How to Solve the Housing Crisis Sustainably

Britain has a housing crisis. Politicians are calling for the building of garden cities and for permitting building on formerly protected greenbelt sites. Business Secretary Vince Cable has told the Daily Mail that "building on green belt land should be 'encouraged' provided it is done in a 'proper way'". This follows the publication by the Department for Communities and Local Government of a prospectus for "Locally Led Garden Cities" which invites local authorities to put forward their ideas for how they wish to develop garden cities.

This all sounds positive, since, in the abstract, we love the idea of garden cities, with pleasant wide tree-lined avenues and residents tilling their gardens to grow their own food whilst cycling to nearby shops. But we all know how nice-sounding government policies frequently end up being hijacked by developers who wish to turn a tidy and quick profit and the dream, eventually, turns sour.

So, how to guarantee that these proposed new types of development are genuinely sustainable? 

The only way, as anybody involved in sustainability accounting or energy management will tell you, is through monitoring and measurement of pre-established metrics, backed up by the threat of planning permission being revoked should agreed benchmarks not be reached. In other words, we should permit building on green field sites only if they can establish that they are truly sustainable in a measurable way. This approach could just as easily be adapted to urban living, in several potential and already existing ways:

• by extending the parameters of the Building Regulations;
• by extending the Code for Sustainable Homes to include other metrics besides carbon emissions;
• by applying GEMIS Life Cycle Analysis to development;
• by applying ecological footprint analysis;
• by applying BREEAM;
• by applying GPI - the Genuine Progress Indicator;
• by using this ISO for life cycle analysis of the development in question.

Such an approach would build on a Welsh policy that has just achieved its first success and is showing its potential to spearhead a revolution in the way we can achieve sustainable development.

The success is also a personal one for a family that has just realised its dream. The Moodys are a family which lives on a smallholding between Caerphilly and Cardiff. Theirs has become the first One Planet Development in Wales - and the world - to receive permanent planning permission. Called Nant-y-Cwm farm, it is home to Dan and Sarah Moody (below) and their five children who had already been working their 16 acre plot for four years and were seeking retrospective planning permission from Caerphilly Council.



They decided to apply for planning permission under One Planet Development, a forward thinking policy by the Welsh Government which provides a way for people to live and work on the land with social, economic and environmental benefits. In addition to meeting planning regulations, applicants are required to produce a detailed management plan and ecological footprint analysis which demonstrates their commitment to sustainable living, including how they will provide for at least 65% of their basic household needs from land based activity within 5 years.

Dan and Sarah are overjoyed by their success, which they put down to hard work and their close links with the local community. Cllr Ken James, Caerphilly County Borough Council’s Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning and Sustainable Development, commented on the application by saying: “We were satisfied, following lengthy discussion with the applicants that their proposals complied with the One Planet Development policies, subject to a number of strict conditions”.

Jeff Cuthbert, the Minister for Communities and Tackling Poverty, has also visited the site, which is in his constituency, and expressed his pleasure at seeing what they have achieved.

This is important for a number of reasons. The policy is one of which the Welsh Government should be extremely proud. Wales has an objective, set out in its sustainable development scheme One Wales One Planet, that: "within the lifetime of a generation, Wales should use only its fair share of the earth’s resources, and our ecological footprint be reduced to the global average availability of resources - 1.88 global hectares per person in 2003".

One Planet Developments should, according to the Welsh Government guidance, initially "achieve an ecological footprint of 2.4 global hectares per person or less in terms of consumption and demonstrate clear potential to move towards 1.88 global hectare target over time".

So the practice offers a transition to a more sustainable way of life by providing a way for people to live and work on their own land with measurable social, economic and environmental benefits. By using a verifiable metric - ecological footprint accounting - it is setting a precedent for assessing planning applications and other developments. In this sense, it is far from being of minority interest only.

A body has been set up to support both those who want to make planning applications under this scheme, and those in planning departments who have to process them, often a job that proves to be outside their training and experience. Called The One Planet Council, it is an independent voluntary body that also sees itself as furthering understanding amongst the public and policymakers of how the tools and practices enabled by this policy can further Wales' overall sustainable development requirements and, by example, the rest of the UK. I am a founder member. The body aims to work together with all those with Local Planning Authorities, policy makers, academics, landowners, and those already living on and planning to live on One Planet Development sites.

Jane Davidson, previously the Welsh Minister responsible for the introduction of the One Planet Development policy and now Director of INSPIRE at the University of Wales Trinity St David's, helped to launch the Council at the Royal Welsh Showground Spring Fair on 17 May (below).



