Idox is pleased once again to be supporting the RTPI Awards for Research Excellence for 2021.
These awards recognise and promote high quality, impactful spatial planning research from RTPI accredited planning schools and planning practitioners in the UK, the Republic of Ireland and internationally.
The 2021 Awards competition is now open and there is still plenty of time to enter – the deadline for entries is 17 May 2021.
About the Awards
The RTPI Awards for Research Excellence are intended to:
recognise the best spatial planning research from RTPI accredited planning schools;
highlight the implications of academic research for policy and practice;
recognise the valuable contribution of planning consultancies to planning research; and
promote planning research generally.
The award categories are:
Early Career Researcher Award, aimed at researchers at the beginning phase of their academic careers;
Student Award, for students who are working towards or have recently completed a non-research university degree;
Sir Peter Hall Award for Wider Engagement, which recognises high-quality research that is likely to make an immediate impact beyond academia;
Planning Practitioner Award, open to non-academic planning practitioners and organisations conducting valuable research with the potential to inform planning policy and/or practice.
Idox: supporting the planning profession
As the UK’s leading provider of planning and building control solutions to local authorities, Idox actively engages with issues affecting the planning profession. And here at the Knowledge Exchange, we see our core mission as improving decision making in public policy by improving access to research and evidence.
This is the seventh time that Idox has given its support to the RTPI Awards for Research Excellence, and we will once again be sponsoring the Planning Practitioner Award, the Student Award, and the Sir Peter Hall Award for Research Excellence.
Winners in 2020
In 2020, the Sir Peter Hall Award for Research Excellence was awarded to Professor Anthony Crook from the University of Sheffield and Professor Christine Whitehead from the London School of Economics for their research looking at how far ‘unearned increments’, particularly those arising with planning permission, should be taxed for the public good.
Jacob George of Newcastle University won the Student Award for his research into the much-debated permitted development right for office-to-residential conversions, focusing uniquely on its social impacts in a city in northern England.
The Planning Practitioner Award for 2020 went to Lucia Cerrada Morato and Becky Mumford of the Place Shaping Team at the London Borough of Tower Hamlets for their research exploring the lives of residents living in high density and tall buildings.
The Early Career Researcher category was won by Dr Hannah Budnitz from the University of Birmingham, with Professor Lee Chapman, also from the University of Birmingham, and Dr Emmanouil Tranos from the University of Bristol. Their research found that by proactively addressing the accessibility of non-work destinations, planners can help telecommuters travel more sustainably.
Further details on the award categories, application guidance and entry forms, are available from the RTPI here. The closing date for applications to the awards is 5pm on Monday 17 May 2021.
The winners of the RTPI Awards for Research Excellence 2021 will be announced at an awards ceremony, to be held virtually by Newcastle University on the afternoon of Wednesday 8 September 2021.
In recent years, there has been a wide ranging debate across the housing, planning, health and infrastructure sectors about the development of healthy places in both regeneration and newly approved projects.
It is clear that everyone involved in placemaking agrees building places that promote health and wellbeing for all is of vital importance to our communities, The Covid-19 pandemic brought this into sharp focus, and the idea remains at the forefront of design policy, particularly in urban city contexts. But, over four years after the initial conversations and thought pieces, why are we still talking about it, and what actions still need to be taken to integrate the idea of a healthy place into planning to the extent that it just becomes the norm in the planning and design of our places?
Preventing avoidable disease
The phrase ‘healthy placemaking’ has been defined by Design Council as: “Tackling preventable disease by shaping the built environment so that healthy activities and experiences are integral to people’s everyday lives”.
Public Health England defined healthy placemaking as: “Placemaking that takes into consideration neighbourhood design (such as increasing walking and cycling), improved quality of housing, access to healthier food, conservation of, and access to natural and sustainable environments, and improved transport and connectivity”
Research has shown preventable diseases linked to lifestyle and environment are among the most significant threats to public health. Lifestyle-related conditions like heart disease and cancer, as well as being health problems in their own right, can also contribute to the development of other chronic conditions, exacerbate symptoms and create complications with care which are costly to the NHS.
Healthy places also have a preventative role to play in public health management, not just a health improvement role; such interventions are essential to help avert the onset of disease, improve people’s quality of life and reduce health inequalities. And evidence shows the return on investment from public health interventions is high and creates value of different kinds – economic, social and personal.
In short people who live in healthy places, tend to live healthier lives, place less strain on services and “contribute” more to society, both economically through work or spending and socially through community engagement.
