Sustainable Development and Greenspace in Housebuilding: Rules Roles and Responsibilities

UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER

A Thesis Submitted to the University of Manchester for a Doctorate of Philosophy in the Faculty of Humanities, School of Environment and Development

Abigail Gilbert 10/1/2014

Contents 1. Introduction ...... 10 1.1 Problem Definition: Reconciling Environment and Housing ...... 10 1.2 Aims and Objectives ...... 13 1.3 Context of Research...... 14 1.3.1 Conceptualising Greenspace ...... 14 1.3.2 Research Approach: Understanding Development Institutions ...... 15 1.4 Evaluating Policy Approaches ...... 16 1.4.1 Market Self-Regulation ...... 17 1.4.2 Spatial Planning and Regionalism ...... 18 1.4.3 Localism and Austerity Planning ...... 20 1.5 Contribution to Knowledge...... 21 2. Literature Review ...... 22 2.1. Planning for Ecosystem Services...... 23 2.1.1 Cultural Services...... 24 2.1.2 Provisioning Services ...... 26 2.1.3 Supportive and Regulatory Services ...... 28 2.1.4 Policy Instruments and Greenspace Design...... 30 2.1.5 A Short History of Environmental Policy and Greenspace ...... 32 2.2.4 Conclusions...... 37 2.2 Policies for SD ...... 38 2.2.1 Spatial Planning, Regionalism and SD ...... 38 2.2.2 Localism, Deregulation and SD ...... 48 2.3 Speculative Developers and Market Self- Regulation...... 58 2.3.1 Introducing the Speculative Development Industry ...... 58 2.3.2 CSR...... 62 2.4 Framing the Research Question...... 65 2.5 Understanding Institutions in Development Studies ...... 68 2.5.1 Introduction ...... 68 2.5.2 Structuration...... 70 2.5.3 Innovation in Institutionalism ...... 73 2.5.4 Strategic Relational Institutionalism (SRI)...... 75 2.5.5 Political Economy of Institutionalism (PEI)...... 77 2.5.6 An Institutional Account of SD ...... 79 2.5.7 Conclusions...... 84

3. Methods...... 85 3.1 Introduction and Overview...... 85 3.2 Analytical Approach ...... 88 3.3.1 Objective 1 ...... 90 3.3.2 Objective 2 ...... 90 3.3.3 Objective 3 ...... 93 3.3.4 Objective 4 ...... 99 3.5 Conclusions ...... 99 4. Volume House-builder Strategies for SD and Greenspace...... 101 4.1 Sustainability Narratives in Corporate Social Responsibility...... 103 4.1.5 Changes in Sustainability Interpretation and Approaches over Time ...... 116 4.1.6 Conclusions from 4.1 ...... 118 4.2.1 Reporting Strategy ...... 119 4.2.2 Drivers of Environmental Strategy and Approach ...... 122 4.2.3 Assertions of Responsibility...... 131 4.2. Conclusions ...... 136 5. The Garden Village: Woodford...... 137 5.1 Introduction...... 137 5.2 Site Development Context ...... 137 5.2.1 Principles of Supplementary Planning Documents ...... 137 5.2.3 Judicial Review...... 140 5.3 Greenspace and Sustainability ...... 149 5.3.1. Openness as Scale ...... 149 5.3.2 The Politics of ‘Garden Village’...... 153 5.4 Responsibilities for SD Outcomes ...... 154 5.4.1 Neighbourhood Planning ...... 155 5.4.2 Imagining Alternatives: The Role of Imported Standards ...... 157 5.4.3 Preferences for Regulatory Prescription...... 160 5.4.4 Viability ...... 161 5.4.5 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) ...... 163 5.5 Conclusions ...... 165 6. An Eco-town Development: Rackheath...... 167 6.1 Introduction...... 167 6.2 Site Development Context ...... 167 6.3 Competing Sustainability’s and the role of Greenspace ...... 171

6.3.5 Competing Schemes: Beyond Green ...... 179 6.3.6 Conclusions...... 183 6.5 Regulatory Strategy and Scale ...... 184 6.5.1 Beyond Compliance and Responsibility ...... 184 6.5.2 Community Aspirations? ...... 186 6.4.4 Tensions Between Central and Local Government ...... 188 7. Urban Renaissance: The Green Quarter...... 192 7.1 Introduction...... 192 7.1.1 Site Development Context ...... 193 7.1.2 Reflections on Scale ...... 194 7.1.2 Policies for Approval ...... 197 7.2 Sustainability and Greenspace ...... 198 7.2.1 Greenspace Allocation ...... 198 7.2.2 Greenspace for a Desired Demographic? ...... 199 7.2.3 Compaction and Transport...... 202 7.2.4 Disconnect Between Built and Landscaped Form ...... 206 7.2.5 Relative Natures: Baselines for Environmental Assessment...... 210 7.2.6. Conclusions...... 212 7.3 Regulation and Governance...... 213 7.3.1 Urban Growth Coalitions ...... 213 7.3.2 Environmental Expectations, Viability and Power ...... 215 7.3.3 Multiscalar Tensions ...... 216 7.4 Conclusions ...... 217 8. SD: Concepts of Environment and Regulatory Responsibilities...... 218 8.1 Concepts of Environment: Selective Environmental Narratives...... 218 8.1.1 Boundaries in Space ...... 219 8.1.2 Boundaries in Time...... 220 8.1.3 Boundaries around Species ...... 221 8.1.4 ...... 223 Language Games ...... 223 8.1.5 Conclusions...... 224 8.2 CSR Responsibility in Principle and Practice ...... 226 8.2.1 CSR in Context ...... 226 8.2.2 Consumer Sovereignty in Principle and Practice ...... 228 8.2.4 CSR Formality ...... 231

8.2.5 Conclusions...... 232 8.3 Planning Policy and Process: Responsibilities ...... 234 8.3.1 Policy Instruments ...... 234 8.3.2 Planning Process ...... 238 8.3.5 Conclusions...... 242 9. Conclusions...... 244 9.1 Research Aim and Approach ...... 244 9.1.1 Theoretical Relationships between Sustainability and Greenspace ...... 244 9.1.2 Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainability and Greenspace ...... 245 9.2.3 SD in Planning Policy Moments ...... 247 9.2.4 Responsibilities for Greenspace ...... 248 9.2 Utility of Conceptual Framework ...... 249 9.3 Research Limitations ...... 251 9.4 Future Research...... 252

Word Count: 87,962

Table of Figures Figure 1: Planning Policy Instruments: Form, Strategy and Potential for Greenspace 32

Figure 2: Purpose of CSR as seen by WWF 65

Figure 3: Institutional Variables Shaping Adoption of Responsibility for Greenspace 82

Figure 4: Ideologies of SD: Rules, Resources and Ideas in Alternative SD Policy Moments 84

Figure 5: Research Objectives, Questions, Methods and Justifications 82

Figure 6: Process of Empirical and Theoretical Analysis 90

Figure 7: Overview of Case Study Planning Approach, Policy Characteristics 97

Figure 8: Case Study Selection Criteria 98

Figure 9: Artist Impressions of Acton Gardens 106

Figure 10: Artist impressions of Hannham Hall, Bristol and The New South Quarter, Croydon 106

Figure 11: Categories of business sustainability in reports 111

Figure 12: Elworth Gardens Tree and Shrub distribution. 122

Figure 13: Governance Indicators for Sustainability 128

Figure 14: Collective Organisations for UK Developers which increase field cohesion 130

Figure 15: Woodford Aerodrome Location 141

Figure 16: Land use plan and former land use pattern of Woodford Aerodrome 144

Figure 17: Photograph of Community Poster for Neighbourhood Forum 145

Figure 18: Poster of other developments near Woodford Aerodrome 146

Figure 19: Design prescriptions for Village Green Street 148

Figure 20: Design prescriptions for Green Street with SUDS 148

Figure 21: Design prescriptions for Green Street 149

Figure 2: Design prescriptions for Garden Street 149

Figure 23: Planning Applications for the Redevelopment of Woodford Aerodrome 151

Figure 24: Opportunities and Constrains for Ecology in Woodford Aerodrome Redevelopment 154

Figure 25: Photograph of Woodford Aerodrome 154

Figure 26: The Norwich Growth Triangle Sent in Personal Communication 171

Figure 27: Greenspace ambitions within and outside the Ecotown Boundary 181

Figure 28: Green Quarter Imaginaries 196

Figure 29: Gross improvement in revenue, and sales statistics for Green Quarter 198

Figure 30: Photographs of the Green Quarter 204

Figure 31:3 2004 Masterplan for Green Quarter 206

Figure 32: 2005 Masterplan for Green Quarter 206

Figure 33: Astroturf outside the marketing suite for the Green Quarter 207

Figure 34: Harvest Energy Petrol Station view of Green Quarter Block 4 207

Figure 35: Artist Impressions of the Green Quarter: A modernist revival 210

Figure 36: Landscape Plan for Block 5 of Green Quarter 211

Figure 37: Crosby/ Lend Lease projects conducted by the management team of Green Quarter 215

Figure 38: Relationship between primary and secondary drivers of environmental strategy in CSR 229

Figure 39: Types of Environmental Policy in CSR 233

Abstract This thesis considers the impact of Sustainable Development (SD) policy on greenspace in English housing developments over the last decade. SD has on one hand been named the ultimate justification for state intervention, with strong planning transforming consumption on the basis of equity and limits. In this scenario greenspace should play a central role, creating more ecologically conscious citizens and localizing consumption of ecosystem goods use. On the other hand it has been suggested that markets can effectively self-regulate to meet social justice goals through high technology while maintaining growth. In these more market-led approaches, the functional expectations of greenspace in cities remain anthropocentric. In line with this, this thesis considers greenspace design to be a functional expression of alternative cultural political economies of sustainable development and identifies the role of development institutions in working towards stronger sustainable development.

An institutional account of the development process is developed in this project, to identify institutional considerations affecting the adoption of responsibility by state and market actors for SD. This views SD institutions as ‘fields’ affecting decision making, constituted by a range of cultural political and economic variables. This framework was used to frame empirical work and present an analysis which could advise on better practice. First, Corporate Social Responsibility statements from 2007-2014 of fifteen volume housing developers were examined. Subsequently, three case studies were conducted, representing Ecotowns, Sustainable Communities, and Garden Cities policy moments. Each case was characterised by different combinations of policy instrument, and varying arrangements of state authority, from centrally-orchestrated regionalism (2004-2010) to localism via austerity urbanism (2010-2014).

The findings of this study suggest that SD has not transformed ideas of nature in development practice. However, rule and resource aspects of development institutions still significantly affect greenspace outcomes. CSR can support innovation in greenspace design but cannot be relied upon to transform greenspace practice in line with strong SD goals. For non-regulatory policy instruments to secure government intentions for greenspace, strong rhetorical support from central government, and expertise resources in local government are needed.

DECLARATION

No portion of the work referred to in the thesis has been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institute of learning;

i. The author of this thesis (including any appendices and/or schedules to this thesis) owns certain copyright or related rights in it (the “Copyright”) and s/he has given The University of Manchester certain rights to use such Copyright, including for administrative purposes. ii. Copies of this thesis, either in full or in extracts and whether in hard or electronic copy, may be made only in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended) and regulations issued under it or, where appropriate, in accordance with licensing agreements which the University has from time to time. This page must form part of any such copies made. iii. The ownership of certain Copyright, patents, designs, trade marks and other intellectual property (the “Intellectual Property”) and any reproductions of copyright works in the thesis, for example graphs and tables (“Reproductions”), which may be described in this thesis, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third parties. Such Intellectual Property and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available for use without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions. iv. Further information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication and commercialisation of this thesis, the Copyright and any Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions described in it may take place is available in the University IP Policy (see http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/DocuInfo.aspx?DocID=487), in any relevant Thesis restriction declarations deposited in the University Library, The University Library’s regulations (see http://www.manchester.ac.uk/library/aboutus/regulations) and in The University’s policy on Presentation of Theses

Acknowledgements

The act of ordering the list of people I feel the need to thank for being in a position to submit this research is more baffling than all of the conceptual meandering I have had the great privilege of partaking in these last four years. Thus, I follow convention.

Professor Paul Syms is the only man still standing of my original supervision team. Having awarded me a Centre for Urban Policy Studies fees scholarship, helped me to secure the Forest Research award I received in my first year, and been relentless in his advocacy of my abilities, I owe my place at Manchester to him.

Dr Iain White sadly left for brighter horizons before the final year of the project, never rewarded by the sight of my recently improved writing skills for the dedicated feedback he provided on the epistemological meltdowns and journeys of personal political discovery I submitted as ‘research reports’ in years one to three. I am immensely grateful for his tolerance of my bombastic and at times unmanageable enthusiasm.

Professor Graham Haughton and Dr Adam Barker bravely took over the ropes when Iain left. I thank Adam for helping me to refine my conceptualisation of environmental politics, a task which he has been involved in from the outset as a panel chair. I thank Graham especially for drawing my attention to theory which would help ground my state analysis, and also for his refreshingly abrasive approach to constructive criticism.

There are many friends at Manchester who have been sounding boards for ideas, but more importantly companions in personal restoration through eating, dancing, drinking, all of the above, or just laughing over tea about the absurdity of life. Most significantly, Jessica Roccard you have kept me sane.

This brings me to my parents, for supporting me financially whenever needed, and providing a source of sanity to retreat to. Matt Thompson not only shares with Paul Syms responsibility for the correct use of every apostrophe, colon and semicolon in this work, but also opened my eyes to a range of exciting new philosophical ideas which I hope to have the chance to return to later in my academic life.

Finally, thank you to my examiners – Craig Watkins and Richard Kingston – for their corrections, which refined the thesis greatly.

1. Introduction

1.1 Problem Definition: Reconciling Environment and Housing

As asked by Jeane Haffner in the Guardian in May 2015, the question ‘what is the best way to introduce nature into a city?’ is as timely as it has ever been. The relationship between people, cities and the wider ‘environment’ has preoccupied urban planners for over a century. From the late 19th century, pioneering thought was divided. Some felt planning should allocate land for agriculture to residential development in prescribed quantities in order to create self-sufficient and in turn socially just communities, in line with principles of Garden Cities advocated by Ebenezer Howard (1902). Others felt that pre-existing natural scales, such as bioregions, should be followed to determine population and energy use in line with the ideas of Patrick Geddes (Geddes, c. 1920; Geddes, 1949; Thompson, 2004).

Later, urban theorists turned to the idea that building skyscrapers would improve cities, accommodating growing urban populations without sprawling ever outward over greenspace (Busquets, 2005). Today new ideas of environment have developed in line with new ideas for cities, such as the need for designed-in wilderness as a component of ‘Biophillic cities’ (Beatley, 2011) which has influenced urban greening in Singapore (Newman, 2010)_and park design in England (Delavari-Edalat and Abdi, 2010). In contrast to this wilful naturalism, environment as a form of green ‘infrastructure’ has been influential in eco-cities approaches, (Cheng and Hu, 2010; Register, 2006) popular in China, Holland, (Van Dijck, 2010) France and Denmark (Boxenbaum et al., 2010) and as a component of Garden cities, which has seen a recent revival in the United Kingdom (Geoghegan, 2014).

In any of these approaches, two questions about planning for environment are posed. These are: firstly, to what extent can ‘nature’ be made, designed, or adapted to fit human needs: if so, how, and which needs? Secondly, who is responsible for coordinating relationships between people and nature, by which means, and at what scale? Today, these questions are as pertinent as they have ever been. As technology and trade have been transforming the ‘hinterlands’ of industrial cities in Europe and the US for long over 200 years, an imbalance between our use of nature and its capacity to self-regenerate (Foster, 1999) has developed. As shown by Turner, 2014 this is now a global phenomenon. Who holds power to alter the design of new housing varies internationally, and is largely related to the character of the housing market and the role of the state within this.

In English housing production, decisions are influenced by both state and market actors as part of a discretionary planning system which draws on a number of instruments and takes a range of forms (Adams, Watkins and White, 2005; Murdoch and Abram, 2002). Town Planning was one of the earliest regulatory arms of the state, nationalised development rights in the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act, solidifying the role and responsibility of Government in development outcomes. With the United Kingdom’s GDP heavily based on mortgage finance, (Schwartz and Seabrook, 2008) the speculative development industry is particularly important to the UK economy. Comprised of a few major players speculative development industry, have delivered on average 84% of new housing in the United Kingdom each year since 2004 (DCLG, 2014). Speculative developers build housing without first knowing the buyer, and in turn in the UK the role of civil society in designing new homes is much less significant than its continental comparators, such as Austria, where 80% of new housing each year is self-build, or Germany and France where the figure is closer to 60% (Castella, 2011). In the UK therefore, planning and the development industry take on a far greater share of responsibility for development design outcomes than other locations in Europe.

By the mid 1990’s, many in planning and the development industry thought the ‘solution’ to guide decision making on environment in housing had been found: Sustainable Development (SD) (Beauregard, 1990; Campbell, 1996; Healey and Shaw, 1994; Rydin, 1998). By the mid 1990’s Sustainability had allegedly become;

an accepted meta narrative, a given… shifted from being a variable to being the parameter of the debate, almost certain to be integrated into any future scenario of development… in the battle of big public ideas, sustainability has won’ (Campbell, 1996 p301).

Campbell’s reflection predates the first UK SD Strategy, which was published by Government in 1999, (ODPM, 1999) and the earliest Corporate Responsibility Statements by developers, reporting on issues of sustainability since 2001 (e.g. Countryside Properties, 2001). Eighteen years after Campbell’s quote, SD is still the central decision making framework for urban development processes, guiding conceptions of environment and social justice (DCLG, 2011) and rules made for SD continue to proliferate across the globe (Kruegger and Gibbs, 2007; Krut and Gelkman, 2013). Yet, despite widespread adoption of the principle of sustainability, consensus over its translation into the urban form is far from settled. Ratios of greenspace, and the functions it is intended to perform vary greatly between housing projects termed ‘sustainable’, which can exacerbate socio-environmental inequalities (Harlan et al., 2007).

In 2009, a report on ‘bad language’ in public policy by a Public Select Committee (House of Commons, 2009) suggested such ambiguities in the concept of SD limit the appropriate adoption

11 of responsibility for changing environmental practices, both of those in government, and civil society:

If we look at one word, “sustainability,” that is used in so many different councils and local authorities for so many different reasons... what is a member of the public meant to make of that word… we are not trying to dumb down the intelligence of anyone at all, but there is clearly a need for something that takes the jargon away and makes it more universal and acceptable for people to take on their responsibilities and that is everybody [in government] as well as the people in the streets (Marie Clair, speaking on behalf of the Plain English Campaign, giving Oral evidence taken before the Administration Committee on Thursday 9 July 2009 for report on ‘Bad Language: The Use and Abuse of Official Language’ House of Commons, 2009 p29)

Such confusion not only obfuscates responsibilities, but may also undermine the legitimacy of SD. This is particularly important for planning, given that its role in and value to society is frequently questioned (Wildavski, 1973; Klosterman, 1985; Campbell and Marshall, 2002; Boyfield and Ali, 2013) and that the achievement of SD has been its strategic purpose since 2004 (ODPM, 2004). As developers take on increasing rule making responsibility for sustainability, (WWF, 2002) conflicting ideas about, and priorities for sustainability may make tracing responsibilities increasingly opaque. In this context, developments which are called sustainable become battlegrounds over territories of responsibility, accountability and justice. As decision making leads to literally concrete outcomes, irreversible choices become starkly apparent, raising questions over the role of planning in the environmental politics of sustainability (Cowell, 2013 p28).

This project seeks to understand the challenges that these battlegrounds present to the progress of SD, through examining the way in which prevailing understandings of environment in English housebuilding affect decisions made about the role of greenspace in new development. It will do this through a three stage empirical analysis. First is a review of developer CSR to understand the intentions of volume housing developers for greenspace and role of CSR . Second, three case studies – representing different spatial interpretations of SD and different combinations of planning instruments are examined to understand how government policy shapes local action. Finally, reflections on comparative responsibilities of developers, and government are made.

1.2 Aims and Objectives In line with the above, the following aims and objectives were formulated. Objective 1 involved a literature and policy review. This culminated in the development of an institutional account of the development process which could consider the role of CSR and planning activity as distinct regulatory activities sharing responsibility for the same normative outcome. Objective 2 involved a systematic analysis of the CSR reports of the largest 15 UK housing developers, combined with eight interviews with actors involved in CSR production. For Objective 3, case study analysis combined document analysis and interviews. For objective 4, eleven national level interviews were conducted with those in greenspace and SD governance across the public, private and NGO sectors.

Aim: To investigate how SD policies between 2004-2014 have affected the allocation and functions prescribed to greenspace in large new housing projects.

Objectives and Research Questions (RQ’s)

1. Identify theoretical relationships between SD, greenspace, and development institutions;

RQ1: What ideas about environment shape approaches to greenspace under different SD interpretations?

RQ2: What are the political economic and cultural forces shaping outcomes in sustainable housing developments?

2. Investigate relationships made between sustainability, environment and greenspace by corporate reports of housing market leaders;

RQ3: What ideas of sustainability are present in Corporate Social Responsibility, with what consequences for greenspace?

RQ4: How does CSR regularise outcomes for greenspace provision in new housing projects?

3. Analyse the influence of alternative SD planning policy moments on greenspace allocation and intended functionality;

RQ5: What is the influence of planning policy moment on the relationship between conceptions of environment in SD and roles given to greenspace?

RQ6: How did planning and CSR each affect outcomes in these projects?

4. Evaluate responsibilities for greenspace under alternative sustainable development policies and interpretations

RQ7: What are the consequences for greenspace of rules made for SD?

RQ8: What are the comparative responsibilities of state and market for greenspace in sustainable residential development, and how does this sit within the context of political economy?

1.3 Context of Research

1.3.1 Conceptualising Greenspace

To evaluate approaches to environment, a position on nature must be taken. Smith (1984 p49) argues that in the last few hundred years, nature has predominantly become seen as that which ‘cannot be produced; it is the antithesis of human activity’. Such an understanding is presented by the oxford dictionary, which defines nature as

‘the material world, especially as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities’ (Fowler and Fowler Online, 2011)

However, the legitimacy of such an account of nature is ever decreasing. The impact of human behaviour on previously considered ‘independent’ natural systems has been shown at the global scale – such as the nitrogen cycle (Vitousek et al., 1997; Jenkinson 2001) water cycle (Vörösmarty and Sahagian, 2000; Huntington, 2006) and climate (Oreskes, 2004). In fact, the idea of a ‘second nature’ which we produce with human hands – as we sow corn and plant trees, create damns, and irrigate land – was established prior to the 18th Century. However, after this point it became clear that it was not only the actions of individuals and immediate work of human hands, but also the

‘institutions, the legal, economic and political rules according to which society operated that comprised the second nature’ (Smith, 1984 p67).

Here then, Smith argues that ‘nature’ is continually reproduced, often in uneven ways, through the institutional and regulatory processes of political economy – a view which has been increasingly adopted in urban research (Bryant and Goodman, 2004; Kosoy and Corbera, 2010; Heynen Kaika and Swyngedouw, 2006). This does not mean that all of nature’s processes, for instance photosynthesis, decomposition, etc., are a result of man’s intervention. Rather, that the relationship between ‘nature’ as a hypothetically independent entity, and the institutions which mediate ownership, management and distribution of the good and services it provides, are now so interwoven that treating them as distinct is conceptually unproductive and cannot advance appropriate adoptions of responsibility.

Under this framework, nature is not a state which can be returned to – but something which is continually produced in either more or less socially and environmentally just forms. In turn, decisions made in the planning process can be seen as ‘moments’ in the ongoing production of nature. For better environmental planning in housing to occur, awareness by the institutions of planning and housebuilding of their role in the production of nature is necessary. Drawing on this conception of nature, this thesis defines greenspace as

‘living vegetation in housing developments, ranging in scale from individually planted trees to vast landscaped planes, which can perform a range of services. These services are determined not only by natural processes, but also the cultural, political and economic structures which shape the development process’.

1.3.2 Research Approach: Understanding Development Institutions

Many academics are highly critical of the capacity or willingness of capitalist institutions to take on new responsibility, suggesting that current economic structures are deeply embedded practices, resistant to change (e.g. O’Conner, 1998; Swyngedouw, 1999; Heynen Perkins and Roy, 2006). However, recent developments in urban planning theory have asserted the capacity of development actors to be part of the social construction of market conditions (Christophers, 2014; Adams and Tiesdell, 2010; Adams Leishman and Moore, 2009) creating new directions for a discussion of reflexive environmental governance. Rather than dismissing the state or market’s intentions or capacity to address socio-environmental justice, then, these approaches consider the way alternative patterns of power and regulatory instruments are better or less able to secure environmental outcomes (Healey and Shaw, 1994; Owens, 1995; Santos, Behrendt and Teytelboym, 2010; Hull, 2008; Adams and Watkins, 2008) and asks how different policies embody different values of nature.

This research takes the perspective that progress towards social and environmental justice, or sustainability, demands institutional reflexivity (Voss et al., 2006; Markard Raven and Truffer, 2012; Shove and Walker, 2007). Such an approach posits that for institutions to recognise their responsibilities in the production of nature, they must also recognise their role as agents in the production of market conditions. This must be based on a study of the way things are, in order to understand the way things may be able to change. As Eckersley, (2004) suggests;

‘Any attempt to develop a green theory about the proper role and purpose of the state in relation to domestic and global societies and their environments must take, as its starting point, the current structures of state governance, and the ways in which such structures are

implicated in either producing and or ameliorating ecological problems’ (Eckersley, 2004 p3)

To take the perspective that neither the SD concept, institution of planning, nor speculative development industry can be dismissed but rather that their practices should be further understood in order to work towards more equitable and ecologically conscious societies, an account of the development process was needed which can identify structural constraints, while also presenting a logical argument for what cultural, political and economic factors would need to be transformed to achieve desired goals.

Institutional approaches have been used to evaluate environmental performance of the planning profession (Alexander, 2005; Wheeler, 2013; Foley, 1960; Healey, 1999); the speculative development industry (Adams and Watkins, 2008; Payne, 2009; Hertin et al., 2003) and in other fields, the influence of national policy on corporate social responsibility (Ortiz-de-Mandojana, Aguilera-Caracuel and Morales-Raya, 2014). However, no current institutional models of the development process have explicitly sought evaluate how these two forms of rule-making relate to one another in landscapes of responsibility for SD. Such an approach was therefore developed as part of this research project.

This thesis develops a new framework to understand tensions arising in SD projects. In section 2.5, structuration (Healey, 1999) innovation (González and Healey, 2005; Mouleart et al., 2007) and strategic-relational (Servillo and Van Der Broeck, 2012) institutional understandings of the development process are evaluated to identify institutional variables affecting the adoption of responsibility by state and market actors. This outlines the way different types of policy instrument could sit within alternative SD cultural political economies, or institutional constellations. To set out the alternative potential political economies from which real practice could be interpreted, Haughton’s (1999) description of four internally coherent philosophies of SD (see 1.4 below) was developed on the basis of relevant literature. This approach seeks to avoid the ‘inherent conservatism’ of exclusively positivist explanations, and also the ‘wishful utopian dreaming’ of pure theorisation (Eckersley, 2004) to recognise opportunities in current institutional practice which might be goaded to bring about deeper structural transformation.

1.4 Evaluating Policy Approaches Ideas about SD are often suggested to sit on a ‘spectrum’, which demonstrates stronger, deeper green or weaker, lighter green sustainability (Haughton and Hunter, 1994; Williams and Millington, 2004; Seager, 2008). However, greater conceptual clarity is offered by Haughton (1999) who created a typology of SD ideal types; each with their own political economy, responsibilities of state and market, preferred scales of socio-ecological organisation, and

16 understandings of nature. Haughton suggests that these ideal types are continuously in a form of competition for policy salience, and that there is considerable borrowing of ideas between them by urban policy regimes, in what can seem contradictory fashions.

Haughton’s (1999) typology of four ideal-type forms of sustainable urban development considers a range of factors, including: ideas about nature, attitudes to technology and growth, democratic engagement, scales of trade. The four types are: Externally dependant cities, (characterised by unlimited hinterlands, global trade, market supremacy and the buying-in of additional ‘carrying capacity’ with high technology), Redesigning cities (which are characterised by planning compact and more efficient city regions, with some efforts towards public consultation on development and a manage and measure approach to nature), Fair shares cities (characterised by the pursuit of globally equitable balancing of needs and rights using strong market regulation and redistribution to respect carrying capacities) and finally Self Reliant cities (characterised by an eco-centric view of nature guided by urban autarky like collective decision making, limited state infrastructure). Each of these approaches have strong internal coherence.

For instance, free-market approaches rely on consumer sovereignty as the idea of social justice, which in combination with a rejection of state intervention in market activity then relies on the promise of technology and market self-regulation to bring about social development (Ellul, 1964) and replace the self-regulating components of nature, for instance through advocacy of geoengineering (Rasch, et al., 2008). In ‘redesigning cities’, as the consumer/producer pays for negative environmental externalities – for instance, urban heat island effect will be worse in poor areas without tree shading (Harlan et al., 2007) – planning is necessary to resolve conflict, giving the impression of democratic justice, while promoting efficiency-based policies which are negotiated as growth continues.

By analysing CSR and three different planning policy moments, the empirical phases of this research offer reflections on the way responsibility is shared and taken on my state and market actors in practice. Lessons from these cases, about the role of planners and market actors in working towards Fair Shares approaches are used to generate policy recommendations as to the role of planning and CSR in the development of a green state.

1.4.1 Market Self-Regulation The first and arguably weakest sustainability approach is that of Externally Dependant cities. (Haughton, 1997; 1999). This paradigm accepts the reliability of global trade relations to ‘buy in’ additional carrying capacity. This means productive ecosystem services can be sourced from unlimited hinterlands, in turn reducing the need for allotments or community food growing, or

17 coppice woodland management. In this model, advanced technology is considered able to replace the regulatory and supportive functions of nature. Geoengineering solutions to climate change, such as the injection of stratospheric sulphate aerosols into the atmosphere to create cloud cover (Rasch et al., 2008) are examples of this extreme ‘reproduction’ of nature. Here, allegedly, freedom of the consumer is given greatest prominence in deciding what is ‘right’ – and the market self-regulates in response to the housing design and greenspace desires of consumers –who are seen as having equal ability to direct outcomes and are recognised as well informed autonomous rational actors..

The weaknesses of this approach are twofold: firstly, its reliance upon consumer intent and ability to demand, and pay for, increased environmental standards. House buyers are constrained in their market choices by location, and income (Harlan et al., 2007). Another challenge to the success of this approach in practice may be the absence of a ‘customer focus’ in the English speculative housing sector (Barlow, 1998). The speculative housing development model involves completion of the housing product before knowing the identity of the buyer – and their potential desires. Therefore, products are not ‘tailored’ to customers, rather the industry has conventionally relied upon reproduction of standardised products in standardised layouts known to be acceptable to planning authorities (Hooper and Nicol, 2000). This in effect both predicts and shapes demand. The key competitive strategy for British speculative housebuilding firms has therefore been to optimise their land holdings and time the sale of dwellings to benefit from house price inflation (Ball 1985, Bramley et al. 1995). On this basis, the industry has been labelled as innately conservative and risk adverse (Gibb, 1999).

Yet, since 2001 leading UK house builders have started to practice Corporate Social Responsibility, which may be seen as a form of self-regulation, producing annual reports which give consideration to social and environmental aims as part of a strategy for SD (WWF, 2004; Adams, Payne and Watkins, 2008). The emergence of a corporate social responsibility agenda within the industry offers new legitimacy to the externally dependant cities approach. This raises questions over how Corporate Social Responsibility defines environment and affects greenspace outcomes, or encourages developers to change behaviour and adopt new practices. To address these questions, this study analyses the corporate social responsibility strategies of fifteen of the leading UK developers, to investigate how these reports approach environment and what consequences this has for provision and functionality of greenspace in new housing projects.

1.4.2 Spatial Planning and Regionalism Two developments which began under New Labour are studied in this research. Perhaps the most influential or prominent urban policy interpretation of this spatial planning era was the Urban Renaissance agenda, which was first published in 1999 (Urban Task Force, 1999) then revised in

2005 (Urban Task Force, 2005). The focus on high density urban form aligns most closely with the second sustainable cities model proposed by Haughton (1999); ‘Redesigning cities’. In this planning’s role is to increase the efficiency of city regions by increasing density and changing behaviour. Planning shapes market-led development to reduce negative externalities, and resolve conflict. Nature is controlled and managed, and technology delivers efficiency focused objectives. In this approach, nature is not seen as replaceable, but as growth is accommodated, harm or depletion cannot be entirely prevented. Here, debates over where development should or should not happen become a priority, with room for negotiation over trade-offs between SD objectives.

Under this approach, the space allocated to greenspace in the city could be hindered by the regulatory pressure for high density, in which case urban agriculture may become vertical (Despommier 2013), thermoregulation via green roofs, and so on. However the case study for this particular policy moment – the Green Quarter, located in central Manchester – included a new urban park: the first in Manchester for 50 years. With the first masterplan application approved in 2004, and subsequent applications for each block accepted after this point as increasing importance was attached to environment by central government, this case offers interesting reflections on the influence of regional administrations in giving legitimacy to redesigning cities approaches to SD. Greenspace takes on a direct role in legitimising increases in density. This yields lessons on more negotiable policy goals and the utility of planning as a set of principles for strong SD.

The third category proposed by Haughton is that of Fair Shares cities. Here, state regulation and collaboration between nation states balance needs and rights progressively to relate local activities with global resources and ensure more equitable distributions. State regulation has a key role in the move towards ‘respecting and establishing’ regional carrying capacities, permitting the development of more local, hinterland trading systems. Environmentally sensitive technology is used where necessary, while respecting natural limits. Broadly this depicts strong social democracy (Judt, 2010). New conceptions of the potential of planning to shape and direct markets, rather than simply ‘regulate’ and constrain them become relevant to this approach in practice.

The third case study in this project considers the application of Eco-towns policy (DCLG, 2009), with arguably the strongest sustainability interpretation in the history of English policy. As the approach was developed at a time of strong regional administration, it had great potential to align with Fair Shares approaches, which demand ‘a radical shift away from development in which humans dominate and control nature in favour of ways of working in harmony with it' (Haughton, 1999 p190). This special case programme offered government subsidy to schemes which would

19 seek to achieve 40% public greenspace, carbon neutrality, and one other, locally named, parameter of environmental excellence. The Eco-town chosen for this study is Rackheath, Norwich. The project is a collaboration of Barratt Homes, Broadland District Council, and the (single) landowner of the site, with a Joint Venture Agreement and subsidies. In turn, the legitimacy of Planning as a promulgator of sustainability is under high scrutiny in this case, as planning theoretically takes a more command and control approach. This case highlights the contradictions which arise from objective-led, rather than systematic approaches to sustainability, with lessons for the development of Fair Shares approaches including volume house builders.

The final model proposed by Haughton is that of ‘Self-reliant cities’. This approach seeks to align consumption and development with natural processes and integrate nature into development to achieve ‘circular’ metabolism: containing all material flows within bioregions. Use of technology is selective. Residents are engaged in radical democracy, or urban autarky: there is no role for a central administrative state. Local economic trading systems are developed and privileged over international trade relationships. By adopting a more organic, rather than technologically mediated approach, greenspace becomes more important as all human needs are fulfilled nearby, and development works in line with nature. The highly devolved and participatory character of this approach lowers the role of formal planning and the presence of a ‘state’ is questionable in this model. Therefore there is no case study for this approach. However, its approach to environment: local trading systems, circular metabolism, low technology, offer a compass for Fair shares approaches to work towards.

1.4.3 Localism and Austerity Planning In 2010 with the arrival of a new Coalition government of Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties seeking to recover from a recession, planning policy was reformed, and consolidated into a much shorter single document. While a ‘presumption in favour of SD’ was made, no commitment to a specific interpretation was given (Cowell, 2013). This places even greater emphasis on the interpretation of sustainability by, and self-regulating activities of, developers. However, the creation of Localism Act (HMG, 2011) intended to place greater power in the hands of civil society, to influence new housing in their area, with potential to form Neighbourhood Forums and create formally recognised Neighbourhood Plans.

At the same time that new planning tools at the neighbourhood level were created, Garden Cities were advocated as suitable vehicles for new major development projects by central government policy. The ideology of Garden Cities, as described by Howard above (1902) would most closely aligned with a self-reliant cities model. However, no prescriptions were made in government policy leaving outcomes up to developers, local authorities and where relevant, neighbourhood

20 forums. The contradictions this presents are considered in the last case study, of Woodford Garden Village, a development of up to 950 new homes on a former Aerodrome in the Greenbelt of Stockport. What ‘Garden village ideology’ (Stockport MBC, 2012), the local interpretation, meant for greenspace, and how this was shaped by the interests of different actors provides a debate over devolved regulatory capacities and preferences for policy prescription.

1.5 Contribution to Knowledge The novelty of this study is its simultaneous evaluation of state and market policies, to understand overarching, structural landscapes of responsibility for SD. Two gaps in knowledge were identified: the influence of different types of policy implement on greenspace outcomes in SD, and the role of CSR as a form of regulation within landscapes of responsibility for greenspace in SD. In response to this, a conceptual framework was developed to understand different expectations of state and market actors under alternative SD scenarios. This recognised CSR as a form of market regulation which stands beside planning practice, and potentially competes with planning for territory over legitimate definitions of responsible and appropriate SD.

By considering the relationship between different types of policy instrument, and wider planning policy moments in the recent history of SD planning , barriers to more progressive greenspace design are identified. By considering the efficacy of developer policies to secure greenspace outcomes, in the context of a shift towards deregulation and more market led forms of governance, the project also offers a discussion of the ability of planning to progress strong SD or fair shares approaches.

2. Literature Review

This chapter intends to address Objective 1: to identify theoretical relationships between SD, greenspace, and the regulation of large-scale residential developments. The Chapter has five sections. In section 2.1, the way greenspace can deliver a range of different goods and services in housing development to deliver Sustainable Development (SD) goals is considered, in relation to the rules and forms of state intervention which could help to secure them. International best practice is outlined to identify the role of planning policy, and the role of different types of policy instrument is further explored in 2.1.4. 2.1.5 discusses how environment has been historically conceived in planning and the instruments which have sought to implement these environmental goals.

This provides a frame of reference for the analysis of SD policies from 2004, which are presented in section 2.2 for New Labour and Coalition government planning frameworks. The role of CSR as a form of self-regulation by the development industry is introduced in section 2.3. Section 2.4 then draws together the findings of the chapter, to identify the perameters required to investigate greenspace regulation by state and market actors. Responding to this, section 2.5 sets out an institutional account of the development process, presenting a conceptual framework to guide the empirical approach.

2.1. Planning for Ecosystem Services Greenspace as defined in 1.3.1 does not make reference to particular functional preferences of greenspace. However, these are the central concern to the project. To discuss what functionalities might be expected from greenspace, a conceptual device to talk about nature is needed. Ecosystem Services has become a popular heuristic to discuss environmental functionality in policy research and plan for more reflexive environmental governance (Campbell and Sheate, 2012). Defining the concept is challenging, and often depends on the objectives for research projects (Fisher et al., 2009). Popular definitions include ‘the conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems, and the species that make them up, sustain and fulfill human life’ (Daily, 1997) and ‘the benefits human populations derive, directly or indirectly, from ecosystem functions’ (Costanza et al., 1998). The UK National Ecosystem Assessment (UKNEA, 2011) defined ES as ‘the benefits provided by ecosystems that contribute to making human life both possible and worth living’ (Ibid, pIV).

Cowell and Lennon (2014) note that the Ecosystem Services (ES) concept has not yet been of great relevance to UK planning practice. McKenzie et al. (2014) note that while there has been a focus on either analysing the concept as it is embedded in policy, ES can also be used to provide a strategic critique of existing environmental governance processes, in turn aiding reflexive policy development. It is in this way – as a heuristic device to analyse practice – that this project uses the ES concept, as a language through which to analyse and identify the kinds of greenspace outcomes which are recognised and promoted in development processes.

The Ecosystem Services concept developed in the 1970s, as on the back of the nascent environmental movement, ecosystem functions began to be framed as utilitarian, and in the public interest to conserve (Gomez-Baggethun et al., 2010). They became mainstream in academic work through the 1990s, and were brought into common political discourse in 2005 by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005) commissioned by the United Nations. The MEA introduced four categories within which Nature’s activities could be described: first, regulating, e.g. climate, air quality, water quality, flood risk, disease, and waste decomposition; second, supportive, e.g. soil formation, photosynthesis, and nutrient cycling; third, provisioning, e.g. food, water and timber; and fourth, cultural, e.g. recreational, aesthetic, and spiritual functions (MEA, 2005).

These have been contested, on the grounds that they compartmentalise what are inherently relational activities (Wallace, 2007); which should not be parcelled off in ways which enable them to be seen through the lens of exchange values, which has become increasingly common practice (Heal et al. 2001, Pereira et al. 2005) but that they should instead be seen as interrelated in non-

23 linear ways (e.g., Farber et al. 2002, van Jaarsveld et al. 2005). These are valid points. Yet, all ecological explanations of the natural environment struggle to explain, predict and theorise the uncertain, sometimes random and ultimately variable character of natural processes (Schaffer, 1985). The concept, as with all concepts, is an abstraction from ‘reality’ of nature, which can be better described than completely, known (Castree, 2005). However, such abstraction is necessary to study and evaluate the different functionalities of greenspace.

As a heuristic the approach does provide undeniable clarity and ease in discussing the different kinds of functions and services which are intended for greenspace by policy and developers. Therefore, the approach is seen as helpful, provided that the challenges that exchange-led conceptions of nature present for the development of an ecosystem services approach are discussed and raised throughout. With this in mind, Section 2.1 will now introduce the range of potential ecosystem services relevant to greenspace in sustainable large-scale housing development and consider implications for policy efforts.

2.1.1 Cultural Services Cultural services have been most considered by the planning profession, and may include recreation and aesthetic satisfaction. However, specific approaches need to be taken in order for greenspace to become part of ‘a strategy to raise inhabitants’ spiritual awareness of their links with nature’ (Haughton 1999, p.190). While some early planning theorists considered intrinsic moral behaviour to arise from good quality urban environments with access to recreational greenspaces (Abercrombie, 1933; Sharp, 1932) – it is now widely accepted that cultural services vary in their effects and across cultures (Wallace, 2007). This is highlighted by Fromm, Suzuki and De Martino (1960, p4) when comparing Anglo-Saxon and Japanese poetry about personal interactions with a flower. Basho, a Japanese scribe of the 17th Century, celebrates a flower’s existence in his poem:

When I look carefully,

I see the nazuna blooming

By the hedge!

In stark contrast, Alfred Lord Tennyson expresses his very different approach:

Flower in the crannied wall,

I pluck you out of the crannies;

Hold you here, root and all, in my hand,

Little flower – but if I could understand

What you are, root and all, and all in all,

I should know what God and man is.

While Basho is satisfied in conveying awe through an exclamation mark at the marvel of nature, Tennyson is willing to kill it in order to understand it. This latter analytical approach – the abstraction of nature from context for the purposes of analysis – can be seen to reflect the ‘Cartesian Dualism’ of Western society. This refers to an ideological split between nature and culture, with humans considered separate from the rest of nature as a result of consciousness (Latour, 2012). In the sixteenth and seventieth centuries, understandings of nature changed dramatically as the notion of an organic and spiritual universe was surpassed by the idea of the world as a machine composed of separable individuated atoms subject to mechanical laws of cause and effect; brought about by revolutions in understanding of physics and astronomy by Copernicus, Galileo and Newton, reflected in philosophy by the likes of Descartes, and the development of the scientific method by Bacon (Anthony, 2006). Nature became seen as a series of discrete elements to be managed and controlled.

The success of technology and industry as a result of scientific developments led to swift urbanisation of populations; removing those affected from more immediate relationships with nature (Haughton and Hunter, 2004), which was increasingly accessed and perceived through instrumental exchange rather than use (Kaika, 2005). Housing was designed to accommodate people who could aid the further expansion of urban economies; predominantly built on former agricultural common land (Hall, 2002). This physical separation manifested in a conceptual, discursive, even ideological distinction between people and the rest of nature.

Policies for and debates over SD must challenge these embedded cultural conceptions. There is a great amount of research which considers the cognitive and psychological benefits of being in ‘natural environments’ (e.g. Bratman et al., 2012; Davis, 2004; Kaplan, 1995; Ulrich et al., 1991; Mace et al., 2004; Hartig and Evans, 1993). Research in this field has suggested designs which give a feeling of ‘wilderness’ – being alone in a naturalised space - best remind us of our place within nature (Cronon, 1996; Haluza-Delay, 2001). Some studies have gone so far as to suggest that to achieve this, humans must be in – or at least believe they are in – a state of ‘authentic’ nature: “a place out there—a reality fundamentally different and removed from…civilization… undisturbed, natural, unfamiliar, without people or human material development.” (Haluza-Delay, 2001: 43)

This is of course difficult in the context of planned greenspace in housing. However, during the 1990’s Switzerland, Germany and Austria have established a number of urban wilderness areas,

25 predominantly forests (Diemer et al., 2003) with the most prominent example being Sihlwald, located in Zürich (Ibid). These spaces have been recovered from previously industrial uses, by encouraging natural processes of succession. The cost of providing access to these spaces and protected status of these sites can be problematic. This creates opportunities for CSR to connect urban residents with these spaces. Planning policy to protect these sites from development and designate them as protected spaces is important (Gustavvson et al., 2005).

In conclusion then, greenspace designs which can transform current perceptions of environment demand additional institutional support to change understandings of nature’s purpose, value and meaning to society (Moore, 1995; Stone and Barlow, 2005; Williams and Brown, 2013). At a deeper level, philosophical aspects of ideas about nature need to change to work towards stronger or deeper green interpretations of SD, such as those of Fair Shares or Self-Reliant cities approaches.

2.1.2 Provisioning Services As one of the earliest commodities, food systems are the most obviously ‘produced’ natures. Food is also, therefore the most institutionalised ecosystem good with a long history of state policy across the world (Atkins and Bowler, 2001). The most embedded relationships and networks for food now act across international markets (Ibid). Strong sustainability interpretations demand a more local association between production and consumption of food, on the basis of transport emissions (Hunt et al., 2005), and visibility of ecological processes of production that changes cultural behaviour towards food consumption (Stone and Barlow, 2005; Moore, 1995, Williams and Brown, 2013). This demands new scalar ‘frames’ – strategic presentations of the appropriate relationship between communities and resources they consume and depend upon Kurtz (2003) .

Sustainable food systems are also defined against the negative environmental practices of large- scale agriculture, which destroy biodiversity (Steinfield et al., 2006; Scherr and McNeely, 2008) and are fossil-fuel intensive (Horrigan Lawrence and Walker, 2002). Urban food production can take place in a variety of locations: peri-urban farm fields, on rooftops, in private and community gardens, and on allotments (Barthel et al. 2010). Moreover, food production from such small- holdings, if both urban and rural farms were to be decentralised and redistributed on a global scale, has been shown capable of meeting growing global food needs (UNCTAD, 2013).

A systematic transition from large-scale to small-scale agriculture would require great coordination of the countless relationships between producer small-holdings and consumer communities, demanding the encouragement and regulation of market relationships; a skill which has been attributed to planning in recent years (Jessop, 2002; Lowndes et al., 1997).

Marsden (2010) suggests that new institutional constellations are necessary in developing regional eco-economies based around food, going further to suggest that once established these may even be suitable to determine territorial capacities. The role of planning in this transition is an important question, and needs to be examined in the context of existing institutional behaviours towards ecosystem services and development.

The Toronto Food Policy Council (TFPC) could be considered as one such institutional constellation. This involved a collaboration between farmers, anti-poverty activists, community organizations, food systems academics, the conventional and organic business sector, education, multicultural organizations, Health authorities and city politicians. This created a new form of good governance, which sought to change markets and reform food relationships (Welsh and Macrea, 1998). Other cases demonstrate that community groups can play a large role in developing local food networks, for instance the Massachusetts Avenue Project (MAP), founded in 1992 in response to violent crime on the Lower West Side of Buffalo, which has educated local communities in food-growing on vacant lots (Metcalf and Widener 2011). In Todmodern, Yorkshire community groups have taken it upon themselves to develop ‘Incredible Edible’; an urban food growing movement which makes use of any available urban space (Thompson, 2012).

While environmental campaigns like this have developed over the last decade, none have commanded the level of attention as those of the 1970s (Bosso and Guber 2006). National food security is dropping out of political debate, and while the price spike of 2008 prompted some government response (DEFRA, 2008; Strategy Unit, 2008) the rhetoric was emphatically of free and open markets’. Transformation of existing patterns demands arguably radical change. As shown by Eizenberg (2012) who considered the evolution of community gardens in lower- income areas of New York, public ownership of land used for food growing can be important to preserve it. For this to be seen as a worthwhile effort,

While the gardens were first created by grassroots groups, with food production a major function, many have since been transferred to not-for-profit NGOs. One of these NGO’s sought to transfer ownership of these sites – which they bought on the basis of having an active community governance structure – to those community members via creation of individual trusts. However, in this time demanding bureaucratic process, the enthusiasm of spontaneous and creative collective action was lost as rigid management structures and responsibilities of ownership buckled communities. In turn, established, successful and organised community groups were eroded – along with the functionality and food growing in the gardens. The other organisation, purchased sites with dictatorial, or waning governance structures and allowed sites to be sponsored by local companies, who could redesign them. Management responsibilities were

27 taken away from the community, who felt like visitors to these sites. Spaces were formalised, and much-used allotment spaces were replacement with flower beds.

Another productive ecosystem service advocated by strong SD conceptions is carbon neutral energy sources, such as coppiced woodland or biofuels (Sage, 1998; Gustafsson, 1987). This harnesses the supportive services of photosynthesis (i.e. carbon capture in plants) to deliver carbon neutral energy. ‘Self-reliant cities’ approaches, which only use ecologically sensitive limited technology (Haughton, 1997), may prefer community-run woodland schemes, sourcing woodchip as locally as possible – if not wholly ‘on-site’ – at a scale managed by members of the given community. However, in working towards Fair Shares cities, issues of scale, land sacrifice, time lags in tree development, and most importantly, intentions of the residential community to take ownership of this activity themselves, all present challenges.

In a more practical sense, therefore, coppiced woodland presents governance issues which also need to be considered during the design stages and project inception of new housing development. In a speculative development model, the chances that developers will limit their market to those willing to take on responsibility for the production of their own energy is unlikely. This noted, The Woodland Trust already offer ‘green’ energy (Woodland Trust Energy, 2014). Coordination between charities such as the Woodland Trust and local planning authorities may be able to encourage a movement towards such options, although the character of the local authority (i.e. urban, peri-urban, or rural) may affect the requirement for higher level coordination.

2.1.3 Supportive and Regulatory Services Supportive and regulatory services are arguably the hardest ecosystem services to account for through ecological economics (Muradian et al., 2010; Engel Pagiola and Wunder, 2008). The poor visibility of these services also makes it harder to generate political support (Fischer, 2000; Lowe and Morrison, 1984; Engel Pagiola and Wunder, 2008). As part of an emerging environmental movement in the 1970s, a collaboration of environmental academics asserted that:

‘to suppose that we can ensure the functioning of the ecosphere ourselves with the sole aid of technological devices, thereby dispensing with the elaborate set of self-regulating mechanisms that have taken thousands of millions of years to evolve, is an absurd piece of anthropocentric presumption that belongs to the realm of pure fantasy…’ (Goldsmith et al., 1972, p72)

SD ideas which promote regulatory and supportive services may therefore be seen as the most progressive and politically radical: they are ‘public goods’, often with ‘non-rivalrous’ consumption (Klosterman, 1985); and crucially, challenge the engrained default of western

28 politics that all environmental depletion can be replaced by technological advances (Melzer, 1993). However, the achievement of regulatory and supportive services seems has the least relationship to whether greenspace is publicly or privately owned, or even accessible. This makes delivery options more flexible.

Harlan et al., (2007) argue that climate change creates new justifications for state intervention in the urban form to secure greenspace for the purpose of its adaptation benefits, rather than for its immediate social or public benefits. Numerous regulatory ecosystem services can aid in climate change adaptation through: first, energy conservation through building shading (McPherson and Simpson, 2003); second, reduced urban heat island effect via evapotranspiration (Gill et al., 2007); and third, flood risk reduction via provision of a permeable surface. Evapotranspiration is the process through which water from the plants absorbs heat as it evaporates, thus cooling the air (Bolund and Hunhammar, 1999; Hardin and Jensen 2007; Nowak and Crane 2000). Trees can also regulate local surface and air temperatures by reflecting solar radiation and shading surfaces (McPhearson, 2011). Beyond this, greenspace can aid mitigation of climate change through the supportive service of carbon capture through photosynthesis (Getter et al., 2009).

Moreover, greenspace can remove pollutants such as ozone, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and particulates less than 10μm (PM10) (Nowak 1994a; Escobedo et al., 2008) – therefore addressing air pollution from transport, industry, domestic heating, and urban waste incineration, all of which can create a range of health problems in cities (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2013). Other supportive services include in-situ remediation of contaminated land through vegetation which absorbs and degrades contaminants (phytoremediation), or restricts contaminant movement (phytostabilisation). This may then pave the way for subsequent land use for urban agriculture.

Yet there are significant differences between plant species in achieving most regulatory and supportive outcomes (Dzierzanowski et al., 2011) – meaning that to optimise these services such outcomes should be a conscious component of design stages (Ishii 1994; Pathak et al. 2007). Unfortunately, regulatory and supportive services are often taken for granted (Rodriguez et al., 2006) with too little consideration of who should be delivering them, where, and at what scale. For this reason, they are often ‘traded-off’ (Ibid) in development processes, and can be lost entirely, as land is used for urban expansion or economically productive services.

However, they have become incorporated into policy frameworks. For instance, in Santiago, Chille, chronic air pollution has been tackled through urban greening programmes (Escobedo et al., 2008). If set up by local government and subsequently management by communities this can be a more cost effective solution than technological alternatives (Ibid). As Van Herk et al., (2011)

29 have shown, the Netherlands developed collaborative learning communities to progress urban flood risk mitigation strategies with greenspace. These institutional vehicles enabled different organisations to collaborate in create flood resilient landscapes.

Malmo, Sweeden was built on formerly agricultural land with no hills, forests or other natural ‘obstacles’ to dense development. It became deficient in greenspace comparatively within Sweden, and planning instruments were developed to remedy this. The ‘Greenspace Factor’ has key objectives to; present an attractive, healthy environment for people; to promote biodiversity; and to minimise storm water run-off (Kruse, 2011). The tool measures the overall quantity of green coverage on site, demanding 60% greenspace. This often necessitates implementation of green roofs. This has since been adopted in Greece (Vartholomaios et al., 2013). The Biotype Area Factor is a similar regulatory instrument which has been used in Berlin (Kazmierczak and Carter, 2010). All potential green areas, such as courtyards, roofs, walls, and fire walls, are included in the BAF. However, different types of greenspaces are weighted differently according to their evapotranspiring qualities, permeability, possibility to store rain water, relationship to soil functioning and provision of habitat for plants and animals (Ibid).

2.1.4 Policy Instruments and Greenspace Design

Section 2.1 has shown the ways in which greenspace can be used to achieve ecosystem service outcomes which contribute to strong SD. It has emphasised the requirement for many of these services to be consciously ‘designed-in’ for the outcomes to be achieved. Not any allocation of any greenspace will achieve all of these functions or optimise particular outcomes. This reinforces the responsibility with designers and regulators in development planning processes to consider these objectives. The importance of perceived natural or political scales was also shown. These ideas of scale have been described as ‘frames’. For instance, in order to achieve flood risk mitigation, assessment of the local catchment area is necessary; an ‘organic’ scale seen through computer modelling. In order to work towards regional food networks, additional institutional apparatus beyond greenspace design may need to be established. How environmental challenges and opportunities are framed with regard to different scales is therefore important in determining which ecosystem services are considered. Further, as such frames imply responsibilities, the question of who is proposing them is important.

Lessons from international greenspace literature suggest a variety of policy tools are needed to secure sustainable greenspace design. These include setting up collaborative learning groups to develop the capacity of urban governance institutions to effectively design in and manage

30 greenspace, policies which explicitly regulate quantities of greenspace in new development, policies which change and shape the flow of current market trading relationships from global to local levels.

Section 2.1 highlighted the range of ecosystem services greenspace can offer development; while also making clear that achieving these services cannot be taken for granted, requiring intentional design and planning in new housing projects. As set out, often economic relationships need to be changed and potentially new institutions developed to look after and oversee the development and longevity of greenspace. In this context, it becomes important to ask who is responsible for ensuring these outcomes, through which types of instrument, and with what degree of market intervention (van Der Heidjen, 2010; Lynch-wood and Williamson, 2010; Cashore 2002; Braithwaite, 2008).

The need for policy instruments which shape markets, regulate them, build the capacity of actors, and acquire land were discussed above as important to securing a range of sustainable greenspace designs. Tiesdell and Allmendinger (2005) present a typology of planning instruments which reflect the different types of policy experience discussed above. This has also been used by Adams, Dunse and White (2005) Adams and Tiesdell (2010) and Adams and Watkins (2014) to discuss the role of planning. These include: ‘market-shaping’ tools, i.e. development plans, statutory plans and policies, guidance; ‘regulation’, which might created by the state or a third party; ‘market stimulation’, typically involving direct or indirect fiscal measures such as subsidies and joint ventures; and ‘capacity building’ tools, such as collaborative working groups, which reduce risk and build relationships between market actors. How these relate to the delivery of ecosystem services is set out in Figure 1 below.

Type of policy Typical Form Strategy Potential for Greenspace

Market Shaping National Planning To provide information Change the direction of Policy, Guidance and increase certainty food markets from global to notes, Indicative where value of decision local Plans

depends on other choices (interdependent)

Capacity Arenas for To increase relationships Develop local food Building interaction/ between actors, to build ‘institutional networks social-capital, exchange constellations’ to connect Partnerships knowledge and create producers and consumers new rules of ecosystem goods at local level

Stimulating Joint state-market Change decision-making State ownership of land to ventures, land context, nurture and protect urban farming assembly, encourage development projects compulsory of fragile markets, Attract development to purchase, counteract economic preferred locations to subsidies to impacts of regulatory protect existing greenspace encourage desired policy activities

Regulatory Planning Control, Direct control of market Protection of wilderness State (or third actions, provide spaces party) regulation information and restrict Enforced ratios of choice greenspace provision, as share of overall space or local allotments per head Figure 4: Planning Policy Instruments: Form, Strategy and Potential for Greenspace How these different types of instrument have been used in the UK and with what consequences are now considered.

2.1.5 A Short History of Environmental Policy and Greenspace

Planning was first justified as an intervention in free-markets on the basis it could secure ‘public goods’ defined by Klosterman (1985 p5) as having two characteristics: (1) ‘jointed’ or ‘non- rivalrous’ consumption such that, once produced, they can be enjoyed simultaneously by more than one person; and (2) ‘‘non-excludability’ or ‘non-appropriability’ such that it is difficult (in some

32 cases impossible) to assign well-defined property rights or restrict consumer access…’’This use- value focus aligns well with cultural, regulatory and supportive ecosystem services. However, early greenspace planning did not reflect all of these functions.

Access to the ‘countryside’ was considered a public good as demonstrated by the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act. These spaces were conserved and protected from development. Functionally, this prioritises the aesthetic quality of nature – providing spiritual restoration for the urban masses. In cities, this same functional preoccupation – aesthetics to improve spiritual wellbeing – has preoccupied planning of greenspaces (Healey and Shaw, 1994). Green Belt policy was similarly developed for aesthetic purposes (Sandys, 1955) making clear distinctions between separate towns. Whatmore and Boucher (1993) describe these early policies for greenspace as part of a ‘conservation narrative’ presenting nature as ‘vulnerable…a recipient of action, never to be a co-actor in an articulated practice’ (Kaika and Swyngedouw, 2012, p.25).

Zoning policies in the 1950s responding to a strong agricultural lobby developed concern about food security (Healey and Shaw, 1994). However, public interest in the issue had subsided by the 1960s as international food imports lowered domestic costs, also serving to decrease use of urban allotments, leading local authorities to sell many off. In the 1970s, the environmental movement sweeping Europe and America did stimulate some reform of planning, with greenspace beginning to be used in derelict land reclamation projects for regeneration. Ironically – for this was certainly no aim of the environmental movement – this marks the first moves towards greenspace being used for its exchange value, rather than its use values.

As a result of these changes, local authorities began to take an interest in issues of urban-fringe management, improving water quality, limiting agricultural damage, and controlling mineral exploitation – with some preliminary rhetoric in development plans although not enforceable policies, to water related carrying capacity (Healey and Shaw, 1994). This developed the environmental tenor of planning, and also advanced its strategic control at the level of local government. However, the Thatcher Government, seeking increasing centralisation (Parkinson, 1989) sought to curtail the strategic power being created for local authorities (Healey and Shaw, 1994). By the mid-1980s, a Department of Environment (DOE, 1985 cited in Ibid) circular stated a ‘presumption in favour of development’ to be the purpose of planning. This suggested that development projects should only be refused if they caused ‘demonstrable harm to interests of acknowledged importance’ (Ibid, p.1). This changed the status of development plans, which were reduced to the same status as all other material considerations, and resulted in what came to be

33 known as an ‘appeal-led’, rather than ‘plan-led’, system with issues debated on a project-by- project basis (Healey and Shaw, 1994).

In 1990, the new Town and Country Planning Act introduced, under Section 106, a tax mechanism for development. ‘Section 106’, as it was commonly known, became a mechanism to secure ‘public goods’ from developers, in exchange for development rights. As Whatmore and Boucher (1994) explain, this change – whereby planning became seen as a site of bargaining between state and private sector – was combined with the development of a new narrative of nature: the ‘commodity narrative’. This rejects the regulatory planning ethos of the once-dominant ‘conservation’ environmental narrative, in favour of one

‘attuned to wider shifts in the political terrain of the 1980s towards free market ideology and de-regulation, [and] recasts the ethos and practice of planning in the language of the market… Government policy and local government financial pressures effected a real shift towards a planning system increasingly reliant on bargaining mechanisms, such as voluntary planning agreements and appeals, rather than statutory mechanisms’ (Whatmore and Boucher, 1993, p.170)

Development was reframed as offering new and exciting environments as ‘place-product packages’ such as nature reserves, or in ‘total environments’ of mixed residential, leisure and commercial spaces with landscaping and tree planting. As Whatmore and Boucher (1994) explain, the so called ‘planning for environmental gain’ approach was spearheaded by the volume house-builders, through the House Builders Federation (HBF) who collaborated with others to garner acceptance of the idea that new development could offset environmental loss, and deliver community and environmental ‘benefits’. This suggestion that developers were offering more than they have to signals early ideas of CSR.

This Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI), media, and most significantly, various statutory conservation agencies such as the Nature Conservancy Council and Countryside Commission adopted this concept and advocated that planning gain could deliver community woodland and new wildlife habitats with access for enjoyment, and also the development of ‘new countryside’ (Countryside Commission, 1989). This demonstrates a departure from the idea that nature cannot be created, to one in which planning was to be intentionally directed towards creating new natures. However, the policy tools and frames of environment were not based on ecological principles. Furthermore, the rhetoric of planning for environmental gain focused on environmental enhancement elsewhere, in areas yet to be developed, rather than enhancing the environmental credentials of new development. In turn, new spaces of ordained conservation and recreation could thus compensate for the loss of existing green land to hard development.

This resulted in a shift in understanding among development actors towards treating nature as a ‘thing’, inert and passive, which had the same relative value in one location or another (Whatmore and Boucher, 1993). Not only did this contribute to a net loss of greenspace when not accompanied by strong zoning policies, but also ramified existing functional values of greenspace: aesthetic, recreational, and conservation of nature outside of urban environments. A review of the application of these policies found that in the three years between 1987 and 1990, only 0.5% of planning applications had involved planning agreements – 12% of which consisted of built environment improvements or onsite landscaping (DOE, 1992).

At the same time that planning was being stripped of its hard power as a ‘custodian’ of the countryside (Healey and Shaw, 1994), local government was also denied the funding to support its role as a guardian of public greenspace. There was – and still is – no statutory duty on local authorities to provide or maintain parks, and thus inevitably, the ‘unsympathetic attitude towards local government of successive Conservative Governments from 1979 onwards placed progressively severe financial pressures on local authorities’ (Davies and Selwood, 1998, p8) – resulting in disproportionate budget cuts to non-statutory services. Trade union GMB observed that ‘councils are meant to provide parks and leisure through the ‘other services block’ which has to fund a vast range of unconnected services from rat catching to trade standards’ (cited by Harding, 1999, p.7). Compounding this, a policy push towards Compulsory Competitive Tendering (CCT) offered ‘a way for hard pressed councillors to save money, and with no requirement that savings made be reinvested in parks’ (Ibid, p.7).

This marked a shift from what Harvey (1989) famously termed ‘managerialism’, whereby municipal planning was responsible for the distribution of welfare goods – to ‘entrepreneurialism’, in which municipal authorities must collaborate and negotiate with private actors and compete with other cities for scarce resources in an era of increasingly mobile and global capital. This shift saw public powers to fund and direct urban regeneration and housing development radically curtailed and restructured in line with the market. Yet at the same time, market-led approaches to urban development were losing credibility by the 1990s, as growth had destabilised in the property sector (Thomley, 1991). this renewed recognition that certainty, through regulation, was needed in order to sustain growth. The ethical premise of SD offered planning new legitimacy and institutional identity, following its diminishment under decades of technocratic, process-based professionalism which failed to make moral claims on the basis of expert knowledge of the city (Beauregard, 1990). In 1990 ‘This Common Inheritance’ was published (TCI, 1990). New intentions for planning are best illustrated by Planning Policy Guidance note 12 (PPG12) (DOE, 1992), which suggested:

‘Local planning authorities should take account of the environment in the widest sense in plan preparation. They are familiar with the 'traditional' issues of Green Belt, concern for landscape quality and nature conservation, the built heritage and conservation areas. They are familiar too with pollution control planning for healthier cities. The challenge is to ensure that newer environmental concerns, such as global warming and the consumption of non-renewable resources, are also reflected in the analysis of policies that form part of plan preparation.’ (Ibid, para 6.3)

This called for a moves away from conservation and commodity narratives towards ‘newer environmental concerns’ (ibid). Whatmore and Boucher (1993, p.170) suggest that these new frames of reference for nature, or ‘ecology narratives’ presented ‘radical implications for the political economy of land development and for the ethos and protocol of planning practice.’ Whatmore and Boucher (1993) suggested that, under SD, ‘ecology narratives’ had the potential to radically reform ‘the political economy of land development and…the ethos and protocol of planning practice’ (ibid, p.170). However, in the late 1990’s ideas were split between efficiency narratives which focused on abiotic components (energy, minerals) and more radical approaches which sought to work in line with nature.

Local governments were unsure of central government’s intentions for either efficiency-based interpretations, or more radical conceptions recognising the economy as a subsystem of the ecological system. This hindered the development of effective policy instruments in the 1990s (Mitler, 1999) with policy instruments such as environmental capacity studies torn apart at public examination (Counsell and Haughton, 2006). The lack of any changes to the rule-making capacities of planning allowed economic interests to preside in development control processes and public debates about plan making (Healey and Shaw, 1994). By the end of the 1990s, many questions remained unanswered: could planning hold new understandings of environment: what policy tools would deliver change; were new balances of power between local and central government needed; did strong sustainable development need ‘stronger’ regulatory approaches?

The challenge of addressing these tensions was presented to the New Labour government, at the same time as huge pressures on housing stock expansion. Department of the Environment housing projections in 1995 forecast that the number of households in England would grow from 19.2 million in 1991 to 23.6 million in 2016, an increase of 23 per cent, projecting 4.4 million new homes would be needed by 2016. Blair's New Labour government then inherited a ‘planning for housing’ crisis and needed to quickly put a viable mass house-building policy into action; something which section 2.2 will explore in greater detail.

2.1.6 Conclusions

This section has shown that different ideas of environment – from the level of philosophies of nature as replaceable or finite, down to functional narratives about the role of greenspace in urban development - are manifest in different policy tools. ‘Conservation’ narratives of SD – as seen in zoning and land categorisation policies – frame nature as inanimate or vulnerable. ‘Commodity’ narratives in the 1980s did not assert that ‘nature’ could be created, but did suggest that environmental improvement could be delivered as a result of housing development. While this understanding was largely abused by the development industry with very few entering into voluntary agreements, it can be seen to mark a change in understandings of nature in planning; introducing the idea that house-builders are in some way responsible for environmental outcomes.

Changes in the distribution of power between actors at the local level and between local and central government shape opportunities to change practices and achieve more progressive greenspace designs. The challenge facing SD policy is then to embed an institutional apparatus capable of persuading development actors to consider new and alternative roles for greenspace, transcending recreational aesthetic roles; and capable of developing mechanisms linking new housing to more socio-ecological lifestyles. Section 2.2 will consider how this can be seen in English housing policy since 2000.

2.2 Policies for SD

2.2.1 Spatial Planning, Regionalism and SD New Labour entered government with a promise of radical ideals, not ‘outdated ideology’ (Labour Party, 1997). Tony Blair set about developing policies for Third Way governance; a project to achieve growth, at the same time as achieving a range of social and environmental aims (Giddens, 2013). This was evident in the 1999 UK SD Strategy, ‘A Better Quality of Life’ (OPDM, 1999) which sought to achieve the following: social progress; protection of the environment; prudent use of natural resources; and maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth. It was under this ‘win-win-win’ interpretation – where no economic, social or environmental sacrifice was deemed necessary to achieve SD (Counsell and Haughton 2004) – that their SD policy was developed.

The New Labour planning project was to be achieved through evidence-based planning; generally considered to draw on statistical or numeric analysis for legitimacy of policy interventions (in line with measure and manage approaches to nature) but contested academically (Wells, 2007; Davoudi, 2006; Faludi and Waterhout, 2006). This provided some of the building blocks for the new so-called ‘spatial planning’ (Allmendinger and Haughton, 2010) introduced through the 2004 Town and Country Planning Act. ‘Spatial planning’ was to create new spaces of multi-scalar decision-making, through partnership-based, consensus-seeking, ‘stakeholder’-driven, cross- sectoral, ‘vision’-led spatial strategies (Davoudi, 2008; Albrechts, 2004; Healey, 2004). In turn, the focus shifted towards new roles, and buzzwords: facilitation, mediation, partnership-working and policy innovation.

This focus on shared responsibility led to growth of public private collaborations, both as partnerships for projects, stakeholder boards for new spaces of spatial planning, and QUANGO’s (quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations) to develop Non-State-Market Driven policy. A notable QUANGO was CABE (Chartered Association of Building Engineers) producing a wealth of urban design guidance, as part of a new ‘many hands’ approach to managing urban design (Helen, 2003). This involved an increase in non-state market driven (NSMD) regulatory policy instruments, which some have described as the ‘rolling out’ of the regulatory state (Fuller and Geddes, 2008). The growths in QUANGOs allowed an increase in rules, without direct increases in state regulation. Central Government use of QUANGOs diluted the importance of citizen-local government interaction in gaining legitimacy for design.

As part of this, collaborative working groups developed new benchmarks for development, such as the Building for life benchmark. This was collaboration between the House Builders Federation and CABE – in what could be considered a capacity-building policy approach. As Moon (2004)

38 points out, PPPs were used by New Labour as a tool to promote and develop corporate competencies in CSR.

Beyond sharing policy-making activities with the private sector and growing third sector, a debate around the importance of devolved regional administration emerged alongside increased calls for city-regionalism as a vehicle for increasing global competitiveness (Haughton and Counsell, 2004). There were hopes that this might empower regional politics, enabling and empowering regional sustainability approaches. However, the idea of regionally elected assemblies were quickly dismissed (Harrison, 2008) and Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) became vehicles to coordinate government growth targets. Although the plan regained statutory status, a requirement for plan ‘soundness’ – meaning that a plan had to be based on evidence and conform with ‘appropriate procedures and policies of the higher tier plans and policies’ (Davoudi, 2006 p21) – kept spatial planning strongly hierarchal; with little scope to deviate from central objectives.

At the same time that power was kept away from local and regional administrations, Local Strategic Partnerships incorporated the private sector in market-shaping plan making activities (Fuller and Geddes, 2008). These often created what Allmendinger and Haughton (2009) would describe as a ‘soft spaces’ of neoliberal governance, with market-shaping plans produced by non- elected actors endorsing development and growth without consultation processes.

