Two toots for England’s planning overhaul
为英格兰规划改革鸣笛两声
从伦敦通勤车站旁荒废的高尔夫球场出发，文章讨论让车站周边更容易建房的规划变化。作者总体赞成，同时保留对审批方式、绿带和项目可行性的疑问；乡野风景与地方商户的反应，使制度讨论落到具体生活。
原文来源：The Economist
学习目标
- 读准车站条件、距离与住房密度的限定
- 区分可释放土地、审批与实际建成住房
- 拆解插入从句、否定倒装与让步前置
- 辨认two toots、adds up与as ... as it comes的语气
中英对照阅读
KNOCKHOLT IS ALL that is right and wrong about the Home Counties. Board the train at Charing Cross in central London, and disembark 49 minutes later in the Kentish countryside. The station inspired Edith Nesbit to write “The Railway Children”, a pastoral novel, in 1905, and the landscape has hardly changed. To the north side is a golf course; to the south, an abandoned one on which proposals to build houses have been knocked back for years. Squeeze past the brambles heavy with blackberries and nightshades; the water hazards are bone dry, and the grass on the old fairways is overgrown and coarse.
诺克霍尔特浓缩了伦敦周边各郡的好与不好。 在伦敦市中心的查令十字站上车，49分钟后下车，便到了肯特郡的乡间。 这座车站曾在1905年启发伊迪丝·内斯比特创作田园小说《铁路边的孩子们》，而当地景观几乎没有改变。 车站北侧是一座高尔夫球场；南侧则是一座废弃球场，多年来，在那里建房的提案屡遭否决。 从结满黑莓、夹杂茄属植物的荆棘丛中挤过去，可以看到水障碍区已经干透，旧球道上的草疯长，粗硬杂乱。
Perhaps not for long. A new planning framework, published by the government on August 17th and effective immediately, takes aim at the Knockholts: stations on busy commuter routes found across England that are surrounded by fields or only half-developed land. They may be a fine place to walk the labrador before catching the 7.58 to the City; they are also a symptom of a restrictive planning regime known around the world as a form of pigheaded economic self-harm. Taken with other recent changes, it “adds up to the most powerful, coherent and quietly revolutionary national planning policy we’ve ever had,” says Zack Simons, a barrister.
也许这种景象不会持续太久。 政府于8月17日公布并立即生效的一份新规划框架，把目标对准了各地的“诺克霍尔特”：这些车站遍布英格兰繁忙的通勤线路，却被农田或只开发了一半的土地包围。 在人们乘7时58分的列车去伦敦金融城之前，这些地方也许很适合遛拉布拉多犬；但它们也是限制性规划制度的症状，这种制度以固执地伤害自身经济而闻名。 大律师Zack Simons说，把它与近期其他变化合在一起看，“这构成了我们迄今最有力、最连贯，也最不动声色地具有革命性的全国规划政策”。
A sweeping supply-side reform might seem improbable from a government characterised by dithering and interventionism. And for years, planning reform was seen as untouchable, given the backlash of homeowners and conservationists. To its credit, Labour has grasped it, reckoning on the support of its young and urban coalition. “I did expect more of a political backlash than we have seen,” says Matthew Pennycook, the low-drama minister responsible. He succeeded by pitching the changes as “common sense”, he says. “It is very hard to dispute that we should be building around train stations.”
对于一个以犹豫不决和干预主义为特点的政府来说，推出大范围供给侧改革似乎不太可能。 而且，多年来，考虑到业主和保育人士可能强烈反弹，规划改革一直被视为碰不得的议题。 值得肯定的是，工党抓住了这个议题，指望得到其年轻和城市支持者群体的支持。 负责此事、行事低调的部长Matthew Pennycook说：“我原本确实预期，政治上的反弹会比现在看到的更大。” 他说，他之所以成功，是因为把这些变化表述为“常识”。 “我们应该在火车站周边建房，这一点很难反对。”
The boldest steps target stations outside existing settlements served by four trains an hour, in the most productive half of the country. There, it will be possible to build within “reasonable walking distance”, or 800 metres, at a density of at least 35 dwellings per hectare (dph), typical of new estates. (Where eight trains an hour run, a minimum of 45dph applies). Lichfields, a consultancy, reckons around 800 stations are in scope and the reform could release land for 535,000-570,000 homes.
最大胆的措施针对的是已有聚居区之外、每小时有4班列车服务、且位于全国生产率较高那一半地区的车站。 在那里，可以在“合理步行距离”、也就是800米范围内，以每公顷至少35套住宅的密度建设，这相当于新建住宅区的典型密度。 每小时有8班列车的地方，适用的最低密度是每公顷45套。 咨询公司Lichfields估计，约800座车站在适用范围内，这项改革可能释放出足以建设53.5万至57万套住房的土地。
It is not perfect. Rather than attempting a more liberal American-style zoning system, the government has sought to tilt the existing system—under which local authorities balance the case for building against the potential harms—more firmly in favour of development. Accordingly, a system defined by discretionary decision-making and legal appeals will persist, says Mr Simons. Nor do the new rules automatically release land designated as “green belt” near stations, points out Paul Cheshire, a land economist. And since that land will be subject to strict housing-affordability rules, many potential sites might be economically unviable, he suggests.
这并不完美。 政府没有尝试更宽松的美式分区制度，而是试图让现有制度更坚定地倾向开发；在现行制度下，地方主管部门要权衡建设理由与潜在损害。 Simons先生说，因此，由自由裁量式决策和法律申诉主导的制度将继续存在。 土地经济学家Paul Cheshire指出，新规则也不会自动释放车站附近被划为“绿带”的土地。 他认为，由于那些土地仍须遵守严格的住房可负担性规则，许多潜在地块在经济上可能不具备开发可行性。
Mr Pennycook insists the sums add up for developers. In Knockholt, people seem resigned to more development. The golf-course development has been unpopular with some locals, says Kate Mansfield, the landlady of the Bo-Peep, a pub built in 1548, but it may also bring new patrons.
Pennycook先生坚称，开发商的账算得过来。 在诺克霍尔特，人们似乎已经认命地接受将有更多开发。 建于1548年的Bo-Peep酒馆的女老板Kate Mansfield说，一些当地人一直不喜欢高尔夫球场开发项目，但它也可能带来新顾客。
Sanjay Puri, who runs a garden-office business, says the passing traffic may bring him more trade too, even if the gardens of new homes tend to be too small for the swish outbuildings he sells. Still, “people who live in Kent like to feel that they’re separate from London,” he says, and do not want it to “become Los Angeles, where you drive for 100 miles and you’re still in the city”. Improbable as it might seem, a moment later a Spitfire thunders into view, executes a perfect barrel-roll over the golf course, and disappears behind the tree line. The land is changing; the sky will remain as Kentish as it comes.
经营花园办公用房生意的Sanjay Puri说，来往车流也可能给他带来更多生意，尽管新房子的花园往往太小，放不下他出售的那些时髦附属建筑。 不过，他说，“住在肯特的人喜欢觉得自己与伦敦是分开的”，不希望这里“变成洛杉矶：你开车走了100英里，却还在城里”。 虽然听起来不太可能，片刻之后，一架喷火式飞机轰鸣着进入视野，在高尔夫球场上空完成一个漂亮的桶滚动作，然后消失在树线后方。 地面正在改变；天空却还会保留十足的肯特味道。