Planning matters

I recently wrote about the impact of COVID-19 on student accommodation given that the traditional university experience is likely to be out of the picture for the short term. I now want to look at some of the other social and economic implications of students not attending university or deciding to study remotely in September 2020.

There is a real possibility that students will not wish to attend university in 2020/21 due to the fear on missing out on the traditional university experience, that the alternative provision will not provide the same quality of learning, concern about living away from home or because of public health concerns. On a more encouraging note, the Guardian[1] recently commented that a record 40.5% of all 18-year olds in the UK have applied to go to university in September, the first time that more than four out of ten students had applied by 30 June. It will be interesting to understand the actual registration figures when September comes and how many will be attending in person or studying remotely. The current picture is uncertain.

If 1^st year students are not registering for courses and returning students are not attending in person then this has the potential to have huge consequences on towns and cities that depend on students to ensure the vitality and viability of its communities. If learning is going to be online then the need for accommodation as well as other supporting facilities such as shops, pubs and cafes is temporarily reduced.

Aberystwyth, where I completed my undergraduate studies for example is a town that has the university at its heart. For a town with a resident population[2] of 18,749, the 2011 census states that students accounted for 8,169 of the population. It is also important to note that over 2,000 staff work at the institution[3], demonstrating the importance of the institution to the social and economic makeup of the town and the surrounding area. There are other towns that are also reliant on the student population. For example, Durham University had 19,025 students[4] in 2018/19 compared to the resident population of around 43,000[5]. It also employs over 4,000 people[6], illustrating its importance to the local area.

A reduction in the number of students learning, living and spending time within these towns could have far reaching consequences on a range of issues such as:

1. Impact on services and facilities that rely on the student population such as shops, cafes, pubs and nightclubs;
   
   
2. Vacancies in student accommodation on campus and in the town centre;
   
   
3. Loss of jobs at the university and at student focussed businesses;
   
   
4. Decrease in the vibrancy of the town centre due to lack of a critical mass;
   
   
5. Less revenue for University provided community facilities such as theatres and art centres;
   
   
6. Impact on supply chains that normally supply the university.
   
   
7. Impact on hospitality sector as parents no longer need to visit their children.

Towns like Aberystwyth and likewise York and Bath are likely to be hit even harder as they also rely on tourists to support their functional economy. Tourism is another sector that has been critically impacted by COVID-19 although there are some early signs of a bounceback with people planning on enjoying a staycation during the rest of 2020 instead of venturing abroad.

The economic contribution of students to an university town or city should not be downplayed. The 2014/15 Student Income and Expenditure Survey^[7] (SIES) states that the average (mean) total expenditure including tuition fee costs of full-time English-domiciled students in 2014/15 was £19,922. Adjusted for inflation[8] this equates to £22,472.41 in 2019 terms.

Within the total expenditure figure, the SIES states that living costs[9] for full time students domiciled in England averaged £6,956 per annum in 2014/15. Adjusted for inflation this equates to £7,846.51 in 2019 terms. Not all of this spend will be spent locally of course (i.e. utility bills, bank charges and mobile phone charges will be collected centrally). However, a large amount of expenditure will be enjoyed by local businesses (or national businesses with a local presence) including supermarkets, shops, cafes, restaurants and takeaways, pubs and fitness facilities which in turn support local jobs and supply chains.

The SIES states that housing costs[10] for full time students amounted to an average of £3,610 per annum in 2014/15. Adjusted for inflation this equates to £4,072.15 in 2019 terms. This expenditure will be realised locally, either directly to the university or to private landlords and often re-invested to further improve the housing stock, creating job opportunities in the process.

Taking the above into account it is clear that the economic benefit of students to the university and the university settlement is substantial. Consequential impacts on facilities and services in the towns and cities due to the reduced number of students could therefore give rise to social impacts such as the closing of businesses and the loss of jobs.

Research by London Economics[11] estimates that the likelihood of deferral amongst UK-domiciled students for 2020/21 was approximately 13.3% if the University was operating as usual (few if any social distancing restrictions or limits to university activities) and 28% if the University was not operating as usual (many classes delivered online and many social distancing restrictions in place). Therefore, the likelihood of deferral amongst UK-domiciled students was approximately 7% higher as a result of the pandemic.

