Micro-apartments and studios are now widespread in English cities, often advertised as offering convenient city centre living for young professionals and post-students. They have also been heralded in some quarters as an energy-efficient solution to the problem of increasing housing demand, maximising the number of units on a given site. However, some of these smaller homes are below the government's (2015) Nationally Described Space Standard of 37m2 for a single occupancy, one-bedroom dwelling. While the existence of these standards suggests these homes should theoretically not exist, they have been developed through Permitted Development Rights which allow developers to sidestep formal planning permission, as well as being permitted in situations where planning authorities feel they respond appropriately to local housing need. Yet the number and location of these small homes is not well understood; nor is there understanding of the impact of living in a 'sub-standard' sized home. While well-designed small homes may fulfil some residents' housing needs, there remain concerns that very small homes may be inadequate, negatively impacting on relationships and preventing the accumulation of personal possessions important to 'home-making'. This given, we have completed preliminary 'proof-of-concept' work in London using Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) data, matching this to other data (e.g. Price Paid Data, Local Planning Databases), showing that sub-NDSS homes account for more than one-in-ten of London's new homes, and that their number has actually increased over the last decade. This project will extend the breadth of our pilot research, exploring the wider geographies of very small homes in English cities whilst increasing depth of understanding by assessing whether small homes ever constitute adequate homes. It will do this through linked Work Packages on the production, regulation and consumption of small homes, combining the expertise of researchers from geography, computer science and legal studies who have an established track-record of publication in housing studies. WP1 will construct a national database of c.25m properties in England using EPCs as a source of floorspace data, combining this with Price Paid Data, Zoopla, local planning, and housing data. Subsequent spatial analysis of this data in three LPAs will identify the location of sub-37m2 homes at neighbourhood level, gauging their relative affordability, and assessing overall residential amenity. WP2 will explore how the homes identified in WP1 have been permitted by the planning system. Exploring questions of legality, and the often-indistinct boundaries between planning law, norms and standards, interviews with key stakeholders, combined with documentary analysis and Planning Appeal documents, will examine how ideas of housing adequacy are invoked in given circumstances, facilitating the emergence of very small homes in particular neighbourhoods. WP3 will recruit residents in small homes in three LPAs to explore how these properties are lived in, and adapted, considering residents' housing trajectories and broader aspirations. It will address liveability through innovative visual and qualitative methods that will allow us to explore the unspoken dimensions of physical space that are crucial to homemaking. Combined, these WPs will transform understanding of the national housing crisis and housing futures by identifying the causes and consequences of the production of small homes in England, addressing policy-relevant questions concerning the adequacy and acceptability of this form of housing while contributing to international debates on urban policy, gentrification and the financialisation of housing.

Cities are both major contributors to pollutant emissions and victims of poor outdoor air quality (World Bank, 2010). Poor air quality has a direct negative impact on the environment and on human health which has consequences for economic growth and social care. The World Health Organization estimates that 80% of urban residents will be exposed to pollution above acceptable levels in 2018 (WHO, 2018). Whilst the causes of poor urban air quality vary by context some issues are widespread; in Western Europe 40% of the urban pollution is caused by transport and domestic fuel burning, whilst in China this figure is between 30 and 39% (Karagulian et al., 2015). Decreasing the pollutants from housing and transport is therefore a key priority for cities (Un Habitat, 2015), yet retro-fitting cleaner energy provision to houses and supporting alternative urban transport infrastructure can be both financially costly and limiting to short term economic growth. Urban governments, therefore, need to consider policy and finance mechanisms to both fund and adapt urban housing and transport to limit localised air pollution. Successfully meeting the two topics of this call: 'reduction in adverse environmental impact of cities'; and, 'the provision of safe, affordable and sustainable housing, transportation and basic services', is contingent upon creating a dynamic and responsive relationship between taxation and funding the urban adaptations and service provision. Land value capture (LVC) promises to be a highly efficient and effective urban policy to enable the recovery and reinvestment of value arising from government enhancements to urban sustainability and livability, in particular improving air quality. When practiced effectively LVC offers the potential to instigate a longer term process of investment in the physical environment to support the creation of sustainable communities: a virtuous circle of development and investment. LVC mechanisms are extremely diverse, from the active land assembly of municipalities in the Netherlands, to the use of auctions in China and the negotiated agreement of discretionary obligations in England. Each mechanism attempts to capture a proportion of the uplift in land value from state action (whether assembly, infrastructure provision or planning permission) to reinvest in social and environmental public goods. Yet, each system has been criticized for failing to meet the demands of the 21st century's most pressing issue of delivering economic growth within a context of climatic instability (see e.g. Crook et al., 2016). Capturing a proportion of land values in the development process offers an innovative way of improving housing- and transport-induced poor air quality through investing in urban environments. To do this we will explore two issues in China, the Netherlands, France and the UK: - the impact of air quality on economic activity and quality of life - the impact of alternative land value capture mechanisms for enhancing housing and transportation The adaptation of urban environments in China and Europe is necessary to enhance air quality as a mitigating factor in climate change and improve liveability. LVC is one attractive possibility for governments to fund these adaptations and enhance the economic, social and environmental sustainability of cities. The uplift in land values achieved through planning consent, infrastructure provision and the effects of economic growth may be captured by the state using an array of LVC mechanisms.

