All residents of proposed new eco-towns should have access to land where they can grow their own food, according to new guidance drawn up by the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA).

The guidance, just published in the TCPA’s latest worksheet ‘The essential role of green infrastructure’, makes a number of recommendations for developers.

• Developers should provide at least one major, well-equipped park in the eco-town, offering a variety of facilities for all age groups
• Every eco-town resident should have access to land, private or communal, to grow their own food.
• Developers should also look to forge supply links between eco-town residents, local food producers, processors and distributors to showcase the “relocalisation” of sustainable food production
• A network of “greenways” should be included to connect between larger or more expansive open spaces
• Safe-routes should be developed across a network of streets between open spaces and parks and homes and schools to encourage children to play without danger from traffic
• Open spaces should have a major role to play in contributing to sustainable transport, energy efficiency, water and drainage management, whilst ensuring a unique sense of place, heritage and local landscape character

At the launch of the eco-town worksheet on green infrastructure TCPA chief executive Gideon Amos said: “New settlements today could reinvent garden city living for a new, low-carbon century.”

Helen Phillips, chief executive of Natural England, said: “Eco-towns must have green spaces at their hearts, providing health and exercise benefits for the communities who live there, new habitats for wildlife and places for people to enjoy the natural environment.”

The green infrastructure worksheet is the fourth eco-town worksheet, following on from transport, community development and water cycle management worksheets launched in March 2008. Other topics in the pipeline include biodiversity, housing & inclusive design, towards zero-waste, energy, and the economy & ‘green collar’ jobs. Once they are all published, the worksheets will together represent a comprehensive set of policy and planning guidance on the range of subject areas to be addressed and the standards to be met when planning an eco-town.

It’s going to be interesting to see whether anyone takes any notice.

Read the TCPA press release

Download Eco-town Water Cycle Management Worksheet

Download Eco-town Community Worksheet

Download Eco-town Transport Worksheet

The East of England Regional Assembly has voiced concern over proposals for four eco-towns in the region, involving nearly 50,000 new houses. The body is worried that the planning system will be bypassed and that the schemes themselves are unsustainable.

Responding to the eco-towns public consultation, the Assembly raised concerns that the new homes are not well linked to jobs and public transport and could become dormitory towns with high levels of commuting by car.

Cllr Derrick Ashley, Chairman of the Assembly’s Planning Panel said: “Government should halt this dash for eco-towns before more money and effort is wasted. The public want high environmental standards for all new housing not speculative development in unsuitable locations.

“Proposals for new settlements in the region should be decided through the Assembly by local councils and other stakeholders to ensure sustainable growth in appropriate locations.”

Under this system, EERA has already planned for two new settlements at Northstowe in Cambridgeshire and Wixams in Bedfordshire as part of the East of England Plan, the regional development blueprint up to 2021.

The Assembly believes that the eco-town decision-making process should be transferred to its review of the East of England Plan which will identify the region’s housing needs up to 2031.

EERA Press Release

East of England Plan portal page

It’s been a mixed week or so for the wind power industry. On April 22nd, the Scottish government rejected plans to build one of Europe’s biggest onshore wind farms owing to “significant adverse impacts” on the local environment. Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic, billionaire Texas oil man T. Boone Pickens has launched a plan to spend $10 billion on building the world’s biggest wind farm.

Lewis Wind Power, a consortium of AMEC and British Energy, wanted to build 181 turbines on the Isle of Lewis, with a capacity of 651.6 megawatts — enough to meet 20% of Scotland’s average domestic electricity consumption. The £500 million project was turned down on the grounds that it did not comply with European Union law protecting sensitive environments, and would damage peatland and threaten rare and endangered bird populations.