Standing alongside the Moodys she said: "I'm so delighted to hear about the Moodys’ success. Wales is unique in having a national commitment to support those who want to demonstrate that it is possible and desirable to live in a way that reduces their impact on the environment. I hope that the success of this application will pave the way for others who want to pioneer living lightly on the land and in doing so help others think about actions they could take to harness local resources better”.



At the launch of the One Planet Council, left to right: Dan and Sarah Moody, Stefan Cartwright, Samantha Minas, Jane Davidson, Eduardo Bracho, Mark Waghorn and Pete Linnnell. 

The planning guidance behind the policy holds open the door for One Planet Developments to occur in an urban context, but remains unclear on how this could be achieved. Some architects believe that ribbon development, for example, where there is green field countryside behind housing on transport links, offers one opportunity for this to happen. So does the concept of garden cities.

The OPD policy supports other policy aims of both the Welsh and Westminster Governments, including provision for affordable housing, reduced subsidy for agriculture, promoting healthy living, promoting sustainable communities and carbon reduction.

For example, in addition to producing meat, eggs and a wide range of fruit and vegetables, some of which is sold to local residents, the Moodys' smallholding also supports different local causes such as Kaleidoscope, a Cardiff based charity supporting people recovering from drug and alcohol addiction.

So here are the 12 main advantages of One Planet Development

1. Affordable housing
The UK housing market is currently one of the most inflated in Europe, and inequality between those who own a home and those who don’t is rising. For many, especially first time buyers and those who are on a low income, owning their own home is beyond reach. One Planet Development supports the construction of simple, well functioning dwellings tied into sustainable land management. These are intrinsically much less expensive to build than the average home, even when constructed to a conventionally accepted standard.

2. Sustainable, low impact homes
One Planet homes must be constructed from sustainable or recycled materials, locally sourced where possible for minimal environmental impact. Buildings must be energy efficient and generate all of their own electricity and heat renewably. Innovation and different styles of construction are encouraged as long as they comply with the stringent planning standards and meet building regulations. Dwellings should have a relatively low visual impact and be easy to take down at the end of their lives.

3. A reduced burden on the public purse
The purchase of land and creation of a One Planet Development is self-funded from the beginning, unlike some types of agriculture which receive subsidies.

4. Creating genuine livelihoods
One Planet practitioners are required to meet 65% of their basic household needs from land based activity within a 5 year period. A robust management plan is required at planning application stage to show how these needs will be met. The result is a subsistence livelihood with the possibility to develop new streams of income from education and other related activities.

5. Increased land productivity
One Planet Developments promote a more sustainable level of food production. A study of organic smallholding-type food production found the level of produce per annum to be 3.5 kg per square metre, equating to 35 tonnes per hectare. This is over 4 to 5 times greater than average UK wheat yields of around 7-8 tonnes per hectare on the best soil.

6. Beneficial to wildlife and the land
One Planet practitioners have a duty to conserve and enhance the biodiversity, cultural heritage and landscape of a site. The existing ecology is carefully preserved and enhanced by planting hedgerows, orchards and wetlands. Produce is grown without the use of pesticides, herbicides or artificial fertilisers by using methods such as companion planting, soil care and encouraging natural predators of pests.

7. Beneficial to the local community
One Planet living encourages outreach and sharing. Surplus food and other land based produce and crafts are sold locally to generate income, which is beneficial for the community by reducing food miles and by offering affordable, fresh, healthy food. Educational courses and open days may be offered. Developing land based businesses may offer employment opportunities.

8. Beneficial for Wales
One Planet Development is open to people from all walks of life. The more developments that use different approaches to sustainable building, land management and living, the more exemplar models others will have to learn from. The Welsh Government has made a bold commitment to a sustainable future for current and future generations. This initiative can help Wales become an inspiration to people around the world.

9. An efficient use of natural resources
Energy is harvested using the latest renewable technologies. Water is sourced on site from springs, streams or rainwater collection, and wastewater is processed on site with the nutrients reused to encourage biodiversity and fertility. Composting of all biodegradable waste and non-biodegradable waste is minimised, re-used where possible and re-cycled off site as a last resort.

10. Promoting health and well-being
There are numerous documented benefits of daily contact with nature that would reduce the burden of those living in One Planet Developments upon the National Health Service. These include: improvements in self-esteem and mood, recovery from stress, blood pressure, heart rate, vitamin D deficiency, the benefit upon health of consuming fresh food, as well as others such as improved community building.

