Drones in the city: should we ban drone hobbyists?

A young boy flying a drone

By Steven McGinty

Drones are becoming an increasingly observable feature of modern cities, from tech enthusiasts flying drones in local parks to engineers using them to monitor air pollution. And there have also been some high profile commercial trials such as Amazon Prime Air, an ambitious 30-minute delivery service.

However, introducing drones into the public realm has been something of a bumpy ride. Although the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) produces guidance to ensure drones are flown safely and legally, there has been a number of hazardous incidents.

For example, in April, the first near-miss involving a passenger jet and more than one drone was recorded. The incident at Gatwick Airport saw two drones flying within 500m of an Airbus A320, with one pilot reporting a “significant risk of collision” had they been on a different approach path. In addition – and just 30 minutes later – one of these drones flew within 50m of another passenger jet, a Boeing 777.

Videos have also been uploaded to websites such as YouTube, which have clearly been taken from drones – a clear breach of the CAA’s rules prohibiting the flying of drones over or within 150m of built-up areas. This includes events such as the Cambridge Folk Festival, a match at Liverpool FC’s Anfield Stadium, and Nottingham’s Goose Fair. Jordan Brooks, who works for Upper Cut Productions – a company which specialises in using drones for aerial photography and filming – explains that:

They look like toys. For anyone buying one you feel like you’re flying a toy ‘copter when actually you’ve got a hazardous helicopter that can come down and injure somebody.

Privacy concerns have also started to emerge. Sally Annereau, data protection analyst at law firm Taylor Wessing, highlights a recent European case which held that a suspect’s rights had been infringed by a homeowner’s CCTV recording him whilst he was in a public place. Although not specifically about drones, Sally Annereau suggests this decision will have far reaching consequences, with potential implications for drone users recording in public and sharing their footage on social media sites. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has already issued guidance for drones.

The CAA report that there were more than 3,456 incidents involving drones in 2016. This is a significant increase on the 1,237 incidents in 2015.

The response

Cities have often taken contradictory approaches to drones. Bristol City Council has banned their use in the majority of its parks and open spaces. Similarly, several London boroughs have introduced ‘no drone zones’, although the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames has a relatively open policy, only banning drones over Richmond Park. Further, Lambeth Council requires hobbyists to complete an application form “to ensure suitability”, a standard similar to commercial drone pilots.

There have also been several accusations of double standards as large commercial operators such as Amazon receive exemptions to CAA rules, in front of photographers recording events, hospitals delivering blood, and researchers collecting data.

Although cities have a responsibility to protect the public, they also have to ensure citizens are able to exercise their rights. The air is a common space, and as such cities must ensure that hobbyists – as well as multinational firms – can enjoy the airspace. Thus, it might be interesting to see cities take a more positive approach and designate ‘drone zones’, where hobbyists can get together and fly their drones away from potential hazards.


The Knowledge Exchange provides information services to local authorities, public agencies, research consultancies and commercial organisations across the UK. Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in policy and practice are interesting our research team. 

Involving children and young people in town planning

By 2050, it is estimated that nearly 70% of the world’s population will live in urban areas.  In the UK, this figure is expected to be closer to 90%.   This demographic shift, along with population growth in general, means that more children than ever are growing up in urban environments.

This has a number of implications for the town planning system.  Creating a ‘child-friendly’ environment requires much more than just ensuring there are enough parks and play spaces.

As well as having a fundamental human right to participate in decisions that affect them, there are clear links between children’s health, wellbeing and development and the quality of their surrounding environment.  Particular areas of influence include:

  • housing quality
  • road safety
  • the walkability of an area
  • opportunities for cycling
  • play facilities
  • access to greenspace
  • local amenities such as libraries and community/leisure centres
  • environmental pollution
  • community safety/fear of crime
  • access to healthy food choices

One key way to address this is to involve children in the planning process. As well as helping to create safer, more suitable environments for children to grow up in, involving children in decisions about their local areas has a number of additional benefits.  It helps to build social capital, helps children to form a bond with their home city, and fosters a feeling that they can help to make a change in the world they live in. For planners, involving children can help to provide them with a new perspective on how children use their environments, and highlights issues that adults may not recognise or fully understand – potentially leading to improved design.

Participation methods

Research published in 2011 found that children’s voices had been “notably absent from UK planning and regeneration policies throughout the past two decades”. Children’s participation in planning tended to be focused on services that were designed ‘for them’ rather than ‘with them’, and little attention was given to children’s roles in the wider regeneration agenda.

However, there are some examples of successful involvement.  Methods that have been used successfully range from formal mechanisms such as youth councils, child-led surveys and data collection, to informal ones such as photography, computer-aided mapping, model building and role-play.  Dr Jenny Wood reports that she had success with a delightfully low-tech method, where children were asked to annotate A3 OS maps with a range of stickers, post-it notes and pens, to highlight their likes, dislikes, routes to school and any other information they felt was important about their local area.

At the other end of the scale, some particularly innovative examples capitalise on recent technological advances.  These include the use of mobile phone apps to make traffic reports (see Case Study 1 below), the use of Minecraft (see Case Study 2 below), mapping their local area (Children’s Tracks in Norway) and the use of the SoftGIS methodology in Finland.