Based on the number of first year full time enrolments in 2018/19 as a proxy we see the following theoretical economic impact, based on a 14.7% deferral rate:

The above does not include an allowance for UK-domiciled part time students or non-UK-domiciled students that may also decide to defer or those that would defer regardless of the pandemic. According to HESA there were 249,080 non-UK-domiciled enrolments studying in UK universities in 2018/19. Given the restrictions and loss of appetite for international travel it is likely that there will be a reduction in international students enrolling in 2020 which will further add to the economic impact on the institutions and the towns/cities that they are based.Source: HESA; Department for Education; London Economics. Note that a different SIES report covers students in Wales and has been used to estimate the Aberystwyth impact.

The social and economic value of students to the UK’s towns and cities is enormous and is particularly important for smaller towns that are built around the institution. The social and economic impact of a reduction in students is therefore likely to be painful in the short term, especially if these settlements also rely on tourism, another sector that has been impacted by the pandemic.

To assist in ensuring that these university towns and cities are able to survive in the short term it is important to attract as many students as possible and to limit the numbers of deferrals. To do this it will be important to demonstrate that the establishment’s facilities are able to operate as safely as possible given the current circumstances. To this end, Lichfields can provide town planning advice to assist universities on how to rationalise and/or expand its estate to ensure that the university’s offer can be as attractive and as normal as possible during the pandemic. This may mean advising and obtaining planning permission for buildings for alternative purposes, additional temporary or permanent structures, extended opening hours and potentially the need to amend extant planning permissions. Lichfields has been advising Kingston University on realising its Estate Vision since 2005.

Similarly, Local Planning Authorities should be suitably flexible in the short term until student numbers return. This could include fast-tracking the above adaptation planning applications but also allowing town centre units (including accommodation) to be used for different purposes to avoid short term vacancies and designating areas for outdoor socialising so that social events can take place. Lichfields is currently advising a number of Local Authorities on COVID Recovery Strategies. In areas where there is strong tourism demand local authorities should be encouraging temporary changes of use in Student Accommodation to visitor apart-hotel style accommodation.

In football anything can happen. As a Leicester fan I know this first hand; going from fighting a relegation battle one season to winning the league at 5000-1 odds the next (and no, I hadn’t put a tenner on that eventuality).

Despite football’s unpredictability, clubs need to plan for the future and remain one step ahead of the game to be competitive. For stadia, planning for the future often means: providing additional stadium capacity; expanding facilities to provide more diverse and regular income streams; and upgrading facilities to meeting new FA requirements.

The question of how football clubs put these plans into action varies greatly and is hugely dependant on a club’s financial position and objectives. Strategies range from: smaller scale and shorter-term upgrades to facilities; investment in new purpose-built stadium/facilities at or adjacent to an existing stadium; or development of a new stadium at an entirely new site. Increasingly, clubs are also seeking to introduce alternative uses to kick-start development and facilitate longer-term investment returns through an expanded non-matchday non-sporting offer.

Land availability, finances, investment returns (existing and anticipated), needs of the fanbase, the heritage of the club, mixed-use opportunities and environmental sensitivities are all factors influencing whether and how stadia and facilities are upgraded.

As with all redevelopment strategies, the decision on how to unlock new facilities needs to be carefully balanced against planning policy constraints. Green Belt, heritage and town centre policies are just some of the planning factors which can have a big influence. This blog – the third of a ‘hattrick’ of blogs – explores some of these influencing factors.

Some stadia have remained at the same ground for many decades; with urban development growing around them to create new development opportunities (through increasing land values and footfall) and challenges (through the introduction of amenity sensitive uses such as residential) for football clubs which need to be carefully navigated by redevelopment proposals.

Football architectural historian Simon Inglis comments that Manchester United’s Old Trafford (opened in 1910) was the first to have a long-term masterplan from the start; providing scope for incremental expansion on a large unencumbered site.

Whilst a stadium masterplan is now commonplace (particularly in the Premier League), few clubs initially followed Man Utd’s lead; ending up on cramped sites which evolved through ad-hoc organic expansion. Some clubs have made this work; harnessing the unique character and heritage of sites to their advantage and finding innovative ways to expand.

Fulham Football Club’s Craven Cottage oozes character and includes two listed buildings. The new Riverside Stand currently being built will sensitively balance the heritage of the site with the desire to establish an iconic building as a positive landmark along the river, capable of supporting a diversified food, beverage and hospitality offer; providing an enhanced stadium and truly mixed-use destination in its own right on the banks of the River Thames.