Lewis Wind Power are understandably rather pissed that things have turned out this way for the 6 year project, which had already been scaled down from the original planning application, lodged in 2004, for a 234-turbine wind farm, at that time the biggest on-shore proposal in the world. Read their press release here, and the Scottish Government’s decision here. The bottom line is that Lewis Wind and their consultants invested an enormous amount of time and money in evaluating the environmental impacts of the project, and concluded there weren’t any, or at least none that weren’t outweighed by the economic benefits. Unfortunately, the government completely disagreed:

“The Lewis Wind Farm would have significant adverse impacts on the Lewis Peatlands Special Protection Area, which is designated due to its high value for rare and endangered birds.

However, you will be pleased to hear that:

“This decision does not mean that there cannot be onshore wind farms in the Western Isles. I strongly believe the vast renewables potential needs to be exploited to ensure that the opportunities and benefits of new development can be shared across the country in an equitable fashion.

“That’s why we will urgently carry out work on how to develop renewable energy in the Western Isles, in harmony with its outstanding natural heritage. This work will result in an action plan for sustainable development on the islands and will be ready in the autumn”

Perhaps it’s finally dawned on someone in the corridors of power that the planning process for these large projects has to be ripped up and rewritten. Spend six years covering every angle and issue at great expense, only to have it knocked back by the planners? It amazes me that companies still step forward to play these games. What ought to happen, which is hinted at in the government statement, is that the parameters for the various impacts are defined at the outset: “This is what you can do, this is what you can’t do, if you think you can follow the rules and still make money, give it your best shot, with heavy penalties if you screw up”.

I wonder how much thought is being given to environmental issues by T. Boone Pickens’ company Mesa Power, which next month will start acquiring land and ordering the 2,700 wind turbines that will eventually generate 4,000 megawatts of electricity – the equivalent of two commercial scale nuclear power plants – enough power for about 1 million homes. The scale of this project is absolutely enormous. Running north-south from Saskatchewan to Texas would be thousands of wind turbines, exploiting some of the best wind production conditions in the U.S. Running east-west from Texas to California would be large solar arrays, generating electricity for growing Southern California cities like Los Angeles. Such a huge project, requiring so much land, must surely run into opposition somewhere.

Cambridgeshire County Council has voiced concern over elements of the proposed Northstowe new town which is planned to be a prototype for the Government’s eco-town programme. The 9,500 home project has been criticised by councillors as not ambitious enough in terms of sustainability and water management.

To date, the council has raised more than 70 objections to the proposals being developed by Gallagher Estate with the support of English Partnerships. Earlier, the County Council criticised plans for an eco-town at Hanley Grange, also in Cambridgeshire, saying there was “a real danger that this proposal could undermine the successful delivery of major developments such as Northstowe and the area around Cambridge”.

Cambridgeshire CC press release

Northstowe planning application

Last Thursday, April 10th, The London Paper, a give-away tabloid from the News International stable, ran an article under the headline “Block put on paving over front gardens”. The main thrust of the story involved supposed plans at DEFRA to force householders to appply for planning permission before they can pave over their gardens. The proposed change, to be introduced this Autumn, requires planning approval to be granted, at £875 a pop, for any paving that does not use permeable materials. The idea is that, by reducing the price differential between ‘normal’ paving and the stuff that lets rainwater through rather than sending it down into the drains or next-door’s basement, urban flooding will be reduced.

A spokesman from the Royal Horticultural Society said:

“It’s the first legislation that actually directly links to front gardens and gives proper protection.
“This sets it down and says we can protect front gardens, at least from being solidly concreted over.
Gravel is an alternative to concrete. “ There are plenty of gaps between the gravel and those allow the water through into the ground below”

The flaw in this argument is that there’s still nothing in the proposed legislation to prevent gardens having all their vegetation and soil being replaced by hard landscaping. It would have been interesting to hear what the RSPB or any other wildlife or conservation group have to say on the issue. Gardens are the last remnants of the farmland that our suburbs were built on, and increasingly serve as refuges for the wildlife that intensive farming has driven out of the countryside. A garden without trees, shrubs, flowers, grass or bare earth is still a desert, whether it’s paved with tarmac, crazy paving or gravel.

