Designing for Children & Young People: A Toolkit for practitioners

Posted on

by Rachel Alcock-Hodgson

I am an active travel professional who has worked for Sustrans since 2015. I now work for Sustrans Scotland as a grant funder in the Places for Everyone team and I am also completing an Urban Planning Masters at UWE. Places for Everyone is Sustrans’ permanent active travel infrastructure fund for Scotland. Supported by Transport Scotland, we provide funding and expertise to help deliver walking, wheeling and cycling improvements across the country.

We currently have more than 250 projects at various stages of development, ranging from multi-million pound transformations in Scotland’s cities to new walking routes between some of Scotland’s smallest communities.

Two axis of child-friendly planning. Adapted from the work of Marketta Kyttä by Tim Gill (2021)

In 2022, we published a toolkit for practitioners to support the design of walking, cycling and wheeling* specifically for children and young people. The toolkit contains an overview of the policy context in Scotland. It sets out two foundations and twelve dimensions for designing for children and young people.

The toolkit then presents several case studies of projects that speak to the foundations and dimensions. The foundations are: 1. Improved access for walking, wheeling, and cycling and 2. Create space to pause, stay, and play. The dimensions fall under these headings.

Dimensions for designing for children and young people, from Designing for Children & Young People.

This is something I am passionate about. As we say in the toolkit: “Since the 1970s, there has been a steady decline in the reported distances children are allowed to travel without parental supervision in the UK. We have also observed several instances where teenagers have been specifically excluded and discouraged from using public spaces.

At a time when private car use has been prioritised over the needs of people walking, wheeling and cycling for everyday journeys, this has only served to make neighbourhoods across the UK increasingly unsafe, inaccessible and unpleasant for play and socialising.

Planning and transport policies are now focused on reducing traffic volumes in many areas, including residential neighbourhoods, and providing spaces for young people to enjoy. This is in response to the climate emergency and the need to reduce emissions, to improve population health through encouraging greater mobility, and increasing community resilience as a response to the Covid pandemic.

Strategically, this is an important step in increasing children and young people’s independent mobility and will play an important part in improving their active travel opportunities.

Children and young people have a right to use public space. Those of us involved in planning, design, and sustainable travel can enable this right by providing quality environments that are safe to access, reflect children and young people’s needs and encourage them to thrive.”

In April 2023, Places for Everyone held its first in person event for partners since the pandemic: Designing with Children and Young People. It included sessions led by councils showcasing their projects and outlining what they have learned, as well as sessions going into engagement techniques to use as part of the design process. The sessions from the day can be viewed here and the live illustration of the event captured by Jenny Capon is shown above.

The event was a success. A wide range of partners attended. 54 delegates from 18 organisations including community groups and variety of local authority teams, from engineering to those specialising in behaviour change. 87% felt that their knowledge of designing with children and young people improved as a result of attending.

Overall, Jenny Capon’s illustration sums it up well. Designing with Children and Young people is complex and multi-faceted, just like the built environment itself, but we have a shared responsibility as planners and designers, and we need to work together to achieve transformative change.

*getting around with for example, a wheelchair, buggy or scooter.

Key Links:

Link to the event page: https://www.showcase-sustrans.org.uk/engage-inspire-learn/dcyp-event-page/?cn-reloaded=1

Link to the Designing for Children & Young People toolkit: https://www.showcase-sustrans.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Children-and-YP-tools-and-approach-v.18_DIGITAL.pdf

References:

Gill, Tim (2021) Urban Playground: How Child-Friendly Planning and Design can Save Cities. RIBA Publishing: London.

CELEBRATING HABIBA EID (The Egyptian Jane Jacobs)

Posted on

by Amir Gohar

Background

As a specialized urbanist, I have had a long career of working professionally in participatory design and planning. I directed projects scaled from detailed design interventions to master planning; these included coastal urban planning in the Red Sea; urban design in Senegal; design agro-farms with local community in arid areas in Saudi Arabia; work with community in cross-province river trail in Norway; oasis design for tribes in East Libya; urban guidelines for historic Cairo, the design for Cradle of Humankind National Park in South Africa; site planning for ecolodges in the Kalahari Desert; waterfront development in Doha, Qatar; and urban design in Portoviejo, Ecuador. Throughout my career, I have been fortunate to select working on projects that comply with the social values and even more fortunate to have most of them implemented and built with the local communities.

