Blame the game, not the player – the planning system is broken

[ad_1]

It took me nine hours to get back from COP26 last month, so I had time to contemplate the climate emergency and the effects of construction on it. The rhetoric of COP26 conveyed change, solidarity and, dare I say it, hope. I felt good, not to congratulate myself, but because the passion to change the world was palpable and exhilarating.

A few days later, the reality of all that has not changed emerged when Westminster Council approved the demolition of 456-472 Oxford Street, a perfectly sound and (in my opinion) quite pretty building. The decision to flatten it is concerning not because greedy developers have manipulated the planning system, but because, based on current planning laws, the Westminster Council decision appears to be well founded. To be clear: I don’t agree with the decision. However, after reading the town planning submission documents and considering the current town planning law, I understand how this decision was made.

The planning system is broken and our thinking is shortsighted. There must be a systemic change in the evaluation of planning submissions. We need to rethink the way we quantify, measure and value sustainability in developments. I’m not too keen on Pilbrow & Partners’ new design (pictured) for 456-472 Oxford Street and to be honest I’m not sure that matters.

What matters is that we balance the need to redevelop with the need to reduce the carbon footprint of our built environment. Reading the planning submission, I was struck by the constant references to BREEAM and LETI, without any firm reference to how the building would affect the planet. There didn’t seem to be any real thinking about how the existing building could be extended, using the structure to reduce the carbon impact of the development.

The design and access statement for the program reads like a sales brochure, full of double talk intended to convey that the developers / designers took the climate emergency seriously.

I made the opposite inference; for me the constant reference to standards conveyed a lethargic approach to sustainability – a check mark of the worst kind. However, I still have a hard time blaming participants for a failed system. Instead, I look at the system itself and ask: how do we fix it?

The problem is our approach to value. The way we value buildings and resources as an industry must change. It is said over and over in this D&A statement that the existing building has no value, so why don’t you tear it down?

This problem is not unique to our industry. In fact, it underpins our very economic thinking. Take a tree as an example. Our current economic system only places real value on this tree if it is cut down and turned into a chair. We don’t place a lot of value on the tree in its natural form. The fact that it absorbs CO2, produces oxygen, binds the soil, and helps maintain an ecosystem for millions of life forms has no tax value. Likewise, the design and access statement for 456-472 Oxford Street does not appear to recognize the value of the tonnes of carbon incorporated into the existing structure.

Now I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t have the answer to this problem, but I do know that while the D&A statement for this development aspired to “target exemplary levels of sustainability”, I had to. hard to see how that can be the case when they demolish a building in perfect condition and unnecessarily pump 39,000 tonnes of carbon around the world. How can the government ask owners to insulate their lofts, modernize their double glazing and install renewable heating systems when they willingly allow the demolition of a building in perfect condition?

The planning system should force the application of innovative architectural interventions to integrate an existing building into the redevelopment where possible. Making the planning system fit for purpose is the only way to meet the needs of the customer and the planet.

Kunle Barker is a real estate expert, journalist and broadcaster

[ad_2]