李桢航，知名直播驻江人物及其个人资料简介

近年来，中国社交媒体的发展迅速而不可缓，这亦使得一些有影响力和吸引力的人物在网上获得更广泛的关注。其中，李桢航作为知名直播驻江人物之一，其在视频平台上的活动不仅受到广大观众喜爱，更引发了多方面的兴趣与关注。本文将介绍李桢航及他直播间的个人资料，以及其影响力和成就。

第一段：生平简介

李桢航，名字中“航”不仅表达了他对海洋的向往与热情，也反映出他在社交媒体直播驻江人物领域的深远影响力。李桢航自1995年产生于台湾，成长过来时与海洋世界紧密相连，从小就展现出了对海洋生物的异想天开以及对直播娱乐的追求。2013年李桢航创办“海洋之志”活动，并逐渐通过社交媒体将这些热情传播给更多人。

第二段：直播间成就与影响力

李桢航在网上的直播经常被视为海洋趣事的来源之一，他独特而鲜明的个性也是其受到广泛好评的重要原因之一。通过持续发布和创新内容，李桢航不仅引起了海洋游客及追随者的兴趣，而且在娱乐和教育方面也开创了前瞻性的新路径。他直播间拥有超过1000条视频数据，其影� Written evidence from Arup (LU257)

Document: Members Questions - Infrastructure and Energy Committee - Housing, Communities and Local Government

Written evidence (HL/694) © The Stationery Office 12 January 2021

Examination of Witnesses

Wednesday, 12 January 2021

Order of Questions

Mrs McIntosh:

We have heard from Transport for London and Network Rail. I would like to hear from Arup about what they think is the biggest challenge in meeting housing targets and how can we help with that?

Mr Harper (Arup):

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee, good morning. My name is Stuart Harper, a director at Arup, specialising in our London office as an advisory business for infrastructure investment opportunities across England and Wales. I would like to touch briefly on two challenges that we think are significant: one related to affordable housing targets within the local planning environment; and secondly around funding for public infrastructure improvements, particularly those focused on helping with unlocking land in the private sector as well as delivering a better quality of life for existing residents.

Affordable Housing Challenges

Arup’s perspective is that whilst there are challenges to meeting housing targets both locally and nationally, our research suggests that we need more clarity around funding sources at every level if local authorities are going to meet those targets in a timely manner. Our recent report on affordable housing highlighted two key findings: firstly, the gap between supply of deliverable land for new homes versus demand remains significant across England and Wales; and secondly, our analysis suggests that the planning system alone cannot solve this challenge without improvements to funding models and other factors such as skills gaps.

Affordable housing is a major policy driver in local plans, which are required under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF requires an affordable housing contribution of at least 35% from all new residential development that does not qualify for exceptional circumstances and up to 100% where there is a community need. This means that local planning authorities have been under pressure since the introduction of these policies in 2 Written evidence (HL/694) © The Stationery Office 12 January 2021

Arup’s recent research on affordable housing targets focused primarily on new residential development, however we acknowledge that local authorities and developers need a broader range of tools to deliver mixed tenures across the sector. The NPPF does allow for these opportunities such as cross-subsidy arrangements in developments with a mix of market and social housing; and the use of Section 106 agreements, which are cash payments made by developers that can be used to deliver a range of benefits across communities.

As you know, Section 106 is under review from both sides of the political spectrum at present. We think this demonstrates the need for more clarity and stability in terms of how such arrangements work if local authorities are going to achieve affordable housing targets effectively over time. Local plans should continue to provide clear guidance around policy objectives, but it would be helpful if the government also provided more direction on these issues.

Arup’s recent research specifically explored two case studies: one in London and another from our sister company Arup Associates in Wales. Both highlighted that affordable housing targets are often difficult to meet due to a lack of funding, particularly at the lower end of the market where local authorities would like more homes but find it hardest to source land for development.

