Many of the proposals for a series of "eco-towns" could destroy local wildlife and the environment, the Wildlife Trusts claimed recently.
In a drive to build low-carbon developments, government plans are failing to pay attention to other important ecological considerations and making "a mockery" of the term eco-town, the Trusts warned.
The Government is set to unveil a short list of potential developments in England in due course, which aim to provide zero-carbon homes, businesses and schools and be "exemplars" of at least one area of environmental sustainability.
But the Wildlife Trusts is concerned many of the proposals submitted by developers and local authorities will destroy important wildlife sites.
More than 50 proposals have been submitted and up to five eco-towns are expected to be built by 2016, and as many as 10 by 2020.
They will have populations of around 5,000 to 20,000 and be linked to larger towns and cities.
The Wildlife Trusts wants the short list to only include eco-towns which are located sensitively so they don't destroy existing habitat areas and are planned with provisions for wildlife-rich features such as ponds as part of sustainable drainage schemes.
The Trusts also want to see plans assessed on their full ecological footprint, not just their carbon impact.
And the Environmental Network is calling for the new Community Infrastructure Levy - through which councils can raise money from new developments to help develop the infrastructure they need - to pay for green areas such as parks.
This is, in my opinion, yet just another variety of “NIMBY-ism”. It would appear that these organizations, left in the cold in this process, for no one, as yet, seems to have asked them to join in, are sore about that.
I must say though that I do agree with the sentiments of the “Environmental Network” as to the sentiments regarding park and open spaces but must disagree with the idea of any kind of levy.
The eco-towns must also have access to environmentally-sustainable transport such as cycle ways and footpaths, the Trusts said, and who could disagree with that. Cycle paths in this country are something that we lack. We should and indeed must take a leaf out of Germany's book and do as they have done where, in most areas, cycle paths are alongside each and every country road, so-called B-roads, the equivalent of our A-roads, linking towns and villages. Why not the same in the UK? I am sure we will get the usual excuse that, while this may all work well in countries such as Germany but cannot work in Britain, “because Britain is different”.
One of the sites that the Trusts fear will damage wildlife is the application for an eco-town at Shipton-on-Cherwell quarry, or Bunkers Hill, in North Oxfordshire, which is a designated Local Wildlife Site and a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and falls within the green belt.
Stephanie Hilborne, chief executive of the Wildlife Trusts, said: "The Government's current proposals make a mockery of the term 'eco-town'.
"What we need to see is the planning system being used to avoid insensitive development and restore and create new wildlife habitats.
"The Wildlife Trusts welcome the idea of eco-towns but, to be truly sustainable, they need to be about much more than simply building zero-carbon homes. We also need to build in the right places.
"Many of the current proposals will destroy important wildlife sites and fragment our towns and countryside at a time when we should be creating 'Living Landscapes' - areas through which wildlife can move," she said. I have never heard as much garbage... Wildlife corridors... what next.. the suggestion of 1/2 the country be turned into such corridors, as someone suggested for the United States.
In the run-up to the announcement from the Government, eco-towns have come under criticism with concerns failed development applications are being resubmitted as eco-towns.
The proposals have also sparked protests nationwide from residents who claim the schemes will put too much pressure on local services.
Opposition has been voiced in places such as Grovewood in south Derbyshire and Stoughton in Leicestershire, and earlier this month around 300 campaigners marched against plans for a 6,000-home development in Long Marston, near Stratford, Warwickshire.
A spokesman for Communities and Local Government rejected the claims by the Wildlife Trusts as "scaremongering". And I could but agree with the statement of the government department here. Why is is that, as soon as something is being done some one from the supposed environmental movement comes along and says that this and that cannot be done. Why? Because the organization has not been invited to participate in the building of this or that. When we talk about incineration of refuse they turn up again and say this must not be done for either the reason that it will give off this or that gas or whatever or because “we must recycle more”. Yes, but there is always something that cannot be reused or recycled and something must be done with that and it is definitely better to burn that than to have it go into holes in the ground.
"No eco-town application has even been shortlisted yet and there will be extensive consultation with green groups and residents before any decisions are made.
"Eco-towns offer a tremendous opportunity to revolutionise the way we plan and deliver homes - radically changing the way that people travel, work and live. They will be exemplar communities that others can learn from.
"There is a rigorous process in place to ensure we balance the need to protect the environment and cut carbon emissions with providing the homes that our families and first time buyers desperately need.
"Bids will not succeed unless they meet tough tests proving they make best use of brownfield land, safeguard local wildlife and habitat areas and provide cutting edge low and zero carbon technologies and good public transport systems," he said.
Jacqui Lait, shadow planning minister, said there was a need to build more homes to high environmental standards on genuine brownfield sites.
"Any eco-town development must command local support, and they should not be built on Green Belt or in areas with special protection - such as wildlife sites."
She added: "Eco-spin should not be used to push through developments which aren't truly environmentally sustainable or which lack supporting infrastructure."
No spin of any sort should be used, whether pro-eco-town and against eco-towns just because of this or that. What must be done is to study all possible aspects and impacts and take it from there. It is a little difficult, as those organizations campaigning now, it would seem, against eco-town, to have their cake and eat it all at the same time.
© Michael Smith (Veshengro), March 2008
In a drive to build low-carbon developments, government plans are failing to pay attention to other important ecological considerations and making "a mockery" of the term eco-town, the Trusts warned.