The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) replaced previous Structure Plans and Local Plans with Local Development Frameworks, to be developed through the emerging stakeholder- led spatial planning process, incorporating developers in planning processes. In turn, a number of new agencies and quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations (quangos) were created, often with overlapping stakes in an increasingly complex and fragmented environmental governance system (Healey, 2007) which made accountability in environmental decision-making increasingly difficult to trace.

In 2005, the government also admitted disappointment in SD’s development (ODPM, 2005). In an attempt to improve ‘joined-up’ governance, a new national strategy which placed greater emphasis on co-operation between the public and private sectors was set out in ‘Securing the Future’ (ODPM, 2005). This referred directly to environmental limits, advocated environmental ‘enhancement’ and protection, and recommended use of the precautionary principle. Two new policy mechanisms for sustainability were developed: the ‘Eco-Towns’ agenda which adopted a competitive bidding strategy for projects subsidised by special measures; and the Code for Sustainable Homes (CfSH). Both are discussed below.

2.2.1.1 An Urban Renaissance In parallel to these developments in environmental governance, urban policy also went through significant change, influenced by the emergence of the so-called ‘Urban Renaissance’ agenda. Murdoch (2003) suggests that Urban Renaissance policy was formed by a ‘discourse coalition’: a group of actors coming together around an idea which serves each of their interests; as opposed to an ‘advocacy coalition’, formed by actors coming together around a set of shared values (Lovell, 2004). This discourse coalition comprised of DETR (Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions) ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister) and CPRE (Council for the Protection of Rural England).

Underpinning the Urban Renaissance was a renewed interest in urban, and inner-city, ‘brownfield’ redevelopment, as a means to regenerate neglected urban cores and tackle social exclusion, while resolving the housing crisis and protecting greenfield. The provision of new homes was specified by PPG3: Housing (ODPM, 2000) to be made in accordance with 'sustainable patterns of development' (DETR, 2000 p1). This involved maximizing the re-use of previously developed land, assessing the capacity of urban areas to accommodate more housing, and adopting a ‘sequential approach’ to land allocation. As simplified by then Housing and Planning Minister, Nick Raynsford, the new policy approach to achieve SD was quite simply: ‘Brownfield first, Greenfield second’ (Murdoch, 2004).

Brownfield became an internationally preferred term to other labels – such as ‘disused’, ‘contaminated’, ‘previously industrial’ or ‘derelict’ – as it avoids associating negative connotations in those interested in either developing and buying redeveloped property. However, as a semantic counterpart to ‘Greenfield’ – the term used to describe ‘clean’ agricultural land located at the urban periphery (De Sousa, 2002) – it also legitimises the use of brownfield spaces, already touched by human hands and therefore acceptable for development. This broadly represents the ‘redesigning cities’ approach and does not, therefore, mark a significant departure from conservation narratives of environment in planning.

Strong regulatory pressures to raise development densities were encouraged by the Urban Task Force who – in their 1999 report, ‘Towards an Urban Renaissance’, recommended that government revise planning and funding guidance to ‘discourage local authorities from using ‘density’ and ‘overdevelopment’ as reasons for refusing planning permission, and create a planning presumption against excessively low density urban development’ (Urban Task Force, 1999, p.64). Within six years, local authorities appeared to have whole-heartedly adopted these principles, as the Urban Task Force (2006) document in their follow up report: ‘‘the density of new residential

40 development has risen to 40 dwellings per hectare and the share of development on Brownfield sites to 70%’’.

With gardens becoming treated as Brownfield despite not being in the formal definition, urban land use density –already rising before 2000 – became exacerbated. Doick et al. (2009) claim that sustainability objectives for high density brownfield redevelopment often entirely ignore greenspace:

‘Site objectives are usually defined in terms of project management and economic deliverables, and not in terms of defined sustainability objectives. The economics of regeneration are undoubtedly important, but the absence of a set of defined sustainability objectives compromises the ability of establishing sustainable greenspace routinely’ (Ibid, p288).

Urban capacity studies did not set limits to growth, URBED (Urban and Economic Development Group) were commissioned by DETR to produce ‘Tapping the potential: Best Practice In Assessing Urban Housing Capacity’ in 1999 (URBED, 1999). Key environmental carrying capacity terms – such as energy, food, resource, efficiency, agriculture, and waste – were not present. The only mention of services, are in relation to shops. The decision to include open space, notably not greenspace, in development is later described as dependant on the size of the site, rather than population, or other social and environmental drivers.

The only natural environmental constraint mentioned is ‘site contamination or the risk of flooding’. However, this is not seen as a reason to prevent development, but rather to be used as an indicator to move away from ‘unconstrained’ development capacity, i.e. fitting the maximum number of houses on the site. Later, PPG17: ‘Planning for Open space, Sport and Recreation’ (DCLG, 2002) urged Local Authorities to perform ‘needs assessments’ for open space, but these were to be used in protecting existing greenspace, for the sake of its recreational and cultural services, rather than advocate greenspace for other ecosystem services. Assessments were based on the aesthetic quality of existing greenspace, its social use, and economic value. This was the most prescriptive and authoritative policy instrument relating to greenspace arising from central government under New Labour.

Academic criticism of these early approaches is prevalent (Hopwood, Mellor and O’Brien, 2005; Raco, 2005; Redclift, 2005; While Jonas and Gibbs, 2004; Barry and Patterson, 2004). Planning was considered ineffective at challenging engrained practice through its limp interpretation of SD (Gibbs, 2000; Murphy and Gouldson 2000; Barry and Patterson, 2003, 2004). Efficiency narratives prevailed (Hajer, 1995) and relied on: existing markets minimising waste (Pellow et

41 al., 2000; Deutz, 2009); new commodity markets in environmental services, and efficient technologies to compensate for restrictions in growth (Barry and Patterson, 2004). Public-private partnerships (PPPs) and voluntary agreements failed to change environmental approaches. However the exact consequences of this greenspace have not been outlined.

Such a weak interpretation of sustainability in the early years of New Labour was motivated by a focus on mortgage finance as a means to expand the economy (Coates, 2001). The development of many private rent apartment blocks, especially in major cities, can be seen as a form of ‘sustainability fix’ (While, Jonas and Gibbs, 2004). As global capital struggles to find productive industries in which to reinvest following the industrial decline of post-Fordism, residential property has gained increasing importance as a ‘spatial fix’ for recent crises in capital accumulation (Schwartz and Seabrook, 2008). The implications for greenspace design are yet to be analysed.

2.2.1.2 Green Infrastructure From 2005, policies promoting greenspace began to take off, using the imported American idea of ‘Green Infrastructure’ (Kambites and Owen, 2006). Green Infrastructure (GI) was developed in the US to promote a network of greenspace as a component of smart growth, or sprawl management, to marry with land conservation. GI was aimed at strategically addressing

the ecological and social impacts of urban sprawl and the accelerated consumption and fragmentation of open land. (Benedict and McMahon, 2002, p.12)

American interpretations of GI assume compatibility between urban growth and biodiversity interests on the basis of efficient use of land (Erickson, 2006; Rouse and Bunster-Aussa, 2013). While biodiversity in urban areas is significant, given the intensity of rural management practices and harm to rural biodiversity (Benton et al., 2003), the use of biodiversity narratives if used to increase urbanisation would decrease biodiversity (Goddard et al., 2010). In turn, GI marries conservation priorities and ‘planning for environmental gain’ narratives in ways which fail to challenge the environmental impacts of growth. Outcomes of GI were initially conceived as ‘functions’; however, more recently the language of ecosystem services has been integrated into GI guidance, reducing competition between the concepts (GINW, 2010).

A range of new policies supporting the need to consider GI in planning have also been developed. PPG17 (DCLG, 2006) requires authorities to produce co-ordinated open space strategies which encourage multi-functional green infrastructure. PPS12, ‘Local spatial planning’ (DCLG, 2008), requires local authorities to identify in their core strategy the amount of green infrastructure required, who will provide it and when. PPS9, ‘Biodiversity and geological conservation’ (ODPM,

2009), suggests local development documents should identify areas for the restoration or creation of new priority habitats to contribute to regional targets.

Recreation and biodiversity were not the only aspects dealt with in New Labour policy reforms. From 2005-2009 a range of central policies, and subsequent regional and local development plan documents, began to consider some of the regulatory services of greenspace. PPS1, ‘Planning and climate change’ (ODPM, 2005), recognised that open spaces and GI can contribute to urban cooling and sustainable drainage. PPS25, ‘Development and flood risk’ (DCLG, 2009) also highlighted the role of GI in reducing flood risk. With the 2010 Flood and Water Management Act, a commitment to address flood risk became law. In turn, it became a necessary component of development control processes; a formal part of development regulation. However, the role of greenspace in urban cooling is not directly considered by the Climate Change Act (HMG, 2008) which suggests local authorities consider adaptation, but does not specify how.

The development of the British GI agenda relied upon the soft power of partnerships between developers, or investors, and community forests set up in the 1990s to promote greenspace for economic regeneration (Pollard and Tidey, 2009). In this way, the evolution of GI has been mainly focused on economic regeneration (Wright, 2011)

“Thinking on green infrastructure has moved from ecology to economics. Resources such as the countryside, coast, wetlands, urban parks, street trees and their ecosystems are seen as critical for sustainable growth and social goals, not just a way of supporting wildlife and ‘the environment’”. (Natural Economy North West 2008, p. 2)

However, attracting EU funding was also an option for initiatives which were compliant with the EU’s focus on city-regional competition (Deas and Ward, 2000; MacLeod, 2001). For instance, the North West Development Agency (NWDA) adopted Peel Holding’s concept for an economic relationship along the River Mersey conurbation, connecting Liverpool and Manchester. The NWDA funded an ‘Adapting the Landscape’ strand of the so-called ‘Atlantic Gateway’ project, which considered ways GI might optimise climate change adaptation (NWDA et al., 2009). However, as Harrison (2013) details, the ‘Atlantic Gateway’ is focused on city-regional regeneration, ‘greening the grey’ so as to advance economic competition.

As the RDAs were subsequently removed, the board is now comprised of a mixture of public and private professionals, with private doubly represented over public (Atlantic Gateway, 2014). Now the term ‘green infrastructure’ is used only once on the website. The ‘priorities’ section suggests that three “key opportunities to stimulate growth” are the development of Liverpool’s port and canals, a Sci-Tech Business park, and railway hub. Descriptions of each of these use the term

‘connectivity’ as a signpost for environment, co-opting and distorting the language of GI from earlier stages in the project. As Mell (2013) shows, practitioners can strategically use the language of GI to support a range of interventions in the urban form which may or may not be hard infrastructures with sustainable outcomes. This may happen more when private sector actors take a greater role in defining sustainability, and the use of GI by developers in CSR should be examined in line with this.

2.2.1.3 Eco-Towns The Eco-Towns programme was created partly out of government disappointment with housing growth figures, hinting at dissatisfaction with the ability of existing planning mechanisms to manage and deliver growth (Allmendinger and Haughton, 2010, p.806). Rather than designating areas and creating highly prescriptive regulatory conditions, an innovative approach was taken to Eco-Town designation. New Labour announced a competition for up to ten new Eco-Towns in 2007, which promised speedy application acceptance – leading to a number of joint ventures developing between developers and local authorities (Haughton and Allmendinger, 2013).

Illustrating a belief, or awareness, that the market would not spontaneously choose to reach these standards without incentives, the programme allocated £60million of the Housing Growth Fund to a specific Eco-Towns Fund budget. This policy was therefore incentive-based and relied on ‘stimulating’, as much as ‘market-shaping’, planning tools. In 2009, a planning policy document (DCLG, 2009) announced the four successful applications; pitching the developments as a mechanism to address major housing demand in areas with the capacity and need for housing of a minimum of 5,000 homes.

In this document, the notion of environmental limits is posed early on, and Eco-Towns are seen as ‘exemplar projects that encourage and enable residents to live within managed environmental limits and in communities that are resilient to climate change’ (DCLG, 2009a p2). However, the scale of these managed environmental limits is not specified; making local actor engagement with the concept more important. The minimum standards for Eco-Town development – acknowledged in the document as ‘challenging and stretching’ – notably include a target of forty per cent of Eco-Town total area being allocated to greenspace, of which at least half should be public. They also stipulate achievement of zero carbon and environmental excellence in one area, to be decided by local development actors. The significant economy of scale in the projects of 5,000 homes is intended, in conjunction with government subsidy, to enable these outcomes.

The policy represents significant progress: in advocating conventional aspects of recreation and biodiversity for the design of green networks; as well as for further climate adaptation through mitigating flood risk and the impacts of urban heat island effect; and also community, allotment

44 or commercial food gardens. At this time, mechanisms to achieve zero carbon were still being debated. Since then, the potential of woodland for carbon offsetting has been promoted creating new opportunities to advocate supportive ecosystem services in connection to Eco-Towns. Section 2.2.1.4 examines this in greater detail.

2.2.1.4 Sustainable Homes and Zero Carbon The first certification for sustainability of housing as a product – rather than as an approach to developments as a whole – came from EcoHomes, an independent venture of BRE launched in 2000. In 1997 the Building Research Establishment (BRE), a former government-funded research laboratory which became ‘independent of Government ties’ and so ‘able to certify and approve products …in 1999.’ (BRE 2015) At this point, in order to ‘retain the authority and independence’ that BRE had enjoyed when publicly funded, a trust was formed to ‘own’ BRE, called the Foundation for the Built Environment, later changed to the BRE Trust in 2005. Hence, the BRE website clearly sets the separation from state as a defining point at which legitimacy for certification of sustainability could begin. These new environmental assessments were referred to as BRE:EAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology). Cashore (2002) suggests that:

‘In response to state driven deregulation… transnational and domestic nongovernmental organisations have created non-state market driven (NSMD) governance systems whose purpose is to develop and implement environmentally and socially responsible management practices’ (Cashore, 2002, p 503)

In the case of BRE, rather than the withdrawal of state voice resulting in the creation of non-state global policy tools to fill the void, the disconnect from government is seen to bring legitimacy in defining sustainability in a way the government could not. Following market adoption, EcoHomes was subsequently adopted by the government; a ‘good’ rating on EcoHomes was to be achieved in all social housing by 2003, and ‘very good’ by 2005. Hence, at this time a Non-State, Market- Driven (NSMD) instrument was adopted by the state to regulate the activities of Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) and other social housing association quangos.

However, a package of government policy measures for zero carbon development – including consultations on ‘Building a Greener Future’ (DCLG, 2007) and PPS ‘Planning and Climate Change’ (DCLG, 2007) – lead the government to eradicate the use of EcoHomes in the UK, and replace this with the new government standard: the Code for Sustainable Homes (CfSH). BRE Global is now an advisor on maintenance and management of implementation of the scheme under contract to DCLG. The CfSH is still pitched to developers as a marketing tool, which they can sell to accordingly:

‘There is a growing appetite amongst consumers for more sustainable products and services’. (CLG, 2008 p6).

The Code measures the sustainability of new homes against nine categories, rating the ‘whole home’ as a package. The Code uses a one to six star rating system against these nine categories:

Energy and CO2 emissions; Water; Materials; Surface water run-off; Waste; Pollution; Health and wellbeing; Management; and Ecology. In health and wellbeing, there is a consideration for allocation of ‘private space’ (DCLG, 2008, p.55) which allows residents to sit outside, but is also accessible only to occupants of the designated dwelling. The strong focus on private space is justified with the following statements:

‘the provision of secure private space is an effective way to improve the quality of the occupier’s life’ (Ibid)

‘It seems important that the open space directly connected to dwellings should be demonstrably private, no matter what tenure arrangements apply, and that the territorial rights of the occupiers should be clearly marked’ (Ibid).

However, by 2010 the focus on privacy of space is reduced (DCLG, 2010) – possibly due to cost implications for apartment blocks. A ‘zero-impact’ aspiration is made for ecology, with whatever is lost on site being replaced or made up for with subsequent designs. Equally, there is a push for neutral impact on flood risk – which can be achieved through technology (tanks) and textiles (permeable paving) as well as soft landscaping. Despite government aspirations for environmental enhancement, the ecology credit can also be awarded simply by maintenance of existing affairs (DCLG, 2008, p 65). While development projects are certified as sustainable for having no net increase in run-off onsite, many brownfield redevelopments could contribute to reducing flood risk in the wider urban fabric through complete greening, resulting in positive rather than neutral outcomes (White, 2010).

The CfSH has been used alongside, but acting separately from, policies for urban compaction and Eco-Town development models (DCLG, 2009), and has retained a presence since the publication of the new National Planning Policy Framework, despite not being referred to within the document itself. In turn, while the Code does not lend a strong role to greenspace, its ability to change industrial practice, and interaction with other policy instruments and moments is important to understand.

2.2.1.5 Conclusions New Labour developed the logic of stakeholder partnership, bargaining and negotiation in planning processes to secure environmental outcomes. A focus on brownfield and high density development reinforced ‘conservative’ narratives at the national level. Brownfield targets combined with regionally supported housing growth targets placed great weight in market- shaping policy; sometimes combined with stimulating measures such as Derelict Land Grants. Engaging developers in collaborative urban regeneration programmes and state-market collaborative policy making groups can be seen as forms of capacity-building, which may feed into CSR activity.

As the policy landscape evolved in the latter half of the noughties, a range of actors took on a share of responsibility for coordinating ‘Green Infrastructure’ outcomes, however how this linked to development control processes was unclear. Innovation in policymaking tools, with Eco-Towns and the CfSH combining a range of instruments which could affect greenspace offered new opportunities for greenspace. While Eco-Towns combine market stimulation aspects, including subsidies and Joint Venture Agreements, the Code adopts a capacity-building/regulatory hybrid, which sought to create developer buy-in on the importance of sustainability by creating a highly prescriptive policy instrument, to be progressively phased into building regulations.

2.2.2 Localism, Deregulation and SD

‘We want to get Britain building again. We want the new homes a growing country needs. The homes that growing families, older people, and young mobile professionals need. We’ll do it by working with the market. Not against it.’

(Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government ,15th September 2011).

The Conservative-led Coalition Government came into power two years after the 2008 recession first hit, with a mandate to stimulate growth, and ‘cut the deficit’ through implementing local government cuts and a regime of austerity measures, mirroring the austerity imposed upon the urban development model by the global financial crisis (Tonkiss, 2013). Housing was set to be the silver bullet for economic recovery; with a two-pronged approach. Firstly, as captured in the quote above, planning regulation was directly attacked: framed as cumbersome and an enemy of growth (Cowell, 2013). Rhetoric around ‘cutting red tape’ began with a push to reduce planning to its bare regulatory tools; despite nearly double the number of new regulations coming in over the first half of 2011 than in the first six months of the Blair Government (Boyfield and Ali, 2013).

The Coalition government recognised the dependence of the UK economy on mortgage debt (Schwartz and Seabrook, 2008), and on construction growth (Hellwig, 2009; Peck and Tickell, 1994); and that development was being slowed down less by a lack of capital or high construction costs, and more by uncertainty over securing end sales. On this basis, the Coalition set up the ‘Help to Buy’ scheme. This subsidises those already on the cusp of affording a mortgage by underwriting the deposit required by the bank over 5% of house price. This move – which had the indirect effect of boosting developer profits (Moore, 2014; Farrell, 2014) – ideologically prioritises private ownership by framing social justice as an ability to buy, rather than access to, housing. This strong stimulating policy instrument was not sold as part of planning, but as a wider state fiscal activity, under the notion it would help contribute to solving ‘the housing crisis’. This slogan was adopted across the media, referring to both the (un)affordability problem in the South East, and the lack of new homes across the country (e.g. Easton, 2012).

The support of homeless charities such as Shelter, who despite criticising the volume house- builders and stating an explicit preference for local government house-building, nevertheless begin the ‘Solutions’ section of their Housing Crisis Campaign with the statement:

We will only solve the housing crisis by building more decent, affordable homes…We need to make sure those hoping to build homes aren’t held back by restrictive planning laws. (Shelter, Housing Crisis Campaign, 2014)

Drawing on moral discourses of justice and rights, in line with traditional conservative approaches (Lakoff, 2008), this was used to reframe planning debates about new housing. As is shown below, the moral urgency attached to this justification of housing growth and apparent deregulation demanded both a weakening of SD policy and the creation of new processes in planning through the Localism Agenda. The Coalition depended on market stimulation and capacity-building, facilitated through arms-length bodies to achieve their ambition for sustainability.

2.2.2.1 NPPF: Formation and Greenspace Roles Early on in the Coalition government term of office, a ‘Practitioner’s Advisory Group’ (PAG) was tasked with reducing over a thousand pages of New Labour planning policy into a single ‘coherent’ document. Importantly, this document was to be the basis for the government’s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and its controversial reform of the planning system. The PAG was made up of four individuals, only one of whom was a democratically elected official. John Rhodes, a planning consultant in the oil and gas industry who has since set up his own planning consultancy which promises to ‘guide clients through localism to unlock sites and deliver developments’ (Quod website 2012); Pete Andrew, Director of Land Planning at Taylor Wimpey; Conservative Councillor Gary Porter, an MP for South Holland district council, and former self- employed builder (South Holland District Council Website, 2012). And Simon Marsh, then Acting Head of SD at the RSPB but with a history in local government planning. (CFSE, 2014).

This approach, which created new planning policy in the NPPF through 25% democratically elected representatives, 50% private sector interests, and 25% NGO representation, was seen by leading ministers as a prototype of the way they thought policy could be made in the future (Rutter, 2012). This has two implications. Firstly, it makes very clear the direct intent of government to serve the interests of the private sector: readily adopting their interpretations of, priorities for and approaches to environmental decision-making. Secondly, it further diminishes the presentation of the public sector as suitable leaders or innovators in policymaking. The lack of official status of this group lead to DCLG deceptively presenting itself as the creator of the document.

However, greatest public controversy over the NPPF was not the make-up of its creators and their selection, but rather the inclusion or exclusion of the ‘presumption in favour of Brownfield land’. This time, replacing the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the National Trust became

49 central in rallying public opposition to the removal of a presumption in favour of Brownfield, headed by Dame Fiona Reynolds. After a long public debate, while the sequential approach was removed, the NPPF stated that local authorities should encourage the use of previously developed land when not of high environmental value, but could decide whether or not targets for reuse were necessary (DCLG, 2012).

With a strong push for growth yet weakened focus on reuse of brownfield land, came a new rhetoric, and a fuzzy language around the concept of Greenbelts. While the five functions of Greenbelts are reinforced on the grounds of its original policy principles – such as conserving place distinctiveness – the principle of ‘openness’ is also added (DCLG, 2012, p.19). Opportunities to improve access to the Greenbelt, in line with improvements to biodiversity, are advocated, supporting ‘opportunities for planning gain’ narratives:

Green Belt land that has been depleted of diversity can be refilled by nature – and opened to people to experience it, to the benefit of body and soul. (Ministerial Forward, DCLG, 2012, p.i)

The document does promote GI for adaptation to climate change, in line with the Flood and Water Management Act (2010) and Climate Change Act (DECC, 2008) (DCLG, 2012). It also suggests that ‘some open land’ can ‘perform many functions such as for wildlife, recreation, flood risk mitigation, carbon storage, or food production’ (DCLG, 2012 p6). Local planning authorities are instructed to set out a strategic approach to GI in their local plans. The definition given of GI is of a ‘wellbeing’ rather than ‘environmental’ response to nature: as a ‘network of multi-functional greenspace, urban and rural, which is capable of delivering a wide range of environmental and quality of life benefits for local communities’ (Ibid, p.52) with ecosystem services defined as ‘benefits’ supporting commodity narratives. However, examples of such plans – for instance the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities’ (AGMA, 2011) Green Infrastructure Strategy – suggests a new generation of GI practice to be emerging:

First generation GI strategies were primarily concerned with biodiversity, greenspace and access. Second generation GI strategies included a greater emphasis on socio-economic goals and sustainable communities. Third-generation strategies will integrate the concept of ecosystem services and will consider the role of GI in sustaining a low-carbon society which lives within environmental limits. Greater Manchester is working towards a ‘third generation’ GI strategy; where the city region grows sustainably and manages the ecosystems on which it depends (AGMA, 2011, p.4).

Despite this promising rhetoric, the term ‘ecosystem services’ is used only twice, but never explained, and no policies are devised for different ES categories. The document describes its strategic purpose as creating the conditions for ‘aspirational growth’ and makes no associations between green infrastructure and people; only GI and economic benefit. Climate adaptation is intended to create the conditions for growth; reclaiming derelict land is intended to create the conditions for growth – and so on.

This noted, the document does identify areas of ‘need’ where environmental stressors such as urban heat island effect and flood risk intersect with existing poor quality environments. While the document adopts an exchange value system of nature, it does consider the redistribution of environmental externalities, and reflects on how these can be ameliorated.

2.2.2.2 SD and Garden Cities While the Ministerial Forward to the NPPF claims that the purpose of planning is to help achieve SD – with the document mandating ‘a presumption in favour of SD’ (DCLG, 2012, p.4) – the reluctance to provide a legal definition of SD has attracted criticism (Johnston, 2011; Porritt, 2011). This was exacerbated by the abolishment of the SD Commission, New Labour’s specialist sustainability department. Whitehall suggests that:

‘A legal definition of SD, or further general statutory obligations requiring the application of SD principles, is not necessarily required for planning to play an effective role in helping to promote and secure SD goals’ (HOC, 2011)

Similarly, Porritt (2011), an author of the 2005 SD Strategy and member of the former SD Commission, suggests the term ‘sustainable’ should not be in the NPPF; claiming that the presumption is immediately diminished by the text surrounding it, as the document at no point refers to the notion of environmental limits: ‘you can pretty much guarantee that it will be a completely corrupted definition’ (Ibid, p.510). Confusion remains about the relevance of the 2005 Strategy, its consideration of limits, and use of the precautionary principle.

The Coalition government might appear enthusiastic about encouraging market-led consideration of ecosystem services in the Natural Environment White Paper (HMG, 2011), setting up a ‘Green Infrastructure Bank’, and business-led Ecosystem Markets Task Force (Ibid). Despite these appearances, Porritt suggests that the NPPF is written with complete disregard of the UKNEA (DEFRA, 2011) failing to ‘reflect externalities associated with our use of ecosystem services in our economic system and planning’ (Ibid, p511).

The Natural Environment White Paper frames nature as a form of ‘capital’ – with the implication that it is a surplus to be capitalised upon; a resource to be plundered. The Green Investment Bank was launched with £3billion of capital funding to help business seize

‘new opportunities to trade green goods and services which benefit nature. Businesses can also benefit from using natural capital more sustainably in their supply chain, and protect the natural capital upon which our economy as a whole depends.’ (HMG, 2011, p.37)

In turn, the planning policy reforms of the Coalition were highly dependent on market adoption of responsibility for creating and internalising ecosystem services; supported less by ‘regulatory’ or ‘market-shaping’ measures, and more through ‘stimulating’ and ‘capacity-building’ tools (Tiesdell and Allmendinger, 2005). The notable absence of government voice in defining a role for ecosystem services in planning, has provoked various quangos – the Environment Agency, Forestry Commission and Natural England – to collaborate in publishing a joint document, providing pre-application guidance on environmental concerns in new developments, including GI and SD (EA, FC and NE, 2012).

This sought to address some of the uncertainty emerging from the NPPF, and while it could not be used as a material consideration, offered the consultancy services of each of the agencies in advising on pre-application stages, taking some of the burden off local authorities. This is effectively a form of voluntary self-governance, adopting a capacity-building approach to fill a regulatory gap left empty by more formal government agencies. However, in 2013 the Department for Business and Industry, charges with cutting red tape (BIS, 2013, p2) advocated a statutory ‘growth duty’ for non-economic regulators such as the Environment Agency and Natural England, suggesting that these regulators ‘often comprise the front line of business interaction with Government and their actions can impact directly upon the ability of businesses to grow and succeed’. In turn, the ability of such agencies to advocate designs which either limit development – or fail to prioritise viability – was thereby neutralised.

Finally, this section turns to the idea of Garden Cities as a vehicle for major new towns. This was first advocated by the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA, 2011), most recently in their report, ‘Reimagining Garden Cities for the 21st Century’. Shortly afterwards, then Housing minister Grant Shapps invited the TCPA to lead talks on how to create a new generation of Garden Cities, engaging developers to get buy-in to the idea. The NPPF suggests that ‘principles of Garden Cities’ (DCLG, 2012, p.13) could be used to deliver larger-scale development, but does not explain why Garden Cities would align with the objective of sustainability; with no references made to self-sufficiency. Therefore, the particular functional expectations of greenspace in contemporary Garden Cities are left to local interpretation; unlike Eco-Towns, no form of state subsidy has been

52 offered for Garden Cities, making market influence even more significant. The extent to which they depart from the self-sufficiency and egalitarian priorities of Garden Cities introduced in Chapter 1 remains to be seen. Environmental and social justice for this aspect of Coalition policy is therefore dependant on processes of Localism.

2.2.2.3 Localism When the Coalition first entered government, they coined the phrase ‘Big Society’ to promote the role of civil society in addressing what they rather provocatively called ‘Broken Britain’ (Atkins, 2012). As Sage (2012) highlights, the Coalition’s Big Society agenda criticises both ‘big state’ and free market perspectives, handing more responsibility over to civil society, which they portray as an act of political empowerment, but which simultaneously removes resources from local government and deepens ‘austerity urbanism’ (Tonkiss, 2013; Levitas 2012). However, this language was quickly torn apart by the press (e.g. Reid, 2011) and thereafter abandoned in preference for the new project of Localism.

The Localism agenda appears to contain nothing contrary to the spirit and purpose of New Labour’s spatial planning, with emphasis upon collaborative processes and co-ordination across and between scales and sectors (Haughton and Allmendinger, 2011). However, the Localism Act introduces a new scale of formalised planning, to be community-led rather than project-based and stakeholder-led. Neighbourhood Plans can be developed by just 21 members of a given community, if accepted by at least 50% of a local referendum, of undefined voting turnout:

Neighbourhood planning provides a powerful set of tools for local people to ensure that they get the right types of development for their community. The ambition of the neighbourhood should be aligned with the strategic needs and priorities of the wider local area. Neighbourhood plans must be in general conformity with the strategic policies of the Local Plan. (DCLG, 2012, p.44)

While the Coalition clearly did not want to use any of the language of spatial planning, they nonetheless include ‘sustainable communities’ in their new planning regime. The focus on this sub-local authority scale reflects Connelly’s (2011) suggestion that community has become valorised within governance networks as a necessary scale for legitimacy in planning. However, neighbourhood plans are still required to be in conformity with the NPPF and local planning documents, and therefore cannot oppose growth for reasons not listed in the NPPF, although have some limited power to shape the direction of new development.

Beyond the potential move to an appeal-based process as a result of poorly defined SD priorities, reliance on the Judiciary was also promoted by the Coalition’s reforms to the 2004 Planning Act. A number of changes to the process of SPD production were made, including a statement that:

‘any person with sufficient interest in the decision to adopt the SPD may apply to the High Court for permission to apply for judicial review.’ (DCLG, 2011: 12(b) p.8).

While power was hypothetically being handed to communities, local authorities were being threatened with its withdrawal. In September 2012, Pickles said he would ‘legislate to allow applications to be decided by the Planning Inspectorate, if the local authority has a track record of consistently poor performance in the speed or quality of its decisions.’ (DCLG, 2012). In accordance with Lakoff’s (2008) criticism that right-wing politics utilises narratives of morality over evidence and rationality, these moves towards centralisation are necessarily framed by a narrative of justice: ‘Planning is a quasi-judicial process: justice delayed is justice denied’ (Ibid). Accusations that Localism actually retained power centrally resulted in the Housing Minister needing to publically stress that

‘part of the purpose of our reforms is to move away from a situation in which decisions taken locally are overturned by the Planning Inspectorate. I have made that very clear to the Inspectorate.’ (Greg Clarke, cited by BRE, 2015)

2.2.2.4 Viability The concept of ‘viability’ in housing development policy emerged in the early noughties (Christophers, 2014). First, this built upon the shift in language from public, or social housing, to affordable housing in the 1990s. Second, a reduction in government spending meant that local authorities became dependent on S106 to secure housing for the poor, while provision of social housing simultaneously declined (Whitehead, 2007). Viability assessments became tools utilised by developers in negotiating with local authorities, who accepted that profit is necessary to reward the developer for entrepreneurship, and that without around 15% profit margins, projects ‘would not go ahead’ (Christophers, 2014).

Although the use of viability assessments was prevalent throughout the New Labour years, it has gained special status under the Coalition planning regime. While it is not referred to in the NPPF or Localism Act, the new ‘Planning Advisory Service’, which provides online guidance and training support sessions provide a series of interlinked pages on viability (Planning Advisory Service, 2014). This instructs plan-makers to follow the guidance – ‘Viability Testing Local Plans: Advice for planning practitioners’ – set out by the Local Housing Delivery Group (LHDG, 2012). The LHDG is a coalition made up of the House Builders Federation (HBF); the National Housebuilders

Council (NHC), which lobbies for developer interests; and the Local Government Association, chaired by Sir John Harman. This guidance document presents a list of factors which add expense to development, and how these challenges vary across different locations. The implications of this for the environment have not yet been fully explored. However as much of viability is related to density and house prices in the local area, the guidance challenges planning policies which make prescriptions for greenspace across sites, given that different areas have different resale values.

Securing or ensuring profit through policy minimises risk in the development industry. As profit becomes guaranteed and built into the institutional structures which regulate and enable the industry to function, many fundamental questions as to the nature of development need to be asked. For the purposes of this study, this is important in recognising the position of local authorities in policymaking. Beyond planning taking on the industry’s own recommendations on how it should be regulated, a new mechanism – Planning Performance Agreements (Planning Portal, 2014) – allows developers to pay for a planning officer who will deal specially with their case, therefore guaranteeing faster turnaround and a more bespoke service.

2.2.2.5 Allowable Solutions Despite the Coalition government’s general reluctance to increase regulation, the commitment to Zero Carbon by 2016 is still under review and discussion, through vehicles such as the Zero Carbon Hub. Since 2008, the concept of ‘Allowable Solutions’ to Zero Carbon were being discussed. Allowable Solutions (AS) permit developers to meet carbon commitments where it is ‘unviable or impractical’ to do so through fabric efficiency and on-site renewable energy technologies (Zero Carbon Hub, 2011). Developers instead make a payment to an AS provider of carbon-saving projects. This provider is then responsible and liable for delivering said emissions reductions; removing the burden from the developer to deliver these outcomes, perhaps even in the long term.

The Zero Carbon Hub (2011) suggested that local authorities create policy preferences for AS options and include these in local plans. If included, the local authority may have a list of ‘preferred providers’, or may prescribe that the developer pays into a community energy fund. ‘Route A’ permits local authorities to support Small to Medium Enterprise community groups, and specify options which align with their strategic interests. The use of SME community groups might be seen to align with the kind of market scales in Fair Shares cities approaches. ‘Route B’ – for local authorities lacking a prescribed set of AS options – would entail the housing developer contracting with a private energy fund to deliver carbon savings. The progress of woodland creation could therefore depend on a commitment by local authorities as much as approval by

55 private finance. A certificate should therefore be issued for the AS contract as part of Building Control approval (Zero Carbon Hub, 2011).

The Woodland Carbon Code – a standard created by the Forestry Commission and published by DEFRA (2011) – was designed to align with accepted international carbon standards, such as the Verified Carbon Standard. It has been used for over a hundred voluntary carbon offset schemes to date and functions through a trading registry run by a company called Market, who ‘broker’ carbon deals; an explicit gesture to market logic. Research has suggested that forest sequestration could offset carbon emissions at costs that are similar to or lower than energy-based mitigation approaches (Richards and Stokes, 2004; Van Kooten et al., 2004; Stavins and Richards, 2005).

Financial discourses used for carbon offsetting are present across public, private and civil society actors (Koteyko, Thelwall and Nerlich 2010) – indicating an acceptance of market logic. This presents a further step in the direction of marketisation of approaches to environmental governance (Bumpus and Liverman, 2008). However, it also presents opportunities for development actors to consider ecosystem functions not previously been considered in housing.

DCLG’s consultation ‘Next steps to zero carbon homes: Allowable Solutions’ (DCLG, 2013) provided a government response to the Zero Carbon Hub’s document. Of note, the report refers to the Zero Carbon Hub as ‘independent’. As the hub is mixed of public and private actors, what this actually means is unclear, but suggests that the government felt that for the findings to be legitimate they needed to be recognised as emerging from a source distinctly outside and independent of government. The document also refers not to homeowners, but rather energy ‘consumers’; a presentation of civil society anathema to the kinds of ecosystem services rooted in community or indeed the behavioural changes necessary for ecological sustainability. DCLG’s response was critical of local government involvement in Allowable Solutions – both as a provider and regulator to endorse preferences. Instead the consultation advocated that the market be given the most ‘competitive’ choices by being able to select from a range of AS providers, endorsed through a national policy framework.

The consultation does not refer to ecosystem services or woodland at all, but repeatedly refers directly to technology or specific technologies. Feedback on the consultation (DCLG, 2014) unsurprisingly found local authorities dissatisfied with this. Responses suggested that local authorities should have a role in delivering AS, and that mechanisms should be in place to ensure developers invest locally. However, recognising the cost of running these schemes, it was commonly suggested that management of local authority-scale AS programmes may need to be coordinated by a third party. This would effectively mean delegation of tax and spend functions to NGOs, as ‘independent’ organisations; that is, independent of public accountability

The use of market mechanisms and market ‘freedom to choose’ was underpinned by EU law on illegal state aid. This prevents the use of taxpayer-funded resources to provide assistance to one or more organisations in a way that gives an advantage over others (GOV UK, 2014). Here, the EU usurps the power of local government to support market providers of options that they, the democratically elected representatives, consider to be of greatest public interest.

2.2.2.6 Conclusions The Coalition’s pre-election promises to be the Greenest Government Ever are yet to be concretely supported by research, which, to the contrary, has generally condemned their environmental credentials (Cowell, 2013; Porritt, 2011). The Coalition has sought to dramatically reduce the quantity of policy, reducing planning to its bare regulatory bones. Additional pressures, such as local plan viability testing, make it increasingly difficult for local government to pursue environmentally aspirational outcomes. In this case, the Coalition’s push to cut red tape and reduce regulation relies on two mechanisms to sustain and support sustainability: first, market self-regulatory mechanisms and developer CSR; and second, the capacity for neighbourhood planning to accept growth and subsequently steer the character and form of development towards more environmentally aspirational outcomes. Either may involve planning drawing increasingly on Non-State Market-Driven (NSMD) tools. This leaves the role of planning in SD increasingly uncertain and unpredictable at the local level.

2.3 Speculative Developers and Market Self- Regulation Section 2.2 highlighted the increasingly role of housing developers in defining SD in policy; from local development plans, GI plans, national planning frameworks, and the AS agenda. As outlined by Moon (2004) and Adams Payne and Watkins (2008) this was actively encouraged by New Labour, with a growth in NSMD certifications and benchmarks. However, to date there has been limited academic research on CSR practice in the housebuilding industry as an autonomous activity shaping environmental design. Adams Payne and Watkins (2008) considered CSR practices between 2003-2007 of UK volume housebuilders, however they measured performance against predefined criteria rather than seeking to explore and identify understandings of sustainability, or identify the range of policy instruments deployed in CSR. Therefore, a classification is needed in order to understand market-self regulation within landscapes of SD responsibility, in a similar fashion to planning policy. As stated in the introduction, this thesis will seek to uncover these relationships. Section 2.3 will introduce the speculative development industry before evaluating the research to date on large housebuilders’ environmental objectives, then finally exploring relevant CSR literature.

2.3.1 Introducing the Speculative Development Industry

2.3.1.1 The Rise of the Volume Housebuilder As stated in the Introduction, the UK housing industry has a very limited number of companies producing the majority of its new housing, averaging 84% of new build per annum since 2004 (DCLG, 2014). 83% of new housing in 2006 was produced by just 30 companies – and 58% of that by the 10 largest companies (Calcutt, 2007). ‘Large builders’ produce 100–500 units per year; ‘volume builders’ produce 2,000–5,000 units per annum (Hooper and Nicol, 1999); and ‘super builders’ produce over 5,000 units per annum (Payne, 2009).

The volatility of the sector results in continuous buy-outs and mergers, especially during economic downturns; serving to further concentrate the industry in a handful of successful companies (Payne, 2009). In the 1990s a number of house-builders grew substantially by acquiring smaller firms, helping to minimise risks by diversifying production spatially. The effect of this demonstrated by the statistics: while in 1980, 24 house-builders collectively claimed a 39% share of the market; by 2000, just 43 companies collectively claimed a market share of an astonishing 71% (Adams, Payne and Watkins, 2009).

In turn, the housing market has been described as better characterised by ‘oligopoly rather than competition’ (Gibb, 1999, p.44). Oligopoly refers to a market in which several providers dominate

58 provision. In turn, the house-builders’ own interpretations of sustainability become more important as consumers of new housing are increasingly limited in choice. Furthermore, the relationship between the sector and state regulation is increasingly important as fewer larger firms are better equipped to lobby government at national and even European scales (Polk and Schmutzler, 2005). Market leaders in oligopolies have also been shown to intentionally shape the direction of environmental policy to gain advantage over their peers (Michaelis, 1994) and may innovate to gain advantage in policy lobbying (Puller, 2006). This raises interesting questions about the industry’s assumed intentions towards greenspace and its use for specific ecosystem services at different scales.

2.3.1.2 Characteristics of Speculative Development In ‘speculative development’, the house-builder is responsible for land procurement, financing, the construction process itself, as well as sales and marketing of dwellings. They tend to develop properties for a general market using established templates, and generally do not know the identities of buyers until after completion, changing their practices only in times of very high demand (Payne, 2009). Ball (1983, p.50-51) defines speculative house-builders as firms whose development profit is achieved ‘by a judicious purchase of land and conceiving of the appropriate residential scheme for the site’.

Comparatively, contract house-building is a partnership between a house-builder and local authority and/or housing association, to build a specified number of units. Here, planning is considered to have a much stronger role in defining the product and in turn its greenspace characteristics. However, distinctions are not always completely clear cut: companies which specialise in mixed-use urban regeneration – such as Lend Lease and Wilmott Dixon – are contractors, in that they tend to build on behalf of investors, rather than using their own capital. Given the UK model of ‘residential capitalism’ which is highly reliant on mortgage finance for its GDP (Schwartz and Seabrook, 2008) the speculative development industry is particularly important to the UK economy. Moreover, the industry effectively controls the production of new housing, essential to the future of British society.

Traditionally, the key competitive strategy for British speculative house-building firms has been to optimise their land holdings and time the sale of dwellings to benefit from house price inflation (Ball 1983). Land acquisition and marketing skills were therefore the dominant skills required, arguably reducing the need for innovation in the product or industry practices more generally (Barlow, 1998; Clarke and Wall, 2000) including innovation in environmental consciousness. House types therefore tend to be standardised; their built footprints defined primarily by house- builders:

‘It is this aspect which most directly impinges upon the density of development and thus the land acquisition costs which, in a speculative industry, inevitably predominate over construction costs’ (Hooper and Nicol, 2000, p.309).

In turn, while developers may employ a range of consultants to aid them in their design – such as landscape architects, master-planners, and ecological consultants – the ‘opportunity space’ for these individuals to shape outcomes is limited (Tiesdell and Adams, 2004). It is widely believed that the UK speculative house-building industry developed both its business strategies and reputation around the delivery of standardised products for standardised greenfield sites (Hooper and Nicol, 1999). However, as has been shown by Payne (2009; 2013), government policy for SD has altered this landscape – creating visible strategic differences between the volume developers, with several now specialising in brownfield regeneration as a competitive strategy.

2.3.1.3 Design Creativity and Adaptation

Adams and Payne (2011, p.199) claim it is important to remember that design is one, potentially less significant, determining factor of what is delivered onsite in speculative developments; and that

‘more attention is usually paid in speculative housebuilding to acquiring land, achieving government approvals, securing finance, organising construction, and marketing the completed development than to matters of design – whether conceived as the appearance and functionality of the finished product or the problem-solving process by which it is delivered.’

As a consequence of this, Adams and Payne (2011) conclude that design is more accurately perceived as a reflection of broader residential development processes, as well as the particular business strategy of each house-builder; and that to understand the affect that policies can have in shaping market behaviour, intentions must first be understood. Jones et al., (2009) suggest that developers do differentiate their output to some extent in local market contexts, and that marketing can aid this differentiation. However, the role of greenspace in marketing and product differentiation has not previously been considered; a novel research angle this thesis will address.

If viewing the housebuilding industry as an oligopoly, these developers might be expected to follow classical economic model approaches. For instance, the static model of the ‘mono-centric city’ suggests price varies with proximity to the central business district: with a homebuyer residing a long way from the central business district compensated by lower cost housing and

60 more greenspace than with the higher cost housing located nearer the city-centre, where a premium for space is paid (Brueckner, 1979). This results in housing patterns with dwellings smaller in the city-centre and larger in the suburbs. The model also predicts that building heights are greater in the city centre, dropping to zero where agricultural land rent is superior to that of development. While this model is widely found effective as theory, there are in fact a variety of submarkets across urban landscapes as a result of uneven provision of amenities, environmental conditions and so on, which act to radically complicate land value patterns (Cheshire and Sheppard, 1995; Watkins, 2001).

While this is likely to shape distributions of greenspace, the development of CSR as a form of market self-regulation may increase responsiveness to house buyer (consumer) preferences for greenspace through competition. Research has suggested that house-buyers have a preference for proximity to parks, and views of greenspace and water. This is supported by hedonic house- pricing studies: in China (Jim and Chen, 2007); the US (Cho et al., 2006; Conway et al., 2010); Finland (Tyrväinen, 1997); and Spain (Morancho, 2003). However, these studies have tended to focus on the recreation and aesthetic motivations for greenspace preferences, and proactive studies which consider customer preferences in design variety (e.g. Hofman Halman and Jon, 2006) have focused more on the built fabric.

The housebuilding industry has been criticised for being unresponsive to customer preferences (Barlow and Ozaki, 2003); lacking innovative capacity (Barlow, 1999); and having low adaptability (Adams, Payne and Watkins, 2009). As conventional analysis has focused on aesthetic and recreational values for greenspace, whether developers include greenspace design in their CSR strategies – and if they do, why – becomes an increasingly pertinent question. Moreover, how this is influenced by their conception of sustainability and understanding of environment needs to be assessed.

Payne (2013) and Hertin et al., (2003) considered the ‘adaptive capacity’ of developers to respond to different components of the SD policy agenda. Payne (2013) identified that volume developers followed one of three paths in response to the brownfield agenda. These were either: Pioneers, in which strategic and competitive focus became brownfield redevelopment, with 100% of their new homes on brownfield; Pragmatics, who delivered between 60-89% of new homes on brownfield and demonstrated intentions to continue progression in brownfield redevelopment skills; and Sceptics, who made limited use of brownfield (less than 60%) and continued to prioritise greenfield opportunities.

Hertin et al., (2003) considered the impact climate change can have as a ‘direct’ (extreme weather events, gradual weather change) and ‘indirect’ (regulation, customer preferences, financial

61 institutions) influence on business practices, such as buying land, designing, building, selling, and maintaining houses. By setting out the kinds of drivers for CSR, this contributes to a more sector- specific understanding of CSR. This could be used to develop Lynch-Wood and Williamson’s (2010) description of cross-sector drivers of CSR (legislation, stakeholders, economic opportunity, and ethics); mediating context (issue salience, field cohesion, resource endowment) and motivations (competition, legitimacy, responsibility).

Given the reliance on market-shaping tools by SD planning policy since 2000, which do not fully specify greenspace design there is scope for designers design codes used by developers to influence and shape greenspace outcomes. Tiesdell and Adams (2004) suggest that these actors are constrained by three factors, together affecting their ‘opportunity space’. The first is site context (with varying degrees of complexity) then market context (need to be a saleable product) and finally regulatory context (the need for planning consent). As these come together, they limit creativity in different ways in different projects. These constraints may equally inhibit the development of different CSR policies and the formality of greenspace policies. Standardising designs may be limited as a result of tacit institutional knowledge about constraints in different projects.

2.3.2 CSR

2.3.2.1 Sustainability as a Corporate Responsibility Perceptions of what CSR should be, and applications of CSR in practice, can vary significantly. While some see the exercise as a marketing or publicity-based activity (Frankentel, 2001); others define CSR as situations where the firm engages in actions beyond the immediate interests of the firm and those required by law (McWilliams and Siegel, 2001). As noted by Votaw (1972), CSR can mean very different things to different companies, ranging from legal responsibility, to ethical responsibility, charity, social consciousness, and even:

‘as a mere synonym for legitimacy in the context of belonging or being proper or valid; a few see a sort of fiduciary duty imposing higher standards of behaviour on businessmen than on citizens at large’ (Votaw, 1972, p.25).

Academic definitions of corporate sustainability also vary. Schaltegger and Burritt (2005, p.189) describe it as an approach to management ‘that includes various characteristics, in particular relating to the contextual integration of economic, environmental and social aspects’. By contrast, AccountAbility (1999, p.94) suggest ‘sustainability is the capability of an organization to continue its activities indefinitely, having taken due account of their impact on natural, social and human capitals’. This suggests approaches may develop in similar ways to planning – unlikely to consider limits to growth and more likely to prioritise technology.

The influence of knowledge and expertise on developing CSR agendas is highlighted by Wellings (2008) who found that house-building leaders tend to come from trade backgrounds, with skills or qualifications honed in practice. As a consequence, a practical emphasis on management may make house-builders hostile to ideas such as adaptive capacity, core competencies and even CSR (Adams, Payne and Watkins, 2009). Meyers (2005) found that the construction industry was reluctant to take on sustainability principles. Nonetheless, there has been significant growth in the CSR agenda amongst house-builders in the last decade with published annual reports specifically for corporate sustainability (see Appendix 2).

2.3.2.2 CSR as a form of Regulation Drivers of environmental behaviour in CSR include legislation, stakeholders, economic opportunity and ethical motives (Lynchwood and Williamson, 2010). Compliance with legislation is often identified as the main motivation for small firms (Worthington and Patton 2003, 2005; Baylis et al., 1998) – implying that smaller firms are instrumental and pragmatic in their approach rather than innovating beyond compliance. However, for large firms, in order to sustain legitimacy – in terms of public recognition and brand identity – they are more likely to go ‘beyond compliance’ or participate in incremental schemes.

However, there are mediating contexts which influence the interpretation of, and action resulting from, these drivers. Lynchwood and Williamson (2010, p.10) identify mediating contexts as ‘issue salience’; ‘field cohesion’, the influence of a firm through formal and informal network connections; ‘individual concern’, organisational environmental concern versus discretion to act; and to a lesser extent, ‘resource endowment’. First, issue salience is the level of importance a particular ecological issue has to a firm and is determined by certainty, transparency and emotivitity. Certainty refers to the measurability of a given environmental issue; transparency concerns how specific environmental outcomes are attributed to firm activities.; and emotivity refers to the degree of emotional response the issue can generate, and are likely to be presented as driven by ‘ethical’ motivations for CSR (Graafland and van de Ven, 2006; Frankental, 2001; Lynchwood and Williamson, 2010). A highly emotive greenspace design might be provision of children’s play space, or biodiversity conservation. In contrast, tree planting for shading and evapotranspiration cooling is unlikely to be of great issue salience, because of the low degree of certainty, and a low degree of transparency; in so far that this provides a ‘solution’ to a problem which is not yet visible to buyers, and may be deemed the responsibility of another actor, such as the local authority.

Second, regarding the field cohesion of the housebuilding industry, a number of organisations exist to bring them together and give them a uniting voice on policy change, such as the House Builders Federation. Research suggests that an industry comprised of fewer, larger firms are

63 better equipped to lobby government and influence policy direction (Cohen, 1998; Polk and Schmutzler 2005). As a near oligopoly, this would suggest that the major developers have significant influence over policy outcomes; this is demonstrated by the Zero Carbon Hub. The implications of this for greenspace and intentions for alternative ecosystem services remains to be seen. Third, individual concern is theorised to decrease with company size, as firm size increases due to the growing power of other stakeholders, particularly shareholders. This may mean that developing innovative or radical greenspace objectives as a component of CSR is less likely in public limited companies, such as Lend Lease.

2.4.2.3 CSR in Housebuilding Bertels and Poloza (2008) suggest that rather than always being used for competitive advantage, CSR can seek to improve industry reputation – especially in volatile sectors. As housebuilding is a particularly volatile sector, engagement between house-builders in creating CSR may help to reduce the risk of future regulation, by showing competency in sustainability. However, if house- builders use common benchmarks, the differences between them may be minimised – and innovation in greenspace might not develop. Bryson and Lombardi (2009) compared two small speculative developers using ‘sustainability’ as part of their competitive strategy. By considering how each company constructed discourses of profitability, they illustrated that these developers considered CSR as a tool for commercial advantage. By aligning their discourses of sustainability with those used by the state, they were able to win public sector land development opportunities.

There has been little research about how the housebuilding industry conceptualises sustainability, with research tending instead to measure the industry and its performance against a pre-defined set of criteria. For instance, The World Wide Fund for Nature’s ‘One Million Sustainable Homes Campaign’ (WWF, 2002) – which sought to facilitate an ‘independent dialogue’ to build consensus across housing development stakeholders by 2012 – reviewed the UK’s 13 largest volume house-builders in 2002. The Campaign suggests that the reason for developers to engage in sustainability is twofold: first, to manage risk; and second, to enhance reputation, and competitive advantage. Therefore, ethical motivations were not part of this agenda.

Figure 2: Purpose of CSR as seen by WWF (WWF, 2004) The model does suggest that over time environmental standards should improve as a result of competition: this is the promise of privatised environmental governance (Falkner, 2003; Braithwaite, 2008). However, what this improvement means is shown to be largely technological efficiency regarding environment, with little consideration given to greenspace. It also advocates use of an Environmental Management System, such as ISO14001. ISO standards are created by the International Standards Organisation: the world’s largest non-governmental membership organisation, and largest developer of international standards (ISO, 2014). Falkner (2003) suggests that the emergence of corporate-sponsored environmental regimes points to a shift in organising international responses to the ecological crisis, minimising opportunities for radical realignment of objectives. The subsequent promotion of ISO standards by governments across the globe serves to further support these interests.

Whether developers have fully embodied this understanding, or whether they innovate in creating environmental policy remains to be seen. Reasons for strategy creation, such as risk management or differentiation are likely to shape greenspace policies. What this means needs to be examined and unpacked.

2.4 Framing the Research Question Section 2.1 identified mechanisms in development practice required to secure greenspace which delivers strong social and environmental justice objectives. This illustrated that changes in conceptions of environment, conceptions of scale, and real distributions of responsibility are needed for this. To understand how developers, who produce the majority of new housing, and planning actors, as agents of the responsible arm of the state, currently take on responsibility for development outcomes, sections 2.2 and 2.3 considered their respective practices.

Section 2.1 identified how greenspace can contribute to SD and the planning instruments needed to achieve this. This identified that new frames – understandings of reality manifest in material practices - of natural and political scale were important to achieving many of these goals. Section

2.1.4 then considered how policy instruments prior to the SD concept embodied particular understandings of environment. Two major narratives of nature were identified: nature as an object for conservation and aesthetic enjoyment, and nature as a commodity yielding products. Both cordoned off ‘natural’ spaces, rather than thinking systematically about the flows and relationships between the residents of new housing projects, and their relationship to productive, regulatory or supportive ecosystem services.

Section 2.2 reviewed SD policy created since 2004. This identified how four types of policy instrument: regulatory, stimulating, capacity building, and market shaping have been used in SD policy to date. This illustrated that ‘the state’ does not use homogenous kinds of tools to influence and shape markets, and that the authority and power of the state has been increasingly shared or handed over to market actors over the last twenty years. The policy review identified that some new functional expectations of greenspace, beyond aesthetic enjoyment and commodity production, were introduced. For instance, regulatory ecosystem services such as urban flood risk alleviation. However, whether this reflected fundamental shifts in understandings of nature is unclear. As different SD policy instruments, and policy moments are characterised by contradictions and uncertainty, outcomes for greenspace cannot be known and therefore need to be studied.

Changes in the distribution and character of state authority were also identified as part of the shift towards more market-like systems of governance. This widening out of regulatory processes has been considered to weaken or ‘hollow out’ the nation state and its authority, with power moving up to higher scales – such as the European Union or with privatised global governance – and down to more local scales – such as city-regional agencies, local economic partnerships, private corporations, and other informal bodies. However, whether this is disempowerment, or differential empowerment of the state remains a central question.

With this in mind, this research requires an approach which can identify – from specific cases – how different SD planning policy moments affect the production of nature. On the basis of the findings of the rest of this chapter, summarised above, such an approach must to be able to:

- explain and identify the factors which shape behaviour when outcomes are not prescribed by strict regulation; - account for differences between state and market approaches to the embedding of sustainability in practice to discern the distinct responsibilities of each; - account for differences in interpretation of sustainability and impact these competing ideas may have on decisions;

- lead to constructive policy recommendations about the role of planning in the development of fair shares approaches

Section 2.5 will now consider the way urban development research has sought to understand the development process to date, and try to identify an approach which can meet the needs outlined above.

2.5 Understanding Institutions in Development Studies

2.5.1 Introduction As stated in chapter 1, this research defines Greenspace as ‘living vegetation in housing developments, ranging in scale from individually planted trees to vast landscaped planes, which can perform a range of services. These services are determined not only by natural processes, but also the cultural, political and economic structures which shape the development process’. Institutional theory has become a very popular means to interpret the relationship between the cultural, political and economic factors which affect development decisions (Servillo and Van Der Broeck, 2012) and has been used to evaluate environmental performance in the planning profession (e.g. Alexander, 2005; Wheeler, 2013); the speculative development industry (Adams and Watkins, 2008; Payne, 2009; Hertin et al., 2003) and influence of national policy on the development of corporate social responsibility (Ortiz-de-Mandojana, Aguilera-Caracuel and Morales-Raya, 2014).

However, no current institutional approaches to the development process have explicitly sought to identify how government policy and CSR are related within landscapes of responsibility for SD. Institutional approaches broadly agree that institutions are the confines which impose structures on the actions of human beings (Hodgson, 1998) while also allowing for behaviour to be shaped by a range of non-economic factors. As Zucker (1983, p5) suggests ‘institutionalisation operates to produce common understandings about what is appropriate and fundamentally meaningful behaviour’. In turn, Meyer and Rowan (1991, p42) define institutionalisation as ‘the process whereby social processes, obligations, or actualities come to take on a rule-like status in social thought or action’. The focus thus becomes understanding ‘the rules of the game’, more than what ‘the players’ are doing (Adams, Dunse and White, 2005).

However, Institutionalism is not an ‘all-embracing theory’ (Hodgson, 1998 p186) with approaches showing ontological differences, and different methodological applicability to any given research question (Payne, 2009). Within the social sciences institutionalism has lent towards qualitative methodologies, and a rejection of the mathematical formalism of neoclassical economics (MacLeod, 2001). This is useful for this project, as the methodological individualism of classical economics – the assumption that all economic outcomes are a product of individual rationality – render questions and assertions of responsibility beyond the individual difficult, potentially perpetuating ideological individualism (Arrow, 1994).

Neoclassical approaches have significantly developed in recent years, in the first of three main institutional strands. Rational choice institutionalism considers institutions as necessary to correct market failures and stabilise economic affairs (Gorges, 2001) – accounting for the impact

68 of a range of factors, including new technology; imbalances of information between parties (Ball, 1998); the impact of regulatory policies (Adams, Dunse and White 2005); and in Game Theory, the constraints of ‘role playing’ by actors within different scenarios (Medda, 2007).

Many rational choice institutionalists still consider the primary driver of behaviour to be the minimisation of costs, presenting two problems. First, not all costs of decisions made about greenspace can be known. Not only is it difficult to price all possible ‘transactions’ relating to the implementation of alternative greenspace designs, but it is equally difficult to understand where costs are borne, and to who. Second, the idea that cost minimisation is the sole motivator of all actors, including those representing the state, inscribes a preference for the behaviour of government which is fundamentally at odds with the pursuit of social and environmental justice (Eckersley, 2004).

However, more sophisticated developments within the rational institutionalism trend, such as the Political Economy of Institutionalism approach (see 2.5.5 below), retain a view of institutions as real or potential correctors to market failures, without relying on transaction costs to explain decision making. Instead, a greater focus on the parameters of decision making contexts is made to understand differences between ‘formal’ rules and their effectiveness at securing given outcomes. This places emphasis on different types of policy instrument, as set out in section 2.1.4, and factors such as opportunity space (section 2.3.1.3) and adaptive capacity (section 2.3.1.3).

The second strand of institutionalism is sociological institutionalism which defines institutions broadly, to include formal rules procedures and norms, but also influences such as symbols, cognitive scripts, and moral templates (Schmidt, 2010, p14). In this, a focus on institutionalisation occurs when these scripts, symbols or templates are taken up across space through ‘mimetic processes’ whereby states or organisations mime what has been seen elsewhere, increasing the isomorphism of institutions (Gorges, 2001). The third and final strand is historical institutionalism, which emphasises the way asymmetries in power – often perceived as access to and distribution of resources – develop over time, reflecting cultural influences, ideas and beliefs (Hall and Taylor, 1997).

Both of these latter two approaches then give more weight to the role of ideas than rational approaches. Adding ideas into institutional analysis characterises what many call the ‘new institutionalism’ (Gorges, 2001). Understanding ideas is clearly important, given that philosophies of nature have been shown to affect SD interpretations in section 2.1.1- 2.1.3; that ‘narratives’ of environment prior to the SD concept were shown to limit expectations of greenspace in housing (see section 2.1.5); and that frames – perceptions about political and

69 natural scales – were shown to maintain existing trading relationships of ecosystem goods in Section 2.1.5.

Aspects of rational, sociological and institutional institutionalism are needed to meet the research objectives of this project, as demonstrated in the following section. Institutional models of the development process have drawn on and at times brought together all three of these institutional strands. Four institutional models of the development process have sought to outline comprehensive explanations of the development process. These are the Structuration Approach, (Healey, 1992a) Historical-Sociological Institutionalism (Gonzalez and Healey 2004), Political Economy of Institutionalism (Adams et al., 2003) and Strategic-Relational Institutionalism (Servillo and Van Der Broeck, 2012). This chapter will consider how each meets the needs of this study.

2.5.2 Structuration Healey (1992a) first proposed an institutional model of the development process in the early 1990s, which gave a neo-Marxist account of structure-agency in development processes. This drew on Giddens’ (1984) conception that power in society can be divided into two forms: allocative (resources) and authoritative (rules). Together rules and resources are considered to be the properties which allow ‘the `binding' of time-space in social systems, the properties which make it possible for discernibly similar social practices to exist across varying spans of time and space, and which lend them `systemic' form’ (Giddens, 1984 p17).

Healey (1992, p 35) describes resources (allocative power) in development as ‘the primary ingredients of the production process’ which beyond the material conditions – i.e. land, labour and finance –might also encompass information and expertise. Thus, the expertise of a landscape designer in drawing a masterplan could be considered as a form of allocative power which affects outcomes. Rules then govern the way resources are used. These may be formalized in law and administrative procedure or exist as custom and practice. This mirrors North’s (1991) conception of institutions, as comprised of both formal rules and informal constraints. Building on this notion of ‘custom and practice’, Healey (1992, p35) suggests a third category of power which structures development processes:

‘critical to the deployment of both resources and rules are the ideas which form the interests and strategies of actors as they define projects, consider relationships, and develop and interpret rules. These ideas carry assumptions, about the nature of cities, about economic futures and social organisation, about environmental values, about appropriate relations between public and private realms – which have a critical structuring effect on the way agents perceive their interests and derive their strategies…’

Healey argues that ideas form the interests and strategies of actors as they define projects and develop and interpret rules. In this sense, ideas reproduce, reinforce and transform social relations. Ideas then structure rules, which determine the distribution of resources. Healey suggests a 4 stage approach to link the events of specific actors in specific cases to broader structuring forces. This begins with an events-sequencing model of the development process, in which a timeline of the development process is used to identify major events in production. Then agencies involved in the process are identified for their role in the production/consumption/use of the development, along with the power relations which evolved between them. Third, the strategies and interests of actors – focusing on the most significant sets of relationships within the process – should be identified to understand what governs the ways in which different roles are played and relationships developed.

How this provides a link between agency and structure is set out in the fourth stage of analysis, for which Healey has received greatest criticism (below). This involves making connections between the empirical findings of specific cases, and Healey’s conception of Ideology, which she considers to be constituted by two variables: the ‘mode of production’ (MOP), and ‘mode of regulation’ (MOR). The mode of production is used to refer to political economic arrangements with varying degrees of specificity in terms of approach and scale, with less geographically tied economic classifications such as Feudalism, Early and Late Capitalism, Fordism, Post-Fordism, Communism etc. While there are merits to this level of generality in discussions of international political economy (Jessop, 2005) it could at best only be useful in comparison of planning in different nation states, rather than planning under different governments, or via different types of planning policy moment in a single national context as is necessary for this study.

In contrast, the mode of regulation, a concept originally from Aglietta (1979; 2000), has since been hugely influential in urban development research (Moulaert et al., 2007). This departs from Marxist orthodoxy, which considers the mode of production to be inherently prone to crisis and collapse, turning instead to focus on how economic conditions are stabilised by regulatory activities. For instance, the view of sustainability as a ‘fix’ for global capital as discussed in section 2.2.1. In this approach, regulation is conceived far more broadly than judicial/political law, and is ‘better and less mechanically translated as regularisation or normalisation’ (Jessop, 1995 p309). The Anglophone equivalent of this concept is governance (Jessop, 1995), drawn upon by Healey in later approaches (see 2.5.3 below).

The concept of regularisation and normalisation allows for development decisions to be shaped by a number of formal and informal processes, and by a number of different agents. In turn, this could accommodate practices in planning, and CSR. Understanding CSR as a component of the

71 mode of regulation is interesting, because it raises questions about the extent to which CSR seeks to stabilise or change development outcomes, and also whether these actions can or should be seen as distinct from the actions of the state. However, the Structuration approach predates CSR as a common practice in development, and as it does not work through the components of a mode of regulation clearly, or how these relate to specific types of rules or their authors, the approach offers weak conceptual explanation of the role of CSR in regulatory landscapes.

Healey herself (1983, p245) has previously recognised the limitations of this higher-level conception of political economy to an explanation of local, empirical events, outlining that it is ‘difficult to substantiate precisely the connections between these and wider forces, even though a good interpretive guess can be arrived at’. Such an interpretive guess fails to resolve the problem of grand theory which transcends context and situatedness (Hooper, 1992). In turn, Ball’s (1989) criticism that early Marxist approaches to urban development portray Capital as the ultimate causal power, which ‘always knows what it wants, and always gets its own way’ (Ball, 1986 p452), still applies to Healey’s neo-Marxist approach. As Hooper (1992) suggests, the approach over- valorises the primacy of the capitalist sphere of production, creating a false problematic: the ‘artificial juxtaposition of a structurally determined capitalist economy with the (contingent) non- economic conditions of existence in this economic sphere’ (Ibid, p 47).

This is arguably a reflection of the lack of attention to local historical context in the approach, which Hooper (1992) suggest is fundamentally at odds with institutionalism. Within historical institutionalism, a central concept has been ‘path-dependency’ – the notion that ‘the entrenchments of certain institutional arrangements obstruct an easy reversal of the initial choice’ (Levi, 1997 p28). Pierson (2000, p253) instead frames this as ‘the farther into a process we are, the harder it becomes to shift from one path to another’. Understanding what has come before is therefore of central importance. Consideration of previous ‘ideas’ about the research subject (such as greenspace) is necessary for the four part empirical approach, to understand what ideas are likely to have historical importance.

In conclusion, the Structuration approach proposes that there are two types of power: allocative (resources) and authoritative (rules), which are shaped and coordinated by ideas in development processes. By incorporating ideas and informal customs in understanding what structures development outcomes, the approach was pioneering. However, as the relationship between ideas, rules and resources are not linked thoroughly to the concept of ‘Ideology’ which was seen to structurally determine them, the approach failed to provide a suitable ‘middle-range’ connection between ideology and events, or structure and agency.

Giving greater consideration to historical meso-level factors – such as established types of formal rule (policy instrument); different organisations of resources across levels of government; or different ideas about environment in a geographical context – could help achieve this ‘middle range’ link between ideology and development outcomes, essentially providing more rigorous definition of the ‘institutional’ component. The structuration approach therefore considers variables at a level above that which is necessary to understand the unique responsibilities and contributions of CSR and planning policy to SD outcomes, and the lack of historical appreciation renders it incapable of understanding whether the SD agenda has changed ideas about nature and in turn, greenspace in housing.

2.5.3 Innovation in Institutionalism While Healey’s Structuration model was criticised for over-valorising the role of the economy in shaping outcomes on the one hand, a growing critique of historical institutional approaches which placed more emphasis on historical and geographically contingent factors was also being made. Ball (1989) criticised early applications of historical institutionalism in development studies, which he called ‘Conflict Institutionalism’, for adopting a static understanding of the state as a provider of welfare, and planning as the distributor of these collective consumables (Ball, 1989). In turn, he argued research tended to focus on the consumption of housing and associated welfare goods, rather than the social process of production. This focus on community struggles resulted in an inability to account for changes in the state, as it became increasingly entrepreneurial rather than managerial (Rhodes, 1994).

However, more recent applications of the approach, such as Rosol’s (2010) study of community gardens in Berlin, have considered how ‘civic engagement gains importance as a substitute for Welfarist functions of the local state’ (Ibid, p548). While this allows for changes in the character of the state, Rosol suggests the approach does not explore ‘normative questions’ about the state or policies, but rather seeks to critically deconstruct events through rich description to explain changes in its character (Rosol, 2010).

Seeking to go beyond rich description of change, Healey (2004a) and subsequently Gonzalez and Healey (2004) contributed to this with a ‘historical-sociological’ model of the development process, designed to understand social innovation. Social Innovation approaches seek to explain how acts of civic engagement, urban movements, or grassroots activity, can transform development institutions. This incorporates the historical and geographical particulars missing in the Structuration approach, while incorporating sociological institutional considerations.

Moving away from the mode of production, governance becomes the institutional vehicle. Healey (2004a, p92) suggests that governance institutions should not be seen as a set of formal

73 organisations and procedures established in law and ‘followed through’ in legally specified practices, but rather ‘the norms, standards and mores of a society or social group, which shape both formal and informal ways of thinking and ways of acting… In this perspective, the ‘governance’ institutions of a society are those values, norms and ways of acting which shape the realm of collective action’. This reflects the transition from Government to Governance (Jessop, 1995) allowing better explanation of partnerships between state and market in planning (Jessop, 1999, 2002; Davies, 2002; Geddes, 2006).

Healey develops her former discussion of ideas, to focus instead on discourses. This mirrors the ‘discursive turn’ in development studies (Sharp and Richardson, 2001; Lees, 2004) as discourses of environment become a focus for policy analysis (Hajer, 1995; Hajer and Versteed, 2005; Lovell, 2004; 2008; 2009). Discourse has been defined as: ‘a group of statements which provide a language for talking about- i.e. a particular way of representing a particular kind of knowledge about a topic.’ (Hall 2001 p56). These statements ‘share the same style and support a strategy… a common institutional… or political drift or pattern’ (Cousins and Hussain, 1984 p84-85). In this vein a discourse ‘limits the other ways in which the topic can be constructed’ (Hall, Ibid). Discourses are therefore relatively coherent sets of ideas that have potential to influence policy development.

To understand how innovation could become institutionalised from specific instances into broader habits, a three-tiered relationship is described between: a. specific ‘episodes’: characterised by actors in specific sites and settings; b. ‘governance processes’: characterised by networks and coalitions, discourses, practices, formal laws, competencies; and c. ‘governance cultures: accepted modes of governance, embedded cultural values, formal and informal structures which police discourses and restrict change. This offers more of the ‘middle range link’ missing from Structuration approaches and allows recognition of non-democratic and unelected governance institutions at supra-local scales which characterised the new spatial planning (See section 2.2.1). Healey (2006) uses this to consider a city centre regeneration partnership, city-wide development strategy, and a community-led Trust in Newcastle. In these first two cases then, planners and private actors such as developers are considered worthy agents to study and understand progress, or change. However, the approach is geared towards this bottom up orientation of explanation: how innovations can become institutionalised.

As there is no higher-level or structuring theory as to the role of the state, the approach is poorly equipped to explain the effectiveness of national policies as they are implemented across space.

Oher strands of innovation institutionalism (Moulaert et al., 2007) become increasingly disinterested in policy and increasingly interested in grassroots movements, due to a preconception of the state is immutable to radical innovation or system transformation (discussed further in 2.5.4 below).