11. Supporting sustainable transport
One Planet Development supports living and working on the same site. Ideally, sites should be located within walking or cycling reach of public transport and local communities to reduce vehicle dependence. Electric vehicles can be charged from sources of renewable power.

12. Measurable sustainability
One Planet Development is quantified by ecological footprinting, which shows how much of the Earth’s resources people are consuming. When households reduce their own ecological footprints this helps their country reduce its overall footprint. Practitioners are required to log specific inputs and outputs so that data can be monitored for planning and research purposes.

As I said, ecological footprint analysis is not the only way to measure and verify sustainability, but it is one with a policy foothold in the UK. Sustainability needs measurement, it needs to be quantified, it needs to be monitored in order to guarantee that it is truly sustainable and not merely used as a greenwashing exercise. Even if you don't believe that we collectively need to bring down our ecological footprint, I hope I've made it clear that there are many other benefits to supporting this type of activity and approach.

Exposed: Fossil fuel connections of ministers who voted against the decarbonisation target

38 of the ministers who voted against the amendment to set a decarbonisation target for 2030 last week in the House of Commons have received support from, or are in some way connected to, the fossil fuel industry.

Together with other accusations of influence by lobbyists on MPs, and the alleged giving by Tim Yeo of advice to a rail freight company seeking to influence Parliament, the revelations give fresh impetus to calls for MPs and ministers not to get involved in decision-making on matters in which they have an interest.

The list, together with their connections, is published at the bottom of this article. It is noteworthy that none of the ministers with connections to the fossil fuel industry voted for the decarbonisation target.

The list comes from cross-checking the list of those who voted against the amendment with the list of ministers with such connections published in March by the World Development Movement, which itself had collated it from numerous publicly available sources.

The WDM's exercise found that one third of all 125 government ministers have such connections.

This does not account for any connections held by backbench MPs, such as Peter Lilley, who voted against the amendment. He, for example, is a non-executive director of Tethys Petroleum Ltd, as well as having been paid £22,462 in July 2011 for giving advice to Ferro Alloys Corporation Limited on the management and flotation of a power generating subsidiary.

Top ministers with fossil fuel connections include William Hague, Vince Cable, George Osborne, Michael Fallon and Greg Barker. They all have links with big finance, oil and coal companies that are driving climate change.

Foreign secretary William Hague, who used to work for Shell, helped Tullow Oil escape paying a £175m tax bill in Uganda, one of the world’s poorest countries. Mr Hague made a personal phone call to the Ugandan president on Tullow Oil’s behalf.

Vince Cable, secretary of state for business and skills, in charge of regulating companies, worked for Shell and was referred to as "contact minister for Shell" by a top Shell executive in 2012.

His business and now also energy minister, Michael Fallon, was an independent non-executive director responsible for inter-dealer broking (until 2012) of Tullett Prebon plc, specialising in Energy & Commodities.

Chancellor George Osborne accepted donations worth £38,000 from the head of CQS, a hedge fund that channels millions of pounds into climate-warming energy. Also, his father-in-law, Lord Howell, is president of the Shell and BP-funded British Institute for Energy Economics. Lord Howell was a Foreign Office minister until 2012.

Energy minister Gregory Barker, who shamefully voted against the amendment, has been the head of international investor relations for Anglo Siberian Oil and Sibneft, a Shareholder in New Star European Growth Fund plc and Henderson High Income Trust plc and corporate finance director of the Australian-owned International Pacific Securities.

The vote on the amendment would have been different if just 12 MPs had voted differently.

It would be in the interests of democracy, let alone the planet in this case, that MPs should be barred from voting on matters in which they have a financial interest.

By the way, mandatory carbon reporting introduced by the government will force fossil fuel companies to disclose their carbon footprints, but banks and other institutional investors will not have to declare the emissions arising from their loans and investments.

Yet without them, big oil, gas and coal companies like Shell, BP and Rio Tinto would not be able to raise billions from pension funds, banks and other financial investors based in the City of London and beyond.

By including these ‘financed emissions’ in mandatory carbon reporting regulations, Vince Cable could force financial institutions to disclose their full carbon impact and fully expose the degree of exposure that these institutions have to the carbon bubble.

The 'carbon bubble' is the name given to the assets held by these institutions which may become worthless if they are not allowed to be exploited by national or global level agreements to curb global warming.

It is therefore in the interests of these companies themselves to account for the impact of such investments.