The Government is set to unveil a short list of potential developments in England in due course, which aim to provide zero-carbon homes, businesses and schools and be "exemplars" of at least one area of environmental sustainability.
But the Wildlife Trusts is concerned many of the proposals submitted by developers and local authorities will destroy important wildlife sites.
More than 50 proposals have been submitted and up to five eco-towns are expected to be built by 2016, and as many as 10 by 2020.
They will have populations of around 5,000 to 20,000 and be linked to larger towns and cities.
The Wildlife Trusts wants the short list to only include eco-towns which are located sensitively so they don't destroy existing habitat areas and are planned with provisions for wildlife-rich features such as ponds as part of sustainable drainage schemes.
The Trusts also want to see plans assessed on their full ecological footprint, not just their carbon impact.
And the Environmental Network is calling for the new Community Infrastructure Levy - through which councils can raise money from new developments to help develop the infrastructure they need - to pay for green areas such as parks.
This is, in my opinion, yet just another variety of “NIMBY-ism”. It would appear that these organizations, left in the cold in this process, for no one, as yet, seems to have asked them to join in, are sore about that.
I must say though that I do agree with the sentiments of the “Environmental Network” as to the sentiments regarding park and open spaces but must disagree with the idea of any kind of levy.
The eco-towns must also have access to environmentally-sustainable transport such as cycle ways and footpaths, the Trusts said, and who could disagree with that. Cycle paths in this country are something that we lack. We should and indeed must take a leaf out of Germany's book and do as they have done where, in most areas, cycle paths are alongside each and every country road, so-called B-roads, the equivalent of our A-roads, linking towns and villages. Why not the same in the UK? I am sure we will get the usual excuse that, while this may all work well in countries such as Germany but cannot work in Britain, “because Britain is different”.
One of the sites that the Trusts fear will damage wildlife is the application for an eco-town at Shipton-on-Cherwell quarry, or Bunkers Hill, in North Oxfordshire, which is a designated Local Wildlife Site and a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and falls within the green belt.
Stephanie Hilborne, chief executive of the Wildlife Trusts, said: "The Government's current proposals make a mockery of the term 'eco-town'.
"What we need to see is the planning system being used to avoid insensitive development and restore and create new wildlife habitats.
"The Wildlife Trusts welcome the idea of eco-towns but, to be truly sustainable, they need to be about much more than simply building zero-carbon homes. We also need to build in the right places.
"Many of the current proposals will destroy important wildlife sites and fragment our towns and countryside at a time when we should be creating 'Living Landscapes' - areas through which wildlife can move," she said. I have never heard as much garbage... Wildlife corridors... what next.. the suggestion of 1/2 the country be turned into such corridors, as someone suggested for the United States.
In the run-up to the announcement from the Government, eco-towns have come under criticism with concerns failed development applications are being resubmitted as eco-towns.
The proposals have also sparked protests nationwide from residents who claim the schemes will put too much pressure on local services.
Opposition has been voiced in places such as Grovewood in south Derbyshire and Stoughton in Leicestershire, and earlier this month around 300 campaigners marched against plans for a 6,000-home development in Long Marston, near Stratford, Warwickshire.
A spokesman for Communities and Local Government rejected the claims by the Wildlife Trusts as "scaremongering". And I could but agree with the statement of the government department here. Why is is that, as soon as something is being done some one from the supposed environmental movement comes along and says that this and that cannot be done. Why? Because the organization has not been invited to participate in the building of this or that. When we talk about incineration of refuse they turn up again and say this must not be done for either the reason that it will give off this or that gas or whatever or because “we must recycle more”. Yes, but there is always something that cannot be reused or recycled and something must be done with that and it is definitely better to burn that than to have it go into holes in the ground.
"No eco-town application has even been shortlisted yet and there will be extensive consultation with green groups and residents before any decisions are made.
"Eco-towns offer a tremendous opportunity to revolutionise the way we plan and deliver homes - radically changing the way that people travel, work and live. They will be exemplar communities that others can learn from.
"There is a rigorous process in place to ensure we balance the need to protect the environment and cut carbon emissions with providing the homes that our families and first time buyers desperately need.
"Bids will not succeed unless they meet tough tests proving they make best use of brownfield land, safeguard local wildlife and habitat areas and provide cutting edge low and zero carbon technologies and good public transport systems," he said.
Jacqui Lait, shadow planning minister, said there was a need to build more homes to high environmental standards on genuine brownfield sites.
"Any eco-town development must command local support, and they should not be built on Green Belt or in areas with special protection - such as wildlife sites."
She added: "Eco-spin should not be used to push through developments which aren't truly environmentally sustainable or which lack supporting infrastructure."
No spin of any sort should be used, whether pro-eco-town and against eco-towns just because of this or that. What must be done is to study all possible aspects and impacts and take it from there. It is a little difficult, as those organizations campaigning now, it would seem, against eco-town, to have their cake and eat it all at the same time.
© Michael Smith (Veshengro), March 2008
Post Title
→Eco-towns 'could destroy British wildlife'
Post URL
→https://national-grid-news.blogspot.com/2008/03/eco-towns-destroy-british-wildlife.html
Visit National-grid-news for Daily Updated Wedding Dresses Collection
