Sydney and Brisbane – Low carbon anytime soon?

Australia, with a population similar to the greater south east of England and the Netherlands – or half the size of England in one and a half decades into the future – may be one of the least energy efficient nations on earth.

Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane together account for half of the population, all with a fraction of the gross densities of cities such as Amsterdam, Berlin and London. Except for the innermost municipality areas (boroughs) of the two former – accounting for 1 in 25-30 of the inhabitants of either city – with 80, 40, 9 (net), 50, 60 and 70 inhabitants per hectare gross respectively.

Four challenges faced nationwide in both urban, suburban and rural areas are: Average homes sizes being the second largest in the world at almost 200 sq metres. The number of cars per capita being the third highest in the world after the US and New Zealand. The proportion of parents driving their children to school. And a majority of employers offering free car parking for their employees – sometimes in highly accessible locations and town centres.

This article sets out seven priorities that could maybe halve Sydney and Brisbane energy use and carbon emissions within a few decades – the former with two or three city centres, Sydney Harbour, Parramatta and the just announced South West Creek, the former and latter 50 km apart.

1_ Low carbon row housing town centres
New housing suburbs are somewhat old fashioned – with their endless two or three car household bungalows – a twenty century solution for the twentieth first century. When maybe half of households would be happy in semi dense walkable neighbourhoods. With two or three storey terraced, row or town houses or two or three storey semi detached (twin) houses. Especially if located within long walking distance of walkable apartment neighbourhoods with ground floor mixed uses – for shopping, services, leisure, crafts, co-working – and a train or tram station at their centres.

Present day Sydney is particularly relevant, as the model for new neighbourhoods within a kilometre or a mile radius of a new train or tram station already exists in the inner western suburbs of Sydney. With its mixture of dwelling types and sizes – apartments, terraced bungalows and town houses – small businesses, parks, craft, retail, civic and commercial services and activities.

Constructing apartments within half a mile radius or 200 ha gross area of a station, row housing within the next half a mile radius or 600 ha, and semi detached and detaches houses within the next half a mile radius or 1100 ha further out. The former two should generate enough footfall to support mixed use ground floors throughout the mixed use apartment neighbourhoods.

At 50 and 25 units per hectare gross (including roads), the two former could accommodate up to 5k and 8k dwellings respectively. With 30k inhabitants within a mile radius or 8 sq km of a station. Or 44k inhabitants within 1.5 mile radius or 19 sq km. If half the land is residential, one sixth parks, one sixth civic and one sixth commercial. With car parking either underground or as curbside perpendicular and longitudinal residential parking along side streets. Saving energy and land – reducing emission, distances, travel times and commuting – easing daily life, mobility and logistics.

The above example contrast somewhat with the newly announced town of South West Creek, near the planned Sydney western airport, where a similar amount of inhabitants – 30k – will be housed in an area twice the size of the above example – 15 sq km rather than 8 sq km.

As for accommodating another 4.5 million inhabitants or 2 million households by the middle of the century in Sydney. If half were to live in apartments or row housing, and half of them in mostly new greenfield areas. There would be a need for 16 new train or tram station towns within one mile radius of apartments and row houses. Together these 16 towns can accommodate half a million households or one million inhabitants within long walking distance or a mile radius of the station. Providing the 200 ha mixed use apartment neighbourhoods with enough inhabitants to support a vibrant social, civic and commercial scene and life.

2_ Multi-use ground floors and parks
Nurseries, services, craft and light industries could increasingly be located on the ground floor of apartment buildings throughout near station areas of the two cities. Including workshops, studios, co-work places and pre-school nurseries in apartment blocks adjacent to parks. Nurseries sharing the use of a communal garden within the block or the adjacent local park during the day. In new near station areas, a mixed use local or larger park could be provided for every 8 or 10 surrounding blocks in medium and higher density areas. Large enough to be used by a large nursery during the day, a sports court for adults in the evening, and all local inhabitants young and old alike at the weekend.

3_ Low carbon homes, commercial and civic buildings
Most of existing homes of the two cities are lower carbon, so turning them into zero carbon should be possible for the great majority of homes. Electronically controlling solar gain and natural ventilation by more shading during the summer months and more glazing during the winter months goes a long way. As for new apartments, they should all be able to rely on convection cooling during the summer months by including adequately sized and located vertical ventilation shafts.

