The garden landscape was referred to several times during the NPPF debate; arguments that the ‘countryside was sterile’ a fatuous claim (based on 90’s research highlighting a migration based on dangerous trends in agriculture and which have largely been superseded by adopted policy) were used to support the argument ‘more development in green belt = more gardens = more biodiversity!’ And from the other camp the ‘Brownfield first’ issue was also strongly linked to gardens, which together with any green space public or private in an urban or peri urban landscape are wrongly included in this heavily abused and anti social land use definition (and if included in the final NPPF due out next Tuesday, without a revised definition it will be a missed opportunity to further urban sustainable development) and credit where credit is due; work to revise regulations with regards contaminated land - 'Real Brownfield land', which had become frankly ludicrous and confusing to all, and to keep in place subsidy measures for development by this government should be applauded – not criticised.
David Camerons’ attention on Ebenezer Howards’ garden cities has got many fundamentalist pro planning reformers chomping at the bit. Nothing radical, something safe that virtually every government has explored since WWII. The rhetoric will be based on a philosophy which has evolved into the axiom that ‘Landscape’ belongs to all. But as with ecosystem services many will only hone in on £’s and ‘development needs’ contained within any forthcoming government text, drowning out the true essence of Ebenezer Howards’ ideal and since the first Garden City, the imitations lose varying key components to the whole idea, whittling it down and down into nothing much different to a large housing estate:
“the key to the problem how to restore the people to the land — that beautiful land of ours, with its canopy of sky, the air that blows upon it, the sun that warms it, the rain and dew that moisten it — the very embodiment of Divine love for man — is indeed a Master-Key, for it is the key to a portal through which, even when scarce ajar, will be seen to pour a flood of light on the problems of intemperance, of excessive toil, of restless anxiety, of grinding poverty — the true limits of Governmental interference, ay, and even the relations of man to the Supreme Power.” Ebenezer Howard
Surely it was transportation, not the garden city, which was to eventually, in part realise Howards’ true dream for the whole population. The garden cities became somewhat superfluous to the need for green space by a burgeoning middle class population who could simply and easily travel to areas protected, policed by landowning NGOs and quangos’. But this situation has now changed and the need for urban green infrastructure is absolutely ascertained as the cost of a day trip to countryside is on a par with a day at Alton Towers or Legoland and salaries decrease dramatically.
But can true sustainable development be realised in modern garden cities? This becomes more difficult, as one thing clearly highlighted in the NPPF debacle is that many, including the British Chancellor, George Osborne himself, believe ‘Sustainable Development’ to mean what the rest of us, particularly those in land management would term economic ‘viability’. It is therefore evident that the one greatest obstacle en route towards SD as defined by Brundtland and subsequently superseded in legal instruments, internationally and European is education.
The ‘Environment VS Economics’ fight created by the NPPF debate, fuelled (and frequently exaggerated) disgracefully by the general media will do little more than create more difficulty for planners who should be accredited with making the previous planning legislation actually work more often than not and who will undoubtedly make the NPPF in whatever guise it takes work also.
Garden Cities / Eco Towns are outwith the remits of many NGOs and this is a good thing. They would and should be the playground of innovation. Design, planning and implementation using the skills and dreams of those trained to excel in furthering SD, and most importantly SD solutions specific to a particular location. It was and will be the practitioners in specific locations who will be able to make things work and government departments who choose to ignore their own rhetoric and not fully engage (as the DCLG have proved by introducing a stasi attitude in their policy making) will only further stall this progression.
But, and it is a big but, the garden landscape which has been lauded for its biodiversity and its potential role at the forefront of new planning has no protection (and should have none) and is therefore potentially subject to abuse by developers. Cheap and often ineffectual landscaping ‘requirements’ all too readily signed off by committees rarely work. The soils are heavily consolidated and new house owners and tenants have to pay large costs remediating their ‘plots’ before any real garden work can be done. It is the bane of the landscaping industry and it is they and the strength of an amateur gardening scene that is solely responsible for making gardens sustainable.
The UK, amongst several other EU countries, will continue to halt the ‘Soil Framework Directive’. Defra state “we already have robust domestic policies in place to protect soils.” I would dispute this, or certainly dispute any claim that policies in place are working in the housing sector. The ‘Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites’ published by Defra is rarely adhered to.
We need to get tough on soils, we cannot keep ignoring the general abuse, the erosion, litter and compaction caused by large scale development which all too often remains a hidden issue, buried under a far too thin layer of top soil in gardens left to a landscaper or owner to repair. And small scale builds, usually more sustainable, more sensitive and sympathetic to issues such as soil, landscape and local social needs should be encouraged.
We need to get more local. We also need to bring the horticultural and landscaping industry into the equation from the beginning – it is still an industry subject to trends and which despite excellent prove of self regulation is very fragile, (most ‘garden centres’ still contain an arsenal of chemicals which if leaked into a nearby watercourse would create environmental destruction on a par with an oil spill in the Severn estuary).
We should celebrate more those local heroes, those small businesses who have (without any help) progressed in SD in their locality and this includes many developers. We should also be trying to campaign for more good research of the potential of the garden landscape – not to ensure further legislation but to give assistance to those who live and work in this environment and who really do want to make it work on all levels.
Comments