Channel 4 property renta-guru Sarah Beeny portrays the move as a way for homeowners to recoup some of the value their property has lost recently:

“There’s no doubt a great- looking front garden makes your property more attractive and easier to sell.”

The irony is that it was the likes of Ms Beeny who kicked off the paving craze by emphasising the added value of a private parking space. It might have been true that the first one or two houses in a street gained a few grand by paving the front garden for parking, but once everyone did it properties actually lost value.

This is a classic example of addressing a complex problem by reducing it to a single issue, much as climate change has come to be seen as the only environmental problem in town. It’s true that replacing gardens with parking increases the amount of water permeating into the ground, but there’s a whole raft of other issues that make this trend a social and environmental disaster. It’s a scandal that the planning system has allowed major changes to ground surfaces to slip through the system as ‘permitted development’ for so long. It’s a double scandal that, now someone’s raised sufficient head of steam to do something about it, most of the issues are being fudged or ignored.

‘Future Water: The Government’s water strategy for England’ (DEFRA strategy document, February 2008)

‘Last rites for the front garden’

Flicking through the proposal document for the Middle Hinton eco-town near Long Marston in Warwickshire, I was struck by how familiar some of the images and wording seemed. Pictures of photogenic people relaxing in traffic-free squares, smiling families frolicking hand in hand through dappled sunlight, and serried ranks of pushbikes just waiting for someone to leap on and pedal furiously into the sunset. Maps (not to scale) of accomodation cunningly distributed through a setting of woodland, meadow and waterway. Earnest statements of the importance of the environment, and how much effort and imagination is being put into both conserving it and making it an amenity resource for all to enjoy. Is it? Can it be? It is …. it’s Center Parcs.

Perhaps not as silly as it might sound. Surely I’m not the only one who’s stayed at a Center Parcs ‘village’ and wondered idly what it would be like to live there permanently. A cottage deep in the woods, with wildlife right on your doorstep. Car-free roads, safe for cyclists and pedestrians, with a regular shuttle service to get you from A to B if you can’t manage it under your own steam. A central hub at the heart of the settlement, with everything you need; sport, entertainment, shops, bars and restaurants. All you need to do is beef it up with a few things like a hospital, a school, a library and integrated public transport links and what’ve you got? An eco-town.

Here are the official details of the shortlisted sites, from the Department for Communities and Local Government web site:
- Pennbury, Leicestershire: 12-15,000 homes on a development incorporating brownfield, greenfield and surplus public sector land. Four miles south east of Leicester. This proposal could include 4,000 new affordable houses in an area of high affordability pressure.

– Manby and Strubby, Lincolnshire: 5,000 homes put forward by East Lindsey District Council on two sites, with large elements of brownfield land including a former RAF base. The proposal complements the strategic plan for the phased relocation of communities on Lincolnshire coast because of high flood risk, and could include 1,500 affordable homes in an area of very high affordability pressure.

– Curborough, Staffordshire: 5,000 homes on the brownfield site of the former Fradley airfield, ten miles from Burton. The proposal could include 2,000 affordable houses in an area of very high affordability pressure.

– Middle Quinton, Warwickshire: 6,000 homes on a former Royal Engineers depot which has a rail link to the Worcester-London rail line. Six miles South West of Stratford upon Avon. The proposal could include 2,000 affordable houses in an area of very high affordability pressure.

– Bordon-Whitehill, Hampshire: 5-8,000 homes on a site owned by the Ministry of Defence. A significant number of ex-MoD homes are already on the site, west of Whitehill-Bordon. The proposal could include 2,000 affordable houses in an area of very high affordability pressure.

– Weston Otmoor, Oxfordshire: 10-15,000 homes on a site adjoining the M40 and the Oxford-Bicester railway. Three miles south west of Bicester, the site includes a current airstrip. The scheme could include between 3,000 and 5,000 affordable homes, in an area of extreme affordability pressure.

