By guest author, Marina Pacheco
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) seems to have stirred up a great deal of emotion in government with our critical comments on Eco-towns. A spokesperson from Caroline Flint’s office was quick to accuse us of reverting to type, and by that I presume they mean we are being NIMBYs. The Government also issued the results of a You Gov survey stating that 46% of people in England support the development of Eco-towns.
CPRE supports Eco development too.
What we don’t support is something with a veneer of greenwash masquerading as an Eco-town. From the very beginning we have had concerns about the process for shortlisting towns. Communities usually participate in consultations to determine how many houses their region needs and where they should be built. The Eco-towns competition with its secretive shortlisting procedure is leapfrogging the statutory planning process and landing Local Authorities with towns they hadn’t planned or budgeted for and which have not been assessed to determine whether they are in the best possible place for the region.
So much for the democratic deficit, what about the environmental credentials of the proposed Eco-towns? A criteria for Eco-towns is that they should be freestanding. The problem with this approach is that it is likely to increase car use as people commute elsewhere to work and shop. CPRE does not think it makes sense to design in car dependency in an era of peak oil and climate change.
To make matters worse, the plans for public transport in these towns look tokenistic at best. Or so it seems, the proposed Eco-towns are still swathed in a mist of commercial confidentiality which makes it impossible to work out quite what is proposed.
The quality of the housing is also being called into question. Initially the Government called for homes in Eco-towns to be built to a ‘level six’ sustainability rating. They have now rowed back from that requirement and are accepting houses built to a ‘level three’, a requirement all new houses will have to meet in about two years so hardly groundbreaking.
We were told Eco-towns would make good use of brownfield land thus preserving our precious resource of arable land. Again, this isn’t the case. Working from details we have gleaned from developers, twelve of the developments will be built on 60% or more of green field land, with one having development on the Green Belt. If you don’t believe us take a look at the CPRE produced Google map with an outline of the development traced over an aerial photo.
CPRE’s concerns are shared by others, the Government appointed Challenge Panel, set up to improve developer’s proposals, makes for interesting reading. It challenges some developments on the basis of a lack of vision and many on poorly thought out travel management. If these problems are not resolved, and if Eco-towns turn into New Towns with the odd solar panel and wind turbine, then the country will be the poorer for it. The Government promised us exemplar developments that would lead the way in sustainable living. So far the signs are not looking good.
Marina Pacheco is the head of planning at the Campaign to Protect Rural England
Strange your comments were replied to promptly. I recently sent a letter responding to points she made about EcoTowns.
The comments were about how this applied to one site in Long Marston which had one small country road accessing the site, no facilities and no infreastructure to support a community of that size.
I'm still waiting for a reply 3 months on.
Posted by: Thomas Atcheson | Monday, 30 June 2008 at 04:51 PM
Ms. Pacheco is to be commended on a complete and perceptive analysis. The criticisms of the standalone eco-town strengthen the case for eco-burbs and the concurrent upgrade of our existing housing stock to low carbon standard.
The Weston Otmoor proposal is predicated on ultra-punitive road charging to achieve 80% of journeys by public transport, a level so absurd as to wreck all credibility immediately.
It is a sad indictment of the eco-town selection process that a bid so ridiculous can be given serious consideration.
Posted by: John W. Whitworth | Monday, 30 June 2008 at 05:30 PM
To foist eco-towns (which aren't) onto communities without any consultation is very undemocratic. This Government now has a huge democratic deficit and is salami slicing away our freedoms,in every area.
That such actions come from a Labour Government beggars belief.
Posted by: Richard Collins | Monday, 30 June 2008 at 07:39 PM
Re Richard Collins: the word "foist":
Foist. What a great word it is! Chambers defines it as "to impose by fraud"!
Do you suppose the government's own private sector consultants, approved through the OGC and acting on behalf of English Partnerships, would be "minded" (council speak) to follow instructions for disposal of crown land in favour of their own private clients? I see Andrew Lansley has made an interesting discovey about the financial backer at Henley Grange. No connection there I suppose?
Posted by: Don | Monday, 30 June 2008 at 07:57 PM
For what it's worth, a local Tory Councillor claims that eco-towns are a form of `ethnic cleansing', a means of shipping Labour voters into the countryside, ie. into the Tory heartland, to alter the voting pattern in favour of Labour.
Posted by: Paul Gooch | Monday, 30 June 2008 at 10:54 PM
This kakistocracy know no bounds.
Our freedom is being stripped, fearmongering on every front esp the climate change rubbish and now they force this on us.
Enough is enough - Brown is the worst in my lifetime so far and thatcher takes a lot of beating!
Instead of giving more powers to the city of london controlled Bank of England and being ecofashionable - He should be looking to bolster our ecconomy not pratting about like a foot and mouth diseased idiot on a ego trip.
What a waste of space.
Posted by: Darrel Fairview | Tuesday, 01 July 2008 at 12:00 AM
These town are needed. The tories are standing up high house prices to keep the poor poor.
Posted by: dirty european socialist | Tuesday, 01 July 2008 at 01:04 PM