In conclusion, the historical-sociological innovation approach allows for change over short periods of time, in single geographic contexts. Power is therefore more fluid than in structuration, and geographically and historically embedded. The essential components of institutions: formal and informal rules which shape different resource allocations over alternating scales, determined by values as ideas – do not differ from the structuration approach. While there is a move to discuss discourse, which encompasses frames and narratives, these are only the interactive processes which convey ideas (Schmidt, 2010). Ideas are the substantive content of discourse.

The approach is able to consider CSR as a component of governance within development institutions, and explain how CSR practices may become institutionalised. However, as it is concerned with the upscaling of new ideas rather than the effectiveness of established institutions, no meaningful theorisation is forthcoming for already institutionalised policies, which would enable comparisons of, for instance, different types of policy instrument or allocations of government resources across scales. This limits the ability of the approach to provide reflexive, constructive feedback on an established institutional practice, such as SD.

2.5.4 Strategic Relational Institutionalism (SRI) Drawing from the work of Jessop (2001; 2008) and Jessop and Sum (2006) amongst others, Servillo and Van Der Broeck (2012) set out a ‘strategic-relational’ account of planning processes. In this, planning is considered to be embedded in an institutional field. Thus, rather than formal institutions (organisations, professions etc.) being the object of study, planning is seen as a practice which is institutionalised: outcomes are structured by cultural, political and economic factors (Servillo and Van Den Broeck, 2012). Institutions then shape ‘actors preferences, their very concept of rationality, their goals, the definitions of their own interests are socially constructed… or in other words, cognitively, culturally, politically, structurally embedded’ (Servillo and Van Den Broeck, 2012, p 45).

Institutions are considered to have four dimensions: technical (including planning instruments and tools, plans, formal procedures, governmental competencies) Cognitive (including implicit and explicit knowledge, perception of spatial issues, and so on), social-political (including welfare structure, perception of role of the state, balance of political power, governance structures), and finally discursive (involving values, aims, principles, and rhetoric). This breakdown presents several problems. These categories can overlap creating room for confusion.

For instance, the socio-political dimension contains ‘role of the state’, yet this could easily overlap with planner identity, part of the cognitive dimension. The technical dimension includes instruments tools and plans, but this is separated from the socio-political dimension regarding governance structures. As they go on to accept the allocative and authoritative power breakdown, and that this is shaped by battles over ideas in line with their use of Sum (2005) it seems these categories are unnecessary and unhelpful. The simplicity of allocative, authoritative and idea based dimensions allows for a more organic discussion of key themes, without recycling the same content.

While Healey and Gonzalez (2004) consider the relation between agents and the meaning they attach to their environment to be dialectical reflecting cultural geography of space, Servillo and Van Der Broeck consider the interplay between actors and institutions as ‘recursively dialectal’. As in Healey’s historical-sociological approach, there is a focus on the push-back on current institutional structure by agents which can result in change. However, rather than conceiving of this as social innovation, Servillo and Van Der Broeck suggest resistance and change come from ‘counter-hegemonic’ activity.

In this approach, components from any institutional dimension (technical, cognitive, socio- political and discursive) are at the same time held in place by temporarily supportive coalitions, propping up hegemonic affairs, and challenged by their shadow, counter hegemonic alternatives (through the voice of groups or individuals). With ‘sufficient’ counter-hegemonic activity, institutional frames can be altered. However this must be substantial, as current institutions create ‘strategic-selectivity’ structural conditions prefer or privilege certain courses of action. This can therefore be seen as similar to, but marginally more dynamic than the concept of path- dependency.

The SRI offers a more dynamic understanding of the structure-agency relationship, in which all actors either reinforce or resist current institutional conditions. Rather than a de-spatialised, static form of ideology in the Structuration approach, the concept of hegemony allows for constant struggle and potential for change. This is highly relevant to the context of SD, in which many ideas compete for policy salience (Haughton, 1999). However, the focus on discourse should not come at the expense of understanding rule and resource components, which is a risk in discourse-focused institutional approaches (Schmidt, 2010) such as discursive innovation institutionalism (Moulaert et al., 2007). The focus on discourses as the critical cite of change takes the focus away from rule and resource technicalities, making it harder to inform practice.

In conclusion, the SRI approach offers a more flexible understanding of development processes, which allows for conflict. However the institutional variables can be more clearly subsumed

76 within rule resource and idea categories. By using the concept of hegemony instead of ideology, the approach identifies that shadow alternative ideas are present development processes. However, the notion of ‘strategic selectivity’ as a conception of the state leads to a focus on battles over ideas, without giving equal merit to a discussion of how rules or resources enable or restrict the ability of particular agents to develop certain ideas. In turn, there is little departure from the assumptions in discursive innovation approaches, that grassroots community groups hold the greatest potential as agents of change. It is therefore ill-designed to advise on the responsibilities of state and market actors.

2.5.5 Political Economy of Institutionalism (PEI)

Other planning researchers in institutional analysis – Adams, Dunse and White (2005) Tiesdell and Allmendinger (2005) Adams and Tiesdell (2010) and Adams and Watkins (2014) – have contributed to a ‘Political Economy of Institutionalism’ approach. This returns a focus to policy, and seeks to engage constructively with planning as an agent of change in development institutions. This is premised on a rejection of the view that planning is opposed to the market, as it has historically been considered (Healey, 1992b) and rather sees planning as an active participant in the social construction of markets, which are ‘conjured up rather than analysed’ (Hahn, 1993 p203) and ‘made not given’ (Christie et al., 2008 p2296). As the state is seen to create, enforce, underwrite and protect rights which allow markets to function, the economy is seen as carrying the label ‘made by government’.

The approach is best aligned with rational institutionalism, which views institutions as vehicles to correct market failures (Gorges, 2001). This conceptual shift towards seeing the state as an architect of market conditions – empowered to affect development outcomes for the better as much as to maintain them – contrasts with former positions outlined, which suggest the state is either a sympathiser with, supporter of, or slave to some pre-existing market. This leads the approach to focus on annotating different types of policy instrument to compare approaches used to achieve planning goals. The typology of policy instruments set out in section 2.1.4 of market shaping, capacity building, stimulating and regulatory policy instruments was developed within the PEI approach, to give more systematic form to understanding the differences between rules and their ability to shape decision making contexts. Each of these instruments has different levels of formality, and relies on networks to different extents. This offers far more conceptual detail to understand differences between policy instruments – and policy moments as constellations of these instruments – than categories of ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ rules as presented by the structuration approach, and the unvariegated category of ‘technical elements’ as presented in the SRI.

Linked to this understanding of different types of instrument has been an interest in behavioural responses. Behavioural institutionalism considers the way that ‘social, cognitive and emotional biases can cause economic decisions to deviate from rational calculations’ (Pryce and Levin, 2008 p16). For designers employed by developers, concepts such as opportunity space have been used to discuss factors constraining the decision making context of actors. In contrast, adaptive capacity has been used to compare behavioural responses to policy interventions (Payne, 2009; 2013). Adams Payne and White, (2008) identified that Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s), objectives, and targets were used in CSR management systems. However a detailed account of the various kinds of ‘rules’ used in CSR and how these relate to different ideas and resources is yet to be created.

As Lowndes (2001) highlights, in behavioural research institutions provide the rules of the game, in which organisations are players, while at the same time organisations have their own internal institutional frameworks. As Khalil (1999 p62) states, institutions denote ‘some of the means employed in the pursuit of ends, while the term organisation signifies the agent who makes decisions about which end is worth pursuing’ (Ibid, p62). This then allows institutions to sit within and outside of organisations, allowing for differences between developers to be considered, and ‘the market’ not to be viewed as necessarily homogenous, a problem seen in policy (Adams, Croudace and Tiesdell, 2012) and other theorisations of the urban development process (Ball, 1989).

In this case, developers can be considered to sit within an institutional field, as the SRI considers planning. This approach allows the institutional subject to include and transcend the behaviour of individual organisations. Conversations about developer behaviour should therefore fit into an wider institutional account of how CSR is a component of institutionalised landscapes of responsibility for SD. At present, the PEI approach does not account for this.

Within the PEI approach, consideration of planner behaviour has drawn more on cognitive institutionalism. Rather than cognitive components referring to concepts of space as in Strategic- relational approaches, cognitive aspects focus more on planner sense of self, and their identification within market activities. This is important to understand responsibility.

Adams and Tiesdell, (2010 p188) advocate that, seeing as planners are social agents involved in the construction of market conditions, they should ‘see themselves essentially as market actors’ to pursue public interest objectives. This is a radical shift, for planners have long considered themselves as counter to the market (Healey, 1992). This is illustrated in Pratchet and Wingfield’s (1996) study of the ‘public service ethos’ (PSE) and self-image of public sector workers. Principles characterising the ‘PSE’ include accountability, honesty, integrity, impartiality, objectivity, loyalty and non-profit led motivation: ‘Whilst officers expect to receive

78 reasonable remuneration for their efforts, personal or organisational profit is not the primary motivation for their activities… Motivation amongst public servants, therefore, is primarily altruistic rather than financial’ (Ibid, p641).

The absence of a profit-motive was shown to be in decline during the 1980s, as the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering changed the PSE (Ibid). Adams and Tiesdell (2010) recognise that resources (education, information) are required for this shift in self-perception to be effective in regaining power, rather than encouraging planners to surrender to market logics. This raises interesting questions, given the increased significance of viability assessment (See section 2.3.2.4) about greenspace decision making and planner sense of self.

In conclusion, the PEI approach gives conceptual definition to the way in which different types of rule contain different degrees of formality or informality, and affect the decision making context of development actors. However, as there is no recognition of ideas - directly or through a discussion of values or discourses - the approach misses the historical and sociological understanding of other approaches, which is necessary to understand how a change in ideas about environment through the SD agenda have affected greenspace practice.

2.5.6 An Institutional Account of SD

2.5.6.1 Shortcomings of Existing Institutional Models From this review of institutional accounts of the development process, we can see that none of the approaches meet all of these needs alone. Healey’s structuration model offered three strong categories to understand decision making. This accounts for the role of ideas, but not how multiple ideas might compete with each other, or change institutional practices over a short time period. While the institutional variables of rules, resources and ideas are broadly befitting of all approaches, more through links between these variables and her conception of higher-level structure - ideology - is lacking. Her subsequent historical-sociological approach better accounts for historically and geographically contingent factors, and considers planning as a multi-scalar activity. However, this particularism comes at the expense of higher-level theory about the role of the state, and as with other recent historical approaches, seeks to describe change rather than ask normative questions (Rosol, 2010).

Using the concept of hegemony rather than ideology determined by the Mode of Production, as a homogenous and immutable causal structure - allows SRI to hold a more flexible, or dialectical, understanding of the role of ideas in institutions. What constitutes counter-hegemony in the case of greenspace planning could be determined by looking at previous work on narratives of environment in planning, such as those set out in Section 2.1.5, and evaluating whether change has taken place. However, this evaluation of ideas (through discourse) cannot come at the

79 expense of engagement over the other structural components – rule and resource landscapes – which shape development outcomes.

Some interpretations of innovation-led institutionalism which align with the strategic relational approach (Moulaert et al., 2007) indirectly prioritise understanding grassroots community activity over the performance of different policies, because the understanding of state and market institutions – as characterised by strategic-selectivity – renders non-institutional actors the most capable agents to affect systematic change. This disillusion with the state as an agent of change translates into an under theorisation of the importance of ‘technical elements’ or policy instruments, and renders the approach inappropriate for research which seeks to offer institutionally reflexive policy lessons to planning or developers.

In summary, a flaw in the structuration approach was poor comment on middle-range structural conditions. The historical-sociological innovation approach better identify meso-level governance activities, but lack higher theory as to what determines these meso-level structures. The strategic-relational approach and discursive innovation studies recognise that there is a shadow alternative to all aspects of institutional structure, but do not explain how the state could be a source of counter-hegemony, what might drive these ‘counter-hegemonies’, or explain why – other than coming up against strategic-selectivity of the state – these counter-hegemonies would create conflict. To understand the responsibilities of planners and market actors, a more thorough examination of how planners and developers consider themselves as agents within wider regulatory landscapes is necessary.

In summary, these approaches yield important lessons as to the variables which maintain current institutional practices. However, for research to reflexively inform the nation state on how it could be a more effective agent in progress towards SD, greater explanation is needed of how these variables could change, any why each would meet resistance. This shifts the conceptual focus away from identifying how current practices fail to challenge hegemony, towards understanding how agents engaged in the social construction of markets can work towards normative SD goals.

2.5.6.2 Institutional Parameters for SD

Figure 3 below sets out institutional dimensions for analysis. This incorporates lessons about institutional structuring factors in theory from this section, and important rule resource and idea constraints which have been shown to constitute and affect the role of greenspace in SD throughout the rest of Chapter 2. This is designed to enable identification of responsibilities, and explanations of barriers to adoption of responsibility in different situations. Responsibilities to

80 intervene in market process are related to planner identity, as a norm based informal code of conduct. This has a dynamic relationship with the formal regulation strategy, the extent to which the state holds legitimacy to intervene in market processes. While the cognitive dimension in the strategic-relational approach includes perception of geographic scale, here frames of scales are located within the resource based category as they are not reducible to imaginaries, and these material resources (e.g. the availability of food for new residents from global markets) would inevitably affect notions of responsibility (e.g. to prevent starvation/allow development).

Figure 3: Institutional Variables Shaping Adoption of Responsibility for Greenspace

Institutional Component Important Variables for SD Description

Nature as finite or replaceable Values of Nature

Growth constrained by or sitting Ideas of Economy inside natural constraints Ideas

Extent to which state or consumer Concept of Justice sovereignty hold legitimacy

Extent to which state intervenes in Regulation Strategy (Formal) markets

Instruments used to affect Rules development processes Policy Instruments

Planners self-recognition as agents in market processes – Planner Identity (Informal) norms and codes of conduct

Scales from which ecosystem goods and resources can be Frames of market scales sourced from

Resources Management of negative Redistribution externalities

Location of information and wider resources across state-market Expertise spectrum

Figure 3 does not – in isolation – resolve the issues identified above. To advise on progress towards SD and understand how these different institutional variables best enable or inhibit SD

81 progress, an explanation of alternative constellations of these variables, with different distributions of responsibility, is necessary. To resolve this, it might be useful to bring this framework into conversation with the typology of SD philosophies set out by Haughton (1999) in Chapter 1.

Rather than suggesting that these philosophies exist in pure form, Haughton suggests that each of these philosophies are ‘ideal types’, continuously in competition for policy salience. He argues that there is considerable borrowing of ideas between them by urban policy moments, in what can often seem contradictory fashions. As set out in chapter 1, these contradictions arise because each of these philosophies has strong internal coherence, with different variables being interdependent (See full explanation of these interdependencies in section 1.4).

Conflict does not only arise then, when ‘hegemony’ meets ‘counter-hegemony’ in a battle of discourses or imaginaries, but also when there is incoherence to any one of these philosophies, including formal and formal rule and resource components. In turn, the institutional focus is not only on informal rules and ideas – as ideological habits and discourses – but also the meso-level practical aspects of governance. Assessing practice against this framework would help identify opportunities which could be goaded to bring about deeper structural transformation. This seeks to avoid the ‘inherent conservatism’ of exclusively positivist explanations, or ‘wishful utopian dreaming’ of pure theorisation (Eckersley, 2004).

Following Servillo and Van Der Broeck (2012) then, planning and the development industry are considered to sit within an institutional field. This field is comprised of a range of variables which affect the agency (and adopted responsibility) of different actors. Thus, rather than formal institutions (organisations, professions etc.) being the object of study, organisations are considered to be institutionalised by cultural, political and economic factors (Servillo and Van Den Broeck, 2012). Therefore while it is recognised that aspects of some of these approaches are more institutionally embedded, with greater strategic-selective resistance, the view of markets – as constructed by state activity – allows the researcher to assume that any of these variables could be altered and interrogate practice against these ideals. As much as the state could withdraw and enable neoliberal externally dependant cities, it can also develop towards fair shares approaches. The cross-over in selecting components of each of these systems in real world policy moments has been demonstrated by the different policy moments described in 2.2.

Externally Dependant Redesigning Cities Fair Shares Cities Self-Reliant Cities Cities

Ideas Values of Anthropocentric. Control, measure Attention to environmental tolerances, use Conquer or price nature Work with/integrate Nature and manage precautionary principle

Go for growth; use smart Accommodate growth, ‘efficient’ Selective growth, limited Economy Guide growth: use mix of technologies technology technologies technology

Justice Price signals, consumer Democratic consultation on design Market modification; strong state Collective and locally led (informal) sovereignty with limited market intervention in redistribution decision making

Planner Passive: Bureaucratic role Active: To tame markets in coalition N/A: completely devolved Active: To create and construct socially and Identity to stabilise capital with market actors and through responsibility for development environmentally just markets (Informal) accumulation consultation decisions

Major regulation of trade markets, concern Land use planning and design Alternative markets – local Rules Regulation Market regulation; state to respect and establish regional carrying control. exchange trading systems; Strategy deregulation. capacities decentralised control (Formal)

Policy Market Shaping, Capacity Building, Instruments CSR Regulatory, Stimulating, Market Shaping, Regulatory (limited) N/A Capacity Building

Resources Naturalised Market-led economic development Global-local market interaction but Bioregional capacity-driven; Global market offers market scales drives implicit reduction of determined by carrying capacities and restricted-hinterland, local unrestricted hinterland (Frames) negative externalities locally justice across scales exchange networks

Consumer and producer pay plus state All costs internalised within Redistribution No direct redistribution Consumer or producer pays redistribution bioregion

Expertise to define SD in Expertise in Nation State, authority Expertise on international affairs at Expertise market to define at national level national level, regional affairs devolved

: Figure 4: Ideologies of SD: Rules, Resources and Ideas in Alternative SD Policy Moments

2.5.7 Conclusions This section has reviewed the different institutional approaches used in development research which have sought to offer a comprehensive understanding of cultural, political and economic factors affecting development outcomes. Structuration, Innovation, Strategic-Relational and PEI approaches were reviewed, and relevant components built into a framework which can be used as an indicative model. This is considered to offer conceptual explanation of the divergent expectations of responsibility in, and rule, resource and idea relationships within alternative interpretations of SD. The following chapter will present a methodology to examine real practice cases in light of this conceptual framework.

3. Methods

3.1 Introduction and Overview

Chapter 2 demonstrated that there are two current gaps in knowledge regarding the allocation and intended functionality of greenspace in new large scale housing development. These are firstly: the role of corporate social responsibility in securing SD outcomes in greenspace, and secondly; the influence of alternative SD policies on decisions made about greenspace.

Section 2.5 set out an institutional account of the development process which will be used as a conceptual framework to understand empirical findings. This chapter will explain and justify the empirical strategy. In summary, a mixed methods research approach will be adopted to triangulate between what policy dictates, how this is interpreted, and what happens as a consequence of this. Firstly, a desk based review of major developers’ corporate sustainability statements will be undertaken to gain an understanding of the industry’s interpretation of SD, and the roles allocated to greenspace within this. The top fifteen UK developers1 will be reviewed, and analysed. The decision to focus on the biggest companies is justified by their market share of new housing, and tendency as larger industry players to be given privileged positions in influencing national policy (Baylis and Connell, 1998). The findings of this review were used to adapt and modify semi-structured interviews with the architects of CSR policies within these companies.

Case studies of large scale residential developments involved both document analysis and semi structured interviews with actors involved in the design stages of respective projects to understand the relationship between conceptions of sustainability in formal and informal regulation, and decisions made about environment, scale and greenspace as a result. Finally, interviews with national level actors involved in creating and directing the policy environment were undertaken to explore lessons learned in the case studies as CSR chapter and make conceptual links about consequences of given findings for environmental governance in large scale residential development in the future. An overview of interviewees is provided as Appendix 1. Figure 5 summarises the relationship between objectives, research questions and the methods deployed.

1 By completions, profiling adapted from Payne (2012).

Objective Research Justification Method Question

Identify RQ1: What ideas This provides a conceptual grounding Literature theoretical about from which empirical work developed Review relationships environment and the normative frames and language between SD, shape approaches to explore and explain empirical greenspace, to greenspace findings. Concepts of environment in SD and under different SD and their influence on greenspace are development interpretations? revisited in the discussion. institutions

RQ2: What are the This developed a conceptual reference Literature and political economic to understand the character of Policy Review and cultural forces regulatory authority and how shaping outcomes responsibility is shared for in sustainable development outcomes. housing developments

Investigate RQ3: What ideas While studies have been conducted 1) NVIVO – lead relationships of sustainability which analyse the construction in depth coding made between are present in industry’s approach to CSR (Jones et al., to identify and sustainability, Corporate Social 2006) and UK speculative house analyse thematic environment Responsibility, builders more specifically (Adams, issues and with what Payne and Watkins, 2008) there is no greenspace by consequences for current analysis of how reports present 2) Semi corporate greenspace? environment and in turn allocate Structured reports of responsibilities to greenspace. interviews with housing heads of CSR market Understanding the markets own leaders; intentions is important as CSR is given increasing weight and legitimacy as part of the SD regulatory landscape and important for processes of reflexive regulation. RQ4: How does To examine CSR as a form of regulation CSR regularise it is necessary to know how CSR outcomes for regularises, legitimises and directs greenspace understandings of sustainability and provision in new environment. housing projects? By considering the way developers approach self-regulation (as gleaned from objective 2), and development planning approval processes, (as gleaned by objective 3) reflections can be drawn as to the nuanced intentions of ‘the market’ for greenspace.

Objective Research Justification Method Question

Analyse the RQ5: What is While previous work has considered the Three in-depth influence of the influence of consequences of alternative urban case studies, alternative SD planning policy development models for greenspace which will use: planning outcomes (e.g. Crewe and Forsythe, 2011) moment on policy and the role of regulation in guiding SD 1) document moments on conceptions of outcomes (e.g. Gibbs, 1996; Drummond analysis greenspace environment in and Marsden, 1995) these have not been allocation and SD and roles considered simultaneously. Such an 2) semi intended given to analysis allows reflection on the structured functionality; greenspace? relationship between policy instruments, interviews. environmental understandings and greenspace outcomes. RQ6: How did This is essential to understand where gaps planning and in responsibility lie, and the translation of CSR affect CSR principles into practice. outcomes in these projects? Evaluate RQ7: What are The relationship between different policy Comparative responsibilitie the instruments and approaches and specific analysis of case s for consequences environmental outcomes in planning has study findings, greenspace for greenspace become a focus of planning research. returning to key under of rules made However, there is yet to be any which principles from alternative SD for SD considers, simultaneously, how the public the literature policies and and private sector share responsibility for and where interpretation allocating rules to greenspace in new appropriate s housing development. drawing on new material. RQ7 will reflect on changes made to understandings of environment by Interviews with development actors in the last decade of SD actors who have policy, being mindful of how the a comprehensive internalisation of market priorities in understanding policy shapes consideration of ecosystem of, or influence services. over national RQ8: What are As responsibility for regulating outcomes scale politics of the in development is increasingly shared sustainable comparative between the public and private sector, who residential responsibilities is responsible for securing environmental development of state and and social outcomes becomes increasingly regulatory market for obscure. processes. greenspace in sustainable By analysing the findings of earlier residential research stages, research question 8 will development, reflect on the shared responsibility and how does between planning and housing developers this sit within for directing greenspace outcomes in the context of development. political economy? Collection of new empirical material allows findings to be contextualised within broader processes of planning regime change and government restructuring.

Figure 5: Research Objectives, Questions, Methods and Justifications

3.2 Analytical Approach Before the design of data collection instruments and approaches, understanding the approach to analysis is critically important (Sayer, 2001). This allows a project to maintain coherence from problem identification, through data collection, and then analysis, to draw substantiated conclusions. For this research, links between real events and the institutional theory of SD presented in 2.5 is necessary.

As the intention is to relate concepts, practices and principles from empirical stages to conceptual debates about how to regulate for SD, the research methodology requires both internal coherence, and generalizability to wider theoretical arguments. This sees reality as:

‘constituted not only by experiences and the course of actual events, but also by structures, powers, mechanisms and tendencies- by aspects of reality that underpin, generate or facilitate the actual phenomena that we may or may not experience’ (Bhaskar and Lawson, 1998 p5).

This is essential for research which accepts a material reality knowable to science, (i.e. evapotranspiration) but wishes to consider the institutional conditions affecting these materialities, by analysing social processes which shape and direct the creation of space for these processes. Through relating empirical findings to these ‘generative mechanisms’ (McEvoy and Richards, 2003) research shifts focus from ‘events, states of affairs and the like, to the structures and mechanisms which generate them’ (Bhaskar, 1989 p181).

Alternatively stated: ‘the key objective is to identify via a process of abstraction and retroduction, real causal phenomena lying beneath appearances ‘ (Brown et al, 2002 p773). Abstraction is the process through which discussion of the causes of empirical phenomena are isolated, and retroduction the process of making successive abstractions in order to designate causality through theory. Combined these offer the potential to recognise generative mechanisms, which may help unveil the complexities underlying the politics of greenspace in urban housing development. The degree of generalizability from these claims is dependent on the rich context of findings, and rigorous analysis of practical events (Rowley, 2002; Chetty, 1996). The method taken for the case studies is described below in section 3.3.3. Methods to examine CSR are described in section 3.3.2.

Conduct Literature Review to identify established rule resource and idea based variables which characterise housing development institutions

Examine ideas and rules in CSR to Conduct Policy Review to identify understand how sustainable the ideas shaping rule and development is conceptualised, and resource landscapes in policy what formal and informal rules are moments. Identify coherence to created for greenspace by volume one of the Institutional types developers

Examine policy moments in practice to understand how CSR policy becomes materialised, and how institutional variables interacted to support or hinder greenspace design

Contextualise findings in light of interviews with CSR policy makers, national level policy makers, statutory consultees, NGOs and think tanks Learning and Reflexivity Institutional

Identify viable sites of opportunity for improvements in practice to support stronger sustainable development objectives

Figure 6 : Process of Empirical and Theoretical Analysis Dark blue boxes represent policy reviews and desk based analysis, Medium blue boxes represent empirical research. Light blue boxes signify stages of abstraction back to theory.

Together, these stages, summarised in figure 6 will enable connections to be drawn between specific incidents in development processes and a broader discussion of responsibilities of state and market in SD.

3.3 Research Strategy by Objective

3.3.1 Objective 1 Identify theoretical relationships between SD, greenspace, and the regulation of large scale residential developments;

Objective 1 involved a literature and policy review. This involved internet searches using key words; and reviews of titles in relevant journals.

3.3.2 Objective 2

Investigate relationships made between sustainability, environment and greenspace by corporate reports by housing market leaders

CSR Review For the sake of simplicity, reports analysed are collectively referred to as CSR, or corporate social responsibility reports. However, as is shown in Appendix 2, in practice annual reports which consider social and environmental progress have a number of names. The implications of this for approaches to SD are discussed further in chapter 4. Document analysis followed by interviews offers the opportunity to identify important themes, and enquire about the reasoning behind them. This was preferred to questionnaires, as the information about CSR is readily available online and changes in approach over time could not be considered as easily.

A thematic approach to analysis was adopted, as it was considered to have merits over more systematic approach to document analysis, such as content analysis. Content analysis categorises data by predetermined criteria, and determines the frequency that these criteria are presented in documents analysed (Dixon-Woods et al., 2005). This presents two problems for this research project. First, many variables of interest were not known prior to analysis. For instance, the types of policy instrument used. Secondly, many of the variables of interest were not distinct criteria. For instance, the adoption of responsibility is nuanced, multifarious and not reducible to a set of criteria which can be compared across documents.

In contrast, thematic analysis allows themes to be iteratively developed, edited, changed, and re- classified over the course of analysis (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane, 2008). Themes need to be distinctly identifiable; however they differ from criteria because they are not performance-based 90

variables. Thematic analysis is a search for themes that emerge as important when trying to describe a given phenomenon (Daly, Kellehear and Gilksman, 1997). The generation of inductive themes involves the identification of themes through ‘careful reading and re-reading of the data’ (Rice and Ezzy, 1999 p258). It is a kind of pattern recognition, in which emergent themes become categories for analysis.

To perform this thematic analysis, NVIVO was used. This program is designed for the comparative analysis of qualitative cases, and offers consistency and simplicity to such processes (Bazeley and Jackson, 2013) while removing the degree of human error which can result from management of this volume of data in hard copies. In this project, the program has been used to ‘code’ the documents with ‘themes’. In this project, NVIVO coding was used for exploration (to view and annotate), comparison, (as the results of a single code across cases can be read together, to see differences between different developers, representing different cases) and pattern analysis (by reviewing how different themes emerged over the years of reporting) of CSR documents.

While some deductive themes (e.g. ‘productive services’) were created going into analysis, many more were created through reading the documents (e.g. ‘sustainable community’ or ‘intentionality’). Inductive theme formation followed the principles set out by Boyatziz, (1998), using a codebook which describes;

1) the code label or name,

2) the definition of what the theme concerns, and;

3) a description of how to know when the theme occurs.

This same approach is used in the presentation of deductive themes, with deductive coding more commonly associated with Crabtree and Miller (1999). Crabtree and Miller’s approach typically enters data analysis with a ‘codebook’ already prepared which forms a template to be applied to the text for subsequent interpretation. The codes are in this case generated before in depth reading of the data.

In this study, a codebook was prepared before data engagement, and then supplemented over the course of analysis with inductive themes considered important to the research questions as they emerged. This approach, combining inductive and deductive analysis, allows the concerns identified by the literature review to be addressed, while also pursuing new potential explanations and theoretical reflections. Two codebooks were used in analysis of developer CSR strategies; the first detailing deductive themes (those decided before inception of the research

activity) and the later showing inductive themes- those emerging as important properties during data collection.Samples of both inductive and inductive themes are shown in Appendix 5.

The literature review questioned the role of CSR in affecting greenspace outcomes of SD of housing. The harshest critics of CSR level that it is at worst, green wash, and at best, philanthropy. To examine this, the degree of prescription, vs. description was coded in the reports, under a heading of ‘intentionality’.

From the review of CSR theory in the literature review, it was seen as important to understand the degree to which developer corporate strategies reflect government intentions, and the impact of the economy on their intentions. For this reason, and to understand the impact of the changed economic climate on intentions, three annual reports were analysed from each developer: 2006/2007 (at the market peak, but following a few years for the development of New Labour policy) 2009/2010 (at the close of the compact cities regulation) and 2011/2012, as brownfield first policy was reduced and, theoretically, the market was more ‘open’ to interpret sustainability. The time horizon of this project, and necessary completion of this empirical stage before any of the others, meant that 2013 reports, which are often released the year after could not be analysed.

Where annual reports were not available online in pdf form, the companies were contacted to ask whether such reports are available. Where companies do not publish reports as pdf’s online, but have web-reporting showing a series of interlinked pages which cover the same content, material was copied, transferred into a Word file and converted to pdf. This could then be entered into NVIVO for analysis. Where only one annual report was available, the year of its production was noted- the reasons behind the absence of further publications questioned, and the temporal comparisons dropped in that case.

Developers were chosen based on their significance within the UK market. Payne (2012) identified the top 15 UK volume developers according to 2010 reports. Appendix 2 details the publication dates (as not all were accessible for each year) and title of documents analysed by each of the respective developers listed. Notes on additional documents analysed, such as separate policy statements are also listed.

Interviews Interviewees who were head of the CSR department, or coordinated report production were contacted in the first instance. Where these individuals were too busy, they referred the researcher onto an appropriate alternative. Participants were contacted first by email, with a participant information sheet, describing the project and the terms of involvement. The email explained that the researcher would contact them in a few days to discuss availability if they were 92

willing to take part. Three days later, had the subject not responded to confirm participation already, the interviewee was telephoned to ask whether they required further information, and were interested in taking part in the project. Where necessary, the participant was called again until contact was made. Contact details were listed in a file kept under password security on the researcher’s personal computer.

Emergent themes from the CSR review were used to develop 7 interview questions, asked of all CSR interviewees. These were then complemented by questions relating to specific company activities. Interviews sought to further unpack the unspoken intentions of developers towards greenspace as a component of corporate strategy, and reveal relationships between frames of environment and regulation not shown in reports. For instance asking: how environmental strategy is formed; what determines which environmental aspirations become KPI’s; and so on. Developers were also asked what they considered to be their responsibility regarding sustainability, in contrast to the state. This supports objective 4.

3.3.3 Objective 3 Analyse the influence of alternative SD planning policy moments on greenspace allocation and intended functionality;

3.3.3.1 Framework for Case Study Research As explained in section 2.5, this project will adopt a modified form of Institutional analysis to understand how the actions in specific planning ‘episodes’ , as they might be termed by Healey (2004), or ‘moments’ in the production of nature, as they might be conceived by Smith (1984) . This will follow the stages for case study analysis set out by Healey (1992a), but with changes to the final fourth stage of abstraction in line with the approach to institutional analysis set out in section 2.5.

1. A mapping exercise to describe the development process in operation, focusing on events in the production process of a development project, identifying the agencies involved and the outcomes produced. 2. Analysis of the agencies involved in the process, identifying roles, in the production and consumption/use of the development, and the power relations which evolve between them. At the beginning of each case study, a document analysis was conducted to understand the site’s developmental context. These were mainly downloaded from the internet, although some documents were given in hard copy to the researcher in interviews. This included all planning application documents, judicial review letters, promotional material for the development, local

development plan documents, specific design briefs, consultation comments and any other relevant material.

Agencies involved were mapped through two means. Firstly, some design documents available online listed all consultants involved who needed to ‘sign off’ on plans before submission. Where names were detailed, these individuals were contacted directly for interview following the same approach detailed in 3.4.1. Where names were not given, the company was contacted and the relevant individuals name sought. All information was stored in an excel file, kept on an encrypted USB. This file also monitored when contact had been made with participants, when consent forms were received, and when interviews were conducted. Interviews followed a semi-structured format, in which respondents were asked specific questions but also given the space to raise wider issues and concerns (Wengraf, 2001). Interviews were then thematically analysed, following the methodology detailed in 3.2.2.

In accordance with this first stage, each case study chapter begins by describing the state of the development process, giving key milestones in its regulatory development and a brief overview of influential actors in the local governance context. While stage 2 refers to consumption or use of the development, this is discounted in this study as it is outside of the scope of research. In this project, the focus will be upon analysis of the agents who were instrumental in creating rules which influenced outcomes – and the power relations between agencies who were trying to do this. Healey emphasises that the selection of actors should follow the sequence of events, rather than a rigid format or categorization in research strategy which may prevent detail of the cases ‘speaking for themselves’ (Healey, 1992a p36). This affected interviewee selection, and presentation of findings.

While there were various of actors recognised as holding power in outcomes across cases, (local planning policy makers, development control officers, developer representative in negotiations, landscape architects, architects, and statutory consultees), it became apparent in several cases that other influential actors should be interviewed. In Woodford, civil society were particularly important, although they were not a direct focus of the research. While in other cases, the impact of civil society or the community was only sought through analysing their comments on planning applications, in this case, as the neighbourhood forum were highly influential in changing the local regulatory context, they were spoken with.

In terms of addressing the research questions, each case study followed its own internal logic for the delivery of the third and fourth subsections: which address RQ 5 and 6 respectively. In each chapter, the most important greenspace and sustainability intersections for the case are

discussed in section ‘X.3’; and the most important arising issues over state – market interaction, regulatory authority, and adoption of responsibility in sections ‘X.4’.

3. Assessment of the strategies and interests of actors, particularly with respect to the most significant sets of relationships within the process, in order to identify what governed the way different roles were played and relationships developed.

The third stage was reported as a component of the case study write up. Analysis of ‘ideas’ at this level was taken as the conceptions environment embodied in the planning policy moment. Discussions of ‘environment’ are related to the functions expected of greenspace. Analysis of rules and resources reflected on the power local actors had, and how this changed over the course of development approval.

4. To develop from simply empirical analysis, connections must be made between the policy moment as it is experienced on the ground, and ideology within which the development is being performed.

As stated in section 2.5, to theorise the relationship between immediately observable events, and the grand political economy ideological forces which shape them, Healey (1992) relates the immediate experience of actors, to the ‘mode of regulation’ and ‘mode of production’. Later, she relates these immediate events to broader processes of governance, to finally reflect on governance cultures. In the approach adopted in this project, processes of regulation and ideas about how decisions should be made about projects (reflecting cultural components) are set within the context of SD ideologies as conceived by Haughton (1999). In Chapter 8, the way that different ideas of nature, policy instruments, scales of government authority, and outcomes were related are discussed in relation to this typology, and conclusions regarding the consequences of different approaches. discussion of the consequences of alternative approaches to planning for achieving fair shares approaches is made. In turn, this fourth level of analysis delivers Objective 4, which involves comparison of case study findings in light of national policy debates.

3.3.3.2 Case Study Selection To address Objective 3, which asks what the consequences for greenspace are of alternative planning policy moments, comparisons of different policy moments is necessary. The requirements for each case study are set out in Figure 7 below. This considers planning policy moments for analysis, their policy characteristics, and most closely aligned SD ideal type as presented in section 2.5.

While self-reliant cities approaches would most closely align with community-led development, this project is designed to evaluate the responsibility of state and market policies. As set out in section 2.5, there is a strong focus in contemporary institutional accounts of tensions in development on community-led activity and grassroots greening initiatives in line with the social innovation approach (e.g. Thompson, 2012; 2015). Therefore, although it is the weakest fit to its associated ideal type, examining a Garden Cities themed development using a neighbourhood plan is considered a relevant and interesting case to examine the role of the state in building the capacity of local actors to define sustainable development.

Policy Moment Policy Characteristics Hypothetical Planning Approach Spatial Policies Eco-town Market Stimulation, Subsidies to redistribute wealth, attempts to respect Capacity Building, and regional carrying capacities, Regulatory Strong Interventionist State

Fair Shares Cities? Urban Renaissance Market shaping, Focused on efficiency, some redistribution. Pluralist; regulatory and potentially conflicting objectives.

Planning as a set of principles

Redesigning Cities? Garden City Market Shaping, Planning as a form of consensus building? Market Stimulation (targeted at mortgage finance, not developers) Externally Dependant or Self Reliant? Non-Spatial Policies Code for Market Shaping, capacity Redesigning Cities Sustainable Homes building if in Zero Carbon hub CSR Unknown, to be Externally Dependant Cities? identified Figure 7: Overview of Case Study Planning Approach, Policy Characteristics As there is a comparative aspect (alternative policy interpretations) maintaining as much geographical consistency as possible aids the consolidation of research efforts. Cases were chosen in accordance with the principles outlined in Figure 8. The North West of England has a rich 96

history of green infrastructure with established regional networks of GI professionals (Green Infrastructure Think Tank, Natural Economy North West). The region also has a developed history of brownfield greening initiatives, (e.g. NEWLANDS, Gilbert 2010) potentially resulting in higher planning professional latent knowledge, awareness and comfort with the principles of greenspace. This makes the region a strong candidate for analysis. However there is no Eco-Town project active within the North West. Therefore, the Eco-town project was chosen on the basis that it was the only one involving one of the major developers analysed under Objective 2.

Criteria Importance Reason

Implements one of the policy Essential Understanding influence of moments identified in 2.1.4 different policy moments on greenspace outcomes (through perception of ‘environment’ and scale)

Completed by major volume Essential Understand application of developer listed in 3.2 CSR and intersection with wider development actors

In the North West Preferred Project Constraints, rich history of Green Infrastructure policy development

Application/Development Essential Policy Coverage Planning Approval happening in 2004-2014

Figure 8: Case Study Selection Criteria

Woodford Garden Village (Garden Cities Development) Having had its planning application finally accepted after data collection and interviews, this case study focuses on the development of a supplementary planning document for the redevelopment of a former Aerodrome located in the Green Belt of Stockport. It includes two areas classed as Major Existing Development Sites, with the remaining area classified as green belt. The concept and local definition of ‘openness’ as a parameter for the development offers interesting reflections on the development of conservation and commodity narratives.

Part of the Bramhall South and Woodford electoral ward, Woodford has been a safely Conservative seat since 2004, in an otherwise largely Labour and Liberal Democrat borough (Stockport MBC, 2014a). This raises interesting issues surrounding the influence of politics in state rescaling. The developer of this site is Redrow, through its subsidiary Harrow Estates. This allows the performance of their CSR policies on the site to be considered.

Rackheath Eco-Community (Eco-Town Development)

Of the four Eco-towns listed in the 2009 Eco-towns PPS, this was the only project which was deemed appropriate owing to the involvement of one of the sample of major speculative developers, in this case Barratt Homes. While Barratt are the major developer for the whole scheme, at present only an Exemplar is being discussed. For this exemplar, the site will not be sold to Barratt David Wilson Homes directly. In 2009, a Joint Venture Agreement was published by Broadland District Council, stating a relationship between Broadland District Council, Manor Farms (the landowner) and Barratt David Wilson who would form the Rackheath Eco-community Development Team. Most importantly, the joint venture agreement gives the council more control over the development than it would have through normal regulatory powers. (Broadland District Council, Joint Venture Agreement, 2010).

The agreement states that Broadland District Council will buy the land for the exemplar site, then when planning permission has been granted and viability confirmed, the council will make a further payment for the freehold interest of the site. After a contract is signed with the housing association, the final payment will be made by the council. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, as part of this agreement profits from the development will be shared between Broadland District council, the landowner, and the developer. In this context, definitions of environment should, theoretically, be shared between the developer and council more closely and the character of planning changes. Under this scenario planning could have greatest potential to shape outcomes.

Manchester’s Green Quarter (Urban Renaissance, Mixed Use, High Density)

This project is comprised of eight buildings, totalling 1360 apartments on 7.8ha of Manchester City Centre land, alongside the River Irk. Crosby Lend Lease acquired the site, which was in a state of dereliction having once been mills and worker housing, in 1999. The first outline application for the development was made in 2002; however, the masterplan for the site was accepted in 2004, with applications considered in this study for two blocks and associated landscaping both made in 2006. This brings the case study richness by allowing a discussion of how policy changes, including introducing the new statutory requirement of SD in planning, altered approaches to greenspace. 98

The developments explicit ‘green’ branding raises questions over Manchester City Council’s approach to sustainability, especially as Sir Howard Bernstein, Chief Executive of Manchester City Council described the site as; ‘an excellent example of an innovative and SD... (including) the development of the first urban park for 50 years, (it) will contribute greatly to the Manchester economy and the environment we are looking to achieve in the city’ (quoted in Brady, 2006). Crosby were originally a subdivision of Berkely, but were bought by Bovis Lend Lease in 2005. The company’s marketing strategy as an urban regeneration specialist selling to an investor market raises interesting points of discussion which develop themes arising in Chapter 4.

3.3.4 Objective 4 Evaluate responsibilities for greenspace under alternative SD policies and interpretations.

Eleven interviews were conducted with professionals either acting to influence policy at the national scale, or reflecting on their experience across a number of years of experience, having worked in at least two English regions. Four of these interviewees work in national charities which are or have been influential in policy direction: two shaping spatial planning policies, such as Eco-towns and Garden Cities; and two shaping non-spatial policy, the Code for Sustainable Homes. Three interviewees represented statutory consultees. One interviewee was an academic who has provided consultancy on urban greenspace strategy, another was a longstanding member of the first green infrastructure think tank and the last has worked in DCLG during planning policy reform under the coalition government. National policy change and comparative responsibilities of the market and state were also discussed in interviews with developer CSR representatives, as is mentioned in 3.4.1. This was also drawn upon to answer this final objective.

The methodology for this objective therefore combines: comparative analysis of case studies; reflection of these findings in light of national actor perspectives and broader policy change; and finally relation of these principles back to theory.

3.5 Conclusions

This chapter has set out a methodology in line with the Objectives listed in Chapter 1. To address the research aim, four phases were undertaken. The first comprised of a literature and policy review. This helped to identify the characteristics of alternative SD policy moments, chose case studies, and form a conceptual framework from which to interpret findings.

Subsequently, three empirical phases were undertaken. Firstly, a review of CSR documents was performed, using thematic analysis in NVIVO. Building on these findings, interviews were conducted with 8 developers working in or directing CSR policy at these companies. Secondly, three case studies involving document analysis and interviews with key stakeholders in design and planning processes were conducted. Finally, to contextualise these findings, interviews were conducted with national level policy makers and policy advisors. In Chapter 8, findings are triangulated.

100

4. Volume House-builder Strategies for SD and Greenspace

There are three reasons to consider developer approaches to sustainability and greenspace. First, as detailed in Chapter 1, 10 leading volume house-builders in the UK are responsible for almost 40% of new housing: the market is a form of oligopoly (Gibbs, 1999). While in conventional markets this may mean greater differentiation, (Mazzeo, 2002) in housing the industry tends to lack diversification (Roy Brown and Gaze, 2003; Roy and Cochrane 1999). However, differences between leading industry actors in their approach to greenspace as a component of CSR have not been considered, possibly due to a focus on the built product and supply chains in the construction literature.

Second, while research has looked at Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in the UK speculative housebuilding industry (Adams, Payne, Watkins 2008; WWF, 2004) and housing construction sector (Jones, Comfort and Hillier, 2006) no overview of interpretations of sustainability in relation to rule-making through CSR have been made.

Third and finally, the literature review highlighted fewer larger firms are better equipped to lobby government and influence policy direction (Cohen, 1998; Polk and Schmutzler 2005). Market leaders in oligopolies have intentionally innovated to shape the direction of environmental policy to gain advantage over other peers (Michaelis, 1994; Puller, 2006). The consequences of this for greenspace are particularly important, given that the Coalition Government are rolling back state regulatory presence in defining sustainability.

In this three-pronged context, this chapter seeks to fulfil Objective 2:

Investigate relationships made between sustainability, environment and greenspace in corporate reports pertaining to sustainability governance by housing market leaders

It therefore considers how corporate reports pertaining to sustainability demonstrate the intentions of volume house-builders towards allocation and functionality of greenspace. It will do this by identifying current policies for greenspace and the motivations for environmental policy in CSR documents. Section 4.1 will address RQ3 – What ideas of sustainability are presented in Corporate Social Responsibility, with what consequences for greenspace? – and reflect on the ways in which these different sustainability narratives present the environmental challenges posed by SD, in turn defining roles for greenspace. Changing interpretations of SD since 2010 are also discussed.

101

Section 4.2 will address RQ4: How does CSR regularise outcomes for greenspace provision in new housing projects? Here, the character of CSR as a form of regulation is evaluated: specifically its formality, intentionality and the extent to which it is prescriptive. Corporate and personal motivations are also discussed. Interview excerpts are interwoven with extracts from reports. The aim is to identify commonalities and differences in approaches to environmental sustainability by different volume house-builders, and subsequently reflect on how the group came together to influence the direction of regulation.

102

4.1 Sustainability Narratives in Corporate Social Responsibility

Within Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reports analysed, there are several divergent narratives of ‘sustainability’ presented. For example, Berkeley Homes (2010) explicitly divide their sustainability strategy into:

- Building Greener Homes - Delivering Sustainable Communities - Running a Sustainable Business - The Customer Experience This is indicative of a division within CSR strategy across most of the reports – between sustainable business, communities and homes – with customer experience often folding into the sustainable business interpretation. This section will explain how business, communities, and housing narratives each have their own associated conceptions of the ‘environmental challenge’ of SD, and expectations for greenspace.

4.1.1 Sustainable communities

Cultural Services The majority of report references to the purpose of greenspace relate to the creation of sustainable communities, attached to the policy era 2001-2010. However, use of this term does not decrease significantly until 2012, as is discussed further in 4.1.4. Rather than being universally prescribed across all developments, the focus on cultural services is generally presented through ‘case studies’; and greenspace is often discussed in ‘public engagement’ type sections of the reports.

An indicative example is Barratt’ (Barratt, 2012), reference to a project in Ryedale, suggesting requests made at exhibitions for cycle-paths and football pitches were ‘immediately deliverable’. Here, and in other cases the design of greenspace within a new development is openly framed as a negotiation chip to appease the surrounding community. This approach is also used by Barratt in 2009 (Barratt, 2009), in reference to ‘Our Wood’ in Chapelford Urban Village, Warrington. David Wilson Homes, a brand of Barratt, proposed to place an electricity substation in a 3-acre parcel of tree covered land, screened from view, with no public access. When DWH acquired the

103

site they claim this woodland was ‘in very poor condition’ (p9). However, local resident groups objected to this, as:

‘they had an aspiration for a community woodland that would in effect be managed by the local community. DWH agreed to amend proposals and relocate the primary sub-station. They then embarked on a partnership arrangement with the largest residents group and the Local Authority to create a publicly accessible, community managed woodland area… Grant funding was successfully acquired for many of the key features such as footpath provision, a bridge across a ditch and bulb and tree planting. The community carried out much of the work themselves. Our Wood has now matured into a haven of wildlife and is well used by the community, who continue to manage and improve the woodland on a regular basis. The local schools continue to use the site as part of their national curriculum activities. DWH will shortly be transferring ownership of the land to the Local Authority on the understanding that the community will still play an important role in the continued management of the land’ (Barratt, 2009 p29)

Here, responsibility for the creation and management of the greenspace is handed over – with grant funding (source not detailed) for the provision of footpaths. Uses of the space are framed as biodiversity, recreation, and education, prioritising cultural services. Here however, the retention and enhancement of greenspace arises from attempts to appease the community, rather than by any pre-existing sustainability principle. Nevertheless, this solution is presented as an act of CSR as it enabled development, removed company liability and came without significant additional cost to the developer.

Another example is Countryside Properties (2011, p6) suggestion the development of a ‘shared vision’ to connect their Acton Gardens development to the wider neighbourhood, involving residents on the former estate. ‘Traditional’ tree-lined streets are suggested to offer a sense of place providing security and safety to residents. This aligns with the project’s review by the Building for Life ‘Silver Standard’ (See Section 2.2.1). This 12 part checklist promotes protection and enhancement of onsite biodiversity, defining public and private space, and giving ‘identity and character’ to the development, which may include greenspace design. The ability of greenspace to give a development character or ‘unique selling point’ (USP) – was highlighted by over half of interviewees as a reason to retain onsite landscape characteristics, and fit into the BFL standards.

The images below (Figures 9) present the ground level greenspaces as sites of recreation, plain

104

mown grass sward with a selection of London Plane trees, the roof terraces offering residents private recreational space. These images do not show families, suggesting the development is pitched at young, well paid professionals 2 ; with an area named ‘Liberty Quarter’. Unlike Chapelford Urban Village, where the community had been organised to take on stewardship, here a low maintenance, more sterile and pure aesthetic is marketed. The green roofs are in fact sedum, and brown rather than green as shown.

Figure 9: Artist Impressions of Acton Gardens (taken from and Copyright of Countryside Properties, 2011, p6)

Figure 10: Artist impressions of Hannham Hall, Bristol and The New South Quarter, Croydon. (Taken from and copyright of Barratt, 2009)

While such place-making assessments motivate the promotion of cultural services, other forms of eco-system services were also considered for the site. The development does go beyond the cultural services/place making aspirations for greenspaces on and around the site which were

2 The development does, however, offer some 4 bed apartments, suitable for families, which Countryside have coined ‘UberHaus’, also featured in their Manchester development, New Broughton. 105

part of the shared vision created with the community, meriting the Building For Life standard. This is discussed later in Research and Development section, 4.4.3.

A telephone call to the sales office (28.06.2014) revealed that the ground level public open space is managed by the housing association, L&Q who are responsible for 45% of the residential stock in shared ownership. Private residents pay between £2,000 and £13,000 per annum depending on the size of their property (the apartments range from 1 bed flats, to 4 bedroom ‘‘Uberhaus’s’’) for the maintenance of the communal parks and private green roof upkeep. While this removes the burden of care from residents, it also forecloses the necessity of their engagement with greenspace, and may limit their ability to change it through collective endeavours. Further, it is a sterilised form of nature. From Figure 10, showing artists impressions of two developments by Barratt in the same year, the different aesthetic representations of greenspace in urban developments, vs urban fringe developments are shown. Soft fluffy lines in Hannham Hall contrast with tidy, equidistance trees in the New South Quarter.

The order of priorities for greenspace functionality is captured well by the following interview with D1:

‘‘I think top of our list would be the social side, in the sense that people enjoy greenspaces, less probably of an environmental reason but in terms of people’s wellbeing it provides a social function, and a nice place to live, not just aesthetically, but also to enjoy their free time, so I suppose that definitely comes to the top of our list and more so than any other, any environmental reason. And it’s part of that place-making, if we just provided a concrete block with some concrete paving outside it wouldn’t sell either, so it’s a sales issue, it’s a customer wellbeing issue first and foremost. After that we obviously try and ensure it has certain benefits, so as I said we employ an ecologist each time, where feasible we try and bring in some bio-diversity benefits to the local area… and I suppose it fits in with our whole climate adaptation route as well in terms of shading, run-off, so I suppose there are huge benefits of greenspace which are sort of knock on effects for us, rather than the reasons for doing it, but we are keen to support those at the same time’’ (D1)

Despite being also one of only two (20%) who went on to mention climate adaptation, D1’s views were indicative of most developer interviewees. All were asked what the functions or services of greenspace were expected from SD. All developers referred firstly to social, then biodiversity functions. Only three went on to mention regulatory or supportive functions; and two provisioning, in both cases focusing on allotments.

106

Productive Services: Allotments and Biofuel

Perhaps reflecting these gradations in priorities, allotments were only ever mentioned in relation to case studies, rather than as key performance indicators or as principles for development. Barratt (2009) for instance refer to Hanham Hall, the UK’s ‘first zero carbon community’ located in Bristol (Barratt, Hanham Hall Website 2014) and again in 2012 refer to Pickering Community Park. Redrow (2013, p7) in their first ever sustainability report suggest that an ‘aspiration’ for 2018 was to ‘develop policies to encourage local food production’. However, it remains unclear as to how this relates to scale of development and whether such policies will be prescriptive.

Though some references are made to energy generation technologies at the community scale which could use woodchip for combined heat and power (CHP) this does not necessarily equate to local sourcing. Woodchip for CHP is suggested in a CSR report by D2 for a landmark London development. However it was revealed in interview that this is sourced from Scandinavia, because the technology requires wood of a certain calorific value and moisture content. Interestingly, the interview also revealed that there had been a number of problems created by linking all houses into this system as it contravenes EU competition directives, as residents are tied to a single, monopoly provider.

Nonetheless, Gladedale, now rebranded as Avant Homes since August 2013, published a ‘Sustainable Design strategy for Stanley Mills’ on their webpage (rather than formal report). This was for an exemplar development of 146 homes, yet seeking to achieve only CfSH Level 3. This advocated onsite coppicing, suggesting wood was a versatile fuel which could be used in a number of different forms and with different applications:

‘Wood can be obtained from existing forestry operations or by the regular coppicing of tree crops planted specifically to produce a fuel resource. Coppicing could possibly be combined in part with planting for shelter from wind and surrounding noise sources. Wood fuel is considered “CO2 neutral” because the carbon released from combustion is only that which was absorbed during tree growth – the gas is simply recycled. All types of wood fuel are usually reduced to wood chips or pellets before use… ash may then be returned to the soil as a fertiliser’ (WSP, 2010 p13)

Here, the multi-functionality of coppice is promoted, noting thermal and noise insulation gains,

107

implying the option would take place onsite3. However, this option lost out to an 18kW electrical water turbine, and solar gain alternatives to achieve the 10% onsite energy requirement. Justification for this was not given in the document, but the space consumption and management implications are likely to have played a part. While an on-site coppiced woodland run by residents may have altered the issues associated with monopoly provision, it demands residents who are willing to engage with and cultivate such a resource. This is a challenge for all productive greenspace integrations. Research as to the readiness of house buyers to engage is, however, absent. Whilst most developers did not comment on this, Developers 2, 4 and 7 felt that community-managed coppice for energy supply was not marketable in most locations. This approach, which demands a lot from resident lifestyle, does not fit with the business strategy of the speculative model to optimise the potential market. Burdening the house buyer is not a good way to do this. Consequences for government responsibility are explored in chapter 8.

Brownfield Redevelopment

Brownfield redevelopment – rather than aligning with city-scale narratives about compaction or national-scale discussions about rural or green land conservation – tended to be presented within community sustainability narratives. Justification for high percentage shares of development completion on brownfield land tended to be accompanied by a rhetoric of responsibility, not so much to the environment, as to the surrounding urban communities: in delivering regeneration benefits. For example, Bellway describe a case study in Tower Hamlets whereby the regeneration of an 8 acre former gas works ‘creates a new community environment’ under the ‘Making the Most of Our Land’ section of their website (Bellway, 2014). In 2007, Barratt’s Key Performance Indicator for brownfield redevelopment came under their ‘Creating Value for Society’ heading. Berkeley (2013), on the other hand, link brownfield targets to their objectives to develop sites which have good transport links, weaving these into the city-scale, economic and carbon sustainability angles in their Climate Change Policy.

The principle of Brownfield First was highlighted as causing problems in relation to biodiversity regulation by half of the developers interviewed; who referred to the higher regulatory and procedural burden of brownfield first approaches because of biodiversity. All interviewees

3 Barratt in 2009 did suggest that one of their developments in Croydon, designed in conjunction with the GLA, will incorporate a CHP system which uses woodchip sourced ‘mainly’ from recycled tree cuttings in the Croydon area. 108

throughout the project recognised the consistently higher biodiversity value of brownfield over greenfield sites. D3 suggested that, alongside waste, this was the greatest challenge of SD:

“where it’s been neglected it looks awful to us but it’s fantastic for wildlife, so we often find that there is all sorts of, not just protected species, but all sorts of nature species have taken up residence there. Before we do anything at all we have to do some kind of survey and come up with a scheme where we can try and relocate etc etc, and it can take months to be perfectly honest. Obviously very worth doing, but it causes huge delays on schemes and the prices go up and the clients get twitchy and think well we will just leave the wildlife alone, but we try and push ahead and say well it’s great PR and it’s great for the environment and for the community”. (D3)

The literature review suggested that Brownfield First policies gained policy traction on the principle of protection of the countryside. However, throughout interviews, the ‘countryside’ was consistently presented as having no higher biodiversity value than any other greenspace. D4 noted that while biodiversity presented a challenge which they could better deal with as a company, it was still easier to take forward development on brownfield land than greenfield because there is less community resistance – as development is considered by residents an inevitable improvement from baseline. The consequences of this are further explored in the Green Quarter case study, Chapter 7.

4.1.2 Sustainable business practice

Beyond taking advantage of onsite features to produce a sense of place in specific developments, three developers referred to their greenspace strategies as market differentiators. In this way, strategic approaches to greenspace – some of which also satisfied sustainable community objectives – fed into sustainable business practice4. Within ‘business’ sustainability, three further categories were identified, shown in Figure 11 below. Both risk minimisation, and brand reputation had implications for greenspace as are now described.

4 In CSR business sustainability, the focus is generally on health and safety, staff development and customer satisfaction, not relevant to this project. However, it is worth noting that increased target setting in one field (e.g. health and safety) does not necessarily correlate to increased target setting in another (such as environmental performance). 109

Type of Sustainability Characteristics or Features Reputation Sustainability Brand Reputation: staff development, health and safety, considerate constructor scheme Process Sustainability Waste, Carbon, Brownfield Economic Sustainability Merger of all of above, incorporating risk minimisation Figure 11 : Categories of business sustainability in reports (authors own analysis)

Process-based sustainability dominates this section of the reports, supporting the findings of Adams Payne and Watkins (2008) that in house-builder CSR to date, a focus on process presides over product. However, interesting implications of risk management and reputation management are to be found for greenspace, which are now explored.

Risk Minimisation: A role for Regulatory Greenspace Services In the Crest Nicholson report (2012), both natural and manmade shading and adiabatic cooling measures are listed as a response to the challenges facing project economics when ‘future proofing’ new homes against flood risk, extreme storms, drought and overheating. This is considered as responding to climate change ‘risk and opportunity’. In the interview, however, it was revealed that natural shading referred mainly to shutters, as opposed to ‘un-natural’ shading, which may be the proximity of buildings to one another. The use of trees to achieve these outcomes was framed as something ‘to be taken advantage of’, inferring that rather than becoming a regularised or regulated design alteration prescribed within CSR or company policy, it would be merely a preferred option depending on site constraints.

However, other interviewees revealed that developers are engaging in research projects to investigate and quantify these benefits in ways which might make them more appealing to stakeholders and customers. Interestingly, D6 highlighted that they intend to work on the Blue Green Dream research project partnered with the School of Civil Engineering at Imperial College London, by running a pilot project. The project website seems to describe research for supra-site, urban scale initiatives, but advocates:

‘when our philosophy is embedded in their corporate strategy we can save developers money on construction, while residents save on energy bills’ (Climate-KIC, 2014)

This could overcome the red-line boundary constraints to using greenspace for thermoregulation, as witnessed in the Acton Gardens project. However it is not clear how this will be achieved. D6

110

suggested that after the pilot, they will investigate the potential of “getting others to see the benefits” of energy cost savings through greenspace, rather than artificial shading and glazing. So while D6 acknowledged that using the Blue Green Dream concept offers a unique selling point for their homes, extending beyond environmental compliance, they also acknowledge that before it can become marketable, some minimum social acceptance of greenspace innovation is first required. This may mean homebuyers themselves, but could also refer to local authorities, or regulatory rule-makers such as BRE and those who integrate this knowledge into policy.

USP and Greenspace: Biodiversity Often in the reports analysed, biodiversity was considered a coherence activity, complying to legislation which protects nature as a potential victim of the development process. Legislation breaches are detailed5, supporting O’Donovan (2002) and Hahn and Lülfs (2013) assertion that environmental wrong-doing can be reported in CSR as part of a wider project of legitimacy seeking. Hahn and Lülfs suggest this behaviour is often encouraged by the Global Reporting Index (GRI) (See Appendix 3). Three developers referred to making their own Environmental Action Plans for developments, revealed in interviews as conservationist: strategies to prevent harm and breaching of conservation legislation, rather than promoting biodiversity or other environmental functions of greenspace. Bloor Homes (2014) demonstrate this conservative rather than progressive approach to biodiversity in the ‘Eco-Preservation’ section of their website, which states an aim to

retain and manage the important elements of existing habitats in our new developments. Furthermore, working closely with local planning departments, we endeavour to enhance your surroundings by replacement and new planting where possible (Bloor Homes, Eco- Preservation 2014)

Where compliance or seeking legitimacy remain the objectives of CSR, the potential to regularise new and innovative behaviour promoting nature is squeezed. However, some developers recognise the potential value recapture of biodiversity features, and the USP it can offer:

“You find out they actually like having a bug hotel in the garden, our sales people went ‘ooh-err you must be kidding’…I’m quite convinced you can enhance the saleability of a house with a few nuts and a Bluetit” (D4)

D5 also noted that in schemes which would include an infill pocket park, they would strategically select species to improve fauna and flora, as biodiversity was a good selling point; going on to

5 Breaches of other policy, such as water contamination are also listed (e.g. Barratt, 2011, p23) 111

report that good quality greenspace had been shown by their research to engender a sales uplift of up to 30% in premium new developments. Biodiversity and conservation of onsite greenspace features were also seen as an important component of ‘place creation’. Thus biodiversity becomes subsumed by cultural values of nature and ‘ecology of the heart’ (Schroeder, 1996). Redrow (2013) also seek to monetise biodiversity inclusion, setting one of their 2018 ‘aspirations’ as working with stakeholders to develop a ‘value comparator for biodiversity’. This would assess the degree of uplift which could be created through investment in biodiversity features at the outset of development.

Focusing specifically on brand and reputation management, Barratt (2012, p21) reported on their Yorkshire East division’s ‘save the bee’ project in 2011, in which their staff gave presentations at 13 schools within the area on the importance of biodiversity, giving 2,300 students sunflower seeds to plant at home. The division also donated and installed a bigger nature garden in each of the participating schools. This kind of reputation management is a significant step beyond the legitimacy-seeking behaviour of confessing legislative breaches, or promising to minimise harm. However, it is nonetheless designed purely to manage reputation. As suggested at the beginning of Chapter 2, it would be beneficial for educational projects to accompany greenspace delivery in new housing projects to maximise environmental empathy and awareness. Along these lines, an alternative approach for Barratt would be , where possible, incorporation of allotments, orchards and bee hives, in coordination with local educational projects, to demonstrate the relationship between the supportive service (pollination) and productive service of food.

Process Sustainability: Carbon Dominant approaches to ‘environment’ in business sustainability narratives were: 1) reduction of waste to landfill; and 2) energy use and carbon expenditure in construction and development processes. When reasoning was given for either, it was most often presented as financial efficiency. This plays out in the politics of monitoring carbon in relation to business practice. While building regulations and planning policy prescribe the carbon efficiency of the house, developers focus on aspects of their business practice unrelated to the development and its consequences for consumption, leaving this to CfSH to define.

D6 suggested they had engaged in overseas carbon offsett projects to persue a business claim to carbon neutrality. One of these was a fuel switch project for two building materials factories in Brazil, which has enabled the factories to use renewable biomass fuels sourced from locally managed forests, in place of fossil fuels and non-renewable native firewood. In this case, a CSR strategy may be seen to be moving towards a ‘fair shares approach’ (Haughton 1999) with carbon 112

spent in the UK translating to its conservation elsewhere. However, they suggested they would like to see offsetting obligations done closer to home and are working with the ‘Grow In Britain Campaign’ to lobby for this:

“We are a UK company, we’re not international. We’re simply England, Scotland and Wales. We would like to invest closer to home to help the communities which we live work in and serve. But that’s a journey and its about tying up the rules of offsetting”. (D6)

Other than D6, the majority of attitudes towards offsetting were a preference for technological solutions. D2 is subject to the The Carbon Reduction Commitment, developed by DECC (See Appendix 3) is mandatory for large public and private sector organisations, and aims to improve energy efficiency by cutting emissions. It targets energy supplies not considered by the EU Emissions Trading System or Climate Change Agreements. Although woodland is eligible, they are choosing instead to use photovoltaics on brownfield land. This misses opportunities for phytoremediation, urban heat island and flood risk mitigation, coppicing, and the breadth of recreational opportunities offered by forested alternatives.

4.1. 3 Sustainable Homes: Carbon and Climate Change

“When you say sustainability, builders just think code…” (D7)

D4, 7 and 1 all spoke of the struggle to embed cultural acceptance or understanding throughout all levels of the business that sustainability is about more than the Code for Sustainable Homes (CfSH). In the reports, housing product sustainability is mainly presented via completions of CfSH at varied rankings. The reason or justification given for this is cost efficiency for buyers, rather than climate change. As detailed above, greenspace for adaptation – and indirectly energy conservation-based mitigation – via thermoregulation is detailed in CSR reports only by Berkeley and Crest Nicholson.

The highly prescriptive nature of the Code for Sustainable Homes limits the intentions of developers to create their own CSR policies for housing, particularly social housing contract developers, such as Lovell, for whom Code compliance is mandated. Asked about the policy implications of the ‘resource constraints’ as an environmental challenge detailed in their report, D3 described numerous technologies associated with the houses delivered under the code: photovoltaic cells, electrical tariffs, heat recovery systems, air tight tests, air source heat pumps, ground source heat pumps; concluding that “any eco-bling you can think of in a house will be put in, depending on the code required” (D3). CfSH is used to define resource constraint aspects of 113

sustainability; questions beyond the energy use of the fabric of the house are limited. D3 explained that they are also registered as an RSL, pepper-potting their schemes with social rent and some houses to be sold on the private market. When asked whether CfSH performance was standardised across these tenures he replied:

“if the client has asked for a Code level 3 on their housing, generally we tend to match it, or if we are feeling really generous we will try to better it by one perhaps, on our side, but what we don’t want to be doing or be seen to be doing is be ‘cleverer’ than our clients, we don’t want to try and outsmart them by saying you are giving the public three and we are selling at 4 if that makes sense, it quickly gets their backs up’’ (D3)

While D3 had a very enthusiastic perspective on greenspace and its importance to social housing, when asked how code performance relates to greenspace, this was not seen to create or promote opportunities for greenspace but rather decrease its quantity. In ‘bettering’ their offer to the client, their in-house CfSH assessors would seek to influence planners on density, to make the viability of higher rankings possible. Hence, increases in code performance justify decreases in greenspace. As suggested by D6, contract developers listed as RSLs can be more interested in achieving code rankings than a good greenspace cover on site; more so even than those selling to a private market. This may be because, in the latter case, the client knows it will reduce the energy burn on socially and economically deprived tenants.

4.1.4 Other Greenspace Findings: Responses to Policy

Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems If there is any state regulation that can lead to the consideration of greenspace for its regulatory services, it is the 2010 Flood and Water Management Act. Nine of the developers refer to Sustainable Urban Drainage (SUDS) in their reports or webpages. This is initially presented as a compliance activity:

‘We will carry out a ﬂood risk assessment and introduce the appropriate mitigation when required for all developments and in addition wherever practicable incorporate sustainable urban drainage measures as part of the drainage strategy for the development.’ (Barratt, 2010, p21)

SUDS do not necessarily infer greenspace (swales and basins) but can include porous paving, or hard attenuation tanks. Nonetheless, several reports promote greenspace options. Berkeley (2011) mentions using SUDS to create sustainable irrigation systems for the rest of onsite

114

greenspace in their Kennet Island project, and in their Hamptons developments to manage flood risk. In the latter, SUDS capture rainfall and surface water run-off in order to top up the four acres of lakes, minimising outflow into the local watercourse, which they acknowledge reduces flood risk within and beyond the site boundary. In 2010 Bovis Homes make no reference to SUDS, yet by 2012 they suggest that many of their sites will include SUDS:

‘…following the introduction of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 with increasing standards being introduced to deal entirely with surface water run-off at source. All sites are reviewed at acquisition stage to determine the likely ground conditions and the type of surface water measures to be taken to limit surface water discharge and any potential for localised flooding. Bovis Homes, (2012, p9)

Redrow suggest that 69% of their developments incorporated SUDS in 2012-2013, and that the choice of soft options increased the value of homes:

We seek to combine engineered solutions with opportunities provided by individual sites to create features that not only serve to reduce ﬂooding and pollution but also add to the quality of the environment for our customers. (Redrow, 2013 p11)

What kinds of ‘opportunity’ for which individual sites are not specified – a common tendency across reports and developers. For instance, D5 also suggested a preference for ‘soft’ (i.e. landscaped) SUDS as they crossover with biodiversity and landscaping, known to achieve added value as described earlier. Barratt (2009, p40) suggest landscaped SUDS led to savings of £20,000 in the build program of their NU@D2 project.

Bellway, on the ‘Enhancing Ecology’ section of their website, directly linked the consumption of land, which they identify as a finite resource, with the use of green roofs; explaining that they can slow rainwater runoff:

‘The land upon which we develop is a finite resource, where we take account of existing habitats and seek to maximise the ecological value of our developments by working with local agencies to manage the requirements of these natural areas. A number of our sites incorporate parkland areas, while other developments include green roofs that enhance the local ecology and slow rainwater run-off’ (Bellway Homes, 2014)

While this shows a marked improvement in recognising the finite character of land, the reduction of development impact to the consumption of space which would otherwise provide habitat for local ecology demonstrates a ‘first nature’, or conservationist approach. Including management of water run off appears to point to more systematic and holistic interpretations of the role of 115

greenspace. However by failing to acknowledge the development as a site to be filled with new residents with additional resource demands it also simplifies and distorts the perceived requirements for wider ecosystem services at scales beyond the red line boundary.

4.1.5 Changes in Sustainability Interpretation and Approaches over Time

The reports analysed suggest a changed framing of environmental strategy, at the least a change in environmental rhetoric, since 2008/9. These changes involve either the terminology or selection of environmental objectives which have clear and material economic return. This was not seen by CSR managers as a business response to the recession. Rather they suggested that changes in policy were permitted by the relaxed government pressure on environmental performance, suggesting that this was a necessary remedy to a common misunderstanding of sustainability. Several interviewees felt that there had been an industry-based misperception for some time that the ‘environment’ came ‘first’, as ‘preferred’, or ‘of greatest significance to’ ‘sustainability’:

“In terms of the bigger picture, the thinking has definitely evolved. In terms of much greater emphasis on the idea of sustainability where you balance different priorities and different areas as opposed to simply looking at environment as a standalone.” (D2)

“We don’t have a sustainability report anymore, which is a conscious decision to integrate it into the business…Now our annual report includes those indicators” (D1)

“…though a number of us consider climate to be an environmental issue per se, there are big socio-economic aspects to it as well, and I think it’s much more helpful to have your sustainability head on and not think about environment in isolation” (D5)

“Most people when they hear the word green immediately think of environmental issues solely, and that's one of the big problems with the word sustainability as well to be honest, they automatically think it's the environmental thing end of story; in actual fact it’s more than that” (D3)

In contrast to most, however, D4 responded that they do not have an integrated environmental strategy, but only a sustainability strategy. As shown Appendix 2, several developers changed titles of their review or reports dealing with environment from ‘Social and Ethical’, which was more popular circa 2002-2005, to ‘Corporate ‘Sustainability’ from around 2006.

