Abstract

The purpose of this dissertation is to discuss and evaluate the pressure on development land in the South- East of England, and how that pressure relates to the need for sustainable architecture. The reasons for there being pressure on development land in the South-East of England will be described and analysed, as will any differences with the other regions of Britain. The reasons for setting aside or using the available development land and why sustainable architecture should be adopted in the South-East of England will be fully evaluated.

As will be demonstrated there are various and competing factors that apparently increase the pressure to make full use of all available development land in the South-East of England. The available development land in the South-East of England is in high demand to be used for the construction of domestic housing, as well as for commercial, leisure, and industrial building programmes. To a large extent central government and local authorities have attempted to control the construction of such new building programmes through systems of urban planning, as well as building regulations that have applied across the whole of Britain.

The reasons why the South-East of England should have a need for sustainable architecture will also be examined in depth. The case for making all the new construction projects designed around the concepts of sustainable architecture shall also be examined, to discuss whether more environmentally focused building designs will lessen the impact of new construction programmes, as well as reducing long-term pollution.

Introduction

Sustainable architecture and the use of development land are closely linked with the practices and theories of what form the basis of urban and rural planning, as well as ideas concerning the necessity for long-term environmental sustainability. Urban, and to a lesser extent rural planning, became more widespread in their application throughout Britain after 1945, when increased levels of central government intervention were experienced in many social and economic fields. Planning was deemed to be the best way of solving Britain’s housing problems (Taylor, 1998 p. 3). Increased levels of urban and rural planning were justified at the end of the Second World War due to the need for extensive post-war reconstruction.

The South-East of England in general, and London in particular had suffered from widespread bomb damage, which meant that fully or partially destroyed houses, factories, and retail units had to be replaced by well planned buildings which would be an improvement upon the previous buildings. In the immediate post-war period it was believed that a systematic use of town and country planning would be essential for the reconstruction of Britain, with a much higher standard of building to match higher employment, the welfare state, and the National Health Service. The purpose of these policies and institutions was to prolong life and promote good health throughout the whole population (Meller, 1997 p67).

The increased use of urban and rural planning was not intended to protect the environment in an ecological way, or indeed to promote sustainable architecture, rather it was greatly expanded in scope to make the most rational use of scarce development land. However, there would be measures adopted which would conserve large areas of countryside, and give protection despite the need to re-house millions of families in 1945 (Southall, 2000 p. 336).

There were groups that wished to conserve specific areas that supported rare forms of animal and plant life, and even groups that wished to preserve old historical buildings, as well as buildings distinguished by their architectural styles (Meller, 1997 p67). When added together such groups did not equate to an ecological lobby that intended to change agricultural, architectural, or industrial practices to protect the environment.

These groups however, were able to heavily influence the decision to restrict urbanisation taking over the countryside. Post-war reconstruction was the catalyst for the largest programmes of publicly funded construction in Britain. Public expenditure was needed due to the sheer scale of reconstruction required, with London and the South-East of England being a major beneficiary of those programmes. Architecture and planning were used for these large-scale programmes rather than just for individual buildings. The involvement of central government in the promoting and funding of large-scale public building programmes and the use of development land was high until the early part of the 1970s (Greed, 1996 p. 35).

Such wide-ranging building programmes were not only intended to replace the buildings destroyed during the Second World War. The post-war building programmes were also intended to replace the slums in the inner cities of London, Birmingham, Liverpool, as well as elsewhere. The construction programmes were intended to make the South-East of England a much more hospitable place to live in, just as the rest of Britain was also intended to be like (Sheail, 2002 p. 62).

New construction and renovation of existing houses was an imperative, as ‘2 million of them condemned and another 3 million lacking in essentials’ (Southall, 2000 p. 337). The South-East of England also benefited from the construction of new towns such as Milton Keynes and Stevenage that were planned as entire towns with purpose built domestic housing and business premises.

The Atlee government was so keen upon the creation of new towns to solve the post-war housing shortages that it regulated such construction through the New Town Act of 1946 (Sheail, 2002 p. 62). The construction of the New Towns was considered to be essential for both high economic growth and for solving the national post-war housing shortage. The Atlee government regarded the new towns as being highly beneficial to people’s health as they moved away from major cities and industrial areas to places with cleaner air (Meller, 1997 p67).

In ecological terms such construction was harmful to the environment as more land was built upon and it meant a greater amount of pollution from traffic emissions, though of course nobody understood such implications at that time.

