permaculture

["Lawrence F. London, Jr." <venaurafarm@bellsouth.net>]

Different urbanisation policies have varying impacts on a region's
ecosystem services, researchers report.

Dense housing leads to an increase in concrete and asphalt, reducing
areas' flood mitigation services, they say.

And low density housing does not affect flood mitigation services but
does reduce land availability for food and carbon storage, the UK team adds.

The study was presented at the British Ecological Society's (BES) annual
meeting at the University of Sheffield.


BBC News - Urbanisation's varying impacts on ecosystem services
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14804551


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8730732.stm
By Dan Bell
BBC News

Garden
Campaigners say garden-grabbing can destroy the quality of suburbs

New plans have been announced allowing councils in England to prevent
houses and flats being built on back gardens. BBC News spoke to people
on both sides of the debate.

The so-called practice of "garden grabbing" - in which developers build
homes on urban and suburban gardens - is a contentious issue.

Some see the developments as the reckless and short-sighted destruction
of vital green lungs in the sprawling urban jungle.

But others dismiss that criticism as nimbyism - people in nice houses
objecting when their neighbours sell up to developers who build
affordable homes.

The issue stems from the classification of back gardens as "brownfield"
sites.

Unintended consequences

The designation refers to previously developed land - primarily land
such as derelict factories and disused railway sidings, but also back
gardens.

It is intended to encourage development in urban areas and discourage
building on undeveloped green spaces, such as green belt land on the
edges of cities.

But according to a Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG)
spokesman, the inclusion of back gardens into the designation brought
unintended consequences.

He said: "It might have been intended for affordable flats, but the
problem was that because the garden plots were quite small, they didn't
meet the threshold for affordable housing."

        

In effect it created a loophole for developers to build in city centres
without meeting the needs of the people who live there
DCLG spokesman

He said new developments needed to have at least 15 dwellings before
they were required to include affordable homes.

"So they were building on small plots of land where they didn't have to
build affordable housing, so you would get a lot of luxury flats."

Added to this is the fact that garden plots can be cheaper to develop
than former industrial brownfield sites - there is, for example, no need
to decontaminate the land.

The result, said the DCLG spokesman, was that developers would tend to
choose garden plots over land originally designated as brownfield.

Communal well-being

"In effect it created a loophole for developers to build in city centres
without meeting the needs of the people who live there."

And according to the critics, building on back gardens brought an array
of problems.

Dr Simon Thornton Wood, director of science and learning at the Royal
Horticultural Society, says gardens are a crucial part of the urban
environment.

He said: "From my point of view, I'm really interested in making the
case for gardens in our urban areas before we simply regard them as
empty spaces to be filled up."

        
You can garden in the smallest of spaces, it isn't just about big
gardens for gardeners
Dr Simon Thornton Wood
Royal Horticultural Society

He said heavily populated areas required a huge amount of resources and
gardens make "an important contribution" to this.

For example, most of England's population live in urban areas, and many
of those people very rarely come into contact with the rural environment
- so gardens are extremely important for people's physical and mental
health.

The green spaces provided by private gardens also contribute to communal
well-being.

"One feature in urban areas is that you are living somewhat on top of
each other, and people do realise we are all in it together."

Bio-diversity

If someone tarmacs over their front garden, or chops down a much-loved
tree, it affects everyone who lives on that street.

Gardens are also crucial for urban biodiversity.

"Urban areas are potentially very rich in biodiversity because
potentially 20% to 25% of them are garden space," says Dr Wood.

He says that some urban spaces can be even more bio-diverse than
intensely-farmed mono-agricultural rural environments.

        
The very term 'garden grabbing' is quite emotive
Abigail Davies
Chartered Institute of Housing

Dr Wood acknowledges that there is intense pressure on the urban
environment to house people.

"I think that it's difficult for us to get into the detail of planning
policy guidelines, beyond making the case for gardens," he concedes.

He adds: "Of course, you can garden in the smallest of spaces, it isn't
just about big gardens for gardeners."

But others say stopping garden development would unfairly favour those
who already have nice homes, over people who cannot find affordable housing.

Abigail Davies, head of policy at the Chartered Institute of Housing,
said: "The very term 'garden grabbing' is quite emotive."

She says she would prefer alternative terms such as "in-fill" and
"making best use of land".

'Nimbyism'

She questions the wisdom of preventing building homes on gardens when
there is so much need for urban housing and so much pressure against
building on green-belt land.

She says a significant amount of new builds in urban areas have been on
these garden plots and she questions where, if these plots are taken out
of circulation, people will be able to build.

"I think the idea that there are enormous green spaces is a little
misleading.

        
This change in law doesn't need to be a nimby's charter, but it runs the
risk of being one
Abigail Davies
Chartered Institute of Housing

"When there are so many people who are unable to meet their housing
needs, there has to be a more sophisticated way of dealing with
biodiversity in urban spaces than just banning all further development.

"I think a lot of people who are not supportive of this kind of
development would be even less supportive of development on areas out of
town.

"Yes, there has been a lot of development on these sites but there has
been a lot of development everywhere as a result of the lending
practices and land prices we have had.

"Local authorities need the power to do what's right for them, and we
support changes in planning law to enable them to do that.

"But there needs to be a greater sophistication in assessing what local
people do need because people who are well-housed have a stronger voice
in most communities than people who would benefit from this kind of
development.

"This change in law doesn't need to be a nimby's charter, but it runs
the risk of being one."