Placemaking in the Global South

This is not to undermine the wonderful efforts done by colleagues and friends in democratic countries in the North, but rather to shed the light on challenges of placemaking in the Global South. My projects have engaged a full range of interdisciplinary professional skills in highly diverse international settings, and always involved a complexity of constituents, ecologies, and cultures. In my professional career, I completed projects that required me to work closely with local residents within the parameters of government and private institutions to comply with social standards. Without much generalisation, In the Global South, the responsible practice of civic engagement and participatory design require extensive field-based investigations of cultural and social contexts. Little professional or scholarly literature engages these real-world practice scenarios in the these regions, and this motivates my interest to encourage young planners and designers to dig deeper to learn about their own community leaders and those who took the responsibility and cared about their people.

I write this today because I figured out if I didn’t do so, then who else will? I want to share it with a new generation of students and fresh graduates who are currently involved in projects or research that has to do with placemaking, tactical urbanism, civic engagement, participatory design, and all kinds of urban interventions. In several discussions and forums, I find a new generation who takes things for granted is celebrating Jan Jacobs without having full understanding of her challenges, the difficulties she has been through, the threats she encounters and the sacrifices she made to succeed.

Habiba Eid (26 April 1941 – 15 January 2015)

In Ismailia, a small city on the Suez Canal of Egypt, born woman who at a young age got involved in several community initiatives starting from witnessing major relocations because of the war around the Suez Canal cities and throughout the years of peace.

Habiba earned a BA in Arts from Cairo University, a diploma in regional planning from National planning Institute, a MSc in statistics from Cairo University and a diploma in political Science from Suez Canal University. While having all the right qualifications to have an ordinary desk job, she strived to change people’s lives in the field and venture in a world dominated by men in authority. 

During her career she worked closely with almost all governors, local teams, and international expats. Her compass was clear and cantered around serving her people. Throughout her journey she spent more time in the field, in the informal areas, engaging and negotiating and empowering the local people. This has put her in numerous confrontations with authority and higher powers. Her persistence, endurance and clear people-oriented agenda coupled with diplomacy and social intelligence allowed her to implement several projects and initiatives. She gained the respect and appreciation of her local people, the government, as well as the international community. Endless world experts have learned from her projects through their involvement in Hayy El-Salam, El-Bahtini, El-Hallous,… and many other development projects that are only implemented because of her persistence.

A poster I did with Habiba Eid about the mapping of Ismailia Slum Areas with UNDP and UN-Habitat.

Habiba played a vital role for the people of Ismailia. She even saved them of several involuntary relocations and demolitions that they are unaware of. Working closely with her, I witnessed her active engagement on all levels and across many scales. She managed to lead and guide international experts, gain confidence of international donors, convince government officials, and most importantly loved and appreciated by the informal settlement dwellers. I walked with her through alleys in extreme poverty to guide locally-installed water pipes, I observed her humble attitude with the needy and the unlimited support she offered to the local community even from her personal resources.

Women making fishing nets and men making fishing boats in Ismailia 

To celebrate her birthday on the 26th of April, I would encourage friends and colleagues to honour her contribution and also celebrate their own community leaders in the Global South who were influential and dedicated their life to serving the marginalized and under privileged.

Habiba had a purpose for her life till her last day. She was a dedicated woman to her cause to serve her people well.

Celebrate your Jane Jacobs – Celebrate your Habiba Eid

The challenge of delivering affordable housing in the South West

Posted on

by Dannielle Sinnett, Hannah Hickman, Katie McClymont, Stephen Hall, Cat Loveday, Jessica Lamond and Rebecca Windemer

We were commissioned by Homes for the South West, a consortium of housing associations, to examine the factors affecting housing affordability in the region and provide an estimate of future housing needs. To do this, we drew on Government data, a survey of local authorities, interviews with housing associations, local authorities and private developers, and a review of planning policies in the region.

Mulberry Park, a new development by Curo in Bath (credit Andrew Sykes and Curo)

How affordable is housing in the South West?

The South West faces acute problems of housing affordability. The region is conspicuously less affordable than England as a whole, and the North and Midlands in particular. In 2021, median house prices were approximately ten times greater than the median earnings. These inter-regional disparities are also becoming progressively more pronounced; in 1997 house prices were around four times greater than earnings.