Most new and some existing commercial and civic buildings have a great potential for being mostly cooled and ventilated by convection. As for existing buildings, controlling solar gain during the summer and winter months goes a long way in converting them to lower carbon. Introducing a requirement – similar to that in Switzerland – for all windows to have external sun shading should be implemented within a year or two.

4_ Low carbon e-mobility
Daily commuting to work, nursery, for shopping, education or leisure is complicated in both almost entirely suburban cities. Further complicated by fact that the population of Sydney is estimated to double to 9 million – on par with present day London – and Brisbane to a third of Sydney's size within half a century.

A dozen major high streets and a dozen selected shopping, service, retail and leisure centres as well as all Westfield's in both cities could be more readily accessible by e-bikes. Equipped with e-bike charging points, e-cargo shared bikes, and encircled by e-bike and bike priority routes within a two mile radius. Maybe increasing five to ten fold the proportion of e-biking and cycling customers and visitors within a decade.

In both cities e-cycling could further change the status-quo, with segregated e-bike lanes. With priority at junctions, against one-way streets, with e-bike parking and bikes on off-peak and non-radial transit routes. Including innovative provisions within a two to three mile radius of the three to four dozen top frequency/connected train stations in both cities.

5_ Low car traffic city and town centres
Restricting car traffic within the inner cities could evolve travel behaviour, limiting the car to predominantly suburban to suburban trips. For example by introducing congestion charging similar to that in Singapore and Scandinavia, evolving from the present per motorway mileage. Further, neither city are on an island like Manhattan and both cities are built on solid rock making tunnelling and bypassing traffic possible. In Brisbane there is already a 2 x 5 km triangular shaped motorway network surrounding the centre. Potentially allowing most traffic to bypass the centre if the majority of the inner city's inhabitants, commuters and visitors alike chose to travel there without their cars.

In Sydney, a similar 4 x 8 km rectangular network is partly planned, partly being built – but strongly resisted by the central municipality. Maybe because some neighbourhoods will be left with more traffic or because some inhabitants will be left with expensive tolls. Why the municipality is unwilling to shut side streets to retain traffic levels at present or even lower levels is unclear. Particularly as the majority of their inhabitants will probably benefit, but only if bypassing the centre is financially cheaper than entering it. Congestion charging external drivers more for crossing the motorway ring than staying on it or outside it is possible. But charging inner city inhabitants only when crossing the motorway ring – as in Singapore and Scandinavia, but unlike in London.

Combining congestion charging with increased restrictions on non-residential and residential car parking; shutting side streets outside peak hours and at weekend; rewarding, e-bike, e-cars and e-vans financially; and introducing widespread car sharing are four supplementary possibilities. The latter offering a valuable alternative for car ownership in one person households or a second car in two person households. Both within and a few miles outside the motorway rings around the inner cities – to promote an alternative to public transport for both for radial on non-radial travel and commuting.

The four supplementary possibilities should also be introduced in a few dozen higher density areas and town centres throughout the outer suburbs of the two cities. To better shelter mixed use commercial and residential urban neighbourhoods. Improving quality of life for inhabitants. And make it more attractive to live, grow up and retire there for families, couples as well as singles – young and old.

6_ Commuting and transit rethink
Reducing car commuting proportion from three quarters to a half by increasing e-biking and public transport would reduce emissions the most. The latter would be easier with more bus lanes, bus stops a third of a mile apart, increased priority of non-cars at junctions, easier identified routes, improved information at bus stops and inside buses, service guarantees and refunds.

Both cities can also learn from Brisbane's network of underground bus tunnels; The Hague's and San Francisco's underground tram lines; Copenhagen's automatic circular metro; Stockholm and Paris' orbital tram lines; Up to 24 trains per hour on London Crossrail, Thameslink, Paris' RER C and 30 tph on RER A; Berlin S-bahn's 10 and 20 min frequency; Madrid's multitude of train and metro tunnels through solid rocks deep into the suburbs; 55m long and 300 passenger trams in Budapest.

Generally, maybe as much as one quarter of new transit investments are too low capacity, one quarter is years or decades ahead of demand, one quarter would benefit from a different alignment, and only one quarter is meeting and balancing demand and supply nicely. The three former are sometimes possible to avoid, sometimes not – depending on political, financial and forecasting possibilities and constraints.

