I haven’t posted here in a long time. I’m reluctant to close the blog though. There is a lot here that I am proud to have written and don’t want to see it simply vanish into the ether. My reasons for not posting are many. I‘ve retired – again and many of the topics I used to write about no longer have the same relevance. I’m still interested in planning and the environment of course, but in a more general, less focussed way. I certainly have no need to be quite so up to date. The political scene is very much changed – less interventionist than under Blair and also significantly less informed as demonstrated by what passed for a debate over Brexit and the parallel upheavals in US politics with the election of Trump. It has now got to a point where whenever I attempt to think about the future in political terms I am not energised but driven to despair.
I still have interests, especially the visual arts. They were generally covered in a different blog which formed part of my web pages as an artist. Unfortunately that site fell victim to hackers and I had to take it down, As here, there were many posts I was proud to have written, but in that case most of these are now inaccessible. I still hope to recover them but so far I’ve been unsuccessful and I may have to pay a specialist to do it for me. If that proves possible I then have to decide whether to build a complete new site, with blog and shop or simply to republish the posts in a parallel blog to this one.
I’ve lost energy I suppose and I’m finding it hard to restart. I enjoy the craft of writing, and I have things I want to write about, but I need a core focus to drive it. I also have to consider time. I’m now only a week or so shy of my 71st birthday. My health is OK with some minor niggles, but I have to think about best use of however much time is left to me. It was in part probably the time issue that led me to Facebook. It takes a significant effort to write the sort of posts you find in the blog archives. However discussion on Facebook and Twitter – and indeed in most online forums – is usually unthinking, often acrimonious and sometimes downright disturbing (see any discussion of gender issues for example). At best it is candyfloss and at worst it is positively poisonous. I think I probably need to step back from social media except as a way of promoting the posts.
So – where next?
There is potential contradiction between the ideas inherent in this blog’s current title and my belief that we should, even now, still try to stay within the EU. The idea of self reliance, of operating outside or without the state comes well to the fore in the writings of the late Colin Ward, but also influenced figures like Ebenezer Howard, the father of New Towns via writers like Kropotkin and Tolstoy. The same idea is also built into the Maastricht Treaty as ‘subsidiarity’, - the principle that a central authority should perform only those tasks which cannot be delivered at a more local level. Related to that and coming from anarchist thought is the idea of Confederation as distinct from Federation.
Housing, education and health all have very local impacts but at the moment are subject to strong central direction, I’ve written on some of these topics already and there is still much to explore I think.
Some aspects of public policy are more difficult to reconcile with local or non-state actions. The most obvious is Transport but aspects of energy policy also need considering beyond the immediate locality.
As a starter I’m going to review and revisit some previous posts on housing matters.
Back in the late 1960s, while still a student, I came across a book by Charles Abrams, a UN advisor on housing matters. In that book, Man's Struggle for Shelter in An Urbanizing World, Abrams describes how people living in the shanty towns of Latin America or Africa create housing for themselves. These areas are known by a variety of names – 'barrio or 'favela' in Latin America for example.
The first step was to acquire a piece of land, not necessarily legally. On that land a very simple single room dwelling would be erected, using whatever material could be acquired. As money becomes available the dwelling is extended and upgraded. Plastic and cardboard is replaced by concrete blocks. More floor space is added. A first floor is constructed. Gradually the building consolidates itself on the plot.
Because so often the occupation of the site was illegal, this dwelling would however have no water supply, no sanitation or power. Conditions in the neighbourhood would be squalid and unhealthy. Because the site has been grabbed from whatever is available access for vehicles may well be impossible. There is little incentive to improve the house in these circumstances.
The typical state response to this is clearance. There are many disadvantages to this of course. The redevelopment schemes are expensive and can only house a fraction of the people living in these illegal settlements. As those who are rehoused are moved out, their places are taken by new immigrants and the problem persists. Frequently those moved out are unhappy too. They may be miles away from their place of work and either lose their job or are forced to make long and complicated journeys. In both cases they are usually worse off financially. It isn't unknown for the displaced residents to move back to their old neighbourhood. (Although not something I'm going to pursue here, these were of course similar to the problems experienced by residents in the so-called slum clearance areas here in the UK in the '50s and '60s.)
