A Government funded study by five universities into ways of helping people in suburbs to use cars less has ended up by launching an attack on brownfield-first policies and supporting low-density edge-of-town development.
The SOLUTIONS project was set up in 2004 under the leadership of Prof Marcial Echenique at the University of Cambridge "to ensure that the hundreds of thousands of houses needed in the London Home Counties and other fast growing parts of the country are part of vibrant, ‘sustainable suburbs'".
It was funded by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and specifically invited to compare car-dependent fringe estates with other development forms like high densities, new towns, or urban intensification.
But it has ended up with a range of conclusions justifying low-density development and saying suburbs are more sustainable - if they have local jobs and good bus or train services.
Four case studies were carried out on cities "experiencing high growth in their suburbs" including Cambridge and London.
Its case study of London and the wider south-east concludes there is a substantial continuing move to car travel because the current focus on brownfield development restricts house building in places where employment is growing.
"The emphasis on brownfield development ignores the fact that the employment growth does not necessary coincides (sic) with the location of available brownfield land," it says.
"Moreover usually the mere existence of the vacant available brownfield sites is precisely because of decline of employment in those areas."
It omits to mention, however, that employment does not return to brownfield-rich areas as the Government has always refused to have a brownfield-first policy for employment land.
The study says road use charging and compact development would only reduce car mileage by a small amount and, although it could reduce sprawl by 40%, it brings about a 32% increase in "crowding" and traffic noise.
On the other hand it says market-led dispersal would hardly increase traffic or energy use but would increase sprawl by 34% and this could be reduced a bit by planning expansion.
Even though it concludes that the "relatively small" differences between the options are overwhelmed by impact of socio-economic trends, it argues current planning and transport strategies have virtually no impact on resources or energy and increase costs and reduce competitiveness.
And it says although compaction has small environmental and resource benefits, it has negative social and economic impacts.
Ironically, one of the partners, University College London, has also published results of research which shows that increasing population density in settlements is actually responsible for the emergence of modern society by ensuring a critical level of interaction between people.
"Our finding that successful innovation depends less on how smart you are than how connected you are seems as relevant today as it was 90,000 years ago," said UCL's Mark Thomas.
