Plastic Pollution: You Don't Realise How Bad it is Until You're Swimming in it

Me trying to look cool and young in Vietnam! Plastics is the message, but its hard to illustrate dramatically.

I have recently returned from cycling across part of Vietnam. The country is interesting, people incredibly friendly and the Vietnamese organisation and leadership really impressive. Especially as we were restricted by the typhoon and the washing away of the railway tracks which involved muliple itinerary changes.

It was a pure holiday for me, but there is one unfortunate aspect that stuck in my mind.

We had two opportunities to go swimming in the sea - in some beautiful places.

But my abiding memory is the plastic pollution. Naively, I had not really thought about it before. In the UK it is usually too cold for me to go swimming in the sea: Vietnam is different.

The level of plastics you can see in the water in Vietnam is horrendous. And that is the obvious, when most has broken into small particles not easily visible to the native eye.

Did you know:

12 million tons of plastic reach the sea each year.

There are already c. 51 million microscopic pieces there, weighing c. 270,000 tons.

One estimate has 100 million marine animals die each year from plastic waste ingested or being tangled up in it.

The US Oceanic Administration estimate it takes 450 years to break down the plastic.

My perception, while we in the UK are hardly squeaky clean, the worst countries are in the Far East with India, China and Indonesia holding the top three positions, although the Philippines hit the top in some charts and from observation I am sure Vietnam is not far behind.

And as sea water circulates the globe it will only get worse here.

Following the mantra "think global act local what we can do? Probably not much. But reducing the use of plastic, particularly single use items and participating in a marine clean up when we are on holiday. Hardly earth shattering but its something we can all do.

Lifting the Mood

Over 80 people crowded into the Marquis of Wellington on Tuesday 24^th to talk about the draft NPPF out to consultation, with a closing date for responses later that night.

The three speakers; each for a maximum of 10 minutes were myself, Paul Brailsford (Freeths) and Grant Butterworth (Leicester City).

 

I largely focussed on the strategic issues, where returning to the essential Duty to Cooperate across Council boundaries, with a requirement to accommodate across boundary unmet needs, was one of the two most significant proposals. The other was in Green Belt areas, where the duty to review the boundaries, if development needs cannot otherwise be met,  should be very significant. This can be an exceptional circumstance for modifications of the GB. There is thenew ‘Grey Belt’ idea of areas, such as carparks and transport yards, that can be developed, which make a limited contribution to the five purposes of the Green Belt designation. I am not convinced that this will make much difference to overall figures of new houses. But I am not negative to it.

The ‘Golden Rule’ on Green Belt releases of 50% affordable housing, I think is too onerous. I believe this needs to be reduced to secure the housing development targets the Government hope to reach.

 

The greater focus on renewable energy, including the possibility of once more onshore wind farms and greater solar farms is already being seen in the decisions of the Energy Secretary Ed Milliband.

 

Paul focussed on housing and first of all walked us through how badly we have been performing in recent times with an average of under 190,000 built over the last 20 years. Virtually the first major policy announcement of the new Government was to do with planning and the need to transform the delivery rate of housing. (When was the last time  Planning has been central to the political argument?) As well as the NPPF, there are all sorts of related announcements from introducing more application delegation; to changes to the Affordable Homes Programme; the Right to Buy; and a new generation of New Towns.

 

The 5 year housing land supply requirement is back (even where Local Plan adoption is recent), with a restored 4% buffer and a 20% one where delivery is below 85% of the housing requirement. The ‘standard method’ formula is back in virtually all circumstances, with a stock based assessment approach (0.8% p.a.) and a potential affordability adjustment. Transitional arrangements exist on Local Plan preparation, especially where the increase in housing numbers need as a consequence of these policy changes is greater than 200 p.a.