Some possibilities that maybe deserve further study in Sydney are: Bus tunnels under Neutral Bay and Surrey Hills; A rail loop connecting UNSW and Randwick to Bondi Junction and Green Square; Extending the western tramline north and northeast towards Chatswood, Frenchs Forest and Dee Why and south towards Wolli Creek to connect it to six radial train lines, from two only at present. Increasing the number of trains through the centre from 16+18/20+16 trains per peak hours long the three present lines to 24+24/24+24+24 with an addition line would increase capacity by two thirds.

7_ Renewable energy and construction
Net carbon free electricity is possible by 2050 or 2060 if solar and wind is expanded to replace coal as the main source of electric according to some. Whether this goal includes converting cars, vans, lorries and buses to electricity is unclear at present. Similarly, there is little mention of whether to replace natural gas use with solar or wind for heating water, pools and buildings.

Reducing the carbon footprint of the construction sector is another necessity – amounting to one quarter of carbon emission nationwide at present – if global warming is to be reduced to less than 1.5C. Use of concrete and steel is carbon intensive, and its use increases proportionally with the height of a building. Very high density urban and very low density suburban areas are also more carbon intensive, the former with its multitude of partly underground services, and the latter with its high proportion of meters of roads per households.

A blue-green grid for all Londoners

London's blue and green assets more accessible, better linked and better managed
London has a fantastic collection of parks, woods, commons, rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, lidos, playgrounds, sports pitches, playing fields and golf courses. In inner London, many of the largest parks, the Thames and the smaller public gardens and squares are typically close to where many local people live, close to tube and train stations, along busy bus routes and readily accessible by bicycle. In outer London by comparison, the green assets are typically larger, but sometimes less accessible and frequented.

But can more be done to open up the blue-green grid to more people? Can more inhabitants easier access the grid in their adjacent neighbourhoods? Can more families, the elderly and singles access the grid without having access to or owning a car? Can more children enjoy the blue-green grid more often? Can more young, middle aged and elderly access the grid for both organised and unorganised sports – as well as informal physical and social activities? And can the grid play a bigger part in reducing social isolation among singles – whether young, parents, adults, elderly, the sick, infirm, long term unemployed or inactive?

This article explores some of the strengths and the weaknesses of the blue-green assets of London, and presents nine primary objectives for how the grid can be further developed, expanded, enhanced, linked and accessed. The article coincides with a London Assembly report on green spaces, the mayor's draft London Environmental Strategy, the London National Park City initiative and Public Health England announcing that 2 in 5 middle aged adults exercise less than ten minutes a month.

Beach volleyball at Gleisdreieck in Berlin. An inter-generational neighbourhood meeting place.
Free to participate, free to watch. With adjacent coffee, beer, pizza huts

An urban blue-green renaissance 
This article has argued that London and Londoners can turn their city into a truly blue-green sustainable city by pursuing nine overall strategic objectives enhancing the city's blue and green assets and infrastructure.

Cycling is at the heart of this transformation, including link- ing existing blue-green assets to form a green grid for weekday commuters and weekend recreation alike. The number of regional parks and proportion of publicly accessible metropolitan greenbelt land will double and all public footpaths transformed to mixed-use paths. Nursery playgrounds, sand pitches and sport courts will be added to most parks, squares, gardens and all along both sides of the river Thames.

These and the river, side rivers, streams, canals, basins, lakes and ponds will have an enhanced role in promoting social and physical well being, including turning the former into a national riverside activity park. Four new green viaducts for bikes, buses, DLR/tram/trains and pedestrians will bridge riverside communities in eight eastern boroughs closer together.

The nine primary objectives would be delivered by the Mayor of London, the 32 London boroughs, the surrounding sixteen districts and seven counties together. With parliament adopting changes to greenbelt and footpath legislation.

• A blue-green grid for all Londoners 3p pdf 
• PiL 103/2017

Lisboa, Toulouse and Bordeaux – Zero carbon due anytime soon?

Toulouse and Bordeaux 'metropoles' are two semi large cities in the south west of France. The two cities are similar in size and structure – with a dense urban core and vast low density suburbs – partly reflecting urban ideas of half a century ago still implemented.