Case Study: Traffic Agent, Norway

A new app-based initiative in Oslo, ‘Traffic Agent’, directly involves children in transport planning. It enables children to provide direct feedback on road safety, based on their own experiences.  The app makes use of ‘gamification’ whereby users act as “secret agents” for the city, sending immediate reports on their route to school when they come across, for example, a difficult crossing on the street or an area of heavy traffic.

The project lead, Vibeke Rørholt, illustrates its impact: “I received a telephone call from the mother of a little boy who had reported some bushes that meant he couldn’t see when he was crossing the street. And two days later the bushes were cut. She phoned in saying he’s so happy that he could make this happen.”

Case study: Blockbuilders, England

Blockbuilders is an innovative method of involving communities, and children and young people in particular, in the town planning system.

Using the hugely popular game, Minecraft, the Blockbuilders team create a 3D representation of a local area.  The model is then used as the basis for consultation with the wider community, and can be interacted with and played with to enable communities to help design and shape their local areas.  Projects have included the development of Lewes Neighbourhood Plan, the development of a family-friendly park by Brighton and Hove City Council, and an interactive map of Brighton and Hove.

Common success factors for children’s effective participation

There is no one definition of ‘good’ or ‘effective’ participation practice – the most suitable method depends on the age of participants and the nature of the decision that they are being involved in. However, in their review of children and young people’s participation, the Ecorys project identified a number of common ‘success factors’ for children’s effective participation in planning and regeneration. These include:

  • Official recognition of children’s fundamental rights
  • Partnership working, e.g. planners, local government, academics, NGOs, community organisations and residents
  • Involving adults with knowledge and experience of young people’s participation
  • Utilising a range of diverse participation mechanisms
  • Understanding participation as a ‘whole’ process of learning and change
  • Openness and reciprocal learning between children and adults
  • An incremental and realistic approach to goal setting and developing trust/confidence
  • Visibility in the results
  • Embedding at different levels and spatial scales

Challenges

Despite the compelling arguments in favour of children’s participation in the planning system, a number of barriers exist.

There is a general lack of awareness of the purpose, benefits or skills required for facilitating young participation among planners.  Children are often viewed as being incapable of engaging in a meaningful way, despite research concluding otherwise.

Children’s participation in planning is frequently still viewed as ‘special’, rather than as part of general community engagement processes.  It tends to be focused specifically on children’s services, rather than the wider range of universal services, and takes the form of consultation, rather than proper involvement in every phase of the decision making process.

A number of political and structural barriers also limit children’s potential influence – such as competing interests within the planning system and the short timescales often required for decisions.  This can mean that even when the intentions are there, planners themselves may have limited time or influence over the decision making process.

Future steps

However, these challenges are not insurmountable.  As we have seen, through its influence on the design of the urban environment, the town planning system has a huge impact upon the wellbeing and development of children.  By involving children in the design of their local environment, it can help create environments that support children to reach their fullest potential.

Children who are involved and interested in their local environment will hopefully grow up to become adults who are involved and interested in their local environment.  The town planning system is in a unique position to help facilitate this.  And as Enrique Penalosa, former mayor of Bogota, Colombia has said:

If we can build a successful city for children, we will have a successful city for all people”.


Keen to make your city more child-friendly?  Next month we look at the characteristics of child-friendly urban design. 

If you can’t wait, why not download our briefing on Planning a child-friendly city – available to Idox Information Service members via our customer website.

October 2017 issue of SPEL Journal (Scottish Planning & Environmental Law) out now

As the recent Scottish Planning and Environmental Law conference showed, there are a number of external pressures affecting the planning system at the moment. These include the uncertainty around Brexit, the drive to achieve energy targets, and demographic changes impacting on housing supply and demand. Understanding how economic and social factors affect policy and decision-making is important, especially as we await the Planning Bill from the Scottish Government.

A key resource for planners and planning lawyers at this time is the Scottish Planning and Environmental Law Journal. Filled with commentary and analysis from leading professionals, lawyers and academics, the journal explores current developments and case law, and is published every two months.

October 2017 issue

The October 2017 issue has just been published and includes articles focusing on:

  • Community engagement with the planning system
  • Planning policy in relation to battlefields
  • Review of old mineral planning permissions

It discusses the Scottish Government’s programme for 17-18 and potential matters of interest within it of interest to planning and environmental lawyers. The latest statistics on planning authorities’ performance and the annual review of the Planning and Environmental Appeals Division of the Scottish Government are also examined.

Key court cases examined in the October 2017 edition include:

  • Trustees of the Grange Trust v City of Edinbrugh Council – Discussion of two pertinent issues in roads law
  • Wildland Ltd and The Welbeck Estates v the Scottish Ministers – Wind farm consent and impact on Wild Land Area

There is also discussion of differences in Scottish and English planning policy in relation to when presumption in favour of sustainable development applies.

A long tradition of supporting the professions

SPEL Journal (Scottish Planning & Environmental Law) launched over 30 years ago and is one of the leading information sources on land use planning and environmental legislation across the country.