– Ford, West Sussex: 5,000 homes on a site which includes brownfield land and the former Ford airfield. Close to rail line linking London and the Sussex coast. The scheme could include 1,500 affordable homes, in an area of very high affordability pressure.

– Imerys China Clay Community, Cornwall: Development of around 5,000 homes on former china clay workings, industrial land and disused mining pits no longer needed by owner Imerys. Close to St Austell. The scheme could include 1,500 affordable homes, in an area of extreme affordability pressure.

– Rossington, South Yorkshire: Up to 15,000 homes regenerating the former colliery village of Rossington, three miles south of Doncaster. The scheme could include 1,500 affordable homes, in an area of moderate affordability pressure.

– Coltishall, Norfolk: 5,000 homes on a former RAF airfield, eight miles north of Norwich. The scheme could include 2,000 affordable homes in an area of very high affordability pressure.

– Hanley Grange, Cambridgeshire: 8,000 homes on land adjacent to the A11 designed to improve the severe lack of housing in and around Cambridge. The scheme could include 3,000 affordable homes in an area of extreme affordability pressure.

– Marston Vale and New Marston, Bedfordshire: Up to 15,400 homes on a series of sites, including former industrial sites, along the east-west rail line to Stewartby and Millbrook. The scheme could include 2,000 affordable homes in an area of high affordability pressure.

– Elsenham, Essex: A minimum of 5,000 homes north east of the existing Elsenham village. Close to M11 and the London to Cambridge rail line. The scheme could include 1,800 affordable homes in an area of extreme affordability pressure.

– Rushcliffe, Nottinghamshire: An eco-town proposal was submitted for Kingston-on-Soar, to the south of Nottingham. In response to representations from Rushcliffe Borough Council, this site is not to be pursued. However, the Government is proposing to carry out a further review in partnership with RBC to consider whether there is a suitable alternative location with the potential to be viable within the Rushcliffe local authority area.

– Leeds City Region, Yorkshire: A number of eco-town proposals were submitted for locations within the area of Leeds City Region partnership of 11 authorities and principally between Leeds and Selby. The Leeds City Region Partnership has indicated support in principle for an eco-town within the sub-region. The Partnership has proposed a further study to compare the best alternative locations across the Leeds City Region partnership area. The Government has agreed to support this approach, on the basis that it will allow a further announcement to be made shortly of one or more sites for consultation

The government has finally released its list of 15 eco-town sites into the wild. It’s good to see that some of the more cynical proposals have been weeded out. Micheldever in Hampshire, for example, was a many-times recycled application for development on greenfield land, and it is to be hoped this is the last time it sees the light of day. According to BBC News this morning, another, un-named, rejected application involved building on a graveyard. Others failed for sensible reasons, such as building on Green Belt or damaging biodiversity.

Here’s the full list, with details taken from the CPRE website. There isn’t a perfect match between the site names in CPRE’s research and those on the official list. Where it’s not entirely clear, no details have been given.

Bordon, Hampshire
Developer: Unknown, Number of Homes: 4,000 – 5,500
Type of Site: Brownfield and possibly greenfield
East Hampshire District Council has put forward a bid for an eco-town on MOD land in Whitehill and Bordon, Hampshire. The area, which was previously considered for development, is still being actively used as a military base.

Coltishall, Norfolk
Developer: Unknown, Number of Homes: 5,000 – 10,000
Type of Site: Brownfield
An eco-town bid was made for the former airbase site at RAF Coltishall in October 2007. 5,000 new homes would initially be built at the site, with a further 5,000 to follow at a later stage. Recently, it has been announced that part of the site will be used to build a new prison. It is unclear how this would affect the proposed eco-town.