The two cities have 750-710.000 inhabitants on 465-580 sq km, or 16-12 inhabitants per hectare respectively. According to the below figure, only Brisbane has similar low densities (gross). The two cities each extend geographically approximately one third of London and one half of Berlin, but have only one twelfth and one fifth of the two latter cities' inhabitants.

Maybe one half of the historic buildings in the two city centres are stunningly restored or maintained, with one city being typically red brick set in light coloured cement and the other city typically sandstone. The latter city's skyline benefits from no obvious tall(er) buildings. While the other city contains smaller rundown central areas. Both cities benefit from vast student numbers, with many students living and/or studying in or near the centre, generating a considerable amount of social and economic suburban life.

Net densities shown in green, gross in blue. Lisboa is similar to Stockholm and Amsterdam. Toulouse and Bordeaux are similar to City of Brisbane. Sydney Eastern City = 9 of 32 boroughs

Lisboa
Lisboa is a city comparable in size to Copenhagen/Malmö, with densities in the four inner municipalities (1m inhabitants on 200km2) comparable with Stockholm, Amsterdam and Sydney Eastern City. A dense inner city of 4x4 km is mostly surrounded by mid-density suburbs, where car is king both in the suburbs and the centre. Car ownership per household in Portugal is just below the EU average, but car commuting is the default rather than the exception in the capital. The dual and triple road and motorway system is very extensive, a small proportion with tolls.

E-bike_ Bike commuting accounts for maybe less than a tenth of a percentage – not a surprise as only e-bikes can mount the may hills – but in contrast to San Francisco. This could change – e-bike only commuting or in combination with metro or train – a trend seen in Inner London – where soon more people may commute by bike than by car.

Metro_ The three metro lines and the one orbital train line cover half the inhabitants in the inner 100 km2 area only. While the radial train lines serve selected communities along the three lines in the outer 100 km2 area, one at 10 or 20 min frequency. Covering a mid-density city by metro is challenging, maybe best proven in Amsterdam, where most of the city is served by trams not metro, in combination with a dense system of double deck trains.

Suburbs_ Stockholm and Copenhagen are two exceptions, where the post-war suburbs are typically located within walking or short cycling distance of stations along the T-banan and S-tog. These suburbs are typically a combination of apartments, retail and services near stations and dense row houses a little further away. In contrast to Lisboa where post-war detached suburban housing dominates – and most apartments blocks, retail and services are located almost randomly. Providing badly for inhabitants, pedestrians and cyclists alike – without short direct or shaded pavements, bike or pedestrian routes.

Inner city_ Lisboa could turn around it's 4x4 km inner city, allowing e-cars and e-vans only entering from inner and outer suburbs – requiring non-residents to travel by e-bike, metro, train, bus or tram. Increasing frequency and capacity, and separating bus/tram lanes from other traffic. Business may as a result relocate closer to high frequency public transport stations – maybe a long term win-win for all.

Orbital lines_ The existing 12 km inner orbital train line has the greatest potential for further retail centres and high intensity office developments. Especially if a high frequency orbital services closed the missing 2 km link along the seafront with a station at Praça do Comércio. And if the planned extension of the red metro line in the northwest also extend southwards, creating a 18 km outer orbital line from Oriente to Algés. Both orbital lines with dedicated bike carriages especially designated for bike and e-bike commuting.

We are spending the summer in Berlin, London, Oslo and elsewhere, maybe cycling along a river or a coast somewhere near you. Happy holiday!

Three times sustainability

Ecological sustainable_ It is unclear what ambitions the two cities have to mitigate the ecological footprint they generate locally and globally. Some new housing areas near tram routes have reduced stationary energy use, but their layout, location and gross density require most households to have access to a car to get to local shops and services.

Zero carbon_ Turning the two sprawling cities to zero carbon requires a mammoth effort and radical changes to the life of their inhabitants, workers and visitors alike. Zero carbon living, production and transport require homes and gardens to be shrunk, employees to live closer to work, and cars to be abandoned for e-bikes and public transit.

Economically sustainable_ The two cities are average economically sustainable as far as relative and change in employment levels are concerned (2007 to 2016). Both cities rely on producing and exporting goods and services from companies in low density and car intense suburbs. Craft apprenticeship levels are low in France, as most young people rely on academic rather than vocational education. If apprenticeship levels equalled levels in Germany, youth unemployment would maybe be half.

