Discussion initially focused on the part that ecotowns could play in addressing two of the key challenges facing the government: the housing shortage which resulted from an imbalance of supply and demand; and the contribution made by housing to total UK carbon emissions.  It was emphasised that this focus on environmental sustainability was not mutually exclusive with high quality design and ran alongside the efforts being made to improve the sustainability of the existing housing stock. 

The precise nature of the current problem was then provided through an illustration of the historical context.  The great housing and planning revolutions had previously been responses to very visible shortcomings.  Firstly, at the end of the 19th Century when Sir Ebenezer Howard’s ‘garden cities’ were an attempt to remedy the pollution and disease of urban industrial life at the turn of the century.  Secondly, after the Second World War when a ring of state-led New Towns attempted to create ‘homes for heroes’ and replenish Britain’s housing stock that had been severely depleted in the Blitz. 

The current problem, climate change, however, was different as it was invisible.  It was put, therefore, that the key question was how the government could – in the face of this – acquire a mandate that would engage the collective.  This was the need to overcome articulate middle-class NIMBYISM who offered support in abstract but on the condition that it was ‘not near me’.  It was suggested that, in part, this could be achieved through making sure public services were not provided ‘at people’ but rather ‘in conjunction with’ people and that public engagement could mitigate against the kind of appalling post-war planning decisions that were made.

The discussion then turned to focus directly on ecotowns.  Ecotowns were, it was stressed, an important ‘brand’ that had to be got right from the start.  Questions and worries were raised regarding the governance of ecotowns and the arms-length approach that the government was understood to have adopted.  It was argued that ecotowns were potentially in breach of existing development plans and strategies and might – if mismanaged – undermine the current development programme.  Reassurance, however, was given that a strong, transparent, process was in place which closely scrutinised the bids through four separate stages.  This was an approach shaped by the lessons learned from the ‘experiments in planning’ of the 1960s that had failed to deliver sustainable communities.

Concerns were then expressed relating to whether ecotowns would be solely for a ‘green-elite’, how these towns would be connected up, and whether they would require green lifestyles – particularly whether car-use would be restricted.   In response it was suggested that ecotowns would contain a diverse and mixed community and that ‘connectivity’ was a priority.  Ecotowns would not exist in isolation but require good schools and facilities (both cultural and social).  Housing and infrastructure would be developed together and consultation of all partners would result from an integrated approach centred upon ‘discussion partnerships’. 

Regarding car use it was noted that car were central to our lives, vital not only to ensuring personal mobility but integral to conceptions of identity and status.  Any attempts to curtail or restrict car use would be unacceptable and the challenge, therefore, was to raise awareness and change attitudes.  Moreover, it was hoped that cheap and easy public transport in ecotowns would minimise car use.

Participants then criticised the government’s current approach towards ecotowns.  It was argued that the government would never get a mandate as they were confronted by an entrenched culture of ‘modern-day NIMBYISM’.  Moreover, the regional approach that had been proposed (with an ecotown in each different region) was described as arbitrary and that planning should be determined by identifying appropriate areas where ecotowns would work.  This led to questions regarding the need for ‘free-standing’ ecotowns, as opposed to the upgrading of existing developments or existing plans.  Finally, it was noted that the success of these projects was evidently dependent on significant levels of government investment.

In response it was argued that a mandate was possible through creating community stakeholders who recognised the interests to the community in eco-towns.  Furthermore, upgrading existing plans and developments, and the creation of eco-towns were not, it was stated, mutually exclusive options.  Ecotowns themselves were an important ‘brand’ that concentrated debate and provided leadership.  Equally, it was suggested that a regional approach was important when considering the need for national housing growth. 

Discussion then moved on to consider the importance of the ‘spaces between buildings’, the ‘green space networks’ that were understood as critical in determining quality of life.  There was agreement that there was too great a focus on building and an insufficient focus on the importance of the physical environment.  The local environment was presented as vital the success of the community and required the government to be ‘rigorous, ambitious and bold’.  This necessitated the ‘kicking out’ of inadequate proposals that would have to ‘raise their game’.

Questions were then raised regarding the impact that housing downturn might play in the government’s plans, specifically related to the balance between building on brownfield and greenfield sites.  Reassurance was given that the ‘fundamentals’ remained in place. 
Concerns were also raised as to a ‘skills shortage’ in the planning and construction industries.  This was, it was noted, being dealt with across different government departments and was a serious long-term issue that affected all sectors of the British economy. 

Participants then proceeded to consider problems that existed in the ‘owner-occupied’ sector, emphasising the importance of improving the sustainability of the current housing stock, and questioning how barriers of funds and old age might be overcome to encourage people to ‘environmentally upgrade’ their homes.  It was mentioned that incentives did exist but accepted that take-up had been slow.