Curborough, Staffs
Developer: Joint venture between Gleeson, Redrow, Banks Developments and Henry Boot.
Number of Homes: 5,000
Type of Site: Brownfield and greenfield
This proposed site for an eco-town, which has a working title of ‘Curborough’, or ‘Fradley’, lies north of Lichfield in open countryside on agricultural land. The proposal is for 5,000 homes to be built adjacent to a former airfield. An attempt to get the site identified by the Local Development Framework as appropriate for housing development was previously rejected by Lichfield Council.

Elsenham, Essex
Developer: Unknown, Number of Homes: Unknown
Type of Site: Greenfield
Very little detail is available about this proposal, which lies just north of Stansted. It is unclear whether a formal eco-town bid has been submitted. The local council has claimed that only 3,000 homes will be built at Elsenham, but we believe that an eco-town bid may have been submitted by private developers.

Ford, W Sussex
Developer: Redrow and Wates, Number of Homes: 5,000
Type of Site: Brownfield
Ford Airfield is 2 miles south of Arundel on the A27 in West Sussex. Two bids have been made for the site. The first has been put forward by three private landowners along with Redrow Homes and Wates, who have formed a consortium called the Ford Airfield Vision Group. Plans include 5,000 homes, one secondary and two new primary schools, as well as a transport interchange around the Ford railway station. The eco-town’s energy would be produced entirely on-site from renewable sources. The second bid, put forward by Ford Enterprise Hub, is believed to propose slightly more than 5,000 new homes.

Hanley Grange, Cambs
Developer: Jarrow Investments, Number of Homes: 8,000
Type of Site: Greenfield
There have been proposals for a mixed use new settlement near Hinxton. The site, set south of Cambridge, is bounded by A11, A1301 & A505 triangle and controlled by a limited number of landowners, the largest being Jarrow Investments.

Imerys, Cornwall
Developer: Imerys, Number of Homes: 5,000
Type of Site: Brownfield
Imerys, the owner of several china clay pits near St Austell, submitted a bid to build an eco-town in October 2007. It has been reported that the bid could be spread over a number of sites including Bugle, Nanpean, west of St. Austell and the north east side of St. Austell.

Leeds City Region, W Yorks

Manby, Lincs
Developer: East Lindsey District Council, Number of Homes: Unknown
Type of Site: Brownfield and possibly greenfield
There is currently very little information available on this proposed eco-town in Lincolnshire. It is based on two options focussed on former World War II airfields adjoining Manby/Grimoldy and Strubby.

Marston Vale and New Marston, Beds

Middle Quinton, Warwickshire
Developer: St Modwen and The Bird Group
Number of Homes: 6,000
Type of Site: Brownfield; possibly some greenfield
This proposal has been put forward jointly by St. Modwen and the Bird Group. The developers plan to build an eco-town on a former Royal Engineers Depot near Long Marston Airfield in south Warwickshire, five miles south of Stratford-upon-Avon. The proposed eco-town is known as Middle Quinton and plans to regenerate 240 hectares of brownfield land for the provision of 6,000 homes.

Pennbury, Leics
Developer: Co-operative Group, Number of Homes: 15,000-20,000
Type of Site: Brownfield and greenfield
This proposed eco-town has the working title of ‘Pennbury’. The town would occupy 40% of the Co-Operative Group’s Stoughton farming estate and adjacent land under the ownership of English Partnerships. Proposals include two new park and ride sites and a train station. The site is mainly within Harborough District with a small area within Oadby and Wigston Borough. The site is a large (approximately 5,000 acres) mostly greenfield site.

Rossington, Yorks
Developer: Partnership of UK Coal, Persimmon Homes, Helios Properties and Rossington Hall Ltd
Number of Homes: 10-15,000
Type of Site: Some brownfield, mostly greenfield and Green Belt
Rossington, near Doncaster, is an old scheme which was rejected in the past partly due to being on Green Belt. Overall, the project would include 10-15,000 houses covering 898 hectares. This eco-town would triple the size of Rossington and be more than nine times the size of the former Rossington Colliery site which is included in the plan.

