Town planners are well versed in the importance and challenges of infrastructure. How people travel to, from and around the built environment, for example, can be crucial to its success and the wellbeing of its inhabitants. Increasingly, however, when planners and developers talk of infrastructure we mean far more than roads, railways and pedestrianised zones. 

The term now encompasses natural capital – the free gifts of nature such as clean air, water, biodiversity and carbon sinks.

Although there has been no capital cost to build this infrastructure, unless there is capital investment in its maintenance it can be expected to fail, just as would a hospital, school or reservoir. Natural capital services are public goods in that they benefit society in general, rather than individual private interests, and as such that investment should come from the public purse.

By its very nature planning looks to the future, so the relevance of accounting for natural capital in the creation and regeneration of towns and their neighbourhoods is considerable.

For example, clean air is an undeniable public good, linking not just with health but clearly also with climate change. But to date, public investment has been on a 'what we can afford' basis and at the edges of the systems such as road transport and gas boilers that create poor air quality. Hence we have seen bus prioritisation, traffic calming, building insulation and some district heating systems. Bristol has opted for banning diesel vehicles but this is not investment, just regulation.

Prioritisation of biodiversity and the ecological value of land will also change the way development is designed and how planning applications are assessed.

So what else might go into the ideas mix?

A radical public money for public goods approach might be to make public transport in cities free at the point of use – like the NHS. Although requiring huge amounts of tax to be raised, the benefits in reducing pollution, improving health, avoiding congestion and making cities more liveable, as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions could be immense. The private effects might be households spending much less on private cars – hopefully saving more than the additional tax burden they would face.

And when it comes to delivering new infrastructure perhaps there is an opportunity to link this with reducing carbon. The problem is much of the infrastructure people want is not viable based on conventional accounting. But what if these improvements – say the electrification of a railway line that is currently diesel powered – have clear carbon benefits? Would those organisations who want to offset carbon, otherwise prepared to pay to have trees planted – maybe on the other side of the world – be open to investing in the railway instead? Perhaps green infrastructure bonds could be issued which make some conventional financial return as well as delivering carbon benefits. 

The need for a holistic discussion about carbon management is obvious, with a clear link to natural capital and how this can be best utilised in future planning and development in the UK.

Further information

Contact Savills Planning