South East Forum For Sustainability

For anyone still at their computer! It’s been an interesting year for SEFS, and looking back at all we achieved during the time of the Regional Assembly (more of that at the AGM), rather a frustrating one of trying to find our voice in the confused and rather fragmented political landscape.

But we are soldiering on until the last and we do hope you can join us at our AGM on 2^nd February to hear what we have been doing. Thanks to those of you who have registered to come along, but if you haven’t yet you can still do so via the SEFS website please do let me know by 16^th January so I can make appropriate catering arrangements.

In the meantime have been keeping track of developments in the world of Planning and the Environment and here are some of the latest bits of news pre Christmas.

 1)      Planning Reforms

a.       Campaign groups target MPs: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/18/national-trust-rspb-planning-laws

b.      MPs call for a rewrite to Planning Rules to end confusion: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16271888

c.     DCLG Committee Report brands NPPF as unhelpfully vague, and amongst other things say the default “yes” to development should  be removed and that “sustainable development” is poorly defined and needs to be strengthened and extended: http://www.localism-agenda.com/2011/12/key-points-in-the-dclg-select-committee-report-on-the-nppf/ and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/hands-off-our-land/8968668/Hands-off-our-land-cross-party-MPs-committee-tells-the-Government-to-draw-up-a-new-NPPF.html

 2)      Transport

a.       Statistics for 2011: http://www.dft.gov.uk/statistics/releases/transport-statistics-great-britain-2011

b.       Oxford to Bedford Rail Link to reopen: http://eastwestrail.org.uk/

 3)    Energy

a.    Friends of the Earth win case against FITs changes: news story: http://www.foe.co.uk/news/legal_challenge_win_34270.html
And here’s their press release: http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/solar_fits_victory_21122011.html

and a Christmas action – send a Christmas e-card to your MP calling on them to put solar back on track: http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/press_for_change/mp_christmas_card_34263.html

b.    Select Committee warns FITs changes possibly fatal for industry: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16288267        

c.    Energy minister Greg Barker was heckled as he spoke at the Micropower Council’s Christmas drinks: http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?src=nl&id=21551

 4) LEPs

a.  South East Midlands LEP Networking Event 22d March 2012: http://www.southeastmidlands.org.uk/event.asp

Best wishes to  you all for a sustainable festive season.

         

A)      NPPF

1. Environment Select Committee criticises NPPF as contradictory and confusing: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15704312

B)      Energy

1. Friends of the Earth pursue legal action over the Government’s policy on cuts to the Feed in Tariff: http://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/friends_of_the_earth_to_follow_through_with_legal_challenge_5478/
2. Wind Farm at Bozeat near Milton Keynes wins on appeal: http://lavendonconnection.com/Temp_Notices/Nun_Wood_Decision_Letter.pdf

C)      Housing

1. New CPRE shows there is brown field land for housing: http://www.cpre.org.uk/media-centre/latest-news-releases/item/2606-new-report-england-needs-to-keep-recycling-land-now-more-than-ever

D)      Localism

1. Bill to become law: http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_9630000/9630950.stm And http://www.publicsectorexecutive.com/dataview/News/News_Article.aspx?KeyValue=2552
2. Receives Royal Assent: http://www.rtpi.org.uk/item/4914/pg_dtl_art_news/pg_hdr_art/pg_ftr_art
3. Plain English Guide: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/localgovernment/localismplainenglishupdate
4. Hailed as a historic shift of giving power back to the people http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/general/news/stories/2011/nov11/171111/171111_1

E)      Sustainable Development

1. Government responds to Environment Select Committee on their request for a clear definition of Sustainable Development: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/general/news/stories/2011/nov11/171111/171111_2

F)      Transport

1. Improvements to Rail links from Oxford to Marylebone halted by bats: http://www.planningresource.co.uk/bulletin/planningdaily/article/1104575/inspector-oxford-rail-link-plans-pose-risk-bats/  & http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/headlines/9368010.Wildlife_could_halt___130m_Oxford_train_link/?action=complain&cid=9830759

G)      Marine Conservation Zones

1. Plans delayed: http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2125164/delayed-marine-conservation-zones-curtail-green-investment