Rushcliffe, Notts
Developer: Banks Developments, Number of Homes: 6,000
Type of Site: Green Belt and Greenfield
Proposals have been submitted for an eco-town known as ‘New Kingston’. The proposal, which aims to build at least 6,000 homes, is in the Green Belt on 600 ha of agricultural land at the Kingston Fields estate, in Rushcliffe District, south west of Nottingham.

Weston Otmoor, Oxfordshire
Developer: Parkridge, Number of Homes: 10,000 – 20,000
Type of Site: Brownfield and greenfield
A bid has been submitted for an eco-town centred on an airfield north of Weston-on-the-green. The Weston Front, a local campaigning group, claims that the eco-town would extend across the A34 to the nearby rail line, where a new station is proposed.

Every application on this initial list will be subject to further consultation before whittling down to a final list of ten in about six months’ time. These ten will all go through the normal planning process.

STOP PRESS: the official UK government details of the shortlisted sites can be found here

It’s good that such emphasis is being placed on the importance of designing building in a sustainable manner. These new towns, however, are still new, taking up more space and requiring that infrastructure is created from scratch. Ideally, all new houses should be eco-builds, wherever they’re put. Most of the hoo-hah surrounding the eco-town proposals would have happened even if the ‘eco-town’ figleaf hadn’t been slapped on. A large development on your doorstep gets the NIMBY blood up, eco or not, with all the usual issues such as transport and flood-plains.

We wait with bated breath for the UK government to publish its shortlist of proposed eco-town sites in April. Around fifty projects have been put forward, but the government has refused to release information on the bids or locations on grounds of bidder confidentiality. Information is leaking out from somewhere, however, and there are growing concerns that the eco-town concept is just a smokescreen to make housebuilding more palatable (‘Un-eco Towns‘). There are three petitions on the Downing Street web site relating to specific proposed sites, and highly vocal protest groups for many others.

The Campaign To Protect Rural England (CPRE) has researched a list of 38 eco-town proposals, and an interactive map showing locations and details can be found here, and a PDF location map here. While sympathetic to the idea of eco-towns in principle, CPRE thinks it is essential to assess each proposal on its own merits, taking its local impacts and benefits into consideration, and has produced a list of ten tests which they believe eco-towns must pass to be successful:

• the public and affected communities should be fully consulted on schemes, including the principle of whether or not to have an eco-town in their area;

• schemes should be tested through regional spatial strategies and local development framework reviews. These should ensure that decisions on eco-towns take full account of evidence on environmental effects, housing need and alternatives for meeting this;

• decisions on eco-towns should be accompanied by evidence that demonstrates a new settlement to be the most sustainable option for accommodating housing growth compared with other options, such as redeveloping an existing urban brownfield site or an urban extension;

• schemes should demonstrate efficient use of land, with densities capable of supporting public transport and a high priority given to recycling brownfield land and buildings;

• they should be genuinely carbon neutral, taking into account potential emissions from transport (domestic, public and commercial) and buildings (in construction and use);

• they should foster a strong sense of place and community, achieve CABE gold Building for Life Standards, with high quality public spaces, architecture and street layouts that give priority to pedestrians and non-motorised transport, including substantial car free areas;

• they should be subject to an independent landscape character appraisal, be sympathetic to their setting and clearly enhance the local landscape, built and natural heritage, including through the designation of new Green Belt where appropriate;

• they should include measures designed to conserve water and other natural resources, minimise soil, air, noise and light pollution and achieve zero-waste;

• they should be complete communities with homes (with at least 50% affordable), schools, workplaces, shops, recreation, community and health facilities and open space within walking distance and foster active, sustainable lifestyles and civic participation;

• they should be well connected to surroundings with high quality public transport providing good access to nearby settlements and local supply networks, with sourcing of local produce, such as food, fuel and replenishible building materials.