116

When D5 was asked about this name change – from an ‘Environmental Social and Ethical Review’ from 2001 to 2010 to ‘Sustainability Report’ in 2011 – they felt the switch to ‘sustainability’ could only be made once their environmental and social endeavours had been trialled in business practice and shown to pose no harm to business. In other words, it could only be called a sustainability report once the economic case for the environmental and social side was made. They felt there was more cause to report the economic ‘benefit’ they had been providing since 2009, starting to report on what they contribute to society through S106 and ‘uplift in council tax’.

D3 had in their 2010 report used the slogan ‘GROW’ to describe their sustainability approach, with G referring to ‘Green’, followed by Resources, Opportunities, Waste. The ‘Green’ section of the report, however, focused bizarrely on local employment facilities. D4 complained about the lack of specificity in the term ‘green’, suggesting it had been removed from business discourses of sustainability for good reason, due to its ambiguity. Here, the term green, possibly the only word in the history of the environmental movement to explicitly and intrinsically refer to biotic nature, has been abstracted back into human terms – making it seem meaningless and rendering it redundant.

Tracking the removal of sustainable communities discourse in central government rhetoric, the reports tend not to refer to meeting ‘needs’ so much as creating places people ‘aspire’ to live in. Taylor Wimpey, Barratt, Bellway, Crest Nicholson move to using a language of aspiration in the 2011/2012 reports, though the term is not yet present in earlier documents, indicating that the ‘aspirational’ component has become more significant since the housing market crash, possibly due to increased competition.

D1 changed their strapline for the sustainable homes narrative from ‘Greener Homes’ in 2007, to ‘High Quality Well Designed Homes with Low Environmental Impact’ in 2011. Returning to the recent redefinition of sustainability within business logic, they explained that

“greener homes we have actually changed, because… I think the word was used, not necessarily, not for greenspace, but because that was a word that customers might understand what we’re getting at… just being greener as a person, so that whole environmental slant on the homes…. what we’ve done this year, and that moves us to the point of integrating it into the business is, we have relabelled that section as just homes, with the tagline ‘High Quality Well Designed Homes with Low Environmental Impact’, and that’s what we’re trying to achieve and that sits better in our business strategy… What’s important to the business is not that we’re creating green homes, it’s actually that we’re creating really well designed homes and homes that people really want to live in, and that

117

they’re going to pay for, and that’s what really makes us our money, to be really blunt about it… so we changed the slant to be I think more truthful actually.” (D1)

4.1.6 Conclusions from 4.1 Section 4.1 sought to answer research question 3: How does CSR conceptualise sustainability, and make associations between environment and greenspace in this context? It has illustrated that three narratives of SD can be seen in CSR reports, each with distinct implications for the types of greenspace to be delivered, on and off site. Three narratives of sustainability were present in Corporate Reports – housing, community and business. Each of these leant towards different types of greenspace form and functionality. Due to the novelty of considering regulatory ecosystem services in housing projects, greenspace for climate change adaptation often fell within business sustainability narratives; both to minimise risk in being ahead of the policy curve, and as a strategy for unique selling point (USP) over competitors. Biodiversity was also present in business sustainability narratives – either through reporting compliance, or offering developments a sense of place and therefore USP. Subscriptions to standards such as ISO:14000 have implications for biodiversity compliance; future research into the meta-governance of CSR is needed.

In contrast, sustainable communities’ narratives focused more on aesthetic and economic cultural services, with some (limited) consideration of productive services (See section 4.1) however these were never prescribed or regularised. Sustainable communities narratives were also used as the main environmental justification for brownfield reuse; addressing blight. Sustainable community narratives have declined since 2011, following trends in central government planning policy, which have largely abandoned the term community, in favour of process-focused rather than agency-based term, Localism. While this is unlikely to affect the use of greenspace to appease NIMBYists, it has been reflected in a reduced focus on brownfield land by all of the developers in the study. Sustainable housing narratives reported compliance to Code for Sustainable Homes standards. As the code is highly prescriptive, this meant innovation in target setting was absent.

There is also evidence that whilst reports follow policy terminology, they strategize independently. Section 4.1 has mentioned different types of reported activity: aspirations; case studies, KPIs and so on. However, to understand market behaviour more thoroughly, the next section explores further the commitment made to greenspace by analysing the intentions behind, and the binding nature of, CSR.

4.2 CSR as Regulation

118

Ranging from marketing strategy (Podnar and Golob, 2007) to philanthropic endeavour, or genuine social development, (Votaw, 1972) this section will address the question of what CSR most embodies in the UK housebuilding industry. In so doing, it answers RQ4: How does CSR act as a form of ‘regulation’ to affect outcomes for greenspace provision on and off site in new housing projects? Findings on which kinds of environmental objectives receive greater or lesser intentionality; with different degrees of commitment and prescription are reported in this section. Exploration of the drivers of environmental strategy opens a discussion of why this may be the case, and the industry’s role in influencing government policy.

4.2.1 Reporting Strategy

As detailed in the methodology chapter, not all 15 developers have published ‘CSR policies’ or ‘corporate responsibility statements’. Bellway, Bloor, and Gladedale lack reports, but do have website pages with general statements about their environmental approach, outlining general non-specific policies. For instance, Bellway who caveat an already meagre environmental commitment, suggest on their website that they will:

‘Minimise any deleterious effects on the environment and, where possible, to seek environmental enhancements, concentrating on areas where there is most room for improvement…The above statement will take into account commercial considerations’ (Bellway website, 2014).

Others have downloadable policy statements detailing their position on the environment, without annual reports. For instance, Galliford Try and Redrow were in this category until Redrow published their first sustainability report in 2013. While this could be taken to imply that formal CSR reporting is becoming increasingly important, in 2013 Persimmon moved away from the more formal annual report format to a series of linked webpages, which will presumably be updated each year. How consistency can be measured or indeed any comparison across years can be achieved from interlinked webpage formats is unclear. Finally, developers such as Berkeley, Countryside, Barratt, Wilmott Dixon, Taylor Wimpey and Crest Nicholson have published CSR or ‘Corporate Sustainability’ reports since the beginning of the sample range, in 2007. This coordinates with the literature review: that a sector cannot be taken as a homogenous category with regard to intentions to improve practice through reporting (Baylis et al., 1998).

Whilst some developers consider regulatory and supportive functions of greenspace, there is rarely a willingness to monitor the delivery of these ‘solutions’. This is perhaps due to the current absence of a marketable, non-state policy instrument accepted by investors and buyers. The consequences for the responsibility of different actors are discussed further in Chapter 8. Another

119

reason may be space constraints. Asked whether they would create KPIs in line with their adaptation agenda, D1 replied in the negative because development is usually so site specific and dependant on ‘what is useful, given the scale of the scheme’. D2 claim to have a strategy which encourages green roofs, walls, additional planting, and gardens grown for residents, but this is again analysed on the basis of ‘opportunity’, or site viability. Details of the assessment were not provided to the researcher.

Barratt quantified a number of environmental indicators as CSR data in their 2007 update report: percentage of developments with a biodiversity action plan; number of trees preserved; number of shrubs planted; meters of hedges preserved; acres of formal, and informal, open space created; and acres of structural landscaping provided. However, in the 2009 and 2012 reports, these indicators and associated data have disappeared. Barratt’s webpages, which were created in 2013/2014 to complement their reports replace these indicators with: areas of greenspace onsite (ha); areas of wildlife habitat created or retained (ha); and trees or shrubs planted or retained on the developments (absolute number) (Barratt Website, 2014). Figures for 2009-2012 are not given for any of these indicators, they all begin in 2013. This change in yardsticks makes it difficult to see cumulative progress. Also reported here are: Public space incorporating publicly accessible green areas or parks (%); Public space targeted at either young people or people with disabilities (%); Public space incorporating public art or heritage buildings (%).

In 2012 (p12) a new KPI for ‘planting of 10 new shrubs or trees per dwelling’ is present. In 2013, they claim to have planted 20 new shrubs or trees per dwelling. However, as demonstrated in Fig 4 below – a snapshot from the sales webpage for a new development in Sandbach – Barratt appear to rely almost exclusively on small shrubs rather than trees to meet this claim.

Separately, Barratt announced in June 2014 that to celebrate the completion of their 400 thousandth home they will plant 400,000 trees and shrubs over the next 18 months (Barratt Legacy 2014). Where exactly this will take place is unspecified.

120

Figure 12: Elworth Gardens Tree and Shrub distribution. Taken from Elsorth Gardens Sales Website, (Barratt 2014) This change in strategy – from KPI inclusion in reports to online statistics and web-based reporting – is suggested by Jackson and Quotes (2002) to improve public access to information on company performance, by providing more information online and allowing the user to download all published material. However, there are clear limitations to this approach: notably that content can be more easily manipulated, and commitments or targets can be changed each year. While this is not entirely relevant to Barratt – they still publish and make accessible pdf reports from previous years – others renew and overwrite pages each year and therefore have a lower level of transparency and accountability. To mitigate against such accusations, Countryside now provide interlinked webpage options, alongside downloadable original versions of each annual report.

Leaving reporting methods aside for now, developers appear to diverge in their use of KPIs and targets for measuring their greenspace commitments. Asked whether they would consider a similar target to Barratt’s KPI for 10 shrubs/trees per house, D1 responded:

“We do keep track of [the quantity of open space we create], but we’re not targeting a certain amount, I think that…would be quite a difficult one to do and it would be quite interesting to know if they offset that… that’s an extremely difficult thing to do on a site by site basis so I presume there is an element of offset there… I suppose it’s one that gets people’s attention but it’s more of the gimmicky thing” (D1)

Redrow (2013) publishes a list of indicators, detailing their performance in 2009, 2013 and ‘aspirations’ for 2018. In the design section, all ‘aspirations’ have a quantified 2018 target except for ‘Creation of Public Open Space’, listed in hectares for 2009 and 2013, but labelled in the final column as ‘Continual Investment’. As detailed earlier, Redrow also had a ‘2018 aspiration’ to

121

encourage local food production, but an aspiration without quantification or measurement is not binding, and does not guarantee actual delivery.

Although their CSR reports prior to 2012 were not available to download, D6 revealed in interview that they have been reporting since 2008 but do not make these public. D6 went on to explain that they were about to change their reporting strategy, publishing a vision for 2020, with reports checking progress against that. This was seen as a more robust management process than use of KPIs. Such a divergence in approach within CSR highlights the significant differences in accountability between CSR and planning as forms of regulation.

4.2.2 Drivers of Environmental Strategy and Approach

In this excerpt from Berkeley’s Sustainability Policy Statement, several drivers of environmental strategy are identified: ‘We believe that integrating SD principles into our core business strategy helps us to create and add value to our business by enabling us to acquire appropriate land for development, gain planning permission, operate efficiently and respond to growing stakeholder expectations and customer demand for sustainable homes.’ (Berkeley, 2010, p1)

Generally speaking, however, motivations and mechanisms to select environmental strategies are not divulged in CSR reports. This was therefore developed in interviews. The following sections detail interviewee responses to questions regarding the motivations behind environmental strategy.

4.2.2.1 Materiality Four interviewees used the term ‘materiality’ in reference to strategy formation. Some used this term to refer to the ability to quantify any given indicator: i.e. methodological considerations (D8). Two developers suggested that there were things they considered important but could not measure, relating to social benefits of greenspace. Their approach was to use case studies to describe these deliverables to illustrate their materiality. However, others used the term materiality to convey what was seen as of greatest relevance to the business, i.e. economically translatable.

D1 made a distinction between methodology for target setting, and KPI development in their 2007 report. KPI development was made on the basis of relevance to the business, focusing on areas with clear links between business performance and SD. Sustainability ‘targets’, on the other

122

hand, were made through a process of internal consultation, with independent advice provided by sustainability consultants. In interview D1 explained that

“every few years or couple of years we carry out a ‘materiality review’… which will mean contacting a whole range of stakeholders, so it could be customers, local planning authorities, NGOs, academics, and we will ask them what’s most important thing to them, what do they think we should be measuring against, and as result of that we set the next set of commitments, the next set of targets.” (D1)

The distinction between targets and key performance indicators has interesting implications for the governance of CSR. For instance, Barratt Homes’ (2009) ‘Remuneration’ section states that the Executive Directors’ annual bonus is dependent upon the achievement of

‘…demanding financial objectives and key strategic measures for the business, set annually by the Board. These objectives include CR objectives related to Health and Safety performance, customer satisfaction and employee engagement.’ (Barratt, 2009, p6)

Notably, this misses off two of their own listed CR responsibilities: Supply Chain and Environment, suggesting that while they think incentives are the way to ensure performance, supply chain and environment are not worth this kind of incentivisation. D2 shed light on what may constrain the development of indicators generally, by suggesting while it is conceptually quite easy to think of a good target which may bring about improvement, getting reliable consistent data across a very decentralised business model proves difficult, especially in a business that is ‘thin on the ground’ in terms of resources. D2 suggested the more targets set, the poorer the quality of information returned. Hence, CSR Heads can struggle with gaining data for the same reasons as public authorities: principally, a lack of resources (Danielsen, Burgess and Balmford, 2005). In justifying the absence of any greenspace targets, he went on to suggest that there is a good company logic to keep greenspace allocation in planning negotiations rather than CSR policy. If you look unilaterally to put more greenspace in than your competitors on the whole, it raises all prospective land purchase prices, making buying the land more difficult.

Considering the challenges presented to academia in rigorously quantifying the benefits of greenspace in the living urban environment – e.g. water stored per square meter of SUDS, carbon captured per tree, etc. – it is perhaps unsurprising that the ability or intent of developers to do this in-house is very low. However, partnerships with research institutions may alleviate this and allow more progressive practice.

123

4.2.2.2 Benchmarks, Certifications, Peer Review and Investor Requests As stated in the literature review, Bertels and Poloza (2008) suggest that rather than always being used for competitive advantage, CSR can seek to improve industry reputation – especially in volatile sectors. This was demonstrated in the reports analysed, where often references to the whole industry were made in the number subscribing to a certain certification or achieving a given standard. This was aided by the range of industrial awards which support or facilitate ‘benchmarking’: e.g. Next Generation Benchmark, GRI, and Community Environmental Index. Eleven of the top twenty developers were using the next generation benchmark in 2009 (Barratt, 2009, p5). Wilmott Dixon suggest in their 2009 report that they are exceeding the industry standard for waste management set by WRAP, a quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation (QUANGO) set up in 2000 to ‘help recycling take off in the UK’ (WRAP, 2014). Beyond benchmarks were certifications, the most popular of which being the ISO14001. This makes prescriptions for business practice, but is non-specific to any given industry. Two of the CSR Directors interviewed who had developed the department began as implementers of the ISO14001 management system.

With some schemes, like the Community Environmental Index, House Builders and Developers and Next Generation Benchmarks, monitoring of ‘compliance’ is through publication of activities on developer websites. Appendix 3 shows a list of the various imported standards reported in I CSR, from both private governance (NSMD) and public policy bases. For D1, the size of the business explains the need for external certification of CSR strategy:

“We’ll self-certify our carbon to the power of 2016 because we’re, although we’re a limited company, we’re private, so we have a limited number of shareholders, so we’re not held to the same company reporting and regulations as a, say a FTSE 100 company, who…have shareholders and a different type of governance. So, actually we don’t have to do very much at all…. everything we publish is over and above what we need to do.” (D1)

In contrast, D2, who are a larger company, subscribe to FTSE for Good, Dow Jones Sustainability Index, Next Generation and the Carbon Reduction Commitment. They also opt to participate in the Carbon Disclosure Project, which is a non-mandatory fraction of the Global Reporting Initiative. They participate in this because on one occasion an investor asked them to do so as they were trying to improve international reputation as a financial institution supporting a range of industries. However, they stressed this was the only time an investor put pressure on

124

sustainability. This is surprising, as the literature suggests investors are becoming increasingly sensitive to sustainability issues (Bryson and Lombardi, 2009).

As detailed in the literature review, in theory at least, benchmarking against peers can increase industry standards (Bertels and Peloza, 2008). However, it is possible that recognised market differentiation can mean benchmarking regularises poor performance, as much as encouraging improvement, as detailed by D2:

“[D1] and Miller do a tremendous amount of target setting and benchmarking… They have very different business models. [D1] is kind of the top end of the market, mostly around London and the south-east. They have a different type of customer who would assume that they are doing all that kind of stuff… whereas ours tend to be, we’re a mass market builder, so our customers have less sort of interest… It’s kind of like Tesco versus Marks and Spencer type of affair. Where [D1] may be M&S and we might be Tesco”

The idea that developers self-recognise as providing to different housing submarkets on the basis of wealth is a new finding. Yet, even D1 – the apparent Marks and Spencer of housebuilding, suggested

“If any house builder says that one of their main goals is to build to zero carbon homes, I don’t think they are actually being truthful. Because the main aim of a house-builder is building homes that people buy, and then as a secondary thing, that we can tie up some environmental stuff and make them better for the future, so be it” (D1)

D8 also suggested they also would only do what was legislated:

“If we needed to do something, we would…but unless there was a really good case for it, and the consumers aren’t looking for it, investors aren’t asking for it…the government aren’t legislating for it… There’s just a big variety of drivers but the general principle is that you don’t burden the business unless there’s a good reason to.”

In contrast, D5 was very emphatic about sustainability being part of the company vision, and just ‘what they do’. Taken collectively, these quotes suggest that ‘ethical’ drivers are more likely to be based around social legitimacy, than management values (Lynch-Wood and Williamson, 2010).

4.2.2.3 Planning Consent and Risk Minimisation

The literature (Lynch-Wood and Williams, 2010) suggested that legislation is a driver of environmental compliance. However, accounting for the degree of its influence under a discretionary regulatory system like the UK planning system is less predictable. Rather than 125

ensuring compliance history to gain permits, reputation may be more important to project-to- project negotiation. There was a division across interviewees about the relationship between CSR strategy and gaining planning consent. While several felt that CSR was not read by planners, others felt that organisation reputation, understood through more general mediums could influence attitudes towards negotiation, or trust; though this is not to say that any of the developers considered themselves to be perceived as untrustworthy. Barratt emphasised the importance of good professional relationships between local representatives of the developer and staff at the local authority.

Indeed, tracking of planning policy terminology over time in CSR reports suggests some interplay. For instance, Barratt’s 2007 report begins with reference to Sustainable Communities, while in 2011 they suggest the report demonstrates their response to the Localism agenda, which was then used to describe community engagement strategies in the 2012 report. There were also some reductions in density following target abolition, for instance by Bellway, who cite development density as a KPI on their website. This reflects the rise in density following the crash in 2009, and a subsequent steady decline from 2010 as the policy landscape changed and density pressures were lessened, despite remaining over the 30-50dph formerly prescribed density recommendations.

Berkeley report that they are ‘smashing’ brownfield targets in 2007, with 100% of development on Brownfield. By 2012, following changes in policy prescription, this decreased to just 90%, suggesting brownfield development is not an ethical sustainability principle, so much as a business strategy. When D1 was asked about reductions in Brownfield completions since 2010 they replied:

“We have a reputation, in terms of Brownfield regeneration and that’s something we want to retain, and so our percentage of Brownfield has come down slightly in recent years but we still maintain the 90% mark. 90% of completed units are on Brownfield land, so, again, particularly in London and the surrounds, we will almost always develop Brownfield sites. The difficulty we find is that sometimes in terms of strategic land parcels, particularly in the home counties, often they are on Greenfield land in terms of trying to meet the local housing needs, and the local authorities have actually identified those parcels of land for development, and if it’s a good opportunity we will develop on that land” (D1).

Here, responsibility for this change is directed at local government. The presentation of London development being brownfield as a matter of principle is misleading, as it obfuscates from the fact that the majority of land for development in London is necessarily Brownfield. Payne (2013)

126

categorised Berkeley as a ‘pioneer’ of brownfield, on the basis that their land bank was 100% brownfield. This reduction to 90% challenges the clarity of their position within Payne’s typology, as she depicts pragmatists as having 89%, just 1% less than Berkeley now deliver. It also suggests that a Brownfield First policy has not become institutionalised or taken on as a value and imperative within business, which would happen regardless of regulation (Lynchwood and Williamson, 2010). This is the case even for the ‘pioneers’ who are most capable in terms of institutional capacity, and operational area to maintain these standards. Other developers with a national operational area have also shown slight decreases in the percentage share of development on brownfield since the abolition of targets.

4.2.2.4 Influencing Policy Direction

Several interviewees suggested that environmental strategy was used to influence policy direction. In Redrow’s (2013) ‘governance’ section two indicators are provided, as shown in Figure 13 below. The meaning of SMART is not defined in the report. The concept of SMART has been used to refer to cost-reduction in building design (Green, 1994). However as it is subsequently followed by the term target setting, it is likely to refer to the idea that objectives should be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant/Realistic and Time-aware (Doran, 1981).

Governance 2009 2013 2018 Indicators Commitment to full Limited Commitment Full Commitment Continuous sustainability Improvement Reporting SMART target setting Limited Targets Targets for All Pillars Inform Policy/Strategy

Figure 13: Governance Indicators for Sustainability by Redrow, (2013) Here we see the development of a sustainability strategy with targets as a ladder towards being able to inform and influence policy. Participation in the Zero Carbon Hub was also considered an important component of influencing. Crest Nicolson, 2012 p33 approach the issue of ‘informing’ policy making through CSR as a component of risk management. Influencing policy direction was also seen as a key component of risk management.

However, developers recognised that their potential to influence policy as individuals is limited. Therefore they work through various representative, research and lobbying institutions to form a collective voice. This increases so called ‘field cohesion’ referred to in Chapter 2. Those

127

mentioned include the House Builders Federation, UK Green Building Council, and the Zero Carbon Hub (see Figure 14 below). Developers variously describe this process as follows:

“You’re involved because you have to be, if you aren’t doing the research and in these hubs you are at risk in future markets when regulation changes.” (D7)

“We find it much more cost effective to operate at a strategic level and try to influence government.” (D6)

‘We aim to work with all levels of Government to inform their approach to sustainability. For example, we sit on the All Party Parliamentary Committee on Climate Change.’ (Berkeley, 2007 p7)

“There’s no point in us saying actually DECC DEFFRA BIS, you wanna be doing this, because we make it difficult for them. So what we try and do is work with our competitors and other people in our space, and get a joined up, you know actually, if you help us all, if you did this, government, or if we could do it in this way. And it’s not about telling government this is crap, but trying to find a way forward that achieves what the government wants in a way that makes sense to us, doesn’t increase regulation unnecessarily or what have you. It’s about having informed and evidenced conversations.” (D4)

Not all of the developers interviewed were members of all groups. Often, smaller contractors were only a member of the UKCG. Six of the interviewees participate in the Zero Carbon Hub which as detailed in chapter 2, was designed to report directly to the 2016 Zero Carbon Task Force. D4 described it as a ‘consensus generation organisation’, where “only people who want to make things happen” are involved. This suggests that rather than increasing product diversification, the collaboration between companies as a component of their CSR activity would decrease market diversification; as all actors adopt similar interpretations of sustainability. Several interviewees felt that the membership credentials of these organisations were beneficial for this reason- challenges to the industries interpretation of sustainability were not made. Therefore, frames of SD coming out of these groups are; what Hajer (1995) and Connelly and Richardson (2006) would call ‘discourse coalitions’, motivated by shared interests rather than shared ethical values Those who view sustainability differently, in a paradigmatic sense, are precluded from these engagements. Debate is around technicalities for an agreed single aim.

Name Description

128

UKGBC The UKGBC is a charity and membership organisation, which ‘facilitates dialogue between industry and Government to promote greener approaches in the construction sector.’ UK Constructors Group The UKCG is the primary organisation for contractors operating in the UK. It represents 30 leading contractors. HBF The HBF is again a membership organisation, which ensures that the voice of speculative and contract developers is heard by central government, and that members are kept up to date on policy changes. Zero Carbon Hub Established in the summer of 2008, the Zero Carbon Hub describes itself as a ‘public/private partnership drawing support from both government and industry,’ (ZCH, 2011 p1) to develop the Zero Carbon Homes agenda.

Figure 14: Collective Organisations for UK Developers which increase field cohesion The HBF is used to provide formal feedback on regulation, which each member sends in, is visible to other members. This is then processed to form a coherent ‘industry’ response, to form a strategic and collective realignment: the industry, vs. government. In contrast, as members of the UKGBC, some Heads of CSR were directly involved in meetings with ministers:

“We also do [feedback on regulation] through UKGBC: for example I was at a round table three weeks ago with the Shadow Housing Minister and Shadow Climate Change Secretary with Climate UKGBC and the Green Alliance, and other members of the UKGBC, in which we had a roundtable discussion on the housing shortage, on zero carbon, and on sustainability. That doesn’t happen every week, that’ll happen once a year, twice a year with different people. We are apolitical: in other words we don’t talk to the government in power, we talk to people who are interested, because we recognise that our constituents, their politics is their own business, and we need to understand where everybody’s coming from.” (D8)

Therefore, while several institutions are available to give an ‘industry’ voice with significant power and force, some developers still seek to gain competitive advantage by direct policy involvement. ‘Understanding where everyone is coming from’ may provide opportunities for strategic realignment. Several developers claimed there are differences between organisations in the weight they have in negotiations, based on what they bring to the table in terms of research:

129

“People aren’t interested in people who just want to lobby, because we’re trying to achieve things, we do a lot of research… So, we bring something to the party.” (D1)

However, it was unclear who is more likely to do this, as profit margins do not necessarily equate to the specification of their market product. For instance, Barratt who implemented the first zero carbon development at Hanham Hall, Bristol are considered to be ‘bottom of the ladder’ in terms of housing quality, and environmental sustainability credentials by their peers, being the first name to come up in comments about ‘little boxes’ (interviews with Developers). Yet Barratt will have secured a greater voice in forums such as the Zero Carbon Hub as a result of this project, although Barratt did not themselves claim to have been especially influential on the basis of this project.

Beyond research and development collaborations with other private sector agencies and universities, Countryside (2011) suggest that they have ‘secured funding from the Technology Strategy Board’ – an executive non-departmental public body of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills – to fund a climate adaptation strategy for their Acton Gardens development. This was developed by engineering consultant AECOM alongside the outline master plan, and used to support the detailed design of future phases of the development, while also being used by Countryside to inform future projects. The AECOM report (2013) detailed key concerns for the site, including Urban Heat Island, flood risk from surface run off, and overheating within the buildings. Modelling had been performed to assess the likely contribution of trees and green roofs to the climate change adaptation credentials of the site. The intention was:

…to allow a cost benefit analysis to be carried out of new trees being provided on site, with the potential to then use the findings as evidence to justify green infrastructure integration in future projects where there are no stringent planning requirements on tree planting and/or retention…Due to the London Plan policy requiring the inclusion of green roofs unless proven unviable, the masterplan already included a provision of green roofs before the adaptation project started. (AECOM, 2013 p17)

Modelling could not show that a significant difference to the mean air temperature of the site would be made on the basis of green infrastructure – the calculated comparison between the masterplan with added trees and 50% green roofs, against the baseline condition of no green roofs and no additional tree planting. It suggested this was a limitation of analysis at the project scale, within the red line boundary, and emphasised that onsite trees would still provide comfort through shading buildings and pedestrians.

130

4.2.3 Assertions of Responsibility

4.2.3.1 Government Responsibility

Efforts to influence policy also translated to making assertions about government responsibility:

Hanham Hall will be a community in which people will be living in a very different way. It will attract a different kind of buyer who will be after a different kind of look and feel – as it will have greenhouses, allotments, an educational centre which will provide information on zero carbon living. The Government has a real role to play in this educational process, and it needs to go much deeper than a few ads on TV. More needs to be done to convince customers to make this shift in lifestyle. (Barratt, 2009, p43)

…Government policy and regulatory interventions must support the development and implementation of appropriate technological solutions and also enable the amendment of market mechanisms as new knowledge around climate change emerges… (Bellway Climate Change Statement, Website, 2014)

…while the Government’s policies to tackle the carbon emissions associated with energy use play an important role in addressing climate change, more needs to be done to recognise the important role that location and transport play in the overall carbon footprint of a development.’ (Berkeley, 2007, p15)

The challenges surrounding climate change cannot be met by any one party. We support the international agreements made to tackle this problem and we believe that it is the responsibility of government to set the framework to encourage investment in low and zero carbon technologies, promote energy efficiency and responsible energy use. (Berkeley, 2013)

Our operating environment is complex and multi-layered and includes global to local policy, codes and targets; building regulations and building assessment standards. The policy and regulation framework and indeed the accumulative regulatory burden continue to change, evolve and increase. This in turn makes it more challenging to meet the requirements in a measured and cost-effective way…. Government and its advisers need to develop cohesive regulation. (Countryside Properties, 2009 p2)

Here we see calls for government to expand its first degree regulation (Baldwin et al., 1998), as a specific form of authoritative rules accompanied by an administrative agency; as well as 20 regulation, as an aggregate effort to steer the economy; and even 30 regulation, changing ideas

131

and preferences of the population through media and education. Notably, none of these relate to greenspace or ecosystem service functions so much as they do technology. The theme of responsibility was developed during the interviews to try to draw distinctions between state and market. This is discussed further in Chapter 8.

In conclusion, on the basis of interviews and CSR analysis, motivations for CSR can be divided along two lines: ability to build and ability to sell. More general business practice motivations, such as shaping policy direction and managing risk are considered separate from formation of CSR strategy. Being ‘ahead of the curve’ is arguably a specific driver of CSR strategy for industries under discretionary regulation. Still, since 2010 and the increasing uncertainty over the necessary environmental credentials of SD, priorities for ‘environment’ in CSR have changed.

4.2.3.2 Market Responsibility

The interviews suggested that there were several forms of market responsibility, which related to a greater or lesser extent to CSR as a form of regulation. Notably this amounted to responsibility to collaborate, which has been discussed in section 4.2.2 regarding industry collaboration to research and develop and influence policy. Beyond this, responsibility was considered to be beyond compliance. However, this was only suggested as definitive of CSR by three interviewees. Others suggested that CSR was whatever they wanted it to be – that there were no recognised rules or duties associated with the concept.

Two developers openly accepted that their environmental strategy was based on legal requirements only. In the case of publicly listed companies (plc), the responsibility to abide by the law is accompanied by a responsibility to meet shareholder needs and expectations. While some felt reporting on mandatory contributions such as S106 was part of revitalising CSR to demonstrate more broadly the socio-economic contribution of the business (D8), others felt that going beyond regulation and mandatory commitments was what defined CSR. This latter understanding of CSR. however, was based not on ethical grounds but rather CSR as a market differentiator. For instance, developers 1, 3 and 8 explain this viewpoint:

“I think that my view is that in terms of a CSR strategy and a company approach, it should go way beyond what government sets, at the point where something becomes enshrined in legislation, then that in my mind would no longer be within our strategy” (D1)

“I would hope that companies would actually see it as a way of moving beyond regulation, and therefore company regulation practice or policy should come first, and then I suppose

132

the government would follow afterwards, not that it will necessarily be the same thing…” (D3)

This provides empirical support for the perspective offered by McWilliams and Siegel (2001) discussed earlier in the literature review. D3 suggested that this should subsequently be incorporated into policy – that developers ‘lead the way’ and government follows up with policy reforms. However, the complicated ‘chicken and egg’ relationship between government, and developer policy is illustrated by Berkeley who suggest in their 2007 report that they use green roofs to enhance ecology in new developments, yet do nothing to standardise this – suggesting a particularly weak record of implementation. Then in 2012, Berkeley claim they will:

‘Now make climate change adaptation an integral part of how we design and build every new development. Every scheme we submit for planning from May 2012 will harvest rainwater for reuse and include living roofs on all suitable apartment spaces, alongside major investment in landscape design and softer public realm.’ (Berkeley, 2012, p5)

This may appear to be completely independent market adoption of responsibility: for no national policy prescriptions demanded green roofs to be implemented over this period. However, when considering that the major operating area of Berkeley is London and the South East, it is worth noting that in 2008 the London Plan made it compulsory for all major new developments to have green roofs. Hence, for a large-scale residential developer, completing mostly major projects, it is likely that what appeared to be ‘beyond compliance’ was in fact just compliance. When Berkeley were asked what ‘suitable’ meant during the interviews6, they explained that:

“Firstly it means it’s available – if energy has already been a challenge on the site, the roof may already have photovoltaics or other things; it may have plants on the roof; it may be of a pitch that isn’t ideal for a living roof. So if those things are not present, i.e. if it’s a flat roof, we haven’t had to put any energy infrastructure or community space or anything else, we will easily make it into a brown roof, and we are doing that on quite a lot of our sites at the moment, quite a lot of our city centre developments at the moment will have a green roof or a brown roof.”

Hence, despite the regularisation and consistency of this policy, the use of a green roof comes second to energy infrastructure, design preferences and attractive community space, as detailed at the beginning of the chapter. However, implementing a standard consistently across

6 They permitted use of these quotes directly 133

developments would increase land purchase values and decrease competitive advantage. This is returned to in Chapter 8.

Such paradoxes persist. The extent of regulation in the sector that now appears to be ‘environmental’ in character has resulted in D1 stepping away from environmental ‘beyond compliance’, to focus more on social aspects:

“We are actually focusing a lot more on the social aspect of sustainability… we sort of changed emphasis as a company due to the amount of regulation on the environmental side, and we see that the real difference that we can bring is in terms of quality of life for people…” (D1)

Paradoxically, regulating for compliance in one area makes that area less attractive to developers as a site of innovation for there is less space or room for manoeuvre to offer the market something different. Still, the ‘beyond compliance’ approach by no means applies to the majority, and is not indicated by length of report or glossiness of the document. Some subtle distinctions can be made, whereby language use circumnavigates commitment to beyond compliance, to talk more generally about risk management. For instance, Lend Lease suggest that:

Achieving compliance with regulatory and legislative requirements is not sufficient to meet the environmental aspirations of Bovis Homes. We aim to identify, avoid and then manage environmental risk. (Lend Lease, 2012 p15)

Indicatively, risk is considered to the business, not to the planet. In this sense, risk management as a paradigm of environmental thought in CSR runs in line with the history of legislation and polluter pays principles of penalisation for harm; beyond compliance is conservative, not progressive. As discussed, using this frame to consider SD is restrictive. While D3 suggests they work according to ‘beyond compliance’ thinking, they also said:

“We don’t set ourselves Everest to climb, it’s always better to set ones which are slightly lower so you can achieve it, and keep morale up, rather than set yourself something unrealistic and everyone gets disappointed if that makes sense…” (D3)

This may be described as a ‘pragmatist’ approach by Payne (2013). D3 also disclosed how being part of a larger contractors group allows for innovative ideas to be successfully implemented by competitors who had more cohesive groups, without suffering the bureaucracy of being a subsidiary in a larger organisation. In contrast, five interviewees suggested that while they appreciate regulations are necessary to maintain a minimum standard of sustainability in development, the bar set by planning should not be raised on the basis that smaller builders 134

would not be able to handle more regulation. In cases of innovation and greenspace, this was seen as due to a lack of knowledge resources:

“The small builder won’t have the capacity to think about [using trees for shading] because actually you need to do some strategic thinking, some modelling to optimise that... He will just build a box that fits with planning policy.. the more onerous the planning policy, the harder it is for him to be able to tick all the boxes,…you end up with just the major house-builders surviving, and what we end up with is lots of estates of boxes.” (D6)

Another paradox is present in the mixed message offered by D6: that, on the one hand, small developers resist innovation and don’t have the capacity to offer innovative designs; and yet on the other, that should a regulatory scenario arise which would price out the ‘little guy’, only ‘boxes’ – that colloquial housing industry term for poor quality small residential units – would be built.. D5 suggested that with design codes,

“what you’re doing unfortunately is dragging back the good developers, when projects often get stalled, while often the less good developers are being dragged up by their bootlaces. And that’s actually frustrating” (D5)

However, D3 – a contract developer – suggested that the nature of the market demanded a tiered, hierarchical system like the CfSH so that variety is protected, and can be used to ensure developers ‘sell to accordingly’:

“If they were to lose it, it would quickly degenerate back to what it was, the better companies would do it, but then, not to have a go at the main house bashers out there, but they tend to go for quick, cheap, with maximum gain and that eco-bling is not cheap to source and install and everything else… So I think we need to keep some kind of structure…” (D3)

Issues of hierarchies in provision are discussed further in Chapter 8. To conclude this section on market versus state responsibility, it can be noted that government simply cannot be as forward thinking as a single company who have the scope to make improvements in particular contexts. While national government needs to respond to public perception, and be ‘seen to be doing the right thing’, they have to do impact assessments to assess the implications of this across the whole country before rolling out national policy. Indeed, two developers interviewed recognised that companies can go further in their own policy than the government, because of their differentiated spatial practices.

135

4.2. Conclusions There are three main themes in this chapter. Firstly, there are three common narratives of sustainability in CSR reports analysed: sustainable homes; sustainable communities; and sustainable business. Framing of environmental problems is reasonably common across developers within each of these categories – although approaches to regularise or prescribe these outcomes vary across developers. Across the three narratives of sustainability present in CSR reports analysed, the full range of ecosystem services were considered. Provisioning services may be gaining importance; the realisation of Redrow’s policy for developing sustainable food networks will be considered in Chapter 5Regulatory services are being investigated by some developers for their capacity to generate competitive advantage, rather than as a design feature to be regularised.

Second, the limitations of USP as a driver for policy were considered, and findings illustrated that targets would not be made for these outcomes unless the value could be shown to be recaptured across developments. Issues of accountability regarding commitments are explored in case studies and returned to in Chapter 8. Few interviewees proposed that they follow an ‘ethical’ CSR model as a company or as an industry. Even those considered as leading the sector suggested developers will not do what does not make them money. This is reflected in a change, following the 2008 market crash away from ‘sustainable communities’ towards ‘aspirational’ marketing language. This is explored further for its relationship to ideology and political change in Chapter 8.

Finally, reports do not only refer to the responsibility of the market, but also make suggestions about the responsibility of government. Potentially, the government’s rhetorical bias towards economic prosperity in recent years has reduced the pressure of ethical legitimacy-seeking. While the literature review suggested that peer-to-peer competition may drive up standards, the findings of this chapter suggest this will not necessarily be the case, as developers have found low demand for environmental performance from house-buyers, when environmental performance is defined by the CfSH. They also recognise their own position within the hierarchy of provision: reproducing different standards of environmental performance in housing between income groups. The consequential responsibilities of government are picked up on through the case studies, and discussed in chapter 8.

136

5. The Garden Village: Woodford

[Development at Woodford Aerodrome] should follow the principles of the Garden Village ideology. (Stockport MBC), 2012, p 61)

Woodford Aerodrome will be a leading national example of a high quality sustainable community through the creation of a place that is economically, socially and environmentally sustainable (Design and Access Statement, Planit-IE, 2013)

5.1 Introduction Critics of the Coalition Government’s planning reforms have suggested that the Conservative’s pre-election promise to be the ‘Greenest Government Ever’ may have been rhetorical (Jowitt, 2011; Cowell, 2013). However, the reduced central government definition of SD, allied to more permissive local environmental definition in policymaking, combined with a revived and revamped interest in Garden Cities, may offer new insights into the tensions and opportunities presented by sub-local devolved regulatory capacities.

Furthermore, the introduction of neighbourhood planning, a new tier developed by the Localism Act (2011), raises the issue of communities struggling to gain status vis-à-vis the planning system, provoking discussion on the conflict between state scales. While central government on the one hand, at least rhetorically empowers communities, on the other, emerging pressures associated with ‘austerity urbanism’ (Tonkiss, 2013) place additional fiscal constraints on local government.

In this context, this chapter focuses on the politics of a changing policy landscape for a mixed residential redevelopment of an Aerodrome site in the greenbelt of Stockport, Greater Manchester. Where power is exercised in defining environment is analysed, and the consequences of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) for roles allocated to greenspace is considered. The meaning of ‘aspirational’ housing is also explored further in this chapter, as representatives of the developer (Planning Statement, Nathaniel Lichfield 2013) and Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council, (Stockport MBC, 2013) use this term in relation to the site.

5.2 Site Development Context

5.2.1 Principles of Supplementary Planning Documents The site contains two Major Existing Developed Sites (MEDS), covering around 42ha. Formerly owned by British Aerospace Engineering, the site was sold in 2011 to Avro Heritage, who entered into a partnership with Harrow Estates, a local subsidiary of Redrow. The concept of a garden 137

village emerged for the first time – with detailed design prescriptions – in a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) published by the council (Stockport MBC, 2012). While this was adopted, having successfully passed through Sustainability Appraisal, it was subsequently subject to a judicial review following a challenge from Woodford Community Council, a local group who have now received formal status as a neighbourhood forum. Conflicts in this case – between the community, council, and developer – focus on the redrawing of greenbelt boundaries and extension of development over the MEDS boundaries.

MEDS sites usually require a design brief to be produced as part of a collaborative effort between the developer or landowner and local authority. This is then published by the local authority, which coordinates consultation. However, the planning inspector reviewing the Stockport Core Strategy made a proviso that the site required a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (Broyd, 2011) which in contrast with a design brief, is a council headed document. The perspective of Stockport MBC planning department as to why this was suggested was:

‘to get the best out of it, it's a bit grander than a brief, an SPD’ (WF1).

SPDs act as material considerations when determining applications for planning permission, containing guidance on how national and local planning policies will be applied in the given location, sometimes focusing on development in particular places, at other times being topic- based across a borough. Hence, as an item of planning policy the council have, in principle, more sway in influencing design outcomes than with a design brief. WF3 even went so far as to suggest it gave the council a “bit of a stick”, to hit the developer with later down the line.

As can be seen in Figure 15 below, the Woodford Aerodrome site, located on the southern fringe of the Greater Manchester conurbation, is divided between two administrative authorities - Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC) and Cheshire East Council, a Unitary Authority. However, Cheshire East declined the opportunity to be involved in the process of SPD preparation, as neither of the MEDS developments were inside their administration. Cheshire East’s decision not to be involved in the Aerodrome was seen by Woodford United, a lobbying group connected to Woodford Community Council, as a strategy to avoid further controversy given their already contentious plans for a major housing development of high biodiversity agricultural land on the other side of Woodford, in Handforth (Frearson, Hayward and Hayward 2014).

The development of potentially over two thousand homes has contributed to significant discontent among Woodford residents, who feel ‘sandwiched’ by the mass of new development (WF6). While there are notably less biodiversity concerns on the Woodford Site, Cheshire East’s lack of involvement in the SPD has angered residents of Poynton and Adlington, who felt they 138

should have been consulted on the grounds that it will place stress on road and education infrastructures (WF5). WF5 suggested that the consultation on the original SPD had been poorly advertised, with only houses immediately adjacent to the site leafleted and the consultation period falling in the two weeks before Easter when families are often committed.

Figure 15: Woodford Aerodrome Location. The BAE site, shown to stretch across the boundaries of Cheshire East and Stockport. Taken from Woodford Supplementary Planning Document, (Stockport MBC, 2012)

The SPD suggests that Woodford could secure SD by: 1) building a strong economy through providing housing; 2) supporting job creation during construction and increased expenditure in the local economy from future residents; 3) supporting the creation of a strong, vibrant and healthy community by increasing the supply of housing to meet the needs of the area; and 4) not harming the natural, built or historic environment whilst also helping to improve biodiversity, using natural resources prudently and work towards addressing climate change (Stockport MBC, 2012). The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) (Jukes, 2012) recognises these conditions, suggesting that the one sustainability concern is the site’s poor connection to public transport infrastructure. However, the SA also suggests that this is outweighed by opportunities the site presents for affordable housing delivery, seen to be important for the area. The only recommendations relating to greenspace are: the provision of green corridors to provide migration opportunities

139

and improved genetic diversity; and native planting to ensure that appropriate habitats are developed and that no invasive species are allowed to damage any existing or new habitats. Here, supportive greenspace functions are recognised, although no suggestion of provisioning services is made. Opportunities for increasing ‘openness’ of the greenbelt in line with the Landscape Character Assessment are also approved; no challenge to this conception of greenbelt functionality is made. Further, no questions are asked of the scale at which prudent use of resources must take place. The location of the site, combined with this absent definition of scale, pushes the SD ideological leaning of these documents towards the ‘externally dependant cities’ category.

The Core Strategy does advocate the use of greenspace as a response to urban heat island effects, and to mitigate flood risk. While the proposed site designs within the SPD illustrate ample tree planting, and SUDS, adaptation was not considered by the sustainability review in the Sustainability Appraisal of the SPD (Jukes, 2012 p2) which focused on carbon requirements. Of the ‘environmental’ criteria considered, protection of environment was the only category which necessarily relates to greenspace, being reactive rather than proactive. Place-making becomes the proactive driver of greenspace, reinforcing the existing emphasis on cultural services and aesthetics. In turn, the Sustainability Appraisal does little to challenge or develop greenspace practice.

Despite the apparent focus on carbon, Stockport’s policy for ‘sustainable housing’ sets a key energy target for the development at 40% carbon reduction over and above 2006 Building Regulations (SCS Policy SD-3, Stockport MBC, 2011). This is equivalent to CfSH Level 3. As such, the expected energy requirements are already mandatory regulatory requirements; the policy demands only for new development to meet building regulations. The choice to define requirements in relation to building regulations, as opposed to directly using the CfSH removes the requirement for development to meet other performance criteria which may be dictated by a specific CfSH rating. Nonetheless, Harrow suggest that the homes meeting CfSH Level 3 achieve current best practice (Harrow Estates, 2014, p.21). Who’s best practice – or where? – is not specified; but it is notable that in Stockport, CfSH Level 4 has been achieved since 2011 (Stockport MBC, Annual Monitoring Report 2011-2012), and that 0 Carbon has been achieved nationally.

5.2.3 Judicial Review

In the Coalition’s reforms to the 2004 Planning Act, a number of changes to the process of SPD production were made, including a statement that: 140

‘any person with sufficient interest in the decision to adopt the SPD may apply to the High Court for permission to apply for judicial review.’ (DCLG, 2011; 12(b) p.8).

On this basis, a local resident and member of Woodford Community Council, a self-titled group of Woodford residents who run meetings from the village hall, objected to the SPD. The main concern of Woodford United, the lobbying group, was the pressure of increased population on already busy local roads, and schools which were already oversubscribed (WF5; WF6). Hence, the community’s issues with the proposed development were based on distribution or access to welfare goods. However, for the formal legal challenge, the issue taken was with the redrawing of Greenbelt boundaries, which they argued extended the developable area beyond the 42ha, redefining its shape and location, to form one large residential area (WF5). The movement of developed areas can be seen by comparing the following images (figure 16) taken from the initial SPD (SGMC, 2012, p.17).

Stockport Unitary Development Plan (cited in Stockport MBC, 2012) states that MEDS redevelopment in the greenbelt should generally not occupy a larger area of the site than existing buildings, although small increases in site coverage may be acceptable through the use of good design and reduced building heights. This runs in line with the NPPF (DCLG, 2011, p.89) which similarly permits:

‘Limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development’

141

Figure 16: Land use plan and former land use pattern of Woodford Aerodrome Both taken from the initial SPD ( SGMC, 2012 p17)

142

Figure 17: Photograph of Community Poster for Neighbourhood Forum

143

Figure 18 : Poster of other developments near Woodford Aerodrome (by author) The initial SPD (SMBC, 2012) suggests it conforms with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on the basis that the NPPF supports the principle of redevelopment of previously developed sites within the Greenbelt; does not restrict redevelopment to defined MDS boundaries but speaks of ‘previously developed’ sites, which in the Woodford case would be the whole aerodrome; and enables LPAs to make their own assessment of the impact of development on the ‘openness’ of the Greenbelt. As openness is not defined, yet made the central characteristic of the

144

policy, local actors are left to interpret or define its meaning on their own. On this basis, the SPD justifies its merging of the two developed areas, and the scale and mass of development:

The existing MEDS boundaries for the site were established through the development plan process.. The Woodford Aerodrome Opportunity Site Indicative Housing Master plan…, defines the area within which residential development can take place. This area is based on a robust analysis of the landscape and visual impacts [and] assessment of the impact of the potential development on the openness of the Green Belt (Stockport MBC, Draft SPD 2011 p55)

Hence, Stockport MBC’s understanding of the NPPF was that they had the autonomy to alter the layout of development in greenbelt sites which contained MEDS. Using the language of evidence- based planning, they suggest additional work has been done to support this approach – referring to a Landscape Character Assessment. Nonetheless, the inspector did find the first SPD document flawed; not on the basis of the merging of the two sites but rather suggesting that the SPD had breached its regulatory authority by suggesting the form development should take.

The initial SPD made highly specific design prescriptions for the onsite greenspace. This included a hierarchy of streets: termed Green Streets, Garden Streets and Garden Lanes, shown below. SUDS are integrated, with a wetland area to support a ‘naturalised’ SUDS system. No references are made in the document to other regulatory services. Prescriptions for design of greenspace across the rest of the site are not made.

145

Figure 19: Design prescriptions for Village Green Street (Taken from Stockport MBC, 2012)

Figure 20: Design prescriptions for Green Street with SUDS (Taken from Stockport MBC, 2012)

146

Figure 21: Design prescriptions for Green Street (Taken from Stockport MBC, 2012)

Figure 22: Design prescriptions for Garden Street (Taken from Stockport MBC, 2012)

147

These streets were to be located in specific places within the masterplan, in accordance with the evidence base of a Landscape Character Assessment, discussed later in this chapter. Their design supported the development of 950 homes at densities ranging between 15dph (dwellings per hectare) and 40dph, with an average not exceeding 30dph.

In contrast, the subsequent adopted SPD (Stockport MBC, 2013) no longer contained the detailed and prescriptive suggestions shown above, only detailing that all dwellings should: first, have sight of, or be no further than a 5 minute walk from ‘functional’ greenspace – though what the functions should be are not detailed; second, have front gardens with well-defined boundaries, and provide open spaces or open countryside; and third, that wide meadow verges should be established for new and existing field boundaries. SUDS are still demanded in conformity with Core Strategy policy SD-6 (Adapting to Climate Change) however their composition and siting are no longer prescribed.

Despite the removal of these greenspace prescriptions, the document also reduced its recommended capacity, suggesting that just 750-850 housing units could be accommodated on the site, noting that the council’s usual density requirement of 30 dwellings per hectare (Core Strategy policy CS3, paragraph 3.101) should be altered for the site, on the basis that the density of existing dwellings in the area is very low, and in turn recommend an overall density of 22-24 dph (Stockport MBC, 2013, p.89). Determining development density by existing patterns may end up reproducing established distributions of greenspace, with problematic consequences for social justice and equality (Harlan et al., 2007). This said, as the SPD still prescribed a 40% affordable housing component the planned extensive greenspaces should be accessible across the market.

However, despite the changes in recommended density and housing numbers following the judicial review, on the 5th of March 2014 three planning applications for the site were submitted by the developer – for the development of up to 950 homes. These still await approval.

Application 1: Full planning permission for demolition of existing buildings, remediation of land, and regrading of land to create development platforms for mixed use development.

148

Application 2: Part A: Full planning permission for Phase 1: 145 dwellings and provision of associated infrastructure. outline planning permission

Part B: Outline planning permission (excluding phase 1) for the erection of up to 805 dwellings, commercial floor space, a public house, retail floor space, a one form entry primary school, class D1 floor space7 (quantity unspecified) Application 3: Partial removal of the runway, regarding works, footpath and cycle links, naturalisation of culverted watercourse, restoration and landscaping.

Figure 23: Summary of Planning Applications by Harrow for the Redevelopment of Woodford Aerodrome

The context in which the developer felt secure to directly challenge – and in fact ignore the changes made to the SPD – is discussed in the rest of this chapter. The ‘extra work’ which Stockport MBC suggest was done to create the initial SPD was notably the aforementioned Landscape Character Assessment. This was produced by a local landscape architect, both a consultant to Stockport MBC and Harrow. The original document is not available on the council website; and it is unclear whether this was ever bought by the council, or shared with them, having been commissioned by Harrow. The problems this presents to the legitimacy of environmental interpretations of SD for the site, and relationship between this piece of consultancy and policymaking processes are now discussed.

5.3 Greenspace and Sustainability

5.3.1. Openness as Scale

The Local Authority had already been working with the previous landowner, BAE on preparing an SPD for the site which would retain some of the existing structures on site for employment and training purposes. However, part of the way through these negotiations, the site was sold to Harrow Estates – a subdivision of Redrow Homes – and Avro Heritage.

“one of the things Harrow brought to the table pretty early was the idea of a landscape visual impact assessment, and looking at the idea of openness in the greenbelt” (WF1)

7 Use class 1D may be any use not including residential such as medical or health centres, crèches or day centres, museum, library, public hall, religious institutions. 149

Subsequently, WF3 conducted a Landscape Character Assessment, in order to establish the potential degree of ‘openness’ within the landscape. Through layered mapping of OS data WF3 modelled ‘viewpoints’; an analysis of what could be seen from where in local surrounds. This was then used to demonstrate ‘sensitivity’. Sensitivity therefore refers to sites from which a new development would be seen, based on a visual impact assessment. This was also used to qualify the quantity of development as well

“…because we were able to say you can have the development which is twice as big as what you thought you were going to get… Everyone is able to say, well when it’s that big the visual impact of it is no bigger, no greater than if it was half the size, it’s irrelevant, the scale of it becomes irrelevant. If you can demonstrate that and sell that to the council, then you win what was quite a major battle” (WF3)

“we brought the council along to that, they bought into the idea that if you create something of a certain scale then that will contribute to openness” (WF3)

While it appears that their motivations could lie with either the council or the developer when referring to achieving a greater overall quantity of development (as the council also have housing targets and ambitions) the closing reference to ‘winning a major battle’ implies that this was, in some way, contra to the Council’s inclinations. Thus, while WF3 considered the SPD to stretch the developer by calling it a stick to beat the developer with, they also recognise the significant benefits to the developer of their advocated approach. As noted, the council do not publish this report on their website, however, the VIA is subsequently deemed by Harrow in their application as

‘THE fundamental driver, on ongoing ‘touchstone’ of the masterplan process’ (Design and Access statement, Planit-IE 2013)

The initial SPD suggested that:

This scale of development should substantially reduce the built footprint coverage of the site and the overall height of the development and is also likely to reduce the dominance of buildings in the landscape thereby enhancing the openness of the Green Belt. (Stockport MBC, 2012, p.58)

The integration of greenspace within and around new development may have contributed to the extension of the overall area on the masterplan extending over the 42ha. However, as this statement highlights, the actual footprint of built development is not considered to be greater. The diagrams from the original SPD illustrate the design prescriptions for this integrated 150

greenspace (see figures 19-22). Green Streets were located in line with the visual impact assessment to ensure that viewpoints looked onto the greenest parts of the site’s redevelopment. The use of design technologies was considered critical in the process of legitimising this alteration:

“the council could see value in being able to defend the way the development was formed… because you could say that this demonstrated that there’s sensitivity to this area and that guided development or dictated that the development should be sensitively positioned or should be broken in some places to suit that visibility…..It adds to the story, adds to the justification doesn’t it, of how things have been designed the way they are” (WF3)

The legitimacy given to this definition of openness, which in term determined the scale and character of development, is dependent upon the ‘scientific’ legitimacy derived from using new technology; representing the legacy of evidence-based planning (Davoudi, 2006). The lack of objectivity in technological tools for greenspace investment decisions making have been shown previously in the North West (Gilbert, 2010). This technology, Visual Impact Assessment, is however, not neutral, but preloaded with values about environment, and SD. By focusing on visual aspects of landscape, VIA prioritises aesthetics over other functionalities. This might be seen to depoliticise the range of other values which might be attached to the space, for instance, the variety of other ecosystem services it could be used to deliver. Notably, by premising decisions about the sustainability – or acceptability – of greenbelt development on the concept of ‘openness’, forecloses consideration of the range of other ecosystem services which are subsequently demanded outside of the red line boundary as a result of new homes.

The Design and Access Statement (Planit-IE, 2013) reports that the Landscape Character Assessment defined areas of the site by Landscape Quality and Landscape Value. With the exception of Brown Hare, the site was found to be of limited ecological value with only common species. On this basis, great opportunity for enhancement of site ecology was seen by the Harrow, suggesting they would achieve ‘net increase in ecological value’ (see Figure 24).

151

Figure 24 Opportunities and Constrains for Ecology in Woodford Aerodrome Redevelopment Taken from Design and Access Statement, Planit-ie 2013 p29 While biodiversity narratives of ‘ecology’ do encourage recognition of the supportive, regulatory, and provisioning aspects of biodiversity – this is underpinned by a narrative of preservation, presenting nature as vulnerable. Furthermore, it frames and reframes ecology as a-human. Human ecology is not a component of this environmental interpretation. For this reason, ‘ecological enhancement’ can be made whilst wider development impacts are not considered.

Figure 25: Photograph of Woodford Aerodrome Taken by Author, looking between the two MEDS from North West of site.

152

5.3.2 The Politics of ‘Garden Village’

Beyond adhering to the concept of openness, using the label of a ‘garden village’ for the site was seen by Stockport MBC to support or merit support from central government, while also winning over higher level councillors locally:

‘It might have been statements in the national press at the time when the government was looking round, and thought this was a positive way to look at [large residential] development sites’ (WF1)

In contrast, when WF3 was asked about why they felt the concept had emerged to deliver ‘sustainable’ residential development, they felt the use of this term was simply a badge, which policymakers had likely given little real thought to:

‘it’s a term isn’t it that kind of err MP’s and whatnot get hooked onto, and that’s not it, what does it really mean, what does it need to be, what does it need to do.’ (WF3)

Reference to the concept in the NPPF leaves ample scope for local interpretation, and there is nothing in the new planning guidance pages on design or functionality of greenspace in ‘garden village’ developments. Similarly no reference is made to whether this principle is necessarily suited to development in the greenbelt; the association between openness and Garden Villages is made only by local actors.

While WF1 suggested that the idea came from the developer, WF3 suggested that, in their engagement with the planning department, they had been acting as the advocate for the concept and how it would be designed:

“‘it wasn’t a battle but it was almost like everyone came in with their own preconceived idea of what a garden village was…are we doing a really faithful reproduction of a Letchworth Garden City or Port Sunlight or something? You throw lots of pictures on the wall...and then the artist starts… and we’re all going, ‘kind of’.. We weren’t going to provide Port Sunlight in Woodford, but we were going to do something that recreated that feeling, and part of that was down to the greenspace” (WF3)

Here, in line with the tendencies of developers in Chapter 4 for greenspace, its allocation within the Garden Village is for a ‘feeling’ – a cultural function. The use of an artist to generate debate around what the garden village should be, shapes understandings towards form and away from function in regards to greenspace. The lack of prescriptive standards to instruct otherwise also

153

allows the focus on only cultural functionality. Explaining this departure from Garden Cities ideology – to ‘Garden Village ideology’ – WF3 explained:

“The problem with Garden Cities is that it was driven by a desire to create a sort of social community for the workers in that area, but that community and that social aspiration doesn’t sit very well with modern development because you don’t have communal growing areas; you don’t have allotments in back gardens anymore; you don’t have houses with gardens backing on to greenspace… so you kind of think crikey that the actual basis, the fundamental basis of what they wanted isn’t what they want’’ (WF4)

This unwillingness to create change suggests an inherent conservatism shared by the designers as well as the developers. Exploration of why allotments are not present – whether they would be useful, and what merits they could have now – are simply not considered. The manner in which ‘21st century requirements’ were decided, was described as the outcome of who was ‘in the room’ in early meetings between key stakeholders, notably not the community:

“It’s about the people who are in the room because they are the ones that you have to bring along, the council officer that’s going to be the case officer for the development” (WF3)

As has been shown throughout the chapter, the work of WF3 was influential in defining first the scale of development, and subsequently also the interpretation of ‘21st century’ requirements of Garden Villages. While WF3 was a consultant to the local authority, and developer, their language tended to suggest that the council needed convincing of an agenda, rather than the developer.

5.4 Responsibilities for SD Outcomes

The power of different actors in defining fuzzy regulatory concepts – such as ‘garden city’ and ‘openness’ – has been described above. However, constraints to more genuine conformity with the original principles of Garden Cities are to be discussed in response to research question 6, which asks about the role of planning in determining outcomes. Section 5.4 considers the capacity for more specific and regulatory policy associations between new residents and ecosystem services, by looking at the politics of scale and coordination. This identifies the growing demand for and potential of imported, non-state-market-driven-standards. This case was chosen as it enabled consideration of the neighbourhood planning aspect of the Localism agenda, due to the development of a Neighbourhood Forum.

154

5.4.1 Neighbourhood Planning

WF5 explained that Woodford Community Council had been seeking approval as a neighbourhood forum to oversee the whole parish of Woodford. According to WF5, in their application for Neighbourhood Forum status, they included a report by John Barratt, a Woodford resident and environment and planning barrister from 40 Kings Street Chambers, Manchester, which explained why this proposal was legally credible. Apparently, three councillors and the MP had written to members of the council supporting their request for the Parish to be the intended territory for the Neighbourhood Forum.

However, WF5 suggested they were ‘lent’ on by the developer, who threatened to take them to a costly judicial review if they agreed to define the boundaries around the Parish. The community lawyer looked at the letter sent by Redrow to the council, and said it was an empty frightener, but that the councillors ‘weren’t very well advised’ and ‘rolled over to it’ in fear of a judicial review costing ‘fifty, sixty grand worth of legal bills, and basically they would sooner fight us than fight the developer…’. In turn, while the community had been told there was 100% backing for the project when they went to the meeting, a ‘180 degree turn’. One member of the council told them ‘ don't know what happened in that meeting but we were instructed as a department to back up the new political view on this subject’ (WF5). With this, the whole airfield was out.

This account was not verified by the council. WF6 went on to explain that Woodford holds the balance of power in the borough between Liberal Democrat and Labour outcomes. He suggested that if Labour get in and ‘get their hands on Woodford’ they have explicitly suggested they would have a large housing estate of several thousand on the site, and that they could ‘dictate what happens on the site, tell the officers we want this, we want that’. This suggests that WF5 sees planning as a functionary of state power rather than a principled profession.

Despite not being granted territorial power over the space which motivated the group to form a Neighbourhood Forum, two members were asked to explain what their intentions would have been for the site. Visions for the site varied significantly. WF5 recounted how in a personal meeting with Jenny Daly, lead negotiator for Harrow, they had suggested that the site’s heritage should be honoured by doing something a bit different:

“Charge people a million quid an acre, let people build what they want within reason as long as it meets housing regs, put a lake in, do something really a bit creative. But no, little boxes is what they are used to and prefer.” (WF5)

155

Noting that Alderley Edge, an extremely up-market housing area, was “just up the road”, and wanting to retain the history of the site, he suggested each property could have a hangar for micro-aircraft, with access to the runway. When asked how he thought this met sustainability credentials, he replied:

“sustainability to me seems like a word that the council and developers put in to legitimise whatever it is they want to do, you know, if they use it enough times then everything will be OK”

In contrast, WF6 when asked how she would like to see the site developed suggested that the first consideration had to be scale of development; determined by what could be mitigated onsite and the agricultural and ecological value of the land should take priority. WF6’s understanding of mitigation holistic lifecycle-based accounting, ‘carbon neutrality’, with recycled building materials; onsite energy production through a combination of photovoltaics on the current runways and rooftops; ground source heat pumps; wind turbines, as the site is open and exposed to wind; community heat and power schemes; combustion of household waste and locally sourced farm waste. WF6 also suggested an assessment of housing needs based on local demographics, social mobility and employment opportunities should be considered.

To offset development processes, she suggested the retrofitting of buildings in the old village with carbon reduction measures via energy production and energy efficiency appliances and insulation. She also supported onsite carbon offsetting through tree planting by roads to capture traffic pollutants, with birch as the recommended species. Onsite and offsite biodiversity offsetting may include woodland creation, ponds, wildflower meadows, and scrubland. Other roles attributed to greenspace included flood prevention and mitigation. She considered the ‘primary’ role of onsite greenspace to be mitigation but suggested onsite greenspace may also be used for:

a) Community food production, e.g. orchards, fruit and vegetable gardens.

b) Allotments for private householder food production.

c) Woodland walks and cycle trails

d) Environmental and outdoor education centre.

e) Tranquil greenspaces.

These proposals differ from those of the council and developer, mainly on the basis of their lifecycle approach. WF6 explained considered these steps necessary, because humans are part of nature – at risk of extinction like any other animal. WF6 suggested the challenges mankind face 156

are beyond the scope of planners, but that development plans exemplify the problem of political disengagement at ‘a small parochial scale’. Meeting housing demand results in loss of agricultural land, increased flood risk, removal of oxygenating plants and habitat networks which support our ecological system. WF6 suggested that fuss is created over the

‘parochial, NIMBY issues of traffic, schools, rural character, views e.t.c., because these are the issues that attract the attention of local planners and matter to other residents.. the nature of our electoral system predisposes borough councils and central government to focus on meeting short-term needs within budget constraints. Property developers are focused on maximising profit for their company. Nobody is paying much attention to the long-term effects of housing development on the environment and the long-term survival of the human race”

WF6’s very explicit recognition of humanity’s position within nature – and responsibility to protect it – both criticises current planning practices, and demands a strong state presence. While acknowledgement of the systemic constraints of 4 year term electoral cycles make WF6 cynical of the change she might effect within the Neighbourhood Forum – her choice to engage nonetheless illustrates how at least some members, albeit a small minority, of civil society who care, can and do take opportunities to coordinate and mobilise change. The reproducibility of a scenario, in which Deep Green thought leaders might inspire communities to demand and pursue more ecological development through instruments like Neighbourhood Forums, is discussed in Chapter 8.

The local community in this case is a-typical. Among the Community Council, helping the processes of challenging the council and developer, were: a lawyer; property management professionals; IT experts capable of identifying the digital history of documents; senior planners; other professionals with access to ordinance survey mapping; and trained ecologists. The group have benefited from these expertise and free labour.

5.4.2 Imagining Alternatives: The Role of Imported Standards As shown in 5.2, the rewrite of the SPD resulted in the removal of greenspace design prescriptions. Nonetheless, these typologies, locations, and distributions were used by Harrow in their design and access statement (Harrow, 2013), suggesting that the designs were developed by WF3 for Harrow, and then used by the council. This offered them a potentially free and robust policy argument which could bring renewed meaning to the concept of ‘openness’; and, in the absence of an allocations DPD, justify the scale of new development.

157

This angered the local community as ‘one of the lads’ (WF5), an IT expert, found that the documents ‘had been produced by the developer, then the council had ‘just stuck their logo on it’:

“That’s what got us very annoyed to start off with because it wasn’t even Stockport doing their own thing, it was the developer’s – and [the council] just put their label on it, and that got an awful lot of people’s backs up’’ (WF5)

While this would be standard procedure for a MEDS and design brief, in this instance, as the document was meant to be produced as a council headed document and regulatory instrument, the community felt a sense of democratic deficit, or that procedure had in some way been breached. However, the council, short on human and financial resources following austerity cuts (Fitzgerald, 2014) presented with the idea of a Garden Village, without any central government guidance on what this should look like – or most importantly, function – were heavily constrained in what they could do themselves.

WF1 asserted that sustainability had become necessarily interpreted in new ways in recent years, and that sustainable performance was perceived differently by different departments and individuals. For instance, some departments or individuals considered creation of jobs through housing development, combined with a Level 3 CfSH ranking as sufficient. WF1 and WF2 both emphasised the importance of different professional remits within the local authority, who are brought in on a case by case basis to deal with specific concerns. In relation to ‘environment’ and sustainability, WF1 explained that when proposals are made which touch on something of acknowledged environmental importance, such as an adverse impact on SSSIs, which could not be remedied by translocation or transmigration, those policies will have a high materiality in determining how that proposal proceeds.

Here again, the protection of biodiversity depends on EU protective legislation. WF1’s position reflects recent government consultation on biodiversity offsetting (DEFRA, 2013), a recommendation of the Ecosystem Markets Task Force. This both perpetuates reactionary and conservationist understandings of nature, and reduces their complexity to the presence of certain species which can be moved somewhere else. The principle of development is accepted on the basis of prevention of harm – i.e. reactive – not creation of associations between people and ecosystem services, i.e. proactive.

However, once the principle of development is accepted, ‘a whole range of environmental requirements begin to bite’ (WF2), which subject to the scale of development may include: wildlife corridors, private amenity space, public open space, land for active recreation, sport, children’s play, and sustainable urban drainage. All, with the exception of children’s play space, 158

were subject to scale on the basis of site parameter – not per head increase. Population increase is used to regulate for children’s play space which was considered a hallmark of ‘progressive’ open space strategy by Stockport MBC. WF2 explained that these standards have in the most part been adhered to since their establishment, due to strong support by individuals within the higher tiers of local government.

These standards were incorporated into policy, following a publication by the National Playing Fields Association, now Fields in Trust (2008) which set out standards. The presence of an externally certified set of ‘standards’ – namely regulatory apparatus which are quantitative, equivalent and consistent, rather than spatial, ‘fuzzy’ and subject to interpretation – was seen by WF2 as critical to the development of any ‘progressive’ practice in planning. This mirrors the findings of Chapter 4, which suggested a variety of non-state-market-driven regulation tolls were preferred by developers to illustrate ‘materiality’ of indicators. The absence of research which relates population to other ecosystem services was seen as a barrier.

However, quantifiability is not the only barrier, as when asked about the Access to Natural Greenspace Standards published by Natural England (2010), their delivery was challenged by existing land use:

“assessing our existing provision of open or greenspace against our population is something you can do, but then to require them, and retrofit them – even though that is another one that is assessed empirically… it has the potential to exist but it would be difficult… it hasn't resulted in empirical requirements” (WF2)

WF2 also stressed the need for ‘robust evidence’ to support demands for, or negotiations on, quantities of any given infrastructure. The significance of this in the context of current viability rhetoric is explored further in chapter 8, and below in 5.4.4. Local financial resources for a wholesale review of needs at the borough scale are currently absent given recent austerity measures. Beyond the lack of standards, existing land use patterns and institutional scales were considered a problem. Finally, who pays and how: would it be secured through taxation or organised through regulation? When asked whether expanding the scale of the project out from Stockport MBC to remedy some of these issues, WF2 suggested they would support this but noted that cherry picking issues is important to secure funding at the national and European level. While ‘it may not be so sexy’ to focus on small aspects such as street trees, their cumulative importance can significant. Pitching the right scale of project for availale funding is important (WF2).

As considered in Chapter 2.4, the AGMA Green Infrastructure approach suggested that ‘third generation’ strategies might consider the role of GI in a low carbon society which lives within 159

environmental limits, through using ecosystem services as a concept. This cannot be seen in the Woodford case. What might constrain GI from moving towards so called ‘third generation’ strategies – remaining stuck within economically motivated second generation approaches – is the meaning the term has already gained in development communities. The hidden subtexts of terms such as open space, and green infrastructure were described by WF3 as a ‘subtlety that not many people pick up on’. He suggested that:

‘When you say greenspace, it sets less alarm bells ringing… Green infrastructure is quite a good term because it’s got a purposefulness to it, it’s an indicator that you’re doing something for a reason, whereas when you say greenspace it’s just like ‘we don’t want that… something we can’t build on so it’s left over!’ As soon as you throw an engineering term in there, they think it’s got more importance than they would have originally thought when we said greenspace. (WF3)

This chimes with the conceptual arguments about GI. However, WF3 agreed that while there was better acceptance of birds-eye-view spatial allocation of GI, using this term had not resulted in developers being more accepting of design innovation throughout developments. The priority remains with form over function, let alone multi-functionality. In translation from negotiation to paper and then to practice, no debates around functionality are invited. This adds empirical texture to Wright’s (2011) suggestion that GI is an easily ‘corruptible concept’.

5.4.3 Preferences for Regulatory Prescription

Chapter 4 suggested that developers see themselves as producing a similar product, to a similar kind of house buyer across locations; following a kind of supermarket model. In line with this, the local authority felt that while developers recognise that open space, street trees, amenity space and landscaping help them to sell houses, they ‘obviously’ would not be so keen on prescriptive policies, which state they must achieve a standards, because developers prefer the flexibility to alter their strategy

“depending on who they’re pitching to… who their market is” (WF2)

WF3 for Woodford felt that more specificity – in a sense, more explicit regulation especially in regard to environmental design – was in fact preferred by developers:

“developers going into local planning applications are going ‘we want to be absolutely defendable on everything other than should the development be there or not’ for Greenfield sites because people don’t want things next to them, but there will always be a housing requirement within that area… Environmental, landscape, visual impact doesn’t 160

want to be on the agenda… the argument will purely come down to should we be building on that site, and if the council can agree to that, then the development will go through.” (WF5)

In this case, however, because of the intricate relationship between greenspace design prescriptions and scale of development, the community’s dissatisfaction lead to the rejection of a plan which prescribed in-depth greenspace design preferences. Noting that the developer took these design principles on anyway – they did so having exceeded the quantity of recommended development by 100 units – and potentially developed this design strategy in the first instance. . This prompts an alternative reading of WF3’s comments about accepting the principle of development; as the council had already at one point accepted the principle of 950 homes on this site.