In addition to this research on affordable housing we have been looking into other challenges facing infrastructure delivery over the last year and published three reports in October 2020 with key themes relating to climate change, data availability and skills gaps: Infrastructure: unlocking potential; A new approach for delivering green infrastructure; and Skills shortages across engineering. These issues were explored from a UK perspective but we also looked at the role of international partnerships in delivering projects abroad where local expertise may be limited, including through our sister company Arup Associates’ research into social housing development in China.

Affordable Housing Funding: Local vs Central Government Role

Our analysis highlights that affordable housing is a key policy objective for both national and local governments with the aim of delivering more homes across all tenures, particularly lower cost units at risk of becoming unaffordable to some residents. Our report on affordable housing outlined two important conclusions: firstly, there needs to be greater clarity from government around how different funding models will work going forward; and secondly, we identified the need for a more integrated approach between central and local governments with regard to affordable housing delivery, including through better use of national policy frameworks.

Arup’s research on mixed-use development in London found that while this type of development can help deliver some of the desired tenures at an appropriate price point within individual developments, there is a gap between what local authorities are seeking and where new market housing land is available. In turn this affects how affordable housing funding models work: for example if more social housing stock was built in the private sector, this could lead to greater use of Section 106 agreements or other policy levers with developers that can then be used by local authorities at scale nationally rather than locally.

In terms of what central government is doing there are already a number of policies aimed at tackling the affordable housing gap including: the National Planning Policy Framework; and through funding programmes such as Help to Buy, Right to Buy, Homes England or the Green Bonds scheme that all have an impact on new house build deliverables. However there are still a number of gaps in these approaches from central government with regard to affordable housing delivery which is where local authorities and other stakeholders such as developers need greater clarity around funding models going forward.

Mixed Use Development: Section 106 and Affordable Housing Delivery

Affordable housing targets are a key driver of new residential development across the country with many local planning policies setting minimum requirements on developments without exceptional circumstances to include affordable units as part of schemes, however we recognise that this alone cannot be enough in terms of meeting those objectives.

Our research identified a number of policy levers which could support mixed use delivery for developers and local authorities including through the more effective use Section 106 agreements; greater clarity over national frameworks to guide local plans on affordable housing contributions (including guidance around how affordability thresholds should be measured); as well as better data sharing between central government agencies such as HM Land Registry, Homes England and Local Planning Authorities.

The role of Section 106 agreements is particularly important in this context: they provide a cash-based approach for affordable housing delivery where landowners can offer to deliver offsite affordable units on site, either as part of their planning consent or at the end of its life cycle. Arup’ Written evidence (HL/694) © The Stationery Office 12 January 2021

Section 106 agreements are negotiated between central and local government based on individual schemes, however we believe that a more standardised approach for affordable housing contributions going forward could help support delivery targets over time. In our research on mixed-use development in London we found the current system can work effectively across some projects but there were challenges around consistency of funding and long term sustainability of such deals, particularly as many Section 106 agreements have a limited life cycle which could lead to new affordable units being lost over time.

We therefore recommend that central government reviews the role of Section 106 agreements in terms of supporting affordable housing targets and provide clearer national policy frameworks around how local planning authorities should apply such levers to schemes across all tenures, including a more consistent approach on how funding thresholds are measured for different levels of social rental.

In addition we would like to see central government working with Local Planning Authorities through the Delivery Test and other measures which can help provide greater transparency into affordable housing delivery going forward in local plans, including through better data sharing between agencies such as HM Land Registry, Homes England and LPAs. We also highlighted that our sister company Arup Associates’ research on social housing development in China showed the role of international partnerships with overseas developers can be critical to delivering affordable units at scale across markets where national funding models are not working effectively.

In terms of cross-subsidy arrangements for mixed residential developments we also see this as a viable approach in some situations and would recommend that central government provide clarity on how local authorities can apply these levers to their planning policies if they choose to do so, including the impact on affordability thresholds.