Three quarters of local authority areas have affordability ratios (the ratio between house price and individual earnings) higher than that for England as a whole, and all have affordability ratios higher than those for the North of England. There is also substantial diversity in affordability ratios within local authority areas in the South West. The ten least affordable neighbourhoods in the region have median house prices more than 28 times median earnings. Even in the most affordable neighbourhoods median house prices are still more than three times median earnings.

Which factors impact housing affordability?

Property prices in the South West are markedly higher than England as a whole, and have risen nearly fourfold – faster than the national average rate of increase – in the past 25 years. However, the region has lower than average earnings, which have failed to keep up with house price increases. This has significant implications for local people, especially younger households or first-time buyers.

House prices are often higher in places with a high environmental quality and good access to local amenities and services. We found that, within a local authority area, neighbourhoods closer to the coastline are less affordable, as are those in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In general, more rural places are less affordable than towns and cities, but within these rural areas, those with better transport and broadband connectivity were even less affordable. Stakeholder reported that the high land values in the region undermine the viability of affordable housing.

Furthermore, these locations are also popular retirement and tourist destinations. It appears that local authorities in the South West with a greater proportion of second homes are less affordable and in-migration is dominated by arrivals from elsewhere in the UK (as opposed to international migration). This suggests, perhaps, the existence of a distinctive residential ‘offer’ in the region, one that attracts retirees, people working from home and those commuting to London and the South East, further increasing demand for new homes.

Finally, we looked at the supply of new homes compared with projected household formation since 1997. Over this period, the supply of new homes in the South West has not kept pace with demand, with an estimated deficit of 99,978 homes. This shortfall does not account for holiday lets or second homes, so is likely to be much greater. Most local authorities’ assessments of housing need will not address this shortfall by 2032.

Planned affordable eco-homes by Bromford Housing Association in Moreton-in-Marsh

What is the impact of Right to Buy?

Housing providers in the South West report that Right to Buy has had a detrimental impact on housing affordability in the region, particularly in respect of its role in the depletion of the overall stock of affordable housing. Since 1997, some 33,220 local authority-owned homes were sold through Right to Buy, whereas local authorities in the South West delivered only 2,320 new homes. The impact of Right to Buy appears to be particularly acute in small rural communities where a handful of sales locally might equate to a high proportion of total stock and may be difficult to replace given the higher unit costs of construction on small rural sites. In addition, development viability and funding challenges make it difficult for local authorities to replace social housing on a one-to-one basis.

What is the impact of national and local policy?

Regional stakeholders were critical of the complexity created by multiple definitions of affordable housing observed in planning policies. More importantly, they argued that these definitions do not equate to genuinely affordable housing.

The under-resourcing of planning was identified as a significant impediment to timely decision-making and on-site delivery.

Assessing future affordable housing need

To assess future housing need we estimated the number of new homes needed for each local authority in the South West from 2022 to 2039, and the proportion of new households that would need to spend more than 40% of their monthly income on mortgage repayments (i.e. unaffordable housing).

We estimated that around 28,337 homes need to be delivered in the region each year between 2022 and 2039, of which 17,282 would need to be affordable for those on median incomes – around 60%. These proportions are far greater than the thresholds in many planning policies.

Despite these challenges, stakeholders detailed how collaboration and partnership working between housing associations, local authorities and SME housebuilders was able to deliver affordable homes. They also highlighted that the delivery of affordable homes was intrinsic to other priorities, including ensuring high quality homes and responding to climate and ecological emergencies. Such practices provide opportunities on which to build to ensure that housing is delivered in the region which is affordable and sustainable.

The full report can be found here: https://homesforthesouthwest.co.uk/home/affordability-report/

“Where are ‘smart’ sustainable cities made?” Recognising, raising and responding to shared questions…

Posted on

by Rebecca Windemer, Torik Holmes and Carla De Laurentis

The three of us met during our respective ESRC post-doctoral fellowships during the Covid pandemic. Eager to strengthen existing connections and forge new ones, during a time when researchers were grappling with learning new ways of academic working, we engaged in a number of online discussions related to our research interests. We soon realised that although from different disciplinary backgrounds (planning, innovation, and sociology), our research areas overlapped and we shared a topical concern with energy transitions and their material, spatial and temporal dimensions.