While the council felt that developers prefer centralised prescription in order that they ‘know what they are going to be screwed for’ (WF11) and so “they prefer clarity… though, once they have allowed for it doesn’t mean they aren’t going to come back later and try and negotiate it away.” (WF2) WF2 went on to explain that it is down to the elected members to decide whether or not flexibility is shown. Further, WF2 suggested flexibility can be made if evidence using development appraisals and open books indicate it is not viable:

“and if they think they are bullshitting, because we have it reviewed by our own estates people, then no flexibility will be given, but then the government’s made it open season, and said go back to local authorities and renegotiate’”

This ‘open season’ was mentioned by WF1 and WF2 before the planning application for the site had gone in. The next section, discussing viability, further explores the consequences.

5.4.4 Viability

The Core Strategy requested 40% affordable housing, and placed special emphasis on the Woodford Redevelopment for the delivery of such – as ‘Bramhall is one of the borough's most expensive areas for housing but has seen one of the lowest levels of affordable housing delivery’ (Stockport MBC, 2011, p.141). However, Harrow commit to just 10% affordable housing in Phase 1, and 17% in Phase 2 in their planning application conditions letter (Nathaniel Lichfield, 2014). This commitment to only 153 of 960 homes on site is the equivalent of 15% onsite, significantly lower than the optimum of 40% and minimum of 25% demanded by the Core Strategy (Stockport MBC, 2011, p.65). However, the conditions letter also suggests that a cash equivalent of 10% affordable housing on site will be given to the council:

161

‘To make an Affordable Housing Contribution of [£****] equivalent to the provision of 10% affordable housing provision on the site’ (Nathaniel Lichfield, 2014, p.4)

The SPD does state that if it can be demonstrated to be ‘the most effective means of creating a balanced, sustainable community’ (Stockport MBC, 2013, p.14) the Council may consider the payment of commuted sums for off-site provision of affordable housing. The SPD suggests that the target of 40% affordable housing will take account of viability, but that this price should be reflected in the cost of the land. As no details of land transactions between Redrow and Avro have been or will necessarily be published, this decision cannot be subject to public scrutiny. This noted, it is possible that the vision for ‘aspirational’ housing – arguably coming from the developer, but with language adopted also by the council – conflicts with the mixed or ‘pepper-potted’ approach of sustainable communities.

Harrow question Stockport MBC’s affordable housing policy in their Affordable Housing Statement, produced by Nathaniel Lichfield (2014), which suggests that existing affordable housing policies are not robust. The document dismisses existing evidence bases, suggesting information is out of date, or irrelevant in the context of Coalition welfare reforms. It also notes that over the last five years, completions have been significantly below targets (p.9) – suggesting averages should be based upon these achievements, closer to 30%. The report concludes:

the proposed provision of 25% affordable housing is appropriate for this site in the circumstances, the majority of which can be provided as smaller one and two bedroom homes, and as Intermediate housing (75%) and as rented accommodation (25%). The application proposes that 60% of the total affordable housing provision be made on site and the 40% be made off-site. The provision of an element of private rented housing is also identified as being extremely beneficial in assisting with creating a SD. (Nathaniel Lichfield, 2014, p.1)

This statement hides the fact that affordable housing, as a proportion of the total, is actually only 15% onsite. The emphasis on the capacity of a subsidised, private rented sector is returned to repeatedly, suggesting that the Housing Market Needs Assessment (DCA, 2011):

‘fails to reflect that a proportion of households are likely to choose to spend in excess of 25% of their income where this enables them to live in private sector accommodation, and that a further proportion will be housed adequately in private rented housing subsidised by Housing Benefit’ (Nathaniel Lichfield, 2014 p12).

162

The implications of this for affordable housing are concerning, and beyond the scope of this thesis. However, it raises several important points for discussion regarding greenspace delivery. Firstly, as identified in Chapter 2, housing the poor has long been a central preoccupation of planners. With their ability to secure this outcome threatened by developers drawing on central government rhetoric and reform packages which support neoliberal ideologies of private property ownership, local authority power is weakened. Secondly, this move to the right in housing delivery may also underpin earlier objections to collective greenspace: orchards, allotments and so on.

While the Affordable Housing Statement by Nathaniel Lichfield does draw on a number of more ‘structural’ factors – e.g. planning policy reforms, central government rhetoric, welfare reform – to support their position, issues arising from individual personalities were also raised in regard to Harrow’s representative in negotiations:

‘she is very formidable, Jennie Daly…an Irish lady who fills you full of sunshine talking to you, but as someone once said to me, while she does that she parks her tanks on your lawn and gives you a kick in the goolies if you know what I mean!’ (WF5)

This noted, WF1 and WF2 explained that the drive for SD had been directly impacted by the economic climate, suggesting that now economic, social and environment were seen as different ‘types’ of SD – as though a development can achieve well in a given domain – and be ‘classed’ as sustainable for these achievements. The consequences are returned to in Chapter 8.

5.4.5 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

Chapter 4 reported that Redrow (2013) published their first sustainability report. The key points were:

 Redrow seek to monetise biodiversity inclusion setting an ‘aspiration’ to develop a ‘value comparator for biodiversity’ which can assess the degree of uplift which could be created through investment in biodiversity features.  Redrow set an ‘aspiration’ to develop policies to encourage local food production.  Redrow suggest that 69% of their developments incorporated SUDS in 2012-2013, and that soft options were preferred, as they found it improves the environment for customers, adding value to homes. Redrow’s ethic of environment is explicitly commercial: they seek to innovate in monetising environmental outcomes. The Woodford Design and Access Statement does suggest that parts of the greenbelt will become ‘reclaimed agricultural land’. While the developer refused to be fully

163

interviewed, a phone call after the application was made (02/09/2014) revealed that there are no plans to link this with existing communities. A licence for the land to become agricultural will be acquired by Harrow, and it will be ‘handed over to an agricultural operator’. Thus despite the great opportunity or potential on this site, no active mechanisms are in place to link this production to local communities. Similarly, as it will not be community managed, it will not deliver educational services. This might be seen to contradict Redrow’s apparent intentions to develop customer guidance on sustainable living, and encourage healthy lifestyles through design.

They report on the success of community engagement through a number of events each year – but as this is not associated with number of planning applications, their suggestion that this is ‘increased engagement’ is somewhat meaningless. Their approach to community consultation is perhaps better summed up in the following quote from WF5 who met with Jennie Daly:

“I said, you know, are you going to do anything for old Woodford, and she said well, it all depends how hard a ride we get. She said you’ll have to knock a few noughts off to start with, and I said, well twenty grand isn’t going to get us far, you want it all ways, you’re going to make an absolute fortune out of us and you’re doing nothing for the community and you’re going to cause misery here for the next 15 years. And she said, well, I don’t have to, we’re here to make a profit for our shareholders”

Pre-application, the Local Authority expected the developer to put community orchards in the application as a ‘sweetener’ for the community, to appease objections:

“the developer knows when it is the right time to offer things, even though there is no requirement for them, and that’s what’s happening here.” (WF1)

However, there are no details of this in the planning application. This may be due to a lack of enthusiasm in community consultation. As WF6 suggested, neighbour concerns were focused on roads and hard infrastructures. When asked whether orchards or community food growing features would be desirable, WF5 suggested they would not, as the existing community, who benefit from big gardens, can grow food at home if they want to. In 2011 the council responded to a freedom of information request from a member of the public (WhatDoTheyKnow, 2014) in which the Council explained that there were 56 people on the 8 waiting lists they monitor for allotments in the borough, and that all of these lists were closed to further applications at that time.

164

5.5 Conclusions

There are several important findings in this case which raise questions for chapter 8. Firstly, there are the implications of what might be termed ‘fuzzy’ regulation for local processes of policymaking. In this case, fuzzy regulatory terms coming from the national level (NPPF) included ‘openness’ relating to the greenbelt, ‘Garden Cities’ as a mechanism for new volume housebuilding projects, and the meaning of SD under presumptions for growth. With local government austerity regimes, resource capacities of the local authority are low, and in turn this may reduce their capacity to be innovative and conduct independent research; leaving a vacuum to be filled by the voice of house-builders, or their handmaidens.

Threatened by centralisation of planning powers, and immutability of land use designations may be responsible for absences in creativity and disempowerment of local authority actors. Such feelings of disempowerment align with previous research on the New Localism, whereby the central state struggles to retain authority through the application of judicial review when implementing ‘new localism’ (Beeri and Yuval 2013). What this means for institutional progress in processes of state rescaling towards Fair Shares approaches is discussed in Chapter 8.

Barriers to more regulatory, or prescriptive associations, between new residents and the ecosystem services they are dependent upon include: a lack of NSMD standards, considered to be the most viable policy option by the council; scales of (governmental) institutional collaboration. Beyond this are the far more immediate issues of civil society participation, which may also be termed ‘market interest’; and existing land ownership and land use patterns.

The influence of statutory designations such as ‘previously developed’ or ‘brownfield’ versus ‘greenfield’ or ‘greenbelt’ are shown in this case to encourage an a-temporal, depoliticised understanding of the complexity of land. Rather than land being recognised as a potential location for ecosystem service delivery within a SD framework, contestations over the increase in developable area beyond the MEDs were, in this case, emotionally premised on access to welfare goods and procedurally based on reclassification of land; namely greenbelt, a category which becomes defined primarily for its permeability. While there was a voice within the Neighbourhood Forum advocating a self-reliant or Fair Shares ideological leaning in interview, this individual nonetheless felt that complaining about ‘parochial’ issues was necessary to mobilise peers and local government, otherwise her agenda would not be taken seriously or even heard at all.

165

166

6. An Eco-town Development: Rackheath

6.1 Introduction Having been formed as a ‘special case’ policy, Eco-Towns are the most environmentally aspirational SD planning policy moment to date. This chapter examines how sustainability was defined and redefined over the course of the project as changes in national policy and distributions of power across state scales allowed different actors to gain legitimacy in defining sustainability. Different roles and responsibilities for greenspace at and beyond the site scale emerge throughout, representing conflicting scalar interpretations of nature in SD.

The main discussion points relating to conceptions of environment within the planning policy moment are: the competition between greenspace and technology once environmental objectives are defined; the contradictions of conservation; the limited relationship made between scale of development, and sustainability objectives, and factors affecting success of greenspace strategies which transgress the red line boundary. The main discussion points relating to how planning affects these outcomes are; the role of extra-judicial documents in influencing design and giving legitimacy to design proposals; and the influence of planning regime change on project progress as a result of increased uncertainty.

6.2 Site Development Context The Rackheath Eco-town development is situated five miles to the North East of Norwich, in East Anglia. Rackheath is connected by train line to Norwich, making it an attractive commuter location with trains to Liverpool Street taking just under two hours, with six services between 6.00am and 8.00am on weekdays (National Rail, 2014). In this context, Greater Norwich is highly attractive for growth, and the region is one of the fastest growing in the United Kingdom (Environment Agency website, 2014). It also has an untypically ‘green’ political composition locally. In 2008 local elections, the Greens gained the largest overall share of the vote (29 per cent) and became the second party on the council with 13 seats. In addition to this, the party holds two of Norfolk County Council seats (Birch, 2009).

However, the region faces significant environmental constraints. The Anglian region is the driest in the UK, with average annual rainfall approximately 71% of the long-term average for England (Anglian Water, 2014) it is 34% drier, 6% hotter, and 6% sunnier than England and Wales (EA website, 2014). As a result, it suffers a long history of drought, which is exacerbated by, and threatens the regions significant agricultural industry (Richter and Semenov, 2005) which takes the dominant land use (EA website, 2014). Despite this, 58% of the most productive agricultural

167

land in England and Wales is found in the region (EA, 2014). However, other significant greenspace assets of the region include the Norfolk Broads, with 7% of the regions cover designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (Environment Agency, 2011).

In the challenging environmental context of this location, as described in Chapter 3, allocation of new housing is a contentious issue. In turn, the legitimacy of development depends upon strong democratic accountability. However, there were problems around this in this case. Tensions over Rackheath were ramified by its place within a wider growth agenda in Norwich set out by the Greater Norwich Development Partnership (GNDP). GNDP is constituted by representatives of Broadland District Council, Norwich City Council, South Norfolk Council, Norfolk County Council, and the Broads Authority. However, the partnership also contains NEWANGLIA, a Local Enterprise Partnership, who been chosen by the Coalition Government to ‘lead the country on the development of the green economy, as the government’s Green Economy Pathfinder’ (NEWANGLIA, 2013).

GNDP produced the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) for the region, which makes first reference to the ‘Growth Triangle’ when first published in 2010. This is an area of 1865ha within which the Rackheath Eco-town development site, designated the year before in 2009 (PPS1 Supplement 1, DCLG 2009) is to be located. Alongside encompassing Rackheath, the growth triangle extends over 8 other parishes, intending to deliver 7,000 homes by 2026, and 10,000 homes overall, making up a third of all new housing development proposed in the plan.

Shortly after publication, the JCS was challenged by a letter to GNDP from members of a local lobbying organisation called Stop Norwich Urbanisation (SNUB) working in cooperation with the local division of the Council for Protection of Rural England: CPRE Norfolk, and four other local collectives. The challenge was made on the basis of reforms to the planning system, and the democratic deficit in the ‘strategic’ allocation of the triangle, and it’s housing targets. The letter suggested this was counter to the planning green paper for empowering local communities as it had adopted a;

‘…top-down Submission Strategy prepared by Broadland, Norwich, South Norfolk and Norfolk County Councils behind closed doors… …re-labelling north-east Norwich growth location for up to 10,000 new dwellings as a ‘Strategic Allocation’, to be followed up by a Supplementary Planning Document rather than an Area Action Plan, is intended to avoid the requirement for a public examination. (SNUB et al., 25 August 2010)

168

Figure 26: The Norwich Growth Triangle Sent in Personal Communication, RH1. SNUB accused GNDP of a lack of transparency which made following the audit trail difficult, undermining public confidence in the plans. At the high court hearing resulting from this challenge, accusations were also made that environmental assessment of a proposed road to support the 33,000 new homes was insufficient. In response, GNDP decided to produce an AAP for the area, rather than an SPD, increasing local engagement. This is still in production. The court order required the three co-adopters to produce a further sustainability appraisal to consider alternatives to the triangle. The first, completed by an independent consultant considered 18 alternatives. Having narrowed this down to three, which were subject to further sustainability appraisal by the council. None the less, the triangle was seen as a preferred option as

it would not be possible to fit [‘growth pressures’] within the existing urban area, even if you were to probably take up all the remaining greenspaces within it. (RH1)

The reason for this scale of growth is described by the Joint Core Strategy (GNDP, 2014, p7 para2.3) to be because;

169

- people are living longer, and more live alone, resulting in smaller households. This increases the need for more houses irrespective of any growth in population

- the area is attractive to people moving from other parts of the country, for economic reasons or lifestyle choices

- more people are in need of housing as not enough homes have been built in recent years

- These trends have an impact on the opportunities for local people to get on the housing ladder. Although house prices have fallen during the recession, the affordability of housing has not improved significantly. This puts mounting pressure on social housing and the housing waiting list.

Weighing in support of the Eco-town proposals, and requirement for growth on the basis of homelessness and affordability issues were Shelter (2008) who have been a strong voice in the recent housing crisis debate. In this context the inspectors report accepted the JCS with few recommended modifications: a request for clarification on the amount of development which could be permitted before the road needed to be constructed, and including the new model for policy – a presumption in favour of SD (Planning Inspectorate, 2013 p3).

As Rackheath was chosen as the site for an Eco-town under a very pro-brownfield New Labour administration, it is an arguably contentious choice. But also raises interesting questions about the meaning of land use classification, given its malleability over time. While some 70 years ago it was an airfield, it has been in active agricultural use since the end of the Second World War. Assertions regarding the value and importance of the land as productive agricultural space vary, with RH1 suggesting the area is ‘mainly low quality agricultural land’, and members of the public in consultation responses to the Joint Core Strategy and AAP suggesting the land should not be redeveloped, due to its agricultural importance (SNUB, 2010). Several consultants interviewed chose to refer to the site only as a former airfield, without ever referring to its agricultural functions.

The site of 926ha was in one ownership, a farmer who recognised the opportunity for development (RH3). Master planning work was done for the site long before its designation within the Eco-towns scheme, as the landowner had originally planned to develop himself. He hired an agent for the site who was formerly a quantity surveyor, seen by RH4 to have ‘a bit of philosophy under his belt as to the right thing to do, green development’ meaning sustainability aspirations for the site were above average from the outset. Barratt Homes became involved after the initial application was made to government for the site. RH4 speculated this may have been

170

the result of a lack of start-up investment finance on the part of the landowner, and recognition of the scale of the scheme at this point.

The number of new properties planned for the development vary across documents and interviewees from between 3000-5000. However, aspirations have been significantly downscaled now with consultants only designing for an ‘exemplar’ of 250-500 homes. One consultant suggested the choice to produce an exemplar first, rather than make an application for the full scheme as it was envisaged is due to 1) political acceptability, ‘without engaging the full frontal attack of planning consent for 3,500 houses’, 2) as a way to ‘benchmark’ or set the bar for remaining development and 3) uncertainty about market viability. Chapter 4 revealed that Barratt’s claim never to make a loss, just less profit- and that part of what they learnt from Hanham was the importance of location for saleability. Precautious investment therefore is in line with business practice and learned experience. Drip-feeding the market has been revealed by Adams, Leishman and Moore (2009) as a strategy to maximise sale prices by keeping supply low.

6.3 Competing Sustainability and the role of Greenspace

Rackheath’s designation as an Eco-town raised expectations for sustainability, and aspirations in design strategies. Despite the comparatively high level of prescription this created, there was still ample room for design innovation. In line with normative theories of Eco-towns, and the SPD (DCLG 2009) Rackheath was intended to respond to local environmental constraints. On this basis, environmental ‘challenges’ to be addressed were subject to interpretation. The three main tensions regarding the definition of sustainability in this case were; biodiversity protection, carbon, and water. These concerns were not priorities shaping decisions about whether to develop or not, or determinative of the scale of development. Therefore they were not taken as constraints to development, but pressures to be managed as best as possible as this chapter shows.

In comparison with Woodford, in which the most influential sources of design influence were previously existing garden villages, lending an aesthetic bias to the sustainability narrative, in this case a number of design principles sourced from a range of sustainability perspectives were used. RH4 alone referred to; Towards an Urban Renaissance, (inspiring themes around compaction) Inspire East’s 8 sectioned Beermat identikit for SD (which detailed ‘environmentally sensitive’ as providing places for people to live which are ‘considerate of the environment’) Dill Dunster and BedZed (beginning discussions of- though not influencing this project, perimeter food growing around zero carbon development).

171

6.3.1 Water: Provision vs Capture As detailed in 2.3, one of the criteria for Eco-towns, other than achieving zero carbon, was exemplariness in an aspect of environmental sustainability. Located in a region of frequent water shortage issues, ‘the idea of trying to find a development that would be water positive, or water neutral, is a big thing’ (RH4). However, the Sustainability Appraisal of the draft joint core strategy suggested that water resources ‘are not considered to be the major constraint on development within this area’ (URS, 2009 p22) suggesting that Anglian Water Services had stated that there are sufficient water resources to meet growth demands until 2031. This section will unpack this.

Water was considered an interesting focal point by one consultant, because it provides obvious links between people’s lives inside their homes, with their external environment. Though this interpretation recognises flows and patterns of consumption inside and outside the house, seeming to offer opportunities to open discussions around natural limits, in fact ambitions for water neutrality on this site are likely to promote increased population density, due to the necessary technological fix, as is now explained.

Water has not conventionally been as great a consideration as carbon, because the commodity is cheaper. However, in a context of limited supply relevant to East Anglia and the South East more generally, the relationship between new populations and a resource which is sourced at quasi- regional scales in the UK is made explicit and necessary. This problem instigated a changed perspective on natural scales by the council, who suggested that their interaction with Anglian Water and the Environment agency had influenced them;

“Anglian Water and the Environment agency would argue that the appropriate scale to consider (challenges) is actually a catchment area, or in terms of water supply, a water resource management zone. And the cumulative scale of development within that defined geographical area is what defines the nature of that challenge. So, perhaps why I am saying is it’s not just the scale of development, but in any particular area, it’s the cumulative impact of all development across an appropriate area, for whatever your key consideration is” (RH2)

Several interviewees suggested the greatest environmental challenge of development in this area was to ensure ongoing ‘headroom’ in water supply. The concept of ‘headroom’ is used in Anglian Water’s ‘Water Resources Management Plan’ (Anglian Water, 2010, 2014) to describe a buffer of 5% over projected ‘demand’ from increases in population- or ‘domestic customer base.’ Recognising that supply is already stressed in this area, they suggest (Anglian Water, 2010 p5, para 1.12);

172

‘that the population served will increase by up to 20% or some 80,000 people between 2010 and 2035… We plan to continue to promote water efficiency initiatives, but equally water savings are achieved through customer behaviour and effective regulation, particularly for the construction of new water efficient homes.’

Here, as the Sustainability Appraisal deferred to the water provider to determine the feasibility of development in the context of water shortage, the process of sustainability becomes one where the scale of potential growth, as defined by the development partnership, goes on to define the challenge, for the water company and local planners regulating new development projects. Anglian Water look at growth projections, and seek to find ways to meet them – motivating implementation of improved efficiency measures, rather than either optimising efficiency for the benefit of customers spontaneously, or seeking to discover optimum capacities, given current best technology, and benchmark development against this across all time.

There is notably less environmental precaution within the adopted strategy. There is no conversation around ‘natural limits’, however this may arise from the scale used to mobilise this discussion, which leans towards institutional, rather than ‘environmentally’ defined boundaries. Water resource management zones are an abstraction from the organic or ‘ecological’ notion of a catchment area, to the institutional scale or boundaries of a water management company’s jurisdiction. In this sense, water management zones are a perfect cyborg nature, or example of a hybrid of landscape, with features which have evolved over time without specific human crafting (river basins and lakes) and that of human hand (aquifers and reservoirs). In this sense they are ‘hybrid’ natures within ‘cyborg’ cities (Swyngedouw, 1996). In such a context, discussions of ‘natural’ limits become less appropriate, or more challenging.

Anglian Water suggest in their 2014 report that increasing population, and climate change both threaten water supply in the region. However, they note from a customer survey that customers ‘do not expect to experience severe restrictions on supplies and are willing to pay to avoid these’ (Anglian Water, 2014 p10). In order to avoid this, ‘leakage reduction’ and measures to reduce consumption, such as free fitting of water efficient devices, and instillation of smart household water meters. In turn, costs of the increased population are handed over to existing residents. Beyond this, the main river supplying Norwich, the Wensum has been chartered by the Environment Agency as requiring measures to restore sustainable abstraction (E.A. Website, 2014). This is to say, in order to preserve habitat and long term water supplies, less water must be extracted. In response to this, the 2014 report suggests a range of options have been considered, with the preferred option being a changed main intake point. Water will be extracted mainly from a refurbished downstream intake via a new 8km pipeline.

173

Hence, the response to environmental hazards of; climate change and population increase are technological or hard engineering at the water resource management zone scale. The role of engineered biotic nature on the other hand, is limited. While SUDS to mitigate flood risk are a requirement of the draft AAP, adopted JCS and beyond that, 2010 Water Management Act, the organic traits (permeability) actually inhibit achievement of ‘water neutrality/positivity’, requiring the designing in of hard capture and storage systems;

Rather than just letting water soak into the ground, and go back to the aquifers, you have to capture it and say I’ve got it now, and I’m taking it for the sake of argument per house, 1000liters out of the water mains per month, but I am actually recycling or recapturing, through rainwater harvesting, grey water recycling or whatever, I’m recapturing 12000 litres, which I then use for irrigation of our food growing areas or gardens or car washing, or if I have the purifying system I bring back the grey water for flushing toilets. Now that’s a different, technically more controlled system than simply saying we allow water not to run off but soak into the ground, that’s good- but it won’t be water neutral under the conditions I just provided (RH3)

By focusing on achieving a single environmental objective within the confines of the red line boundary, technology which steals from its immediate hinterlands is necessary. The implication of this is that, should water gain the same credence as carbon in sustainability regulation – perhaps one day becoming a similar ‘Zero X’ policy objective, preferred options for water management may return to hard options. In turn, the alleged insurgence of organic water management suggested by interviewees in chapter 5 could be short lived, particularly in dry regions.

RH4 speculated that the cost of making the project ‘water neutral’ may necessitate higher densities or massing than previously planned as capturing the water falling on every roof is more viable for a block of flats, than more conventional semi-dethatched housing. Given that the amount of water falling from the sky on a landmass is constant, and that it would be rainfall which would support the water neutrality, an increase in population and people consuming water on site, in order to achieve the difficult task of not extracting more water than is fed back to the water grid, does not seem logical.

The single-issue approach could mean the internalisation of one resource’s shortage justifying (how remains to be seen) local population increase, in turn increasing demand on other goods (such as food) in the area. At the same time, it was agricultural land that was used to home this increased demand. The choice to develop this agricultural land, comes despite DEFRA recognition of the sustainability problems of water footprints in imported food (Garnett, 2008) Hunt et al.,

174

(2005) and Morris Seymour and Spencer (2014) Of course, it is not the responsibility of planning policy or development actors to consider. However, it may be seen as a failure in ‘joined up governance’.

Just as international ecological relations are not considered in this decision, neither are regional offsite implications of taking water out of the system at this location. However it was noted that;

“Anglian water are probably leading everyone to realise that actually you can’t have a water neutral development on its own, it has to be a water table or water management strategy across a region” (RH5)

6.3.2 Carbon: Missed Opportunities and Desired Alternatives

6.3.2.1 Lowering Expectations Three interviewees felt that Rackheath’s greatest strength and potential for Eco-town development was the presence of an existing train line, encouraging people to use public transport and reducing carbon. The Eco-towns PPS detailed Zero Carbon, the highest rating of the Code for Sustainable Homes as a ‘requirement’ (DCLG, 2009). This demand was made, prior to applications being made and approved, despite the fact zero carbon was yet to be defined, or delivered in practice. However, Barratt were already in the process of instigating the first Code 6, formerly known as ‘Zero Carbon’ development at Hanham Hall, Bristol in 2009. Units have been on the market since 2012, with the price of a 4 bed mid-terrace at £314,995 in June 2014. While room related average prices could not be found, Rightmove calculates that on average terraced properties in Bristol were £205,044 in the preceding year.

However, according to SNUB and RH6, the development partnership – most notably Barratt, no longer intend to meet the zero carbon standard. RH6 explained that following ‘market’ changes, it was likely now that only 10% of the houses would be zero carbon and that the developer had been questioning whether code 4 was viable as ‘the norm’ when code 3 (building regulation compliance) is a very efficient house. Given that in two years the application would be necessarily zero carbon, should Zero Carbon go ahead, such hesitation is notable by Barratt given their involvement in the Zero Carbon Hub.

A shift in rhetoric can also be seen in recent policy documents which describe the project as the ‘Rackheath Low Carbon Community’, (Broadland District Council, 2012, GNDP, 2012). When RH1 was asked about this, they replied;

“I think too much could be read into it… I mean the reference was really about trying to, I mean I am speculating here slightly, but my understanding is the change in terminology

175

was really around defining it as an individual development rather than part, necessarily of some national agenda… and that it fitted within the wider spatial strategy, which we thought was appropriate for the area…” (RH1)

While Broadland and Norwich council interviewees suggested that ‘high standards’ are expected across the growth triangle, The JCS requires only 10% of energy to be from renewables onsite. This is in line with the national minimum, or Merton Rule. The draft AAP (Broadland District Council, 2012) consolidates this, while recognising the ‘potential’ for renewables in new urban quarters. This is the ‘wider spatial strategy’ referred to by RH1 above. Hence, here – as in Woodford, the hierarchical nature of policy making or plan ‘soundness’, whereby local standards fold under, rather than reach above requirements of broader strategies, lower capacity for site specific regulation. The subtle changes in Local Authority aspirations for sustainability were revealed by RH4;

“if you took the whole package of [forthcoming] policies and didn’t rank them … and said let’s just look at the words together it’s very difficult to fault. But, it was interesting to me that at the bottom of that list were those that dealt with water and energy targets, with the highest being ‘political buy in’ ‘community consultation’ ‘sensible masterplan’… that left me feeling not that they had forgotten, but that it was a psychological thing, people will always try to get the first things right, then say well, we’ve got 70% here… I do sense change” (RH4).

6.3.2.2 Carbon and Greenspace Three interviewees suggested the carbon savings relating to greenspace at Rackheath would result from residents not making car journeys to escape to the countryside. Spatial efficiency was therefore a narrative of the greenspace. When asked the relationship between scale of development and greenspace, interviewees did not link services with people, but design with buildings. Density, orientation and height; overlooking or supervision; access; and car parking provision ratios. Density and parking are taken as a predetermined values which determine the amount of land left over for greenspace. Different microclimates across the site which result from the buildings are deemed better or worse suited to greenspace. This shows the ‘built form first’ bias in master planning; with the buildings creating climates for the permitted greenspace – rather than greenspace creating climates for the people in the buildings. No references were made to the potential for woodland planting on the sites extensive greenspaces as a component of the zero carbon allowable solutions agenda. However, several interviewees suggested that this could be because Barratt were reluctant and resisting this commitment, and that an alternative approach to low carbon housing, Passivhaus, was being considered.

176

Passivhaus is a NSMD certification, also created by BRE which focuses on the thermal efficiency of buildings. It provides an alternative to the code for sustainable homes, focuses only on carbon efficiency, through fabric and orientation. Passivhaus has been given the following functional definition (BRE, Passivhaus 2014)

“A Passivhaus is a building, for which thermal comfort can be achieved solely by post-heating or post-cooling of the fresh air mass, which is required to achieve sufficient indoor air quality conditions – without the need for additional recirculation of air.”

Four interviewees expressed a preference for Passivhaus as the sustainability standard for housing, and felt that policy should swing in its direction given the focus on viability. The approach does propose integration with nature- but the focus is on aligning with the abiotic natural environment – the sun, to optimise passive solar gain. RH3 suggested that as Passihaus does not entail ecology assessment, it actually allows more creative space for ecologists than when the CfSH is used which limits creativity by encouraging compliance based behaviour to achieve ‘credits’ rather than do what is right for the scheme. The tension between securing biodiversity protection and allowing creativity is discussed further in chapter 8.

6.3.3 Relative Ecologies Concerns about growth at Rackheath became defined as the impact residents would have – as a result of their recreational activities – on the Norfolk Moors. As we have seen so far, the natural resource concern at the local scale for Rackheath is water. Carbon is identified as the second greatest sustainability concern, but this was not linked to population or per capita population increases as the focus on technology and transport limited carbon considerations to closed infrastructural systems, rather than whole lifecycle and lifestyle factors. RH2, when asked how greenspace should function in new development to accommodate and make sustainable local population increases, suggested greenspace:

“provides for mitigation against the impact of new population on particularly sensitive European sites. It provides for, the recreational needs of an increasing population. It provides – through connections the use of other landscape features – the ability to connect habitats, to provide biodiversity… and to link up different spaces as part of an overall transportation and movement network” (RH2)

The Habitats Assessment for the JCS had defined ‘the wider environmental impacts of development’ as the conservation of protected sites, advocating a green infrastructure network in new Development which would reduce recreational/visitor pressure on these spaces. Regulation, therefore, according with established conservation narratives for spaces outside o of

177

the development boundaries came to shape strategy for greenspace design inside the red line boundary of the development.

RH2, when asked to describe what he thought the functionality of greenspace should be in an Eco- town replied;

“I think greenspace is probably a difficult term to define… we look at it in terms of formal and informal. Formal is the set out play areas, sports pitches, those types of things. Informal open space is much wider definition, form natural, semi natural, but publically accessible space right through to parkland which while laid out doesn’t necessarily have sports facilities within it… I think a Green infrastructure network, certainly the way we’re looking at it, is, something which… seeks synergies between … fulfilling the needs for recreation, [and] providing connections between key areas of habitat….so, the outcomes meet both people’s needs for recreation and indeed the need from and ecological perspective, to sort of rectify some of the issues we are seeing with habitat fragmentation” (RH2)

RH1 and RH2 shared the perspective that greenspace creation should first be considered for its recreational function, and then opportunities taken to promote biodiversity. RH6 explained that developers were amenable to designing in greenspace with recreation functions, because of value recapture – and that biodiversity could further this when done well.

6.3.4 Higher Greenspace Ambitions Before the involvement of Barratt, RH5 made a presentation to Natural England, which had a series of objectives for inside and outside the red line boundary. Those outside the red line boundary were described as requiring for successful implementation a whole series of strategies into which wider groups would need to buy into. For this reason they deliberately engaged the council in discussing green infrastructure ‘aspirations’.

These plans were made in discussion with the landowner – the then developer – and Natural England as options for the area, should it be designated as an Eco-town. At this time, local fuel production (woodchip biomass) was also considered for a central energy centre, supplied by railway from Thetford, 38miles west of Rackheath. There were also discussions of setting up an online ordering system for produce from local farmers which could be collected on foot from a central point in the development. Such strategies would work towards the regional trading relationships desired inn self-reliant cities approaches, as outlined in Chapter 2.

Inside Red Line Boundary Outside

178

Pedestrian connections Pedestrian connections into Norwich Habitat creation Green Lane Cycle ways to areas of Connectivity employment Access for Recreation Rail Corridor Biodiversity Development to Water Management (drainage and reuse) National Park Green Building Strategies Aggregated policies to mitigate impact, Biodiversity Building Strategies habitat compensation for loss Access to Food Production Fuel Local Food Sourcing Figure 27: Greenspace ambitions within and outside the Ecotown Boundary Made by author, taken from Interview with RH5 However, RH5 suggested that these are now pretty much off the table, and that a change was ‘accepted as likely’ once a volume developer was on board, with the project becoming ‘much more commercial’. While collaborating NGO’s and environmental statutory bodies were willing to explore a range of greenspace ambitions which linked the site with it’s hinterlands, RH5 suggested that Barratt were hesitant to engage in these kind of designs, perhaps due to fear they would be unappealing to homebuyers but also to avoid responsibility over their coordination or failures. Even at the site scale, embedding an ethos of sustainable landscape had become challenging, with suggestions of allotments, hedgerows instead of fences, and fruity, flowering edible plants in public spaces met with the reaction; who is going to look after them, how is it going to be managed.

RH4 suggested that the local authority still feel that there were still aspirations for Rackheath to be ‘exemplary to a higher degree than the other developments… the challenge for the developer is to achieve it.’ However, RH7, involved in the project pre-Eco-town designation and still in contact with Barratt, suggested that he didn’t think there was necessarily a difference in ambitions for functionality of greenspace on the Rackheath site from that of another development Barratt had just put an application in for on the south side of Norwich for 850 houses.

6.3.5 Competing Schemes: Beyond Green Several interviewees suggested that another development in the Growth Triangle by a company called Beyond Green, had significantly influenced Barratt’s strategy at Rackheath. While it was not part of the research methodology to consider developments by smaller developers, the impact of this development on Barratt and its immediate comparability make its inclusion necessary.

6.3.5.1 Introduction Though Barratt are seen by some of the consultants and local planners to act with precaution at the site due to uncertainty of the market, faith in the market area and intentions of local people

179

to live in sustainable housing has been demonstrated by another, specialist developer Beyond Green. Beyond Green describe themselves as a team of strategists, policymakers, planners, economists, designers, and communications experts (Beyond Green, 2014). Their website very explicitly, and on multiple occasions refers directly to the limits of growth.

Beyond Green had an application for 3,520 homes within the Growth Triangle, forming an ‘sustainable urban extension’ (beyondgreen.co.uk) at Sprowton and Old Catton approved in September 2013. The site is on the very perimeter of existing development at the edge of Norwich. The project is going to be financed by Development Securities PLC, whom have 57.7% of their existing portfolio in the South East and London. Conditions for the Beyond Green scheme included provision of up to 33% affordable homes: 67.0% market; 28.05% social rented; 4.95% Intermediate (Housing Statement, Beyond Green 2012) creation of employment, retail and service space, school sites, community space, hotel space, and significant greenspace, including a major new public park, three recreation grounds, allotments and community gardens, making 40% of the site, not including gardens, public greenspace8. The development therefore fulfils the greenspace aspirations of the Eco-town SPD (CLG, 2009), though these policies were not directly applied to the project, suggesting that the expectation of high standards across the growth area suggested by RH1 was achievable through negotiation- or as a result of the markets own ambitions.

The application was made on 23rd October, 2012, while public consultation was still open on the inclusion of the concept of the growth triangle within the Joint Core Strategy. The cover letter – addressed to the planning officer by first name – suggests that it would never be their intention to rely on the ‘presumption in favour of SD’ to grantee approval, and justify the decision to apply before the JCS is formerly accepted, by noting that;

1) They feel the JCS is the ‘right’ strategy for Norwich, with a strong intellectual backing; 2) Their application provides more evidence to attest to the deliverability of the draft, by demonstrating how a large area of the Growth Triangle can, and would be developed should the application be approved. 3) Following all the input by district, county, town, and parish councillors, officers, technical stakeholders, local companies, interest groups and members of the public, it would be a shame for the project to be ‘put on the backburner’. ‘without any presumption whatsoever about how the application will be determined’ they think it important to keep people

8 SNUB allege that at Rackheath, while 40% may be greenspace this includes gardens, hence the public greenspace is significantly less (SNUB website, 2014). Where this information on masterplanning has been sourced is not listed.

180

engaged in conversation about how to hit the ground running with detailed design work, preparation of design codes, and so on. (Beyond Green, 2012) They go on to ‘wave’ the 13 week response period and ‘respectfully request’ that it not be put to committee for decision until the draft JCS policies have been re-examined and found sound. This approach contrasts with the ‘bulldozer’ presentation of Jenny Daly in Woodford. The JCS was finalised and published in January 2014, (GNDP, 2014) three months after the acceptance of the Beyond Green application.

6.3.5.2 Concepts of Sustainability In the Sustainability Statement, Beyond Green state their philosophy that human behaviour is profoundly influenced by our environment, quoting Churchill; ‘we shape our buildings, and afterwards they shape us’. They describe their mission as creation of places that make it ‘easy and attractive to live prosperously within environmental limits’ (Sustainability Statement, p2). Noting that they came to the development industry to promote sustainability, rather than visa versa, their ambitions are recognised to align with a far more demanding conception of SD than is embodied by the NPPF.

They go on to critique the buildings, not people understanding of sustainability inherent within the Code for sustainable homes, noting that while there is some acknowledgement of accessibility and placed-based factors, ‘the strategic challenge remains of people living otherwise unaltered environmentally impactful lifestyles in somewhat greener homes.’ (Ibid). Criticising the decarbonised ‘business as usual’ approach, they suggest that while economic and social development are part of sustainability, society and power holders in development processes cannot pretend that established patterns of growth and behaviour are conducive to or compatible with environmental protection.

6.3.5.3 Greenspace In an extensive Green Infrastructure statement, the strategy is divided into four branches; Play and Recreation, Ecology, Climate Change Adaptation, and Food. The introductory pages pitch that density achieves sustainable movement ideals (cycle-ability, walk-ability), and sociability, while leaving space to create more greenspace. It is also highlights early on that the finished project will have more trees than the site does currently in its agricultural use, with additional net gains in biodiversity and habitat.

Green roofs, green walls and green balconies are proposed, and there is a great emphasis on weaving the built form with the ‘abundant and where possible continuous green’ (Beyond Green, 2012 GI Statement, p6) and creation of micro spaces of greenery within microclimates in and

181

between buildings. Green roofs will be on 10% of roof space, which they highlight is equivalent to German standards- currently seen as leaders in the field of green roofs. The proposal also goes into great length to contextualise the site within the context of its surroundings, using the Greater Norwich Green Infrastructure Delivery Plan to contextualise the site within wider GI objectives.

Still, perhaps the most interesting aspect is food production, and role of the non-adopted policy, GNDP’s Infrastructural Needs Study, (GNDP, 2009). The study informed preparation of the JCS, and takes a new approach by proposing standards for a wider range of open space typologies than just recreation, while also recognising the multi-functionality of some open spaces. It proposes an overall figure of 6.39ha per 1,000 people. Methods set out in the document detail the necessary provision of 328.9ha of open space in the growth locations of Broadland to meet the needs of new populations. The open space needs assessment detailed that 0.16ha per 1000population was needed for Broadland, 0.44ha for Norwich, and 0.11ha for South Norfolk.

The GI Strategy, in a table on p18 suggests that the GNDP INS set a requirement of 0.16ha greenspace per 1,000 population, meaning for the development, 1.20ha would be required. However, the GI statement, (p18) suggests the development will deliver ‘at least 1.8ha, plus provision of 1.2ha for extension of existing Sprowston Allotments’ to account for uncertainty around the number of residents per dwelling, estimated at 2.38 by Braodland SPD and 2.13 in the GNDP INS.

Noting that agriculture is a strong part of the sites heritage, and regional distinctiveness, Beyond Green ‘aim to reflect’ the history of the site and put the development on the map as a hub of sustainable food farming by;

- Delivering a thriving food culture through an integrated system of production, processing, consumption, disposal and education; - Minimising loss of agricultural soil and land for food production; - Increasing local food production by individuals, community groups and small businesses (growers, cafe’s, restaurants); - Dramatically reducing household and commercial food waste by increasing the level of composting. This is to be achieved through edible landscapes- with fruit and nut trees across the development, allotments and community food growing areas, intensive agricultural areas and glasshouses. Local business networks to connect processing, distribution and consumption of food within Norfolk will also be set up.

182

Private spaces will be designed and planted for biodiversity and food production, and residents will be ‘educated’ on maintaining and using these appropriately. Beyond this, programmes of education on what, when and how to eat the produce will be available with demonstration plots’ to show residents how to grow seasonal vegetables in their gardens, roofs and balconies and more. Here, the developer – having noted buildings shape people – go one step further to achieve their aims for the development by building active educational, (ideological) apparatus in the management program.

Greenspace for climate change adaptation is recognised through cooling, mitigating urban heat island effect, and preventing flood risk. The SUDS network is proposed to deal with pollution risks from roads, including attenuation and treatment trains, be integrated with the public realm and other habitats, irrigate onsite greenspace, and potentially reduce the requirement for potable water within homes. Again, SUDS, not unlike food growing is seen to form part of the educational program ‘providing a route to a greater connection with and understanding of water as a finite resource’ (Green Infrastructure Statement, Beyond Green 2012 p53).

6.3.6 Conclusions

This section has considered the roles and responsibilities attributed to greenspace from this project. In contrast with the Woodford case, the accounted ‘environmental’ concerns are relatively more wide ranging. However, creation of greenspace was reported to be motivated principally because of the impact of development on an accepted out there nature, earmarked for recreation: The Norfolk Broads. In turn, greenspace priorities were not radical. However, this was notably a change which happened following the environment of Barratt. Before their involvement, in early application stages, Natural England had been working with local consultants on ideas for local wood energy and mechanisms to promote local food networks. The priorities of Barratt for commercial – or unique selling point – has lead them to focus on the idea of water neutrality for the site. To achieve this at the scale of the site, technological mechanisms become necessary. The next section will consider the responsibility of Broadland District Council and the developer respectively for this, given the expected increase in command and control capabilities.

183

6.5 Regulatory Strategy and Scale Van der Heijden (2010) insist that without a governing mechanism, eco-cities could slip into a ‘green finish’ on conventional planning with symbolic environmental change. In this context, he asks who should govern and through which instruments. This section will consider the responsibilities shown by the private sector and local authority in directing outcomes at Rackheath, using the Beyond Green development to draw comparisons and provide critique of market and state adoption of responsibility.

6.5.1 Beyond Compliance and Responsibility As detailed throughout this chapter, expectations for Rackheath by the Local Authority side of the Joint Venture, intend for the development to be exemplary; with recognisably higher environmental performance than other locations. This would be a success story for planning as both regulator (creating competitive policy cases) and developer. However, Barratt have been challenging the original plans for the site, with claims to viability.

Beyond Green’s successful application, which directly mocks the sustainability approach of mainstream policy, while meeting the Eco-town requirements for social housing and greenspace, is more than a potential source of competition for houses at Rackheath. As Beyond Green go further than just presenting their own sustainability interpretation as ethically motivated, but go so far as to imply a deception and failure in the mainstream political interpretations of sustainability, they directly challenge local government authority while mocking the volume developer such as Barratt. The management plan for the site, which adopts responsibility for ‘educational’ programs to change resident behaviour directly sidesteps the suggestion of developers in chapter 4, that the government need to change consumer preferences for sustainable living.

How the marketing strategy will proceed for the Beyond Green development, and how it will promote these educational projects will be interesting; as rather than removing all responsibility from residents as in ‘aspirational housing’, it places certain responsibilities with the buyer. RH4 felt that beyond developer conformity to ‘what is regarded as popular housing design’ buyers also have to:

“stick their head above the parapet and show they would buy something different… that tends to happen in metropolitan centres in high net worth locations where people go for difference, but I am told and research seems to show that people don’t like to be too different from their neighbour in middle England, so there is a place for prescription where for the good of everybody we need to move on from the present norm…” (RH4)

184

‘Middle England’ may refer to the aesthetic preferences of a particular housing sub-market, found in a variety of locations. Here RH4 implies that more prescriptive regulation is needed to prevent that sub-market limiting housing innovation. This is explored further in Chapter 8.

Beyond Green, despite their conscientious rhetoric, still report social deliverables of the project as the outcomes of planning negations and S106 (Beyond Green, 2014) presenting state involvement as necessary. Yet, while hard infrastructure, conventional public goods such as schools and roads are considered in these terms, soft infrastructure was less of a planning focus, as Beyond Green entered with such a clear and strong strategy.

In the case of Barratt, there is a much greater reliance on the creativity and advocacy of consultants in order to motivate and drive forward more creative greenspace outcomes. The complexity of the case, and its history, has meant that a number of consultants have been involved; each with significantly different degrees of professional or ethical motivation to advocate given environmental outcomes. RH4 have their own ISO:140001 environmental management strategy, which they ‘allow’ to affect the minutia of paper collection, while bearing in mind that;

“Actually, as designers the key impact we have on the environment is the impact we can have upon clients choices” (RH4)

To aid this, they have a ‘green question set’ for each client, to explore the philosophical and practical targets and see where necessary requirements can be aligned with more ambitious strategies. They commented that as a result of their commitment to environment in sustainability, they have lost some clients since the recession for ‘over-specifying’ project proposals which were in keeping with these clients’ ambitions and commitments before the recession. In direct contrast, RH6, a subsidiary of a larger company with various ISO commitments, including ISO140001, when asked if anything within the organisation drives them to ask the client to improve environmental standards in housing, replied;

“No not specifically to be completely honest with you. It’s more about what the client wants to do than, kind of, us pushing them in a certain direction” (RH6).

They conceded often this can involve advocating increased densities and changed planting regimes when the developer is going to take on maintenance, which is where serious cost implications arise. When RH6 was asked what they considered their responsibility to be for the sustainability of developments, he replied that his professional responsibility was to communicate requirements, not recommended advancements. When asked whether he was ever

185

asked to take into account coherence or overlap with client CSR, he replied that often developers known to have strategies do not divulge these to them;

“Corporate responsibility covers a multitude of sins really doesn’t it… some of the developers do have their own environmental strategies and ideas about environmental design and obviously they communicate that to a greater or lesser degree… I’ve been surprised that some of our larger clients don’t have a strategy, or don’t communicate them particularly well…“ (RH6)

This contrasts with the literature review, which suggested that larger firms would be more forthcoming about environmental strategy due to the apparent increased requirement for ‘legitimacy’ seeking behaviour (Lynch-wood and Williamson, 2010). However, the question of who this legitimacy is sought from is raised – when it isn’t their consultants, their allied urban professionals. It is notable that of all the consultants in this case, none referred to Barratt CSR policies for greenspace, despite the necessary high quantities on site. When asked, they had not heard of the 10 trees and shrubs KPI per house.

ENiMS, who would not be interviewed about the project, due to client confidentiality, offer two types of service to developers; the ‘environmental compliance’ service- which can be used before planning to achieve planning permission as effortlessly as possible, and after planning to enable developments to remain legally compliant. Secondly, is the ‘excellence’ service which enables developers to go ‘go beyond the requirements of the law [to]… significantly enhance their competitive credentials’ (ENiMS, 2014).

6.5.2 Community Aspirations? Van der Heijden (2010) asks whether public, or private actors should govern the development of an eco-city. Yet, the more environmentally radical academic conceptions of eco-cities, which move beyond redesigning cities interpretations of nature, tend to place increasing weight on strong democracy and local participation in design and management of the environment (Haughton, 1999). In the Growth Triangle, the Beyond Green and Rackheath cases provide an interesting comparison in the way local communities will engage with greenspace on site after completion.

RH4 suggested that Barratt, having previously tried to put bits of open space or landscape into schemes in ‘what we would typically regard as a desultory way’ had seen these spaces forsaken or vandalised – sometimes before development completion, affecting sales. This had motivated them to develop skills in establishing ‘community stewardship’. By giving responsibility to two groups – usually groups of residents – Barratt apparently felt there was a far higher chance that people would take pride in, and maintain greenspaces onsite. As a result of this awareness of the

186

potential role for community, Barratt were described by RH4 as ‘in many ways unreconstructed’, but in other ways quite enlightened.

The notion of community governance is detailed in the Eco-Towns PPS (DCLG, 2009 ET21 g) and a requirement for consideration of ongoing asset management, however, the establishment of a trust is not mentioned. A concern with management is a positive departure from the ‘plant and walk away’ culture which can characterise brownfield redevelopment (Doick et al., 2009) and is necessary, given the long since withdrawal of Government management of parks (Harding, 1999) and ongoing austerity urbanism (Tonkiss, 2013). RH3 suggested Barratt had worked with local politicians to create a ‘Community Trust’, which would take on stewardship of the sites greenspaces.

The development of a community group to manage the spaces is interesting, as it may create space for new debates about the functionality of greenspace which extend beyond the biodiversity, recreation paradigm. RH3 suggested the trust, in conjunction with a design team, had produced the ‘Rackheath Compass’, a guideline booklet detailing design aspirations for the site and its greenspaces.. While the Trust have a website (http://www.rackheathcommunitytrust.org/), and there are images of the front page of the Compass in online presentations by Barratt, the actual document cannot be found online.

In an Interreg IVC project report (2011) on SILCS - Strategies for Innovative Low Carbon Settlements –Rackheath community engagement is suggested to have been a model of participatory approaches in low carbon developments – showing that:

‘a mix of engagement practice(s) ha(ve) encouraged and found solutions to quite diverse objectives… the provision of affordable and energy efficient housing incorporate underlying principles of water neutrality, energy efficiency, social sustainability and behavioural change as primary objectives driving the projects forward making them successful… community engagement process ensured that…. the communities’ aspirations and were not simply eco window dressing’ (SILCS Report, 2011 p37)

Yet, how authentically ‘community lead’ the document is is questionable. In Rackheath Parish Council minutes from 2012 (Rackheath Parish Council, 2012 p2) the Rackheath Compass is described as setting out what is required for the exemplar by ‘a design team’; it does not suggest the community were present in creating this document or suggesting these designs explicitly. The minutes, which do not refer to a Trust, suggest that one member of the Parish Council and a member of the local community were invited by a consultant to attend a competition organised between five architects. The architects were given the compass, and asked to sketch designs

187

within 40 minutes for the two hundred exemplar scheme. After all the presentations, two members of the community, representatives of Broadland Council, and the developer rated them. These preferences were then ranked, and subsequently sent for viability analysis. In turn, the extent to which this process can be seen to empower communities is questionable. With just two community members involved in this process, neither given a role in design, and any outcomes subject to viability assessment, the sustainability preferences of the developer remain paramount.

RH4 felt that this had shaped and affected expectations regarding a number of environmental aspirations. The Compass makes reference to the ‘Greenspace Factor’ (Rackheath Trust, c. 2012). This was developed as a planning instrument in Sweden (See section 2.1.3), as an innovative way of calculating greenspace requirements for new development (Kruse, 2011 p2). This Non State Market Driven certification for the scheme does not demand any more functional expectations than are already present; however as it demands a coverage of 60% greenspace it was suggested by RH3 to have ‘upped the anti’ for the site.

The framing or reasoning for greenspace as presented in the Compass document remains within a philanthropic biodiversity frame; development will be ‘friendly’ to birds and the bees. Water neutrality, which is listed as one of the 8 compass points in the document, sells the idea with a photograph captioned ‘harvesting rainfall makes washing the car cheap and guilt free’ (Rackheath Compass, p6). The document is a glossy brochure, as much as a manifesto. It has clearly been produced at some expense, and the detail of some content demands a professional design team, bringing into question the balance between community input, and consultants paid for by Barratt in outcomes. Yet, according to RH5 even the 40% allocation is now being challenged by Barratt in negotiations on viability for the site. This suggests that if Barratt did have an influence over the Compass, they have since changed their expectations for development or were willing to fail to meet expectations.

6.4.3 Tensions Between Central and Local Government The return to prescribed form does change expectations of the state and leave planning at risk of similar critiques to those made of municipal modernist developments. However, there has been no consistent ‘state’ voice, with a consistent authority over the development and the blame game between central and local government obfuscates responsibility. The differences between New Labour and the Coalition have led to the scheme being used for political point scoring. Then Housing minister, Grant Shapps uses local disapproval of the scheme to further the rhetoric of localism;

188

I have made it absolutely, completely and utterly clear that the Eco-town cannot go ahead unless it had genuine local support... only the local authority can make that decision – having taken into account all the local opinion. Unlike the last government, we certainly won’t be forcing eco-towns on anyone. (Grant Shapps MP, cited by SNUB, 2014).

It was noted by RH2 that the focus on growth nationally meant these schemes would be supported to privately, if not publically, arguing this is why the PPG for Ecotowns was not dispended with the rest. As in Woodford, local communities draw on central government ministerial support to challenge the local authority, indicating ‘scale jumping’ in pursuit of power. RH2 felt that such actions were hypocritical, because the emerging garden cities agenda was in effect the Eco-Towns under a different name, and that Eco-towns were just garden cities from years gone by. While this does highlight that the government are willing to support large new towns under their own ideological title, it also shows that in the minds of local actors differences between forms of new town are not significant; the name is just a different vehicle for the same outcome, growth. RH3 on the other hand positioned the state as confused, rather than hypocritical, arguing that the coalition don’t know what they want, and are going for Garden Cities to badge it ‘their’ project.

The local authority felt very squeezed in their regulatory capacity as a result of central administrative changes which prioritise viability, localism and a presumption in favour of development at the same time. Suggesting that the viability bar was set ‘very high’ –implying it was beyond necessary or reasonable levels, they criticised that viability analysis was made ‘at all points of the market’, suggesting all developers were treated the same - despite their different models and approaches.

In the Rackheath venture agreement, (Broadland District Council, 2010) two conditions for the sites freehold purchase by the council are prescribed: planning consent, and viability analysis. In conventional, or ideal planning practice planning gain- the increase in land value when it has been awarded planning permission - is captured for the public interest by the council in securing hard cash, S106 agreements, percentage affordable housing, or other desirables (Whatmore and Boucher, 1993). In this case, with a single land owner and reduced land purchase complexities, this gain could have been significant. However, the high policy prescription for the scheme is now being challenged on the basis of viability by Barratt. The consequences of this are explored further in Chapter 8.

The agreement suggests that the estimated cost of the exemplar, which will develop 19acres to the north of the existing village of Rackheath, will be approximately £32million (2009 prices) and require gap funding to make the project ‘commercially viable and secure the 40% affordable housing’. The Program of Development has allocated £5.3million of the original overall grant from

189

the DCLG Growth Fund to the exemplar, detailed in the Joint Venture Agreement as £9.55million, and in the Exemplar Site Draft Brief (2010) as £10.2m. In turn, the state is covering around 16% of the build cost. What the remainder of the money will go towards, or what expectations would be for state expenditure to secure similar outcomes on the rest of the scheme when and should it be built out are not discussed.

The focus on viability can be seen to change the character of planning gain. As both Local Government and developer can profit from the development the character of ‘opposition’ by the local authority to planning gain is altered. While, as shown in Chapter 4 developers do not consider higher CfSH ratings to be recoverable at market value, a whole range of outcomes have been subject to renegotiation on the basis of viability for this site, despite finance being secured for the social housing, risk being taken on by the local authority in land buying. In this context local authority actors have not felt more empowered to secure the public interest than in other negotiations. While both RH1 and 2 felt that planning negotiations across cases were harder under the NPPF, RH2 suggested local taxation and redistribution powers would be needed to ‘improve’ environmental standards in development, and that solely regulation would never be enough.

6.6 Chapter Conclusions

Haughton Allmendinger and Oosterynk (2013 p231) suggest that the potential for Eco-towns to develop as radical spaces of state experimentation in sustainability was hindered by ‘routinised planning debates about legitimacy, practicability, accountability, and local acceptability’. However, the findings of this study suggest that in fact the greatest influence over outcomes was the viability discourse – a takeover of ‘commercial interests’. This involved a rescaling of greenspace priorities, from local food networks extending to Norwich’s hinterlands, back to the scale of the site. This was exacerbated by the intention for USP as the development was competing with other environmentally minded projects in the area. In turn, despite its poor coherence to the philosophy of working with nature, the agenda for one criteria of environmental excellent became water neutrality. While this is a noble endeavour, it is both necessary to legitimise growth in the area, and demanded – through its wilful ignorance of natural processes – technology in order to be achieved.

The ‘command and control’ power and influence over outcomes expected from local government was not realised. While the use of stimulating tools, such as subsidisation and shared risk in the form of a Joint Venture Agreement were used, Barratt – according to the consultants interviewed,

190

feel they have the space to compromise on original greenspace allocation percentages, carbon performance, and affordable housing commitment, even within a 200unit exemplar. This suggests that the narrative of viability is far more influential in shaping development outcomes than any other regulatory condition or parameter. This issue is developed in Chapter 8.

191

7. Urban Renaissance: The Green Quarter We have an unparalleled track record in creating new sustainable neighbourhoods (Green Quarter Developer Lend Lease, taken from Potato Wharf website, 2014)

Green Quarter is an excellent example of an innovative and SD. The vision….will contribute greatly to the Manchester economy and the environment we are looking to achieve in the city. (Howard Bernstein, CEO Manchester City Council, quoted by Brady, 2006)

A greenspace in the centre of this ‘quarter’ provides a neat planning alibi for the relentless, domineering elevations as profit is extracted from every other inch of the site. They are a design nightmare, a headache-inducing clash of tiny windows, ‘friendly’ curves and unrelieved mass (Hatherley, 2010 p140)

7.1 Introduction

Chapter two suggested that Urban Renaissance policy, which best aligns to planning as a set of principles and criteria policy approach, came from a ‘redesigning cities’ perspective. Conceptually, this approach seeks to control measure and manage nature in line with an anthropocentric value system, seeking to modify human behaviour through planning to some extent, drawing heavily on technology and democratic consultation to justify outcomes. This case questions the degree of conformity the Urban Renaissance took to these principles. Further, it seeks to understand the functional expectations of greenspace which may have been measured or managed, how this changed as different apartment blocks within the development sought approval over the course of central government policy change, and the role of planning in determining outcomes.

As is shown above opinions on the Green Quarter’s legitimacy vary, both in terms of sustainability, and as a product of planning process. This case study seeks to unpack the framing of environment within Lend Lease and MCC’s understanding of ‘sustainability’ and consider, where appropriate, how this affected greenspace delivery. Key points of discussion relating to conceptions of sustainability and greenspace in this chapter are: the significance of relative ‘state-of-nature’ baselines in shaping ambitions for environment; the impact of seeking an ‘aspirational’ demographic on greenspace design; the limiting of environmental aspirations for the site as a result of the greenspace contribution made. Key points of discussion relating to the role of planning policy moment are: the practices of planning as a form of discretionary regulation with

192

further lessons on the concept of ‘viability’ as a mediating principle; and the challenges for sustainability of a specifically post-industrial urban regeneration governance context.

7.1.1 Site Development Context

In the third quarter of the 20th century, as deindustrialisation ravaged the city’s economic prowess, Manchester’s industrial legacy fell into dereliction and decay. The city’s population fell by over 30% from 1961-1985 (Seo, 2002). This made rebranding the city to reclaim population and economic vitality a key political endeavour, mediated through a range of ‘cultural’ development visions, harnessing musical (Brown et al., 2000; Allen, 2007) gastronomic (Bell and Binnie, 2005) and creative industries (Montgomery, 2004; Berranger and Meldrum, 2000) in pursuit of a milieu of aspirational entrepreneurialism.

This ‘cultural upgrading’ (Seo, 2002) involved a rejection of negative images of the past, ‘to construct an image of a new postmodern, consumption-oriented city, attractive to inward investors, and with a good quality of life for executives, managers, and skilled workers’ (Ibid, p115). The role of the development industry and media in this were significant, with Tom Bloxham, CEO of regeneration company urban splash describing development in the city centre as seeking to attract a class of ‘decision makers’ (Dickson, 1998). Bell and Jayne (2004, p1) also highlight the kind of resident attracted to intentionally designed urban quarters:

‘urban villages or quarters seek to appeal to the consumption practices of the emerging nouveau riche of the professional, managerial and service classes. Promotion of conspicuous consumption - art, food, music, fashion, housing and entertainment - is at the fore in these urban 'shop windows'’

To attract and secure this new urban resident has demanded significant input in Manchester’s urban core, with the city going mass regeneration over the last twenty years. At the height of dereliction in the late 70’s, the city centre had both the greatest concentration of employed workforce, and the most concentrated poor and disadvantaged population of the Greater Manchester conurbation (Manchester and Salford Inner Area Study, Manchester DOE 1978). The city has now been transformed in many places, thought the means by which the transformation has occurred have been criticised by scholars of gentrification (e.g. Seo, 2002) as have the means by which the delivery of ‘urban renaissance’ occurred (Allmendinger, 2011) to justify growth in consumption in the urban core.

However, understandings of the environmental displacement, rather than social displacement caused by urban renaissance policies are less well researched, reflecting a trend in critiques of

193

New Labour’s planning to focus on policies as they were conceived, rather than delivered on the ground (Allmendinger, 2011). The Green Quarter, which went through a sequence of planning applications throughout the first half of New Labour’s administration, promises interesting and concrete examples of the realisation of these policies; which have been described as often contradictory and fuzzy (Ibid). In the context of a political ambition to obtain a high consumption demographic within the city which could support such cultural upgrading of the centre, the creation of environmental legitimacy within a sustainability context becomes increasingly pertinent.

A B

Figure 28 : Green Quarter Imaginaries: Pre and Post development A) Site ‘pre development’ as shown by developer. B) Artist Presentation of Development- note, this does not reflect reality, as there is no large green at this end of the site, all sides of the corridor park are enclosed by development. All taken from Brady, (2006)

7.1.2 Reflections on Scale

The ‘Green Quarter’ site is in total 3.19hectares, and located on the Northern Edge of the city centre, on land bounded by Lord Street, Cheetham Hill, Road Redbank, and the River Irk. The quarter is located a two minute walk from Victoria Train station, and a five minute walk from the ‘Northern Quarter’- a centre of afore-mentioned cultural and creative industries (Montgomery, 2004). Situated at the fringe of the city centre, just beyond the site lies Collyhurst, deemed the second most deprived lower super output area in England in 2007(Manchester City Council, 2010). In line with this, a whole belt of poverty around the fringe of the city has been targeted for regeneration. Manchester City Council’s strategy for City Fringe Housing is apartments within and on the inner relief road, with family housing outside of this. As the Green Quarter sits just outside of the inner relief road, several interviewees referred to the development as ‘extending the boundaries of the city’; including this space in whatever the logic of the urban core might be.

194

The site was originally acquired in 1999, by Crosby Homes, a Manchester based developer who had been bought by Berkeley in 1991, enabling them to make their transition to a ‘regeneration’ specialist’ from otherwise broadly greenfield housing developer (Brady, 2006). In 2005, they were sold to Lend Lease (Ibid) as Berkeley returned their operational focus to the South East. The site was acquired in 1999, with provisional planning consent for 413 units. In 2002 an outline application was accepted, with a masterplan accepted in April 2003, then another in June 2004. The first masterplan, created by local firm, Leach Rhodes Walker (LRW) Architects, was accepted for a mixed use development, with nursery, retail hotel and office space and a residential mix of 65% 2 bed, and 35% 1 bed units; totalling 1314 properties.

These increases are reflected in a pattern emerging from the planning application process: an application broadly in line with the masterplan is made for each block, followed by a supplementary brief application which seeks to increase density further, either with or without altering building elevation. Block 1, Melia House was accepted in November 2002, using units allocated to the site before the masterplan. Blocks 2 and 3 were granted permission in February 2004, with elevation changes accepted as amendments on 22nd December 2004; then a further addition of 10 apartments without amendments to the building envelope were accepted in May 2005. Block 4 was approved February 2005. The first application for Block 5 was approved in November 2006, for 158 residential units. A second application, made on 22 February 2007 (082191/FO/2007/N1) which had considered ‘further detailed design work’ sought then to include an additional floor, without an increase in height of the overall development, adding a further ten units (Drivers Jonas, 2007). The story for Block 6 is more interesting, and discussed in depth later. In line with the methodology, the project considers large scale residential development planning applications made after 2006. This chapter will therefore focus on the applications for Block 5 and 6, contextualised by discussion of the overall development and changes to masterplans.

195

Initial Master Plan Current Forecast ‘Percentage Improvement’

Units 423 1,360 329%

Square Feet 271,568 881,594 325%

Revenue 48 240 500%

Land Cost £6mil £8mil 35%

Build Expenditure £27mil £158mil 586%

Marketing £3mil £9mil 300% Expenditure

Total Costs £36mil £175mil 487%

Gross Margin £12mil £65mil 542%

- 80% of sales to Investors, varying from personal investors buying 1 to 2 units to professional investor buying larger portfolio

- 44% of sales from local market

- 88% of sales from United Kingdom

- 67% of sales to individuals in the 30-50 age range

Figure 29: Gross improvement in revenue, and sales statistics for Green Quarter. (Brady, 2005)

Figures shown in Figure 29 above are not final - although they indicate the rate of revenue increase, and scale of development increase, between 1999 and 2005 when these statistics were presented. The increased margins described are of course intentionally framed to sound

196

impressive; it should be remembered that the audience for this data was investors. However, it is notable that the evolution of the masterplan culminated in a total of 1551 apartments; 237 more than the initial masterplan, achieving a density of 486 dwellings per hectare (dph). This is over five times more dense than the 90dpw recommended for achieving a ‘sustainable urban form’ which is ‘animated by activity’ appropriate for economic vitality described in the Hulme design guide (Hulme Regeneration Ltd, 1994). Further, this is the density before similar application changes may or may not be made to block 7 and 10, which have not yet been built. While all interviewees talked of the development as complete, local media have speculated that Lend Lease will return to complete Block 7 once they have finished another development on the other side of the city centre, Potato Wharf (Burdett, 2014).

Yet, when GQ3 was asked how the scale of development was determined for the project, and how this related to environmental constraints or aspirations, he replied:

‘There was nothing altruistic about the design… the formula for the green quarter was about nothing other than a profit had to be delivered out of each unit… so as we went through the buildings, they got bigger and bigger because the construction costs were going up’ (GQ3)

As the scale of development is described by this consultant to have been based on nothing other than a profit margin, which he later described as ‘coming out of the sausage machine- whatever works for them’, the role of planning in securing public benefit becomes increasingly important. The next section will outline planning policies used in approval of the site.

7.1.2 Policies for Approval

Approval for Block 5 in 2007, and Block 6 in 2006, were given ‘in light of’ the same three policy documents: the unitary development plan, and regional policy documents RPG 13 (Regional Planning Guidance) and, at that time draft, Regional Spatial Strategy. The same policies, detailed now are referred to each time. The Regional Planning guidance policies referred to were DP1 and UR4, supporting brownfield reuse at 90% in Manchester and Salford . DP3 and SD1 advise development to be concentrated in the metropolitan ‘poles’ of the region, and that new developments should be of a high design standard which improves public realm and adds greenery (RPG13, p24). This concentration of green development in the city, which is referred to as an urban-ecosystem in the RPG (p25) was supported by traditional narratives of conservation of green belt, and other land valued for it’s agricultural, amenity, recreation or wildlife value. The development was seen as acceptable on the general principles of sustainability in the Draft

197

Regional Spatial Strategy, which focuses on environmental quality, reducing emissions and adapting to climate change.

The Unitary Development Plan policy E1 was also cited, again promoting the sites contribution to reduced air pollution (through promotion of sustainable transport) E3, which supports brownfield reclamation particularly on arterial roads, with landscape schemes designed to ‘minimise litter problems’ (E3.3) and create a network of ‘linear recreational open spaces which ‘achieve environmental improvement; protect the ‘natural environment’; improve water quality; improve access for pedestrians etc; enhance wildlife corridors’. Housing policies support provision of 1&2 and 6+ bed houses for sale or rent. Interestingly, policy H2.2 which suggests new schemes should not have an unacceptable impact on residential areas by considering a range of factors including scale and appearance. Finally, policy H2.7 suggests that public space should not be created unless there are enduring arrangements for its maintenance.

The rest of this chapter will refer back, where relevant, to these policies and unpack the contradictions in their delivery. The most pertinent and commonly repeated environmental objectives arising from these policies are: the reuse of brownfield land, and proximity to public transport. Fuzzier concepts, such as the creation of an ‘urban eco-system’ was left to the developers own priorities. As highlighted by Allmendinger (2011) the interpretation of such vague terms was to be carried out by local authorities with limited experience and data in the range of fields this might cover. The translation of these policy ideas into practice are now examined.

7.2 Sustainability and Greenspace

This section will seek to address research question 5, by exploring the relationship between sustainability ambitions, understandings of environment within this, and subsequent greenspace design and functionality onsite. This enables a discussion of the motivations for and functions expected of greenspace in redesigning cities strategies as seen in urban renaissance policy.

7.2.1 Greenspace Allocation

There are several, interweaving narratives about the reasoning behind ‘New Century Park’ – the greenspace at the centre of the Green Quarter – and its significant investment. This suggests strong and effective local authority negotiation with only market shaping policies. Though the park is heralded as the first in 50 years – with investment estimated at £7million by GQ3 – GQ4 highlighted the relativity of these statements. while it is the biggest urban park for 50years, this is because land in Manchester is ‘quite tight’; the greenspace allocated to the public is ‘more of a

198

corridor than a park’. The investment seems a lot, but ‘as there wasn’t much ground to cover, more could be afforded’. Most importantly, the developer recognised that they could get that money back through elevated prices for the apartments:

‘The developers got mostly into it thinking this is a very high end proposal and if you put awful landscaping or you don’t spend money on the landscape around it you’re going to devalue your buildings and you don’t get your return…’ (GQ4)

Consultants 2 and 3 also suggested that the development of the park first was part of a phased move, to secure investment in further development. In line with the notion that the park was marketed heavily pre-development and through construction in order to secure investment in future phases and the surrounding area, GQ4 and 3 recalled that a competition had been run to name it, which sought to create attention and hype. ‘New Century Park’ was chosen. .

7.2.2 Greenspace for a Desired Demographic?

In interview, the representative of the developer stressed the importance of ‘community’ engagement in the establishment of new residential developments; arguing that this applies no less in the inner city than the peri-urban. However, the creation of a ‘community’ and the park a community resource within that, was challenged by GQ4:

It’s a show park, that’s a good name, it’s not a community park, I think that’s what it fails… It’s not a community; no it’s not focussing on a community… it does have massive transient residential mix in it, that’s what’s probably part of that, no-body lives there, properly lives there. (GQ4)

The absence of a stable community is not necessarily an inevitable outcome of the tenure mix however with 80% of properties sold as investment properties to the private rented sector (Brady, 2006) at minimum those who wish to have families or buy their own property will need to move on. This marketing and sales strategy may shape greenspace design. Rentiers require the guarantee of lasting site appeal, without any commitment to maintenance. While the UDP (policy H2.7) did demand that new development should not create areas of open space unless there are proper and enduring arrangements for its management (Manchester City Council, 1995 p13) Lend Lease contracted Living City to maintain the landscape, as well as manage the refuse collection, cleaning and maintenance of common areas, as part of their ‘Global Minimum Requirements’, a component of their international asset management commitment, a component

199

of their CSR strategy. In turn, an overriding lease of all shared and public areas was granted to the management company (LRW, 2005).

