Thursday, 10 July 2014
They say that those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it – and so it goes with road building.
Blowing a thick layer of dust off plans that have already failed several times, an A27 Action group has now formed to promote major road expansion across
Sussex. This seems supported by a s so-called evidence gathering exercise is
now being rushed through by Department for Transport. This will effectively tell us where the
traffic jams are (I thought we already knew that!); this skewed exercise – only investigating
traffic and only asking about road constraints - is designed to come up with
the answer of more roads.
We’ve been here before – many times.
That proposed roads will damage the environment is unarguable. Likely outcomes include devastation of ancient woodland, construction of dual carriageways through the National Park and the ignoring of climate change implications. At a time when we should be enhancing our natural environment, rebuilding our natural prosperity and achieving major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, these proposals simply take us in the wrong direction.
Other lessons forgotten from history include the point that roads like this do not even achieve the narrow objectives set by their proposers. The “predict and provide” approach of yesteryear has re-emerged on the naïve basis that if you predict where the traffic jams are going to be, expand the roads at those points then all the problems will magically disappear.
The opposite tends to be the case. New roads generate new traffic. Even in the unlikely event that the current traffic hot-spots might be eased, the effect of this will be to draw more traffic into the area generally. More traffic through the lanes and villages of the National Park, more traffic and congestion in the cities, towns and villages along the A27 corridor. Another turn of the treadmill with the following demands for yet more road building.
The reason for this is obvious. If any one of us thinks that traffic jams are a little less likely then we will simply use our cars a little more often. This phenomenon of generated traffic is well-known, although seems to be forgotten in current plans.
The pity here is that there are some in the economic sector that seem unable to think at a strategic level. We live in a small, heavily populated county. Transport will always be constrained. Building an economy on the principle of moving more goods and people over longer distances will always be a vulnerable economy. Instead we should be looking to the already good work being done to massively improve energy and resource efficiency, far greater use of IT and digital technology and far better integration of transport with planning.
Approaches like this, and many others, should aim to deliver environmental prosperity and economic growth in ways that reduce the need to travel. Setting us off in the wrong direction yet again is just a distraction from the sort of progress we should be looking for.
Monday, 23 June 2014
I had the privilege of attending a packed meeting last Friday, organised by LAMBS, in opposition to the new town that a developer is proposing in the countryside outside Henfield. Around 500 people crammed into a large hall in Burgess Hill to express their concerns.
The panel of speakers included Arundel and Downs MP,
Herbert; Mid Sussex MP, Nicholas Soames; Mid Sussex District
Councillor, Norman Webster; Hosham District Councillor, Brian O’Connell;
Founder of LAMBS, Anthony Watts WilliamsDr Roger Smith, Sussex CPRE, Kenneth
MacIntosh from Hands Off Henfield and I was there too.
It was an excellent meeting, giving a very clear message to these predatory developers and I recommend that you read Jane Simmons piece about the meeting on the LAMBS website.
There was, however, one thing we did not have time to delve into. We did not really question the propaganda that is constantly promoted by developers.
We all know the story. We need houses, the environment is a block on development, and all these protesters are just being NIMBYs by preventing people getting homes! The constant line we are fed is that there is a lack of capacity – not enough homes, we must build more and governments are judged on how many houses they build.
But simple answers to complex problems are always wrong.
Let’s have a look at a few statistics.
If this lack of capacity was true then we would expect to be seeing increasing numbers of people being crammed into ever smaller houses. The truth, however, is the opposite.
About 10 years ago there was an average of 2.4 people per house. Today there is an average of 2.3. The drive for more house building is largely a result of fewer people living in each house. Broadly, what seems to be happening is we are spreading the same number of people into a larger number of houses.
To take this to a ridiculous extreme you can project this continuous decline of the number of people per house into the future. If you do this you get to a point in 230 years time where there is nobody living in any houses no matter how many you build!
A mindset based on predict and provide has obvious shortcomings.