Victoria Park, Belfast. Image: Fiona Ann Paterson
Enabling planning practitioners to think about creating healthy places
Research published in 2020 by the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) explored local, national and international planning practices that enable the creation and delivery of healthy places. While a lot of research draws attention to the barriers to building healthy places – including a lack of funding, different requirements from developers and conflicting policy priorities – the RTPI report instead sought to identify important challenges faced by planners who try to integrate healthy placemaking principles in their decisions and then offer potential solutions to these in practice. Key themes emerging from the report include a need to improve collaboration, knowledge sharing and the skills of planners.
The report provides case studies looking at: the place standard tool; the livewell development accreditation; connecting communities in Tower Hamlets; health planning in South Worcestershire; and train station district rejuvenation in Grasse, France. It also identifies seven steps to plan for healthier environments
Across the sector there have been calls for planners to be allowed to be innovative, creative and take a “visionary” approach to planning to help make places healthier in order to address the convergence of challenges around public health, the climate emergency, and economic recovery from Covid-19.
How has the coronavirus pandemic changed how we think about healthy spaces?
The lockdowns imposed as a result of the coronavirus pandemic have thrown the importance of quality space into sharp focus. Places that facilitate health and wellbeing among the people who live there, and places where the indoor living quality is as important as the outdoor space have become incredibly important.
The pandemic has highlighted what it really means to have a healthy space. It has also demonstrated how wider socioeconomic deprivation and inequality – linked to living conditions as well as other factors – is having an impact on infection and hospital admission rates, with those groups who live in more deprived areas being found to be at a higher risk of becoming seriously ill or being admitted to hospital with Covid-19.
The 2018 Design council report found in its survey of practitioners that focus was given far more to outdoor space than to indoors, as it was easier and more cost effective to make changes that could produce demonstrable impacts (an increase in cycling, for example). But the pandemic and the increased time we have been forced to spend indoors has encouraged designers and urban planners to think even more creatively about quality space in their developments.
Public Health England (PHE) which for many years was a strong voice in the conversations around healthy placemaking has been disbanded and will be replaced by a National Institute of Health Protection. It remains to be seen how, or if this new organisation will fit into the conversation going forward. But reflecting on recent reports on the significant public health crisis facing the UK in the long term, it is clear that the work must continue, driven collectively by those in planning, urban design and public health.
Follow us on Twitter to find out which topic are interesting our research team
Last week, we reported on a series of webinars organised by Partners in Planning, a partnership of key organisations and sectors to support Scotland’s planners in delivering successful places.
This week, we’re looking at a further webinar in this series, which focused on the creation of low carbon places.
Planning for carbon conscious places
Steve Malone and Heather Claridge from Architecture & Design Scotland (A&DS) opened the webinar by describing how A&DS have been exploring how the challenge of climate change can act as a driver towards the creation of low carbon places.
A&DS has been supporting the Scottish Government in implementing its climate change plan at a local level. This recognises that the planning system plays a key role in tackling climate change, and helping Scotland achieve its carbon emission targets.
Over the course of a year, A&DS worked with four local authorities to develop and deliver plans that prioritised climate action. As a result, a number of key principles of a carbon conscious place were identified.
A place-led approach
A place of small distances
A place designed for and with local people
A place with whole and circular systems
A place that supports sharing (of assets and services)
These principles are closely connected with ideas identified in earlier work by A&DS which explored how placemaking can tackle the challenges of an ageing population.
A&DS further developed this work to imagine the changes that might need to happen to support more carbon and caring conscious places by 2050. Earlier this year, its report Designing for a Changing Climate shared the learning from the year-long exploration into a whole place approach to the net-zero carbon challenge.
The report provided examples of each of the principles in action, and considered what Scotland would look like in 2050 if these principles were adopted for urban neighbourhoods, city centres, towns and rural areas.
Among the ideas highlighted were:
rooftops repurposed as usable areas with green space and room for urban growing
accessible zero emission public transport connecting city centres
local food growing and agroforestry helping support food self-sufficiency and security
natural flood defence schemes
peatland and woodland restoration to help a rural area absorb carbon and balance emissions
A&DS is now working with local authorities to apply these principles in real places. For example, in Clackmannanshire, the principles are being used to guide development of a mixed use housing site in Alva.
Planning as a circular economy enabler
Later in the webinar, Angela Burke and Ailie Callan from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) considered how the design of places that are conducive to the circular economy can help to tackle climate change.
Since the industrial revolution, the world’s economies have used a linear “take-make-consume-dispose” pattern of growth, a model which assumes that resources are abundant, available and cheaply disposable.
In contrast, a circular economy changes that mindset by designing-out waste and pollution, keeping products and materials in use and regenerating natural systems. These principles not only apply to resources such as consumer goods and product packaging, but also to land, water, buildings, infrastructure and energy.