Despite being within Cheetham, and therefore the administrative boundaries of the ‘city’, the development is presented as ‘extending the city of Manchester boundaries’ (LRW, 2007) in design briefs as though it’s high density massing make it part of the core. GQ3 suggested that the infrastructure intended to make the park a linking space – between the city and communities beyond – had largely failed. Although pedestrian pavements were in the scheme, building bridges over the river and canal ‘just weren’t done; the money wasn’t there to do it by the end’. He considered this to render the Green Quarter quite isolated, because it is on the outer edge of the city, which should be more of a ‘destination space’. Leading up to the water feature from Block 5 are a series of three, what appear to be small stages (see bottom right picture on following page). However, he explained that it wasn’t designed as a destination space, and was unsuitable for events;

“There couldn’t be a big open air show there. There’s not, it’s not flexible - the space, it’s very specific and I think it’s very much to do with people looking outside of their windows looking down on greenspace, and it improving the value of those rooms…Looking at a plan like that, you know 50% is greenspace, then when you start to break it down, it’s actually usable parks, probably 30% of that’s private, you can’t get access to it, the other remaining part of it is heavily shaded by buildings.” (GQ3)

The acceptance of these plans suggest either that the city council were not equipped with the appropriate range of in house specialists to critique and counter the proposals of the developers landscaping consultant. Alternatively, the poor dynamism of the space may have come out of the absence of public consultation on design of the park. Either way, the parks final design does not even optimise ‘social’ or recreational functions, which should be given significant attention for a space of this size in such a location. Instead, it’s reduction to aesthetics renders its functionality solely economic. Perhaps it was this absence of integration combined with the high elevation of the blocks themselves which led architectural critic Owen Hatherley (2010) to describe the development as a ‘wall’ on the frontier of gentrified Manchester.

Chapter 4 highlighted a move towards ‘aspirational living’ as a marketing strategy by developers since the recession, in a deliberate move away from the alternative, but un-marketable ‘sustainable communities’ paradigm. The Green Quarter, instigated before this period was still fighting to gain attention, firstly because it was working against stigma associated with the site

200

and location (Regeneration Manager) but also because of the competition with numerous other surrounding developments of a similar ilk.

201

Figure 30: Photographs of the Green Quarter Looking at images of the blocks as shown above in Figure 30, it is easy to ask whether the development contradicts policy H2.2 of the Unitary Development plan, a policy stated as material in the developments approval. The policy forbids development which has an ‘unacceptable impact on residential areas’ by considering a range of factors including scale and appearance. While the view from the train line of untamed greenspace softens their appearance with a majestic edge, from the rear of the development, on the other side of the ‘wall’ as Hatherley would put it, the blocks are entirely out of scale with the surrounding two storey buildings.

7.2.3 Compaction and Transport

As detailed above, the density of the scheme steadily increased – though, accepting increases in development density runs in line with the recommendations of the Urban Task Force (1999) detailed in Chapter 2. The council’s self-description was not as anti-car, but pro-public transport (While, Jonas and Gibbs, 2004). Yet, the problems this presented extend beyond car ownership in the Green Quarter, as the acceptance of increased development and parking ratios also

202

translated to changed greenspace outcomes. Aedas’s Design Statement for Block 6 (Part 3, p15, Aedas 2006) reports that parking is provided at a ratio of 1 per 2 bed apartment, demonstrating little to no encouragement towards public transport. As suggested by GQ3 and the developer, making space for cars beneath the buildings increased the attractiveness of the site by making room for green landscaping. However, some changes can be seen across different master plans, in dialogue with surface car parking and greenspace.

As mentioned in the introduction, blocks 7 and 10, as shown in the 2004 masterplan below, have not yet been built, with sales suite sporting a section of AstroTurf beneath ‘Green Quarter: Your Oasis in the City’ signs. Adjacent is a petrol station and row of shops. The 2004 masterplan also contained two narrow blocks: 8 and 9, planned to be just 7 and 4 storeys respectively, with Block 6 forming a three-sided quadrangle around a greenspace courtyard. This was altered in the 2005 application for Block 6, which was redrawn by Aedas (Aedas, 2005) rather than Leach Rhodes Walker. Aedas’s design brief for Block 6 suggested the original layout was not viable due to shadowing of windows and poor aspect of many of block 8 and 9 apartments – the separate ownership of the commercial part of the site had permitted insensitive design of those units and hampered these blocks.

Moreover, the space between block 8 and 9 was also too narrow, restricting access to the apartments. In turn, the revised masterplan, shown below, is suggested to address these issues, and create a ‘more generous’ central vista (Aedas, 2005).

203

Figure 315 2004 Masterplan for Green Quarter Taken from Aedas (2005) Design Brief for Block 6

Figure 32: 2005 Masterplan for Green Quarter Application for Block 6 (Planit, 2005)

204

Figure 33 : Astroturf outside the marketing suite for the Green QuarterTaken by Author.

Figure 34: Harvest Energy Petrol Station view of Green Quarter Block 4(Taken by Author) While these changes were made in the name of resident comfort and expanded public realm, at the same time significant changes were seen to the scale of development. The original masterplan had a total of 340 apartments between blocks 6, 8 and 9, and 161 car parking spaces. The subsequent masterplan made up for the loss of apartments in blocks 8 and 9 and then some, with

205

345 apartments, and 232 car parking spaces. This increase in car parking, from 47% of residential capacity, to 67% of residential capacity does not contradict the wording of policy E1 of the unitary development plan; suggesting that development should encouraging ‘high standards of energy efficiency in development’ by locating near public transport (p24). In previous research, the council have described their pro-public transport, anti-car ethos as based upon the assumption that car users in the city were mainly commuting in from leafy suburbs, and that it makes more sense to promote the alternative (public transport) than just deny a lifestyle choice (While Jonas and Gibbs, 2004). However, in this prime location for public transport immediately next to the station, in a development geared at ‘decision makers’, the choice to accept this increase in car ownership, unquestioningly, highlights the weakness of this approach.

To facilitate this increase in parking, two levels of above ground parking are provided, forming a plinth and raised courtyard between the buildings. Hence, what was once a ground level courtyard is exchanged for a private access raised courtyard with parking at ground level. This is described as providing a ‘secure landscaped environment for residents’ (Aedas, 2005p 17). However it is unavoidable that this alteration represents a shift from: ground level landscaping and public access, to potted plants for residents only.

7.2.4 Disconnect Between Built and Landscaped Form

Two, somewhat contrasting visions of the site can be seen between the landscape architects drawings, and those used by Aedas to illustrate the ‘visual impact’ of the development. Aedas show a treeless, green-free landscape with very boxy cars, in an illustrative style with an inescapably Corbusian resemblance: the city and development appear machine like. However, it is notable that these show views of the development from outside. In contrast, the landscape plans which show the development from within, suggest a calm and harmonious ‘family-orientated’ space; despite the fact that the development is not geared to families. Hence, the difference between the images also alludes to the different experience of the development for the new residents, and those on the periphery- who as discussed are excluded from the ‘within’ experience of the site. As the site contains no social housing, this separation is even more prominent.

In their section on Landscape in the Design Statement by Aedas, Planit suggest that the courtyard was designed:

to complement the building architecture the design was with defined, clean geometric patterns of predominantly lawn, clear access routes, seating areas and subtle feature lighting. Small defensible garden terraces are proposed to the courtyard level apartments

206

that will encourage further active use of the space without compromising shared views from inward looking apartments (Aedas, 2006 p4)

The idea that the greenspace was designed to cater for the buildings, for aesthetic clarity, rather than people within them or any broader ecological objective neatly captures the spirit of the scheme. In interview, the architect suggested that on most schemes, they work without a landscape architect, and design landscaped areas themselves. Both the landscape architect and architect admitted there was no shared sustainability agenda they worked on together to achieve; each acted separately to the effect that the relationship between built and landscaped form was solely aesthetic.

207

Figure 35: Artist Impressions of the Green Quarter A modernist revival. All taken from Aedas, 2005 (Supporting Design Statement for Block 6)

208

Figure 36: Landscape Plan for Block 5 of Green Quarter (Planit, 2005),Top left corner- overlaid photograph by Author of Green Trellis wall as it appears in life.

209

7.2.5 Relative Natures: Baselines for Environmental Assessment

People say green is now, sustainable is SUD’s, code, energy efficiency… where maybe green eight or nine years ago was green grass, water features in a nice part of the city where there was no green. (Developer)

Condition 18 of the planning approval letter for Block 5, and condition 22 of the planning approval letter for Block 6 request that prior to first occupation of the buildings, a minimum Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology (BREEAM) rating of "Good" need be achieved, ‘unless otherwise agreed in writing by the City Council as local planning authority’. At this time the Code for Sustainable Homes had not been produced, and the only BRE:EAM was a single general assessment. Here, the expansion of environmental policy under new labour came to challenge what had already been done on site. This section will discuss issues arising around this assessment, and the significance of the site’s condition on expectations and ability to perform in this respect.

7.2.5.1 Ecology

GQ5 reported that the ecological assessment completed as part of the EIA on the site for the initial planning proposal in 2003 was outdated when they were asked, around 2006/2007 following the development of blocks 1-4, to provide a BREEAM ecology assessment for Block 5 and 6.

“The majority of the development had been completed, they were asking us to score them ecological credits, although we hadn’t done the original surveys, or only had very vague information, which is incredibly common for developers…. there was nothing, no, real sort of up to date information… and part of it had been developed by then, so it was trying to piece together information… I suppose it’s just a case of sort of doing it to the best of your ability” (GQ5)

GQ5 went on to explain that there were some areas that they felt inclined to say yes, but didn’t necessarily have all preferred documents or evidence, they would score something. However as there was often no proof that damage had not been done, GQ5 put together a mitigation proposal, which could improve their overall scoring. However, this was met with reluctance from the developer and the landscape architect. She suggested that this is frequently an issue; landscape architects are clinical, like clean lines and a ‘sophisticated’ aesthetic which doesn’t work in line with biodiversity- which is what’s required for scoring well on BREEAM.

210

GQ5 suggested that due to the structure of planning, landscape architects are seen as an integral part of the design team, a significant tradition in urban projects. This aspect of process potentially forecloses ecologists, or makes them a secondary consideration, marginalised to design alterations, rather than included in comprehensive, integrated or holistic planning. Further, the apparatus which make them a necessary component of development processes

“do [ecology] a disservice. If a tree has a girth of over 10cm it is considered a tree, so it scores on the credit scale, but we all know that if you get an ash or a birch, pretty much any sapling of 10cm, it’s not valuable, not on its own, it doesn’t really do anything, so, we all really hate it, because of course it’s too easy to bypass it and not do anything” (GQ5)

The view that reducing the complexity of ecology to procedural tick box components is returned to in Chapter 8. While this suggests that biodiversity and conservation aims may not be optimised through BREEAM, Green Infrastructure North Wests endorse BRE:EAM methodologies as ‘success stories’ for flood management and climate adaptation (GINW, 2008 p302). Natural Economy North West also support the potential of BRE:EAM to encourage green roofs in Liverpool (NENW, 2009).

The site’s baseline condition was still seen to have lowered expectations of greenspace:

On greenbelt in a beautiful bit of Cheshire countryside, it’s very green…the Green Quarter is an old landfill site in the back of Manchester... a derelict site, everything’s a bonus, everything’s a plus, regardless of how little there might be of it, or how successful it is (GQ4)

This highlights the tensions in an urban redevelopment, or brownfield reuse, agenda. When considering only the material condition of the site within the red line boundary, a local environmental improvement can be argued for almost any reclamation of contaminated land, especially given recent research making links between morbidity, mortality and proximity to brownfield (Bambra et al., 2014) compounding decades of social stigma. While justified, this may heighten an already reactionary rather than strategic approach to the use of brownfield sites, which offer a rare opportunity to reconfigure the relationship between people and the rest of nature in the urban context.

7.2.5.2 Energy Beyond ecology concerns arising from the site’s baseline, the former condition of the site also affected the ‘viability’ of onsite energy production. The developer suggested that the main

211

environmental challenge he recalled for the site was achieving ‘energy credits’ for BREEAM EcoHomes. The supporting statement for Block 5 (Drivers Jonas, 2006) suggests that while the Guide To Development In Manchester (MCC, 2005) recognises the costs implications of its requirement for all new developments to achieve a post construction BREEAM EcoHomes rating of ‘very good’. Drivers Jonas (2006, p25) suggest that in this context, provision of onsite energy would not be ‘viable’ as at an early stage of development:

‘it was identified that there was insufficient capacity within the existing electrical infrastructure to service the development. After discussions with United Utilities it was identified that increased capacity could be provided by upgrading existing primary substations and to this extent, Crosby Homes Ltd committed to fund a substantial percentage of the capital contribution for the upgrade works’

Here, the site’s brownfield location and status –one of its key ‘sustainability’ credentials – contributed to necessary sourcing of energy from scales beyond the red line boundary. Beyond representing tensions between environmental objectives, this raises questions as to the accepted use of the term ‘green’ as a marketing strategy for a development when environmental performance of the buildings is in no way exemplary, and the greenspace which is present is not intended to achieve any changes to consumption practices, or encourage engagement between residents. The developer suggested that ‘green’ at this time referred simply to the creation of an ‘oasis’, offering tranquillity to residents. Consultant three said he had suggested combined heat and power for the scheme, however he felt that ‘institutions’ (his term) resisted such changes, being:

“very old fashioned, they don’t like anything new so changing the perceptions of institutions, they’ll talk about it but get a surveyor around a building that’s got green technology and they don’t like it. We have numerous discussions about bio-mass on projects and it always gets discarded at first base because they’re all saying well what about security of fuel supply and so on. We’ve got an issue of security of gas and oil and everything else, but because it’s a new technology!” (GQ5)

7.2.6. Conclusions This section has shown that the functional priority for greenspace was not related to changing the behaviour of urban residents in more environmental directions. Commitment to this idea was limited in relation to more obvious or accepted aspects such as parking provision. The functional priorities of greenspace were solely aesthetic, with recreation limited. The reluctance to engage in new technology, combined with the absence of any community consultation suggests that this

212

approach is more aligned with externally dependant than redesigning cities on the basis of its environmental performance.

7.3 Regulation and Governance While et al., (2004, p550) suggest in their analysis of other Northern City developments in the early noughties that in post-industrial cities, urban leaders have little choice but to ‘sell their souls to global capital’ at the expense of broader social and ecological goals. However, the rhetoric of SD – and more rigorous policies to support its practical implementation were developing over the course of sequential planning applications in this case. This section will offer reflections on how interpretations of materiality came to preference the developers interests, to understand how planning as a set of principles may compromise the delivery of alternative ecosystem services in urban projects.

7.3.1 Urban Growth Coalitions This case relied strongly on negotiation skills, as a subset of the Urban Entrepreneurial planning introduced in Chapter 2, to secure planning gain. The ‘Manchester model’ of regeneration cultivated in the 1990s, stemming originally from Hulme’s City Challenge, is characterised by:

A delivery body with an executive that has an avowedly semi-autonomous arm’s-length relationship with the local authority, and is serviced by a dedicated team of officers, usually seconded from relevant council departments… its commercial ethos offers a vehicle through which private sector interest and contributions can be pulled into the regeneration process on the basis that companies have some confidence that a private sector-ethos will characterise the delivery of projects and programmes.

(Robson, 2002 p39)

While this regulatory approach was deployed to a varying degree in a number of surrounding regeneration schemes as part of early City Fringe regeneration initiatives, a solely private sector ethos undoubtedly characterised the Green Quarter. Design statements for planning applications detail the development as a ‘catalyst’ for regeneration of the surrounding area, yet a regeneration manager working on the Manchester Fringe projects at this time suggested:

“There was great resentment against the Green Quarter by the wider regeneration community, especially those involved in New Islington”. (Regeneration manager)

213

This was because it would directly compete with the commercial component of such schemes. In the view of the Regeneration Manager, the project did not fit the city vision which had been agreed across political scales; yet the ‘radical commitment to competition’ (Regeneration Manager) by Sir Howard Bernstein, the Chief Executive of Manchester City Council, merited support for the project from above the City Council, if not within.

Figure 37: Crosby/ Lend Lease projects conducted by the management team of Green Quarter in Manchester city centre(Brady, 2005)

The self-confidence of Crosby Lend Lease in their ability to secure planning consent is suggested by their presentation at an ‘Investor Roadshow’ in 2006. The presentation suggests that the management team of the Green Quarter – who are named as individuals, linked with specific projects in the cities regeneration history – have a strong history of securing planning consent from the city council. These projects are shown in Figure 37, several of which have been discussed previously for their strong entrepreneurial governance credentials (Holden, 2002; Williams and Batho, 2005) and capitalisation on cultural history to create new economic vitality (Wansborough and Mageen; 2000, Montgomery, 2004).

Such an focus on the ability of individuals to secure consent from a regulator would suggest regulatory capture in a non-discretionary compliance regulatory context. Yet, distinctions of ‘regulator’ and ‘regulated’ are less clear in the fuddled authorities of the new urban politics (Harvey, 1989). Good relationships between developer and council were highlighted as significant to making things ‘easier’ in the Rackheath case. However, this was on the basis that

214

certain developers held values of what was the ‘right’ thing to do- sharing the ‘highly ambitious’ vision of the local authority, in contrast to other developers whose agenda did not align with the intentions of policy.

In the context of the Green Quarter, the importance of a shared vision around ambitious environmental goals is replaced by a coalition around the objective of growth. While development control can to some extent be seen to draw on the plan as a set of principles and criteria, these criteria privilege economic vitality over and above everything else. Indeed planning as a ‘regulatory regime’ cannot be seen as a site of conflict resolution in this context, as there is little space open for opposition to be cultivated. None of the applications have comments from members of nearby communities, and none of the design briefs refer to engagement with surrounding communities. Despite tensions between the regional administration and city council (Jones and Macelod, 2000) the economic mandate of the new regional tier will have offered another layer of discursive support, or ‘institutional thickness’ to promote and legitimise a narrative that such development was both appropriate and ‘sustainable’.

7.3.2 Environmental Expectations, Viability and Power

As discussed in chapter 4, viability has been merited very significant, if not the greatest significance of material considerations in the Coalition’s new planning regime. However, there is notable ambiguity in this term, and it is unclear precisely how it relates to profit, whether this is the same across cases, and the degree of discretion involved. The profit target for this project, which shape the ‘viability’ parameters of the project, were described by one consultant as:

‘A number which is the right number for [the developer]…. a number which comes out of the sausage machine’ (GQ3)

Increases in site density were not met by requests from the council to increase, or even include an affordable housing component. Neither the approval letter for Block 5 or Block 6 demanded an affordable component of the development. While affordable housing dominates ‘viability’ as a regulatory discourse in housing, (Christophers 2013) the term was here used to rebut the application of discretionary regulation for onsite renewables as part of the Ecohomes assessment on Block 6, despite the absence of any commitment to affordable housing. It may have been the case that the developer Additionally it is worth noting that viability concerns were called upon just before the housing market peak, in the same year as the then CEO of Lend Lease celebrated in a presentation to investors a prediction for 10% inflation in house prices in the year ahead (Brady, 20062). When is it right for the state to demand more from development if not on a land

215

assembled site, developed in boom time, with no requested affordable housing component? A further discussion of viability as a parameter of planning regulation is discussed in chapter 8.

The ideology of redesigning cities can be seen to develop over the course of the project; with recognition that technology may be necessary and assessments which seek to manage and control nature being introduced. However, these changes- and the notable fact they were not achieved – places the development in an externally dependant cities category. This is especially pertinent given that the developer did not run consultation on the site. The framing of urban space as principally to aid the function of economic growth reduces greenspace design intentions to low maintenance aesthetics; a tendency which GQ5 asserts is confounded by the tradition in urban projects for landscape architects to be in the initial design team at the expense of other ‘environmental’ thinkers. Consultants affecting greenspace outcomes at these early stages are weak in their ability to direct development towards preferred locations and outcomes which transcend compliance in an urban context.

7.3.3 Multiscalar Tensions

A significant factor shaping outcomes of the Green Quarter was an ‘anything is an improvement’ perspective. This demonstrates a bias in considerations of scale when interpreting ‘environment’ within sustainability. Social and economic aspects of sustainability are considered beyond the site boundary: socially, the impact of blight (an environmental concern) on adjacent communities. Economically the urban economy is taken as a functioning unit, in which relationships are seen between any single site, its potential to increase or harm investment. Investment opportunities are presented potential spending in the city centre from an incoming community on-site of residents with disposable income, and investment risks as stigma - resulting from the visual impact of the site, especially given its visibility from arterial road and railway line. However, both of these ‘investment’ conversations allude to what can be gained, but ignore the counterpoint, of extraction. Redevelopment of sites is an extraction of space, space which could have yielded a range of more environmentally and socially equitable outcomes.

Interviewees at Stockport Council (Woodford Case Study) suggested that if planning conditions at the local scale could make demands which considered the region, there would be much greater potential to link green infrastructure resources to population. The emerging regional policy context at the time of this project was unequivocally economic, emerging from an international and more specifically European move towards competitive regions (Jones, 2001). Regional development in this frame lies in line with more techno-centric than eco-centric approaches (Gibbs, 2000). This allows and encourages competitive regions to be necessarily distinct from –

216

if not diametrically opposed to –self-sufficient regions. While some supra-urban initiatives focused around a theme of ‘Green Infrastructure’ remain since the abolition of regional planning administrations, (i.e. the Atlantic Gateway) the driving force behind these efforts remain private sector lead, raising questions as to intentions to relate population with resources in a meaningful way.

7.4 Conclusions Section 7.3 has demonstrated the significant role of the site’s brownfield status in both legitimising the project’s sustainability, and hindering improvements to its environmental credentials. Whereas there are specific ‘environmental’ objectives in the other schemes, here actors involved confess the objective of the project was solely economic, and a profit focus throughout the development resulted in diminished functionality of the greenspace. Repeatedly, there were contradictions between the demands of policy, expected by planning consent, and what was delivered in practice. The appearance of the development and its continually increased massing contravenes H2.2, and increases in parking made with the application for Block 6 do little to support, if not contradict policy E.1. There is a consistent absence of association made between the new residential population, and greenspace resources they depend upon across all scales.

These findings raise several questions for discussion: what were the comparative or complementary ambitions of actors at different scales of regulatory governance, and what are the implications for planning as a regulatory regime if these interests were complicit; what are the implications of using a concept promoting an ‘aspirational’ lifestyle in urban development projects; and what can be learned from this project regarding the use of ‘viability’ as a tool in discretionary planning practice.

217

8. SD: Concepts of Environment and Regulatory Responsibilities This chapter responds to Objective 4: Assess the regulatory landscape for sustainable residential development and consequences for greenspace. This involves the fourth stage of the research methodology, in which relationships between empirical chapters are made, and findings considered in light of national level interviews and wider research. Findings are considered in relation to the conceptual framework to try to unpack responsibility for greenspace in SD institutions.

This thesis has considered two concurrent themes: how environment is understood, and who takes responsibility for securing environmental outcomes. The chapter is divided into three sections. Section 8.1 considers how concepts of and approaches to the natural environment, as seen through greenspace in housing, have changed as a result of SD policy. This will consider the extent to which ideas about nature have developed on from historical understandings of environment and approaches to greenspace.

Subsequently, section 8.2 considers the way in which the speculative development industry have taken on responsibility for various greenspace designs through CSR practices. This returns to debates around competition and market self-regulation to secure SD and examines whether this abides by the logic of externally dependant cities. Finally, section 8.3 considers the extent to which planning has intervened in and modified development outcomes. This examines the utility of different planning instruments to achieve planning goals and progress towards fair shares approaches. Conclusions are then drawn about current landscapes of responsibility and consequences for greenspace.

8.1 Concepts of Environment: Selective Environmental Narratives Section 2.5 suggested that the appropriateness of actions become determined by the formal and informal rules which constitute development institutions. Whatmore and Boucher (1993) suggest that for radical new conceptions of environment in planning, commodity and conservation narratives must be dismissed, as these strategically represent nature as a series of discrete parcels and elements, serving to further increase the social/natural divide.

The empirical phases of this research suggest that a range of frames are used to refer to environment, and shape different paths of appropriate action. As shown in chapter 4, developers used three sustainability frames: communities, houses, and business, to demarcate activities and expectations. In case studies, spatial scales and land nomenclatures such as ‘greenbelt’ ‘urban core’, ‘brownfield’, and so on were used to demarcate the ‘appropriateness’ of designs.

218

While the language differs, however, the fundamental ideas about nature which characterise approaches to environment are consistent with conservation and commodity narratives. They consistently failed to fundamentally challenge, or change the view of nature as compartmentalised; a series of discrete elements. While an ecology narrative is present in development, this does not challenge or depart from conservation and commodity narratives but more deeply entrenches them. Three boundaries were drawn around environment which maintained this. Boundaries in space, boundaries in time, and boundaries around species, with a removal of humans from discussions of ecology.

8.1.1 Boundaries in Space As shown in Chapter 6, zero-impact narratives selectively draw boundaries around activities, or spaces. In Rackheath, to meet the planning commitment of environmental excellence in one area, Barratt are considering water neutrality for the development. This reflects the commercial interest for the site to have a USP given local competition, and potentially a desire to hold ‘information power’ in future collaborative working groups,, having been the first to achieve this in the UK. These motivations differ greatly from those of meeting regional ‘carrying capacity’ in terms of water use. As explained by designers, to achieve this target technologies which effectively interrupted the flow of water in the local catchment area would ‘steal’ water from the surrounding areas to achieve this goal at the site scale.

Land classifications also draw boundaries around expectations of space. In the Green Quarter, development actors consciously pursued, through marketing, branding and density, the sites identification as part of the status-prized ‘urban core’. As this space was itself becoming defined as a space of high consumption to maintain the cities economy, any closure or restriction on consumption in relation to the development could have seemed contradictory. The economic raison d’être of this space diffused into greenspace design, which was almost exclusively aesthetically motivated. The larger stretches of greenspace are sloped – unsuitable for playing sport or lying down on. The benches on the boulevard are shaded through most of the day as a result of the building heights and relatively narrow width of the overall space.

As described by a consultant, the greenspace was something “pretty” for the people in the flats to look down on and see a difference between the space they live and place they work. This highlights the use of greenspace in an externally dependant cities model; justification. As stated by D8 greenspace creates tranquillity where there otherwise isn’t. In this sense, beyond offering a ‘sustainability fix’ (While, Jonas and Gibbs, 2004) by fixing global capital, Urban Renaissance approaches which mitigated density with greenspace inclusion to justify the unnatural and alienating experience of the city and render it liveable, to maintain the economy (Hardt and Negri,

219

2009). In this way, greenspace can be seen to fit directly into the new discourse of ‘aspirational’ housing without challenging any current approachest to greenspace design.

This cannot, of course, be seen as a departure or change in approaches to greenspace in the urban environment. Offering residents the chance for recuperation from the demands of the city, in the city, was part of the public justification for Victorian parks (Taylor, 1995). The spatial classification ‘Greenbelt’ also contains boundaries around activities. Rather than greenbelt being understood in relation to the urban conurbation as a whole, relationships were considered between the site and its immediate borders in terms of access/permeability, and landscape character in aesthetic terms. This does nothing to depart from the conservation and commodity approaches.

Across policy moments, the provision of publicly accessible greenspace was used to negotiate development. In Rackheath, recreational greenspace justified development by mitigating recreational pressure on the Norfolk Moors (conservation narrative). In Woodford, the Landscape Character Assessment justified expansion of the site beyond existing MEDS boundaries through viewpoint analysis, suggesting greening could maintain aesthetic conditions (conservation aesthetics). In the Green Quarter the idea of an oasis within the city centre was used to directly, and explicitly justify continual increases in density. In all of these cases, boundaries are drawn around activities and functional expectations of greenspace, as recreational, and aesthetic. This does not suggest that greenspace can be used to justify development in any context, but that it has been shown in three different locations, subject to three different types of environmental pressure and planning policy, to help legitimise development going ahead, without any association made between new residents and their demands on ecosystem services.

8.1.2 Boundaries in Time Land classification can be seen to depoliticise nature by foreclosing questions about alternative futures uses of these spaces. In the New Labour SD agenda, Brownfield became ‘impure’ land, no longer owned by nature but claimed permanently from it. The choice of site at Rackheath was controversial given that while it was an airfield for two years, it has for over 50 years since been performing productive ecosystem functions as agricultural land. Changing presentations of the site as Greenfield or Brownfield make evident the tensions of this timeless, abstract construction of space in practice. While contamination is a real issue to be considered in long term plans for site reuse, policy and processes of urban redevelopment decision making do not raise this within debates around land-use alternatives, such as urban farming or allotment provision.

220

In the Green Quarter, the idea that ‘anything’ is an improvement on the baseline condition of the site highlights the challenges for sustainability in industrialised towns and on severely contaminated or highly stigmatised sites (Meyer and Lyons, 2000). In redesigning cities ideology, in which brownfield reuse is inevitably important, democratic engagement is important to garner support for proposed change and provide a mechanism for community feedback on design. Yet three developers suggested that while brownfield development increases challenges in terms of legislative compliance and biodiversity, it is rarely met with serious community resistance, particularly in urban core brownfield locations. This is because of the improvement from baseline. This arguably aides path dependency, in which recent histories – particularly in shrinking cities or formerly industrial cities – may have limited aspirations for environmental futures. As alluded to by Olsson and Hasse (2013), temporary use or recovery to greenspace may change this by allowing residents to imagine alternatives or attracting communities with an attachment to place.

Landscape character assessment also depoliticises the ongoing production of nature and potential for innovative, alternative greenspace uses, by failing to discuss the range of potential future uses and full history of past forms. As a ‘snapshot’ of reality it raises none of the important questions about alternative potential uses of greenspace. The focus on biodiversity as a classification of ‘good’ vs ‘bad’ greenspace, further limits the debate about alternative futures. As explained by D4, ‘neglected messes’ – brownfield in the greenbelt - can have its ecology improved by development, with introduction of managed greenspace. This shows little departure from planning for environmental gain narratives, while also highlighting the strong biodiversity focus of greenspace debates.

8.1.3 Boundaries around Species Rather than challenging commodity or conservation narratives, use of the term ecology by development actors has become central to legitimising the continuation of both conservation and commodity approaches. As highlighted across case studies, integration of ecology into development assessments – such as BREEAM and CfSH – are responsible for perceptions of ecology as a constraint, and tick-box exercise, rather than creative opportunity. The abstraction involved in translating conservation values about nature into assessments can ‘do ecology a disservice’ by reducing the value of its components to their individual merit. This reflects the western, abstract interpretation of nature presented in 2.1.

Further, the preferred use of the phrase ‘wildlife’ by development actors over ecology when referring to biodiversity may exacerbate ideas of an original or first nature, rather than a continually produced nature. The idea that urban (human) environments let ‘wild’ life in, morphs

221

conservation narratives which see nature as something ‘out there’ into environmental narratives which suggest ‘out there’ nature is allowed in the city, as a near philanthropic act; with language like ‘be friendly to the birds and the bees’ ‘a nice place for the bugs’. This suggests humanity is making a home for nature, not that nature is the home of humanity.

Conservationist approaches to nature directly inhibit the adoption of creative environmental designs which could channel more progressive environmental practice. Two developers and a master planner echoed the sentiment that assessments of ecology created a tick-box rather than opportunity-led mindset in ecological design. The reduction of ecology to meaningless quantitative measures is criticised as the ‘nature that capital can see’ by Robertson (2006), who argues that bureaucratic conservation instruments simplify ecological complexity to a dangerous, almost meaningless degree. The hypocrisies of this were recognised by RH3, who felt that the intensification of agriculture meant settlements and gardens would be the biodiversity reserves of the future, and in turn, opportunities should be created for all species:

“We’re spending the best part of 20k on relocating a badger set, and the government are shooting them elsewhere… what is the government doing?! They’re either schedule one or they’re not…” (RH3)

Issues of selective conservation on the basis of politico-economic priorities have been noted before (Waldman, 1995; Beatley, 2014; Margolis and Shogren, 2005). However, when an ecological consultant was asked how a scheme’s greenspace design should alter in line with its population, she replied that planting should be more resistant to cope with increased footfall, while remaining in line with local biodiversity aspirations. Here, the merit of biodiversity as a functional aspiration for greenspace is highlighted, but notably absent was the idea of ecology as broader metabolic flows through the development site. This represents the complete distinction in development discourses between human ecology, and non-human ecology. This is not the fault of the ecologist – but may suggest that ecology in development assessment processes has become what might be described as a ‘ritual of comfort’ (Power, 2003). Braithwaite (2008) describes the concept, originally developed by Power in considering the employment of docile auditors in private companies, as the ‘institutional need for audit not to be too successful in fingering problems and creating discomfort by reporting them’ (Ibid, p141). In turn, a procedure is created within the institution which provides ‘a form of verification that mostly avoids public dialogue through an opaque and dry paper ritual’ (Ibid).

This translates into what Heimer (2012), describes as ‘regulatory ritualism’; whereby institutionalised means for securing goals are accepted, while at the same time appreciation of the cultural objectives that these processes set out to address, are lost. Instead of addressing the

222

original concern, such processes act as a blanket of legitimacy which gives the appearance of accountability to processes of capitalist growth. This is not to say that removal of ecology from these assessments would guarantee improved outcomes for biodiversity, but rather that ecology has been reduced to a procedural logic – no longer able to provide a counter-hegemonic narrative in planning.

This de-politicisation of ecology has been dependent upon its bureaucratic internalisation into assessments which take a before and an after ‘snapshot’ of the site on the basis of species present in a survey on a given day; and then assess the value of the site against a metric of species of conservation priority (local biodiversity action plans). This reduces ‘ecology’ to the maintenance of (selective) genetic diversity within the red line boundary of development. This denies the term its capacity to perform understandings of nature which transcend ‘discrete element’ interpretations of nature9. The successful spatial and temporal reduction of the concept of ecology means it can be used, without creating tensions, in the daily practices of development. This more broadly reflects the lack of reflexive awareness in the planning process of its position as a ‘moment’ in the production of nature; equivalent perhaps to the profession’s lack of awareness that it is involved in the construction of markets (Adams and Tiesdell, 2010) as is further discussed throughout this chapter.

Developer comments in Chapter 4 – that developers feel a Blue Tit can sell a house, and biodiversity can generate a sense of place – show how ‘ecology’, as it is now conceived, in fact props up and supports new forms of commodity narrative. This has resulted in the development of companies such as ENiMS, a consultant on the Rackheath case, to offer ‘compliance’ or ‘excellence’ based ecological consultancy services. This marketization of ecological performance may support Grabosky’s (1994) suggestion that market imperatives to be green are more potent than state regulatory imperatives. Should the Greenspace Factor be used in the final Rackheath project, a movement from privatised enforcement of regulation to new optional self-regulation, which goes beyond the confines of the regulatory state and into the field of ‘regulatory capitalism’. Here, markets are created in regulation, without national state stimulus (Braithwaite, 2008).

8.1.4 Language Games

As shown above, at present the ecology narrative is dominated by conservative political ideology, seeking to keep things the way they are, rather than drive transformational change Eder (1996). Frames of environment which align with a conservation approach are disadvantaged in changing

9 Debates over biodiversity offsetting in the UK (DEFRA, 2013) may create new opportunities for debate,.

223

current patterns of behaviour. Nature continues to be seen as ‘vulnerable, victim or derailed.. in need of saving… a recipient of action’ (Kaika and Swyngedouw, 2012 p25). This represents a deeper problem for greenspace-led environmental movements: the lack of language and concepts which can convey and command new and different approaches. The need for new ideas and concepts has been noted previously by Gustavsson et al., (2005). This years removal of c.50 words relating to the natural environment from the English Dictionary (Flood, 2015) to be replaced with 21st century, technological alternatives signals that nature is losing in the discursive battle for power.

Green Infrastructure (GI) has not challenged convention. In national level interviews, case study interviews, and developer interviews, GI was always firstly cited as important for ‘ecology’ which, when probed, was taken only to mean non-human biodiversity. With developers, GI was mainly framed through a language of networks; connecting together habitats (for biodiversity) and ‘green transport’ links, such as cycleways. This supports Lennon’s (2014) finding that the delivery of conservation aims in GI projects tend to be led by cultural ecosystem service outcomes. As was highlighted by several consultants, a network can be created without significantly changing existing development patterns and layouts. A specifically tree-lined street is coded on a map as a ‘green corridor’, almost irrespective of the ecological performativity of the planting design. N2, suggested that Green Infrastructure was sold to council for its regeneration capacity, because that was what could most engage local policymakers in the 1990s. Now, the challenge is to develop awareness about ‘what else’ it does.

The resistance to change in ideas about environment can be seen from national level interviewee’s comments on the difference between policy moments. When asked to detail the differences between Eco-towns and Garden Cities, national interviewees from government agencies and policy think tanks explained that environmental strategy was considered ‘almost irrelevant’ to debates about new housing supply at the national scale. N3 explained that they were ‘the same thing really’ a way to promote good design, making new towns acceptable, backed by central government knowledge, resources and authority. Whitehill Borden, one of the other four Eco-towns, is going ahead led solely by the Local Authority. According to N1, they are “desperately trying to rebrand themselves as a garden city” in hope that funding might be allocated, without much intended change to greenspace design.

8.1.5 Conclusions SD policies over the period 2004-2014 have done little to change understandings of nature in planning, regardless of location or planning model. Largely, policy encourages environment to be seen as comprised of a series of discrete elements. Ideas about nature or environment compartmentalise flows; and create boundaries around acceptable spaces for and functions of

224

the natural environment. These frames dominate discussions of greenspace, preventing the development of more radical practices. The ecology narrative has been internalised, following this logic, legitimising growth. In turn, new language, ideas, concepts, narratives, and frames of environment must be integrated into planning practice, which can better resist capture by hegemonic ideas of nature.

225

8.2 CSR Responsibility in Principle and Practice

The second objective of this study was to understand how the speculative development industry create roles for greenspace through corporate social responsibility practices. How the industry conceptualise SD, what roles are given greenspace with what degree of formality, and how industry consider CSR to fit within wider regulatory landscapes for SD were considered. In the conceptual framework presented in section 2.5, market-self regulation fits within the ‘externally dependant’ cities category. Following this theory, the price mechanism dictates which functions of nature would be given precedence, and consumer sovereignty offers the narrative of justice.

In practice, CSR is influenced by state policies, not acting in a truly free market context. Nonetheless, values of consumer sovereignty and principles of competition can be seen to characterise CSR activity with interesting consequences for the development of CSR for greenspace. Section 8.2 discusses these, offering a triangulated findings which bring together CSR and policy moment findings about market responsibility. This section will consider how the findings of this study and interviews at the national level can contextualise CSR within landscapes of responsibility for SD.

8.2.1 CSR in Context As set out in Chapter 4, three objectives were found to motivate CSR. These include ability to build, ability to sell, and management of risk. These objectives are presented, alongside associated external forces or drivers. In figure 38 below, the three 10 drivers are set out; ability to build, ability to sell, and shaping policy to manage risk. For each of these, a range of 20 drivers were reported. While these considerations collectively shape the stability and performance of a developer, some aspects are more directly related. For instance, being ahead of the curve to meet planning requests is more related to meeting planning requirements than for instance, investor requests. Investor requests were found to be more related to brand reputation efforts.

As discussed in Chapter 4, three narratives of sustainability were present in CSR reports analysed: housing, community and business. Each of these leant towards different types of greenspace form and functionality. Due to the novelty of considering regulatory ecosystem services in housing projects, greenspace for climate change adaptation often fell within business sustainability narratives; both to minimise risk in being ahead of the policy curve, and as a strategy for unique selling point (USP) over competitors. In turn, sustainable business narratives which were least prescribed by policy, offered the most interesting directions for consideration of regulatory and supportive ecosystem services.

226

This should not be taken simply to mean that the market is more innovative in aspirations for greenspace than the state, for two reasons. Firstly, the translation of these comments into practice has not been shown. Redrow did not develop allotments to generate local food networks in Woodford, and the landscape architects working with Barratt across cases had not heard of the ten trees per house KPI. Secondly, the development of more experimental accreditations such as Blue Green Dream were considered unviable without state endorsement and recognition.

Being ‘ahead Shaping of curve’ to Future Policy improve to Manage Competitive position in Risk Advantage in planning Market negotiations Customer Meeting Ability to Demands Planning Ability to Requirements Sell Build Investor Requests Brand Reputation

Figure 38: Relationship between primary and secondary drivers of environmental strategy in CSR

Notably missing from this diagram, are ethical motivations. As stated in Chapter 4, no developers suggested ethical principles drove CSR strategy. Company identity, as brand reputation, but not principle. In fact, while no interviews were conducted with developers without published CSR, or with only legalistic policies, several house builders suggested planning policy was necessary as house-builders can ultimately only be expected to do what they can “get away with” (D3) and that “at the end of the day, any house-builder will build as much as they can” (D2). This is be reflected in the change in sustainability interpretations by developers described in section 4.1.5, which showed developer acknowledgement that interpretations of sustainability have become explicitly profit-motived, and further, that they considered previous models which prioritised environment for its own sake to be misguided. This may reflect the fact that the requirement to make ethical claims for environmental policy has lessened in government since 2008, and further since 2010. However, reporting becomes more common each year, with more companies recognising the need to take part.

227

Most developers suggested they ‘will do what they can get away with’. However, several with high individual concern used this to advocate stronger state intervention, arguing that the current focus on the economy is misguided, using the wrong financial models and taking a very short term view (D5). As stated by D8 ‘just to get developments going doesn’t mean we should be compromising on sustainability”. This may be due to fear of reputational harm across the whole industry, which can subsequently lead to more virulent regulation (N7). However, the recognition by development professionals of a need for state intervention is interesting and noteworthy.

8.2.2 Consumer Sovereignty in Principle and Practice While customer demands were not considered important, interviewees did consider ‘the market hierarchy intended for the Code for Sustainable Homes was not a ‘true market’ as houses cannot not be sold at increasing prices in line with increasing code performance, and increasing cost. This is demonstrated in Rackheath as Barratt were reluctant to build Zero Carbon despite experience, and policy for it on site. While using the Code to progressively increase industry competency offered leniency to house builders in accepting change, the market driven approach, openly suggesting it should be used as a marketing tool, minimises the legitimacy of state claims to achieve outcomes on principle, or by ethical motivation. It is therefore perhaps unsurprising that house builders are similarly uncommitted to Zero Carbon; nor do not feel they need to be.

D8 explained that the increasing flexibility offered to developers to negotiate out of environmental agreements through viability assessment is also permitting a reversion back to ‘easier’ options. However, these easy options were not just seen as maximisation of profit by, for instance, not contributing an affordable component. Further, D8 suggested that due to increased competition as a result of deregulation and greenfield access, customer satisfaction was being brought to the fore again, having been supressed by strict environmental policy. D8 explained that it was against the logic of a house-builder to deny the potential buyer something that they wanted (for instance, car parking) and therefore, for this to be achieved, it had to be put into regulation.

N3 also suggested that competition for house sales during the recession raised standards, but that ‘standards’ driven by the customer, will not necessarily share the environmental ambitions conceived or envisaged by a green state:

“If you always provide, people will always default back to the easiest position” (D8)

In turn, deregulation – real or perceived – can be seen to directly cause ‘consumer sovereignty’ narratives to legitimise action. This in turn props up place-making narratives of greenspace, and aspirational development greenspace designs. Neither can be seen to challenge practices or conventions. However, the idea that the state’s ‘virtual monopoly of the means of legitimate

228

coercion’ (Eckersley, 2004 p12) is therefore necessary for changes in practice which change homeowner practices is challenged by Beyond Green.

8.2.3 Choice Editing or ‘Nudging’

None of the CSR representatives interviewed on behalf of major developers described their behaviour as ethically motivated. In fact, as stated in Chapter 4, CSR was described by one developer to offer market differentiation – providing to the ‘Tesco market’ or ‘Marks and Spencer’ market alike. To follow this through, Marks and Spencer are famous for endorsing ‘choice editing’ as a component of their CSR (Dixon and Banwell, 2012). This essentially means that rather than providing choice and allowing customers to choose, at their own behest more sustainable products, only products which are branded or deemed sustainable are offered.

As explained by N7, a CSR strategy consultant with 20 years experience in various sectors, ‘choice editing’ – whereby consumer sovereignty is sacrificed and the market provides only products which are approved on principle of social or environmental justice – is counter-cultural to business behaviour. He claimed 95% of businesses would suggest they are in favour of customer choice, when in fact all businesses choice edit all the time, ‘they just don’t do it on the basis of ethics and sustainability (N7)

Choices about technology in the home may be edited on the basis of design or cost. For technology, cost implications can be altered by subsidies, state research and supportive policy (N7; Jaffe and Stavins, 1999; Fischer and Nerwell, 2008). However, as suggested in Chapter 2, choice editing as a concept is more difficult to understand in the context of greenspace. While regulatory and supportive services need to be designed in before occupation, this has little bearing on the occupant’s lifestyle. Buying from the local organic small-holder farm shop, or choosing to participate in ecological awareness education projects, such as the one planned by Beyond Green, require active choices to participate in activities which demand time. This light encouragement of behavioural change (Thaler and Sustein, 2008) goes further than provision of information, which has been shown to do little to change behaviour, ‘except when the behaviour is cheap in terms of time, money, effort and social disapproval’ (Government Office for Science, 2008 p94).

The development of local food trading networks, an option considered in the early stages of the Rackheath project, or equally the development of local trading for woodchip fuel supplies, would not necessarily make time, money or effort demands on residents. It would demand coordination and, to retain ‘consumer sovereignty’, which is also mandated by EU competition laws (Jones and Sufrin, 2014), such approaches could depend on ‘social disapproval’, as named by the Government Office for Science, or ‘social approval’, to use a more positive frame (Whitmarsh and

229

O’Neill, 2010). Marketing theory has advocated reflexivity by marketing professionals involved in the social construction of markets (Peñaloza and Venkatesh, 2006) – urging them to engineer strategies which better suit cultural needs. The challenge to such calls, as with similar suggestions made for architects (e.g. Gissen, 2003) and landscape architects (e.g. Benson and Roe, 2007) is “who pays the bills” (GQ4, Green Quarter).

As consultancy is the handmaiden of developers, it is tasked to serve developer interests before the public interest. This is highlighted by the scaling down of ambitions at Rackheath for regional food networks. While the landowner’s agent, Natural England and several consultants involved prior to Barratt’s involvement were interested in the idea, the ‘commercial interests took over’ after Barratt became involved, with an associated scaling down of all greenspace ambitions to within the red line boundary. In turn, the infrastructure – e.g. town centre grocery store – and development of the institutional frameworks – market relationships – enabling regionally sourced food were abandoned.

Regulatory, supportive, and non-economic cultural ecosystem services which demand space within development, but do not necessarily fit into direct exchange relations, require different intervention. Legislative support of SUDS has shown that integration of regulatory features can be achieved through state force. Similar enforcement of street trees to contribute to thermoregulation could occur, as future projection modelling of heat stress across urban regions is developed (Gill et al., 2007). Creating greenspaces which encourage sustainable environmental pedagogy and aesthetic experiences which transcend just ‘knowing you’re at home, not at work’, may require the kind of institutional structures put together by Beyond Green. Rather than passing responsibility over, they have taken on responsibility for facilitating this. N7 related this to broader ethical consumption practices:

“To think we will ever get to a place where the majority [of homebuyers] will voluntarily say ‘I’ll have [sustainable product]’ is naïve. Change normally takes place when that vanguard of 5% show something is possible, probably experiment to make the product better. The ethical consumer comes along, works with the providers, knocking the market into place, then other people tend to come on board, and eventually legislation will follow [to raise the minimum bar]” (N7)

The challenge to market-led innovation in housing developments, such as the Beyond Green project, is the spatial fixity of housing (Brenner, 1998) vs the limited spatial mobility of house buyers (Henley, 1998; Bover, Muellbauer and Murphy, 1989. House buyers are not choosing from a full range of market options, but only from those both affordable and available within a given locality. This absence of genuine consumer endorsement of housing products allows ‘best

230

practice’ awards to define achievement. In achieving the 40% greenspace requirement and 40% affordable housing commitment, Beyond Green is a likely ‘best practice’ model for the future, which could then be adopted by other developers. This is not choice-editing for homebuyers, nor would it be prescriptive regulation.

8.2.4 CSR Formality As reported in Chapter 4, very limited prescriptive policy for greenspace was in CSR reports. More often, case studies were used to give visible substance to general comments about intentions for greenspace in relation to community and business sustainability aspirations. Even the most exploratory or innovative greenspace policies used non-committal statements, phrases like ‘where there is opportunity’ or ‘when suitable’. Criteria defining opportunity were not specified. Policies were often shaped by legal requirements, government ambitions, use of certifications. However, there were also some autonomous ‘aspirations’ and KPIs.

Type of Policy Legalistic Advancing Certificatory Autonomous Government Policy

Characteristics Minimum- High-achieve on Use voluntary KPI’s or report compliance standards by national ‘aspirations’ which Compliance statistics or international are independent of (Brownfield) NGO’s state influence Often with KPIs

Associated Drivers Ability to Planning Investor Competitive adv, build, Consent Requests/parent company values, Planning company being ahead of consent Company requirements, risk curve, risk ‘principles’ management management

Figure 39: Types of Environmental Policy in CSR This study was not designed to check the validity of all greenspace claims made in CSR reports. However, it is worth reporting that consultants from the case studies who were working with Barratt on schemes in the North West and East of Anglia had never previously heard of the commitment to plant 10 new shrubs or trees per home. One suggested that in the projects they were working on, this was not often happening onsite, and in the minority there was a definite bias towards shrubs. In terms of assessing environmental contribution, this is an important distinction that requires further definition, as trees offer different benefits than other forms of greenspace and shrubs (Tzoulas et al., 2007).

Further, as shown in Woodford while Redrow have aspirations for educating homebuyers in sustainable consumption, and developing local food networks, they chose not to implement strategies which would relate new and future Woodford residents to the agricultural land in the Aerodrome redevelopment. Undeveloped land is being handed over to a private agricultural

231

operator. This is pertinent, given that many of the discretional aspects of CSR strategy relating to greenspace are justified on the basis of ‘opportunity’. This site demonstrated perfect opportunity – but no follow through.

This suggests that both autonomous CSR policies for greenspace which did not directly follow consumer-sovereignty objectives or policy have been challenged by empirical states. Uncovering the details of how these policies are implemented is important for what Parker (2002) describes as triple-loop-learning. In effective processes of continuous regulatory improvement, mechanisms of self-regulation should be fed back to policy making communities and stakeholders, who can then make informed decisions about how necessary future external regulation is. This builds on second-loop learning, in which a single organisation attempts to reform their own practices (Chiva Grandío and Alegre 2010).

While such processes have been apparent in relation to energy and built fabric), as part of the Zero Carbon Hub, less attention has been given to greenspace strategies. In turn, the ‘metagovernance of markets’ (Braithwaite 2008 p151) – the regulation of self-regulation – is an area for future research in housing sector. The Zero Carbon Hub provides another mechanism through which field cohesion in the development industry can be developed, strengthening the power of the oligopoly to influence future policy in their own interests. There is no evidence that as a capacity building policy process, this has channelled new skills in the industry regarding ecological considerations as a result of its focus on abiotic nature (carbon).

8.2.5 Conclusions

The findings of this research suggest that major house builders are hesitant to make prescriptions through CSR for greenspace allocation, or functional designs. How policies within CSR are monitored and enforced, when this is not conducted by an external agency, requires further research. No developers claimed to adopt an ethical or principle-based approach to greenspace inclusion in CSR strategies. Over the last 5 years a conscious and explicit move towards more economic models of sustainability can be seen. CSR objectives are designed to achieve economic ends more explicitly than pre-2008/2009. In turn, when particular ecosystem services are not mandated by policy their inclusion in CSR is determined by expectations of increased value at point of sale rather than by environmental principles or notions of the public interest.

Developers suggest that they are slaves to a pure market which is interested in preserving the highest standard of living, which they have no ethical motivation to change. They do not see markets as constructed or innovative environmental designs as marketable. In turn, several suggest government intervention is necessary to create the conditions in which they can compete

232

to provide more sustainable housing. This handover of responsibility contrasts with Beyond Green, who in the physical and institutional design of their Old Catton development take on responsibility for changes in the behaviour of residents. However, it is difficult to compare the strategy of a developer completing a single project, with the strategy of developers who are premised on economies of scale and balanced risk across different spatial markets. Beyond Green’s rejection of ‘business as usual approaches’ may not be feasible as a strategy for the larger market players who need to maintain good relations with local authorities to achieve repeat planning permissions. As detailed by D3, where possible, developers do not seek to embarrass local authorities: it is not in their long term interests.

233

8.3 Planning Policy and Process: Responsibilities Objective 3 set out to understand the relationship between greenspace and SD, as demonstrated by three different planning policy moments. Chapters 5, 6 and 7 considered the way that different ideas of environment were shaped through development negotiations, and the influence that different policy instruments had in each case. Chapter 2 demonstrated that in previous phases of planning, particular policy instruments have been predisposed to certain interpretations and frames of environment, in turn limiting action. This section will consider how the four kinds of policy instrument were used within each of the case studies, to understand whether they present opportunities for innovative greenspace functionalities or hinder progressive practice. Subsequently, the impact of government restructuring and the consequences of this for shifting of allocative and authoritative power bases are considered.

8.3.1 Policy Instruments

8.3.1.1 Capacity Building As stated earlier, speculative developers have not bought into the ethos of CfSH, seeing it as a tick box exercise. This aside, the policy objective of Zero Carbon, and the collaborative working groups developed to help set it up have helped to develop strong field cohesion between developers, enabling a select group to ensure only the ‘right’ voices contribute, shaping emerging policy in ways which suit them, and enable them to remain competitive(N7). This deliberate exclusion of certain voices as part of a ‘consensus generation organisation’ could be considered post-political (Allmendinger and Haughton, 2012). The ‘crisis’ state induced by a deadline, 2016, legitimises this rhetoric of the need for constructive consensus need for immediate actions, solutions, rather than debate (Swyngedouw, 2010). Capacity building policy instruments which incorporate private sector voices are vulnerable to this.

To date, as covered already, the CfSH has done little to promote creative greenspace functionality. However, one interviewee representing a Woodland NGO, N9 has been campaigning and engaging with the Zero Carbon Hub, to try and get the ‘Woodland Carbon Code’, a carbon standard created by the Forestry Commission, published by DEFRA (2011) into the debate on ‘allowable solutions’, (as introduced in section 2.2), N9 argued that investment in woodland offered the only solution with ‘additionality’. Additionality is the idea that gains should be over and above what would happen anyway or could be justified on other grounds. N9 argued that the vast majority of retrofit solutions have economic benefits and could be justified on those grounds alone, such as LED street lighting which would save local authorities money. He argued that framing this as an allowable solution was somewhat “disingenuous” (N9). Of course, publicly accessible woodland can also save Local Authorities money through health benefits (UKNEA, 2011). However, this

234

takes a longer-term and more intuitive approach than currently accounted for by conventional cost-benefit analysis.

Interviews with developers suggest that where land could be found near to an existing or future development site, woodland may often be a preferred option for housing developers as they recognise the increases to house sale revenue produced by accessible greenspace. Barriers to this are the scale of woodland required, with around 14ha required per 100 homes (N9). This could prove difficult without strategic oversight. Although, as indicated by Peel’s creation of the Atlantic Gateway, (described in section 2.3) developers are capable of strategic oversight of greenspace investment when it will increase revenue. However, as highlighted by N1 this is not truly ‘collaborative’. While Peel put in 1% of estimated project value into the Atlantic Gateway fund every time they receive a planning consent, encouraging other developers to do this too, they are using this to “embarrass them” (N1).

This highlights that competition between market actors, which they will seek to build into policy instruments created under capacity building conditions, can directly hinder the kind of collaboration required for environmental planning with foresight. N6 suggested that market-led governance, even when collaborative would be less likely to strategically respond to hazards such as flood risk mitigation, even when it could enable development of a site nearby, because of the long-term view this necessitates.

As policy has developed to allow developers to create their own allowable solutions departments or subsidiaries, it is also likely that the major developers will create their own departments and keep this in house. With retrofit for nearby houses an option, serious economies of scale could be achieved renewable energy technologies. This is made more likely by the ongoing scepticism about woodland for carbon offsetting. Three interviewees (N1, N9, D6) suggested that this dates back to overseas projects in the 1990s.

“I remember being approached by people saying if I give them so much, they’d plant three thousand hectares of trees somewhere in Africa and you think, well how many people have you sold that land to and how do I, you know…the science and the ethics around it are poor” (N1)

Scepticism about greenspace as an agent in solving carbon futures conflicts with the technological focus of these arguments (Randolph and Masters, 2008; Bulkeley et al., 2010; Stirling 2007) and may reflect more general lack of faith among policymakers about the reliability of greenspace to achieve policy goals (Tzoulas et al., 2007). Fear has been identified as a major driver of public opinion and in turn policy salience (Gamson and Modigliani, 1989). However, as public

235

perceptions of climate change remain subdued, due to the challenges of making immediate what seems far off in the future (Giddens, 2009) ‘Greenspace for climate change adaptation isn’t on the lips of the electorate’ (N2).

Continued use of technological solutions may be part of system justification. This is the choice to rationalise current affairs in order to reduce anxiety and feel a sense of security and order (Jost and Banaji, 1994). Jost, Leggerwood and Hardin (2008) explain that conservative ideologies are particularly effective at encouraging system justification. Neoliberalism is one such conservative ideology: justifying freedom of markets in production, maintenance, and regulation of environment in the minds of the electorate and policymakers. Braithwaite (2008) highlights that the problem for social democratic critiques of neoliberal policy is that governments were successively elected to implement these regimes. For change to occur in planning, as the local arm of the democratic state, transformative ideologies must be articulated in mainstream politics.

8.3.1.2 Market Shaping Housing targets were a major market shaping policy instrument used by New Labour and regionaly led spatial planning. When asked how the scale of new development was calculated, and with regard to what sustainability parameters, all developers interviewed felt it was the government’s responsibility to allocate housing, and that housing targets were a government responsibility. Despite these claims in all case studies developers pursued increases in density. In Woodford the application made by Harrow was for 100 units more than the SPD recommended. Barratt are seeking to reduce the 40% commitment in Rackheath, and Lend Lease consistently scaled up density in the Green Quarter. Media reports suggest house-builders in fact consistently challenge local plans on the basis of under-projection of housing needs (Sell, 2014) and the industry have played a huge role in advancing the narrative of a ‘housing crisis’ blaming planning (White, 2014; Clare 2012). In turn, while heads of CSR may feel house builders should not have ultimate autonomy over the extent of growth, the industry still challenge government figures to advance their own interests.

In the Green Quarter, representing urban renaissance under New Regionalism (Deas and Ward, 2000), housing and growth policy came explicitly from centrally defined, regionally orchestrated state power with the objective of regeneration,. Yet at Rackheath, the Growth Triangle was a less clear scale, better representing what Allmendinger and Haughton (2009) would describe as a ‘soft space’ of neoliberal governance. The use of Greater Norwich Development Partnership to allocate housing growth figures as part of a wider strategy with the private sector both proliferates the layers of state involvement, and depoliticises the involvement of the state in allocating growth by making decisions arms-length. However, this is not to say this goes unnoticed; as shown by the

236

objections to GNDP’s strategy. McCann (2001) has suggested, visioning as a tool to create strategy is rarely consensus-based, collaborative, and inclusionary– but tends to embody elite interests (McCann, 2001). By failing to engage communities properly, communities are forced into reactive positions rather than proactive ones. The capacity of proactive community planning could not be fully examined in this research as the territory given to Woodford Neighbourhood Forum did not include the case study site.

8.3.1.3 Stimulating Policies

Despite the Labour government’s promised subsidy of Ecotowns, this could not in itself prevent risk-adverse practice, as Barratt have not yet fully committed to even 200 of the planned 4,000 homes. Neither can it be seen to have increased the strength of local government actors in negotiations with the developer, as so many of the criteria are allegedly being negotiated off the table by Barratt. The abandonment of the project by central government and clear lack of cross- scale support has left local actors in a weak negotiating position for the market shaping policy ‘criteria’ which were being pursued as part of the state investment.

National interviewees 3 and 4 highlighted that under previous New Towns strategies, detailed central government policy was used to regulate the expectations of landowners. N3 suggested that while inclusion of Eco-towns policy in local plans was possible, the removal of perceived central government backing – if not the legal status of the Eco-towns Supplement itself, was enough to destabilise viability negotiations . This suggests central government follow through on stimulating policies is highly important to achieve initial objectives.

Risk minimisation can also be secured through increased certainty in land markets (Barlow, 1993). As land values are strongly influenced by government policies (Barlow, 1993) some aspects of developer capacity to innovate are beyond their control as individual firms. As Barlow (1993) identifies, the UK planning system is subject to a great amount of uncertainty which increases speculative behaviour and land price inflation. This uncertainty is heightened as policy becomes less prescriptive. Current uncertainty in the Zero Carbon agenda is another longer term source of uncertainty. In France, where local authorities provide a continual supply of land, prices are not so volatile. This Coalition’s demands for Local Authorities to provide a 5 year supply of land for development mimic this. However, without requisite national policies and support for development demands in line with this supply of land, such a solution may only exacerbate unconstrained growth.

237

8.3.1.4 Regulatory Legislation rather than policy or partnerships may be necessary to drive changes. SUDS, for instance, have apparently gained acceptance as a result of the The Flood and Water Management Act (HMG, 2010). As Chapter 4 highlighted, increased references to SUDS is made in CSR reports, and as Green Quarter Consultant explained, even developers who are “renowned for ramming things into sites” (Consultant, GQ). However, at the same time regulatory policies beyond the control of the nation state have hindered the development of innovative greenspace provision. As reported in Chapter 4, EU competition law preventing ‘monopoly providers’ (enforced competition) meant that woodchip fuel provided by a community forest was forbidden in a London development by one developer interviewed. Similarly, this could hinder the selection of woodland for carbon offsetting, as despite the multiple benefits this would bring it would breach EU illegal state aid laws.

8.3.2 Planning Process

Outline Permission In the Green Quarter, an outline application was successively altered, increasing massing, decreasing ground level greenspace and adding car parking provision. In Woodford, an outline planning application for higher density development than was prescribed in the SPD was made, to decrease the political sensitivity of a full application which exceeding the accepted quantity of development by 100 units. The problem of giving outline permissions is that:

‘Once an outline permission is granted, it makes it very difficult for us to refuse a scheme further down the line’ (Planner, quoted in Wainwright, 2014)

Given the uncertainty of planning processes, allowing outline applications which permit the developer to ‘test the water’ regarding what might be acceptable before paying for detailed design work seems fair. However, the council are in a weaker position to contest alterations at later stages, which may cumulatively reduce the degree of public benefit, or planning gain offered by the scheme. This is illustrated by the loss of greenspace and absence of connecting bridges in the Green Quarter scheme.

This flexibility is unidirectional. Local plans, and SPD’s, cannot make demands on development over and above those of higher tier policy documents in line with plan ‘soundness’ introduced as part of evidence based planning, This is why, despite the high potential resale value at Woodford, the requirement for renewable energies was still only at the Merton Rule level of 10%. In turn, ‘opportunity’ can only be recognised by the market, and local authorities are limited in their scope

238

to designate spaces where higher standards are expected, unless central government intervention is made.

Deregulation and Imported Legitimacy

The Coalitions rhetorical deregulation drive is argued in Chapter 4 to have enabled the economisation of CSR policy, and brazenness about this by interviewees. Nevertheless there was genuine concern expressed by several interviewees about the deregulation drive by central government. When D2, who provided the ‘Tesco’ analogy was asked whether he felt any new policy or regulation should be developed to safeguard environmental sustainability in housing, he began to say – “I think…” – but then hesitated and went on to explain that the company were in “deregulation mode” at the moment, along with the government, who he said have “turned from one when the economy was going well, really looking at social and environment, to one whose goal is growth using housing as a lever for growth”.

D2 went on to say that the simplification of policy was necessary, but has “gone too far”. Speaking specifically of the removal of PPS23, which dealt with planning for pollution control in the reclamation and regeneration of brownfield sites, he explained that there was consensus across actors that this needed to happen, but that government have “stepped back saying we don’t do this stuff anymore. There isn’t a party to step in as an authoritative voice to put a replacement down that everyone would buy into” (D2).

The notion that the state is the only legitimate voice of coercion in such matters is one argument provided to support a strong interventionist green state (Eckersley, 2004). However, it was evident in the discussions with Stockport Council that they felt an independent, non-state actor would need to come forward with any policy framework which sought to relate greenspace resources to population. This was considered by Stockport Planning officials to have greater potential, if not legitimacy, in negotiation with developers.

Instruments which give technical legitimacy to investment in nature may be adopted from other countries, such as the ‘Green Credit Tool’ (Cilliers et al., 2010) or the Biotype Area Factor (Becker and Mohren, 1990). However, neither of these encourage associations between population and ecosystem services, challenge growth, or demand particular functional outcomes by principle; instead focusing on form. None the less, the fervour for NSMD tools trickles down to the community scale, as indicated by Rackheath Trust’s uptake of the Greenspace Factor. National Interviewee 2 suggested that NSMD standards can be seen as “sexier”.

239

This may be due to established perceptions that the public sector lags behind the private sector in its ability to innovate (Borins, 2001). Furthermore, it has been argued that there is little social ‘acceptance of the view that bureaucrats as well as elected officials have legitimate roles to play as public innovators’ (Althuser and Zegans, 1990 p16). The findings of this research do challenge the simple binary between public and private in policy making; but it can be said that public policy has increasingly incorporated private sector ethos in its policies. Therefore, while sustainability demands a greater degree of public sector innovation than is permitted by current hierarchical policymaking processes, it is important to note that such innovation demands resources. Without this, a movement towards regulatory capitalism could occur, in which environmental narratives are increasingly defined by market actors and ability of the state to reclaim discursive territory to define environment wanes (Levi-Faur, 2005; 2006).

Neighbourhood Planning According to Herbert (2005) Neighbourhood Planning can ostensibly provide two functions in projects of neoliberal governance: stand as a recipient for devolved public services responsibilities offloaded by the state; and legitimate the removal of a state voice. The establishment of Rackheath Trust clearly falls into the first category. Two other developers in interview also suggested they were looking into community asset transfer and community trust options for future management of onsite greenspace resources. In line with Herbert’s description of neighbourhood planning, this can be seen to represent a form of ‘roll-with-it’ neoliberalisation (Keil, 2009) in the governance of community greenspace. This has come in response to the roll- up of government involvement in greenspace management for over two decades. Handing over management to the community in Rackheath demonstrates indirect promotion of localism not encouraged by government, but by the market due to an awareness of an absence of government.

However, as shown by the adoption of Greenspace Factor in the Rackheath Compass, communities may end up replying on Non State Market Driven (NSMD) standards to make demands for what they want. While this could result in more genuine engagement between local residents and ‘public’ greenspaces, this depends on the institutional structure of the Trust. Who ultimately owns the land, which members of the community will be involved in this, how new members could become involved, and what democratic procedures will be in place to ensure that the management and evolving functionality of the site can be collaboratively decided. This would be an interesting avenue for future research.

Beyond taking on state responsibilities, the second function of communities in neoliberal projects as described by Herbert (2005) is to legitimise the removal of state voice. However, as communities did not get to define sustainability, or gain the territorial leverage to affect

240

expectations of development at the site, legitimacy was not being sought for sustainability interpretations. The refusal to include certain spaces has been illustrated by other councils in reviewing neighbourhood forum proposals (London SE1, 2014 Geoghegan, 2014). While at the national scale Localism may have – paradoxically – achieved warm connotations of neo- communitarianism and democratic legitimacy (Herbert, 2005), locally tensions were heightened by the struggle to gain accreditation, and make claims to specific territory.

In both Rackheath and Woodford members of the community asserted that central government would support them, over local government, due to the rhetoric of Localism. The highlights how disempowered and isolated local authorities are – or ‘toothless’ as Wainwright (2014) describes them – under Localism. This result is scale jumping, (Smith, 1984) whereby political power does not follow immediate and obvious hierarchies and certain communities or scales are given priority.

Viability as a discretionary criterion

Across cases, market-shaping policies were compromised by the increasing weight given to viability in planning processes. The formality of market shaping policies seemingly decreases steadily as viability rhetoric gains growing support from central government. Braithwaite (2008) suggests that the development of the regulatory state has involved as much ‘making public’ of the private, as privatisation of the public. By this he means that those delivering goods and services which may once have been delivered by the state are under increasing social and political pressure to make public their actions and accounts. However, this cannot be said for viability assessments in housing negotiations. Statutory consultees interviewed have, nonetheless, accepted the necessity of ‘viability’. N3 suggested ‘if the site isn’t viable, it aint going to happen’, and that the best way forward was to decrease the demands of policy. An environmental statutory consultee suggested that as the key message from government was to stimulate growth, you can’t stand in the way, and have to help things proceed in the “best, I suppose environmental kind of sustainable manner that you can” (N8).

As introduced in Chapter 2, (Christophers, 2014) viability is a construct which enables developers to optimise profit margins; a figure ‘which comes out of the sausage machine’, by GQ4 in the Green Quarter. While the discourse and approach of viability assessment was developed regarding provision of social housing; this research has shown a full spectrum of environmental policy criteria can equally be dismissed on the basis of viability. While Haughton Allmendinger and Oosterynk (2013 p231) suggest that the potential for Eco-towns to develop as radical spaces of state experimentation in sustainability was hindered by ‘routinised planning debates about legitimacy, practicability, accountability, and local acceptability’ the findings of this study suggest

241

that in fact the greatest influence over outcomes was the viability discourse – a takeover of ‘commercial interests’.

Hence, even with the state as a developer through market stimulation approaches where risk is shared, market logics can still win in the battleground – if it can be considered as such – of local authority/developer negotiation. When planning is negotiation based, the importance of knowledge and expertise working on the side of the public interest grows. As shown in Chapter 5, fuzzy terminology in central government policy – combined with resource shortages in local government, increases reliance on consultants to develop local plans accepted as sound; not challenging hier tiers of policy. While the environmental angle taken by Landscape Architects has been challenged in this thesis, their removal from many local governments over the next 4 years (Landscape Institute, 2013) is another unbalancing of skills, exacerbating longstanding removal of greenspace professions in local government (Harding, 1999). This is equally reflected in viability assessment, as expertise in economic assessment is largely absent in Local Authorities, as a Planning Officer cited by Wainwright (2014) suggests:

“Every consultant that’s advising a local authority is hoping to advise a developer tomorrow. If they put the boot in on a big development scheme, they simply won’t be hired again.” (Wainwright, 2014 Guardian Website)

In turn, consultants informing planning authorities are hesitant not to make suggestions which might contradict ‘the sausage machine’. This noted, genuine increases in land value cannot be ignored. Brownfield sites have long been accepted as more expensive and therefore in need of special concession in relation to viability (Jones, Leishman and Macdonald, 2009). This has often resulted in trade-offs in the inclusion of affordable housing (Ibid; Adams, 2004), which is recognised by both sides to be the key concern in development viability debates (Christophers, 2014). Land purchase can be significantly challenging for the development economics of sites near expanding urban locations (Capoza and Helzey, 1989). Nonetheless, the fact that developers feel it is justified to grossly ignore and test local authority prescriptions for affordable units (as shown in Woodford and Rackheath, and by Wainwright, 2014) while also boasting skyrocketing profits represents the thin veneer of economic legitimacy to cover deeper ideological moves further into housing market liberalism and private rented ownership.

8.3.5 Conclusions Greenspace within development has been used to justify growth in all case studies. While the Urban Renaissance is most characterised by market shaping policy, it also incorporated a variety of external market based standards. As in previous planning eras, this can do little to advance sustainability as economic interests prevail. The move from centrally orchestrated regionalism,

242

to Localism under the coalition has not visibly changed priorities for greenspace in new residential development. The economic development focus of regionalism did support green infrastructure development, and some conversations about climate resilience at this scale. However, with the removal of these quasi-state voices, local authorities are looking to NSMD standards which have less potential to strategically coordinate activity across space. Development professionals with high personal concern recognise that homebuyer preferences are constructed but assert that choice editing has to come from government. Responsibility for changing these preferences are seen to be beyond their control. The deepening materiality of viability as a material consideration in planning weakens the position of local authorities to make demands of developers, or have imaginative and creative visions for place development.