H)      Housing

1. Federation of Master Builders lobbies Government over the need to reintroduce centralised housing targets: http://andrewlainton.wordpress.com/2011/11/15/federation-of-master-builders-government-may-have-to-reintroduce-housing-targets-nppf/

I)      South Downs

1. Planning approval given for hospital site redevelopment near Midhurst but with tough controls to protect wildlife and natural beauty of the area: http://www.southdowns.gov.uk/about-us/news/planning-committee-king-edward-vii-application

         

Ranging from the two National Parks to the seven Local Enterprise Partnerships there are a wealth of organisations in the South Eastern part of England that cross over various Local Authority areas. A full breakdown can be found in the document SE England Bodies.

Back in July and again a week ago SEFS sent along a representative to the South East England Councils (SEEC) all member meetings (papers for the SEEC All Member meetings can be found here along with the dates for future meetings):

Update from SEEC All Member Meeting 8th November 2011

If you were familiar with the make-up of the old Regional Assembly, the faces at the SEEC meeting look pretty similar, apart from the lack of stakeholders. Some old SEERA staff members have also transferred over (Nick Wolfenden and Heather Bolton). SEEC is chaired by Paul Carter (KCC)

- a key issue from the debate was that LA’s themselves are not clear whether they or LEP’s will be the ones Govt will listen to most. There is a sense that LEP’s definitely seem to have influence, but in the margins of the meeting the view was they are all different, all over-stretched (eg the Kent/Essex and E. Sussex LEP has 40 Board members so decision making difficult) and the environment is not figuring highly.

The meeting agenda was more a series of presentations not all relevant to the environment (eg broadband and in-migration impacts). The economy dominated and many of the familiar arguments about why there as a need to invest in the SE. Key theme of the day was infrastructure (but not of  the green variety).

Infrastructure Planning Commission
-       80% of current caseload = energy projects
-       In the SE there are 3 offshore windfarms, 1 submitted (Kentish Flats)
-       IPC will be abolished in April via Localism Bill – needs a smooth transition

Transport
-       Emphasised the “big” investment in the SE eg Crossrail, Hindhead, Reading station
-       Justine Greening the new Minister wants to continue devolving decisions but wants time to think about how to do this
-       David Robertson (Oxon cllr) is the SEEC Transport Convener. He made a short presentation arguing for the need for agreed SE priorities rather each Local Authority fighting its own corner. He emphasised the good job done by the previous RTB. Peter Lee said the shrunken DfT would also value groups of LA’s coming together. But the unknown question for LA’s is whether Government wants groups of LAs to come together or groups of LEPs. Paul Carter wondered if the groups of LEPs might be the key influencers

EU
-      There was concern that the new EU Energy Efficiency Directive  would put a big financial burden on LA’s by making energy efficiency the primary consideration in procurement decisions and requiring a significant % annual spend on refurbishing buildings

Revoking the SE Plan
-  The SEA of the Revocation of the SE Plan is out for consultation but SEEC are not looking to respond 

Update from the SEEC AGM – 13th July

Main points:

• Paul Carter was re-elected unopposed as chair. Keith House (Eastleigh) and Tony Page (Reading) were selected for deputy chair.
• Ex-oficio roles on the Executive Committee: Planning and Housing went to Moira Gibson (Surrey Heath); Transport went to David Robertson (Oxon); Economic Development & Skills went to Martin Tett (Bucks CC).
• Probably the biggest issue for SEEC was resources for local government and the bias against the South East in terms of finance from central government. Particularly in light of the upcoming planning framework, which was acknowledged to be much more pro-development, it was seen as crucial to lobby for appropriate resources to pay for necessary infrastructure. It was also noted that deprivation in the South East increased nearly 7 percent between 2007 and 2010.
• On European priorities: the group agreed on the three recommendations from the paper- sharing information about European funding opportunities, pursuing opportunities to influence funding programs from the policy side, and continuing the task and finish group looking at this. Paul Carter noted that he couldn’t identify any examples of where EU funding had been useful or beneficial to businesses or communities.
• Ian Coates of BIS Local came along to talk about the new BIS setup; he covers the South East and South West. The purpose is to form a bridge between Whitehall and the real world (using local knowledge to influence policy), help businesses respond to economic shocks, and identify and realize opportunities. The offices have a coordnating and information-sharing role; they do not have any funding and there are no performance measures.
• There was a feeling that there are too many groupings and partnerships (SEEC and SESL, for instance). An effort will be made to rationalize, and working with Andrew Povey (Surrey, head of SESL) on this.

