Would leaving the EU, in the UK Referendum, 23rd June 2016, impact upon the UK’s natural and built e

Construction, Conservation, Collaboration?

Would leaving the EU, in the UK Referendum, 23rd June 2016, impact upon the UK’s natural and built environments?

By Nick Harper, Partner, Harper Landscape Architecture LLP, 22nd April 2016 http://www.harperlandscapearchitecture.co.uk

The High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, one of the best surviving medieval landscapes in Europe

On the 23rd June 2016 the UK Referendum on whether to stay in or leave the European Union will have been determined and the impact upon, the natural and built environment, and professionals working in these fields, will start to emerge.

Would leaving the EU have an impact upon the UK’s natural and built environments?

As a landscape architect running a small practice its important for me to understand what impacts there might be.

While the economic argument is key to the Brexit campaign it is unclear what the impacts or benefits for the natural and built environments might be and as such it is not assessed in any detail in this blog.

Sub-contracted European construction workers at the Inner Temple, London

A smoke screen for workers in central London

Here are my questions for debate and maybe some answers.

1.

Would the rights of employees and employers change with regard to freedom of movement in Europe, so that offices are less likely to employ EU employees? Are UK practices less likely to obtain work in Europe?

Mark Middleton of Grimshaws Architects, is recently quoted, in the Architects Journal, http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/home/architects-questions-over-eu-not-good-for-business/8641758.fullarticle

‘We have a lot of Europeans that work here, because we try to get the best people we can.

Leaving the EU would disadvantage us against practices in Paris and Rome that would have a wider talent pool to choose from.

‘It would be very culturally narrowing, and we would become very insular. We have grown up with the EU and the benefits are not talked about as much as the problems.

‘When we do work abroad, we always pair with a local firm because it brings a different perspective. We would lose some of that if we closed the borders.’

2.

If EU employees cease to work in the UK would we irreplaceably lose a skill base from the construction industry?

From my experience of implementing larger scale landscape design projects, construction work appears to rely heavily on EU staff, who have certain skills, and these appear to be getting rarer in the UK work force. Regarding construction, a building.co.uk article by David Blackman, 21st January 2016 quotes Arcadis’ head of strategic research and insight, Simon Rawlinson as follows,

http://www.building.co.uk/brexit-ins-and-outs/5079753.article

is quoted

“the UK should be doing more to train an indigenous construction work force. But although apprenticeship numbers are finally starting to rise, they are unlikely ever to make up for the shortfalls in an industry that has always relied on overseas labour,”

and goes on to say

“the loss of freedom of movement will impact on this industry more than others.”

Down tools time for paving construction

3.

How would leaving the EU impact upon the work that built environment practices could win? In the long term and at a national level how would opportunities currently advertised in the OJEU system be procured?

At a local level and as an example of an immediate short impact, term two of our projects have been shelved because of one district council postponing their next planning committee until after the referendum as a result of uncertainty about building houses in a high sensitivity landscape.

Red tape protecting the trees?

As regards the long term national level Ike Ijeh states in bdonline, 21st April 2016, http://www.bdonline.co.uk/would-brexit-free-us-from-ojeu-hell?/5080746.article

“Brexit would free British architects from the OJEU process – at least in the UK; it would still be required to bid for jobs on the Continent. But what impact would it have on British procurement? Would it free it from a tortuously bureaucratic strait-jacket and forge a new, liberalised UK public procurement system that was more open, fair and efficient?

or would a British OJEU merely take its place?”

Students in Greenwich, Old Royal Naval College, public realm landscape at completion

4.

Would academia be impacted?

From my experience of teaching landscape architecture at Greenwich University the number of EU students has been a high proportion. Would this scenario change and if so what loss to teaching budgets and built environment courses might occur if EU citizens cease to use UK academia? On the flip side for those UK students wanting to work in Europe or for courses that rely on an exchange system with European neighbours would they be constrained or stopped from utilising these opportunities?