Angela and Ailie went on to describe how planning can be an enabler of the circular economy. In Scotland, the planning system is set to change, with the publication of a new National Planning Framework (NPF4), which sets out where development and infrastructure is needed to support sustainable and inclusive growth.
NPF4 will address a number of high level outcomes, such as meeting the housing and wellbeing needs of the people of Scotland and meeting targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Integrating circular economy principles early in the planning process will help to deliver a number of these outcomes, and NPF4 policy will provide the framework to ensure that these principles are integrated into new developments.
Ailie provided some examples of how circular economy principles can be embedded into planning:
Brownfield sites can be redeveloped instead of developing new sites and generating higher carbon emissions.
Distribution nodes on key transport corridors can enable electric vehicles to carry out last stage of delivery, minimising emissions and reducing traffic.
Developing re-use hubs at these distribution nodes can drive down waste.
Mobility hubs can ensure that everyone is well connected, not just for public transport, but also cycle paths, routes for mobility vehicles and charging points for electric vehicles.
Planning for shops and services locally (perhaps sharing the same premises) will reduce the need to travel outside the local area.
Angela and Ailie concluded with an invitation to anyone interested in partnering with SEPA on developing the circular economy in Scotland.
20 minute neighbourhoods
In the final section of the webinar, the Scottish Government’s Chief Architect, Ian Gilzean looked at 20 minute neighbourhoods. This is not a new concept, but has gained added significance due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
20 minute neighbourhoods are all about living more locally by ensuring people have most of their daily needs met within a 20 minute walk from home. This in turn improves quality of life and reduces carbon emissions.
20 minute neighbourhoods bring together a range of characteristics, including transport, housing, schools, recreation, shopping and local employment. Recent limitations on travel due to the coronavirus have given many of us a lived experience of 20 minute neighbourhoods. But they have also brought into sharp focus the barriers preventing people from accessing work, shops and services close to where they live.
Ian went on to describe the implementation of the 20 minute neighbourhoods concept in Melbourne, Australia. Since 2017 Plan Melbourne has embraced this concept, feeding into the ambition of Melbourne to become a more liveable, connected, sustainable city. While some parts of Melbourne, such as the inner suburb of Fitzroy, already enjoy the facilities that make up a 20 minute neighbourhood, some of the outlying suburbs do not, and Plan Melbourne has been aiming to tackle some of the problems that prevent these places from delivering on the concept.
20 minute neighbourhoods appear to be an idea whose time has come. The pandemic has triggered a rise in remote working, and especially working from home. At the same time, cities have seen significant rises in cycling numbers. The economic impact of COVID-19 is still playing out, but it’s already clear that the recovery of small businesses and local services will be a priority, along with the need to reimagine urban centres.
Ian explained that these factors have all fed into the Scottish Government’s Programme for Government, which has a strong focus on localism. This in turn has generated commitments and policies on town centre and community regeneration, local working hubs and active travel infrastructure, all underpinned by the new National Planning Framework.
Ian concluded with an example of a project in the Wester Hailes district of Edinburgh, where the city council has been developing a local place plan. The plan is making the most of existing assets, such as local canal and rail connections, as well as identifying new opportunities, such as cycle routes, food growing and green spaces.
This webinar, along with others in the series, provided plenty of useful information about how Scotland is trying address climate change through the planning system, while also taking account of local communities’ needs.
Much more remains to be done if Scotland is to meet its net-zero ambitions, but it’s clear from the initiatives highlighted in these webinars that communities in partnership with local and national government and other stakeholders are working hard to create carbon conscious places.
The award-winners were announced on 7 September at an online ceremony hosted by the RTPI. The judging panel for this year’s Research Awards comprised 30 public and private sector representatives as well as academics.
The RTPI Awards for Research Excellence recognise and promote high quality, impactful spatial planning research carried out by chartered members and accredited planning schools from around the world. 17 projects were selected to compete across the four award categories. The submissions and shortlisted entries included research reflecting an interest in cross-cutting issues such as the links between planning and health, and how to deliver sustainable communities.
For a sixth year, Idox has been pleased to sponsor three of the Awards categories – the Planning Practitioner Award, the Student Award, and the Sir Peter Hall Award for Research Excellence.
The Sir Peter Hall Award for Research Excellence
The Sir Peter Hall Award for Research Excellence was awarded to Professor Anthony Crook from the University of Sheffield and Professor Christine Whitehead from the London School of Economics for their entry Capturing development value, principles and practice: why is it so difficult? The paper looks at how far ‘unearned increments’, particularly those arising with planning permission, should be taxed for the public good.
The judges, considered this research to be of critical importance to contemporary planning debate:
“Drawing on English experience, it provides transferable lessons and will no doubt be a key resource for understanding value capture generally and planning-based value capture in particular.”