243

9. Conclusions

9.1 Research Aim and Approach This thesis set out to understand how Sustainable Development (SD) policies created between 2004 and 2014, and corporate social responsibility practices of the leading volume housebuilders from 2007 to 2013, have affected the design of greenspace in new residential developments. Fundamentally, it explores how SD has altered understandings of environment, and the consequences this has had for greenspace. This was necessary because while there is consensus that the relationships between people and the rest of nature must change, there is little agreement about what SD means, who is responsible for it, and how to bring this change about. There are in fact polarised and diametrically opposing interpretations of the SD concept presented in policy.

To respond to this, a methodology was developed to deliver on four objectives. This final chapter will present conclusions for each of these, before reviewing the originality of approach, limitations of the study, and potential avenues of future research.

9.1.1 Theoretical Relationships between Sustainability and Greenspace

RQ1: What ideas about environment shape approaches to greenspace under different SD interpretations?

Section 2.1 detailed the role of greenspace in strong sustainable development, and identified the way different types of policy instrument have and could be used to secure these goals. Greenspace was shown to be central to achieving a number of SD ambitions, such as climate change mitigation and adaptation, the provision of locally sourced food and energy, protection of healthy ecosystems, and nurturing the development of more environmentally conscious, happy and healthy citizens. However, it was shown that these outcomes had to be consciously designed in and were not guaranteed by the provision of any greenspace. With this in mind, the institutional arrangements required to secure the long term achievement of these outcomes were considered. A review of the history of environment in planning and development illustrated that delivering these greenspace functionalities had not been a priority prior to SD policy. In turn, new narratives, frames and approaches – steeped within development institutions - were found to be required.

Section 2.2 reviewed planning policy since 2004. This revealed that in planning four types of policy instrument have been used to shape outcomes: capacity building, regulating, stimulating and market shaping. The three planning policy moments – EcoTowns, Urban Renaissance and Garden Cities – were characterised by different constellations of these policy instruments. Also varying between policy moments was central government rhetoric about sustainable development, and the spatial organisation of planning, moving from centrally-orchestrated

244

regionalism (2004-2010), to centrally-orchestrated localism, under austerity urbanism (2010- 2014). No research was found which identified how these different policy moments affected greenspace design, and what role different policy instruments and governance arrangements had in this.

Section 2.3 identified three main gaps in understanding volume housing developer CSR as a form of SD governance. First, there is limited understanding of how CSR acts as a policy system – the formalisation of responsibilities, and intentions to standardise outcomes. Second, while research has considered how CSR has responded to particular policy initiatives, or has meet predefined criteria, no account of how it frames sustainability and environment has been provided. Third, there was no research on how CSR might shape greenspace design.

RQ2: What are the political economic and cultural forces shaping outcomes in sustainable housing developments?

In light of the findings of RQ1, an institutional account of the development process was needed which could identify what development institutions are, how they operate, and which institutional variables impact on the adoption of responsibility for SD and greenspace outcomes by different actors. Previous institutional models of the development process were reviewed, and a new approach which could interpret the practices of CSR and planning as related activities within wider institutional SD landscapes presented in section 2.5.

Important variables which characterise SD institutions were identified and classified within ideas, rules and resources. This was then brought into conversation with the four parallel SD philosophies presented in Chapter 1. This sought to rework institutional theory to return greater agency to the state by recognising the variety of possible SD cultural political economies it could embody. Rather than a single and deterministic view of ideology, as conceived by Healey’s Structuration approach, multiple potential cultural political economies of SD, of which aspects can be seen in practice, were outlined. In this renewed model, while ideas are still considered, equal importance is given to the role of rules and resources, in order to generate constructive recommendations and isolate responsibilities of state and market actors. The usefulness of this approach is discussed in 9.2 below.

9.1.2 Corporate Social Responsibility: Sustainability and Greenspace

RQ3: What ideas of sustainability are presented in Corporate Social Responsibility, with what consequences for greenspace?

245

Three frames of SD were found in reports analysed, each presenting their own opportunities for greenspace. These were sustainable housing, sustainable communities, and sustainable business.

1. Sustainable Housing was characterised by the ideas and systems of the Code for Sustainable Homes policy. The highly prescriptive nature of this instrument meant there was little deviation or innovation about greenspace in this frame: biodiversity and flood risk mitigation via SUDS or green roofs.

2. Sustainable Business considered more innovative greenspace functions, with shading and evapotranspiration considered to offer the unique selling point of climate-resilience, and woodland (off-site) for company activity carbon offsetting.

3. Sustainable Communities mainly referred to greenspace in case study contexts. Rather than serving to provide USP for houses, greenspace was presented as a) improving the USP of whole developments through provision of recreational space, and b) as a bargaining chip with local communities. Community negotiation in case studies drove designs down the road towards recreational and aesthetic functionality.

RQ4: How does CSR regularise outcomes for greenspace provision in new housing projects?

Four policy approaches (reporting compliance, advancing government consensus, using certificates, developing autonomous policies) were demonstrated in CSR reports. Key Performance Indicators and ‘Aspirations’ were used to set autonomous objectives. However, there was some evidence of shifting goal posts and redefinition of KPI terms, which made progress difficult to monitor as an outsider. Legal compliance was reported and advancing government objectives demonstrated through case studies or KPIs. External certifications, from international NGOs and domestic QUANGOs, were used to demonstrate best practice. Collaborations with research institutions were also used to develop knowledge capital which could be advantageous in influencing the direction of future policy through collaborative working groups. This resource-based power can be seen therefore to affect the development of capacity building tools.

A significant change in the formation of CSR policy objectives occurred over the period considered. The impacts of the 2008 financial crash changed reporting to focus on more economic objectives. This was considered to be an ‘evolution’ in thinking, demonstrating greater balance than earlier years which were considered to have treated environment as a ‘stand-alone’ with too much weight in SD. Having a sustainability ‘head on’ was considered as distinct from having an environment ‘head on’ in decision making. This reflects a change in central government rhetoric,

246

highlighting the importance of state activity on CSR and poor issue salience of NL sustainable communities A move away from sustainable communities frames, towards ‘aspirational homes’ which sought to win over cash-rich time-poor residents characterised this change.

9.1.3 SD in Planning Policy Moments

RQ5: What is the influence of planning policy moment on the relationship between conceptions of environment in SD and roles given to greenspace?

This research suggests that fundamental understandings of the environment did not differ between EcoTown, Urban Renaissance, and Garden City SD policy moments. Practice is dominated by the discrete elements understanding of nature which characterised conservation and commodity narratives in historical practice, and redesigning cities and externally dependant cities approaches. SD has failed to fundamentally change ideas of nature in development practice or become effectively linked to debates around consumption or the relationship between residents and the rest of nature. In keeping with Wright (2011) Green Infrastructure was shown to be an easily corruptible concept. Equally, the use of ecosystem services as a heuristic to analyse practice cannot be guaranteed to correct the shortcomings of existing approaches. For instance, all four categories are represented by current greenspace practice (since flood risk mitigation has been included) regardless of the fact that ideas of nature have not changed. Further, debates about scale can easily be obscured or overlooked by this language. New ideas, embodied in new narratives and frames are needed to work in conjunction with new policy instruments to transform practice.

RQ6: How did planning and CSR each affect outcomes in these projects?

In all three cases the balance of power to shape and direct outcomes resided with the developer. As discussed in 9.2.4 below, this was mainly the result of tensions between governance scales, and the absence of a consistent and authoritative state voice. In Rackheath, many of the design criteria initially set out were being renegotiated as a result of central government withdrawal of support for Ecotowns, and increased rhetorical support for viability as a development criteria. In Woodford, the lack of central government design requirements for Garden Cities – combined with limited local government resources – permitted Redrow’s design preferences to enter policy through the back door, via their landscape consultant.

Despite this, CSR was not a strong influence in shaping outcomes. While CSR policy regarding asset management led to the Green Quarter’s greenspace being privately managed, in Rackheath, CSR intentions for local food growing were not followed through despite significant ‘opportunity’

247

and high local need. Landscape architects from two case studies claimed never to have heard of Barratt’s KPI for 10 trees or shrubs per house. Few of the consultants and none of the local government workers read CSR strategies – suggesting that, currently, CSR has low accountability. For CSR to become a more effective component of SD governance, local government, consultants and civil society should be involved in holding developers to account for their commitments. This also removes the monitoring burden within companies.

9.1.4 Responsibilities for Greenspace

RQ7: What are the consequences for greenspace of rules made for SD?

While fundamental ideas of nature have not been transformed by SD policy, the evolution of greenspace ideas in different projects does suggest that three institutional variables can be altered to positively alter greenspace practice despite persistent ideology of nature. These are: the type of policy instrument; location of expertise in development processes and associated power to define the role of greenspace in SD; and the rhetorical support for market intervention by central government. With changes to these variables it is possible that greenspace designs seeking more ambitious sustainable development goals could be achieved.

RQ8: What are the comparative responsibilities of state and market for greenspace in sustainable residential development, and how does this sit within the context of political economy?

The legitimacy of the state as an agent capable of shaping the future of SD is waning and continually undermined. Actors in the development industry with high individual concern for sustainability do not believe that the Coalition government takes its responsibility to secure SD seriously and that it does have and should use its status as the natural authoritative voice securing environmental performance. Civil society think local government and developers use the term SD meaninglessly, without commitment, as a ‘get out of jail free card’ to validate new development. For local planners to feel empowered as actors in SD as a state-led project, greater coherence between state scales is needed. Localism has further stripped local government of their authoritative and allocative powers. With declining knowledge and financial resources in local government as a result of austerity, local communities are scale-jumping directly to central government to complain about local matters in the knowledge that political point scoring presides over consistency; and local planners are isolated and disempowered.

As there is less central government prescription for greenspace design, non-state market-driven standards are being drawn upon by developers to market projects, and by local authorities seeking to clarify SD and defend themselves against challenge at planning appeal. Such policy tools reviewed in this project have not challenged engrained ideas of nature, and do not

248

encourage greenspace designs which achieve the system-transformational strong sustainable development goals as set out in 2.1.

In turn, local government planners become increasingly bureaucratic. This makes them less capable of creative or innovative interpretation and negotiation of market shaping policies at the local level. This supports the findings of Catney and Henneberry (2012) – that planners are disinclined to exercise discretion – and Gunn and Hillier (2012) that they increasingly rely on central government policy prescription for even modest forms of innovation. This limits their confidence and ability to become assertive ‘market actors’ (Adams and Tiesdell, 2010).

The findings of this research suggest that while CSR considers a spectrum of greenspace functionalities, it cannot be relied upon as a reliable form of governance to secure greenspace designs for strong SD. This is true for three reasons. First, market actors do not consider it their responsibility to choice-edit. Second, as developers do not consider house buyers (the market) to desire environmentally sustainable attributes, and to have conservative values about design, volume developers will repeat existing development approaches. Third, in line with this consumer-led approach, there was some suggestion that the industry use CSR as a form of market differentiation. Therefore, rather than mitigating negative externalities or addressing issues of redistribution, CSR structurally reinforces these problems.

For planners to regain an active role in SD and reclaim legitimacy in doing so, we need more open debates about appropriate political and natural scales to relate residents with ecosystem services. This should take place outside of ‘consensus-building organisations’ like the Zero Carbon Hub. Capacity building approaches should also be used at the local level. For planners to become, and in turn recognise themselves as, market actors, human resources which parallel those of the private sector are necessary. As it stands, capacity-building forums strengthen the voice of developers in defining SD policy while local government becomes increasingly resource-short and fractured in its ability to cooperate with other state actors.The need to outsource skills in environmental assessment and design results in the use of consultants to create policy, while employed by developers subject to the policy. Just as it does not make sense for private viability assessors to challenge developer calculations for fear of losing work (Wainwright, 2014) it does not make sense for private landscape designers or environmental assessors to write landscape character assessments for new development.

9.2 Utility of Conceptual Framework

This project developed and applied a new approach to investigating SD institutions. In section 2.5, institutional models of the development process were reviewed. A new approach was

249

developed which identified important institutional parameters which affect the adoption of responsibility for SD outcomes in new housing projects. This considered planners and developers to be located in institutional fields. This was then brought into conversation with Haughton’s (1999) four ‘ideal-types’, which was developed to create a conceptual framework. Rather than considering tensions in projects as the result of ‘counter-hegemony’ meeting strategic-selectivity, tensions were seen to represent inconsistencies in commitment to parallel SD interpretations. Case studies were considered in light of this framework to understand how variables which can be altered – such as type of policy instrument and location of expertise – impact outcomes and be altered to affect the distribution of responsibility. This meant institutional analysis was not only a characterisation and critique of existing practices, but also a conceptual device to understand how state and market actors could better institutionalise responsibility towards the normative goal of strong sustainable development.

The finding that ideas of nature did not vary across different policy moments, despite significant variations in other institutional conditions and geographical location, suggests that path- dependency does influence greenspace outcomes. However, change is still possible – as policy instruments, location of expertise resources across negotiating actors, and rhetorical support for market intervention by central government were all found to interact in ways which significantly affected greenspace design in discretionary planning processes.

The approach has therefore proven useful in bringing together the understanding of formal rules presented in Political Economy of Institutionalism approaches with the more power-conscious interpretations of Structural Political Economy found in sociological and historical interpretations of development institutions. A key strength of the approach is that it can be used to examine the role of different policy instruments in a range of geographical contexts, because

- it allows for place-specific historical factors to be identified, while at the same time; - presenting a dynamic account of structure, in which the state is considered as having potential as an active agent in the social construction of markets .

It might be particularly fruitful to examine the approach in a non-discretionary planning system within the EU. As the literature review highlighted, particularly progressive greenspace policies have been implemented in Sweden and the Netherlands. Understanding how new housing projects which are regulated by these policy instruments fit into alternative constellations of SD could be used to develop the approach.

250

A limitation of the approach is that its focus on institutions ‘beyond’ the level of organisations – necessary to consider landscapes of responsibility – comes at the expense of deeper understanding/interrogation of institutional constraints within housing developer organisations.

9.3 Research Limitations A number of reflections on the research process could have improved the quality of findings. First, by focusing on developer representatives in CSR departments, information about how policies are formed, and how environment is strategized were gained. However, for the purposes of understanding the relationship between development of CSR policies and the challenges of project delivery, it became apparent that it would have been useful to also speak to the technical teams. Technical teams focus more on responses to challenges in specific case contexts. This could be a focus of future research, to understand from the developer’s point of view how CSR affects case by case design of greenspace.

Second, several important interviews could not be procured. For Woodford, the representative of Harrow was not willing to take part for a full interview, only confirming a few details late in the research process, after planning application. For the Green Quarter, the case officer at Manchester City Council who worked on the initial masterplan was no longer employed by the council, and the rest of the planning team were too busy to offer their views. This significantly weakens this case, as no local authority perspective has been gained. While an interview was arranged several times with Living City, the greenspace management company, this never materialised for various reasons on their part. This could have revealed the implications of private management on design and community engagement. In Rackheath, the Barratt representative declined to take part; Rackheath Trust did not respond to repeated attempts at contact; and ENiMS, who take a novel approach to environmental consultancy, offering ‘environmental compliance’ and ‘environmental excellence’ services, could not be contacted.

Third whilst interviews were conducted face-to-face for the Green Quarter and Woodford Case Studies, research budget constraints meant that many interviews were conducted over the phone with Rackheath participants. This may have limited the quality and depth of engagement.

Fourth, whilst the absence of community engagement in the early design stages of the Green Quarter was confirmed by two interviewees, comments on the initial masterplan were not available from Manchester City Council. The council could have provided some context for the ‘anything is an improvement on baseline’ in industrial city regeneration strategies: whether they felt that this was the case with the Green Quarter; how community consultation has changed in the city centre over the course of the last decade; and what the consequences may have been for

251

onsite greenspace had prevailing practices of community consultation been in place. As it stands, these questions require further validation.

9.4 Future Research

Several findings are worthy of further research. An exploration of the environmental consequences of the ‘aspirational’ housing narrative emerging in CSR: where this came from; how it is conceived in policy circles; what this means for greenspace; whether it is spatially confined to the inner city; whether it reflects ‘real’ desires; and whether private management does constrain community transformation of greenspace.

This thesis has focused primarily on the dynamics between the state and market actors – to understand their responsibilities – devoting less attention to the influence of civil society. Further study of Woodford Neighbourhood Forum would be fruitful to reveal how highly conflicting ideas of sustainable development become resolved. A longer term study of the development of the Rackheath Trust could enable reflections on the effectiveness of developer-led establishment of community greenspace management institutions. In both cases, this would provide important lessons for the ‘top-down versus bottom-up’ debate about the role of the state in working towards sustainable development futures. While authors such as Tonkiss (2013) have considered the way austerity politics allows insurgent reclaiming of space by civil society, it is also important to understand how reduced authoritativeness of central government policy definition, combined with decline in expertise and resources at the local government level, allow insurgent market- based interpretations of Sustainable Development to claim regulatory territory. Theories of regulatory capitalism (Braithwaite, 2008) could add conceptual understanding from other disciplines about how market self-regulating mechanisms can be better held to account.

252

References

A2 Dominion (2014) A2 Dominion: about us. [online] Available at: http://www.a2dominion.co.uk/rte.asp?id=9 [Accessed 01/09/2014]

Abercrombie, P. (1933) Town and Country Planning. Oxford University Press.

Adams, D. (2004) The changing regulatory environment for speculative house building and the construction of core competencies for brownfield development. Environment and Planning A, 36(4), p.601-624.

Adams, D. Croudace, R., Tiesdell, S. (2011) Design codes, opportunity space and marketability of new housing. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 38(2). P 289-306.

Adams, D. Croudace, R. Tiesdell, S. (2012) Exploring the ‘Notional Property Developer’ as a policy construct. Urban Studies, 49(12), p 2577- 2596.

Adams, D., Dunse, N., & White, M. (2005) Conceptualising state–market relations in land and property: The growth of institutionalism–extension or challenge to mainstream economics?. Planning, public policy & property markets, p 37-55.

Adams, D. Leishman, C. Moore, C. (2009) Why not build faster? Explaining the speed at which British housebuilders develop new homes for owner occupation, Town Planning Review, 80 (3), p.291-314.

Adams, D., Payne, S. and Watkins, C. (2008) Corporate social responsibility and the UK house building industry, in Murray, M. and Dainty, A. (eds.) Corporate Social Responsibility in the Construction Industry, Spon. p.235-258.

Adams, D. Payne, S. (2011) ‘Business as Usual?’ Exploring the Design Response of UK speculative Housebuilders to the Brownfield Development Challenge. In Tiesdell, S. and Adams, D. (eds.) Urban Design in the Real Estate Development Process. Blackwell Publishing. Oxford

Adams, D., Tiesdell, S. (2010) Planners as market actors: Rethinking state–market relations in land and property. Planning Theory & Practice, 11(2), p187-207. Adams, D. Watkins, C. (2008) Greenfields, brownfields and housing development. John Wiley & Sons New Jersey

Adams, D. Watkins, C. White, M. (eds.) (2005) Planning, public policy and property markets. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford

Adger, W. (ed.) (2006) Fairness in adaptation to climate change. MIT press.

AECOM (2013) Acton Gardens Climate Adaptation Strategy. [online] Available at: http://www.arcc-network.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/D4FC/D4FC43-Acton-gardens-full- report.pdf Accessed 01.07.2014 [Accessed 12/07/14]

AEDAS (2006) Design Statement For Block 6, The Greeen Quarter. Available online at: http://www.scotthughesdesign.co.uk/project/green-quarter-blocks-56/ Accessed 01.01.2015

Aglietta, M. (1979) A theory of capitalist regulation: the US experience. New Left Books, London.

Aglietta, M. (2000). A theory of capitalist regulation: the US experience (Vol. 28). Verso.

253

AGMA (2011) Green Infrastructure Framework Final Report, March 2011. [online] Available at: http://www.agma.gov.uk/ [Accessed 01.08.2014]

Agyeman, J. and Evans, B. (2004) ‘Just sustainability’: the emerging discourse of environmental justice in Britain? The Geographical Journal, 170(2), p.155-164.

Albrechts, L. (2004) Strategic (spatial) planning reexamined. Environment and Planning B, 31, p.743-758.

Alexander, E. R. (2001). A transaction-cost theory of land use planning and development control: towards the institutional analysis of public planning. The Town Planning Review, 45-75.

Alexander, E. R. (2005). Institutional transformation and planning: from institutionalization theory to institutional design. Planning theory, 4(3), 209-223. Alexander, R. (2010) Framing discourse on the environment: A critical discourse approach. Routledge.

Allen, C. (2007) Of urban entrepreneurs or 24-hour party people? City-centre living in Manchester, England. Environment and Planning A, 39, p.666-683.

Allmendinger, P. (2011) New Labour and Planning, From New Right to New Left. Routledge.

Allmendinger, P. and Haughton, G. (2009) Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries and metagovernance: the new spatial planning in the Thames Gateway. Environment and Planning A, 41, p.617-633.

Allmendinger, P. and Haughton, G. (2010) Spatial planning, devolution, and new planning spaces. Environment and planning C: Government & policy, 28(5), p.803-818.

Allmendinger, P. and Haughton, G. (2012) Post‐political spatial planning in England: a crisis of consensus? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37(1), p.89-103. Altshuler, A. and Zegans, M. (1990) Innovation and creativity: comparisons between public management and private enterprise. Cities, 7(1), p.16-24.

Amati, M. and Taylor, L. (2010) From green belts to green infrastructure. Planning, Practice & Research, 25(2), p.143-155.

Anglican Water (2010) Water Resource Management Plan, Main Report. [online] Available at: http://www.anglianwater.co.uk/environment/water-resources/resource-management/ [Accessed 15/06/14]

Anthony, M. (2006) A genealogy of the western rationalist hegemony. Journal of Futures Studies, 10(4), p.25-38.

Argote, L. Greve, H. (2007) A behavioural theory of the firm-40 years and counting: Introduction and impact. Organization Science, 18(3), p 337-349.

Arrow, Kenneth J. (1994) ‘Methodological Individualism and Social Knowledge’, American Economic Review (Papers and Proceedings) 84 (2) p. 1-9

Atkins, J. (2012) Mending “Broken Britain”: From the Respect Agenda to the Big Society. LSE British Politics and Policy [blog] Available at: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/camerons- broken-britain-atkins/ [Accessed 01/09/14]

Atkins, P. and Bowler, I. (2001) Food in society: economy, culture, geography. Arnold, Hodder Headline Group.

254

Atlantic Gateway (2014) Atlantic Gateway. [online] Available At: http://www.atlanticgateway.co.uk/ [Accessed 01/09/14]

Atlantic Gateway (2014) The Board. [online] Available at: www.atlanticgateway.co.uk/the- board/ [Accessed 01/09/14]

Bäckstrand, K. and Lövbrand, E. (2006) Planting trees to mitigate climate change: Contested discourses of ecological modernization, green governmentality and civic environmentalism. Global Environmental Politics, 6(1), p.50-75. Baldwin, R., Scott, C. and Hood, C. (eds.) (1998) A Reader on Regulation. Oxford University Press.

Ball, M. (1986) The built environment and the urban question" Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 4(4) p 447 – 464

Ball, J. and Srinivasan, V. (1994) Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process in house selection. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 9(1), p.69-85.

Ball, M. (1983). Housing policy and economic power: the political economy of owner occupation. Methuen, London

Ball, M. (1985). Coming to terms with owner occupation. Capital & Class, 8(3), 15-44.

Ball, M. (1998). Institutions in British property research: a review. Urban Studies, 35(9), 1501- 1517

Bambra C., Robertson S., Kasim A., Smith J., Cairns-Nagi, J.M., Copeland A., Finlay N., and Johnson K. (2014) Healthy land? An examination of the area-level association between brownfield land and morbidity and mortality in England. Environment and Planning A, 46(2), p.433-454.

Barlow, J. (1993) Controlling the housing land market: some examples from Europe. Urban Studies, 30(7), p.1129-1149.

Barlow, J. (1998) From Craft Production to Mass Customisation? Customer-Focused Approaches to House building. Proceedings IGLC, 6.

Barlow, J. (1999) From craft production to mass customisation. Innovation requirements for the UK house building industry. Housing Studies, 14(1), p.23-42.

Barlow, J. and Ozaki, R. (2003) Achieving 'customer focus' in private house building: Current practice and lessons from other industries. Housing Studies, 18(1), p.87-101.

Barlow, J., Childerhouse, P., Gann, D., Hong-Minh, S., Naim, M. Ozaki, R. (2003) Choice and delivery in house building: lessons from Japan for UK house builders. Building research & information, 31(2), p.134-145.

Barnes, T. J., & Duncan, J. S. (Eds.). (2013). Writing worlds: discourse, text and metaphor in the representation of landscape. Routledge.

Barratt Homes (2007) Corporate Responsibility Update 2007. Barratt Homes: Manchester.

Barratt Homes (2009) Corporate Responsibility Report: Building Futures Together 2009. Barratt Homes: Manchester.

255

Barratt Homes (2012) Sustainability Report: Responsible Futures 2012. Barratt Homes: Manchester.

Barratt Homes (2014) Elworth Gardens. [online] Available At: http://www.barratthomes.co.uk/new-homes/cheshire/H593401-Elworth- Gardens/?WT.mc_id=PPC__Google__Localised&WT.srch=1&srchpterm=elworth+gardens&srche ngine=google&srchmatch=exact&gsrc=S&gclid=CjwKEAjwyYCgBRCMmbWl5beV_RQSJABESqH AYfnKIXCBk6njM_KJKjX3ZSKULY00GOTqCT-moP8XgxoCQyLw_wcB [Accessed 01/09/2014]

Barratt Homes (2014) Hanham Hall. [online] Available at: http://www.hanhamhall.co.uk [Accessed 01/09/2014]

Barratt Homes (2014) Performance Data. [online] Available at: http://www.barrattdevelopments.co.uk/barratt/en/sustainability/data [Accessed 05/02/14]

Barratt Homes (2014) The Barratt Legacy Programme. [online] Available at: http://barrattlegacy.co.uk/ [Accessed 26/08/14]

Barry, J. and Paterson, M. (2004) Globalisation, ecological modernisation and New Labour. Political Studies, 52(4), p.767-784.

Barthel, S. Folke, C. Colding, J. (2010) Social–ecological memory in urban gardens—Retaining the capacity for management of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 20(2), p 255- 265.

Baylis, R. and Connell, L. (1998) Company size, environmental regulation and ecological modernization: further analysis at the level of the firm. Business Strategy and the Environment, 7(5), p.285–296.

Bazeley, P. Jackson, K. (Eds.). (2013). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo. Sage Publications Limited.

Beatley, T. (2011). Biophilic Cities: What Are They?. In Biophilic Cities (pp. 45-81). Island Press/Center for Resource Economics.

Beatley, T. (2011). Concluding Thoughts: Growing the Biophilic City. InBiophilic Cities (pp. 151- 158). Island Press/Center for Resource Economics.

Beatley, T. (2011). Biophilic cities: integrating nature into urban design and planning. Island Press.

Beatley, T. (2014) Habitat conservation planning: endangered species and urban growth. University of Texas Press.

Beauregard, R.A. (1990) Bringing the city back in. Journal of the American Planning Association, 56(2) p.210-215. Beck, U. (2000) What is Globalization? Polity Press.

Becker, G., & Mohren, R. (1990). The Biotope Area Factor as an Ecological Parameter. Landschaft Planen & Bauen, Berlin. Available at http://www.stadtentwicklung.berlin.de Accessed 01.01.2015

Beeri, I. and Yuval, F. (2013) New Localism and Neutralizing Local Government: Has anyone bothered asking the public for its opinion? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, [online] Available at: doi:10.1093/jopart/mut031. [Accessed 03/04/14]

256

Bell, D. and Binnie, J. (2005) What's Eating Manchester? Gastro-Culture and Urban Regeneration. Architectural Design, 75(3), p.78–85.

Bell, D. and Jayne, M. (2004) City of Quarters: Urban Villages in the Contemporary City. Ashgate.

Bellway (2014) Building Greener Homes. [online] Available at: http://www.bellway.co.uk/corporate-responsibility/building-greener-homes [Accessed 01/07/14]

Bellway (2014) Climate Change Statement. Available at: http://www.bellway.co.uk/corporate- responsibility/corporate-governance/climate-change-policy-statement [Accessed 01/07/2014]

Bellway (2014) Environmental Policy. [online] Available at: http://www.bellway.co.uk/corporate-responsibility/corporate-governance/environmental- policy [Accessed 01/07/2014]

Bellway (2014) Making the Most of Our Land. [online] Available at: http://www.bellway.co.uk/corporate-responsibility/building-greener-homes/making-the- most-of-our-land [Accessed 01/01/14]

Benson, J. and Roe, M. (eds.) (2007) Landscape and sustainability. Taylor & Francis.

Bentley, G. and Pugalis, L. (2013) New directions in economic development: Localist policy discourses and the Localism Act. Local Economy, 28(3), p.257-274.

Benton, T., Vickery, J. and Wilson, J. (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18(4), p.182-188.

Benedict, M. A., & McMahon, E. T. (2006). Green infrastructure. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Berkeley (2007) Sustainability Report 2007. Berkley: Cobham.

Berkeley (2009) Sustainability Report 2007. Berkley: Cobham.

Berkeley (2010) Climate Change Policy Statement. Berkley: Cobham.

Berkeley (2010) Environmental Policy. Berkeley: Cobham.

Berkeley (2010) Sustainability Policy. Berkeley: Cobham.

Berkeley (2012) Sustainability and Performance Report 2012. Berkeley: Cobham.

Bernstein, S. (2001) Legitimacy in Global Governance: Three Conceptions. In: Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 29 August–1 September, San Francisco, USA.

Bernstein, S. and Cashore, B. (2007) Can non‐state global governance be legitimate? An analytical framework. Regulation & Governance, 1(4), p.347-371.

Berranger. P. and Meldrum, M. (2000) The Development of Intelligent Local Clusters to Increase Global Competitiveness and Local Cohesion: The Case of Small Businesses in the Creative Industries. Urban Studies, 37(10), p.1827–1835.

Bertaud, A., Renaud, B. and Mundial, B. (1995) Cities without land markets: location and land use in the socialist city. World Bank, policy research working paper 1477.

Bertels, S. Peloza, J. (2008) Running Just to Stand Still? Managing CSR Reputation in an Era of Ratcheting Expectations, Corporate Reputation Review, 11 (1), p 56 - 72.

257

Beyond Green (2012) Green Infrastructure Statement, North Sprowston and Old Catton Outline Planning Application. [online] Available at: http://www.beyondgreen.co.uk/library/2012/10/23/north-sprowston-and-old-catton- outline-planning-application/ [Accessed 01/09/14]

Beyond Green (2012) Housing Statement, North Sprowston and Old Catton Outline Planning Application. Available at: http://www.beyondgreen.co.uk/library/2012/10/23/north- sprowston-and-old-catton-outline-planning-application/ [Accessed 01/09/14]

Beyond Green (2012) Sustainability Statement, North Sprowston and Old Catton Outline Planning Application. Available at: http://www.beyondgreen.co.uk/library/2012/10/23/north- sprowston-and-old-catton-outline-planning-application/ [Accessed 01/09/14]

Beyond Green (2014) Beyond Green. [online] Available at: http://www.beyondgreen.co.uk/ [Accessed 01/09/2014]

Bhaskar, R. and Lawson, T. (1998) Introduction: Basic texts and developments. In: Archer, M. et al (eds.) Critical Realism: Essential Readings. Routledge.

Bhaskar, R.A. (1989) Reclaiming Reality: A Critical Introduction to Contemporary Philosophy. Verso.

Birch, S. (2009) Real progress: prospects for Green Party support in Britain. Parliamentary Affairs, 62(1) p.53-71.

BIS (2013) Consultation Paper: Non-economic Regulators: Duty to Have Regard to Growth. BIS

Blake, H. (2011) Conservatives given millions by property developers. Telegraph, 9th September 2011. Available online at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/hands-off-our- land/8754027/Conservatives-given-millions-by-property-developers.html [Accessed 01/06/14]

Blake, J. (1999) Overcoming the ‘value‐action gap’in environmental policy: Tensions between national policy and local experience. Local environment, 4(3), p.257-278.

Bloor Homes (2014) Bloor Homes. [online] Available at: http://bloorhomes.com/ [Accessed 01/07/14]

Blowers, A. (1997) Environmental policy: ecological modernisation or the risk society? Urban studies, 34(5-6), p.845-872.

Bolund, P. and Hunhammar, S. (1999) Ecosystem services in urban areas. Ecological Economics, 29 (2), p.293–301.

Borins, S. (2001) Encouraging innovation in the public sector. Journal of intellectual capital, 2(3), p.310-319. Bosso, C. and Guber, D. (2006) Maintaining presence: Environmental advocacy and the permanent campaign. Environmental policy, p.78-91.

Bostro¨ m, M. (2003) How state-dependent is a non-state-driven rule-making project? The case of forest certification in Sweden. Journal of environmental policy & planning, 5(2), p.165-180.

Bover, O., Muellbauer, J. and Murphy, A. (1989) Housing, wages and UK labour markets. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 51(2), p.97-136.

258

Bovis Homes (2007) Corporate Social Responsibility Report 2007: Building a brighter future. Bovis Homes: Longfield.

Bovis Homes (2009) Corporate Social Responsibility Report 2009. Bovis Homes: Longfield.

Bovis Homes (2012) Corporate Social Responsibility Report 2012. Bovis Homes: Longfield.

Bowen, G. (2009) Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative research journal, 9(2), 27-40.

Boxenbaum, E. Georg, S. De Linde, G. Reijonen, S. Aggeri, F. Acquier, A. & Béjean, M. (2010) Innovation In Sustainable Construction: Eco-Cities And Social Housing In France And Denmark. In CONSTRUCTIONS MATTER-Managing Complexities, Decisions and Actions in the Building Process (pp. 1-50).

Boyfield, K. and Ali, A. (2013) Simplified planning: The case for sunset clauses. Centre for Policy Studies.

Boyatzis, R. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Sage, Thousand Oaks

Brady, A. (2006) Crosby Lend Lease, Presentation at Investor Roadshow UK/US – May 2006. [online] Available at: phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item...t=1 [Accessed 01/03/14]

Brady, A. (2006) Manchester Projects and Green Quarter Case Study, Presentation at Investor Roadshow UK/US – May 2006. [online] Available at: phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item...t=1 [Accessed 01/03/14]

Brainard, J., Bateman, I.J. and Lovett, A.A. (2009) The social value of carbon sequestered in Great Britain's woodlands. Ecological Economics, 68(4), p.1257-1267.

Braithwaite, J. (2005) Neoliberalism or regulatory capitalism. Regulatory Institutions Network.

Braithwaite, J. (2008) Regulatory capitalism: How it works, ideas for making it work better. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Bratman, G. Hamilton, J. Daily, G. (2012) The impacts of nature experience on human cognitive function and mental health. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1249(1) p 118-136. BRE (2015) ‘Our History’ Online at: http://www.bre.co.uk/page.jsp?id=1712 Accessed 01.01.2015

Brenner, N. (1998) Between fixity and motion: accumulation, territorial organization and the historical geography of spatial scales. Environment and Planning D, 16, p.459-482.

Broadland District Council (2010) Statement of Joint Venture Agreement. Available at: http://www.broadland.gov.uk/Rackheath_joint_venture_agreement.pdf [Accessed 01/09/14]

Broadland District Council (2012) Issues and Options Consultation Draft: Growth Triangle Area Action Plan. Broadland District Council.

Brown, A., O’Connor, J. and Cohen, S. (2000) Local music policies within a global music industry: cultural quarters in Manchester and Sheffield. Geoforum, 31, p.437-451.

Brown, A., Slater, G. and Spencer, D. (2002) Driven to abstraction? Critical realism and the search for the ‘inner connection’of social phenomena. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 26(6) p.773-788.

259

Broyd, I. (2011) Report on the Examination into the Stockport Core Strategy Development Plan. [online] Available at: http://www.stockport.gov.uk/2013/2994/developmentcontrol/planningpolicy/LDF/inspector sreport [Accessed 17/11/13]

Brulle, R. Pellow, D. (2006) Environmental justice: human health and environmental inequalities. Annual Review of Public Health, 27, p.103-124.

Brueckner, J. (1979) A model of non-central production in a monocentric city. Journal of Urban Economics, 6(4), p 444-463.

Bryant, R. Goodman, M. (2004) Consuming narratives: the political ecology of ‘alternative’ consumption. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 29(3), 344-366.

Bryson, J. Lombardi, R. (2009) Balancing product and process sustainability against business profitability: sustainability as a competitive strategy in the property development process. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(2), 97-107.

Budge, I. (1994) A New Spatial Theory of Party Competition: Uncertainty, Ideology and Policy Equilibria Viewed Comparatively and Temporally. British Journal of Political Science, 24(4) p.443-467.

Bulkeley, H. (2005) Reconfiguring environmental governance: towards a politics of scales and networks. Political geography, 24(8), p.875-902.

Bulkeley, H., Castan-Broto, V., Hodson, M. Marvin, S. (2010) Cities and low carbon transitions. Routledge, London

Bumpus, A.G. and Liverman, D.M. (2008) Accumulation by decarbonization and the governance of carbon offsets. Economic Geography, 84(2), p.127-155. Burchardt, J. (2002) The allotment movement in England, 1793-1873. Boydell & Brewer.

Burdett, J. (2014) City Centre New Apartment Crisis: What about the Private Buyer? Manchester Confidential, January 28th 2014 [online] Available at: http://www.manchesterconfidential.co.uk/Property-and-Business/Paragon-Mill-Fifteen-Out- Of-Nineteen-Flats-Sell-In-A-Day (Accessed 01/03/14)

Burgess, J. (1990) The Production and Consumption of Environmental Meanings in the Mass Media: A Research Agenda for the 1990s. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 15(2), p.139-161.

Byrch, C., Kearins, K., Milne, M., & Morgan, R. (2007). Sustainable “what”? A cognitive approach to understanding sustainable development. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 4(1), p 26-52.

Calcutt, J. (2007) The Calcutt Review of House building Delivery. HM Stationary Office. Caldwell, L. (1990) Between Two Worlds: Science the environmental movement and policy choice. Cambridge University Press.

Campbell, S. (1996) Green cities, growing cities, just cities?: Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(3) p 296-312.

260

Campbell, G. and Sheate, W. (2012) Embedding an ecosystems approach? Town and Country Planning, 81, p.139-144.

Campbell, H., and Marshall, R. (2002). Utilitarianism’s bad breath? A re-evaluation of the public interest justification for planning. Planning Theory, 1(2), p.163-187.

Campbell, J. (2002) Ideas, politics, and public policy. Annual review of sociology, 28, p.21-38.

Campbell, J. L. (1998). Institutional analysis and the role of ideas in political economy. Theory and society, 27(3), 377-409.

Capozza, D. and Helsley, R. (1989) The fundamentals of land prices and urban growth. Journal of urban economics, 26(3), p.295-306.

Carr, J. and Smith, L.B. (1975) Public land banking and the price of land. Land Economics, p.316- 330.

Carter, N. (2001) The politics of the environment: Ideas, activism, policy. Cambridge University Press.

Cashore, B. (2002) Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: How non– state market–driven (NSMD) governance systems gain rule–making authority. Governance, 15(4), p.503-529.

Cashore, B., Auld, G., Bernstein, S. and McDermott, C. (2007) Can Non‐state Governance ‘Ratchet Up’Global Environmental Standards? Lessons from the Forest Sector. Review of European Community and International Environmental Law, 16(2), p.158-172.

Cashore, B.W., Auld, G. Newsom, D. (2004) Governing through markets: Forest certification and the emergence of non-state authority. Yale University Press.

Castella, T. (2011) Self-build: Should people build their own homes? BBC News, 19th July 2011. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14125196 [Accessed 01/07/14]

Castree, N. (2005) Nature: the adventures of a concept. Routledge, London

CFSE (2014) Simon Marsh, Head of Planning Policy. [online] Available at: http://www.cfse.cam.ac.uk/directory/simon_marsh [Accessed 01/09/14]

Cheng, H., & Hu, Y. (2010). Planning for sustainability in China's urban development: Status and challenges for Dongtan eco-city project. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 12(1), 119-126.

Cheshire, P. and Sheppard, S. (1995) On the price of land and the value of amenities. Economica, 62(246) p 247-267.

Chetty, S. (1996) The case study method for research in small-and medium-sized firms. International small business journal, 15(1), p.73-85.

Chiva, R. Grandío, A. Alegre, J. (2010) Adaptive and generative learning: Implications from complexity theories. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(2), p 114-129. Cho, S., Bowker, J. and Park, W. (2006) Measuring the contribution of water and green space amenities to housing values: an application and comparison of spatially weighted hedonic models. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 31(3), p.485-507.

Christie, H. Smith, S. Munro, M. (2008) The emotional economy of housing. Environment and Planning A, 40 p2296-2312

261

Christophers, B. (2014). Wild Dragons in the City: Urban Political Economy, Affordable Housing Development and the Performative World‐making of Economic Models. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(1), p.79-97.

Cilliers, E. Diemont, E. Stobbelaar, D. Timmermans, W. (2010) Sustainable green urban planning: the Green Credit Tool. Journal of Place Management and Development, 3(1), p 57-66.

Clapham, D. (2002) Housing Pathways: A Post Modern Analytical Framework, Housing, Theory and Society, 19(2), p 57-68. Clapp, J. (1998) The Privatization of Global Environmental Governance: ISO 14000 and the Developing World. Environmental Governance, 4, p 295–316.

Clapson, M. (1998) Invincible green suburbs, brave new towns: social change and urban dispersal in postwar England. Manchester University Press.

Clare, M. (2012) Barratt chief: UK housing crisis will get worse. Property Week, 27 November. [online] Available at: http://www.propertyweek.com/barratt-chief-uk-housing-crisis-will-get- worse/5046639.article [Accessed 01/09/14]

Climate-KIC (2014) Building a world-class community of climate innovators: Progress towards our strategic objectives 2012-13 [online] Available at: http://www.climate-kic.org/wp- content/uploads/2013/02/Climate-KIC-Annual-Review-2013.pdf [accessed 21/09/14]

Clarke, L. Wall, C. (2000). Craft versus industry: the division of labour in European housing construction. Construction Management and Economics, 18(6) p 689-698.

Coakley, J. (1994) The integration of property and financial markets. Environment and Planning A, 26(5), p 697-713.

Coates, D. (2001) Capitalist models and social democracy: the case of New Labour. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 3(3) p 284-307.

Coen, D. (1998) The European business interest and the nation state: large-firm lobbying in the European Union and member states. Journal of Public Policy, 18(01), p.75-100.

Coleman, W. and Perl, A. (1999) Internationalized Policy Environments and Policy Network Analysis. Political Studies, XLVII, p.691–709.

Colomb, C. (2007) Unpacking new labour’s urban renaissance’ agenda: towards a socially sustainable re-urbanisation of British cities? Planning Practice and Research, 22(1), p.1-24.

Connelly, S. (2011) Constructing legitimacy in the new community governance. Urban Studies, 48(5), p 929-946.

Connelly, S., Richardson, T. and Miles, T. (2006) Situated legitimacy: deliberative arenas and the new rural governance. Journal of Rural studies, 22(3), p.267-277.

Conway, D., Li, C., Wolch, J., Kahle, C. and Jerrett, M. (2010) A spatial autocorrelation approach for examining the effects of urban greenspace on residential property values. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 41(2), p.150-169.

Costanza, R. Arge, R. Groot, R. Farber, S. Grasso, M. Hannon, B. Belt, M. (1998) The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Energy, Planning Policy and Political Economy 25(1) p 3-15

262

Counsell, D. and Haughton, G. (2006) Sustainable development in regional planning: The search for new tools and renewed legitimacy. Geoforum, 37(6), p.921-931.

Countryside Properties (2001) Environmental, Social and Ethical Report 2001. Countryside Properties: Brentwood.

Countryside Properties (2007) Environmental, Social and Ethical Review 2007. Countryside Properties: Brentwood.

Countryside Properties (2009) Environmental, Social and Ethical Review 2009. Countryside Properties: Brentwood.

Countryside Properties (2011) Sustainability Report 2011 Countryside Properties: Brentwood.

Cousins, M. Hussain, A. (1984) Micheal Foucault. MacMillan, London

Cowell, R. (2013) The greenest government ever? Planning and sustainability in England after the May 2010 elections. Planning Practice & Research, 28(1), p.27-44.

Cowell, R. and Lennon, M. (2014) The utilisation of environmental knowledge in land-use planning: drawing lessons for an ecosystem services approach. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32(2) p.263-282.

Crabtree, B., & Miller, W. (1999). A template approach to text analysis: Developing and using codebooks. In B. Crabtree & W. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative research (p 163-177) Sage, Newbury Park

Crest Nicholson (2007) Sustainability Report. Crest Nicholson: Chertsey. Crest Nicholson (2009) Sustainability Report. Crest Nicholson: Chertsey.

Crest Nicholson (2012) GRI Statement Application Level Check: 2012. Crest Nicholson: Chertsey.

Crest Nicholson (2012) Sustainability Report. Crest Nicholson: Chertsey.

Crewe, K. and Foresyth, A. (2011) Compactness and connection in environmental design: insights from ecoburbs and ecocities for design with nature. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 38(2), p.267-288.

Cronon, W. (1996) The trouble with wilderness: or, getting back to the wrong nature. Environmental History, p 7-28.

Crutzen, P. (2006) The “Anthropocene”. In: Ehlers, E. and Krafft, T. (eds.) Earth System Science in the Anthropocene. Springer. p.13-18.

Cruz, J. M., & Wakolbinger, T. (2008). Multiperiod effects of corporate social responsibility on supply chain networks, transaction costs, emissions, and risk. International Journal of Production Economics, 116(1), 61-74. Cutler, C., Haufler, V. Porter, T. (1999) Private Authority in International Politics. SUNY Press.

Cutter, S. Boruff, B. Shirley, W. (2003) Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social science quarterly, 84(2), p.242-261.

Daily, G. (Ed.). (1997). Nature's services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, New York

263

Daly, H.(1990) Toward some operational principles of sustainable development. Ecological economics, 2(1), p.1-6.

Daly, J. Kellehear, A. Gliksman, M. (1997) The public health researcher: a methodological guide. Oxford University Press. Oxford

Danielsen, F., Burgess, N. and Balmford, A. (2005) Monitoring matters: examining the potential of locally-based approaches. Biodiversity & Conservation, 14(11), p.2507-2542.

Davies, J. S. (2002). The governance of urban regeneration: a critique of the ‘governing without government’thesis. Public administration, 80(2), 301-322.

Davies. S. and Selwood, S. (1998) English cultural services: government policy and local strategies. Cultural Trends, 8(30), p.69-110.

Davis, J. (2004) Psychological benefits of nature experiences: An outline of research and theory. Nuropa University and School of Lost Borders Available at: http://www.johnvdavis. com/ep/benefits.html Accessed 01.01.2015

Davoudi, S. (2006) Evidence-based planning: rhetoric and reality. The Planning Review, 42(165), p.14-24.

Davoudi, S. and Strange, I. (eds.) (2008) Conceptions of space and place in strategic spatial planning. Routledge.

DCA (2011) Stockport Housing Market Needs Assessment 2010-2011. [online] Available at: http://www.stockport.gov.uk/services/housing/housingdocuments/housingstrategies/housin gneedsassessment [Accessed 09/06/14] DCLG (2006) Planning Policy Statement 17: Sport and Recreation. DCLG, London

DCLG (2007) Building a Greener Future. DCLG, London

DCLG (2007) Planning and Climate Change. DCLG, London

DCLG (2008) Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Spatial Planning. DCLG, London

DCLG (2008) The Code for Sustainable Homes: Setting the standard in sustainability for new homes. DCLG, London

DCLG (2010) Code for Sustainable Homes, Technical Guide. DCLG, London

DCLG (2009a) Eco-towns: planning policy statement 1 (supplement). DCLG, London.

DCLG (2009b) Planning Policy Statement: Eco-towns A supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1. DCLG: London

DCLG (2011) Local planning regulations Consultation. DCLG: London.

DCLG (2012) National Planning Policy Framework. DCLG: London.

DCLG (2012) Table 209: House building: permanent dwellings completed, by tenure and country. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on- house-building (Accessed 01/07/14)

DCLG (2013) English Housing Survey: Headline Report 2012-13. DCLG: London

264

DCLG (2013) Next steps to zero carbon homes: Allowable Solutions DCLG, London

De Sousa, C.A. (2003) Turning brownfields into green space in the City of Toronto. Landscape and urban planning, 62(4), p.181-198.

Deas, I. and Ward, K. (2000) From the ‘new localism’ to the ‘new regionalism’? The implications of regional development agencies for city–regional relations. Political Geography, 19(3), p.273- 292.

Deas, I. and Ward, K. (2000) From the ‘new localism’to the ‘new regionalism’? The implications of regional development agencies for city–regional relations. Political Geography, 19(3), p.273- 292.

DECC (2008) Climate Change Act. HMSO London

DEFRA (2008) Ensuring the UK’s Food Security in a Changing World. DEFRA: London.

DEFRA (2011) The natural choice: securing the value of nature. TSO, London.

DEFRA (2013) Biodiversity offsetting in England: Green paper. DEFRA: London.

DEFRA (2013) Biodiversity offsetting in England: Green Paper. DEFRA: London.

DEFRA (2013) Consultation on Biodiversity Offsetting. DEFRA: London.

Delavari-Edalat, F. Abdi, M. (2010) Human-environment interactions based on biophilia values in an urban context: Case study. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 136(2), p 162-168.

Dequech, D. (2003) Cognitive and cultural embeddedness: combining institutional economics and economic sociology. Journal of Economic Issues, 461-470.

Despommier, D (2013) Farming up the city: the rise of urban vertical farms. Trends in biotechnology, 31(7) p 388-389.

DETR (2000) Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, The Stationary Office.

Deutz, P. (2009) Producer responsibility in a sustainable development context: ecological modernisation or industrial ecology? The Geographical Journal, 175(4), p.274-285.

Dicken, P. (2002) ‘Global Manchester: from globaliser to globalised’. In: Ward, K. and Peck, J. City of Revolution, Restructuring Manchester. Manchester University Press.

Dickson, E. (1998) Making a splash: The philanthropic millionaire Tom Bloxham owns large chunks of Manchester and Liverpool and creates homes for 'decision-makers. The Independent, Saturday 19 September 1998 [online] Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/lifestyle/making-a-splash-1199162.html [Accessed 01/06/14]

Diemer, M. Held, M. Hofmeister, S. (2003) Urban wilderness in Central Europe. International Journal of Wilderness, 9(3), p 7-11.

DiMaggio, P. (1997) Culture and cognition. Annual review of sociology, 263-287.

Dixon-Woods, M. Agarwal, S. Jones, D.Young, B. Sutton, A. (2005) Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. Journal of health services research & policy 10(1) p 45-53.

265

Dixon, J., & Banwell, C. (2012) Choice editing for the environment: Managing corporate risk. In Measham, T. Lockie, S. (Eds.) (2012) Risk and social theory in environmental management. CSIRO Publishing.

Djelic, M. Quack, S. (2007) Overcoming path dependency: path generation in open systems. Theory and society, 36(2) p 161-186.

DOE (1992) PPG7: The Countryside and Rural Economy. DOE: London. Doh, J. and Guay, T. (2006) Corporate Social Responsibility, Public Policy, and NGO Activism in Europe and the United States: An Institutional‐Stakeholder Perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), p 47-73.

Doick, K., Pediaditi, K., Moffat, A. Hutchings, T. (2009) Defining the sustainability objectives of brownfield regeneration to greenspace. International Journal Management and Decision Making, 10(3) p 282-302.

Doran, G. T. (1981) There’s a SMART way to write management’s goals and objectives. Management review, 70(11) p 35-36.

Drivers Jonas (2006) Supporting Statement. Planning Application, Block 5 Green Quarter. Drivers Jonas Manchester

Drummond, I. and Marsden, T. (1995) Regulating sustainable development. Global Environmental Change 5(1), p 51–63

DuPuis, E. and Goodman, D. (2005) Should we go “home” to eat?: toward a reflexive politics of localism. Journal of rural studies, 21(3), p.359-371

Dzierzanowski, K., Popek, R., Gawrońska, H., Sæbø, A. Gawroński, S. (2011) Deposition of particulate matter of different size fractions on leaf surfaces and in waxes of urban forest species. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 13(10), p 1037–1046.

Easton, M. (2012) Housing Crisis Deepens. BBC News, 12th June 2012 [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18416365 [Accessed 01/09/14]

Eckersley, R. (2004). The green state: rethinking democracy and sovereignty. MIT Press.

Eizenberg, E. (2012) The changing meaning of community space: two models of NGO management of community gardens in New York City. International journal of urban and regional research, 36(1) p 106-120.

Eder, K. (1996) The politics of the environment: Exhaustion or renewal? Risk, Environment and Modernity: Towards a New Ecology, 40, 203.

Ellul, J. (1964) The technological society. Vintage Books. Emmett, S. (2014) A boost to the property market in Norwich. Savills, 7 January 2014 [online] Available at: http://www.savills.co.uk/research_articles/141564/171746-0 [Accessed 01/09/14]

Engel, S., Pagiola, S. and Wunder, S. (2008) Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues. Ecological economics, 65(4), p 663-674.

266

Environment Agency (2011) The State of Our Environment, Biodiversity: The State of The Environment Anglican. [online] Available online at: http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/SOE_-_Biodiversity.pdf [Accessed 01/03/14]

EA, FC, NE Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, and Natural England (2012) Building a Better Environment: How we can help. [online] Available at: http://publications.environment- agency.gov.uk/pdf/GETH1106BLNE-e-e.pdf#sthash.j4e1Fa0H.dpuf [Accessed 01/01/14]

Erickson, D. (2006) Metrogreen: connecting open space in North American cities. Washington, Island Press.

Escobedo, F. Wagner, J. Nowak, D. Luz De la Mazad, C. Rodriguezd, M. Cranec, D. (2008) Analyzing the cost effectiveness of Santiago, Chile’s policy of using urban forests to improve air quality. Journal of Environmental Management, 86(1), p 148–157.

Fahrig, L. (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics, 34, p.487-515.

Faludi, A. Waterhout, B. (2006) Introducing evidence-based planning. The Planning Review, 42(165), p.4-13.

Farber, S., Costanza, M. Wilson, A. (2002) Economic and ecological concepts for valuing ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 41, p.375–392.

Farrell, S. (2014) Crest Nicholson annual profits jump by 40%. Guardian, January 28th 2014. Available online at: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/28/crest-nicholson-40- percent-rise-profits-help-to-buy [Accessed 01/09/14]

Falkner, R. (2003) Private environmental governance and international relations: exploring the links. Global Environmental Politics, 3(2), 72-87. Feder, G. Feeny, D. (1991) Land tenure and property rights: theory and implications for development policy. The World Bank Economic Review, 5(1), 135-153.

Feindt, P. and Oels, A. (2006) Does discourse matter? Discourse analysis in environmental policy making. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 7(3), p.161-173.

Fereday, J. Muir-Cochrane, E. (2008) Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International journal of qualitative methods, 5(1) p 80-92.

URS (2009) Sustainability Appraisal of the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk, the Broadland part of the Norwich Policy Area Local Plan. Available online at: http://www.broadland.gov.uk/images/B107_Sus._Appraisal_of_JCS_Environmental_Adoption_St atement.pdf Accessed 01.01.2015

Fields in Trust (2008) Planning and design for outdoor sport and play. [online] Available at: http://www.fieldsintrust.org/Product_Detail.aspx?productid=dc291578-50c5-49c5-b0d7- 3c376db6b801 [Accessed 01/08/14]

Fischer, C. and Newell, R.G. (2008) Environmental and technology policies for climate mitigation. Journal of environmental economics and management, 55(2), p.142-162.

Fischer, F. (2000) Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Duke University Press.

267

Fisher, B. Turner, R. Morling, P. (2009). Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological economics, 68(3) p 643-653.

Fitzgerald, T. (2014) As it happened: Stockport Council budget meeting. Manchester Evening News, February 28th 2014, Available online at: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/happened-stockport-council- budget-meeting-6753491 [Accessed 01/09/14]

Flood, A. (2015) Oxford Junior Dictionary’s replacement of ‘natural’ words with 21st-century terms sparks outcry. Guardian Online, 13th January 2015 Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/13/oxford-junior-dictionary-replacement- natural-words (Accessed 13.04.2015)

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006) Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative inquiry, 12(2), p 219-245.

Foley, D.L. (1960) British town planning: one ideology or three? British Journal of Sociology, 11(3), p 211-231.

Forester, J. (1988) Planning in the Face of Power. University of California Press.

Foster, J.B. (1999) Marx's Theory of Metabolic Rift: Classical Foundations for Environmental Sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 105(2), p 366-405.

Foster, J., Lowe, A. and Winkelman, S. (2011) The value of green infrastructure for urban climate adaptation. Center for Clean Air Policy.

Fowler, H. and Fowler, F. (eds.) (2011) The Concise Oxford Dictionary: The Classic First Edition. Oxford University Press. Frankental, P. (2001) Corporate social responsibility–a PR invention? Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6(1), p 18-23.

Frearson, E. (2014) Handforth East: Tree and Hedge Survey. Cheshire East Council (unpublished report).

Frearson, E., Hayward, C. and Hayward, A. (2014) Ecology, Biodiversity and Rural Issues: North Cheshire Growth Village. Handforth Parish Council. Freeden, M. (1999) The Ideology of New Labour. The Political Quarterly, 70(1), p 42-51.

Fromm, E. Suzuki, D. De Martino, R. (1960) Zen Buddhism and Psychoanalysis. Harper. New York

Fuller, C. Geddes, M. (2008) Urban Governance Under Neoliberalism: New Labour and the Restructuring of State‐Space. Antipode, 40(2), p 252-282.

Galliford Try (2012) A Strategy for Success: Annual Report and Financial Statements. Galliford Try: Uxbridge.

Gamson, W. Modigliani, A. (1989) Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American journal of sociology, 1(37) p78-103

Garnett T. (2008) Measuring water: who’s doing what - A briefing paper for Defra. Food Climate Research Network, University of Surrey.

268

Geddes, M. (2006). Partnership and the limits to local governance in England: institutionalist analysis and neoliberalism. International journal of urban and regional research, 30(1), 76-97.

Geddes, P. (1920) Report on Planning for the Lucknow Zoological Garden. NK Press.

Geddes, P. (1949) Cities in Evolution, Vol. 27, p.109-123. London Williams & Norgate.

Gertler, M. Barnes, T. (1999) The New Industrial Geography: Regions, Regulations and Institutions. Routledge, London.

Geoghegan, J. (2014) Up to 40 Garden Cities Needed to Meet Housing Need, Say Wolfson Finalists. Planning Resource, 28th August 2014. Available online at: http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1309842/40-garden-cities-needed-meet-housing- need-say-wolfson-finalists Accessed 01.01.2015

Getter, K. Rowe, D. Robertson, G. Cregg, B. Andresen, J. (2009) Carbon sequestration potential of extensive green roofs. Environmental science & technology, 43(19) p 7564-7570.

Gibb, K. (1999) Regional Differentiation and the Scottish Private Housebuilding Sector. Housing Studies, 14(1) p43-56

Gibbs, D. (1996) Integrating sustainable development and economic restructuring: a role for regulation theory? Geoforum, 27(1), p.1–10.

Gibbs, D. (2000) Ecological modernisation, regional economic development and regional development agencies. Geoforum, 31(1), p.9–19.

Gibbs, D. Jonas, A.. (2000) Governance and regulation in local environmental policy: the utility of a regime approach. Geoforum, 31(3), p.299-313. Giddens, A. (1984) The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Univ of California Press.

Giddens, A. (2009) The politics of climate change. Polity Press Cambridge

Gilbert, K. (2011) Youth Voices of Bounty and Opportunity: High School Students' Experiences With Food and Community. (unpublished thesis) Portland State University.

Gill, S. Handley, J. Ennos, A. Pauleit, S. (2007) Adapting cities for climate change: the role of the green infrastructure. Built Environment, 33(1), p 115-133.

GINW (2008) Towards a Green Infrastructure Approach in the Greater Manchester City Region, Final Report September 2008. Available online at: http://www.greeninfrastructurenw.co.uk/resources/1547.058_Final_Report_September_2008. pdf Accessed 01.01.2015

GINW (2010) Green Infrastructure Prospectus: A Prospectus for Green Infrastructure - underpinning the sustainable development of Northwest England. Available online at: http://www.greeninfrastructurenw.co.uk/resources/Prospectus_V6.pdf Accessed 01.01.2015

Gissen, D. (ed.) (2003) Big and green: toward sustainable architecture in the 21st century. Princeton Architectural Press.

Glinert, E. (2008) The Manchester Compendium. Penguin Books.

269

GNDP (2009) Infrastructural Needs Study, Greater Norwich Development Partnership. Available online at: http://www.south-norfolk.gov.uk/planning/media/D2-Greater-Norwich- Infrastucture-Needs-and-Funding-Study-Final-Report-October-2009.pdf [Accessed 01/09/14]

GNDP (2009) SA of the Joint Core Strategy Pre-Submission Statement, Greater Norwich Development Partnership. Scott Wilson.

GNDP (2014) Joint Core Strategy, Greater Norwich Development Partnership. Available online at: [http://www.gndp.org.uk/content/wp- content/uploads/downloads/2010/03/2.%20GNDP%20Pre- submission%20Joint%20Core%20Strategy%20SA%20Final%20Report.pdf [Accessed 01/06/14]

Goddard, M. Dougill, A. Benton, T. (2010) Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25(2), p 90-98.

Gómez-Baggethun, E., De Groot, R., Lomas, P. Montes, C. (2010) The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics, 69(6), p 1209-1218.

Gómez-Baggethun, E., Gren, Å., Barton, D. Langemeyer, J., McPhearson, T., O’Farrell, P. Kremer, P. (2013) Urban ecosystem services. In Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: Challenges and opportunities. Springer. p 175-251.

González, S., Healey, P. (2005). A sociological institutionalist approach to the study of innovation in governance capacity. Urban Studies, 42(11), 2055-2069.

Gorges, M. (2001) The new institutionalism and the study of the European Union: the case of the social dialogue. West European Politics, 24(4) p 152-168.

Graafland, J. and Van de Ven, B. (2006) Strategic and moral motivation for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 22(2006), p.111-123.

Grabosky, P. (1994) Green Markets: environmental regulation by the private sector. Law and Policy, 16, p.419-418.

Green, S. D. (1994) Beyond value engineering: SMART value management for building projects. International Journal of Project Management, 12(1), p 49-56. Grubb, E. and Grathwohl, H. (1967) Consumer Self-Concept, Symbolism and Marketing Behaviour: A Theoretical Approach. Journal of Marketing, 31(4), p.22-27.

Gustafsson, L. (1987) Plant conservation aspects of energy forestry—a new type of land use in Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management, 21(1), p 141-161.

Gustavsson, R., Hermy, M., Konijnendijk, C. Steidle-Schwahn, A. (2005) Management of Urban Woodland and Parks—Searching for Creative and Sustainable Concepts. In Urban Forests and Trees (pp. 369-397). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Guy, S., Henneberry, J. and Rowley, S. (2002) Development Cultures and Urban Regeneration Urban Studies, 39(7), p 1181–1196

Haffner, J. (2015) The dangers of eco-gentrification: what's the best way to make a city greener? The Gaurdian online, 6th May, 2015 Available at:http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/may/06/dangers-ecogentrification-best-way- make-city-greener Accessed 07.05.2015

270

Hahn, F. (1993) Incomplete market economies. Proceedings of the British Academy, 80 p201-219

Hahn, R. and Lülfs, R. (2013) Legitimizing negative aspects in GRI-oriented sustainability reporting: A qualitative analysis of corporate disclosure strategies. Journal of Business Ethics, p.1-20.

Hajer, M. (1995) The politics of environmental discourse: ecological modernization and the policy process. Clarendon Press.

Hajer, M. and Versteeg, W. (2005) A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: achievements, challenges, perspectives. Journal of environmental policy & planning, 7(3), p.175- 184.

Hall, P. Taylor, R. (1997) Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5) p 936-957

Hall, S. (2001). Foucault: Power, knowledge and discourse. Discourse theory and practice: A reader, 72, 81.

Hall, P. (2002) Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design Since 1880. Blackwell, Oxford

Haluza-Delay, R. (2001). Nothing here to care about: Participant constructions of nature following a 12-day wilderness program. The Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4), 43-48.

Hardin, P.J. and Jensen, R.R. (2007) The effect of urban leaf area on summertime urban surface kinetic temperatures: A Terre Haute case study. Urban Forestry and Urban Greening, 6(2), p.63– 72.

Harding, S. (1999) Towards a renaissance in urban parks. Cultural Trends, 9(35), p.1-20.

Hardt, M. Negri, A. (2009) Empire. Harvard University Press.

Harlan, S. L., Brazel, A. J., Jenerette, G. D., Jones, N. S., Larsen, L., Prashad, L. and Stefanov, W. L. (2007) In the shade of affluence: The inequitable distribution of the urban heat island. Research in social problems and public policy, 15, p 173-202.

Harrison D. Rubinfeld, D. (1978) Hedonic housing prices and the demand for clean air. Journal of environmental economics and management 5(1) p 81-102.

Harrison, J. (2008) Stating the production of scales: centrally orchestrated regionalism, regionally orchestrated centralism. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(4), p.922-941

Harrison, J. (2013) Rethinking city-regionalism as the production of new non-state spatial strategies: the case of Peel Holdings Atlantic Gateway Strategy. Urban Studies, p.1-21. Available at: DOI: 10.1177/0042098013493481.

Harrow (2013) Design and Access Statement: Woodford Aerodrome. Available online at: http://interactive.stockport.gov.uk/edrms/onlinemvm/getimage.asp?DocumentNumber=2120 08 Accessed 01.01.2015 Harrow (2014) Energy Statement: Woodford Aerodrome. Available online at: http://interactive.stockport.gov.uk/edrms/onlinemvm/getimage.asp?DocumentNumber=2097 01 [Accessed 01/08/14]

271

Hartig, T. Evans, G. (1993). Psychological foundations of nature experience. Advances in psychology, 96, p 427-457.

Harvey, D. (1989) From manageralism to entrepreneurialism: The transformation in urban governance in late capitalism. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 71(1), p.3-17.

Hatherley, O. (2011). A guide to the new ruins of Great Britain. Verso Books London

Haughton, G and Hunter, C. (2004) Sustainable cities. Routledge, Oxford

Haughton, G. (1999) Environmental justice and the sustainable city. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 18(3), p 233-243.

Haughton, G., Allmendinger, P. Oosterlynck, S. (2013) Spaces of neoliberal experimentation: soft spaces, postpolitics, and neoliberal governmentality. Environment and Planning A, 45(1), p 217- 234.

Heal, G., Daily, P., Ehrlich, J., Salzman, C., Boggs, J., Hellman, J., Hughes, C., Kremen, T. Ricketts (2001) Protecting natural capital through ecosystem service districts. Stanford Environmental Law Journal, 20, p 333–364.

Healey, P. (1991) Models of the development process: a review. Journal of Property Research, 8(3), p 219-238.

Healey, P. (1992a) An institutional model of the development process. Journal of property research, 9(1), p.33-44.

Healey, P. (1992b) The Reorganisation of State and Market in Planning. Urban Studies 29 p411- 434.

Healey, P. (1992c) Planning through debate: the communicative turn in planning theory. Town planning review, 63(2), p.143.

Healey, P. (1994) Development plans: new approaches to making frameworks for land use regulation. European Planning Studies, 2(1), p.39-57. Healey, P. (1996) The communicative turn in planning theory and its implications for spatial strategy formation. Environment and planning B, 23, p.217-234.

Healey, P. (1999) Institutionalist analysis, communicative planning, and shaping places. Journal of planning education and research, 19(2), p.111-121.

Healey, P. (2004a) Creativity and urban governance. Policy Studies, 25(2) p 87–102

Healey, P. (2004b) The treatment of space and place in the new strategic spatial planning in Europe. International journal of urban and regional research, 28(1), p.45-67.

Healey, P. (2006) Transforming governance: challenges of institutional adaptation and a new politics of space 1. European planning studies, 14(3) p 299-320. Healey, P. Shaw, T. (1994) Changing Meanings of 'Environment' in the British Planning System. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 19(4), p.425-438.

Healey, P. Barrett, S. (1990). Structure and agency in land and property development processes: some ideas for research. Urban studies, 27(1), 89-103.

272

Healey, P, McNamara, P., Elson, M. Doak, A. (1989) Land use planning and the mediation of urban change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Heimer, C. Gazley, J. (2012) Performing regulation: Transcending regulatory ritualism in HIV clinics. Law & Society Review, 46(4), p 853-887.

Hellwig, M.F. (2009) Systemic risk in the financial sector: An analysis of the subprime-mortgage financial crisis. De Economist, 157(2), p 129-207. Helsley, R. Strange, W. (1990) Matching and agglomeration economies in a system of cities. Regional Science and urban economics, 20(2), p 189-212.

Henley, A. (1998) Residential mobility, housing equity and the labour market. The Economic Journal, 108(447), p 414-427.

Herbert, S. (2005) The trapdoor of community. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 95(4), p 850-865.

Hertin, J., Berkhout, F., Gann, D. and Barlow, J. (2003) Climate change and the UK house building sector: perceptions, impacts and adaptive capacity. Building Research & Information, 31(3-4), p.278-290.

Heynen, N., Kaika, M. Swyngedouw, E. (eds.) (2006) In the nature of cities: urban political ecology and the politics of urban metabolism. Taylor & Francis.

Heynen, N., Perkins, H.A. and Roy, P. (2006) The political ecology of uneven urban green space the impact of political economy on race and ethnicity in producing environmental inequality in Milwaukee. Urban Affairs Review, 42(1), p 3-25.

Hinchliffe, S. (1996) Helping the earth begins at home: the social construction of socio- environmental responsibilities. Global Environmental Change, 6(1), p 53–62.

Hirsch, P. (1997) Review Essay: Sociology Without Social Structure: Neoinstitutional Theory Meets Brave New World 1. American journal of sociology, 102(6), 1702-1723.

HMG (1990) Town and Country Planning Act. HMSO, London

HMG (2010) The Flood and Water Management Act. HMSO, London

HMG (2011) The Natural Choice: Securing the Value of Nature. HM Stationary Office.

HMG(2011) Localism Act HMSO: London

Hodgson, G. (1998) The approach of institutional economics. Journal of economic literature, p 166-192.

Hofman, E., Halman, J. and Ion, R. (2006) Variation in housing design: identifying customer preferences. Housing Studies, 21(6), p 929-943.

Holden, A. (2002) Bomb sites: the politics of opportunity. In Peck, J. and Ward, K. (eds.) City of revolution: restructuring Manchester. Manchester University Press. p.133-154.

Hooper, A. Nicol, C. (2000) Design practice and volume production in speculative house building. Construction Management and Economics, 18(3), p 295–310.

273

Hooper, A. (1992). The construction of theory: a comment. Journal of property research, 9(1),p 45-48.

Hopwood, B., Mellor, M. and O'Brien, G. (2005) Sustainable development: mapping different approaches. Sustainable development, 13(1), p.38-52.

Horrigan, L., Lawrence, R.S. and Walker, P. (2002) How sustainable agriculture can address the environmental and human health harms of industrial agriculture. Environmental health perspectives, 110(5), p.445.

House of Commons (2009) Public Administration Select Committee . Bad Language: The Use and Abuse of Official Language First Report of Session 2009–10 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence. House of Commons

House of Commons (2011) Localism Bill: Government Response to the Committee's Third Report of Session 2010-12. Environmental Audit Committee, House of Commons. Howard, E. (1902) Garden Cities of tomorrow. Faber and Faber, London

Howlett, M. (1999) Complex Network Management and the Paradox of Modern Governance: A Taxonomy and Model of Procedural Policy Instrument Choice. In: Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, 6th June 1999, University of Sherbrooke. Hull, A. (2008) Policy integration: what will it take to achieve more sustainable transport solutions in cities? Transport Policy, 15(2), p.94-103.

Hulme Regeneration Ltd (1994) Rebuilding the city: a guide to development in Hulme: Hulme City Challenge, Manchester. Available online at: http://www.urbed.coop/sites/default/files/Hulme%20Guide%20to%20Development.pdf [Accessed 08/02/14]

Hunt, A., Smith, A., Watkiss, P., Tweddle, G. McKinnon, A., Browne, M. Cross, S. (2005) The validity of food miles as an indicator of sustainable development: final report produced for Defra. IGD.