 

Grant largely concentrated on the local implications in Leicestershire, where the Green Belt is virtually non-existent (bad luck on Robert Galiji for winning the quiz on this subject, but left before it was my round for drinks!). The big takes for him were the restoration of strategic planning, where Leicester districts had stoutly compensated for this dearth in recent years with their non-statutory Strategic Growth Plan and a Statement of Common Ground ensuring genuine co-operation between the districts. He summarised the change in housing numbers by district, which are very substantial (albeit the previous cooperation between the Leics Districts will significantly ameliorate the impact in most cases).

 

Grant was obviously pleased that Planning is central to the new Government’s agenda and expects a further range of supporting initiatives from new Acts, a National Housing Strategy and National Development Management Policies to follow.

 

Overall, the general conclusion was that this is an extremely positive first major step to getting development moving in areas, which are essential for the greater social, economic and environmental health of the UK. While it needs the economy to grow to make it work, this is at least in part dependent on getting the amount and quality of development right. Personally, I don’t think this consultation draft needs changing much and the important thing is to get it out there, finalised asap. Tweaks can be made later.  So go go go for a December launch as trailed and continue the mood of positivity for as long as possible.

 

Planning All Change: NPPF 2024

In the development industry you would have to have been sunning yourself on a beach in Outer Mongolia not to know that the tectonic plates are shifting. The new Labour Government with their massive majority have rocked up on a pro growth agenda, as their flagship strategy. Without this many of their other strategies will crash and burn, as there will be no money to pay for them. Fundamental to pro growth is seen as substantially changing the Planning framework. Planning is completely central to their strategy: to a greater extent than any previous incoming administration. Labour highlighted it before the election and true to their word: in the same month as elected, a new National Planning Policy Framework was issued for consultation, with a view to implement by December. Their determination and majority means that it is unlikely that the consultation will result in too much change. And knowing it is coming, actions and decisions by all sectors of the development industry, including the public authorities, are already reflecting its content. But are those actions the best? What does the new NPPF actually mean; what is its significance; and, what effect will it have? And, frankly, with the resources we have, how deliverable is it and will it be delivered? And what will happen in our area? To try and explain, as well as answer some of these questions the Good Bad and Ugly (but not in that order) of Leicestershire’s Planning scene are meeting at the Marquis of Wellington, London Road, Leicester on Tuesday 24th September at 6pm, as the prequel to this year’s Love Architecture Festival. Three 7 to 10 minutes slots will be presented as follows: Peter Wilkinson Landmark Planning: Strategic Issues Chris May Freeths Housing Matters Grant Butterworth Leicester City Council Local Implications. After a 30 minute max Q & A there will be the usual shoot out in the bar… between the protagonists. The last event at the Marquis was really enjoyable and oversubscribed, so book early to avoid disappointment.

Carisbrooke Tennis win National Club League - Midlands.

Carisbrooke Tennis Club of Knighton, sponsored by Landmark Planning, have won the Midlands Division of the Men’s National Club League by beating Cardiff on Sunday 10-2. They have won every match this season and with one left against Warwick cannot now be overtaken. From here the club proceed to the national finals in September for the top 8 clubs in the country, where they hope to be seeded in the top four.

As coach Jack Simpson said: “It is a tough division to get out of, as you have to get your best players out nearly every week and likely win all your matches to top the division. We beat Cardiff without our best player, Henry Searle, last year’s Junior Wimbledon champion, which is testimony to the depth of the squad. I am really looking forward to September and particularly putting the team up against the top London clubs."

Modern Methods of Construction: Are they a Good Thing?

Essentially MMC are different forms of innovative construction or methodologies, which focus on off-site techniques such as mass production and factory assembly, as alternatives to traditional build.  You can see the potential advantages from less need for specialist skills to factory-controlled quality, speed and less on-site waste. Considering the concept and the related issues is important to all those in the development industry, from the initial planning to sales personnel.


Simon Jones, Technical Innovation Manager of the Vistry Group, a top 1 / 2 housebuilder first of all went through the seven categories of MMC. He obviously concentrated on Categories 1 & 2 which related to 3D primary or volumetric systems and 2D primary structural systems and which Vistry are promoting from their own factories. At present these are focussed on manufacturing a closed timber frame timber product, but hope to move to adding external cladding, roofing, doors and windows (Cat 2c).
 