Written by a wide range of subject experts, SPEL Journal includes accessible commentary on topical subjects and current issues; details of new legislation and significant court cases; expert comment on key planning appeal decisions, government circulars and guidance; as well as notes about ombudsman cases and book reviews.

SPEL Journal is read by decision makers in Scottish planning authorities, planning law practices, planning consultancies, architects, surveyors, civil engineers, environmental managers and developers across Scotland. It is also valued by many practitioners outside of Scotland who need to keep abreast of developments.


An annual subscription to SPEL Journal is £145. For further details or a sample copy, please contact Christine Eccleson on 0141 574 1905 or email christine.eccleson@Idoxgroup.com.

A moving story: how Idox’s new office in Glasgow became a piece of history

In September, the Idox Information Service moved into our new home. Along with our colleagues in the wider Idox Group, we relocated from the Scottish Legal Life Assurance Building in Glasgow’s Bothwell Street to the Grosvenor Building in Gordon Street, just a few blocks away.

If our previous office could be described in terms of “Grand Designs”, our new workplace is definitely about “location, location, location”. Situated directly opposite Glasgow Central Station, the Grosvenor Building really is in the middle of things.

And, just like our previous home, our new Glasgow office has an interesting and distinguished history. It was designed by one of Britain’s greatest architects – Alexander Thomson (often referred to as “Greek” Thomson because of his signature Graeco-Egyptian style).


From ecclesiastical site to commercial centre

The site was originally occupied by the Gordon Street United Presbyterian Church. In 1859, Alexander Thomson and his brother George persuaded the congregation to sell the church, and in its place they built a commercial property, with street-level shops and a warehouse on the upper floor.

The building’s façade bears the hallmarks of a “Greek” Thomson original, with his familiar ornate columns on the lower storeys. It was completed in 1861, but three years later, the warehouse caught fire and had to be rebuilt. After another fire, in 1901, the building was restored, but this time with a new superstructure on top of the existing warehouse.

 

This extension, designed by James Craigie, continued the classical theme, with elongated columns and twin baroque domes. But while some regard the additional layer as complementing Thomson’s theme, more critical observers believe that it detracts from his original vision.

Style and substance

The extension, however, was to become one of the most sophisticated meeting places in Glasgow. With a magnificent marble staircase sweeping up to a stylish restaurant, and function rooms containing stained glass windows and crystal chandeliers, The Grosvenor (which gave the building its present name) was a place to see and be seen. Later, when the staircase was removed, many couples who had celebrated their wedding receptions at The Grosvenor, bought up pieces of the marble as souvenirs.

Yet another fire, in 1967, put an end to fine dining at The Grosvenor, and for many years the building lay empty. Today, after an extensive refurbishment, The Grosvenor building is home to a suite of modern offices, although it retains its classical façade.

An architectural legacy

A fine building in its own right, The Grosvenor also has some elegant architectural neighbours, including the Grand Central Hotel, the Ca’D’Oro and another of Alexander Thomson’s masterpieces – the Egyptian Halls.

For a long time after his death in 1875, Thomson’s work was neglected, and even today the future of the Egyptian Halls remains in doubt. Elsewhere, both in Glasgow and beyond, “Greek” Thomson is becoming almost as well-known as that other celebrated Glaswegian architect, Charles Rennie Mackintosh. And it’s worth noting that the money raised from the sale of the Gordon Street site in 1859 went on to fund one of Alexander Thomson’s greatest buildings – the St Vincent Street Church.

It’s good to know that Alexander Thomson’s legacy is being preserved in The Grosvenor Building, and that the latest chapter in the story of Idox will be written into Glasgow’s architectural and social history.

Housing models for the future

Housing is one of the challenges of our time. The task for architects and designers is to create affordable, robust housing that can accommodate the needs of a rapidly growing, but also ageing population. And it’s not as easy as simply building. The demands and expectations on house builders to also be community builders and the architects of mental and physical wellbeing through design have led architects and designers to consider alternative ways to house us in the future. This includes innovative use of materials and construction methods, addressing the issue of financing through co-operative living models and using bespoke design to create lifetime homes which can be adapted to accommodate the changing needs of our population.

Large-scale development

One of the big challenges for urban areas is large-scale development strategies for designing and delivering housing to meet need. For developers and planners going forward there are a number of factors to consider: the type of investment introduced to an area; how the schemes fit with a wider development plan for the city; and the importance of engaging the community in any plans to develop or regenerate an area.

“Placemaking”, not just house building is central to large scale development discussions, emphasising to planners, architects and developers the fact that they are not just building houses, but creating communities. As a result, designers and developers should be mindful of their important role in community building, to build the right sort of homes in the right places, at affordable prices and with a legacy in mind. They should, create high quality, long lasting units, which will stand the test of time but that also can be easily adapted to accommodate people’s changing needs.

Alternative construction and design

Innovative models and options for future builds have been discussed for a number of years but they are becoming an increasingly mainstream way to build affordable housing that meets the current need, particularly of students and young professionals, and of older populations looking to downsize or move into assisted care accommodation.