Where are ‘smart’ sustainable cities made?

We have now organised two workshops, written a book chapter and a journal article (both currently under-review) focused on the connections between infrastructures, climate change and sustainability. Under the artistic direction of Mair Perkins, we also produced the embedded animation above. It draws on insights from our independent and combined research.

The video’s title – ‘Where are ‘smart’ sustainable cities made?’ – is one of the questions we have raised and responded to in conjunction.

‘Smarter’ and more sustainable city visions hinge on the increasing generation of clean power and the electrification of everyday modes of travel, working and living arrangements.

The animation tells an important story about socially, institutionally and geographically saturated and stretched energy infrastructures and the interconnections between various sites of demand and systems of provision. Indeed, it conveys the importance of ‘following the wires’ to reveal points of tension along networks of provision where sustainable transitions are calibrated. This somewhat bucks against the norm.

‘Smart’ city research has typically involved turning to cities with smart and sustainable aspirations to address empirical questions, examining, along the way, local discourses, strategies and sited innovations. A great deal of resources, time and effort have been poured into smart city discourses and, indeed, into making cities smarter and, so the rationale goes, more sustainable.

Following the wires can help reveal points of tensions along networks of provision.

Researchers have taken a great deal of interest in these topics and things going on ‘in’ cities. Recognising this and drawing on our knowledge, we were drawn to focus instead on the wider ordering and management of key service infrastructures and the provision of renewable sources of energy, both of which have received less attention in smart city literature. This is the case even though these are critical for smart and sustainable city ambitions. In quite rudimentary terms, without an ability to connect to electricity networks and without the provision of clean energy, smart and sustainable city buildings, technologies, policies and initiatives would not (and will not) materialise.

We hope the video speaks for itself and sparks discussion and consideration of what changes are needed in and indeed beyond cities to facilitate sustainable shifts. Through doing so, we hope it also reveals the benefits of interdisciplinary collaborations in facilitating broader discussion around sustainability and net zero agendas.

We are thankful to the ESRC for funding our post-doctoral fellowships as well as the video produced.

A short note about the authors:

Dr Rebecca Windemer is a senior lecturer in environmental planning at UWE and a member of the Centre for Sustainable Planning and Environments. Her teaching and research crosses the disciplines of environmental planning and energy geography. Her teaching and research interests involve the regulation of renewable energy infrastructure and how the planning system can help achieve net zero ambitions.

Dr Torik Holmes is a sociologist and social science researcher based in the Sustainable Consumption Institute at the University of Manchester. His research interests focus on connected systems of provision, consumption and disposal, with electricity and plastics forming central subjects.

Dr Carla De Laurentis is a lecturer in Environmental Management in UWE and a member of the Centre for Sustainable Planning and Environments. Her research interests converge around the geography of innovation and low-carbon transitions. She is particularly interested in understanding the mechanisms that lead to an effective diffusion of renewable energy technologies and how energy infrastructure networks, and their reconfiguration, might influence renewables deployment.   

Talk of the Town

Posted on

by Nick Smith…

A lot has been written about Build, Build, Build[i] over the last couple of weeks and I share the same level of unease about some of the proposals. But we’ve been here before. Indeed, while you won’t have had the date marked in your calendar, last week marked the 5-year anniversary of when Fixing the Foundations[ii] was published. Back then, this plan for ‘creating a more prosperous’ nation, was penned by George Osbourne (as Chancellor of the Exchequer) and Sajid Javid (as Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills). Chapter 9 ‘dealt’ with planning and some of the chapter’s sub-headings, including its promises for releasing land and increasing the urgency of planning, echo what has been said recently by Boris Johnson. Fortunately, the same level of derision was aired back in 2015, with the Guardian’s Oliver Wainwright[iii], for example, highlighting how the planned reform would give us the ‘slums of the future’. Oliver called for better public outcomes and it’s good that campaigning on this agenda has gained momentum since (with the TCPA’s pitch for a Healthy Homes Act being particularly noteworthy).