Commuting_ One aspect of the complexity of the two cities is that jobs are located randomly throughout the suburbs, including very large firms, sometimes adjacent to the main road network but away from transit corridors. As such, most people are required to commute by car, and only e-biking may change this. As the suburbs are too sprawling, and most roads too congested during peak hours, for traditional cycling and high capacity and frequency transit. In the long term, job intensive firms and organisations may gradually move closer to transit corridors.

Social sustainable_ Both cities offer very high quality living for maybe half their inhabitants. These are either (very) well off baby boomers, pensioners, families with children or young adults – with a permanent job and either a low rent apartment or an owner occupied dwelling. However, a large minority struggle, either because of children or parent responsibilities, expensive housing, and no job or a low paid job.

Turning the two cities into socially sustainable urban areas require the baby boomers to let go of some of their privileges, including high pensions, cheap social rents and low interest mortgages. Pensioners with debt free owner occupied dwellings with above average pensions are particularly privileged.

Environmental & ecological ambitions

Solar and wind_ It is unclear what ambitions the two cities have on becoming self sufficient with energy – electricity, gas, petrol and diesel included. There are either hills or ocean near either city to generate sufficient wind power and enough sunshine and fields to generate sufficient solar power. So both cities could be self sufficient, transport and production included, throughout the year.

The gendarmery west in one city is exemplary retrofitted with new windows and roller shutters neatly into its century old facade, reducing energy use considerably. But this is unusual, as buildings typically require energy for both heating and cooling.

Blue green_ Even though both cities share the same river – the Garonne – their approach to opening the city to the river differs. Maybe partly because the river is tidal in one and the other has several weirs. The former city has two free swimming lakes easily reached by tram, although signs state swimming is banned. The latter could maybe learn from Basel, Bern and Zürich, where outdoor swimming is widespread despite strong currents and cooler water.

Cycling almost king_ The cycling infrastructure in the two cities is extensive. A segregated cycle corridor along to the orbital rail line in one city could open up endless possibilities of e-bike commuting, including suburb to suburb trips. This city also has an extensive cycle network that reaches for tens of kilometres out of the city, mostly on former branch goods train lines. However, commuting by bike during peak hours is challenging in both cities without more road space prioritised and physically segregated from vehicles – both stationary and moving – centrally, radially and in the suburbs.

Bordeaux. A typical street scene with sandstone clad buildings of varying heights, ground floor diversity, stunning street surfaces, bollards, bikes ... and utility works. 

Public realm costs & complexity

Both cities typically present stunning streets scape with beautifully designed and executed public realm. The choice of materials is expensive and many of the designs and executions lend themselves poorly due to streets being dug up maybe every five years on average by a utility company. Further, a more neutral, simple and standard design would maybe give more prominence to the often stunning buildings and would be easier to maintain.

Switzerland and Paris typically use asphalt, laid to a very high standard, with the former supplemented with a lot of flowers, and the latter with high quality and mostly one single standard of street furniture. Berlin uses one single street and tree scape standard throughout the city – urban, suburban mixed use, residential and industrial areas included – very well and easily maintained and replaced by utility companies. Always overlaid with temporary asphalt along building sides.

Toulouse has typically curbless city centre streets with endless high bollards, with unpredictable speed and priority rules. Whilst Bordeaux has retained curbs of varying heights and designs and more predictable speed and priority rules, except where they change throughout the day. Both cities use remotely controlled bollards to keep cars out of central neighbourhoods. But the amount of car traffic is still considerable in many pedestrian and shared streets, and cars, motorbikes and bikes proceed at unpredictable speeds and directions throughout most of the centres. In Amsterdam by contrast, cars are typically designed out through a maze of car lanes – physically separated from the more direct bike lanes – with more predictable priority, speed and parking rules.

Service & retail sprawl

French towns and cities have typically protected their centres from post war redevelopment and retained residential apartment buildings. But rather than locating most larger retail on the peripheral of the historic centre, retail and services are typically located randomly throughout the (outer) suburbs. With unclear long term thoughts on how the centre and the suburbs function as a whole. In contrast, the dominance of large surface superstores is reclining in the UK, and has never taken less hold in Germany, where smaller (discount) stores are typically located within walking distance of households within the denser city.