Offsite manufacture or modular homes  Offsite manufacture of timber framed houses is becoming increasingly common, with the constituent pieces of the house manufactured off site, then transported to the site and constructed on a concrete block where foundations and services such as plumbing have already been created. Offsite housing can either be open panel, which requires the finishing such as bathroom and kitchen installation to be done on site, or closed panel which provide the entire section complete with decoration and flooring (this is becoming a common way to build cheap, efficient student housing).

Custom build  Custom build projects are similar to self-build in that they give clients flexibility to select their own design and layout, However, custom build provides slightly more structure and certainty which can make it easier when considering elements like financing and planning applications. In essence, customers select the spec of their house in the same way they might make custom modifications to a car.

Build to rent  This model has been adapted from the United States, where build to rent is popular. The model is based on self-contained flats, with central and shared amenities, entrance and communal space. Designed to attract graduates and young professionals, these are being increasingly designed using a “user first” approach. Developers identify the sort of person they want to live in the development, identify what sort of things they might look for in a development, including floor type, furniture, layout, amenities, gadgets, and then build the development around that.

Dementia friendly – Building homes that are safe and affordable, but allow for independence in old age, is one of the major demands on house builders currently. Housing stock is seen as not suitable for current need, but building bespoke sites for people with illnesses like dementia has been seen as a bit of a niche previously. Virtual Reality (VR) is being used by some architects and developers to try to help them understand the needs and requirements of people with dementia and how they can build homes suitable for them to be able to live as independent and full lives as possible. Building dementia friendly homes not only means making them accessible and open plan, but also adapting the layout, adding signage where appropriate and if possible locating the homes within a wider community development. Dementia villages like those seen in Amsterdam are being used as the model for this.

Co-housing

Co- housing offers an alternative to communities in Scotland, and while lessons can be learned from elsewhere in Europe, where co- housing models have been successful, there are also pockets of good and emerging practice in the UK too. More traditional examples include Berlin, where almost 1 in 10 new homes follow the Baugruppe model, and Amsterdam (centraal wonen) where some of the oldest co-housing projects originate. In Denmark, 8% of households use co-housing models.

Co-housing provides the opportunity for groups of people to come together and form a community which is created and run by its residents. Each household has a self-contained, private home as well as shared community space. Residents come together to manage their community, share activities, and regularly eat together. A “Self-build Cooperative Group” is a joint venture between several private households who plan and build their own house together. Usually they are supported by an architect. Often co- housing groups are able to realise high-quality living space at prices below local market rates, although it is not really considered suitable for large-scale development within the current UK market.

Opportunities for a new way forward

Practitioners are often challenged to push the boundaries of design and building in their field. Looking to new models for future building design provides an opportunity to think creatively about alternative uses of materials and space and to consider options for construction, funding and investment in the built environment that challenge the norm. Learning lessons and exchanging ideas from elsewhere, architects and planners have the opportunity to come together to consider how the built environment in Scotland can help to create places  not just buildings  and how this can contribute positively to the wider wellbeing and happiness of people living in Scotland in the future.


Follow us on Twitter to see what topics our research officers are interested in.

If you liked this article, you may also like:

Helping people with dementia to live well through good urban design

Planning for later life … where does retirement housing fit in strategic planning?

Berlin Brandenburg: the airport that failed to take off

The UK has had its fair share of landmark construction projects that struggled to reach their completion targets and suffered from soaring costs. Wembley Stadium, Edinburgh’s tram network, and the Scottish Parliament are just some examples of major projects affected by delays and cost over-runs.

But the significant problems affecting these sites appear minor in comparison with the seemingly never-ending story of Berlin’s Brandenburg Airport. It has become a copybook example of flawed project management, and dented Germany’s reputation for efficiency and engineering excellence.

 The economic importance of airports

Once regarded alternately as glamorous gateways or noisy nuisances, these days it’s hard to overstate the significance of airports, not only to their locality, but to national economies.

In 2015, a study found that European airports and associated aviation activity create and facilitate a total of almost 12.5 million jobs, or 675 billion euro in gross domestic product (GDP) each year (that’s just over 4% of the entire European economy). The report noted that, aside from the economic importance of the aviation sector, wider economic activities are facilitated and supported by the connectivity that airports deliver:

“Tourists can spend money in previously unreachable locations. Businesses can produce goods to be consumed in far corners of the world. Investors can set up new offices, call centres and factories exactly where they are needed.”

In the UK, Heathrow Airport has been estimated to support 120,000 jobs and contributes £6.2 billion to the national economy, while Manchester Airport contributes £1.7bn each year to the North West’s economy.

At the same time, delays to the development of airports can have significant negative impacts on economic competitiveness.  The CBI has warned that uncertainty surrounding the construction of a new runway at Heathrow could cost the UK more than £30bn by 2030.

A new airport for a reunited city

Berlin Brandenburg Airport (BER) was supposed to be one of the symbols of the reunited German capital. First announced in 2006, it was intended to replace Berlin’s existing smaller airports – Tempelhof, Tegel and Schönefeld – and to handle a projected 20 million annual passengers.

But, almost from the start, the project ran into difficulties. Property speculators learned of the planned acquisition of new land by the airport authority, bought up the properties and drove up the price. As one observer noted: “The airport corporation was half a billion euros in debt before ground had even been broken.”