We seem to accept, unquestioningly, that we need more houses so that young families, in particular, will have somewhere to live in the future. Yet building more houses alone does not solve the problem. We just end up with fewer people per house and those young families can still not find a home.
There are far more complex issues at work here requiring social, economic and political answers – why are people needing homes not able to get them whilst others are able to spread into more houses? Gritty problems way outside the remit of a Wildlife Trust, but problems our politicians should be addressing. We are being deflected in a “homes versus the environment” argument as an alternative to finding more complex solutions. This deflection benefits no one except the development industry.
We have become obsessed with housing numbers because of the “frame” of the argument, set by developers to their own advantage. If we spend all our time arguing about who can build most houses and where we are going to put them, then developers do very nicely out of it!
In practice, as ever, the environment is used as a scape-goat. Instead of addressing socio-economic problems driving a lack of homes we vaguely hope that destroying a bit more environment in order to build a new town will somehow be the solution. It won’t be but in the mean time the developer will have moved on to his next lucrative project.
Monday, 16 June 2014
Henfield, Woodmancote, Shermanbury, Partridge Green, Twineham, Wineham, Sayers Common, Albourne, Hickstead, Hurstpierpoint and more – all at risk from a developers plan for a town that could be larger than Burgess Hill.
The proposal undermines the local planning process, is opposed by locals, MPs, Councillors and many others, and is set to devastate 1,200 acres of beautiful rural
Sussex along with its treasured wildlife. It
seems to have nothing in its favour other than the clamour to produce more
houses whatever the environmental cost.
Nevertheless “Mayfield Market Towns”, the developer, is set to press
ahead with the formal planning application process.
Unsurprisingly there is strong local opposition to the plan. Locals Against Mayfield Building Sprawl (LAMBS) are therefore holding a public meeting to fight the proposal. This is on Friday 20th June at 7.30 and will be held at
, Catholic College Jane Murray Way, Burgess Hill, RH15 8GA. Key speakers will be MPs Nicholas Soames and Nick Herbert, and Anthony Watts from LAMBS.
Sussex countryside is under threat and guardians
of our countryside, like LAMBS, deserve our support.
Friday, 13 June 2014
Brighton & Lewes downs is the first new UNESCO World Biosphere site in
in 40 years UK
Today saw the first completely new Biosphere site in the
UK established for
almost forty years and the first ever in south-east . The
Brighton & Lewes Downs Biosphere was awarded this designation by UNESCO’s
International Coordinating Council (ICC) of the ‘Man and the Biosphere’ (MAB)
programme, which met in England
on Wednesday 11th June. It joins a
global network of more than 600 “world-class environments” in over 100
countries, and is one of only a handful worldwide to include a city. Sweden
Achieving the status of a new World Biosphere site follows six years’ work by the Brighton & Lewes Downs Biosphere partnership to develop its bid. The partnership of some forty organisations, with Brighton & Hove City Council as a lead partner, includes other local authorities, public bodies, voluntary organisations including the Sussex Wildlife Trust, educational and community organisations and private sector business.
Martin Price, Chair of the UK National Committee for UNESCO’s Man & the Biosphere (MAB) Programme, reports from the UNESCO meeting in Sweden: “I am very glad to say that the decision was taken today to approve the Brighton & Lewes Downs as a new Biosphere for the UK, so it is now a globally-recognised site of excellence where many individuals and organisations work in partnership to foster all aspects of sustainable development across the region.”
Chair of the Brighton & Lewes Downs Biosphere partnership, Chris Todd says: “This is world recognition for the fantastic environment we have here and for all the hard work that local people put into looking after it. Now we have this accolade, we aim to build on the partnership to do even greater things. This is not about telling people what to do but creating a vision for the future. More and more people are living in cities and we need to find ways of making them more pleasant places to live. We need to make sure that we build nature into the equation while raising awareness of how the natural environment contributes to our wealth and well-being.”