The winner of the Student Award was Jacob George of Newcastle University for his research entitled Accommodation Through Deregulation: Understanding the Social Impacts of Office-Residential Permitted Development in Newcastle upon Tyne.
Jacob’s research investigated the much-debated permitted development right for office-to-residential conversions, focusing uniquely on its social impacts in a city in northern England.
The judges commended the research’s intellectual rigour, methodology and presentation:
“Through evaluating the impacts of the expansion of Permitted Development Rights in the North-East of England this entry brings a much needed wider geographical scope to this area of research and discussion.”
Planning Practitioner Award
The Planning Practitioner Award went to Lucia Cerrada Morato and Becky Mumford of the Place Shaping Team at the London Borough of Tower Hamlets for their High Density Living Supplementary Planning Document.
The research, exploring the lives of residents living in high density and tall buildings will be used to develop and evidence design guidelines to ensure that future development supports good quality of life for all residents living and working in these buildings.
The judges were impressed by the scale of the survey work, and looked forward to more local planning authorities taking up practical research in this way.
Shining a light on planning research
A further award in the Early Career Researcher category was won by Dr Hannah Budnitz from the University of Birmingham, with Professor Lee Chapman, also from the University of Birmingham, and Dr Emmanouil Tranos from the University of Bristol. Their research found that proactively addressing the accessibility of non-work destinations, planners can help telecommuters travel more sustainably.
The judges described the research as “thorough and robust, offering the potential for further research into sustainable land use and transport planning, with wider application internationally.”
RTPI President Sue Manns FRTPI said: “The Research Awards are one way the Institute promotes high-quality and impactful research and ensures it helps to improve planning practice across the UK and Ireland.
“This year’s award entries addressed a diverse range of issues faced by the planning profession in its delivery of high quality, sustainable and healthy communities. They shine a light on fantastic research from Chartered members and accredited planning schools from around the world.”
David Meaden, CEO at Idox said:
“Idox is very pleased to be continuing our relationship with the RTPI and supporting the RTPI Awards for Research Excellence for another year”.
Further information about the 2020 RTPI Awards for Research Excellence, including the winners, judges and sponsors are available here.
You can also read our guest blog featuring the winner of the 2016 Sir Peter Hall Award, Dr Paul Cowie from the University of Newcastle, about the impact of winning the award for the Town Meeting project, which used theatre to engage communities in planning.
The publication in early August of the government consultation on reforming the planning system in England was accompanied by plenty of soundbites on the need for more efficiency and faster decision-making.
Technology, and digital services, were highlighted (once again) as an area which needs improvement: “Reform should be accompanied by a significant enhancement in digital and geospatial capability and capacity across the planning sector to support high-quality new digital Local Plans and digitally enabled decision-making.”
The consultation report goes on to say that “we think the English planning profession has the potential to become an international world-leader in digital planning, capable of exporting world class planning services around the world.”
Running to catch up
Many countries around the world have already made significant investment in digital planning, both technology and skills, and of these, Singapore is often mentioned as a world leader. While the city state’s administrative set-up gives it some advantages over countries with devolved and fragmented systems of regulation and planning powers, there are still lessons to be learned.
A webinar hosted by the Connected Places Catapult last month allowed staff from Singapore’s Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) to share its work on plantech, and in particular how data science is embedded in planning processes and long-term strategic planning. The journey they have been on over the last decade suggests that the UK has a long way to go.
The Singapore approach
The URA’s Digital Planning Lab was set up in 2013 to bring together planners and data specialists to use digital tools to improve planning processes and outcomes. The approach is holistic, with different professions working together to combine insights. This contrasts with the UK, where local authority budget cuts have led to an erosion of the skills base.
The mission of the Digital Planning Lab is to act as a catalyst – to incubate skills and ideas, to accelerate insights and transformation, and to inspire, through innovation and partnerships. There is a strong focus on building skills and capabilities within government, with the Lab running a data analytics immersion programme twice a year, to train cohorts of government staff on how data can be used in their work.
One output of the Lab has been their digital planning tool, ePlanner, which applies data science to urban planning processes. The one-stop inhouse geospatial tool is accessible to staff in over 50 government agencies and brings together information and analytics on population and demographics, land use, mobility, housing types, planning approvals, enforcement action, parking and public consultations and feedback. Data and maps are layered to allow deeper analysis of individual topics while protecting individual data. The tool also visualises existing site approvals and restrictions which may exist based on strategic planning documents.
The ePlanner aims to identify information and workflow gaps, and improve interagency working. The data analysis also enables a more flexible approach to strategic planning. While in most countries the evidence used in long-term planning is drawn from sources such as 10-year censuses, and uses surveys to gather people’s preferences, the Singapore tools allow for much more nuanced and responsive policymaking based on actual behaviour. It also recognises the complex factors which shape how communities use their infrastructure.