Chapter 15 of Fixing the Foundations also promised us a re-balancing of the UK’s economy. While some of the proposals in Build, Build, Build could be argued to support such a goal, the call for spreading prosperity was far stronger within the New Deal for Britain[iv] that Boris Johnson also launched a couple of weeks ago. Specifically, via a section on ‘investing in, and accelerating, infrastructure’, the New Deal provided an update on the Government’s Town Fund[v], a £3.6bn scheme that is intended to accelerate investment in town centres and high streets across England. The first tranche of money equates to an individual pot of about £500k-£1m per town but funding of up to £25m per town is ultimately expected from future waves of funding. At this time of gloominess this money cannot come quick enough. But what next? How will this money be spent and will projects be properly planned?

Before we focus on that, let’s remind ourselves on how the Towns Fund originated. Officially the fund emerged from a combination of two other initiatives that had been launched earlier in 2019, namely the Stronger Towns Fund and the Future High Streets Fund. The former had been introduced by Boris Johnson’s predecessor, Theresa May, with her launch speech targeting those towns with ‘glorious heritage, huge potential, and with bright futures ahead of them’. This same sentiment was pitched by Johnson himself when he launched the Towns Fund shortly after his election in July 2019. Whilst acknowledging that not everyone wanted to live in ‘our country’s great cities’, he promised to ‘start answering the pleas of some of our left behind towns’.

A formal prospectus for the Towns Fund was published in November 2019[vi]. The number of identified towns equate to a hundred, with Swindon, Bournemouth, Glastonbury, Bridgwater, Torquay, Truro, Camborne, St. Ives and Penzance representing the south west. Each of these towns has been funded to establish ‘Town Deal Boards’, authority-led partnerships that are intended to bring relevant stakeholders together. Once in place, each board is required to prepare their own ‘Town Investment Plan’ (TIP) which needs to present a vision for the town, and include action plans for delivering change over the short, medium and long term (although no specific timescales are defined).

A week before Build, Build, Build, the Government released further guidance on the Towns Fund and invited eligible towns to decide whether or not to submit their TIP by the end of July 2020 or in a later cohort, by either October 2020 or early 2021[vii]. Making such a submission will enable the towns to unlock funding. The funds continue to be justified on the basis of promoting local economic growth, but the latest document also acknowledges the impact of COVID-19 and the additional vulnerabilities and weaknesses that the pandemic has exposed across our towns. As for what the money can be spent upon, the guidance outlines six intervention themes. These include improvements to local transport, skills and enterprise infrastructure, as well as funding for the arts, culture and heritage. It will be interesting to see what comes forward given the breadth of possibilities. It is acknowledged that the fund can only go so far and the competitiveness of the programme feels somewhat wrong in these fragile times. It also remains unclear why certain towns were selected, while others were not, and I can’t help wondering what binds these places together. The guidance does talk about encouraging collaboration between the towns so I hope this joint learning is actioned. Although the further guidance mentions planning in a range of contexts, I hope planners are able to take a lead since in my view, the TIPS are essentially mini-local plans. But will they and how will the TIPs sync with plan-making and other local planning activities? By allowing planners to take a leading role, the Towns Fund can hopefully help to dispel recent narratives that have painted the planner as the ‘pantomime villain’ rather than as the un-locker of growth. I do hope the fund can fire-up some much-needed enthusiasm and creativity for pursuing a town-led ‘urban renaissance’ and I will certainly be interested in what is being planned to help bring our


[i] Prime Minister’s Office (2020) Build, Build, Build. Press Release. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-build-build-build. Last accessed 06/07/2020

[ii] Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and HM Treasury (2015) Fixing the Foundations: Creating a More Prosperous Nation. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fixing-the-foundations-creating-a-more-prosperous-nation. Last accessed 06/07/2020

[iii] Wainwright, O. (2015) ‘Osborne’s planning reforms risk creating slums of the future’. The Guardian. 10 July. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2015/jul/10/george-osborne-planning-reforms-risk-slums-house-building. Last accessed 06/07/2020

[iv] Prime Minister’s Office (2020) A New Deal for Britain. Press Release. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-a-new-deal-for-britain. Last accessed 06/07/2020

[v] Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government[MHCLG] (2019) Town Fund Prospectus. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/towns-fund-prospectus. Last accessed 06/07/2020

[vi] As above.

[vii] Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government[MHCLG] (2020) Town Fund: Further Guidance. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/towns-fund-prospectus. Last accessed 06/07/2020

Back to top