As the project grew, so too did the problems. The 2008 global financial crisis meant banks were reluctant to issue loans for the new airport, and private investors backed out. The planned 2011 opening of BER was pushed back to the following year.

Growing faults, soaring costs

In the spring of 2012, all seemed set for BER’s grand opening, with Chancellor Angela Merkel and 10,000 guests invited to attend. But with just a few days’ notice, the inauguration was cancelled due to a fault with fire alarms and smoke extractors.

Hundreds of staff hired by shops for the new airport had to be let go, and airlines that had moved baggage handling facilities to BER had to move them back to Tegel – their claims for damages adding further to the spiralling costs.

The cost overrun of the extraction system added half a billion euro to the budget, and noise protection demanded by nearby residents another 600 million euro. But this was just the tip of a Titanic-sized iceberg.

Hans Brandt, in a report for Deutsche Welle has described the growing list of faults with BER:

“90km of electrical cables were incorrectly installed; all 4000 doors were incorrectly numbered; the escalators were too short; the planner-in-chief was not an engineer, but an imposter; and, last but not least, the emergency line to the fire department was not installed.”

The flight not now departing…

Further scheduled opening dates – May 2013, March 2013, October 2013 – have come and gone. Gone too are some of the key figures involved in the project, including Berlin’s mayor, Klaus Wowereit, whose high-profile role in the project sank his chances of challenging Angela Merkel as Chancellor of Germany. Last year, the airport’s spokesman was fired after claiming in a newspaper interview that “no one, unless he is addicted to drugs, will give you any fixed guarantees for this airport.”

The most unsurprising announcement of 2017 came in January, when BER’s project chief confirmed that the airport would not open this year – the latest hold-up: faulty wiring for 1200 doors.

In the meantime, Berlin’s popularity as a tourist and conference destination has reached stratospheric heights. Tempelhof Airport closed in 2008, but last year Tegel and Schönefeld airports handled over 30 million passengers, higher than any recorded for a single year. As a result, it’s now claimed that on the day that BER finally opens, it will already be under capacity, and will have to be extended.

Capacity problems have prompted many to call for Tegel Airport to remain open after BER eventually becomes operational. Last month, a non-binding referendum saw a majority of Berliners voting in favour of retaining Tegel. However, the airport and city authorities continue to insist that Tegel will be turned into a business park once BER opens.

A byword for ineptitude

As things stand, there is still no firm opening date for BER, and the initial cost estimate of around 2 billion euro has reached nearly 6.5 billion euro.

It’s not unknown for major projects to bounce back from failure:

  • The Scottish Parliament – three years late and ten times over budget – is now a working legislature and has won awards for its architecture, including the prestigious RIBA Stirling prize for the best building in the UK.
  • Wembley Stadium opened in 2007, after years of delay and tripling its cost. But in 2015-16 the venue posted record revenue of £370 million.
  • The Millennium Dome in London, which spent much of its early years being ridiculed as a waste of public money, is today a world-class entertainment venue.

On the other hand, Berlin’s airport authorities might be looking nervously at the experience of Montreal’s Mirabel Airport. Designed to replace the existing Dorval airport that was nearing capacity in 1975, Mirabel never managed to win the support of travellers. In the 1990s, Dorval was reopened to international traffic, while Mirabel was abandoned and eventually demolished.

There are so many lessons to be learned from the BER fiasco that perhaps it would be easier for future project managers to study BER’s entire experience as a model for how not to build an airport.

The German word for ineptitude is unbeholfenheit. But, until Berlin Brandenburg Airport is finally operational, perhaps “BER” can be used as shorthand for any major project that fails to get off the ground.


The Knowledge Exchange provides information services to local authorities, public agencies, research consultancies and commercial organisations across the UK. Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in policy and practice are interesting our research team. 

SURF conference 2017 – What Scotland has learned from 25 years of regeneration

Mural of a taxi being elevated by ballons, Glasgow

Fantastical floating taxi mural, part of Glasgow’s City Centre Mural Trail

By Steven McGinty

If regeneration has been so successful, why are there still so many pilots?

This was just one of the many thought-provoking points raised at the Scottish Urban Regeneration Forum’s (SURF) 25th Anniversary Conference, where the very activity of regeneration was put under the microscope.

In a packed room of delegates, the day opened with two opposing views.

  • The first argued that although regeneration had undoubtedly had its failures, there had been a number of important successes, which had resulted in better places and opportunities for both communities and individuals.
  • The second – and more pessimistic perspective – was that regeneration policy had entirely failed, and that the areas experiencing poverty and deprivation had barely changed over the past 25 years (particularly in Glasgow, where much of the regeneration activity has been focused).

This provided a useful lens through which to view regeneration, as we moved onto a day of workshops and debates on 25 years of regeneration policy, starting from New Life for Urban Scotland all the way up to City Region Deals.

Below I’ve outlined some of the most interesting points to come from these sessions.

Universal income

There was broad agreement that regeneration was about more than building homes, and that one of its core purposes was to tackle inequality.