Plantech creates better places
The goal of plantech in Singapore is explicitly to facilitate data-informed, people-centric planning outcomes. A goal which planning reforms in the UK can only currently aspire to achieve.
While the challenges are recognised (such as the protection of individual and health-related data), the Urban Planning Lab approaches their work from the perspective of asking ‘how can we unlock the value of data’ – providing evidence-based insight on trends without exposing raw data. By mitigating risk, Singapore has been able to unlock the possibilities that modelling and simulation, and artificial intelligence, can bring to urban planning.
Enjoy this article? Read more from the Knowledge Exchange blog on digital planning …
SPEL Journal (Scottish Planning & Environmental Law) has celebrated an impressive milestone this month, with the publication of its 200th issue.
Since 1980 the journal and associated annual conference have provided commentary and discussion of topical subjects, new legislation and significant court cases and planning appeal decisions.
Clearly, this would not have been possible without the contributions and support of numerous people over the years, including the Journal’s editors, editorial board members, contributors, reviewers, and readers.
Decades of change
When first established, the journal was known as”Scottish Planning Law and Practice”. As the emerging field of environmental law became increasingly linked to planning, the focus of the journal changed to reflect this.
Since its launch, the journal has traced the evolution of planning and environmental law. The 1980s were marked by a move to deregulation in planning across the UK. There was also a focus on urban regeneration and housing rehabilitation and improvement in Scotland’s urban areas. Scotland saw changes to environmental protection with National Scenic Areas established within planning legislation in 1980.
In the 1990s, major changes came with the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 which established the primacy of the Development Plan (Local Plans and Structure Plans) to guide future patterns of development. Environmental controls also increased due to the influence of the European Union.
In the 2000s there was an increasing emphasis on trying to integrate the historic environment into planning policy development. Scotland’s two national parks were created (Loch Lomond and the Trossachs in 2002 and the Cairngorms in 2003). In the mid and late 2000s we began to see a focus on climate change and placemaking, as well as increasing legal activity around planning for wind farms, and more recently fracking. In 2003, the Local Government in Scotland Act gave a statutory basis to community planning. The 2006 Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act brought about significant modernisation of the planning system.
Scotland’s third National Planning Framework was laid before the Scottish Parliament in 2014, along with Scottish Planning Policy which set out detailed planning guidance. In recent years, planning policy has been increasingly linked to economic policy, for example in the City Regions and inclusive growth agendas. The process of reviewing the National Planning Framework is underway.
August 2020 issue
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 wish to keep abreast of developments.
The August 2020 issue has a typically varied range of articles. There is a discussion of new rules which allow group proceedings in Scottish courts from 31 July and whether this may lead to environmental class actions. The article notes that the group proceedings rules do not apply to judicial review or statutory appeal proceedings, which make up the majority of planing and environmental litigation in Scotland, so the impact could be limited.
Another two articles in the issue explore the consequences of the Court of Session’s “Gladman” decision in July, which relates to the policy presumption in favour of sustainable development within the current Scotland Planning Policy (SPP). The original planning application was for housing development in Kilmacolm.
A long tradition of supporting the professions
Unfortunately the 40th annual SPEL Conference, which was due to be held in September, has had to be postponed until next year. Until then, you can rely on SPEL Journal to continue its coverage of Scottish planning and environmental law.
Scottish Planing and Environmental Law Journal is published every two months. An annual subscription to SPEL Journal is £170.
Seeing red…. green with jealousy….. feeling blue. Associating colours with emotions is not new, but increasingly, psychologists are being asked to explore the relationship between colour, emotion and its impact in a number of different settings, including learning in classroom settings, the design of the built environment, including work spaces and travel hubs, and improving wellbeing as a result.
Colour is a powerful tool. It can be used to get attention, enhance clarity, establish a code, label and differentiate items, as well as to influence behaviour or learning outcomes. For example in schools we are often told to use blue or black ink. Red ink is supposed to be used by teachers to correct assignments, notebooks, and class work. This is a deliberate tool to draw our attention to the mistake we make, designed to help enhance our learning outcomes, in the sense that by drawing attention to the mistake we will remember not to repeat the points highlighted.
“Bad” and “good” colours
Studies have disagreed on how exactly our association between colour and emotions develops. Some have suggested it is an instinctive reaction, something primal which suggests to us that things that are red in colour are dangerous or negative, while blues and yellows signal happier less aggressive colours.
However, others have suggested that the connotations we associate with colour are learned, albeit from a very young age. We associate some colours as being “good” and others as “bad” and this impacts how we interact around them in spaces like classrooms and workspaces. The meaning of colours is culturally-specific and differs around the world in different societies and groups.