The Brighton & Lewes Downs Biosphere area covers all of the land and near-shore coastal waters between the two rivers of the Adur in the west and the Ouse in the east. The northern boundary of the
National Park marks its northern
limits, while it also includes the city of Brighton
& Hove and neighbouring towns of Lewes, Newhaven, Peacehaven, Shoreham,
Telscombe, Southwick and . Extending two nautical
miles out to sea, it also includes part of one of the first ‘Marine
Conservation Zones’ designated by the Government last year. Shoreham
Saturday, 7 June 2014
Below I reprint an article from Jane Simmons, of LAMBS, which looks at a vision for a garden city which seems to be the sort of thing planned by the developers for the east of Henfield.
Mayfield Market Towns' ‘vision’ for a Garden City in Sussex has failed to make today’s shortlist for the much publicised Wolfson Prize.
The prize was created by the Conservative Peer, Lord Simon Wolfson, as an incentive to find the best way to deliver 'a new Garden City which is visionary, economically viable and popular’.
Mayfield Director, Peter Freeman entered the competition in March, with an 83 page document championing a Garden City of 10,000 homes on 1,000 acres of land. His model is notably short of the Government’s published ideal "which is locally-led, includes at least 15,000 homes and has the backing of existing residents".
His submission, titled ‘A Shared Vision’ does not mention Mayfield Market Towns by name, but refers to a location about 50 miles from London where, Mr Freeman says, he is “confident” of success:
“We are at the early stages of promoting a Garden City in a location about 50 miles from London. In due course, we are confident that we will succeed because of the underlying need arguments and the advantages of a comprehensive, planned Garden City over many add-on schemes.
“However, in the short term, Councillors are unwilling to engage, given their interpretation of the Localism Act as releasing them from an obligation to meet need. It would be more fruitful for all stakeholders, local residents, future residents, businesses and the Council if we could be building a shared vision at an early stage. We hope that the Wolfson Prize will help all stakeholders see the merits of Garden Cities as a solution to the Housing Crisis.”
And, in contrast to the much feted Localism Act, Mr Freeman goes on to imply that Garden Cities should be Nationally led:
“We see this as a National challenge, requiring some form of Government action,” he says “– just as the investments following the post-war New Towns programme was part of a national effort.”
Amongst the many pages of financial and economic predictions, Mr Freeman also touches on the subject of Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs) and monetary compensation for local residents. The solution, he says, is to offer;
“A simple, modest compensation to ordinary residents who feel their lives have been adversely affected… even though the new amenities and extra demand from new residents may increase the value of their homes.”
And on the subject of Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPO), he states that;
“The existing owner should receive as a minimum the full value (excluding any hope value) prior to the permitted change of use of any land acquired by CPO or threat of CPO.”
Despite the length of Mr Freeman’s submission, the vast swathes of countryside which would be affected by this development are mentioned only briefly, in a paragraph just twelve lines long:
“The countryside,” says Mr Freeman, “makes a vital contribution to Britain’s heritage, leisure, health, food production, tourism, ecology and overall sense of well-being”.
Mr Freeman’s current position as Director of Mayfield Market Towns is omitted from the report.
The Wolfson competition judges shortlisted five entries – the overall winner will receive £250,000. Mr Freeman’s submission failed to reach the shortlist but won a £1,000 commendation for his ‘wide range of ideas on securing popularity’.
Peter Freeman’s full report can be seen here.
Friday, 6 June 2014
I was delighted by the number of concerned responses to my last blog on Mayfield Market Town, where I reproduced an excellent article by Jane Simmons focusing on barn owls. Clearly many people are concerned not only about this threat, but about unsustainable development pressure throughout
As well as proposals for the east of Henfield, there are other threats north of Horsham, north of Burgess Hill, in the Low Weald around Bexhill and many in more places besides. On top of this is the worry about another runway at Gatwick (with a large amount of likely associated development), threats of developing the A27 through the National Park and of course the ongoing threat of oil fracking.