Sally Guyoncourt writing in the Independent, 12th Nov 2016, quotes,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/eu-referendum-brexit-would-result-in-major-funding-blow-to-universities-and-scientific-research-a6731046.html

“For universities, the consequences of a Brexit could be dire. Universities UK claims more than 15% of teaching and research staff at Britain’s 132 universities are non-British EU nationals, including some of the most highly regarded researchers in the country.”

As much has been written on the high risks for the UK’s natural and built environments as a result of leaving the EU but little on why the Brexit campaign would be good for it, the following paragraphs, which highlight some of what has been written in the media to date, seek to offer a balanced debate.

Whilst the main political parties have embraced in-house and cross-party fighting the RIBA and the Landscape Institute the two with which I have been affiliated have to date, remained fairly quiet on the issue without taking sides. An impartial view may prove to be a sensible stance as we watch the political fallout after the election. It is also notable that the RIBA and the Landscape Institute are in it for the long haul and less subject to short-term polar policy electoral changes. However their members (me) will want an indication of impacts and should expect an impartial assessment from these (my) chartered institutes.

View from behind the hide, Jubilee River, nature conservation park

Some organisations are not sitting on the fence when it comes to taking sides. An article in the Guardian, 27th Jan 16, quotes an expert group, including past heads of the RSPB, the National Trust, the Environment Agency and Natural England who believe that EU membership has a positive effect on Britain’s natural habitat, as follows,

http://www.theguardian.com/environment

“The case is clear: we will be better able to protect the quality of Britain’s environment if we stay in Europe,”

The Wildlife Trusts, have also chosen to respond, against the Brexit campaign, with an article on their website, 22nd March 2016, quoted as follows,

http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/EU-Ref,

“The EU has the single largest body of environmental legislation in the world. The evidence shows that this has had an exceptionally positive impact on our efforts to reduce pollution, influence decisions about built development and safeguard our wildlife in the UK,”

and goes on,

“The Wildlife Trusts believe that our wildlife and habitats will be better off if they continue to

benefit from EU environmental legislation and a cross-Europe framework for nature conservation.”

As with the conjecture for all policies the effect on the environment as a result of leaving Europe, both inside and outside the UK, is unclear. It depends on how much the environment and climate policies of the UK and EU would diverge as politicians may seek to change policy to suit local UK environmental demands.

With regard to the case for leaving the EU the scant published supporting information is highlighted by Andy Painting in Wildlife Articles, 13th April 2016, where he quotes,

http://wildlifearticles.co.uk/the-eu-referendum-what-would-brexit-mean-for-the-environment/

“the Brexit campaign Leave.eu contains no reference to environmental policy, nor does the Betteroffout campaign, or Voteleave. In fact, where there should be an environmental policy from at least one of the Brexit campaigns, there is only a gaping hole. Indeed, it is a real struggle to find any published articles that make an environmental argument for leaving the EU at all, let alone a strong argument.”

With regard to the case that Brexit would be good for the environment, Dave Keating of Deutsche Well, a German organisation for international media development, 23rd March 2016, offers some further insight as follows,

http://www.dw.com/en/would-brexit-damage-the-environment/a-19131877

“Pro-Brexit campaign groups have been reluctant to talk about the environment issue.

Business for Britain, the main business association advocating for Brexit, did not return calls for comment. Nor did the pro-Brexit members of the European Parliament’s environment committee.

Former Environment Secretary Owen Patterson, a pro-Brexit Conservative, told the BBC that,

“We would do a much better job if we were outside,” he said. “We would be able to interpret the legislation, such as the Bern Convention (on wildlife conservation) to our own flora and fauna, while also being an active participant in other bodies.”

An Adder in the grass

Regarding construction, an article by David Blackman, in Building, 21st January 2016, quotes Sarah McMonagle, Federation of Master Builders as follows,

http://www.building.co.uk/brexit-ins-and-outs/5079753.articleis quoted

“The prospect of less red tape must be appealing, particularly for those smaller builders who find complying with Euro-regulations ‘quite burdensome,’

and goes on

“The requirement, under the Energy Performance in Buildings directive (EPBD), that all construction must be ‘near’ zero carbon standard by 2020 is giving small contractors particular headaches. ‘If we were not part of the EU, that would be advantageous for small house builders of whom going further could be quite problematic.”

