seem to have no material available to allow us to move forward in enabling diplomacy between all those with a relevant voice due a lack of defined definitions.
The government departments have become too distant from one another over issues the rest of us know and assume to be interconnected, the result of them having to deal with the myriad of branches involved in the management of landscapes and environmental issues. Those within the myriad have chosen to use varying definitions and more often use ‘buzzwords’ which can be misunderstood outside the narrow boundaries of a particular profession, which whilst closely related to other branches of the management of landscape or environmental sectors have been isolated for so long that their very language has evolved.
Because of this, we can read the draft NPPF and quickly decipher where the influence in the writing of the document came from and this influence is far removed from those in the landscape / environmental & countryside sector. Subsequent to the publication many including government ministers have quickly assigned that those in opposition to the draft NPPF are to the ‘left’ in political terms, which is sheer nonsense.
Places Vs Landscapes
When I first heard of ‘Place’ in landscape design terms, it was via a German ‘Urbanist’ in Paris who asked me ‘what is a place designer?’ after she had heard of a UK practitioner calling themselves as such. The German urbanist felt they were missing a wonderful new concept for progressive sustainable urban design, she wasn’t. On reading the literature on place and placemaking I initially felt that this was the coming together of landscape and home, but the more I read, it seemed little more than the twisting of words to avoid using ‘landscape’. But why do this? Is it to push aside ‘old school’ professionals and practitioners? Is it to provide a new strand of thinking and thus introduce a new industry in an already crowded sector? Or is it a way of providing a platform, parallel to the ideals held by those in landscape and environmental sectors but more digestible for the increasing amount of people and businesses who wish to jump on the bandwagon without radically changing their ways. Is Placemaking more palatable to those in the mainstream financial sector in the UK? It seems to be, as it removes associated connotations with ‘Landscape’, which is regularly at odds with quick profit development and in all the text I have read so far place making refers to increased house prices and schemes which can create profit by way of enforced charges against those that actually desire to follow a sustainable lifestyle.
It is the ‘place makers’ who have gained the ear of those writing the draft NPPF as they can demonstrate wealth creation through the twisting of sustainable ideals. Place makers are developers.
The European Landscape Convention, states that each party must undertake:
a) to recognise landscapes in law as an essential component of people’s surroundings, an expression of the diversity of their shared cultural and natural heritage, and a foundation of their identity;
b) to establish and implement landscape policies aimed at landscape protection, management and planning through the adoption of the specific measures (set out in Article 6);
c) to establish procedures for the participation of the general public, local and regional authorities, and other parties with an interest in the definition and implementation of the landscape policies mentioned in paragraph b above;
d) to integrate landscape into its regional and town planning policies and in its cultural, environmental, agricultural, social and economic policies, as well as in any other policies with possible direct or indirect impact on landscape.
Does the NPPF therefore break the law? The omission of text referring to landscape and thus ignoring the European Landscape Convention, (ratified in the UK in 2006 and which could have aided progression of the NPPF and those who have to implement it) is worrying. In a political and media climate where anything ‘European’ is subject to scathing attacks and seen to be a threat to UK sovereignty it is understandable to avoid referral to the ELC but it is also unforgiveable and possibly illegal.'
To the landscape practitioner, does the word place open up a new field of operations?
The full blog can be read here - Places Vs Landscapes & Abusing Definition of Sustainability.
Comments