However, a third view is that colour theory is much more complex than simply yellow = happy and blue = sad. Colours can have several meanings, and can encourage an audience to feel or act in certain ways depending on when and how they are used, and in some instances depending on personal experiences which people link to specific colours. This is the reason why the literature on colour is so contested; in many instances it blurs the boundary between our instinctive associations of colours and those associations we create ourselves through experiences.
How colours are impacting on the design of our spaces
Knowing how colour can affect behaviours is informative for designers and psychologists in a number of environments, including in schools, offices or hospitals. In a learning context, such as in a school using “engaging” hues (warm colours such as red, orange, and yellow) to prevent learners from getting bored, and passive hues (cold colours such as green and blue) to keep learners calm can help with learning, but getting this balance right is important.
A number of studies have looked at the impact of classroom design, including use of colour on the learning and behavioural outcomes of both neurodiverse, and neurotypical children, with many emphasising that overstimulation, particularly of young children through excessive use of bright colour can create a disruptive classroom environment and make it difficult to encourage concentration and staying on task. However, some colour in specific areas of the classroom is good to help with engagement and stimulation.
Similarly, colours have been used by architects and designers in their choice of building material or building design to help encourage feelings of calm or reflection. This is particularly the case in transport hubs like airports and in hospitals or care facilities. Using fresh and calming colours which relate strongly to nature is also a technique used by office designers to help create the feeling of open calm and fresh spaces to help improve working environments and improve productivity.
The design of the built environment and how “green” and “blue” features which incorporate natural materials (green spaces and water have a positive impact on mental and physical wellbeing) has been widely discussed by planners and architects. The evidence generally supports the view that the inclusion of green spaces, promotes health and wellbeing across the life course. This combination of colour and the integration of nature into spaces is being used increasingly in the design of buildings and in master planning for large urban projects.
Colour and emotion both play important roles in our capacity to learn and be productive. The association between colour and our emotions and actions is complex and a source of disagreement for some psychologists. Colour has been found to affect how people feel both psychologically and physically. Understanding how colour and emotion relate– and how colour can be used to change environments to encourage particular feelings of calmness or concentration, particularly in schools and workplaces – is something that will be further explored by designers.
Colour should be understood as part of a wider “toolkit” used by designers and architects to ensure that we are building better places that create environments which support and promote wellbeing, encourage positive emotions and create more effective spaces for us to work, learn and interact in.
Follow us on Twitter to see which topics are interesting our research team
A message to all subscribers to
The Knowledge Exchange information service
We are open for business and continue to provide current awareness and enquiries services to our clients. If you have any questions, please get in touch.
The UK population is ageing. A 2019 report from AgeUK using data from the ONS highlighted that there are nearly 12 million (11,989,322) people aged 65 and above in the UK of which: 5.4 million people are aged 75+, 1.6 million are aged 85+, over 500,000 people are 90+ (579,776) and 14,430 are centenarians. By 2030, one in five people in the UK (21.8%) will be aged 65 or over, 6.8% will be aged 75+ and 3.2% will be aged 85+.
Allowing people to live well in old age in their own homes is something which housebuilders and planners are giving increasing thought to, both from a wellbeing perspective for residents, and a financial perspective for services, including the NHS and social care. The creation of “lifetime neighbourhoods” – spaces where people can live well from birth to retirement – brings together a number of elements: providing easy access to services; creating physical spaces which are suitable for people with disabilities and mobility issues to navigate; and allowing people to maintain those social and community ties which are associated with wellbeing, which can sometimes be lost with forced moves to residential care or a prolonged stay in hospital.
Homes for life
Building homes that are suitable for an ageing population is an important first step in creating lifetime neighbourhoods. However, planners and developers are starting to realise that one size doesn’t necessarily fit all when it comes to housing for older people. As with the general population, older people are not a homogenous group, and while some may need the support provided by extra care or sheltered housing projects, or may need single-storey open plan living to accommodate mobility aids or telecare packages, others simply want to live in a space which enables them to live comfortably in a community which suits their needs in terms of location and availability of services.
Designing and building a range of different housing types, which includes single-storey homes, extra care and sheltered housing, as well as stock which is suitable for people looking to downsize, is a key part of the development of effective lifetime neighbourhoods. This can free up larger family homes for people with children to move into and ensure that people are not kept unnecessarily in hospital because housing cannot be adapted to meet changing needs. A 2014 Age UK report showed that the scarcity of suitable and affordable retirement housing is a barrier to downsizing, highlighting that retirement housing makes up just 5-6% of all older people’s housing. Now groups like the Housing Made for Everyone coalition (HoME) are calling on the government to make all new homes accessible and adaptable as standard to help meet growing need in the future.