The lists:

Here is the list of ministers who voted against the amendment, together with their connections to the fossil fuel industry:

Gregory Barker	Anglo Siberian Oil (1998–2000) Head of International Investor Relations for Sibneft (1998) 50 Shareholder in New Star European Growth Fund PLC and Henderson High Income Trust PLC.51 Corporate Finance Director of the Australian owned International Pacific Securities
Vincent Cable	Chief economist and other positions at Shell International (the world’s most carbon intensive oil company: A leaked memo addressed to Cable from Shell’s chief executive referred to him as “contact minister for Shell”) (1990-1997).
David Cameron	Accepted £10,000 from Jonathan Green of hedge fund GLG Partners. GLG is a frequent investor in fossil fuels. Accepted £10,000 from Mark Foster Brown of hedge fund Altima Partners (2005), which deals in fossil fuel shares, including Cadogan Petroleum and Lonrho plc,29 which is a multi-sector company involved in building port terminals in Africa “to support the oil and gas industry"
Kenneth Clarke	Director of Foreign and Colonial Investment Trust plc (until 2007)
Nick Clegg	Accepted £9,000 from Neil Sherlock, head of public affairs at auditors KPMG (2006-2008)
Michael Fallon	Director of Tullett Prebon Plc (independent non-executive); inter-dealer broking (until 2012)
Robert Goodwill	Shareholding in Barclays, Gazprom and Lukoil. Accepted £11,000 donation from Mountboon Investments Ltd financiers (2010)
Dominic Grieve	Total shareholdings of more than £240,000 in Anglo American, Standard Chartered, Rio Tinto and Shell
Michael Gove	Accepted £10,000 donation from Aidan Heavey, founder and chief executive of global gas and oil company Tullow Oil(2010)
William Hague	Worked for Shell UK (1982-83). Accepted over £25,000 in non-cash donations from CQS
Stephen Hammond	Director Commerzbank Securities (2000–Present) Has shareholdings in Peal Gas Ltd
Greg Hands	Worked or three different firms in an eight year banking career. (1990-97)
Matthew Hancock	Payment of £3,000 from UBS AG for speech (2011)74
Mark Hoban	Payment of £1,300 from JP Morgan Chase for speech (2010)76
Nick Hurd	Represented a British bank in Brazil (1995-1999).
Sajid Javid	Directorships and other senior positions at Deutsche Bank AG, (2000-2009), JP Morgan Partners LLC (1997-2009) and Chase Manhattan Bank (1991-1994)
Jo Johnson	Investment banker at Deutsche Bank (until 1997)
David Lidington	Worked for BP (1983-86) and Rio Tinto (1986-87)
Mark Lancaster	Management consultant at Palmer Capital a privately owned venture capital and fund management business. (resigned 2012)
David Laws	Vice President JP Morgan’s Treasury Division (1987-1992) Managing Director Barclays De Zoete Wedd (1992-1994)
Maria Miller	Marketing manager Texaco (1990-1994)
Francis Maude	Member of Barclays’ Asia-Pacific Advisory Committee. (2005-2009). The Conservative Party’s Implementation Team which reported to Maude also received significant donations in kind from accountancy firms KPMG, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Ernst and Young and Deloitte.
Theresa May	Shareholdings held by self and spouse in Prudential Corporation plc. Accepted donation in kind from Michael Hintze who runs the hedge fund management firm CQS Asset Management. (2009)
David Mundell	Accepted £5,000 from Caledonia Investments PLC investment trust. (2010)
George Osborne	Accepted donations and donations in kind from Michael Hintze of CQS hedge fund worth £38,700. Leading beneficiary of donations in kind to the then shadow cabinet from audit firms KPMG (£62,500) and Deloitte (£60,000) both of which have specialist oil and gas departments. (2009) Also, his father-in-law, Lord Howell, is president of the Shell and BP-funded British Institute for Energy Economics. Lord Howell was a Foreign Office minister until 2012
Andrew Robathan	Worked for BP (1991-92)
Desmond Swayne	Manager of Risk Management Systems at the Royal Bank of Scotland and other senior positions (1989-1997)
Elizabeth Truss	Commercial manager at Shell (1996-end date unclear)
David Willets	Senior advisor to Punter Southall a leading actuaries and actuarial consultants.

