Planning matters blog | Lichfields

Planning matters

Our award winning blog gives a fresh perspective on the latest trends in planning and development.

How can placemakers help to reduce loneliness?

How can placemakers help to reduce loneliness?

Helen Ashby-Ridgway 21 Jun 2019
Last week was Loneliness Awareness Week, a week established by the Marmalade Trust to raise awareness of loneliness and social isolation, to reduce the stigma of loneliness and to help people connect. This will be its third year and the movement is growing. This isn’t surprising when studies have shown that in the UK more than 9 million people always or often feel lonely[1]. The Costa Book Award winning novel Eleanor Oliphant is Completely Fine was written by its author Gail Honeyman after she had read an article on the subject of loneliness which reported on an interview with a young lady who said she would come home from work on a Friday and then wouldn’t speak to anyone again until Monday morning. Such a situation seems incredibly sad but worse yet, extensive research shows that loneliness poses a number of risks to physical and mental health, including: Increased risk of developing coronary heart disease and stroke (Valtorta et al, 2016), Increased risk of high blood pressure (Hawkley et al, 2010) Greater risk of cognitive decline (James et al, 2011) Higher risk of the onset of disability (Lund et al, 2010) More prone to depression (Cacioppo et al, 2006) (Green et al, 1992) Predictive of suicide in older age (O’Connell et al, 2004); and, One study concludes that lonely people have a 64% increased chance of developing clinical dementia (Holwerda et al, 2012). Some of the studies are more worrying. Not long ago a stark headline was being carried by a number of newspapers. A meta study (a study of studies) of some 3.4 million people by Professor of Psychology Julianne Holt-Lunstad and her research team[2] had concluded that weak social connection has the same risk of death as smoking 15 cigarettes a day. Moreover, according the findings it doesn’t matter whether the loneliness is perceived or actual the risk to health remains the same[3].The NHS ‘Behind the Headlines’ critique of this particular study concluded that the research ‘provided some evidence that the isolation was causing ill health, rather than the other way round, but we can't be certain[4]’. Whether or not this particular headline is as troubling as it appears the remaining evidence that suggests that loneliness and social isolation can have adverse impacts upon our health and well-being and upon the UK economy. Research reported by the Co-op suggests that loneliness costs UK employers £2.5 billion per year. Causes of loneliness The causes of loneliness are not surprising. They include but are not limited to: Changes in day-to-day routines (such as retirement), A lack of or loss of friends (such as through bereavement or divorce), Restricted mobility, cognitive and sensory impairment or other causes of poor physical health (which then create a vicious circle), Financial limitations (limiting ability to participate in activities), Personal characteristics (such as age, stage in life, ethnicity, sexual orientation); and, Neighbourhood characteristics (such as a lack of amenity, layout of streets, crime). Loneliness is not only restricted to those who are alone or are of a particular age group.  “Young or old, loneliness does not discriminate” said the late Jo Cox MP who, with her colleague Seema Kennedy MP, set up a cross-party Loneliness Commission in 2016. Source: ONS analysis of Community Life Survey August 2016 – March 2017 Creating spaces that reduce social isolation National and many local planning policies seek to ensure that developments create healthy and safe communities. Many of the recent call to action publications by a variety of respected organisations, charities and commissions focus on a wide range of measures to improve loneliness and to reduce social isolation. However, not as much has been written in these documents about how the built environment can contribute to tackling its causes. As place makers we can help to create places that encourage social connection and to create spaces that people want to use and are able to use that are safe and secure and that are accessible to all.  These are just a selection of ways that creating spaces and places can help to increase both formal and informal social interaction which may in turn help to reduce loneliness: Making dementia-friendly spaces that are designed to encourage people out of their homes, with connections and routes that are accessible and safe (The RTPI has published practice advice on this); Ensuring that amenities and facilities are in walking distance and the routes to these places are safe, legible and encourage more people to use them; Delivering a range of places for leisure activities and where people can meet - from community halls to bowling greens, and from public squares to public footpaths; Including facilities for physical activity such as formal parks and informal open spaces, playgrounds for children where parents can mingle, as well as allotments for all ages; Ensuring that the spaces to meet are safe, with excellent natural surveillance through active frontages and well-considered layouts; Creating jobs and educational opportunities with further enhancements by creating dedicated indoor and outdoor spaces for people to meet during lunch breaks (rather than eating a sandwich at a desk); and, Places for cultural activities through formal and informal spaces such as heritage assets, coastal paths and outdoor theatres. Understanding why places and spaces are important in helping to combat loneliness is a good starting point. Indeed, many of the measures are integral to high quality urban design decisions but can be easily missed although our experience, from working on health impact assessments for a number of projects, is that the measures can be simple and often not costly. Whilst we cannot solve the factors causing loneliness entirely, placemakers can be part of a range of measures that help.  [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-commits-to-government-wide-drive-to-tackle-loneliness [2] https://www.aging.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SCA_Holt_04_27_17.pdf [3] https://www.ahsw.org.uk/userfiles/Research/Perspectives%20on%20Psychological%20Science-2015-Holt-Lunstad-227-37.pdf [4] https://www.nhs.uk/news/mental-health/loneliness-increases-risk-of-premature-death/  