Some of this echoes the contents of the original eco-town prospectus, but it’s good to hear that the Government is taking some notice. In a recent speech (‘Quality of life, not just quantity of homes‘) Caroline Flint, Minister for Housing, said:

“Contrary to some reports, eco-towns will be subject to rigorous planning processes. Each proposal will have to submit a planning application and will be properly scrutinised before it can proceed.

“I will soon be publishing a short-list of locations which we think have the potential to be successful. This will be followed by full public consultation with communities and stakeholders.”

This makes all the right noises about local consultation, but only for the ten projects (or fifteen or twenty, depending on which article or press release you read) that eventually get selected for the short list. That selection process is going on without any public involvement; how many perfectly good proposals meeting local priorities and demands will be secretly rejected because they don’t fit the wider Government agenda? No wonder that there is growing suspicion that this initiative is designed to give us what ‘they’ want, rather than what ‘we’ need.

The UK Government will shortly publish its short list of eco-town schemes for consultation, following a cross-Government review. The original plan was for a programme of five eco-towns to be implemented across the English regions. However, interest has been so high (over sixty proposals have been registered with the government) that the Prime Minister announced at last year’s Labour Party Conference that the number of schemes would be doubled to ten.

The Planning Portal lays out the basic requirements for eco-towns in its report ‘Eco-town concept gathers ground‘:

Eco-towns will be small new towns of between 5,000 and 20,000 homes. They are intended to exploit the potential to create a complete new settlement to achieve zero carbon development and more sustainable living using the best new design and architecture.

This must translate into places with a separate and distinct identity but good links to surrounding towns and cities in terms of jobs, transport and services.

The development as a whole must achieve zero carbon and to be an exemplar in at least one area of environment technology.

The settlement must provide a good range of facilities within the town including a secondary school, shopping, business space and leisure.

Critically, the eco-town must have between 30 and 50 per cent affordable housing with a good mix of tenures and size of homes in mixed communities.

And, crucially, the settlement must have a delivery organisation to manage the town and its development and provide support for people, businesses and community services.

The principal justification is, of course, climate change, with sustainability and zero carbon emissions as the main targets. Housing minister Iain Wright told Parliament recently that the review would exclude sites “where there are too many showstoppers to allow development to take place”. However, fears are growing that conventional planning criteria such as biodiversity, conservation and landscape may be over-ridden in the dash for carbon neutrality.

In an article in last Saturday’s Guardian, Tristram Hunt describes how housebuilders’ response to the eco-challenge has been “a series of cunning attempts to revive planning permission for previously rejected projects”, often favouring brownfield sites over greenfield.

• Eagle Star Insurance wants to build on farmland and wildlife-rich woodland at Micheldever on the North Hampshire Downs. The company has been trying to build a commuter town there since the 1970s, without success. Plans for a 12,500 home development have been tarted up with eco-town catch-phrases and resubmitted.
• In South Derbyshire, Bank Development has rejected the Drakelow power station brownfield site, and is applying to build its ‘Grovewood’ eco-town around Cauldwell and Roslinton, felling National Forest trees and constructing a feeder road.
• In Oxfordshire, Kilbride Properties wants eco-town exemption for 5,000 houses on an SSSI in designated Green Belt.

Of course, there have been many excellent schemes put forward, but there is a growing distrust of the review process and a fear that the government will take the easy option for greenfield development. A major part of the problem is the distillation of environmental problems to one issue, climate change, and a complete lack of government concern for wider conservation issues. As Tristram Hunt puts it:

” … no minister seems willing to express a belief in the value of the natural heritage. Instead, it is all about percentages and targets – the language of emissions trading systems and carbon neutrality – which disconnects the struggle against climate change from a broader notion of ecology.”

That is right on the money. The environment has become a single issue, climate change, and we have become blinkered to anything else. We are in danger of waking up in a carbon-neutral wasteland, occupied by just ourselves and the few species we find either too useful or too tenacious to get rid of.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/feb/23/greenpolitics.communities

www.planningportal.gov.uk/england/professionals/en/1115315508453.html