Other stadia strategies involve relocating stadia to new locations.

Highbury was the historic heart of Arsenal Football Club dating back to 1913. After the Gunners famous 2003/04 ‘Invincibles’ season, Arsenal moved to the Emirates Stadium in 2006 – boosting capacity by over 20,000. Highbury was then partially demolished and redeveloped to provide 655 new home via Allies and Morrison’s Highbury Square development. Part funding the stadium move, the Highbury Square development incorporates the listed East and West Stands and reinvents the pitch as a communal garden. Whilst Wenger claims ‘we left our soul at Highbury’, and a programme of ‘Arsenalisation’ was needed to invigorate the spirit of Highbury, the stadium has created new opportunities beyond football, including conferencing and live music events.

Infamously, Wimbledon Football Club, after rejecting a variety of possible local sites, moved from south London to Milton Keynes in 2003. This ultimately splintered the club, spurring the creation of AFC Wimbledon and the rebranded MK Dons. AFC Wimbledon is now in the process of building a new stadium close to its spiritual home of Plough Lane as part of a joint venture with Galliard Homes. Alongside the stadium, the scheme includes 600 new homes, a squash and fitness club and retail space.

Where more comprehensive upgrades are needed, new stadia redevelopment strategies can often involve building a new stadium next to the existing ground. The has the benefit of unlocking the redevelopment potential of the former stadium site and – on occasions – providing a smoother transition to a new ground through less interruption to home games (and associated match-day income streams).

For lower league clubs with a greater reliance on match-day revenue, the importance of minimising interruption to home games and catalysing redevelopment through alternative uses are crucial factors in unlocking new facilities.

Established in 1893, Dulwich Hamlet Football Club (DHFC) is one of the oldest league sides in London and has been part of the Dulwich community for over 125 years, with Champion Hill being DHFC’s home for the majority of that period.

Located on the same plot as the current stadium, the former stadium (‘The Hill’ – built in 1931) was demolished as it was in a poor state of repair and did not meet the safety standards of the time. The current stadium was then rebuilt on the same site in 1991, funded by development of the Sainsbury’s supermarket on the Club’s former training pitches next to the site.

Whilst the current stadium was built to meet prevailing standards, the stadium is now reaching the end of its economic life and is no longer fit for purpose. The grass pitch cannot be used intensively without compromising the quality of pitch and the existing stadium site cannot be upgraded to meet FA requirements of the league above (the National League) due to site constraints.

To meet these requirements, DHFC must increase the capacity of the stadium to 4,000 spectators and provide specific additional facilities for players, officials and the press. In addition, the club has a number of core redevelopment objectives which include supporting the local community and keeping the club profitable. Moving out of Dulwich was not an option (viable or otherwise).

The solution is a new stadium next to Champion Hill. A new 3G pitch and community stadium/leisure facility will enable DHFC to generate a sustained source of income on non-match-days and meet its community objectives by allowing use of the facilities by local school and community groups.

Residential redevelopment of the existing stadium site to provide around 200 new homes plays an enabling role by funding the new stadium and leisure facility. Phasing allows for players to use interim facilities at the current stadium whilst the new stadium is being built. The development aims to deliver a win-win for the club and local community, whilst sensitively and innovatively responding to the setting of the new pitch in Metropolitan Open Land.

The new stadium will have far reaching and wider benefits for the local community, including underpinning the important work DHFC does with the local community and charities.

There is no one size fits all solution to how football clubs improve their facilities.

Decisions on how to provide new facilities are influenced by a myriad of factors which are often locational specific and strongly influenced by the philosophy of the club and its fanbase.

A common thread is the increasing co-location of residential, leisure, retail and food/beverage uses alongside stadia (as touched on in Ian’s earlier blog) and joint venture partnerships with developers. The mixed-use approach not only provides a diversified source of income (if managed by football clubs in the longer term) but also acts as a catalyst to kick-start and fund redevelopment proposals through enabling investment in new facilities through the increased value.

Successful strategies, whether they involve refurbishment/expansion or creation of an entirely new stadium, depend on capturing the development opportunities to meet the needs of the club and articulating the scheme benefits to secure support from local communities and decision makers.

With discussions turning to how stadia will reopen to fans, short and long-term planning strategies for clubs, stadia and facilities will become increasingly important as normal play begins to resume.