This is a time of major pressure to develop infrastructure in
and elsewhere in the South East. We are now seeing developers jumping into the
vacuum left by recent changes to planning policy, taking advantage of the
absence of strategic plans and the time needed to update local plans, and promoting
their own ideas and interests. Sussex
What struck me from the comments, however, was the desire for people to get engaged in issues like this, and try to do something about what they see as threats to the
countryside. Indeed there were a few
complaints that we are not doing enough to help with this. Sussex
We do what we can with our very limited capacity within the Trust, trying to focus on the strategic level of planning to influence decisions and site allocations before the planning application stage. Even so, we can barely scratch the surface by ourselves or even in joint ventures with other countryside organisations. But we can enable people who are concerned about the development of a site to engage in the planning process and make sure they have their own impact.
- Please visit our website for information and advice on how to get involved in planning decisions and make your concerns heard. Further advice can also be found through CPRE Sussex , the RSPB, and the Woodland Trust .
- It is right for people to be concerned as soon as the threat becomes apparent. Locals Against Mayfield Building Sprawl (LAMBS), are campaigning against this proposal and other groups have petitions that you can sign. You can also write directly to your MP expressing your views.
- Recording what you know about a local area, especially what species and habitats are present is also an incredibly valuable way to build a picture about biodiversity on both a local and landscape scale. We would always encourage you to submit your data and sightings to the Sussex Biodiversity Record Centre and help inform the ecological baseline for the county.
- There is currently no formal planning application for Mayfield Market Town for people to respond to. So the chance for formal input from the Sussex Wildlife Trust is limited at the moment. However we are working on our response to the current consultation on the proposed submission Horsham District Planning Framework. This strategic document sets out where and how development will happen in Horsham District over the next 20 years and will be the framework around which decisions about new towns, including Mayfield should be made. Local knowledge is a vital part of these plans, so why not make your own comments before the consultation ends on the 27th June.
- Or how about feeding directly back to the developers of the proposed Mayfield Market Town themselves as they have set out their proposition and are inviting feedback. Simply let them know how you feel.
Friday, 30 May 2014
The Brighton & Lewes Downs Biosphere partnership will find out next month if the area is to be designated as a new international Biosphere. The decision will be taken when the United Nations body UNESCO meets in
next month (10-13th June). Sweden
The Brighton & Lewes Downs Biosphere partnership has spent six years developing the bid proposal, which was submitted to UNESCO in September last year and has received favourable feedback. The Sussex Wildlife Trust has been part of this partnership since its inception and is a strong supporter of the bid.
Once approved, our Biosphere will be the first completely new site in the UK in almost forty years, will be the only such area in south-east England and one of only a handful that include major urban settlements worldwide.
Chair of the Biosphere partnership, Chris Todd says; “We are now very close to realising the result of six years’ strenuous effort by numerous local bodies and individuals, and are keeping everything crossed for a positive outcome (expected on 11th June,) from when our efforts to look after and improve our local environment will take a place on the world stage”.
WHERE IS IT?
The proposed Brighton & Lewes Downs Biosphere will cover all of the land and near-shore coastal waters between the two rivers of the
in the west and the Ouse in the east, so includes the South Downs National Park
block here as well as the city of Brighton & Hove and neighbouring towns of
Lewes, Newhaven, Peacehaven, Shoreham, Telscombe, Southwick and Shoreham Beach.
An international Biosphere area would bring the three environments here of downs, towns and coast together under a flagship initiative to not only look after and improve the natural environment, but also better engage people in the nature on their doorsteps and promote action to reduce the environmental impacts of our lifestyles.
WHAT IS IT?
The aim is to become a “world-class environment”, as part of an international network spanning some 600 sites in over 100 countries that share best practice and bring people and nature together while seeking to balance the needs of both.
The Biosphere bid is being led by Brighton & Hove City Council, working in partnership with some forty organisations including local authorities, public bodies, the private sector, educational bodies and voluntary bodies, including the Sussex Wildlife Trust.