This is a list of other ministers who were absent for the vote, but who also have such connections:

Alan Duncan	Oil trader and other positions at Shell (1979-1992) Consultant for Vitol.
Philip Dunne	SG Warburg (1981-88) Former Managing Director of Lufkin & Jenrette a US investment bank.
Philip Hammond	Director of Consort Resources Ltd later purchased by Caledonia Oil and Gas (1999-2003)
Oliver Letwin	Directorships and other senior positions at Investment bank NM Rothschild (1986-2009)
John Nash	Assistant Director Lazard Brothers and Co Ltd (1988-1989)
Hugh Robertson	Assistant Director and management head Schroder Investment Management (1995-2001)

Finally, here is a list of ministers in the House of Lords with such connections: Lets see how they vote when the Energy Bill comes before them:

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon	Senior positions at NatWest, Alliance Bernstein, and Sucden Financia (1991-present)
Lord Deighton	Chief Operating Officer for Europe and other positions at Goldman Sachs. (1983-2005)
Lord Freud	Vice-chairman and other senior positions at S G Warburg (later known as UBS Investment Bank) (1984-2003)
Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint	Chairman and other senior positions HSBC (1992-2010)
Earl Howe	London director of Adam & Co. plc (1987-1990)

Cameron must listen to business and implement the 4th carbon budget

David Cameron must announce on Monday that he is accepting the fourth carbon budget for the period 2023-2027 published by the independent Committee for Climate Change last December.

The Cabinet is split on the affair. Even the Liberal Democrats are divided, with business secretary Vince Cable seeking a watered-down version while energy and climate minister Chris Huhne is recommending full acceptance.

Labour leader Ed Miliband has written to Cameron with the support of Huhne's shadow, Meg Hillier, challenging him to accept the budget.

If he doesn't, it will be the first time that the Government has not accepted the CCC's recommendations.

The fourth budget limits emissions over the period to 1950 MtCO2e, which will attain an emissions cut 50% below 1990 levels in 2025 and 60% by 2030.

The budget says that it "represents our assessment of a minimum UK contribution likely to be appropriate to a future global deal covering the 2020s".

In a leaked letter, Cable writes about his concerns that the level of abatement "may not be technically feasible" and is "not cost-effective", because it assumes that a future EU-ETS cap consistent with a 30% emissions reduction target by 2020 is set.

However, as I reported last month, this level is not far off in any case.

Cable would like to set a level instead of 2170 MTCO2e, but is prepared to accept a compromise, of CCC's recommendation for the non-traded sector. He claims that this can allow the Cabinet to claim that the Coalition is "The Greenest Government Ever" [sic].

In his letter, Ed Miliband says that for Cameron to do anything other than accept the CCC's recommendations would be to abandon the cross-party support that has so far characterised action on climate change.

He says it did appear "that on this crucial issue for the future of the planet which our children will one day inherit, there was broad cross-party consensus".

Not to cut emissions at a rate that "independent experts say is necessary to prevent dangerous climate change would send a terrible signal to business and to the rest of the world", he adds.

One thing is absolutely certain: the Government has been inundated with requests from business for a clear set of policies into the future, to give reassurance to investors in financing the low carbon industrial revolution that can let Britain lead the way.

Two weeks ago even the CBI told the Government that "low-carbon investment is vital for the UK", that "the pace and scale of investment is a barrier to success" and "Government must take action to set the right investment conditions".

Amongst those who have cried out for this assurance you can find John Lewis, Unilever, Shell, water and energy companies and many more.

This week Danish wind turbine manufacturer Vestas offered to set up an offshore manufacturing base in Sheerness, Kent. Vestas, but only if the UK Government delivers "stability in the market and long term political and regulatory certainty.”

Maria McCaffery, Chief Executive of RenewableUK, agrees: "We have an unprecedented situation where some of the best known companies in the world are literally queuing up to invest in the UK. The Government now needs to seal the deal on offshore: it needs to bag the first 8,000 jobs and hundreds of millions of pounds already pledged, by firmly supporting the technology.”

Even Foreign Secretary William Hague is in favour of accepting the budget. In another leaked letter sent last month to the Prime Minister, he wrote, "I agree that we should not reject the fourth carbon budget recommended by the Committee on Climate Change in order to retain public support for our climate policy at home we need to be able to point to similar effort abroad. If our domestic resolve is seen to be weakening, we will lose traction elsewhere."

This week CCC chair Lord Turner met Vince Cable in an attempt to persuade him to change tack, and to show agreement with Cable's concerns about cost effectiveness even made a concession, in saying that offshore wind targets could be changed because more onshore wind would be more cost-effective.

This is a key test of the Government's commitment to tackling climate change and to the low carbon revolution which can create so many jobs in this country.

In opposition, Cameron argued that an independent body was necessary to set and enforce emission targets, and ministers shouldn't be able to change them.

With so many voices in support, it is vital that David Cameron remains firm as a champion of this sector, the only sector that has a chance of leading the country out of the economic doldrums in which it remains stuck.