The UK has established a world first in becoming the first major economy to pass a net zero law, which aims to bring all greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050.  To achieve this, development of standalone and integrated solutions will be needed to reduce the emissions associated with energy consumption within all facets of our society. With the COVID-19 pandemic, we have all seen the CO2 reduction impacts that can happen when our economy is effectively shut down, but the key is how do we make this reduction in emissions sustainable as the focus shifts to recovering and subsequently growing the economy with fossil fuel prices at a record low?

Solar energy has long been part of the solution. The cost of solar has plummeted by over 70% in the last decade. Only a few weeks ago the UK Solar Trade Association CEO, stated:

Added to this, the UK Government announced earlier this year that it would reintroduce Contracts for Difference subsidies for new solar farm developments in 2021, providing a new route to market for prospective schemes.

It is clear that solar PV is both impactful and deliverable in the UK, and with falling prices, improved system efficiency and increased Government support, the technology looks more attractive than ever.

But what exactly does it take to deliver a commercially viable solar development?  We know a number of factors need to be considered when identifying a suitable site and that the process of site selection is complex and varied.  So how best to go about it?  This blog begins to unpick the challenges of solar development and explain what it takes to get from a greenfield (or empty roof) to a fully developed commercial installation, focusing on how to identify the most suitable sites for development in the UK.

• Identifying networks with available capacity - As the UK network generation make up shifts from the traditional large power generators (oil/gas/coal/nuclear) to a more renewable-led make up, with solar and wind at the fore, how this generation is spread across the network has changed.  Smaller renewable generating sites are connecting within the network as ‘Embedded Generators’ – very different to the traditional large generator connections at the highest level (National Grid) which then filtered down through the network.
  
  As this embedded local generation becomes more widespread, we are seeing networks becoming more congested with resultant increases in the connection fees for new generators and program delays as the Network Operators are required to upgrade their networks to accommodate the new connections.  Understanding the current limitations and knowing where national and regional network upgrade works have already taken place is an essential part of robust renewables business planning.

• Identifying viable connection points – Identifying the type of connection that will be most appropriate for your project is also key.  The size of a project (in terms of output MW) dictates the best option for its connection.  For example, it may be feasible to connect a new 5MW generator to a National Grid substation, but it would certainly not present the most cost-effective solution. Equally, trying to connect a large project, for example 200MW, to a Distribution Network Operator substation is unlikely to deliver the most cost effective/best technical solution.  Knowing the intricacies of the grid connections and developing good links to the network operators is as critical as knowing the land area you have available in the feasibility stage of any project.

• Achieving a sufficient irradiance level – Another key factor is the irradiance level i.e. the solar resource available at the proposed site. Historically, development north of an imaginary line between the Humber and North Wales has been deemed unworthy of consideration, but the current granularity of irradiance data and economic returns associated with solar means this is now clearly incorrect. There are a significant number of solar PV installations operating successfully north of this line, indeed into Scotland, and a backlog of planning applications for additional generation in the north, indicating that investors and developers see this area as a positive location.  A number of factors have driven this change including:
  
  
  • Technology advancements – panels operate with a slightly improved efficiency in cooler temperatures; thus the fall in actual available energy to convert is compensated by improved efficiency of conversion.
    
    
  • Panel capacity has improved whilst prices have fallen. Larger capacity panels means installations can be developed using a smaller land area. Assuming suitable topography, this can be as little as 3.5 acres per MWp without adversely impacting row shading.
    
    
  • In the north of the UK, and especially into Northern Scotland, daylight hours during the cool summers are significantly longer and the extension of morning and evening light extends the generation period over sites thus compensating for the lower irradiance level at higher latitude.

Advances in technology and site search techniques mean that the north of the UK should be on the table.  And with typically lower land prices and further competition for development space in southern areas, appropriately sited solar arrays in the north can give very positive results in terms of site payback.

In pursuing any new solar farm project, one of the greatest challenges is finding a site which is not only operationally viable, but one which can achieve planning permission. Planning policies in Local Plans very rarely include specific land use allocations to support such proposals and, typically, only provide limited policy details as to how renewable energy development – in its broadest sense – will be considered in the determination of individual planning applications. 

Planning Practice Guidance does, however, provide a useful steer as to the range of ‘planning considerations’ which Local Planning Authorities should take into account when determining the acceptability of large-scale solar farm schemes. Finding viable solar farm projects which are capable of performing well against all aspects of these considerations is no easy feat and, indeed, proposals which are located within the Green Belt face even greater hurdles in planning terms. Here, there is also the need to demonstrate very special circumstances which paragraph 144 of the NPPF confirms, unequivocally, “will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations”.