Social infrastructure such as libraries, community centres, local shops and good transport links are also a key aspect to planning effective lifetime neighbourhoods, as is ensuring accessibility of services such as GP appointments. Effective infrastructure planning can help enable the whole community, not just older people to feel connected to their local area, both physically and socially which can really help to support the idea of lifetime neighbourhoods and enable people to live well regardless of age.
Preventing loneliness and isolation in older age
Preventing loneliness and isolation in old age by creating spaces which facilitate engagement and encourage people to have positive social interactions is important to ensure that everyone within the community feels respected, involved and appreciated. However, the challenges are different depending on the nature of the community in question. In rural areas, social isolation can be compounded by a lack of appropriate transport infrastructure or the removal of key services at a local level in favour of “hubs” which are often located in towns and cities; in urban areas, loneliness can be exacerbated by the chaotic, hostile or intimidating environment that living in a densely populated area can have, a flip side to the benefits of density.
Ambition for ageing is a programme which aims to discover what works in reducing social isolation by taking an asset based approach to creating age friendly communities. Asset based approaches seek to identify the strengths and the abilities of people and communities, rather than their deficits. The asset based approach to creating age friendly neighbourhoods also seeks to use the experiences and attributes that all members of the community have to help make the community better. To create effective age friendly neighbourhoods older people need to have opportunities to participate and feel that they are making a positive contribution.
A space for all ages
While much of the research and literature on lifetime neighbourhoods focuses on older people, it is also important to ensure that spaces meet the needs of all groups in the community, including children and young people and people with disabilities. Creating places which balance the needs of all groups within the community is an important consideration for planners.
The physical environment can be as important as the built environment and infrastructure development when it comes to developing lifetime neighbourhoods. Spaces which make use of natural and green infrastructure with lots of green and open public spaces have been shown to help improve mental health and wellbeing, as well as encouraging people of all ages to be more active. A number of design factors such as good paving, effective street lighting and easy access to seating and public toilets make neighbourhoods accessible to older people and people with impairments. Poor design can ‘disable’ people in their immediate environment and act as a barrier to participation in local activities.
For lifetime neighbourhoods to be successful, it is necessary that there is access to a range of appropriate housing options. In addition, the planning of public, open and green spaces, availability of transport links and local community infrastructure like libraries, police stations and local shops are all vitally important to ensure communities can thrive.
It is clear that while there is demand for more suitable housing for people in older age, the location and type of housing being built must also meet the needs and expectations of older residents, including good connections to local infrastructure, and safe accommodation. Projects which bring a range of ages together can be effective in strengthening community cohesion, can help challenge stereotypes and can reduce feelings of loneliness and isolation. Collectively these different elements feed into the creation of lifetime neighbourhoods which can support people to live well into retirement and beyond.
On 19th September 2019, we welcomed speakers and delegates to Edinburgh for the 29th Scottish Planning and Environmental Law Conference.
Before we began, the conference was invited to pause to remember and reflect on the life and achievements of Robert (Roy) Martin QC, who sadly passed away earlier this year. Roy was a long-time supporter and friend to the SPEL conference and a great addition to our speaker line up on many occasions. Everyone connected with SPEL would like to extend our condolences to Roy’s family and his colleagues at Terra Firma Chambers.
The conference brought together planners, planning lawyers, researchers and others who work in the field of planning, housing, development and infrastructure in Scotland for a day of discussion and debate around some of the key issues facing Scottish planning today and in the future.
Set to the backdrop of the most recent Scottish planning bill, the day focused broadly on two themes: the approach to housing, land value and infrastructure delivery; and the impact of the community empowerment agenda. As in previous years, themed discussion topics were supplemented by the always well-received case law updates from conference sponsors and planning and environmental law specialists Terra Firma Chambers.
The day began with some brief reflection from our keynote speaker, Keith Winter, Executive Director, Enterprise and Environment, Fife Council. Keith considered his years in the profession, and the great steps planning has taken from its earlier years. He also posed some interesting questions for delegates and other speakers alike about the potential for the future of planning, discussing “positive planning”; placemaking; the challenges of needing to meet both local and national level expectations and meeting the challenges that face the next generation of planners – such as climate change – head-on.
Photo Copyright Rebecca Jackson
Housing, infrastructure and land values are all key topics for planners, and we spent the mid-morning session discussing all three. In the day’s longest session, panellists grappled with big topics for planning including whether the delivery of housing and infrastructure is becoming any easier; if more housing should (or could) be allocated to housing; how infrastructure will be funded in the future and whether we should be paying more attention to delayed sites which have already been granted approval.
