Latest News

Growth is a dirty word…but is it really? When we talk about growth we often conflate a number of contrasting understandings or perceptions without being clear about what we actually mean.

For example, we are growing as a population; we are actively trying to improve life expectancy to ensure our growth has longevity; in liberal societies we believe in freedom of movement and geographical migration and choice; and we are a naturally curious species. More philosophically evolution itself is about growth and progress (without it we wouldn’t be here).

If we are talking about growth in the last 150 years or so in terms of industrial capitalism and the economic paradigm of free market growth then yes, the very blunt metric of output GDP or GVA is something that needs a rethink and should evolve as in my humble opinion it is no longer fit for purpose as a sole metric of economic success in a complex 21st century society.

This is a different conversation, one we need to urgently have, but it is not this particular ‘growth’ conversation. Albeit the current economic paradigm requires a crucial and urgent discussion to be had by sensible people from all parts of society, it is only a part of what people are referring to when they use the term growth.

In my day job, I deal with growth mainly in terms of land use planning. This has such a crucial role in ensuring population growth, jobs growth, and that requisite land use is balanced and managed sustainably within the market systems in which we operate and within the values around freedom of movement and choice that we hold up in society. Land use planning has always been a controversial discipline whereby trade-offs and differences of opinion and need are par for the daily course.

Now a new (not very new) and critical consideration has sky rocketed up the ladder of absolute considerations when preparing land use plans: how to achieve the needs of our current and future growing communities whilst transitioning to a net zero world within the ever reducing timescales we have. Housing affordability and availability is already acute and Covid has exacerbated and amplified the scale of inequality, economic disparity and deepening social division in our societies. This is even true in places like Cambridge, which from the onlooker seems to be an economically vibrant and prosperous place. But it is still one of the most unequal cities in the UK with a number of city wards high up on the social deprivation index.

Planning is built on the foundations of trying to ensure people can have access to a home and employment that allows contribution to society whilst protecting and enhancing the built, natural and historic environment. However, plan making (where arguably the most leverage to ensure net zero can be addressed alongside the needs of growing and changing communities) must also be sustainable and more importantly be the tool for managing the complex interdependencies between the huge number of other organisations and stakeholders who have to come together to deliver places in the future. This will mean a comprehensive shift to delivery through place making, which as a concept is a much more holistic way to ensure issues on climate change are not siloed against other crucial outcomes including wellbeing, equality and economic development.

To quote my esteemed colleague Emma Davies at Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service (one of the most knowledgeable sustainability professionals I know): “Achieving net zero status cuts across all elements of place making; not just through how homes and buildings are designed and constructed, but also by ensuring new development is in places where it is or can be well served by low carbon transport links like public transport, cycling and walking as well as renewable and low carbon energy.”

In our emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan, we are equally focused on ‘the where’ in terms of how growth and climate change mitigation can co-exist. For example where we put development, how we site jobs floor space and homes, and what the likely patterns of movement we will effect when we do this are all critical in ensuring the best chances of reducing the carbon footprint of growth, remembering that travel makes up the largest percentage of carbon emissions when undertaking whole lifecycle carbon modelling of development planning. We have seen during the time of Covid that we are perfectly able to reduce the amount of unnecessary travelling and when we begin to regain some balance post-pandemic, I hope we will reflect on the necessity (or lack of it) in terms of our travel patterns.

Land use planning is crucial to the net zero pathway in many other aspects too, as it is not just concerned with buildings, spaces and the net outputs of carbon, but place making, circular economics, waste and development which can effectively stimulate markets, especially those engaged in clean tech, renewable energy and such like. It can also give certainty to a wider range of other businesses, and can be a lever to stimulate local growth. We should be using the last 21 months to catalyse the changes that have had positive outcomes and embed the behaviour changes which have been desirable, especially in terms of the big challenges we face. It would be remiss if we were not to embrace these to pivot towards strong, inclusive and sustainable progress which helped accelerate the shift to a prosperous zero carbon future.