The two city centres have an endless number of smaller boutiques for the (upper) middle class to enjoy, as well as endless drinking, eating and cultural establishments catering for locals and tourists alike. However, the total number of smaller establishments appear relatively high, and both centres would maybe benefit from a bigger share of larger shops typically located in the suburbs.

GSG Pankow. A new light industrial estate in the suburbs of north Berlin. In contrast to typical post-war suburban sprawl – this is urban high density in an suburban neighbourhood – two to four times denser than elsewhere.

E-mobility revolution due?

City centres_ Both city centres are very car intensive, despite almost excellent bike, bus, tram, traffic calming and free P&R, as well as an automatic metro in one city. However, decision makers and the suburban elite embrace their (luxury) cars and the extensive but expensive underground parking facilities – many of which are located deep into (semi) traffic calmed central neighbourhoods – adding to the gridlock.

Both city centres are very intensively used. One maybe a little more than the other, maybe because of more tourists, its larger size, fewer bridges crossing the river and only one inner ring road. The other centre is a little less intense, maybe because of more bridges and two inner ring roads.

Suburbs_ Most adults cannot typically remain mobile without a car, either to get to work, shops, nursery and/or school. It is hard to see how the car culture may change in the near future. Not least because the suburbs are sprawling with retail facilities, light industry, logistics and offices, typically along peripheral roads. And sometimes more intense the further out one gets from the centre.

Further, because of the sprawling suburban housing neighbourhoods, including apartments, where distances are just a little too long or maze-like to walk. Similarly, both cities have extensive areas of detached housing with generous gardens and swimming pools. Maybe in contrast to neighbouring countries, where suburban housing is typically denser and more transit orientated. Shifting to electric vehicles may not in itself change the status quo.

Transit_ The transit systems in Bordeaux and Toulouse account for one in five and one in four journeys respectively. With further investment in the transit systems and a one half increase in capacity – one in three or more journeys could be by transit.

Bike commuting_ Cycling levels are high in both centres, but low in the suburbs. In contrast to Berlin, where one in four commute by bike (almost half a million people daily), a doubling from one in eight during the last fifteen years. If residents embrace e-cycling rather than car ownership and use in the future, particularly in the suburbs, car use could fall, be less accommodated and/or encouraged within a decade. Especially if households typically sacrificed one of their many cars and replaced it with two e-bikes.

London
We are approximately halfway between Tower Bridge and Canary Wharf, with 300º uninterrupted views clockwise from south-west to south-east – halfway between Bermondsey and Rotherhithe stations – close to the Norwegian, Swedish and Finnish churches, Southwark park and Canada Water.

Where we can cycle off-road east along both sides of the river towards Greenwich, Woolwich, City Airport and the North Sea; north along the Lee and Regent's Canal canals towards Victoria Park, London Fields, Angle, Stratford and Hertfordshire; and west and north-west along the river and the Grand Union canal towards Oxford and Birmingham.

Is the death and resurrection of London's high streets due?

Life in Britain has changed extensively over the last 70 years since the end of the second world war. However, it is unclear whether the town centre high streets have caught up with the twenty-first century post car urban era. This article argues that urban Britain may have to change further before the four nations embraces the town centre high street of the future.

But why this rather sorry state of affairs in London and elsewhere? Who failed at what time? How has this been allowed to go on for so long? What can the next generation do differently? Not least by learning from our adjacent northern European and North Sea neighbours – the Scandinavians, the Dutch and the Germans. And is London performing better or worse than elsewhere in Britain?

London's two hundred high streets
The town centre high street of the future in London and Britain should be about denser living, catering for nearby mixed use and residential neighbourhoods of denser and smaller households – for the young, adults and the elderly. High streets that should first and foremost cater for households that go about their daily life, chores, routines and activities by foot, bike or e-bike – without the need of a car for typical daily local journeys.

Similarly, town centre high streets of the future should differ from suburban edge of town high streets. Reflecting the different needs and characteristics of smaller urban town centre households versus large suburban edge of town households – and how the two differ in going about their daily lives and their daily travel.

View from our bedroom halfway between Tower Bridge and Canary Wharf, close to Southwark park, Bermondsey, Rotherhithe, Canada Water and Surrey Quay stations, and the Norwegian and Finish churches. Across from Whapping, Limehouse and Shadwell basins, where we swim in the latter during the late summer.

• Is the death and resurrection of London's high streets due? 3p pdf
• PIL 101/2016