Huntington, T. G. (2006). Evidence for intensification of the global water cycle: review and synthesis. Journal of Hydrology, 319(1), 83-95.

Ishii, M. (1994) Measurement of road traffic noise reduced by the employment of low 848 physical barriers and potted vegetation. Inter-noise, 29–31, p 595–597. ISO (2014) International Organization for Standardization. [online] Available at: http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about.htm [Accessed 01/09/14]

Jackson, R. and Quotes, P. (2002) Environmental, social and sustainability reporting on the web: best practices. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 9(2), p 193-202.

Jaffe, A. and Stavins, R.(1995) Dynamic incentives of environmental regulations: The effects of alternative policy instruments on technology diffusion. Journal of environmental economics and management, 29(3), p.43-S63.

James, P. Tzoulas, K., Adams, M. Barber, A. Box, J. Breuste, J., Elmqvist, T., Frith, M., Gordon, C., Greening, K. Handley, J., Haworth, S., Kazmierczak, A., Johnston, M., Korpela, K., Moretti, M., Niemela, J., Pauleit, S., Roe, M.H., Sadler, J. Ward Thompson, C. (2009) Towards an integrated

274

understanding of green space in the European built environment. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 8(2), p 65-75.

Jameson, F. (1994) ‘Postmodernism and the Market’, in: Zizek, S. (ed.) Mapping Ideology. Verso. p 278-295.

Jenkinson, D. S. (2001). The impact of humans on the nitrogen cycle, with focus on temperate arable agriculture. Plant and Soil, 228(1), 3-15.

Jensen, O. B., & Richardson, T. (2004). Making European Space: mobility, power and territorial identity. Routledge.

Jessop, B. (1994). Post‐Fordism and the state. Post-Fordism: a reader, 251-279.

Jessop, B. (1995) The regulation approach, governance and post-Fordism: alternative perspectives on economic and political change? Economy and society, 24(3), p.307-333.

Jessop, B. (1995). Towards a Schumpeterian workfare regime in Britain? Reflections on regulation, governance, and welfare state. Environment and Planning A, 27(10), 1613-1626.

Jessop, B. (1997a). The entrepreneurial city: re-imaging localities, redesigning economic governance, or restructuring capital. Transforming cities: Contested governance and new spatial divisions, 46, 28-41.

Jessop, B. (1997b). The entrepreneurial city: re-imaging localities, redesigning economic governance, or restructuring capital. Transforming cities: Contested governance and new spatial divisions, 46, p 28-41.

Jessop, B. (1999a) ‘Narrating the future of the national economy and the national state? Remarks on remapping regulation and reinventing governance.’ In: Steinmetz, G (ed.) State/culture: State formation after the cultural turn, Cornell University Press. p. 378-405.

Jessop, B. (1999b). The dynamics of partnership and governance failure.

Jessop, B. (2001) Institutional (re)turns and the strategic-relational approach, Environment and Planning A (33) p 1213–1235

Jessop, B. (2002) Liberalism, neoliberalism, and urban governance: A state–theoretical perspective. Antipode, 34(3), p.452-472.

Jessop, B. (2004a) Multi-level governance and multi-level metagovernance, in: I. Bache & M. Flinders (Eds)‘Multi-level Governance’ , Oxford University Press, Oxford p 49–74

Jessop, B. (2004b) 'Hollowing out the 'nation-state' and multilevel governance.’ in Kennett, P. (ed.) A Handbook Of Comparative Social Policy. Edward Elgar Publishing. p.11-25.

Jessop, B. (2005). Cultural political economy, the knowledge-based economy, and the state. The technological economy, 144-166.

Jessop, B. (2008) State Power: A Strategic-Relational Approach. Polity Press, Cambridge

275

Jessop, B. (2010). Cultural political economy and critical policy studies. Critical policy studies, 3(3- 4), 336-356.

Jessop, B. Sum, N. (2006) Beyond the Regulation Approach: Putting Capitalist Economies in Their Place Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.

Jessop, B., & Oosterlynck, S. (2008). Cultural political economy: On making the cultural turn without falling into soft economic sociology. Geoforum, 39(3), 1155-1169.

Jim, C. and Chen, W. (2007) Consumption preferences and environmental externalities: A hedonic analysis of the housing market in Guangzhou. Geoforum, 38(2), p.414-431.

Johnson, C., Penning-Roswell, E. and Parker, D. (2007) Natural and imposed injustices: the challenges in implementing ‘fair’ flood risk management policy in England. The Geographical Journal, 173(4), p374–390.

Johnston, J., Hay, C. Buller, J. (1999) Postwar British politics in perspective. Polity Press. Johnstone, B. (2011) Government rules out legal definition of sustainable development. Planning Resource, 12th September 2011. Available online at: http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1090875/government-rules-legal-definition- sustainable-development [Accessed 01/09/14]

Jones, M. (2001) The rise of the regional state in economic governance: partnerships for prosperity' or new scales of state power?. Environment and planning A, 33(7), p 1185-1212.

Jones, A. and Sufrin, B. (2014) EU Competition Law: Text, Cases and Materials. Oxford University Press.

Jones, C., Leishman, C. and MacDonald, C. (2009) Sustainable urban form and residential development viability. Environment and planning. A, 41(7), p.1667.

Jones, M. MacLeod, G. (2004) Regional spaces, spaces of regionalism: territory, insurgent politics and the English question. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 29(4), p 433-452.

Jones, M. (1997) Spatial selectivity of the state? The regulationist enigma and local struggles over economic governance. Environment and Planning A, 29(5) p 831-864.

Jones, M. (2001) The rise of the regional state in economic governance: 'partnerships for prosperity' or new scales of state power? Environment and Planning A, 33(7) p 1185-1211.

Jones, M. R. (1997). Spatial selectivity of the state? The regulationist enigma and local struggles over economic governance. Environment and Planning A 29(5) p 831-864.

Jones, P., Comfort, D. and Hillier, D. (2006) Corporate social responsibility and the UK construction industry. Journal of Corporate Real Estate, 8(3), p 134-150.

Jost, J. and Banaji, M. (1994) The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, p 1–27. Jost, J., Ledgerwood, A. and Hardin, C. (2008) Shared reality, system justification, and the relational basis of ideological beliefs. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), p 171- 186.

276

Jowitt, J. (2010) Spending review: “greenest government ever” reserves worst cuts for Defra. The Guardian, 20th October. Available online at: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/oct/20/spending-review-cuts-environment [Accessed 02/03/14]

Judt, T. (2011) Ill fares the land: a treatise on our present discontents. Penguin, London.

Jukes, A. (2012) Woodford Aerodrome Area of Opportunity Supplementary Planning Document Sustainability Appraisal. Available online at: http://stockport- consult.objective.co.uk/portal/pp/woodfordspd/woodfordspd?tab=files [Accessed 01/08/2013]

Kaika, M. (2005) City of flows: Modernity, nature, and the city. Routledge, New York

Kaika, M. Swyngedouw, E. (2012) Cities, natures and the political imaginary. Architectural Design, 82(4), p22-27

Kahn, P. H., Severson, R. L., & Ruckert, J. H. (2009) The human relation with nature and technological nature. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(1) p 37-42.

Kambites, C. and Owen, S. (2006) Renewed prospects for green infrastructure planning in the UK 1. Planning, Practice & Research, 21(4), p 483-496.

Kaplan, S. (1995) The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of environmental psychology, 15(3) p169-182.

Kavgic, M., Mavrogianni, A., Mumovic, D., Summerfield, A., Stevanovic, Z. and Djurovic-Petrovic, M. (2010) A review of bottom-up building stock models for energy consumption in the residential sector. Building and Environment, 45(7), p.1683-1697.

Kay, A. (2005) A critique of the use of path dependency in policy studies. Public administration, 83(3), p 553-571.

Kazmierczak, A., & Carter, J. (2010) Adaptation to climate change using green and blue infrastructure. A database of case studies. University of Manchester, GRaBS project.

Keil, R. (2009) The urban politics of roll‐with‐it neoliberalization. City, 13(2-3), p230-245.

Khalil, E. (1999) Institutions, naturalism and evolution. Review of Political Economy, 11(1) p 61- 81.

Klijn, E. (2001). Rules as Institutional Context for Decision Making in Networks The Approach to Postwar Housing Districts in Two Cities. Administration & Society, 33(2), p 133-164.

Klooster, D. (2005) Environmental certification of forests: The evolution of environmental governance in a commodity network. Journal of Rural Studies, 21(4), p 403-417.

Klosterman, R. (1985) Arguments for and against planning. Town Planning Review, 56(1), p.5.

Kosoy, N. Corbera, E. (2010) Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecological economics, 69(6), p 1228-1236.

277

Koteyko, N., Thelwall, M. Nerlich, B. (2010) From carbon markets to carbon morality: Creative compounds as framing devices in online discourses on climate change mitigation. Science Communication, 32(1), p 25-54.

Krueger, R. Gibbs, D. (eds.) (2007) The sustainable development paradox: urban political economy in the United States and Europe. Guilford Press, Guilford

Kruse, A. (2011) The Green Space Factor and the Green Points System. GRaBS Expert Paper 6. Available online at: http://www.grabs-eu.org/downloads/EP6%20FINAL.pdf [Accessed 25/07/14]

Krut, R. and Gleckman, H. (2013) ISO 14001: A missed opportunity for sustainable global industrial development. Routledge.

Kurtz, H. (2003) Scale frames and counter-scale frames: constructing the problem of environmental injustice. Political Geography, 22(8), p.887-916.

Labour Party (1997) Labour Party Manifesto for the 1997 General Election. Available online at: http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1997/1997-labour-manifesto.shtml [Accessed 01/09/14]

Lakoff, G. (2008) Don't think of an Elephant: Know your values and frame the debate. Chelsea Green Publishing, Chelsea

Lakoff, G. (2010) Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environmental Communication, 4(1), p 70-81.

Landscape Institute (2013) Five Year Strategy Framework. Available online at: http://landscapeinstitute.org/PDF/Contribute/StrategyDevelopmentPlanandBudget2011- 12_000.pdf [Accessed 01/09/14] Lang, T. (1999) The complexities of globalization: The UK as a case study of tensions within the food system and the challenge to food policy. Agriculture and Human Values, 16(2), p 169-185.

Latour, B. (2012) We Have Never Been Modern. Harvard University Press.

Lees, L. (2004) Urban geography: discourse analysis and urban research. Progress in human geography, 28(1), p.101-107

Lefebvre, H. (1991) The Production of Space. Blackwell, Oxford

Lennon, M. (2014) Green infrastructure and planning policy: a critical assessment. Local Environment, p.1-24. DOI:10.1080/13549839.2014.880411

Levitas, R. (2012). The Just's Umbrella: Austerity and the Big Society in Coalition policy and beyond. Critical Social Policy, Levi, M. (1997) A Model a Method and a Map: Rational Choice in Comparative and historical Analysis’ in M. Lichbach and A. Zuckerman (Eds) Comparative Politics: Rationality Culture and Structure. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge p19-41.

Levi-Faur, D. (2005) The global diffusion of regulatory capitalism. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 598(1), p.12-32.

Levi-Faur, D. (2006) Varieties of regulatory capitalism: Getting the most out of the comparative method. Governance, 19(3), p.367-382.

278

LHDG (2012) Viability testing local plans: advice for practitioners. Available online at: http://www.pas.gov.uk/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=4de88194-bc95-41f0-8a13- 4de28323c819&groupId=332612 [Accessed 01/09/14]

Livesey. A. (2014) Consultation outcome reveals further concerns for zero carbon homes Available at: http://sustainableenergyassociation.com/blog/next-steps-to-zerocarbon-homes- allowable-solutions/ [Accessed 01/09/14]

London SE1 (2014) Bermondsey neighbourhood plan: council sets area, rejects groups, London SE1 Community Website, Friday 29th August. [online] Available at: http://www.london- se1.co.uk/news/view/7803 [Accessed 01/09/14]

Loorbach, D. (2010) Transition management for sustainable development: a prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework. Governance, 23(1) p.161-183.

Lorenzoni, I. and Pidgeon, N.F. (2006) Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Climatic Change, 77(1-2), p.73-95.

Lovell Partnerships (2012) Lovell Sustainability Strategy. Lovell Partnerships: Staffordshire.

Lovell, H. (2004) Framing sustainable housing as a solution to climate change. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 6(1), p.35-55.

Lovell, H. (2005) Supply and demand for low energy housing in the UK: insights from a science and technology studies approach. Housing studies, 20(5), p.815-829.

Lovell, H. (2008) Discourse and innovation journeys: the case of low energy housing in the UK. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(5), p.613-632.

Lovell, H. (2009) The role of individuals in policy change: the case of UK low-energy housing. Environment and planning C: Government & policy, 27(3), p.491.

Lowe, P. Morrison, D. (1984). Bad news or good news: Environmental politics and the mass media. The Sociological Review, 32(1), p 75-90.

Lowndes, V. (2001) Rescuing Aunt Sally: taking institutional theory seriously in urban politics. Urban studies, 38(11), p 1953-1971.

Lowndes, V., Nanton, P., McCabe, A. and Skelcher, C. (1997) Networks, partnerships and urban regeneration. Local Economy, 11(4), p 333-342.

Lozano-Perez, T. (1983). Spatial planning: A configuration space approach. Computers, IEEE Transactions on, 100(2), p 108-120.

Lynch-Wood, G. and Williamson, D. (2010) The receptive capacity of firms and the regulation of ecological modernization. In: ECPR standing group on regulatory governance third biennial conference: Regulation in the age of crisis, 17-19 June 2010, University College Dublin.

Mace, B. Bell, P. Loomis, R. (2004) Visibility and natural quiet in national parks and wilderness areas psychological considerations. Environment and Behavior, 36(1), p 5-31.

MacLeod, G. (2001) New regionalism reconsidered: globalization and the remaking of political economic space. International journal of urban and regional research, 25(4), p 804-829.

279

MacLeod, G. (2001). Beyond soft institutionalism: accumulation, regulation, and their geographical fixes. Environment and Planning A, 33(7), 1145-1168.

Majone, G. (1994) The rise of the regulatory state in Europe. West European Politics, 17(3), p 77- 101.

Majone, G. (1994). The rise of the regulatory state in Europe. West European Politics, 17(3), 77- 101.

Majone, G. (1997). From the positive to the regulatory state: causes and consequences of changes in the mode of governance. Journal of public policy, 17(02), 139-167.

Majone, G. (1999) The regulatory state and its legitimacy problems. West European Politics, 22(1), p.1-24.

Manchester Department of Environment (1978) Manchester and Salford inner area study Manchester Department of the Environment, North West Regional Office. Manchester

Manchester City Council (2010) Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2010: Analysis for Manchester (v1.2). Corporate Research and Intelligence, Chief Executive’s Department.

Margolis, M., Shogren, J.F. and Fischer, C. (2005) How trade politics affect invasive species control. Ecological Economics, 52(3), p.305-313. Markard, J., Raven, R. and Truffer, B. (2012) Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of research and its prospects. Research Policy, 41(6), p.955-967.

Marsden, T. (2010) Mobilizing the regional eco-economy: evolving webs of agri-food and rural development in the UK. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3(2), p.225-244.

Marston, S.A. (2000) The social construction of scale. Progress in human geography, 24(2), p.219-242.

Martin, R. and Marsden, T. (1999). Food for urban spaces: The development of urban food production in England and Wales. International Planning Studies,4(3), p.389-412.

Marx, K. (1867) Capital: A critical analysis of capitalist production, Volume I. Progress Publishers. Mazzeo, M.J. (2002) Product choice and oligopoly market structure. RAND Journal of Economics, 33(2), p.221-242.

McCann, E.J. (2001) Collaborative Visioning or Urban Planning as Therapy? The Politics of Public‐Private Policy Making. The Professional Geographer, 53(2), p.207-218.

McClintock, N. (2010) Why farm the city? Theorizing urban agriculture through a lens of metabolic rift. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 7(2), p.1-17.

McKenzie, E., Posner, S., Tillmann, P., Bernhardt J.R., Howard, K. and Rosenthal, A. (2014) Understanding the use of ecosystem service knowledge in decision making: lessons from international experiences of spatial planning. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32(2) p.320-340.

McPhearson, T. (2011) Toward a sustainable New York City: Greening through urban forest restoration. In Slavin, E. (ed.) Sustainability in America’s Cities: Creating the Green Metropolis Island Press. p.181–204.

280

McPherson, E.G., Nowak, D.J. and Rowntree, R.A. (1994) Chicago's urban forest ecosystem: results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. p.201.

McWilliams, A. Siegel, D. (2001) Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of management review, 26(1) p 117-127.

MEA, (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC.

Meadowcroft, J. (2005) Environmental political economy, technological transitions and the state. New Political Economy, 10(4), p.479-498.

Medda, F. (2007). A game theory approach for the allocation of risks in transport public private partnerships. International Journal of Project Management, 25(3), p 213-218.

Mell, I. (2009) Can green infrastructure promote urban sustainability? Proceedings of the ICE- Engineering Sustainability, 162(1), p 23-34.

Mell, I. (2013) Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail? Examining the “green” of Green Infrastructure development. Local Environment, 18(2) p 152-166.

Melzer, A. (1993) ‘The Problem with ‘The Problem of Technology’’. In: Melzer, M., Weinberger, J. and Zinman, M. (eds.) Technology in the western political tradition. Cornell University Press. p.287-322.

Metcalf, S. Widener, M. (2011). Growing Buffalo’s capacity for local food: A systems framework for sustainable agriculture. Applied Geography, 31(4), p 1242-1251.

Meyer, J. Rowan, B. (1991) Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. In W. Powell and P. DiMaggio (Eds) ‘The New Institutionalism in Organisational Analysis’ University of Chicago Press, Chicago p 41-62.

Meyer, P. and Lyons, T. (2000) Lessons from private sector brownfield redevelopers: Planning public support for urban regeneration. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(1), p.46- 57.

Myers, D. (2005). A review of construction companies' attitudes to sustainability. Construction Management and Economics, 23(8), 781-785. Michaelis, P. (1994). Regulate us, please! On strategic lobbying in Cournot-Nash oligopoly. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), 150(4), p.693-709.

Miller Homes (2010) Key Performance Indicators. Miller Homes: Edinburgh.

Miller Homes (2011) Corporate Responsibility: Report on Progress 2011. Miller Homes: Edinburgh.

Miller Homes (2012) Climate Change Policy. Miller Homes: Edinburgh.

Miller Homes (2012) Ecology and Biodiversity Policy. Miller Homes: Edinburgh. Miller Homes (2012) Responsible Sourcing Policy. Miller Homes: Edinburgh.

Miller Homes (2012) Sustainable Development Policy. Miller Homes: Edinburgh.

Miller Homes (2012) Sustainable Timber Policy. Miller Homes: Edinburgh.

281

Miller Homes (2013) Site Waste Management Policy. Miller Homes: Edinburgh.

Mittler, D. (1999) Environmental space and barriers to local sustainability: Evidence from Edinburgh, Scotland. Local environment, 4(3) p 353-365.

Moffatt, S. Kohler, N. (2002) Conceptualizing the built environment as a social-ecological system. Building Research & Information, 36(3) p.248-268.

Montgomery, J. (2004) Cultural quarters as mechanisms for urban regeneration. Part 2: a review of four cultural quarters in the UK, Ireland and Australia, Planning Practice & Research, 19(1) p.3-31.

Moon, J. (2004) Government as a Driver of Corporate Social Responsibility. ICCSR Research Paper 20. University of Nottingham.

Moore, J. (2014) Taylor Wimpey should be made to do more to earn the Help to Buy windfall. Independent, 8th July 2014. Available online at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/taylor-wimpey-should-be-made-to- do-more-to-earn-the-help-to-buy-windfall-9590759.html [Accessed 01/09/14]

Moore, R.C. (1995) Children gardening: First steps towards a sustainable future. Children's Environments, 12(2), p 222-232.

Moran, M. (2002) Review article: Understanding the regulatory state. British journal of political science, 32(02), p 391-413.

Morancho, A. (2003) A hedonic valuation of urban green areas. Landscape and urban planning, 66(1), p 35-41.

Morgan, K. (1997) The learning region: institutions, innovation and regional renewal. Regional studies, 31(5), p.491-503

Morgan, K. (2014) Nourishing the city: The rise of the urban food question in the Global North. Urban Studies, p 1-16.

Morris, C., Seymour, S. Spencer, A. (2014) ‘Whither food sovereignty? The framing of food provisioning research agendas in the UK’. In: European Society for Rural Sociology conference, Florence, 2013.

Morris, E.S. (2011) Down with eco-towns! Up with eco-communities. Or is there a need for model eco-towns? A review of the 2009–2010 eco-town proposals in Britain. In: Wong, T. and Yuen, B. (eds.) Eco-city Planning: Policies, Practice and Design. Springer. p.113-130.

Moulaert, F. Martinelli, F. González, S. Swyngedouw, E. (2007). Introduction: Social Innovation and Governance in European Cities Urban Development Between Path Dependency and Radical Innovation. European Urban and Regional Studies, 14(3), p 195-209.

Mühlhäusler, P. and Peace, A. (2006) Environmental discourses. Annual Review of Anthropology, 35, p.457-479.

Muradian, R., Corbera, E., Pascual, U., Kosoy, N., and May, P.H. (2010) Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 69(6), p.1202-1208.

Murdoch, J. and Abram, S. (2002) Rationalities of planning: Development Versus Environment in Planning for Housing. Ashgate.

282

Murphy, J. and Gouldson, A. (2000) Environmental policy and industrial innovation: integrating environment and economy through ecological modernisation. Geoforum, 31(1), p.33-44.

Myers, D. (2005). A review of construction companies' attitudes to sustainability. Construction Management and Economics, 23(8), p.781-785.

Nappi-Choulet, I. (2006). The role and behaviour of commercial property investors and developers in French urban regeneration: The experience of the Paris region. Urban Studies, 43(9), 1511-1535. Nash, R. (2014). Wilderness and the American mind. Yale University Press.

Nathaniel Lichfield (2013) Woodford Aerodrome Site: Planning Statement. Available online at: http://interactive.stockport.gov.uk/edrms/onlinemvm/getimage.asp?DocumentNumber=2086 60 [Accessed 01/08/14]

Nathaniel Lichfield (2014) Woodford Aerodrome Site: Planning Obligations – Heads of Terms Letter. 1st October 2013. Available online at: http://interactive.stockport.gov.uk/edrms/onlinemvm/getimage.asp?DocumentNumber=2097 02 [Accessed 01/08/14]

Natural Economy Northwest (2009) Putting the green in the grey: creating sustainable grey infrastructure guidance for developers planners and project managers. Available online at: http://www.greeninfrastructurenw.co.uk/resources/6b4_Guide_Final_v3.pdf [Accessed 01/06/14] Natural England (2009) Letter from Rob Cooke, Natural England, to Daniel Smith, EcoTowns Team at DCLG, 25th September 2009. Available online at: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/25-09-2009%20Eco-towns%20- %20allocations%20from%20the%20eco-towns%20fund_tcm6-20384.pdf [Accessed 01/09/14]

Natural England (2010) ‘Nature Nearby’: Accessible Natural Greenspace Guidance (NE265). Available online at: http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/40004?category=47004 [Accessed 01/08/14]

Natural England (2014) Consultation on General and Class licences under wildlife legislation in England. Available online at: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/cl-consultation- document_tcm6-37389.pdf [Accessed 01/05/14]

Neale, A. (1997) Organising environmental self‐regulation: Liberal governmentality and the pursuit of ecological modernisation in Europe. Environmental Politics, 6(4), p.1-24. NENW (2009) Roof Greening In Liverpool. NENW. Available online at: www.naturaleconomynorthwest.co.uk Accessed 01.06.2015

NENW (2008) The Economic Value of Green Infrastructure. Available at: http://www.greeninfrastructurenw.co.uk/resources/The_Economic_Value_of_Green_Infrastruc ture.pdf Accessed 01.02.2015

NEWANGLIA (2014) The New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership. Available at: http://www.newanglia.co.uk/ [Accessed 12/12/13]

Newman, P. (2010). Green urbanism and its application to Singapore.Environment and urbanization Asia, 1(2), 149-170.

283

Nijnik, M. (2010) Carbon capture and storage in forests. Issues in Environmental Science and Technology, 29, p.203.

Nixon, D.J., Stephens, W., Tyrrel, S.F. and Brierley, E.D.R. (2001) The potential for short rotation energy forestry on restored landfill caps. Bioresource Technology, 77(3), p.237-245.

North, D. (1991) Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), p 97-112.

Novakovic, O. (2012) Defining Sustainable Development within the NPPF. BRE. Available online at: http://www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/events/NPPF/NPPF.pdf [Accessed 01/09/14]

Nowak, D.J. (1994) Air pollution removal by Chicago’s urban forest. In McPherson, E., Nowak, D.J. and Rowntree, R.A. (eds.) Chicago’s urban forest ecosystem: Results of the Chicago urban forest climate project. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. p.63–81.

Nowak, D.J. and Crane, D.E. (2000) The urban forest effects (UFORE) model: Quantifying urban forest structure and functions. In Hansen, M. and Burk, T. (eds.) Integrated tools for natural resource inventories in the 21st century. North Central Research Station. p.714–720.

NWDA (2009) Adapting the Landscape from Liverpool to Manchester: Final Report, December 2009, Prepared for the Northwest Regional Development Agency. NWDA

ODPM (2004) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) TSO London.

ODPM (1999) A Better Quality of Life: UK Sustainable Development Strategy. TSO, London

ODPM (2000) Planning policy guidance 3: Housing. ODPM, London. ODPM (2003) Sustainable communities: building for the future. ODPM, London.

ODPM (2005) Planning policy statement 1 (PPS1): delivering sustainable development ODPM, London

ODPM (2005) Planning Policy Statement 1: Supplement Planning and Climate Change. ODOM

ODPM (2009) Planning Policy Statement 9. Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. ODPM, London

O’Donovan, G. (2002) Environmental disclosures in the annual report: extending the applicability and predictive power of legitimacy theory. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(3), p 344-371.

O'Connor, J.R. (ed.). (1998) Natural causes: Essays in ecological Marxism. Guilford Press.

Olsson, K. Haas, T. (2013).Emergent Urbanism: structural change and urban planning and design. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 6(2), p 95-112.

ONS (2013) Foreign Direct Investment Involving UK Companies, 2011 (MA4). Office for National Statistics. Available online at http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_299174.pdf [Accessed 03/04/14]

Oreskes, N. (2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, 306(5702), p 1686- 1686.

284

Orlowski, L.T. (2008) Stages of the 2007/2008 global financial crisis: Is there a wandering asset- price bubble? Economics E-Journal, 43, 18th December.

Ortiz‐de‐Mandojana, N. Aguilera‐Caracuel, J. Morales‐Raya, M. (2014). Corporate Governance and Environmental Sustainability: The Moderating Role of the National Institutional Context. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management.

Owens, S. (1995) From ‘predict and provide’ to ‘predict and prevent’? pricing and planning in transport policy. Transport Policy, 2(1), p 43-49.

Ozaki, R. (2003) Customer‐focused approaches to innovation in house building. Construction Management and Economics, 21(6), p.557-564.

Parker, C. (2002) The Open Corporation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Parkinson, M. (1989) The Thatcher Government's urban policy: a review. Town Planning Review, 60(4), p 421.

Pataki, D.E., Carreiro, M., Cherrier, J., Grulke, N.E., Jennings, V., Pincetl, S., Pourat, R., Whitlow, T. and Zipperer, W. (2011) Coupling biogeochemical cycles in urban environments: ecosystem services, green solutions, and misconceptions. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 9(1), p.27-36.

Pathak, V., Tripathi, B. D., and Mishra, V. K. (2007) Dynamics of traffic noise in a tropical city Varanasi and its abatement through vegetation. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 146(1–3), p.67–75.

Payne, S. (2009) The institutional capacity of the UK speculative house building industry– responding to the brownfield development policy agenda. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) University of Glasgow.

Payne, S. (2012) Can the Volume Housebuilding Model Survive? Town and Country Planning, p546-550

Payne, S. (2013) Pioneers, Pragmatists and Sceptics: speculative housebuilders and brownfield development in the early 21st century. Town Planning Review 84, p.37- 62

Peck, J. (2001) Neoliberalizing states: thin policies/hard outcomes. Progress in human geography, 25(3) p 445-455.

Peck, J. and Tickell, A. (1994) Searching for a new institutional fix: the after‐Fordist crisis and the global‐local disorder. In: Amin, A. (ed.) Post-Fordism: a reader. Blackwell. p 280-315.

Peck, J., & Tickell, A. (2002). Neoliberalizing space. Antipode, 34(3), p 380-404. Pellow, D.N., Schnaiberg, A. and Weinberg, A.S. (2000) Advanced industrial countries: Putting the ecological modernisation thesis to the test: The promises and performances of urban recycling. Environmental Politics, 9(1), p.109-137.

Peñaloza, L. and Venkatesh, A. (2006) Further evolving the new dominant logic of marketing: from services to the social construction of markets. Marketing theory, 6(3), p 299-316.

Pereira, H., Reyers, M., Watanabe, E., Bohensky, S., Foale, C., Palm, M., Espaldon, D., Armenteras, M., Tapia, A., Rincón, M., Lee, A., Patwardhan, and Gomes, I. (2005) Condition and trends of ecosystem services and biodiversity. In Capistrano, D., Samper, C., Lee, J.M. and Raudsepp-

285

Hearne, C. (eds) Ecosystems and human well-being: multi scale assessments, Volume 4. Findings of the Sub-global Assessments Working Group of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press. p 171–203.

Perkins, H. (2010) Green Spaces of Self‐Interest Within Shared Urban Governance. Geography Compass, 4(3), p 255-268.

Persimmon (2008) Sustainability Report: Practical Sustainability 2008. Persimmon: York

Persimmon (2010) Living Green Working Green: Sustainability Report 2010. Persimmon: York

Persimmon (2011) Building a Sustainable Business: Sustainability Report 2011. Persimmon: York

Peter, H. (2002) Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design. Wiley.

Philip, R. Wiederer, A. (2010) Policy options for electric vehicle charging infrastructure in C40 cities. Prepared for: Stephen Crolius, Director of Transportation, Clinton Climate Initiative. Available online at: http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/cache/documents/11089/1108934.pdf [Accessed 01/04/14]

Pierson, P. (2000) Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American political science review, 94(02) p 251-267.

Pincetl, S. (2010) From the sanitary city to the sustainable city: challenges to institutionalising biogenic (nature's services) infrastructure. Local environment, 15(1), p.43-58.

Planit-IE (2013) Woodford Aerodrome Design and Access Statement. Harrow Estates. Available online at: http://interactive.stockport.gov.uk/edrms/onlinemvm/getimage.asp?DocumentNumber=2098 96 [Accessed 01/09/14]

Planning Portal (2014) Planning Performance Agreements: Guidance. [online] Available at: http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/before-submitting-an- application/planning-performance-agreements/ [Accessed 01/09/14]

Planning Resource (2011) Norfolk core strategy challenge opens at High Court. 8th December 2011. Available online at: http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1108487/norfolk-core- strategy-challenge-opens-high-court [Accessed 01/09/14] Polk, A. and Schmutzler, A. (2005) Lobbying against environmental regulation vs. lobbying for loopholes. European Journal of Political Economy, 21(4), p 915-931.

Pollard, A. and Tidey, P. (2009) Community Woodlands in England Baseline Report for Forest Research. Small Woods Association.

Porritt, J. (2011) The Greenest Government Ever: One Year On. A report to the Friends of the Earth. Friends of the Earth

Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R. and Fish, R. (2011) Embedding an ecosystems approach in decision making. Measuring the added value: Overview report for DEFRA (NR0135). Available online at: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/cem/pdf/NR0135_EMBED_Overview_CEM_Report_No18.pdf Accessed 01/09/14

Podnar, K. Golob, U. (2007)CSR expectations: the focus of corporate marketing. Corporate communications: An international journal, 12(4), p 326-340.

286

Power, M. (2003) Auditing and the production of legitimacy. Accounting, organizations and society, 28(4), p 379-394.

Pratchett, L., & Wingfield, M. (1996). Petty bureaucracy and woollyminded liberalism? The changing ethos of local government officers. Public administration, 74(4), 639-656.

Pratt, A. C. (1994). Uneven re-production: industry, space and society. Pergamon, Oxford

Pride. T. (2014) Here’s the real reason the Tories are allowing the destruction of robin eggs and nests. Pride’s Purge: an irreverent look at UK politics [blog] Available at: http://tompride.wordpress.com/2014/05/18/heres-the-real-reason-the-tories-are-allowing- the-destruction-of-robin-eggs-and-nests/ [Accessed 01/06/14]

Pugalis, L. and Townsend, A.R. (2012) Rebalancing England: Sub-national development (once again) at the crossroads. Urban Research & Practice, 5(1), p.157-174.

Puller, S.L. (2006) The strategic use of innovation to influence regulatory standards. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 52(3), p.690-706.

Rasch, P. J., Crutzen, P. J., & Coleman, D. B. (2008) Exploring the geoengineering of climate using stratospheric sulfate aerosols: The role of particle size. Geophysical Research Letters, 35(2), p 1- 6

Raban, J. (2008) Soft City. Picador.

Raco, M. (2005) Sustainable Development, Rolled‐out Neoliberalism and Sustainable Communities. Antipode, 37(2), p 324-347.

Rackheath Parish Council (2012) Minutes of the meeting held 19th March 2012. Available online at: http://www.rackheathvillage.org.uk/minutes/PCmins190312.pdf [Accessed 01/09/14]

Rackheath Trust (c2011) Rackheath Compass. (personal communication)

Randolph, J. Masters, G. (2008) Energy for sustainability: technology, planning, policy. Island Press.

Read, D. Freer-Smith, P. Morison, J. Hanley, N. West, C. Snowdon, P. (2009) Combating climate change: a role for UK forests. An assessment of the potential of the UK's trees and woodlands to mitigate and adapt to climate change. The Stationery Office Limited.

Redrow PLC (2009) Sustainability Policy. Redrow PLC: Ewloe.

Redrow PLC (2011) Climate Change Statement, Redrow PLC: Ewloe.

Redrow PLC (2011) Environmental Policy. Redrow PLC: Ewloe. Redrow PLC (2011) Water Conservation Policy. Redrow PLC: Ewloe.

Redrow PLC (2012) Corporate Responsibility Strategy. Redrow PLC: Ewloe.

Redrow PLC (2012) Design for Biodiversity Policy. Redrow PLC: Ewloe.

Rees, W. (1992) Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out. Environment and urbanization, 4(2), p.121-130.

287

Reid, H. (2011) Big society can't mend broken Britain. Herald Scotland, 9th August 2011. Available online at: http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/big-society-can-t- mend-broken-britain.14670737 [Accessed 01/09/14]

Redclift, M. (2005) Sustainable development (1987–2005): an oxymoron comes of age. Sustainable Development, 13(4), p 212-227.

Renaud, B. (2003). Speculative behaviour in immature real estate markets, lessons of the 1997 Asia financial crisis. Urban Policy and Research, 21(2), p 151-173. Revesz, R. (1997) Environmental Regulation, Ideology, and the D.C. Circuit, Virginia Law Review, 83(8) p 1717-1772.

Rice, P. Ezzy, D. (1999) Qualitative research methods: A health focus. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Richardson, T., & Jensen, O. B. (2003). Linking discourse and space: Towards a cultural sociology of space in analysing spatial policy discourses. Urban Studies, 40(1), p 7-22.

Richards, K. Stokes, C. (2004) A review of forest carbon sequestration cost studies: A dozen years of research, Climatic Change, 63, p 1–48.

Richter, G. Seminov, M. (2005) Modelling impacts of climate change on wheat yields in England and Wales: assessing drought risks. Agricultural Systems, 84(1), p.77–97. Rid, W. Probstl, U. Heider, W. (2007). Attitudes and Behaviour of German Homebuyers: Towards Aspect of Sustainable Housing. In International conference ‘Sustainable Urban Areas.

Robertson, M. (2006). The nature that capital can see: science, state, and market in the commodification of ecosystem services. Environment and Planning D, 24(3), p 367-378.

Robson, B. (2002) ‘Mancunian ways: the politics of regeneration.’ In Peck, J. and Ward, K. (eds.) City of Revolution, Restructuring Manchester. Manchester University Press.

Rodríguez, J., Beard, T., Bennett, E., Cumming, G., Cork, S., Agard, J. and Peterson, G. (2006) Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecology and Society, 11(1), p.28.

Rodwin, L. (1956) The British New Towns Policy: Problems and Implications. Harvard University Press.

Rosenbaum, W.A. (2013) Environmental politics and policy. CQ Press.

Rosol, M. (2010) Public Participation in Post‐Fordist Urban Green Space Governance: The Case of Community Gardens in Berlin. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34(3), p 548-563.

Rouse, D.C. and Bunster-Ossa, I.F. (2013) Green infrastructure: a landscape approach. American Planning Association.

Rowley, J. (2002) Using case studies in research. Management research news, 25(1), p.16-27.

Roy, P. (2011) Non-profit and community-based green space production in Milwaukee: Maintaining a counter-weight within neo-liberal urban environmental governance. Space and Polity, 15(2), p.87-105.

288

Roy, R. and Cochrane, S.P. (1999) Development of a customer focused strategy in speculative house building. Construction Management & Economics, 17(6), p 777-787.

Roy, R., Brown, J. and Gaze, C. (2003) Re-engineering the construction process in the speculative house-building sector. Construction Management & Economics, 21(2), p 137-146.

Rydin, Y., Devine-Wright, P., Goodier, C., Guy, S., Hunt, L., Ince, M., Loughead, J., Walker, L. and Watson, J. (2008) Powering our lives: foresight sustainable energy management and the built environment project: final project report. Government Office for Science. Sage, D. (2012) A challenge to liberalism? The communitarianism of the Big Society and Blue Labour. Critical social policy, 32(3) p 365-382.

Sage, C. (2014) The transition movement and food sovereignty: From local resilience to global engagement in food system transformation. Journal of Consumer Culture, 14(2), p.254-275.

Sage, R. B. (1998) Short rotation coppice for energy: towards ecological guidelines. Biomass and Bioenergy, 15(1), p.39-47.

Said, N. Martin, D. (2013). The housing environment preference among housing consumers in Johor Bahru. Management, Business and Entrepreneurship (ICTMBE) Conference, 4-5 December 2013, Melaka, Malaysia .

Samsura, D. Van der Krabben, E. Van Deemen, A. (2010). A game theory approach to the analysis of land and property development processes. Land Use Policy, 27(2), 564-578.

Sandys, D. (1955) Statement by the Rt.Hon. Duncan Sandys, MP, Minister for Housing and Local Government in the House of Commons, 25th April 1955. Available online at: http://www.londongreenbeltcouncil.org.uk/lgbc%20website/pdf/1955%20Circular%20%28al t%29.pdf [Accessed 01/09/14]

Santos, G., Behrendt, H. and Teytelboym, A. (2010) Part II: Policy instruments for sustainable road transport. Research in Transportation Economics, 28(1), p.46-91.

Sayer, A. (2001) For a critical cultural political economy. Antipode, 33(4), p 687-708.

Schaffer, W. (1985) Order and chaos in ecological systems. Ecology, 66(1), p 93-106.

Scherr, S. McNeely, J. (2008) Biodiversity conservation and agricultural sustainability: towards a new paradigm of ‘ecoagriculture’ landscapes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363(1491), p 477-494.

Schetke, S. and Haase, D. (2008) Multi-criteria assessment of socio-environmental aspects in shrinking cities. Experiences from Eastern Germany. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28(7), p 483-503.

Schmidt, V. (2006). Institutionalism. The Encyclopedia of Political Thought.

Schmidt, V. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci., 11, p 303-326.

Schmidt, V. (2010). Taking ideas and discourse seriously: explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth ‘new institutionalism’. European political science review, 2(01), p 1- 25.

289

Schmidt, V. (2011) Reconciling ideas and institutions through discursive institutionalism. Ideas and politics in social science research, p 47-64. Schroeder, H. (1996) Ecology of the Heart: Understanding How People Experience Natural Environments. In Ewert, A.W. (ed.) Natural Resource Management: the Human Dimension. Westview Press. P 13-27.

Schwartz, H. and Seabrooke, L. (2008) Varieties of residential capitalism in the international political economy: Old welfare states and the new politics of housing. Comparative European Politics, 6(3), p 237-261. Scott, C. (2000). Accountability in the regulatory state. Journal of law and society, 27(1), 38-60.

Scott, C. (2004) Regulation in the age of governance: the rise of the post regulatory state. In:

Jordana, J. and Levi-Faur, D. (eds.) The Politics of Regulation: Institutions and Regulatory Reforms for the Age of Governance. Edward Elgar Publishing. p.145-174.

Scott, L.A. (2014) Toxic turnaround. Property Week, 16th May 2014. Available online at: http://vps.thelandtrust.org.uk/pdfs/File_1400488965Property%20Week%20Braeburn%20Art icle.pdf [Accessed 17/07/14]

Seager, T.P. (2008) The sustainability spectrum and the sciences of sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(7), p 44-453.

Sell, S. (2014) Developer challenges Staffordshire local plan. Planning Resource, 27th August 2014. Available online at: http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1309428/developer- challenges-staffordshire-local-plan?DCMP=EMC- CONPlanningResourceDaily&bulletin=planning-daily [Accessed 01/09/14]

Seo, K. (2002) Re-urbanisation in Regenerated Areas of Manchester and Glasgow. Cities, Vol. 19(2) p 113–121.

Servillo, L. Van Den Broeck, P. (2012) The Social Construction of Planning Systems: A Strategic- Relational Institutionalist Approach. Planning Practice and Research, 27(1), p 41-61.

Sharp, L. Richardson, T. (2001) Reflections on Foucauldian discourse analysis in planning and environmental policy research. Journal of environmental policy and planning, 3(3), p 193-209. Sharp, T (1932) Town and countryside. Oxford University Press.

Shelter (2008) Rackheath Eco-community – the facts. Available online at: http://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/148109/Rackheath.pdf [Accessed 01/09/14]

Shelter (2013) The question should now be about ‘how’ to get houses built. Shelter policy blog 12th September 2013 [blog] Available at: http://blog.shelter.org.uk/2013/09/how-to-get- houses-built/ [Accessed 01/09/14]

Shelter (2014) The Housing Crisis: What are the solutions. Available online at: http://england.shelter.org.uk/campaigns/why_we_campaign/the_housing_crisis/building_more _homes [Accessed 01/09/14]

Shove, E. Walker, G. (2007) CAUTION! Transitions ahead: politics, practice, and sustainable transition management. Environment and Planning A, 39(4), p 763-770.

290

SILCS Report, (2011) Strategies for Innovative Low Carbon Settlements. Interreg IVC Project Report. Compiled by CURe (Centre for Urban Regeneration) at the University of Portsmouth (UK) and EPSA (Empressa Publica De Suelo de Andalucia), Sevilla. Available online at: http://www.powerprogramme.eu/uploads/SILCS%20FINAL%20REPORT%20.pdf Accessed 01.03.2015

Skarstein, R. (2011) Overaccumulation of productive capital or of finance capital? A view from the outskirts of a Marxist debate. Investigación Económica, vol.LXX, p 15-51. Skelcher, C. (2000). Changing images of the state: overloaded, hollowed-out, congested. Public policy and administration, 15(3) p 3-19.

Smith, N. (1984) Uneven Development: Nature, Capital and the Production of Space. Blackwell.

Sneddon, C., Howarth, R.B. and Norgaard, R.B. (2006) Sustainable development in a post- Brundtland world. Ecological economics, 57(2), p.253-268.

SNUB (2014) ‘Ecotowns Claims’, Stop Norwich Urbanisation [online] Available at: http://www.snubcampaign.org/rackheath-ecotown.html [Accessed 01/09/14]

SNUB, CPRE Norfolk, Norwich and Norfolk Transport Action Group, Transition Norwich, Friends of Thorpe Woodlands, Hands Off Hethersett Campaign (2010) Joint Letter regarding ‘Submission Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich & South Norfolk’. Available online at: http://www.snubcampaign.org/norwich-development.html [Accessed 01/03/14]

SNUB, (2010) Group Letter Seeking Withdrawal of JCS. Available online at: http://www.snubcampaign.org/norwich-development.html [Accessed 01/03/14]

Stanley, J. (2007) Covering Letter to Manchester City Council Planning Department, ‘Green Quarter, Cheetham Hill Block 5 – Application for Full Planning Permission’. Drivers Jonas

Stavins, R. and Richards, K. (2005) The cost of U.S. forest based carbon sequestration. Pew Center for Global Climate Change

Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M. and Haan, C.D. (2006) Livestock's long shadow: Environmental issues and options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Stirling, A. (2007) Deliberate futures: precaution and progress in social choice of sustainable technology. Sustainable Development, 15(5), p 286-295.

Stockport MBC (2011) Stockport LDF Core Strategy DPD. Stockport MBC.

Stockport MBC (2012) Stockport Annual Monitoring Report 2011-2012. Available online at: http://stockport.objective.co.uk/portal/pp/zzz_adopteddocuments/aaa_ldsamrsci/amr_1/amr 20112012?pointId=s1344247790795 [Accessed 21/08/14] Stockport MBC (2012) Woodford Aerodrome Opportunity Site SPD. Stockport MBC

Stockport MBC (2013) Woodford Aerodrome Opportunity Site SPD. Stockport MBC

Stockport MBC (2014a) Election results for Bramhall South & Woodford, Thursday, 22nd May 2014. Available online at: http://democracy.stockport.gov.uk/mgElectionAreaResults.aspx?ID=63 [Accessed 02/07/14]

291

Stockport MBC (2014b) Statement on history of Woodford Aerodrome SPD http://www.stockport.gov.uk/services/environment/planningbuilding/planningpolicy/policyg uidance/spd/woodfordspd [Accessed 01/08/14]

Stone, M. and Barlow, Z. (2005) Ecological literacy: Educating our children for a sustainable world. Sierra Club Books.

Strategy Unit (2008) Food Matters: Towards a strategy for the 21st century. Cabinet Office. Available online at: http://www.ifr.ac.uk/waste/Reports/food%20matters,%20Towards%20a%20Strategy%20for %20the%2021st%20Century.pdf [Accessed 01/09/14]

Sullivan, H. (2012) A Big Society needs an active state. Policy & Politics, 40(1), p.145-8.

Sum, N. (2005) From regulation approach to cultural political economy, Workpackage 1. Discussion Paper for EU Framework 6 DEMOLOGOS project. .

Swaffield, S. (1998) Frames of reference: a metaphor for analyzing and interpreting attitudes of environmental policy makers and policy influencers. Environmental Management, 22(4), p 495- 504.

Swyngedouw, E. (1996) The city as a hybrid: on nature, society and cyborg urbanization. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 7(2), p.65-80.

Swyngedouw, E. (1999) Modernity and hybridity: nature, regeneracionismo, and the production of the Spanish waterscape, 1890–1930. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 89(3), p.443-465. Swyngedouw, E. (2007) Impossible sustainability and the post-political condition. In: Kruger, R. and Gibbs, D. (eds.) The sustainable development paradox: urban political economy in the United States and Europe. Guilford Press. p.13-40.

Swyngedouw, E. (2009) The antinomies of the postpolitical city: in search of a democratic politics of environmental production. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(3), p 601-620.

Swyngedouw, E. (2010) Apocalypse forever? Post-political populism and the spectre of climate change. Theory, Culture & Society, 27(2-3), p 213-232.

Swyngedouw, E. (2011) Interrogating post-democratization: Reclaiming egalitarian political spaces. Political Geography, 30(7), p 370-380.

Swyngedouw, E., Moulaert, F. and Rodriguez, A. (2002) Neoliberal urbanization in Europe: large–scale urban development projects and the new urban policy. Antipode, 34(3), p 542-577.

Taylor Wimpey (2007) Corporate Responsibility Report 2007. Taylor Wimpey: High Wycombe

Taylor Wimpey (2009) Corporate Responsibility Report 2009. Taylor Wimpey: High Wycombe Taylor Wimpey (2012) Corporate Responsibility Report: Developing Communities 2012. Taylor Wimpey: High Wycombe

Taylor, H.. (1995) Urban public parks, 1840-1900: design and meaning. Garden History, 23(2), p.201-221.

TCI, (1990) This Common Inheritance: Britain’s Environmental Strategy. The Stationary Office, London

292

TCPA and Wildlife Trust (2012) Planning for a healthy environment: good practice guidance for green infrastructure and biodiversity. Available online at: http://www.tcpa.org.uk/data/files/TCPA_TWT_GI-Biodiversity-Guide.pdf [Accessed 01/06/14]

TCPA (2011) Creating Garden Cities and Suburbs Today. TCPA, London

TCPA (2013) Creating Garden Cities: A Guide for Councils. TCPA, London

Thaler, R.H. and Sunstein, C.R. (2008) Nudge. Penguin Books.

Thomas, J. Harden, A. (2008) Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC medical research methodology, 8(1) p 45- 67.

Thomas, K. and Littlewood, S. (2010) From green belts to green infrastructure? The evolution of a new concept in the emerging soft governance of spatial strategies. Planning, Practice & Research, 25(2), p.203-222.

Thomas, W. (1956) Man’s role in changing the face of the Earth. University of Chicago Press. Chicago

Thompson, C. (2004) Geddes, Zoos and the Valley Section. Landscape Review, 10(1-2), p 115- 119.

Thompson, J. (2012) Incredible Edible-social and environmental entrepreneurship in the era of the “Big Society”. Social Enterprise Journal, 8(3), p 237-250.

Thompson, M. (2015). Between Boundaries: From Commoning and Guerrilla Gardening to Community Land Trust Development in Liverpool. Antipode. 8(3), p 237-250

Thomley, A. (1991) Urban Planning Under Thatcherism: the Challenge of the Market, Routledge, London

Tiesdell, S. and Adams, D. (2004) Design matters: major house builders and the design challenge of brownfield development contexts. Journal of Urban Design, 9(1) p 23-45.

Tiesdell, S. Allmendinger, P. (2005) Planning tools and markets: towards an extended conceptualisation. In: Adams, D., Watkins, C. and White, M. (eds.) Planning Public Policy and Property Markets. Blackwell. p.56-76.

Tonkiss, F. (2013) Austerity urbanism and the makeshift city. City, 17(3) p 312-324.

Turner, G. (2014) Is global collapse imminent? An Updated Comparison of The Limits to Growth with Historical Data. Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, research paper 4, August 2014. University of Melbourne.

Tyrväinen, L. (1997) The amenity value of the urban forest: an application of the hedonic pricing method. Landscape and Urban planning, 37(3), p.211-222.

Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kaźmierczak, A., Niemela, J., James, P. (2007) Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and urban planning, 81(3), p.167-178.

UKNEA (2011) The UK National Ecosystem Assessment Technical Report UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge

293

Ulrich, R. Simons, R. Losito, B. Fiorito, E. Miles, M. Zelson, M. (1991) Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of environmental psychology, 11(3), p 201- 230.

UNCTAD (2013) Trade and environment review 2013: Make agriculture truly sustainable now for food security in a changing climate. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Available online at: http://unctad.org/en/publicationslibrary/ditcted2012d3_en.pdf [Accessed 12/04/14] Urban Task Force (1999) Towards an Urban Renaissance: The Report of the Urban Task Force Chaired by Lord Rogers of Riverside. Urban Task Force, London

Urban Task Force (2005) Towards a strong urban renaissance. Urban Task Force, London

URBED (1999) Tapping the potential: Best Practice in Assessing Urban Housing Capacity. DETR, London

Van der Heijden, J. (2010) Governing the eco-city utopia. In: Infrastructure Systems and Services: Next Generation Infrastructure Systems for Eco-Cities (INFRA), 2010 Third International Conference, 11-13th November 2010, Shenzhen.

Van Dijk, P. (2010). Beijing and Rotterdam eco cities? Using 100 criteria for a classification of ecological cities paper. In Knowledge Collaboration & Learning for Sustainable Innovation: 14th European Roundtable on Sustainable Consumption and Production (ERSCP) conference and the 6th Environmental Management for Sustainable Universities (EMSU) conference, Delft, The Netherlands, October 25-29, 2010. Delft University of Technology; The Hague University of Applied Sciences; TNO.

Van Herk, S. Zevenbergen, C. Ashley, R. Rijke, J. (2011) Learning and Action Alliances for the integration of flood risk management into urban planning: a new framework from empirical evidence from the Netherlands. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(5), p 543-554.

Van Jaarsveld, A., Biggs, R., Scholes, E., Bohensky, B., Reyers, T., Lynam, C., Musvoto and Fabricius, C. (2005) Measuring conditions and trends in ecosystem services at multiple scales: the Southern African Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (SAfMA) experience. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 360(1454), p 425–441.

Van Kooten, G., Eagle, A., Manley, J., and Smolakvan, T. (2004) How costly are carbon offsets? a meta-analysis of forest carbon sinks. Environmental Science and Policy, 7(4) p 239–251.

Vartholomaios, A. Kalogirou, N. Athanassiou, E. Papadopoulou, M. (2013) The green space factor as a tool for regulating the urban microclimate in vegetation-deprived Greek cities. Proceedings of the International Conference on “Changing Cities“: Spatial, morphological, formal & socio- economic dimensions. Skiathos island, Greece , June 18-21, 2013 Available online at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/266402824_The_green_space_factor_as_a_tool_for_re gulating_the_urban_microclimate_in_vegetation-deprived_Greek_cities Accessed 01.01.2015

Vickery, D. (2013) Report to Broadland District Council, Norwich City Council and South Norfolk District Council on The Examination into the Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk, The Broadland Part of The Norwich Policy Area Local Plan. The Planning Inspectorate.

Vigar, G. Healey, P. Hull, A. Davoudi, S. (2000) Planning, Governance and Spatial Strategy in Britain: An Institutional Analysis. Mackmillan, Basingstoke.

294

Vis, M. Klijn, F. De Bruijn, K. Van Buuren, M. (2003) Resilience strategies for flood risk management in the Netherlands. International journal of river basin management, 1(1) p 33-40.

Vitousek, P. M., Aber, J. D., Howarth, R. W., Likens, G. E., Matson, P. A., Schindler, D. W., ... &

Tilman, D. G. (1997). Human alteration of the global nitrogen cycle: sources and consequences. Ecological applications, 7(3) p 737-750.

Vogel, S.K. (1996) Freer markets, more rules: regulatory reform in advanced industrial countries. Cornell University Press.

Voss, J. Bauknecht, D. Kemp, R. (2006). Reflexive governance for sustainable development. Edward Elgar Publishing. Votaw D. (1972) Genius become rare: a comment on the doctrine of Social Responsibility Pt1”, California Management Review, 15(2) p25-60

Vörösmarty, C. J., & Sahagian, D. (2000). Anthropogenic disturbance of the terrestrial water cycle. BioScience, 50(9), 753-765.

Wainwright, O. (2014) The truth about property developers: how they are exploiting planning authorities and ruining our cities. The Guardian, 17th September 2014. Available online at: http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/sep/17/truth-property-developers-builders- exploit-planning-cities [Accessed 17/09/14]

Watkins, C. (2001) The definition and identification of housing submarkets. Environment and Planning A, 33 (12) p 2235- 2253

Waldman, J. (1995) Sturgeons and paddlefishes: a convergence of biology, politics, and greed. Fisheries, 20(9) p.20-21.

Walker, P. (2005) Political ecology: where is the ecology. Progress in Human Geography, 29(1), p.73-82. Wallace, K. (2007). Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biological conservation, 139 (3) p 235-246.

Wansborough M. Mageean, A. (2000) The Role of Urban Design in Cultural Regeneration, Journal of Urban Design, 5(2), p 181-197.

Ward, K. (2003) Entrepreneurial urbanism, state restructuring and civilizing ‘New’ East Manchester. Area, 35(2), p 116-127.

Weber, M. (2008) The business case for corporate social responsibility: A company-level measurement approach for CSR. European Management Journal, 26(4), p 247-261.

Webster, C.J. Wu, F. (1999). Regulation, land-use mix, and urban performance. Part 2: simulation. Environment and Planning A, 31(9), p 1529-1545.

Weiss, E.B. (1992) Environment and trade as partners in sustainable development: a commentary. American Journal of International Law, 86(4), p 728-735.

Wellings, F. (2008) British housebuilders: History and analysis. John Wiley & Sons.

Wells, P. (2007) New Labour and evidence based policy making: 1997-2007. People, Place & Policy, 1(1), p22-29.

295

Welsh, J. MacRae, R. (1998) Food citizenship and community food security: lessons from Toronto, Canada. Canadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue canadienne d'études du développement, 19(4), p 237-255.

Wengraf, T. (2001) Qualitative research interviewing: Biographic narrative and semi-structured methods. Sage.

WhatDoTheyKnow (2014) Freedom of Information Request for Allotment Data from Margaret Campbell to Stockport Council, 2nd January 2011 [online] Available at: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/waiting_lists_for_allotments_258 [Accessed 01/09/14]

Whatmore, S. and Boucher, S. (1993) Bargaining with Nature: The Discourse and Practice of Environmental Planning Gain. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 18(2) p.166- 178.

Wheeler, S.M. (2013) Planning for sustainability: creating liveable, equitable and ecological communities. Routledge.

While, A., Jonas, A. and Gibbs, D. (2004) The environment and the entrepreneurial city: searching for the urban ‘sustainability fix’ in Manchester and Leeds. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(3), p.549-569.

White, I. (2013) Water and the city: Risk, resilience and planning for a sustainable future. Routledge, Oxford

White, H. (2014) Barratt Homes responds to UK housing supply crisis. Independent, 8th May 2014. Available online at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/constructionandproperty/10816219/Barr att-Homes-responds-to-UK-housing-supply-crisis.html Accessed 01.09.2014 [Accessed 25/06/14]

Whitehead, C. (2007) Planning policies and affordable housing: England as a successful case study? Housing Studies 22.(1) p 25–44.

Whitmarsh, L. and O'Neill, S. (2010) Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), p 305-314.

Wildavsky, A. (1973) If planning is everything, maybe it's nothing. Policy sciences, 4(2), p.127- 153.

Williams, C.C. and Millington, A.C. (2004) The diverse and contested meanings of sustainable development. The Geographical Journal, 170(2), p 99-104.

Williams, D. and Brown, J. (2013) Learning gardens and sustainability education: Bringing life to schools and schools to life. Routledge, Oxford Williams, G. and Batho. S. (2005) ‘Reinforcing Commercial Competitiveness through City Centre Renewal’ in Adams, A., Watkins, C. and White, M. (eds.) Planning, Public Policy and Property Markets. Blackwell.

Williams, R. (1980) ‘Ideas of nature’ in Williams, R. (ed.) Problems in materialism and culture. Verso. p67–85.

Wilmott Dixon (2012) Group Environmental Policy. Wilmott Dixon: Letchworth

296

Wilmott Dixon (2012) Sustainable Development Review 2012. Wilmott Dixon: Letchworth

Woodland Trust Energy (2014) Woodland Trust Energy: saving more [online] Available at: http://www.woodlandtrustenergy.com/ [Accessed 01/09/14]

WRAP (2014) WRAP website [online] Available at: www.wrap.org.uk [Accessed 22/09/14]

Wright, H. (2011) Understanding green infrastructure: the development of a contested concept in England. Local Environment, 16(10), p.1003-1019

WSP (2010) Stanley Mills Sustainable Design Strategy. Available Online at: http://www.avanthomes.co.uk/sites/default/files/Sustainable%20Design%20Strategy.pdf [Accessed 01/07/14]

Wu, F. (1996) Changes in the structure of public housing provision in urban China. Urban Studies, 33(9), p 1601-1627.

WWF (2004) Building towards Sustainability: Performance and Progress among the UK’s Leading Housebuilders, WWF and Insight Investment, London, Available from: www.wwf.org.uk/sustainablehomes Accessed 01.01.2015

WWF (2002) One Million Sustainable Homes - Turning Words into Action. Available online at: http://www.wwf.org.uk/filelibrary/pdf/sustainablehomes_dec02.pdf Accessed 01.01.2015

Zalasiewicz, J., Smith, A., Hounslow, M., Williams, M., Gale, A., Powell, J., Waters, C., Barry, T.L., Bown, P.R., Brenchley, P., Cantrill, D., Gibbard, P., Gregory, F.J., Knox, R., Marshall, J., Oates, M.,

Rawson, P., Stone, P., and Trewin, N (2008) Are we now living in the Anthropocene? GSA Today, 18(2), p.4-8.

Zucker, L. (1983) ‘Organisations as Institutions’ in S.B. Bacharach (Ed) Research in the Sociology of Organisations, Greenwich JAI Press p1-42.

297

Appendixes

298

Appendix 1: Interview Details Interview Date Method Developers D1 11.09.2013 Telephone D2 15.07.2013 Telephone D3 22.07.2013 Telephone D4 14.08.2013 Telephone D5 06.08.2013 Telephone D6 01.08.2013 Telephone D7 25.07.2013 In person D8 22.07.2013 Telephone Woodford WF1 26.07.2013 In person WF2 26.07.2013 In person WF3 21.08.2013 In person WF4 21.08.2013 In person WF5 15.01.2014 In person WF6 31.01.2014 Email exchange WF7 01.09.2014 Telephone Rackheath RH1 30.07.2013 Telephone RH2 10.05.2013 Telephone RH3 05.06.2013 Telephone RH4 22.05.2013 Telephone RH5 05.08.2013 Telephone RH6 30.05.2013 Telephone RH7 03.08.2014 Telephone Green Quarter GQ1 22.07.2013 Telephone GQ2 04.09.2014 Telephone GQ3 15.08.2013 In person GQ4 21.08.2013 In person GQ5 12.08.2013 In person GQ6 26.08.2013 In person Policy Maker, Statutory Body, Policy Advisor, Green space Management, Greenspace Lobbying, Sustainability Advocacy Groups N1 11.06.2013 Telephone N2 27.06.2013 In person N3 03.09.2013 In person N4 24.06.2013 Telephone N5 12.06.2013 Telephone N6 01.07.2013 In person N7 06.06.2013 Telephone N8 04.06.2013 In person N9 01.08.2013 Telephone N10 11.09.2013 In person N11 04.06.2014 In person *these were short confirmation calls, rather than full interviews.

299

Appendix 2: Corporate Sustainability Report Summary Develo Report/ Statement Title and Year First Year to Also Analysed/ per Report Notes and 2007-8 2009-10 2011-12 Type

Barratt Corporate Corporate Sustainability 2004 Develop Responsibilit Responsibilit Report: ments y Update y Report: Responsible Building Futures Futures Together

Taylor Corporate Corporate Corporate 2002 Wimpe Responsibilit Responsibilit Responsibility y y Report y Report Report: Developing Communities

Persim Sustainabilit Living Green Building a 2001 mon y Report: Working Sustainable Practical Green: Business: Sustainabilit Sustainability Sustainability y Report 2010 Report 2011

Bellway No Report Began Taken from 2009 began Homes reporting various pages of KPI KPI’s in 2009 company website monitoring, on website no published http://www.bell report way.co.uk/corpor ate-responsibility

Sustainabilit Sustainability Sustainability and 2002 Climate Change Berkele y Report Report 2009 Performance Policy Statement y Group 2007 Report 2012 (2010)

Environmental Policy (2010)

Sustainability Policy (2010)

Gallifor No Report No Report A Strategy for Only report Interlinked d Try Success: Annual available pages taken Report and online is from: Financial 2013 Statements

300

http://www.gall ifordtry.co.uk/s ustainability

Redrow No Report No Report No Report 2013 Sustainability Policy 2009

Water Conservation Policy

Climate Change Statement

Corporate Sustainability Strategy

Design for Biodiversity Policy

Environmental Policy 2011

Lovell No Report No Report Sustainability 2012 Sustainability Partner Report 2012 Report made ships significant Lovell alterations to Sustainability Sustainability Strategy Strategy. Brought in line with parent company objectives.

Lovell Sustainability Strategy (analysed) now redundant.

Miller Not Not Available Corporate 2007 (only Ecology and Homes Available Responsibility : available Biodiversity Report on online from Policy, 2012 Progress 2011 2011) Site Waste Management Policy, 2013

301

Sustainable Development Policy, 2012

Climate Change Policy, 2012

Sustainable Timber Policy, 2012

Responsible Sourcing Policy, 2012

Bloor No Report No Report No Report N/A Website page Homes titled ‘about’ Bloor Homes, with sections which refer to position on various concerns.

Bovis Corpor Corporate Social Corporate Social 2004 Lend ate Responsibility Responsibility, Lease Social 2010 2012 Respon sibility Report 2008: Buildin g a brighte r future

Willmot Not Not Available Sustainable 2008 Group t Dixon Availab Development Environmental le Review 2012 Policy, 2012

Crest Sustain Sustainability Sustainability 2002 GRI Statement Nichols ability Report 2009 Report 2012 Application on Report Level Check 2007 (2012)

Gladeda No No Report No Report N/A Stanley Mills, le Report Sustainable

302

Design Strategy (Renam April 2010 ed to Avant Interlinked Homes webpages from during Gladedale course Website, of Accessed project) 06.03.2013

Country Environ Environmental, Sustainability 2001 side mental, Social and Ethical Report 2011 Propert Social Statement 2009 ies and Ethical Review 2007

Appendix 3: Imported Policies and Sustainable Development Definitions in CSR Policy/ Description Creator: Institutional Regulatory Status Instrument Organisation Scale of and category and Type Operation

Standards to certify quality of environmental strategy

ISO: 14000 Certification of International Global Voluntary Business Standards Compliance to Organisation Process-

Environmental Management NGO Guidance which;

‘does not state requirements for environmental performance, but maps out a framework that a company or organization can follow to set up an effective environmental

303

Policy/ Description Creator: Institutional Regulatory Status Instrument Organisation Scale of and category and Type Operation

management system’

GRI The Global Global Global Voluntary Reporting Initiative Reporting (GRI) is a non- Initiative profit organization that promotes economic, NGO environmental and social sustainability. GRI provides all companies and organizations with a comprehensive sustainability reporting framework that is widely used around the world

CRESS G3.1 Excel spreadsheet Construction Global Voluntary with options. and Real Estate Sector Supplement of GRI (NGO)

Standards to certify standards of development

Building For Standards for CABE National Government Life Development, not Endorsed, explicitly linked to voluntary ‘sustainability’ but depending on used in context of location sustainable communities and sustainable development frequently.

Schemes for compliance and business practice

304

Policy/ Description Creator: Institutional Regulatory Status Instrument Organisation Scale of and category and Type Operation

CDP Companies are Carbon Global Voluntary ranked according Disclosure to performance- Project CDP offers

methods for disclosure NGO (monitoring) not targets for compliance.

‘We work with market forces to motivate companies to disclose their impacts on the environment and natural resources and take action to reduce them’

CRC The CRC Energy Carbon National Mandatory Efficiency Scheme Reduction (designed to (depending on size (often referred to Commitment target energy of organisation as simply ‘the CRC’) supplies not and electricity is a mandatory already consumption) scheme for public HM covered by and private sector Climate Government organisations. Change Agreements Participants must (CCAs) and purchase and the EU surrender Emissions allowances to Trading offset their System. emissions. Allowances can either be bought at annual fixed-price sales, or traded on the secondary market. One allowance must be surrendered for

305

Policy/ Description Creator: Institutional Regulatory Status Instrument Organisation Scale of and category and Type Operation

each tonne of CO2 emitted.

(Organisations which participate within the CRC are required to monitor their energy use, and report their energy supplies annually. The Environment Agency’s reporting system applies emissions factors to calculate participants’ carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions on the basis of this information.)

FtseForGood The FTSE4Good FTSE Global Voluntary Index Series has International (industry peer been ‘designed to Limited (FTSE) pressure) objectively and Ethical measure the Research performance of Services (EIRIS) companies that Limited meet globally recognised Private corporate Companies responsibility standards’

NextGeneration ‘Benchmarks’ UK NextGeneration, National Voluntary Benchmark home builders (Industry peer Membership performance in pressure) managing and organisation for delivering UK house building industry

306

Policy/ Description Creator: Institutional Regulatory Status Instrument Organisation Scale of and category and Type Operation

sustainable development.

Management of sustainable development is measured by examining the quality of a home builders strategy, governance structure and risk management procedures in relation to sustainability.

Criteria are decided annually in consultation with builders who are participating in the benchmark.

Certifications of product

Code for Certification of DCLG National Quasi-Voluntary Sustainable Product (Dependant on Homes standard Detailed in LR pursued/achieved)

EcoHomes Certification of BRE Global National Quasi-Voluntary Product

Detailed in LR

PasiHaus Certification of BRE Global International Voluntary Product

Detailed in LR

307

Appendix 4: Participant Information Sheet, Case Studies

Investigating the relationship between alternative sustainable development policy interpretations the allocation and intended functionality of onsite greenspace

Participant Information Sheet

You are being invited to take part in a research study as part of a PhD Student research project, aiming to understand the impact of sustainable development policy on greenspace allocations in speculative housing developments. Before you decide to take part, it is important for you to understand why the research is being done and what it will involve. Please take time to read the following information carefully and discuss it with others if you wish. Please contact me to ask questions if anything is not clear, or if you would like more information.

Who will conduct the research?

Abigail Gilbert, First Floor, Arthur Lewis Building, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, M13 9PL

Title of the Research

Investigating the relationship between alternative sustainable development policy interpretations the allocation and intended functionality of onsite greenspace in speculative housing developments

What is the aim of the research?

To investigate how SD policy interpretations affect the allocation and functions prescribed to greenspace in brownfield housing redevelopment.

Why have I been chosen?

You have been chosen because of your involvement in the governance of sustainable development outcomes for one of the project case studies.

What would I be asked to do if I took part?

Be interviewed over the telephone for between 40 minutes to 1 hour.

What happens to the data collected?

The data collected will be stored as a sound file within a password protected folder on the researchers laptop. Once transcribed into a file with a coded name, the original sound file will be deleted.

How is confidentiality maintained? 308

Recordings of interviews will be transcribed and audio- digital copies destroyed within two weeks of conduction. The written transcripts will be coded in order that only the researcher knows the individual they refer to.

What happens if I do not want to take part or if I change my mind?

It is up to you to decide whether or not to take part. If you do decide to take part you will be asked to sign a consent form. If you decide to take part you are still free to withdraw at any time without giving a reason and without detriment to yourself.

Will I be paid for participating in the research?

No.

What is the duration of the research?

The interview should take approximately 40minutes to 1 hour.

Where will the research be conducted?

I will be calling from a private room within the University of Manchester.

Will the outcomes of the research be published?

The research will be part of a PhD thesis, of which one hard copy will be kept in the University of Manchester Library. These may in the future also be digitised for wider student access. Otherwise, it is hoped that the findings of the research may be published in academic journals.

Contact for further information

My address is given above, and my email address is [email protected].

What if something goes wrong?

You can contact me at any time in reference to your participation in the research.

If you want to make a formal complaint about the conduct of the research you should contact the Head of the Research Office, Christie Building, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL.

309

Investigating the relationship between alternative sustainable development policy interpretations the allocation and intended functionality of onsite greenspace

CONSENT FORM

If you are happy to participate following the details provided on the participant information sheet, please complete and sign the consent form below.

Please Initial Box

1. I confirm that I have read the attached information sheet on the above project and have had the opportunity to consider the information and ask questions and had these answered satisfactorily.

2. I understand that my participation in the study is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time without giving a reason and without detriment to any treatment/service

3. I agree to the use of anonymous quotes (where appropriate)

310

I agree to take part in the above project

Name of participant Date Signature

Name of person taking consent Date Signature

311

Appendix 5: Codebook (Samples)

Inductive Codes (Sample)

Code 1

Label Sustainable Communities

Definition Reference to community sustainability

Description This theme will be identified in descriptions of the purpose of the sustainability policy, and when responsibility for sustainability is considered to be a responsibility to the community

Code 2

Label Sustainable Business

Definition Reference to sustainability of business

Description This theme will be identified in descriptions of the purpose of sustainability policy, where references are made to risk, reputation and consumer/customer/homebuyer desires.

Code 3

Label Sustainable Housing

Definition Reference to sustainability of housing.

Description This theme will be identified in descriptions of the purpose of the sustainability policy which refer to the housing unit, or the code for sustainable homes policy Deductive Codes (sample)

Code 4

Label Policy Connections

Definition References made to other regulatory frameworks

312

Description This theme will be identified where external policies are referred to, from any source or scale

Code 6

Label Intentionality

Definition Level of commitment

Description This theme will be identified wherever references are made to the method of monitoring, or process of commitment to a policy aim or goal

Code 7

Label Greenspace: Regulatory Ecosystem Services

Definition Regulatory functionalities of greenspace

Description This theme will be identified wherever references are made to regulatory ecosystem services (thermoregulatory, flood risk mitigation)

313