He then discussed some of the potential advantages listed above, but at the same time talked about the challenges, including payment stages, early design freezes and the need for level sites.

 
Edward Jezeph is responsible for encouraging offsite construction and innovation for Homes England, the Government’s housing and regeneration agency. He went through the various tools that they use to try and increase the supply of affordable, quality homes (last year 190k against a target of 300k so work to do). These include giving funding to get sites ready for development, loans, grants for affordable homes and guarantees.
 
Construction is a tough job with limited productivity improvements constantly lagging behind the rest of the economy with a poor safety record and a dearth of skills. One third of UK waste comes from construction with 25% of materials taken to site wasted.
 
As with Simon, Edward pressed the concept of offsite timber frame construction with further advantages from cost certainty, improved health and safety and greater labour force diversity. He concluded with some case examples, including the famous and impressive timber framed, Goldsmith Street, Norwich.

James Wilson, MD of Davidsons, a major regional housebuilder focussed on commercial risk in the light of companies, such as Ilke Homes, an MMC advocate, entering liquidation with £319m of debts. He talked through a case study of, for him, the inflexibility of relying on a MMC contractor supply that puts the whole project at financial risk.
 
For his brand that introduces a lot of design detail and variety into its product it makes the timber frame designs more complex and therefore less economic. It is also more inflexible in terms of labour requirements and therefore less cost effective, having greater peaks and troughs in the need for specialised skills such as plumbers and electricians, which is less efficient.
 
He is not opposed to MMC as such, being disappointed that he is building in essentially the same way as 30 years ago when he entered the profession. At the moment for him MMC is better suited to such schemes as student housing, where repetition is the key.
 
There then followed a lively and very civilised debate. For low rise housing there is clearly a long way to go to reap the obvious benefits of off-site production, but it should ultimately be the way to go. At present sufficient benefits will probably be restricted to say the largest 5 housebuilders with scale to work with large production runs.
 

Our speakers could all speak from a position of substantial experience and authority, so it was a real privilege for myself and hopefully the 80 odd people in the audience. And everyone should have learnt a lot – the speakers said they did!

Modern Methods of Construction: Are they a good thing?

Building parts or all of a house off site in factory conditions seems a no brainer, compared with working in what at times can be a hostile environment of weather or light, with supervision being harder for management. 

But MMC has certainly proved problematic at best, with housebuilding companies like Ilke Homes, who promoted it falling into receivership and major players, such as Legal and General closing their factory production facilities. So, what are the issues and can or are they worth being overcome?

For our latest CPD in a pub event (which incidentally we have now been doing for over 10 years) we have moved to the Marquis of Wellington from the Parcel yard. (Its only because the latter has closed and is about to be demolished for Leicester’s railway station regeneration). The Marquis has a very good ambience for a pint and some learning & socialising. And it definitely has better parking close by!

To make it work we have our usual set up of three main speakers, with 10 minutes each, before a group discussion and back to the bar by the hour. 

Simon Jones is the Group Technical Innovation Manager of the Vistry Group and sets the technical scene. This includes describing, in particular, the difference between Category 1 and Category 2 MMC. The former is based upon volumetric construction involving the production of three dimensional units in controlled factory conditions. Category 2 is a systemised approach using flat panel units for basic floor wall and roof structures. The open panels or frames are skeletal with services, insulation and internal and external finishes installed on site.

Edward Joseph from Homes England will set out the agency’s enthusiasm for MMC and particularly the advantages and incentives for developing the art and science of house building fit for the twenty first century.

James Wilson, Managing Director of major house builder Davidsons will present an alternative viewpoint, as a counterpoint to what is often seen as the general enthusiasm for MMC.