Abrams proposed an alternative that he believed would be cheaper and better meet the needs of the impoverished families involved. He wanted to harness the energy and commitment of the residents of the 'favela', already demonstrated in their willingness to move from impoverished rural locations to live in squalor in exchange for the chance to improve their lot.
He suggested a formalisation of the process already going on, by setting out a grid of serviced roads and plots, each with water, sanitation and power connections available. On these plots could be erected a simple one room dwelling as before. This could be done by the occupier or by the state. He called this ‘core housing’. Although the space available would be as restricted as before, because minimal infrastructure was in place, the living conditions would be significantly improved.
As before, as money became available, residents would be able to enlarge and extend the house to meet their specific needs. Rather than being displaced to an inflexible high rise block where they lost all control over their surroundings, they would remain in control of their lives. They could grow food to support themselves or for sale or exchange with neighbours. They would have a secure tenure and could pass the property on to younger generations.
This isn't a new process of course. It is what happened with the homesteaders of 19th Century America, it happened in the whaling settlements of Nantucket and it happens traditionally in Malaya. (Images from ‘How Buildings Learn ’ by Stuart Brand)
Closer to home it is what happened in planned mediaeval settlements here in the UK and in English controlled France. There is a good list in the book 'New Towns of the Middle Ages' by Maurice Beresford, originally published in 1967. That list places as varied as Devizes, Hungerford, Thirsk, Uxbridge, Boroughbridge, Wokingham and Truro. Another example is the Chequers area of Salisbury. Chequer has the same root as 'quarter', in the sense of an area of a town. It also gives us the word chequerboard for reasons that should be clear from the image below (taken from Beresford above). In these planned towns or plantations, roads would have been set out and plots sold or let subject to covenants covering the broad form of the development to be built. Typically there might be a requirement to build in brick or stone, limit the height to no more than 3-4 stories, to build across the entire frontage and limiting the uses that could be carried out on the plot. Out of these simple rules came the endless variety of the English Market Town.
In the next post I’m going to look at how these ideas might be adapted in the UK.
The decision to go ahead with Hinkley C is I think pretty disastrous. It ties us, probably for the next 40 years, to a nasty, poisonous, highly centralised and potentially vulnerable system of energy production, it lumbers us with a hugely expensive long term contract to pay very high prices per unit for the electricity produced.
All the media coverage of the Hinkley decision is about the so-called ‘gap’ we are facing between the demand for energy and the available supply. Completely missing though is any consideration of the savings that could be made by improving energy efficiency. This is a failure of imagination but it also masks a lot of vested interests. Improved energy efficiency and a move away from centralised generation of energy would damage the profits of the generation companies and their partners the big construction companies. The financial backers also have a lot of money at stake. China in particular has undisclosed political objectives in securing a stake in UK energy and their potential later involvement in design and construction of nuclear plant raises worrying questions of security.
Government failures on energy efficiency
The government has abandoned its commitment to require all new homes from 2016 to be carbon neutral. That commitment would have ensured that all new dwellings from 2016 would generate as much energy on-site – through renewable sources, such as wind or solar power – as they would use in heating, hot water, lighting and ventilation. This was to be supported by tighter energy efficiency standards that would come into force in 2016, and a scheme which would allow housebuilders to deliver equivalent carbon savings off site. This back step was done on the back of a claim (pdf file) to be reducing “net regulations on housebuilders.”
CO2 emissions make up about a third of all greenhouse gas emissions and these are projected to rise to 50% by 2050. The UK’s building stock is among the most inefficient in Europe, has the highest levels of fuel poverty of a dozen comparable EU nations, as well as one of the worst proportions of homes in a poor state of repair. Over 10m British families live in a home with a leaking roof, damp walls or rotting windows. The Coalition’s cut to the Energy Company Obligation will by 2017 have led to 400,000 fewer households getting help to reduce energy bills by improved efficiency. This is despite our treaty obligation to reduce emissions by 80% and the new obligations that will come from the Paris Treaty on Climate Change.
The cheapest energy of all is that which isn’t used.
In practice though, arguments about sustainability, CO2 emissions etc are not required. The cheapest energy of all to the consumer is that which they don’t have to use. The requirement for zero carbon homes would have had a huge impact across the board, by reducing fuel bills for those in the houses built to that standard and in the knock on reduction in demand.