The retail sector is crucial to the economic health and vitality of towns and cities and is a core component of the national economy, but is experiencing an ongoing period of change and the challenges faced by centres are being met in different ways, with different outcomes. Consumers are behaving, shopping and using urban centres in new and diverse ways and many retailing centres have experienced falling footfall, retailer closures and a rise in empty retail units. In an attempt to reverse the cycle of decline, centres need to be multi-functional places and policy-makers are encouraging more mixed use development. Large-scale mixed-use re-development of obsolete stock, novel temporary land uses, events and public realm works are being used to try to make urban centres more attractive and increase their competitive edge. Yet, not everyone is experiencing the benefits of these changes. Mistrust, tension and conflict can arise from land use changes and become barriers to further renewal and change, limiting the effectiveness of these "town centre first" policies. A recent ESRC-funded study undertaken by researchers at Manchester Metropolitan University blamed these tensions and lack of co-operation as significant contributors to the continued declined of retailing in many centres (Parker, 2015). This project seeks to explore one of the largest stakeholder groups within the sector. The objectives and behaviour of land and property owners, developers and investors are significant to the use and form of retailing centres. The project explores how ownership and the behaviour of this stakeholder group impact on the sector, by exploring issues around changing ownership and use patterns; innovations in design form; the ability of the industry to respond to change; and the ways the group engages and interacts with other stakeholders in urban centres. Thus, it aims to examine how their expectations, perceptions, practices and co-operation help or limit experimentation with new uses, building types and designs. The research will explore issues around: whether retailers and landlords in city centres are becoming more or less diverse; whether new design formats, flexible uses and large scale redevelopments can help struggling centres; the extent to which established practices and procedures in the real estate market encourage or even hinder new uses; and whether stakeholders can work together in better ways for the future health of town and city centres. These issues will be examined using five case study cities over the period 1997-2017: Glasgow, Edinburgh, Liverpool, Sheffield and Nottingham. The project will bring together different data that has not been available previously, to map, measure and identify any links between changes in land and building use, vacancy and ownership over the last 20 years. It will analyse and identify new developments and novel land and building uses and designs and, by talking to developers, designers, planners and occupiers, the researchers will identify the factors shaping these changes and how they impact on cities and shoppers. The project will examine established real estate market practices, such as lease lengths, rent review terms, repair obligations and use clauses to see how adaptable the industry is to change when shoppers and retailers want new and unusual property uses and forms. Finally, the researchers will talk to different centre users, managers and owners to explore how relationships might work well or badly and identify good practice for the creation of new developments and adaptions to the existing building stock to help the retail sector in cities.