Through careful site selection at the outset, we have been successful in overcoming the policy hurdles and obtaining permissions, including in the Green Belt.

Lichfields, in partnership with ITPEnergised, has developed an innovative, site-finding toolkit (“Locate:Solar”) which seeks to identify suitable and viable solar farm sites by addressing these technical and planning challenges head on. The output is an interactive aerial map, whereby users of the toolkit are able to obtain full details of viable solar farm locations which have been ranked according to their relative level of planning constraints, environmental sensitivities and technical suitability.

For developers, this allows new solar farm proposals to be put forward which have the best prospects of securing planning permission, whilst also being able to demonstrate the absence of alternative more suitable sites: a central requirement of national policy.

For landowners, Locate:Solar identifies the potential for new solar farm development within a given landholding and, in turn, opportunities to support existing rural businesses and landowners through a regular and reliable new income stream.

For local planning authorities, Locate:Solar can identify suitable new renewable energy sites for inclusion in emerging development plans, forming an important, tangible part of the response to the climate change emergency, whilst supporting the principles of sustainable development and rural diversification.

This blog is the third in Lichfields’ series of blogs examining the climate emergency in planning – it looks at how aviation is responding (pre and post-COVID-19 crisis) and what is clear is that the pressure on aviation to become more sustainable is beginning to return and the time to plan is now.

The global aviation industry produces around 2-3% of all human-induced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. In addition to this, aircraft also release non-CO2 emissions (NOx, soot, and water vapour). These non-CO2 emissions roughly equate to the same quantum as the CO2 emissions. In the UK, this combined figure is greater than the global average and commercial departing flights alone account for about 7% of national GHG emissions (CO2 and non-CO2).

The COVID-19 crisis has seen the aviation industry come to a near standstill. After four (long) months, aviation is slowly making its return to the skies. The week commencing 4 May saw a global rock bottom for the sector, with 29.2 million scheduled seats flying that week – some 80 million fewer seats compared with the same time the year before[1]. In the UK, during that same week and with borders closed and most States advising against all but essential travel, capacity dropped to operating less than 7% of typical activity. Fast forward to 13 July, as traffic is beginning to return with the establishment of travel corridors, UK traffic has seen a bounce back of some capacity but is still operating at only 24% of pre-COVID activity[2]. Looking ahead, an ‘L-shaped’ recovery is anticipated for the sector, taking 3-5 years for a return to pre-COVID traffic levels.

With this significant drop off in activity, unsurprisingly there have been reports of temporary reductions in daily global CO2 emissions. For the period January to April 2020, Nature Climate Change cited [3] calculated a decline in CO2 emissions by –60% or –1.7 (–1.3 to –2.2) MtCO2 d−1 for the aviation sector. This equates to 10% of the total global decline in CO2 emissions due to the COVID-19 crisis (the big hitters, where there was significant decline, were the power, industry and surface transport sectors). The decline is considered temporary and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) forecast that global emissions will rebound by +5.8% in 2021 – however it’s not clear what role aviation emissions will have in this initial rebound.

So, if aviation ‘only’ represents 2-3% of global CO2 emissions, and following a near standstill of activity it can ‘only’ achieve 10% of the global reduction associated with the COVID-19 crisis - why is it a sector to focus on?

Broadly speaking, the issue is manifold:

1. The 2-3% figure accounts for CO2 emissions associated with departing flights and doesn’t account for total GHG emissions (CO2 and non-CO2). Nor does it account for emissions arising from aviation-related activity and its wider supply chain (however the latter is often, but not always, captured within other sector inventories).
   
   
2. Aviation is identified as one of the fastest growing sources of GHG emissions, and in the UK, aviation is likely to be the largest contributor to UK emissions in 2050. As the sector recovers from the COVID-19 crisis, it will be interesting to see if this remains true for long-term GHG forecasts.
   
   
3. Pre-COVID crisis, Aviation was one of the top emitters - if global aviation was a country it would be the sixth largest in the world between Japan and Germany.
   
   
4. Aviation is a difficult transport mode to reduce emissions from. It will not a quick exercise given the long lifetime of aircraft and current lack of zero-carbon alternatives – and reducing demand, as evidenced from the COVID-19 crisis, can have serious socio-economic and political implications.