Universal Basic Income is a policy in which everyone in society is given a sum of money, without any conditions. This policy – likely to be popular – was proposed by a delegate, highlighting its potential for addressing increasing levels of income inequality. A pilot study is already underway in Finland, with participants reporting lower stress levels and greater incentive to work. The Scottish Government has also recently committed to funding local experiments in Fife, Glasgow and North Ayrshire Councils.

Communities need assets

In many of the debates, it was felt that community ownership of buildings and land was key to ensuring a fairer distribution of society’s wealth. Other benefits of community ownership include protecting key local services/facilities (which may have otherwise been lost) and offering better stewardship, as the community have a greater understanding of local needs.

Research has also shown that local communities – who have replaced private landlords – have outperformed the landlords they have replaced. In the past two decades, the value of their land has increased by almost 250%.

Distinctiveness of place

Delegates highlighted that local areas often need local solutions.  For instance, a representative from the Bute Island Alliance noted that addressing their declining population was key to their regeneration goals.

Community consultation

There was a strong feeling that communities had to be consulted. A representative from a local charity explained that “if you are working for a community, then it must include the community”. Others, suggested that some communities would not have the capacity to make decisions on regeneration projects. Yet, this was quickly deemed patronising, with many noting the series of failures by public officials.

Charrettes were seen as an ideal tool for consulting with communities. The Scottish Government define a charrette as:

an interactive design process, in which the public and stakeholders work directly with a specialised design team to generate a community vision, masterplan and action plan.”

The representative from the Bute Island Alliance highlighted that this process had been very helpful in the development of their regeneration plans.

Bringing communities together

It was widely acknowledged that communities are becoming more diverse, and that it’s important to include all members of society. One delegate recounted her experience of Social Inclusion Partnerships (SIPs) – an initiative which aimed to reduce social exclusion – explaining that this model was very successful at engaging with black and minority ethnic (BME) groups. We’ve also seen the Scottish Government recognise the need to encourage young people to get involved in local planning decisions.

Building an inclusive economy

Regeneration has always found it difficult to respond to wider political, economic, social and technological factors. Over decades, deindustrialisation and the change to a more knowledge-based economy has caused significant challenges for communities. For regeneration policy to be successful, it was suggested that people would need to be equipped with the skills to take part in future industries; otherwise we may see inequalities widen. Cities such as Dublin have seen rents increased dramatically due to the inward migration of highly-skilled technology workers, putting pressure on household budgets and showing the challenge for regeneration.

Final thoughts

In the past 25 years there has been an important shift in regeneration, moving from house building programmes to a more holistic approach, which includes policy areas such as health, employment, and the environment. However, the most recent Scottish Government regeneration strategy was published in 2011. It might therefore be time to revisit this strategy and provide a new vision for regeneration, taking recent learning and the changing environment into account. Maybe then, in the next 25 years, there will be no doubt over the successes of regeneration.


The Knowledge Exchange provides information services to local authorities, public agencies, research consultancies and commercial organisations across the UK. Follow us on Twitter to see what developments in policy and practice are interesting our research team. 

Highlights of the SPEL conference 2017

This year’s Scottish Planning and Environmental Law conference, held in Edinburgh’s COSLA building, focused on Anticipating and preparing for change and covered a range of topics from the impact of Brexit on planning and environmental law in Scotland to how planning and planners can help tackle the growing housing crisis. Delegates were given the opportunity to reflect on the challenges for planning and environmental law in Scotland as well as the great opportunities the next few years may present to the profession.

Bringing the planning profession together

The conference provided an opportunity for professionals from across the planning and law professions to come together to discuss some of the key challenges to their profession going forward. While Brexit was high on the list of discussion topics, the possibilities for reform, and the opportunities for practitioners to learn and share their experiences and knowledge with one another, for what is now the 26th year of SPEL, continued to be at the heart of the conference discussions.

Is planning fit for purpose?

Chaired by Stuart Gale QC, from event sponsors Terra Firma Chambers, the conference was opened by Greg Lloyd who addressed the issue of the “distinctiveness” of the Scottish planning system, asking the question, “Is planning fit for purpose?” In the context of Brexit and with the benefit of years of planning knowledge, Greg discussed the performance of planning and how its modernisation is equipping planners to deal with challenges in the future.

The Rt. Hon Brian Wilson, former UK energy minister, spoke next on the challenges energy targets are posing not only for environmental lawyers and practitioners but also for planners. He discussed how the drive to achieve energy targets both in renewable and traditional energy generation needs to be tackled as much by planners as environmentalists and politicians. He also highlighted the need to meet the growing demand for energy by helping to reduce energy use and tackle wider socioeconomic issues relating to energy in Scotland.

Brexit – the impact on planning

The morning session was brought to a close firstly by Laura Tainsh from Davidson Chalmers who spoke about the intricacies, expectations, challenges and potential opportunities for environmental law and practitioners in Scotland following the UK’s decision to leave the EU. She highlighted the importance of ensuring that the essential elements of environmental law are retained within any future UK or Scottish legislation and that a system is created which provides an opportunity for robust scrutiny and maintenance of standards, specifically in relation to the consistency of application. She also discussed some of the ways in which existing principles and policies can be future proofed. Following on from Laura, Robert Sutherland gave an overview of recent developments in community right to buy in Scotland.

