A Sense of Place,  AI in Planning and the Benefits of Natural Capital?

A Sense of Place, AI in Planning and the Benefits of Natural Capital?


?

For this week’s article Ling Sin Fai Lam, CFA and I turned initially to an article on how AI might have an influence and a positive impact on the planning process, and how far should that go.

https://www.turing.ac.uk/collaborate-turing/data-study-groups/can-we-automate-uks-planning-system-using-ai

There is absolutely no doubt that the planning system is under severe strain, and “streamlining” the system would be highly beneficial in terms of removing elements of uncertainty. This could reduce decades to something less unacceptable, The danger clearly also becomes evident in making decisions on the applications where there is an element of uniqueness about the location, whatever it might be. Chat GPT certainly provides an initial framework for planning assessments and can give that broad outline. It can also can clearly provide general frameworks for place plans. It is unlikely however to get too specific and drill down to that uniqueness that we feel about our own sense of place.

AI could clearly be used to identify when there are elements of applications that are missing. There are a number of large development applications that I have waded through that have looked more like second Scoping requests rather than full applications necessitating extra responses, and extra time (significant) . Shortening the planning process would undoubtedly be helped by having the right information included in the start.

How to make a success of a development was another question that came up in tandem ,and that triggers a whole series of topics which I can just introduce here. Clearly we are very happy to engage in more detail,

Again I am reverting to Scottish examples, but this geographic localisation is relevant obviously whichever system applies.

Look at the Policy,.. (and the Place .. )

Policy Intent: To encourage, promote and facilitate well designed development that makes successful places by taking a design-led approach and applying the Place Principle.

Policy Outcomes:

? Quality places, spaces and environments.

? Places that consistently deliver healthy, pleasant, distinctive, connected, sustainable and adaptable qualities.

It is worth adding that Rural Communities have different perspective to the much vaunted 20 minute neighbourhood, which is urban centric.

NPF4- Policy 14 -Liveable Places is now a favourite stomping ground, and the six qualities of successful places. Page 59...

https://www.gov.scot/publications/national-planning-framework-4/documents/

National outcomes: Communities, culture, human rights, children and young people, health

a)Development proposals will be designed to improve the quality of an area whether in urban or rural locations and regardless of scale.

b) Development proposals will be supported where they are consistent with the six qualities of successful places:

Healthy: Supporting the prioritisation of women’s safety and improving physical and mental health.

Pleasant: Supporting attractive natural and built spaces.

Connected: Supporting well connected networks that make moving around easy and reduce car dependency

Distinctive: Supporting attention to detail of local architectural styles and natural landscapes to be interpreted, literally or creatively, into designs to reinforce identity.

Sustainable: Supporting the efficient use of resources that will allow people to live, play, work and stay in their area, ensuring climate resilience, and integrating nature positive, biodiversity solutions.

Adaptable: Supporting commitment to investing in the long-term value of buildings, streets and spaces by allowing for flexibility so that they can be changed quickly to accommodate different uses as well as maintained over time.

c) Development proposals that are poorly designed, detrimental to the amenity of the surrounding area or inconsistent with the six qualities of successful places, will not be supported.

Local Plans and Setting (Thinking about Rural here)

Policy Intent: To encourage, promote and facilitate well designed development that makes successful places by taking a design-led approach and applying the Place Principle.

Policy Outcomes:

? Quality places, spaces and environments.

? Places that consistently deliver healthy, pleasant, distinctive, connected, sustainable and adaptable qualities.

Developments and Natural Capital.

Similar proceedures in Planning Applications should be the norm to give consistency and credibility. The increasing role of Natural Capital potentially brings a variety of potential projects and investments to the table which could clearly even be in cluster form. ?These could have multiple strands and currently have multiple different methods of assessment. This also implies a different pace of processing, and a confusing picture results. ?It is worth dwelling on the various types of development close to where one lives, and how differently they are ?handled. Just a few to look at might be Wind Turbines, Pylons, Forestry , other renewables , Housing, Flood Defences, Railways, and Roads,

Underground , Overground (not Wombling Free !!)

The latest large scale infrastructure investment that is clearly grabbing the headlines relate to transmission. The very large pylons that are now being proposed seem to have become the next battleground for policy and impact. The planning process for these runs down the same route as large scale Wind Farms. (Energy Consents)

https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2023/sep/26/the-next-uk-net-zero-battleground-is-electricity-pylons

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2011/sep/14/shortlist-designs-electricity-pylons-in-pictures

This brings the debate on large scale infrastructure into more front rooms, but is the right debate now to be having. The need for a solution, and the benefits in all their forms are all key factors.

Forestry

I have always had an issue with the way that Forestry Applications are processed, especially from a Community perspective, and have wanted to see the same type of approach as for other large scale infrastructure, which seems to have more balance. This is increasingly coming up as an issue from our local communities and we would like to see a new approach and potentially with the introduction of a Forestry Sector Deal in the same way, as has been brought forward with the Onshore Sector Wind Deal. The latter has Community as one of its major six strands. If there is a spatial element to planning being developed, drilling down into the catchments and localised areas, surely is a logical follow up with a consistent system of assessment. A Place Plan impact ..

A Natural Capital Sector Deal also should be on the radar

This should see a framework that is easily understandable from Communities through the rule setters and decision makers to those developing the projects. How is Community benefit defined? Are the benefits of Natural Capital fully understood, and how are they measured? ?This is where there is even more to understand than monetary return. At WesterHayes we can clearly see the elements of the process that need to be addressed, and how to improve the system.

So how do we enhance the circularity and sustainability of developments within communities and regions going forward ?

We should set a Spatial Framework, define the benefits, and educate.

A formalised Spatial Framework would be a great advance to allow the system to develop from top down and bottom up.

An early example is the consultation draft on the Rural land use framework in the south of Scotland, sets a broader picture, but this clearly can be taken to the next stage looking at more catchment based considerations.

https://sosrep.dumgal.gov.uk/media/28720/RLUF-Consultation-Draft/pdf/RLUF-Consultation-Draft.pdf?m=638369585054070000

This can take the place plans identified at local levels with identified inputs and fed into local development plans. At national levels broader targets are identified, which should now be properly assessed for localised impacts. The local impacts shouldn’t be proportionally higher than national guidelines if communities are not in favour and framework discussions at early stages can identify potential flashpoints to work with and a method of structuring the benefits in whatever form that might take.? (eg 60% forest cover in a community area versus a national target of 20%). The goals of the projects and the potential returns (financial and otherwise) should clearly be understood so that everyone can see all aspects and the buy-in becomes tangible to everyone in the value chain. It also makes the merits of a Place Plan clear to see.?

?Much to consider and to work with.. Onwards..

Philip Kerr MCSI

Director

WesterHayes Impact Advisory

www.westerhayes.co.uk


?

要查看或添加评论,请登录

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了