Aviation policy is agreed globally then it is for the UK to reduce its own emissions through domestic policy. Like with wider climate change initiatives, there is no silver bullet for the aviation sector and a multi-prong approach is required.

Historically, aviation has always been treated differently. Under the Kyoto Protocol (1997) international aviation was excluded from national emission inventories and instead requested that Parties work with the UN aviation agency – the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) – who has overarching responsibility for global policy on reducing international aviation emissions. The Paris Agreement (2016) also did not specifically reference international aviation but requires all sectors and Parties to pursue a limit in temperature increase to 1.5 C target.

ICAO has developed the CORSIA[4] scheme, which stands for ‘Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation’. The scheme’s objective is to make all growth in international flights after 2020 carbon neutral. It was adopted in 2016, commences in 2021 and will address emissions that exceed 2019 baseline levels (it was to be a 2020 baseline however this has been amended due to the COVID-19 crisis). Currently more than 70 countries, representing more than 85% of international aviation activity have volunteered to participate (the scheme will be voluntary until 2026). Measures primarily include offsets and use of alternative fuels. Airlines will have to buy emissions reduction offsets from other sectors to compensate for any increase in their own emissions, or they can opt to use lower carbon CORSIA eligible fuels. CORSIA aims to complement a broader package of measures to achieve sector-wide carbon-neutrality such as increasing fuel efficiency and operational improvements.

There are currently no policies in the world (internationally-led or domestically) that seek to directly tackle aviation’s non-CO2 impact.

Domestically, the Department for Transport is responsible for most policy on air travel; the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is responsible for energy and climate change mitigation policy and major funding of research and development in aviation; and the Treasury oversees fiscal policy affecting aviation.

Under the UK’s ‘net-zero’ emissions legislation, net UK GHG emissions must be zero by 2050. Emissions from international travel are currently excluded from the legislation, and the UK Government has yet to clarify how they will be accounted for.

The Committee on Climate Change (CCC) has advised Government that emissions should explicitly be included in the UK’s net zero target, and that the UK should increase its efforts to mitigate emissions from aviation – with measures including new technologies such as new aircraft and engines, electric aircraft and alternative low-carbon fuels (battery, hybrid, hydrogen, bio-fuels), more efficient operations, demand reduction and emission off-setting.

Other groups, such as local planning authorities and Environmental NGOs, are pushing this agenda. Earlier in the year, the designation of the Airports National Policy Statement (ANPS, the key policy document for the Heathrow North-west runway proposal) was found unlawful by the Court of Appeal as it did not take account of the Paris Agreement. This means that the ANPS has no legal effect unless and until Government reviews the ANPS, and it cannot be relied upon when demonstrating a Development Consent Order (DCO) need case. The timing of this review remains a decision for Government.

Aviation continues to not be subject to fuel tax or VAT.

There are a number of sector-led initiatives paving the way for change – led by aviation regulators, airport bodies, aerospace and aircraft manufacturers, and advanced technology innovators. Some noteworthy mentions include:

At the launch of Government’s New Deal[6] in June (‘build back better, build back greener, build back faster’), PM Boris Johnson set out a vision to safeguard the future of the economy and tackle climate change - and for the UK to lead in markets and technologies such as producing the world’s first zero-emission long-haul passenger plane (‘Jet Zero’). But how achievable is this? Technologies are already being progressed for alternative aircraft. It’s thought that hybrid aircraft will be the next step for the industry and could plug the gap until technological requirements for electric aviation have been met. A number of aerospace companies are working on electric aircraft and short to medium range electric flight seems achievable and is on the horizon (with some craft due for certification in 2020/21) – but not yet craft that is comparable to the commercial jets we see in our skies today. Given around 80% of CO2 emissions from aviation come from long-haul flights over 1,500km, the real difference will be from further developments in battery technology and aircraft design. What remains clear is that the pressure on aviation to become more sustainable is beginning to return. The industry will need to grow back and in sustainable manner with a desire to come back better than before. An integrated approach, drawing on the involvement and collaboration of all industry participants will be required, including aerospace and aircraft manufacturers, advance technology innovators, those supporting the funding of R&D, regulators, Government bodies, and at a local level planning authorities and Local Enterprise Partnerships.

Lichfields is well placed to help navigate a planning response to the climate change emergency. Contact us for further information.