Improvements in transport infrastructure and increasing levels of car ownership meant that the new towns were economically viable, as well as allowing their inhabitants to commute to the major cities to work in them (Daniels, Bradshaw, Shaw, & Sidaway, 2005 p. 147).

Urban planning was thus considered to be very useful for the progress and development of London and the South-East of England, which traditionally has been the most populous and prosperous region of Britain. Urban planning was also intended to increase the prosperity levels of the other regions in Britain to be as high as possible to match the levels achieved in the South-East of England (Southall, 2000 p. 337).

Controlled expansion of urban areas into the new towns was intended to solve the immediate post-war housing shortage and revive the British economy, whilst leaving the great bulk of the countryside untouched by new housing construction (Taylor, 1998 p.3).

Previous improvements in agricultural techniques meant that farming became more efficient nationally which had quickened the pace of urbanisation in Britain as a whole. Urbanisation in Britain had already had a strong impact upon the environment that went beyond the replacement of the countryside with polluting factories and unhealthy slum housing (Southall, 2000, p. 335).

Higher crop yields from less land had the consequence that more land in rural areas became available to be used as development land. The greater availability of former agricultural land meant that is was easier to find enough land to construct new towns or expand existing cities across Britain. Urbanisation was a process that was accelerated by the need of industrial towns and cities to find workers to continue their expansion (Goudie & Viles, 1997 p. 5).

To begin with, the majority of new homes were traditional style houses that formed large council house estates right across the country, in architectural terms there was very little innovation or thought given to making the new housing stock architecturally sustainable or environmentally friendly. More attention was instead devoted to making all new houses comfortable, clean, and ensuring they were being built to last (Greed, 1996 p. 35). The new homes were intended to be better and larger than the ones that they had replaced. The majority of large cities and the new towns in Britain had millions of council houses built in their areas between 1945 and the early 1970s.

However, it was much harder to find adequate amounts of development land in inner city areas which led to the building of high rise tower blocks which allowed a greater number of people to be housed without increasing the total area of the development land required (Sheail, 2002 p. 62). Unfortunately, high rise tower blocks constructed during the 1960s and the 1970s in the South-East of England, as well as nationally failed to be an adequate form of long- term and sustainable architecture that allowed people to be housed in safety or comfort.

The failure of many high rise tower blocks to be sustainable forms of housing had the affect of increasing the pressure on development land. It has also meant that tower blocks have had to be refurbished or more frequently demolished (Meller, 1997 p. 63). As the picture below shows the 1950s and the 1960s also witnessed the construction of low-rise apartment blocks which have proved to be longer lasting than tower blocks built during the same period of time. The picture is of apartment flats constructed in Ham Common in Richmond between 1955 and 1958 (Frampton,1997 p. 266).

Although the amount of new housing construction was considerable not all the available land had been developed or built upon. Land remained set aside for agricultural purposes, whilst other land was left un-built upon and not always used for farming. The land that was left alone and was set aside and thus not allowed to be used for domestic housing or industrial sites were referred to as the green belt. The green belt was created to act as a buffer zone between urban and rural areas as a means to limit urbanisation (Greed, 1996 p. 82).

Central government set aside areas that were designated as green belt zones to preserve the countryside nationally as well as solely in the South-East of England. Although, it was possible to build on green belt land the process of gaining planning permission from central government and the relevant local authority was a long drawn out one which deterred most property developers and construction firms from doing so. Local interest groups have often being highly vocal in their opposition to any schemes that have been suggested (Clapp, 1994 p. 138). Clapp estimated that with national parks and designated green belt zones that in England and Wales ‘more than a fifth of the countryside now has stringent protection against development’ (Clapp, 1994 p. 140).

Therefore, the bulk of available development land was concentrated in urban areas, often referred to as brown field sites (Greed, 1996 p. 82). For central government there are advantages for using brown field sites (Kim & Rigdon, December 1998 p. 5). For instance, using such sites allows for economic regeneration, employment creation as well as less pressure to build on green belt land. Recycling land on brown field sites is a method of preserving rural areas being used as development land (Clapp, 1994 p.139).

The pressure to use greater amounts of development land has arguably increased significantly in recent years throughout Britain as a whole. The pressure to use development land has risen due to a combination of social, economic, and political factors.

For instance, in social terms the demographic changes to the British population have had significant, and it could even be argued,profound effects upon the demand for development for new construction programmes. These demographic changes have occurred as a consequence of the British population ageing, the increasing number of adults who live on their own, as well