There are approximately 10-12 million Roma, Gypsies and Travellers in Europe; comprising the largest ethnic minority group in the continent. The Council of Europe estimates that 300,000 Gypsies and Travellers reside in Britain; approximately 26% live on unauthorised sites, effectively homeless (a vivid recent example of the impact of unauthorised sites was at Dale Farm). Gypsies and Travellers have poor education and health outcomes (Cemlyn et. al, 2009 and Van Cleemput, 2004) and there are challenges in relation to employment (Greenfields and Ryder, 2010). They are one of the most marginalised groups in media and political debate (Richardson, 2006) and this can have an impact on planning for sites (Richardson, 2007). This social exclusion of Gypsies and Travellers has been compounded by poor access to services, a lack of political power and exclusion from decision making processes. There are also challenges ahead with the Localism Bill and changes to the National Planning Policy Framework in England that could further impact on the ability to make a place for Gypsies and Travellers (Richardson and Ryder, 2012 forthcoming). These challenges need proper debate on a multidisciplinary level with academics, practitioners, policy makers and Gypsies and Travellers themselves. This proposal makes a place for this debate through a series of three two-day seminars. The team of investigators are building upon existing working relationships through previous research projects on accommodation needs (Cemlyn, Greenfields and Richardson), proposals to examine mediation in access to healthcare (Richardson and Van Cleemput), examination of cross-cutting issues through contribution to forthcoming publication edited by Richardson and Ryder (forthcoming 2012). An initial seminar and meeting with a range of academics was held on 25th October at Buckinghamshire New University to discuss the seminar series proposal and to establish roots for this emerging research group. Whilst there are good links between a small number of academics studying Gypsy and Traveller issues, the proposal seeks ESRC funding to allow a larger, multi-disciplinary group to grow and to establish a platform for future research to help inform policy and practice. Each of the seminars will be a space for academics (including those at an early stage in their career), practitioners, policy makers, community members, Roma, Gypsy and Traveller representative organisations and politicians to come together to discuss cross-cutting, multi-disciplinary themes and ideas. The three seminars will look at: (1)Conflict in space and place (accommodation and planning issues) (2)Conflict in welfare and public service delivery (health, education, employment, social policy and policing issues) (3)Conflict in representation (political and media discourse; analysis of conflict resolution approaches) Within the three broad topic areas there will be a range of issues viewed through a central problem: How can we help provide tools to local communities and authorities to resolve conflict to enable provision of accommodation, health services, education and fairness in public debate? Conceptual questions in conflict, social inclusion and community cohesion theories will also be raised to explore issues. Whilst the seminar series is focused on Gypsies and Travellers, there will be ideas of relevance to other marginalised groups in society, and indeed other 'wicked' problems for local authorities in contentious planning and service delivery more generally. In addition to the 'End of Award' and 'Impact' reports, outputs from each of the three seminars will provide material for draft academic journal articles, as well as 'easy to read' reports for Roma, Gypsy and Traveller community members, policy makers, practitioners and other interested organisations; the pathways to impact statement also describes immediate online methods of disseminating ideas during the course of the seminar series.

This study proposes the first major investigation in the UK into the increasing involvement of private companies in carrying out professional spatial planning work formerly conducted by local government. In the postwar era, decisions about urban development were justified with the idea that state-employed planners served a unified public interest. As politically-neutral bureaucrats working in government, they stood above particular interests to serve a common good. Although this 'public interest' justification has long been challenged it remains important for professional practice. However, over the last 20 years organisational reforms (intensified by austerity) have seen some planning functions of the state devolved to local communities, while the role of the market has been expanded with the private sector increasingly delivering planning services. Nearly half of all UK Chartered Planners now work for private firms and the Government seeks to extend private sector involvement. Despite this, there has been little research on the effects of privatisation on professionalism and how the public interest is understood in planning. To fill this gap, we will focus on 3 key areas: 1. The extent and nature of private sector involvement in planning; 2. The implications of this involvement for planners' understanding of their professional role, 3. The consequences of this involvement for traditional justifications of planning activities as in the 'public interest'. The project will use: -archival work to trace how 'the public interest' is understood in planning: undertaking a history of the concept in relation to changing public/private arrangements for service delivery -focus groups, co-produced with the Royal Town Planning Institute, to provide an up-to-date account of the new public and private organisational arrangements for planning in the UK -biographical interviews, to develop reflective discussion among planning professionals on the way that these new organisational arrangements have changed their understanding and practice relating to professionalism and its role in securing the public interest -in-depth case studies of the contexts in which private sector professionals work to explore how ideas of 'professionalism' and the 'public interest' are defined and realised through the day-to-day practices and interactions of various professionals, politicians and citizens involved in local planning. It will answer five research questions: 1. How have the roles of the public and private sectors in delivering public interest planning goals changed over the post-war period? 2. Through what public/private organisational forms is planning now delivered? 3. How have professional planners working in diverse settings adjusted to changing organisational arrangements, what 'professional' work do they do, and how do they define and understand their professional identity? 4. What effects do different organisational configurations have on the ways that planning's contested public interest purposes are defined and realised, particularly in relation to the complexities of place, democracy, and local politics? 5. How can 'public service' professional labour be reimagined as a means of better realising public interest goals, and challenging dominant understandings of what public services can and should legitimately deliver? As the first empirical study of how privatisation is influencing UK planning, the project will make several ground-breaking contributions to knowledge. It will provide academics with an innovative framework for understanding how these profound changes are reshaping what it means to be a 'professional', and the nature of decision-making in the 'public interest'. Finally, it will generate debate about how professionals might better realise the public interest in the future; highlighting the potentials but also the dangers of the commercialisation of public sector work.