Does this blog help to answer the 4 questions posed above?

1.

Would the rights of employees and employers change with regard to freedom of movement in Europe so that offices are less likely to employ EU employees? Are UK practices are less likely to work in Europe?

As the case for Brexit appears to be heavily linked with

immigration it is assumed that the work place would be

designed to suit a more indigenous work force and as such curb

the movement of EU citizens into the UK for work.

Assuming that this would be the case then it is quite plausible that UK citizens wanting to work in Europe might well find it more difficult to move in the opposite direction. Also if this is the case then the work place is likely to become less diverse and less multi-cultural, on both sides of the channel.

2.

If EU employees cease to work in the UK would we irreplaceably lose a skill base from the construction industry?

In the short term this is likely to be the case but as

and when indigenous workers fill the gaps (if there are

enough of them), in the long term, then perhaps not.

Currently the wage expectations of construction workers

from EU countries has been lower than their UK counterparts

and this has suited construction companies and clients who are keen to keep costs low. This may not be the case if the UK leaves Europe and construction relies more heavily on an indigenous UK work force. The re-trained indigenous UK workers are likely to expect higher wages with the consequential higher construction costs or they may go to other occupations to avoid the established lower paid work of the construction industry. While any transition takes place what might be the impacts on the tendering process be. Would companies less able to recruit lead to more tenders be declined or being more expensive and as a result would slower build programmes happen or perhaps with less red tape projects would happen more quickly?

3.

How would leaving the EU impact upon the work that built environment practices could win? In the long term and at a national level how would opportunities currently advertised in the OJEU system be procured?

By being freed from the red tape of the OJEU system the

procurement of work would occur through a new UK system which Brexit states would lead to less red tape (although this assertion

is without supporting evidence). However the accessible

market place is likely to be much smaller than that offered by the OJEU system (public projects over 100,000 euros). For those practices who currently rely on work won through the OJEU system the risk of losing work as a result of leaving the EU seems high for everyone else we await further information although it could be argued that UK work is more likely to be won by UK businesses (although there would likely be more businesses in a smaller marketplace as Europe becomes a more limited place for UK businesses to work) if the OJEU system were scrapped.

4.

Would academia be impacted?

Currently academia has many EU staff and students who are

very important to the structure of UK education. It will be more

difficult for EU citizens to live and work in the UK, particularly

on a short term basis, say for a three year degree or a short

term teaching contract. As such the risk of losing EU students

and teaching staff seems high for academic institutions. With

that comes a weakened UK educational system which would be less attractive to prospective students.

Would leaving the EU have an impact upon the natural and built environment?

Whilst little is written in favour of Brexit’s environmental policies, their argument could be put forward as follows. Much of the red tape, particularly with regard to procurement of public built environment projects, may be removed, the UK indigenous construction industry population may have greater work opportunities in the UK and environment policies could adapt to specific UK issues more easily. The campaign to stay believes that the environment is better protected by Europe, that a large marketplace of potential work opportunities will be lost by leaving and that there would be a significant loss of skilled workers, academics and students. If we believe that collaboration is key for the built environment with the inherent exchange of ideas and resources for mutual interest the campaign to stay in Europe would argue that it is counter intuitive to be considering going it alone. However the Brexit argument would counter this by saying it is futile to collaborate with the wrong collaborators.

It would appear that there is a high risk of change for the natural and built environment should the country vote to leave the EU and that this choice is not favoured by most of the environmental and built environment specialists who have written articles on the subject to date. However this may be because so far the Brexit campaign have not prepared a robust environmental argument for these groups to buy into.

It is also unclear whether any potential long term economic benefits that Brexit are projecting as a result of leaving would lead to an injection of capital for greater protection of the natural environment or to invigorate construction nor whether this benefit may have occurred by staying in Europe anyway.

In the interests of my practice I believe that being in Europe offers; greater protection of the natural environment; a more diverse and multi-cultural working and learning environment; and a larger, more accessible and collaborative marketplace.

Harper Landscape Architecture LLP Landscape Institute chartered practice

http://www.harperlandscapearchitecture.co.uk