The cost benefit of abandoning the requirement is small. According to a report (pdf) produced in 2014:
At 2014 prices, the typical additional cost of building a semi-detached house to the zero carbon standard could be less than £5,000.
Since 2011, costs have roughly halved. There are a number of reasons for this including the falling cost of solar PV, changes in the zero carbon definition, and greater efficiency in meeting air tightness standards.
By 2020, the cost of building a new zero carbon semi-detached home could be less than £3,500.
There is a range of evidence-based examples that demonstrate that highly fabric energy efficient homes do not cost more than conventional construction if cost strategies, program management and environmental strategies are built into project plans at the procurement stage.
What can we get for the cost of Hinkley?
Hinkley C is estimated to cost around £19bn to build. Inevitably this will be be higher and on past experience of major capital schemes in the UK it could be as high as £45bn. I'm going to assume a figure for the moment however of £30bn and a 15 year construction period. This equates to £2bn pa. Subsidies on generating costs are estimated at £32bn over 35 years. Rounding that up gives us another £1bn pa. So, ignoring financing costs the annual cost of Hinkley C over the first 15 years is going to be of the order of £3bn pa. The total over the 15 years would be £45bn. What can we get for that money?
Research conducted for the Town and Country Planning Association suggests that we need something like 220,000 new houses in England every year for the next 15 years. This is apparently lower than previous estimates but the research also shows that this is because many people now can’t afford their own home – either to rent or buy - and are living with parents or other people longer than they would like to. Other sources suggest a more realistic figure is around 250 – 300,000. For the ball-park estimates I’m going to make I will assume 250,000.
From the studies cited earlier the additional cost of building these new homes to zero carbon standards will be around £3500 per house. For the purposes of these figures I’m going to assume that this remains at this level, rather than reducing further. So, for 250,000 houses the additional expenditure over current standards would be £8.75m per annum. Over 15 years this adds up to £13.125bn.
The average electricity bill was around £600 pa in 2015 and for gas about £750. Assuming 80% savings in gas and 40% for electricity (very conservative assumptions) reduces these to an annual total of £840 per household which would be released for other spending. At 250k houses per year that is a total of approximately £200m for each tranche of houses built. After 15 years this equates to a continuing annual saving for consumers of £3.3bn and cumulatively over the 15 year period of just over £28bn. This money would be spent elsewhere in the economy so having a further impact.
Bringing existing houses up to the same standard is more of a problem of course. As far as I can see the number of houses in England is around 21m. Retrofitting these to zero carbon standards will be difficult for many and impossible for some. Doing so may well also involve accepting significant changes in external appearance. Accepting the need to do so, may also shift the balance of what it is economic to refurbish and thus require additional new houses over and above the figure of 250k pa quoted above.
Again for the ball park figures I am aiming to produce, I’m going to assume that something like 20m houses can be brought up to zero carbon standard at an average cost of £10,000 per property. That equates to a total of £200bn. Assuming this work is carried out over a 25 year period, it would require 800,000 houses to be retrofitted every year, with an annual cost of £8bn. The cost over 15 years would be £120bn This is a substantial sum, but needs to be put into the context of major infrastructure projects such as Crossrail - c£15bn, Crossrail 2 – estimated at £27-32bn, HS2 – estimated at c£50bn including rolling stock, and of course Hinkley itself.
There would also be significant savings in energy use, further reducing demand and energy costs, so releasing money into the economy. Assuming the same levels of reduction in energy costs as with new build, the savings to consumers would be approximately £670m for each annual tranche of improvements, a continuing annual saving after 15 years of almost £11bn, cumulatively over the 15 year period I’m using this adds up to about £90bn and over the full 25 years to an astonishing £235bn.
Other impacts of the programme will be significant.
I have so far ignored the multiplier effects of the increased spending power released by the savings on energy. This depends on household’s marginal propensity to consume (mpc) or its marginal propensity to save (mps).
The following general formula to calculate the multiplier uses marginal propensities, as follows:
1/1-mpc
Hence, if consumers spend 0.8 and save 0.2 of every £1 of extra income, the multiplier will be:
1/1-0.8
= 1/0.2
= 5
Hence, the multiplier is 5, which means that every £1 of new income generates £5 of extra income.