The morning session also included a case law roundup which reviewed and discussed recent significant cases including: RSPB vs Scottish Ministers (2017); Douglas vs Perth and Kinross Council (2017); and Wildland ltd vs Scottish Ministers (2017).

Delivering new housing

The afternoon opened with a panel session, where speakers tackled the million-dollar question of whether planning reform will assist in the delivery of new homes to help tackle the growing housing crisis. Speakers from Renfrewshire council, the University of Glasgow, house builder Taylor Wimpey, and Rettie & Co. discussed a range of topics from barriers to the delivery of homes and infrastructure, to the setting of national housebuilding targets, as well as the challenge of building the right sort of housing, in the right place at the right cost, and the role of local authorities in meeting housing need.

The afternoon session included a second case law roundup which saw review and discussion of recent significant cases including: Taylor Wimpey vs Scottish Ministers (2016); Angus Estates (Carnoustie) LLP vs Angus Kinross Council (2017); and Hopkins Homes Ltd. vs Scottish Ministers (2017).

The role of planning in driving inclusive growth

The conference was closed by self-professed “economic agitator” Ross Martin, who discussed the role of planning more widely within Scotland’s economy and its role as an agent for driving inclusive growth. He stressed the need for planners and other related professionals to look at the “bigger picture” when it comes to planning, using the system as the engine for growth and development, rather than as a barrier, and challenged those in the room to think creatively about how planning can play a role in strategic, but inclusive growth in Scotland going forward.

Some of the key points of discussion to come out of the conference were:

  • Planners, and planning lawyers need to recognise the importance of the wider social and economic context on their decision making, even if that decision only relates to one single building
  • Brexit is providing a lot of uncertainty and raising a lot of questions about the future of planning and environmental law in Scotland and the UK as a whole, but it may provide an opportunity for practitioners to take the lead and shape the system in a way that better suits current needs
  • There is scope and appetite, following the UK’s decision to leave the EU, to create a specialist planning and environmental law court to help scrutinise decisions and fill the void left by the EU in terms of accountability and implementation of environmental law, practice and strategy going forward

SPEL Journal is a bi- monthly journal published by the Idox Information Service. The journal is unique in covering all aspects of planning and environmental law in Scotland. Each issue contains articles on new legislation, significant court cases, expert comment on key planning appeals, government circulars and guidance, ombudsman cases and book reviews. SPEL deals with matters of practical concern to practitioners both in the public and private sector. Please contact Christine Eccleson at christine.eccleson@idoxgroup.com if you are interested in learning more about the journal or our subscription rates.

Follow us on Twitter to see what developments are interesting our research team.

If you enjoyed this blog, you may also be interested in our other articles: 

Prize-winning planners take a bow: winners of the RTPI Awards for Research Excellence

At this week’s Planning Research Conference, hosted by Queen’s University in Belfast, the winners were announced for the 2017 Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) Awards for Research Excellence.

These awards recognise the best spatial planning research from the RTPI’s accredited planning schools, and highlight the implications of academic research for policy and practice. In addition, the awards recognise the valuable contribution of planning consultancies to planning research and promote planning research in general.

Idox is proud to have supported the awards since 2015, and this year we sponsored three of the five awards.

 

Student Award

Winner:

Tangible Places for Intangible Products: The Role of Space in the Creative Digital Economy, Tech City, London

Dr Juliana Martins (Bartlett School of Planning, University College London)

Juliana’s research explores the relationship between space and creative digital production in the Shoreditch area of East London. It seeks to identify the spatial conditions that mediate and support the operation of digital industries in inner-city locations.

The prize for the winner of the Student Award is a one year subscription to the Idox Information Service and an iPad mini.

Commended:

Exploring the Potential of Technology in Enabling the Inclusive Co-Production of Space

David Corbett, University of Cape Town

 

Sir Peter Hall Award for Wider Engagement

Winner:

An Economic Geography of the United States: From Commutes to Megaregions

Dr Alasdair Rae (University of Sheffield), with Dr Garrett Nelson (Dartmouth College)

The award-winning research provides a new perspective on the functional economic geography of the United States, drawing on data from more than four million commuter flows as the basis for the identification of large-scale “megaregions”.

The prize for the winner of the Sir Peter Hall Wider Engagement Award is £350 towards one paid conference fee bursary to a practitioner or policy-focused conference.

Commended:

A Sustainable and Resilient Northern Power House: A Charrette for the North

Sue Kidd (University of Liverpool), Dr Sebastian Dembski (University of Liverpool), Dr John Sturzaker (University of Liverpool), Dr Alex Nurse (University of Liverpool), Dr Sam Hayes (University of Liverpool)

 

Planning Consultancy Award

Winner:

Start to Finish: How Quickly Do Large-Scale Housing Sites Deliver?

Rachel Clements (Lichfields)

At the heart of Rachel’s research is a recognition that the need to deliver more housing requires an understanding of the length of time it takes for sites to come forward and the rate at which they deliver homes. Rachel’s research provides wide-ranging insight and analysis on the lead-in times, planning period and delivery phases of large-scale housing sites.