CONTINUE READING

What came first, the chicken or the EIA rEGGs?
The Court of Appeal has quashed a planning permission granted by Shropshire Council in 2017 for an intensive poultry farming facility near Bridgnorth in Shropshire. The fundamental question of the appeal was whether the LPA, when considering the application, failed to properly consider the likely effects of odour and dust arising from manure disposal. Reviewing this judgement has highlighted the consequences of approving an application which relies on an inadequate environmental statement (ES); and has also clarified the relationship of environmental permits to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) planning applications. Context of the case On 1 September 2017, Shropshire Council granted permission for the erection of four poultry buildings at Footbridge Farm. The owner, also the applicant, intends to use the buildings for intensive rearing of poultry. The facility would operate on a 48-day cycle, rearing 210,000 chicks for 38 days and then cleaning the buildings to prepare for the next cycle. Roughly 1,575,000 broiler chickens would be reared over a year. This would produce approximately 2,322 tonnes of manure, which would be disposed of on the applicant’s fields, and any surplus would be spread on third party owned fields near to residential areas. The appellant is a local resident, Ms Squire, who lives about 300 metres from land on which manure might be spread. On granting planning permission, the Council concluded that the technical assessments submitted within the ES ‘are generally satisfactory’, and that ‘adverse impacts on local amenity can be satisfactorily safeguarded’. Additionally, the environmental permit issued and regulated by the Environment Agency (EA) would provide another level of control sufficient to address dust and odour issues. Following the High Court’s dismissal of the appellant’s claim for Judicial Review of the Council’s decision, Ms Squire appealed against the Judge’s decision on two grounds: The Judge was wrong to conclude that the environmental permit issued under Reg.13 of the Environmental Permitting Regulations would control the management of manure outside the site to which the permit is related; and The Judge was wrong to consider the development’s likely environmental effects had been assessed adequately and lawfully in accordance with the EIA legislation. Broiler chickens - source: Wikimedia Commons Summary of the judgement The Court of Appeal first addressed the interpretation and scope of the Environmental Permit, which would be a requirement for an operation of this scale. It held that there was no misunderstanding of the permit’s control, which clearly included removal of manure from the site and the EA would enforce this. The officers had simply misunderstood the role of a future ‘manure management plan’ (MMP) that was referenced in the EAs consultation advice letter as though it were an assessment to reduce the risk of pollution from manure disposal. MMPs are a requirement under the Environmental Permit Regulations (not under the site-specific permit) and must also comply with the statutory Code of Good Agricultural Practice. However, the EA had made clear in its letter that the MMP would only relate to the applicant’s land and would not control any issues arising from activities outside of the permit boundary (drawn around the chicken sheds only). More importantly, the MMP specifically relates to risks of polluting surface or groundwater – not odour and dust. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that in enforcing the site’s permit, the EA will provide additional control contributing to minimising effects of odour and dust outside the permit area. Manure spreading at a Welsh farm - source: Wikimedia Commons In relation to the soundness of the EIA, the Court considered that impacts on neighbouring properties, generated by odour and dust from manure disposal activities were indirect impacts of the proposed development therefore must be assessed through the EIA. However, the ES did not identify the third-party land on which the 1,500 tonnes of manure was going to be spread each year, nor did it attempt to provide a meaningful assessment of the likely polluting effects the manure spreading – either on the applicant’s land or any other land. The Court held that the requirement of an MMP to be produced in the future, was not a substitute for the lack of assessment in the ES, and therefore, the ES was deficient and not compliant with the EIA Regulations. The appeal was allowed, on both grounds. Lessons learned from this case Although the case’s poultry context may not be relatable to many, this decision is a reminder of the importance of ensuring that all EIAs clearly identify and fully assess all impacts of a development - direct and indirect. As the PPG states, mitigation measures are designed to limit or remove any effects of a development, consequently an ES cannot rely on mitigation to mitigate an effect that hasn’t been identified within the assessment. Furthermore, care must be taken to understand the scope, role and effect of any regulatory process, such as environmental permitting, that is considered within an ES. For instance, considering whether a permit can be relied upon as adequate mitigation, and whether mitigation is required beyond the regulatory boundary of such a permit. The appeal could perhaps also result in more thorough scrutinisation of generalised commitments which have become commonplace within ESs for similar developments, such as compliance with the Code of Good Agricultural Practice, or the fact that the process of manure spreading, as intended in this application, is common practice in farming of this intensity. Overall, we now know not to get over EGGcited when chickens are involved, as you should never hurry EIAs concerning slurry!

CONTINUE READING