 |
 |
Perhaps that reference to Bangladesh in a Optimum Population Trust Press Release has confused some members because the Press Release itself is about a Government Consultation document on housing. OPT contends that the Government's Planning and Housing Provision (PHP) document is analogous to proposing a new global navigation system based on the concept that the earth is flat. The OPT argument is that: 1. Any definition of sustainability must take as its starting point the capacity of a place - whether it is the planet or a nation-state or a local authority area - to support a given size of population without serious adverse consequences. In the case of housing , this would entail decisions about population levels and their relationship to factors such as water supply, flood alleviation, sewage disposal, air quality, traffic congestion, transport and energy use and liveability or quality of life. The PHP paper does not do this. Instead it proceeds from the premiss that there is an "under-supply" - not, for example, an "over-demand" - in housing and that this must be rectified. The environmental and social constraints, it is clear, come a poor second. This is a travesty of the meaning of sustainability. It suggests that "Plan Monitor and Manage" is little different from "Predict and Provide." 2. Throughout the paper land is viewed, and described, as a commodity, with no sense of what sort of land it is, what functions it fulfils (biodiversity, water supply, agriculture, green lungs ) and no sense either of its finitude. The implication appears to be that it is an inexhaustible commodity. This, too, vitiates the main thrust of the document. 3. This approach leads to some blinkered conclusions. For instance, it is assumed that the "mismatch" between supply and demand must be in some sense either a market failure or a fault in the planning system. The alternative conclusion - that housing (and population) in parts of the UK, notably London and the south-east, may be outstripping carrying capacity and that the planning system may be reflecting a local appreciation of this - is thereby ruled out from the beginning. 4. As evidence that this may be the case - that housing/population is outstripping carrying capacity - several independent/consultants' reports from regions of the south-east have concluded that local infrastructure cannot cope with the housing numbers proposed. Housing and population growth are already placing immense strains on water resources, flood prevention regimes, natural habitats, air quality, transport systems; they are leading to crowding, congestion and diminution in quality of life. Seventy-six per cent of Britons, according to a YouGov poll, think the UK is overcrowded. Global density comparisons show that only four countries larger than the UK (Vietnam, the Philippines, India and Japan) have higher population densities. Only one country larger than England (Bangladesh) has a higher population density. (England's area is half that of the UK but its density is nearly 60 per cent higher. Bangladesh is smaller in area than the UK but larger than England.). 5. The OPT's view is that any proposed housing planning system must start from a realistic assessment of an area's carrying capacity, which must include a judgement about what human numbers are ecologically sustainable and what are not. The point of "sustainability appraisal" is that it includes the possibility of some developments being classed as unsustainable. The fact that this possibility is not considered within this paper, in the context of national housing strategy - that housing will be "sustainable", irrespective of numbers - renders its use of the sustainability concept flexible to the point of meaninglessness. A national housing strategy, in the OPT's view, should include a national population policy and some view of what sustainable or optimum numbers are for the UK. The OPT believes that forecast increases in the UK population to nearly 67 million by 2050, which would mean at least another 5 million houses at predicted household formation rates, will clearly exceed carrying capacity and breach any reasonable criteria of sustainability. ******************************************************* ****************************************************** Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your message will go only to the sender of this message. If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically to [log in to unmask] Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk. *******************************************************