Affordable Housing Funding: Challenges for Local Authorities

Arup’s research also highlighted challenges around funding models and skills gaps across local authorities which could limit new residential delivery in some areas of London and Wales where there is demand, but a lack of affordable land to develop. The impact on housing targets can be seen clearly as our recent work looked at mixed-use development sites in central London (in particular around Canary Wharf) and the Welsh Government’s £10m grant scheme for social homes in Wrexham County Borough, where we found that while there is a demand for more affordable units within these locations, it can be difficult to source enough land at an appropriate price point for development.

Our report on affordable housing outlined two important conclusions: firstly, clarity from government around how different funding models will work going forward and secondly the need for a more integrated approach between central and local governments with regard to affordable housing delivery, including through better use of national policy frameworks.

In our research in London we found that while mixed-use developments can help deliver some of the desired tenures at an appropriate price point within individual sites, there is still not enough available land for new development where it most needed and this gap between demand and supply cannot be closed through Section 106 agreements alone. We would therefore like to see greater clarity from central government on how they will work with local authorities going forward in terms of affordable housing policy delivery, including national frameworks which provide guidance on the use of Section 106 levers at scale across different markets and locations within London where there is a high demand for social tenures.

While we recognise that this type of funding model can work effectively in some areas such as central London and Wrexham, it also highlighted challenges around the long-term sustainability of these projects over time which could lead to new affordable units being lost if Section 106 agreements are not renewed.

In our report on mixed residential development in London we would recommend that central government support local authorities going forward with funding and skills enhancement programmes, particularly as land is scarce at some locations where the highest demand for new housing exists to meet affordability targets (and Section 106 levers are not enough). A more strategic approach across local plans could help provide greater clarity on how government should support delivery in areas with high demand over time.

In terms of skills gaps, we found that there were limitations across the sector where planning teams lacked capacity to carry out Section 1 Cooking meat at lower temperatures is known to be a more effective strategy than cooking it thoroughly to prevent foodborne illnesses caused by pathogens like Salmonella. However, an important question has remained largely unanswered: how does the process of cooking influence microorganisms that are naturally present in our gut?

A new study published this week (August 14) in mBio, the online open-access journal of the American Society for Microbiology, finds that a common foodborne pathogen and beneficial probiotic bacterium—Salmonella Typhimurium and Lactobacillus plantarum, respectively—have different responses to lower cooking temperatures.

The study was led by a team of researchers at the University of California (UC) Davis School of Medicine and Center for Food Animal Health: Sally Miller, professor in the Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Cell Virology; William Fagan, senior scientific associate with the UC-CSF Program on Reproductive Research; and Christopher Heining, PhD candidate in biomedical sciences.

Previous research has shown that cooking foods to an internal temperature of at least 160°F (72°C) effectively reduces pathogens like Salmonella. However, the same methods do not seem to reduce non-pathogenic bacteria by much in meat and poultry products.

"The general public is concerned about both foodborne illnesses caused by microorganisms that are present on raw foods as well as antibiotic resistance," Miller said. "We have shown here for the first time that cooking has a very different effect on these bacteria."

Miller and colleagues previously showed that Lactobacillus plantarum (Lp) survived better in the presence of low levels of antibiotics than Salmonella Typhimurium. With this information, they decided to test whether cooking would affect the two bacteria differently.

The researchers cultured both organisms on meat that was then exposed to lower (85°C) and higher (160°C) temperatures for a longer time than conventional methods of food preparation (one hour). They found significant differences between Lp, which survived the heat exposure with little damage; and S. Typhimurium, which was severely damaged by the same conditions.

"What this study shows is that cooking affects bacteria in different ways," Miller said. "It also suggests that cooking at lower temperatures may be better for maintaining gut health."

Following up on these findmun, the researchers are planning to expand their studies by examining other probiotics and pathogens, as well as evaluating how heat treatment affects bacteria in food. They will also investigate whether cooked Lactobacillus plantarum survives longer in poultry products than when grown on meat alone.

This research was funded by grants from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and a grant from Nestle Vitalittä, Finland. Miller holds joint appointments at UC Davis Center for Food Animal Health; and Waisman Center for Human Ecology, Milbank Memorial Fund, Inc., and Institute of Microbial Technology in India.

Source: American Society for Microbiology (news : web)