Panellists brought a wealth of experience and perspectives to the discussion, with contributions from Taylor Wimpey, Homes for Scotland, Scottish Futures Trust, Lichfields, Renfrewshire Council and the Scottish Land Commission. The wide-ranging discussions on the supply and allocation of land for development, the implication of development for infrastructure and how multiple partners – not just planners – need to work together in order to create wonderful places where communities can live and work.
Photo copyright Rebecca Jackson
The afternoon session was dominated by discussions of community empowerment in planning and what opportunities and challenges the community empowerment agenda in Scotland could bring for the profession. A panel discussion which brought a refreshing range of perspectives was well received by an audience of delegates who were eager to ask questions and respond to comments from the panel, which included Nick Wright, from Nick Wright Planning; Pippa Robertson, director of Aurora Planning; Dr Calum MacLeod, Policy Director from Community Land Scotland and Antony McGuiness, Forward Planning team leader from West Dunbartonshire Council.
Panellists grappled with the challenges of aligning local place plans, local outcome improvement plans and local development plans; how community-led action can help address inequality and improve outcomes at a local level for communities and how integrating community and spatial planning is working in practice at the moment. The discussions proved to be one of the most successful of the day, with many delegates commenting on the value of the discussions to their own professional work.
Photo copyright Rebecca Jackson
The final session of the day explored the implications of the new planning act and its potential for delivering strategies which put place at their heart and enhancing the delivery of sustainable development projects across Scotland. Panel members included Stefano Smith, Director of Stefano Smith Planning and former Convenor of RTPI Scotland, Jacqueline Cook, Head of Planning at Davidson Chalmers Stewart LLP and Pam Ewen, Chief Officer of Planning at Fife Council and the Junior Convenor of Heads of Planning Scotland.
The conference provided an opportunity for reflection about the future of planning in Scotland and how practitioners from many different professions – not just planning and planning law – will have to come together to ensure that opportunities are seized upon.
And while it was widely acknowledged that the current model is far from perfect, and more exploration is needed to understand the potential and the application of the new planning legislation which has been introduced in recent years, it’s clear that there is willingness among the profession to learn lessons and to apply knowledge and determination to the current planning landscape to promote and develop planning in Scotland in the years to come so it can fully deliver for Scotland’s communities.
We would like to thank our speakers, those who attended and our sponsors, and hope to see you all next year!
If you enjoyed this article you may also like to read:
Follow us on Twitter to find out what topics have been interesting our research officers, or search #SPEL2019 for more insight into the conference day. Delegates can get in touch for copies of presentation slides where available.
We publish Scottish Planning and Environmental Law Journal every two months. More information on the journal and how to subscribe is available here.
This flagship conference always attracts a knowledgeable audience from the planning and legal professions, with a focus on quality discussion and debate.
The focus this year is on two main themes: the approach to housing, land value and infrastructure delivery, and the impact of the community empowerment agenda in Scotland. With the Planning (Scotland) Act finally having received Royal Assent on 25 July, we’ll also be looking at what to expect next, including a review of the National Planning Framework. And as usual, there will also be the popular sessions on recent case law.
The programme features a wide range of speakers, bringing perspectives from the private sector, local government planning, academia and central government to bear on the issues. The chair for this year will be James Findlay QC.
The conference is an excellent opportunity for solicitors and planners to refresh their knowledge of recent changes in planning and environmental law, as well as providing time for quality networking.
Confirmed speakers and panel members this year include:
Mark Lazarowicz, Terra Firma Chambers
Shona Glenn, Head of Policy & Research, Scottish Land Commission
Dr Mark Robertson, Managing Partner, Ryden
Nicola Woodward, Senior Director, Lichfields
Fraser Carlin, Head of Housing & Planning, Renfrewshire Council
Pauline Mills, Land & Planning Director, Taylor Wimpey
Tammy Swift-Adams, Director of Planning, Homes for Scotland
Nick Wright, Nick Wright Planning
Pippa Robertson, Aurora Planning
Dr Calum Macleod,Policy Director, Community Land Scotland
Neale McIlvanney, Strategic Planning Manager, North Ayrshire Council
Stefano Smith, Director, Stefano Smith Planning and former Convenor, RTPI Scotland
Pam Ewen, Chief Officer – Planning, Fife Council and former Convenor, RTPI Scotland
Jacqueline Cook, Head of Planning, Davidson Chalmers
If you’re interested in planning or environmental law in Scotland then there’s no doubt that SPEL 2019 is an unmissable conference.
The 2019 Scottish Planning and Environmental Law Conference is on 19 September at the COSLA Conference Centre, Edinburgh.
The conference programme and booking form are available here.
The conference is supported by Terra Firma Chambers.