Using that 80/20 split, which seems close to the current figure for lower income households, and applying it to the total annual savings in year 15 of £118bn, would mean the generation of some £600bn of extra income in that year alone. This is probably an overestimate, since this is a transfer of expenditure from energy bills. However the impact of that money dispersed through the economy is likely to be greater than when spent on energy, particularly since so much of the energy sector is foreign owned, so transferring money out of the UK.
Even assuming a figure of only 25% of that, the impact would be significant.
Summary
To summarise therefore:
Cost of Hinkley estimated at £30bn.
Subsidies on generating costs £32bn
Construction period 15 years
This should be set against:
Additional cost of new build to zero carbon standard over 15 years estimated at £13.125bn
Cost of retrofitting existing stock to zero carbon standard over 15 years estimated at £120bn
Estimated reduction in household energy costs over 15 years.
New Build estimated at £28bn
Existing stock estimated at £90bn
Multiplier effect of expenditure transferred from energy bills
in year 15 - £13bn
over full 15 year period - £113bn.
Conclusion.
All these figures are very crude, but show two things:
The approval of Hinkley was a bad decision and poor value for money.
The substantial gains to be made by investing in energy efficiency on a scale comparable to the major infrastructure projects like Crossrail, HS2 and Hinkley. These have been ignored by successive governments. We cannot afford to continue to do so.
It's over a year since the last post. Since then I've been so wrapped up with other things, the blog has been neglected yet again. I'm still writing, but mainly as an adjunct to my online Etsy shops to promote sales. I have lots of things I want to write about here too, but long blog posts take time and effort that is sometimes hard to find and to be honest I was running out of inspiration. So view this as a reboot...
I didn't write anything about the Independence Referendum. This was in part because I was quite conflicted in my response. As an Englishmen (albeit with Scots ancestry) living in England, I didn't relish the prospect of a near permanent Tory majority. On the other hand, if I had been living in Scotland, I would have almost certainly voted Yes for much the same reason.
For me though the vote was not primarily about nationalism, but about governance, and that is why I'm posting now. There are worrying signs that the three main parties are moving towards a constitutional stitchup under the pretence of incresed develolution. I don't really believe that any of them want to give away power down the line, even as they shout about Brussels. Having only English MPs voting on matters affecting England is a fudge. It may be necessary in the short term, but it isn't the answer. We need Regional assemblies with fiscal powers on a par with Scotland - including corporation tax. These should be introduced at the same time - not as per the ridiculous Labour attempt to do it piecemeal.
Powers of the UK parliament should be broadly limited to Foreign Policy and Defence, plus a 'levelling' tax that allows for some equalisation between richer and poorer regions. It could also have arbitration powers over decisions by the regions and direction of some mechanism for considering inter regional issues such as HS2.
Basic principle should be that ugly word subsidiarity - decision making as close as possible to those affected. In practice this means that many powers exercised by governments at all levels should be rescinded.
At the time of the debate on Home Rule for Ireland it became known as Home Rule All Round. I've placed a map showing a notional division in a public folder on Dropbox here:
I think these regions need to be reasonably large to counteract London. The boundaries I show are broadly based on the old kindoms of the Heptarchy with variations for modern conditions.
Seats of the Regional adminstrations might be in York, Nottingham, Norwich, Brighton and Plymouth. I think they need to be outside the major cities in the Regions to avoid so far as possible a local version of the 'London effect'.
According to my calculations, based onm mid-year estimates 2011 the populations of these regions would be as below:
Anglia 3056100
Wessex 3999300
London 8196700
Mercia 11670100
South 12264200
Northumbria 13913400
On this basis London's dominance would be very much reduced if seats in the National Parliament were allocated by population. This brings into question the role of the Lords. In some respects the national parliament could take on that role as a revising chamber in place of the Lords. Alternatively the Lords could become a 'Senate' on the US pattern, with a revising role for both regional assemblies and the National Parliament.
I would place all personal, property and business taxes at the Regional Assembly level, including the setting of rates. National Taxation should be for defence and foreign policy and a residual based on the idea of rebalancing income levels/head for poorer regions, based on something like the Barnett formula.
Abrams describes how people living in the shanty towns of Latin America or Africa create housing for themselves. These areas are known by a variety of names – 'barrio or 'favela' in Latin America for example.
’ by Stuart Brand)