It could be considered that MMC should only be of interest to those directly involved in the construction of homes. But, in fact, it should be of interest to the whole development industry. Take Planners for example - well divorced from the realities of the physical work, but very much interested in the outcomes. We need the building of homes to be more efficient; we need them to be as sustainable as possible. In the current climate we need them to be built as quickly as possible, to the highest standards, but we also need them to relate to their locale and be able to maintain a distinctive character, not just become part of any town anywhere.

Finally,  I want to acknowledge the help of Ryan Pritchard of Countryside Partnerships and Nicola Pettman of SGP in putting this programme together. They know more about the subject than I do!

The Future of City Centres: A few thoughts

At hot topic at business forums in Leicester at the moment appears to be the future of ours and other City Centres. There are further meetings of both Leicester Business Voice and Procon at the end of February on this issue.

 

The conversation at present appears to be relatively negative and has been so for a few years now. Clearly, the internet has wiped out a significant proportion of the retail offer of most centres and latterly the increased trend for working for home has only added to those woes in City centres.

 

Inevitably, the discussions in business circles tend to be by middle class, middle aged people such as myself, and this can be somewhat biased.

 

At a recent Friends of New Walk meeting I opined that I had visited the centre of Leicester recently on a Tuesday night and certainly on the Gallowtree Gate axis it was busy on a day I did not expect. I did remark that it was a very different demographic from myself being young and significantly of Asian background. While I was very positive about this, the aspect that made it a bit uncomfortable for me was the absolute proliferation of cycles and similar in the pedestrian areas, frequently travelling at significant speed. I did not feel relaxed and felt I had to keep my wits about me all the time.

 

Cllr Liz Sahu picked me up on this at the meeting by saying I had missed that it is also largely male (probably me being a male!). And of course she is right.

 

I think this focus on a limited demographic is a weakness, discouraging a wider range of visitors to act as customers for greater variety of businesses. If the profile is young and male it can be a more combustible environment prone to behaviours, which discourages other groups visiting when there are a limited range of people in view.

 

Parallel to this I was reflecting on a report of immediately before covid by the Centre for Cities thinktank. From memory it reviewed the largest 36(?) centres in the UK and their ‘office’ offer. Leicester, I believe, was the second lowest proportionate to its size in the UK. This is a big weakness of our city, as such employees are generally in better paid jobs than the average and have a clear opportunity before and after work, as well as at lunchtime to visit the plethora of retail, leisure and hospitality businesses. They also breed more familiarity with the City making it more likely they will visit at other times as well. And, of course, provide greater spread to the demographic issue flagged up above.

 

Since Covid the numbers of office workers actually in situ in the City has plummeted. Many office based businesses struggle to get their experienced employees to return citing the benefits of teaching and supporting junior staff and new starters; better collaborative working; greater management direction; and improved productivity (studies from Goldman Sachs to my small business size cite that overall there is a 25% reduction in productivity with full home working). I was very heartened to read at the end of January of an Employment Tribunal case where a senior manager at UK’s financial regulator, the FCA, was ordered back to work because of the business benefit, even though it was acknowledged that her work, as such, was satisfactory.  

 

I was also heartened to read that Sadiq Khan, worried about the detrimental effect of the WFH movement on the London economy, was looking at ways to incentivise working in the office, like cheaper travel, on the highest days for working from home.

 

So, in this perfect storm of challenges for the city centres, I don’t pretend to have many answers.

 

But we do need:

 

Senior businesses leaders, as well as the large public organisations based in the city, need to take the lead on getting staff back to the office to both support all the secondary businesses,  as well as broaden the demographic making the City more comfortable to women, older people and affluent people from outside the City who have more disposable income.

 

In Leicester we must continue to try and improve our transport offer as currently because of the tram and the greater public control of buses we lag behind Nottingham.

 

We need some way of achieving national control and enforcement of speeding and pavement riding of electric bikes / scooters.

 

With the changing patterns of working we need to understand how we can improve the whole office environment to make it more attractive to staff and conducive to the advantages of office working such as training, company cohesion and collaborative working.