The prize for the Planning Consultancy Award is one Planning Convention place and two one year’s individual memberships to the Idox Information Service.

Commended:

Retirement Living Explained

Sam Clark (University of Newcastle) and Andrew Burgess (Planning Issues Ltd), with Housing LIN and Churchill Retirement Living

 

In addition, the following award-winners were also announced:

Academic Award

Winner:

Cycle BOOM. Design for Lifelong Health and Wellbeing. Summary of Key Findings and Recommendations

Dr Tim Jones (Oxford Brookes University), Dr Ben Spencer (Oxford Brookes University), Nick Beale (Oxford Brookes University), Dr Emma Street (University of Reading), Dr Carlen Van Reekum (University of Reading), Dr Louise-Ann Leyland (University of Reading), Dr Kiron Chatterjee (University of West of England), Dr Heather Jones (University of West of England), Dr Justin Spinney (Cardiff University), Carl Mann (Cardiff University), Shaun Williams (Cardiff University)

Early Career Researcher Award

Winner:

Neighbourhood Cohesion under the Influx of Migrants in Shanghai

Dr Zheng Wang (Bartlett School of Planning, University College London), with Dr Fangzhu Zhang (Bartlett School of Planning, University College London), Professor Fulong Wu (Bartlett School of Planning, University College London)


The full list of finalists in this year’s awards is available on the RTPI website, and information on past entries and winners is also available.

In this 2016 blog post, Dr Paul Cowie, whose Town Meeting project won the 2015 Sir Peter Hall Award for Wider Engagement, reflects on the impact of winning an RTPI Award for Research Excellence.

The Idox Information Service is the first port of call for information and knowledge on public and social policy and practice. For 40 years the service has been saving its members time and money, and helping them to make more informed decisions, improve frontline services and understand the policy environment.

For more information see: http://informationservice.idoxgroup.com

In partnership with RTPI, the Idox Information Service has introduced an individual membership offer, which provides a 30% discount on the normal price.

Countdown to the RTPI Awards for Research Excellence

Here at the Idox Information Service, we see our core mission as improving decision making in public policy by improving access to research and evidence. So we are proud once again to be playing a part in the RTPI Awards for Research Excellence.

The awards are intended to recognise the best spatial planning research from the Royal Town Planning Institute’s accredited planning schools, and to highlight the implications of academic research for policy and practice. In addition, the awards recognise the valuable contribution of planning consultancies to planning research and promote planning research generally.

Shortlisted entries

Earlier this month, the shortlist for the 2017 awards was announced. The shortlisted entries for the awards supported by the Idox Information Service are:

Student Award

 

  • Exploring the Potential of Technology in Enabling the Inclusive Co-Production of Space

David Corbett (University of Cape Town)

  • The Impact of Land Ownership Patterns on Delivery of New Housing in Brighton and Hove

Amy Kennedy (University of Brighton)

  • The Impact of Housing Related Welfare Reforms on the Enactment of Front-line Housing Practices

Nathan Makwana (University of Sheffield)

  • Tangible Places for Intangible Products: The Role of Space in the Creative Digital Economy, Tech City, London

Dr Juliana Martins (Bartlett School of Planning, University College London)


Sir Peter Hall Award for Wider Engagement

 

  • A Sustainable and Resilient Northern Power House: A Charrette for the North

Sue Kidd (University of Liverpool), Dr Sebastian Dembski (University of Liverpool), Dr John Sturzaker (University of Liverpool), Dr Alex Nurse (University of Liverpool), Dr Sam Hayes (University of Liverpool)

  • An Economic Geography of the United States: From Commutes to Megaregions

Dr Alasdair Rae (University of Sheffield), with Dr Garrett Nelson (Dartmouth College)


Planning Consultancy Award

 

  • Start to Finish: How Quickly Do Large-Scale Housing Sites Deliver?

Rachel Clements (Lichfields)

  • Night Blight: Mapping England’s Light Pollution and Dark Skies

Diana Manson (Land Use Consultants), Chris Green (Land Use Consultants), Emma Marrington (Campaign to Protect Rural England)

  • Retirement Living Explained

Sam Clark (University of Newcastle) and Andrew Burgess (Planning Issues Ltd), with Housing LIN and Churchill Retirement Living

The shortlist is available on the RTPI website. The winners and runners-up will be announced on 12 September during the 2017 UK-Ireland Planning Research Conference at Queen’s University Belfast.

This is the third time that Idox has given its support to the RTPI Awards for Research Excellence. Information about previous award-winners can be found here.

In this 2016 blog post, Dr Paul Cowie, whose Town Meeting project won the 2015 Sir Peter Hall Award for Wider Engagement, reflects on the impact of winning an RTPI Award for Research Excellence.


The Idox Information Service is the first port of call for information and knowledge on public and social policy and practice. For 40 years the service has been saving its members time and money, and helping them to make more informed decisions, improve frontline services and understand the policy environment.

For more information see: http://informationservice.idoxgroup.com

In partnership with RTPI, the Idox Information Service has introduced an individual membership offer, which provides a 30% discount on the normal price.