 The business plan will be circulated in September with more detail, but main components are:
- More money for the South East
- Data Dashboard
- EU work
- Transport (strategic issues. Also, SESL does a lot on this)
- Migration
- Efficiency.

Other priorities raised include:
- Infrastructure summit
- Economy, relationships with the LEPs
- New homes bonus one year on
- Localism Bill
- Other issues in legislation that SEEC would like to have a collective voice on
- Relationship with London.

         

The Fair Fares Now month of action went brilliantly! Hundreds of volunteers stepped forward to run events at over 40 stations across the country, from Maidstone to St. Albans, Exeter to Carlisle and everywhere in between. In many places, local MPs joined in to show their support. The response from passengers was overwhelmingly supportive, and the events also helped to generate a huge amount of local media coverage, whose importance in shaping political opinion is often forgotten. Together, campaigners gathered thousands of signatures on the petition demanding that the government reverse its plans to raise fares by 28% by 2015.

 The groundswell of action was capped off with a successful demonstration outside Waterloo station on the date that next January’s planned fare rises were announced. The turn-out was large, colourful and noisy, and after listening to speakers including Shadow Secretary of State for Transport Maria Eagle, those attending joined together for a mass ‘pop-in’, popping hundreds of balloons marked ‘No 28% fare hikes’ to show that it’s time to burst the bubble on inflation-busting fare rises (see photos here). The media were out in force, and views heard loud and clear in every national newspaper and on every major TV and radio channel.

 Now, it’s time to focus on the government’s fares review. Campaign for Better Transport will be working hard behind the scenes, demonstrating how dire the impacts of fare hikes will be, and pushing the government to commit to improvements like part-time season tickets or being able to pay advance fare up to departure – as well as reducing the cost of train travel overall.

There’s no denying its a tough job ahead. But together, fare increase have already been made a political hot potato rather than an annual fait accompli. The government are now firmly on the back foot, having been forced to try to justify their ‘difficult decision’ in the public spotlight rather than staying silent or hiding behind the train companies. They’ve said they want to end the era of above inflation fare rises. The door is open, and – with the huge amount of new support and momentum generated by everyone’s hard work over the month of action – this campaign can be won.

www.fairfaresnow.org.uk

         

Back in the Summer DfT published details of the councils that had won funding for Sustainable Transport projects across the country. In the South East the following projects were awarded funding:

Brighton – Lewes Road Corridor (£4.030m)

Kent – Growth Without Gridlock (£2.273m)

Oxfordshire: The Oxfordshire Arc: Supporting Employment Growth and Accessing Higher Education & Healthcare in Oxford (Key Component) £5.000m

Reading Sustainable Access for Reading: Overcoming Barriers & Boundaries £4.902m

Southampton Sustainable Travel City £3.960m

Hampshire Sustainable Transport Towns £4.076m

Surrey  Surrey TravelSMART (Key Component) £3.930m

Further rounds of funding is available and details of the process are on DfTs website.

         

 SEFS has examined Local Transport Plans 3 strategies and Implementation Plans where available in an attempt to identify what practical measures are planned to achieve a reduction in CO₂ emissions, with a focus on measures to promote cycling and walking.

Our South East Region-wide study is in three parts. This first study covers the Berkshire Unitary authorities of Bracknell, Reading, Slough, Wokingham and West Berkshire, the Unitary Authority of Milton Keynes, and the Counties of Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire. Although Windsor and Maidenhead did some preliminary work they decided to carry over their LTP2 and to produce an LTP3 at a later date.

This is a web based study which was started when LTP3s were in consultation document form. Where possible we have read the final documents submitted to DfT but information in some instances has not been updated on web sites. We have experienced difficulty in accessing detailed Implementation Plans which we assume would give us harder information on the level of commitment to policies to encourage cycling and walking.

Tackling climate change was one of the five Delivering a Sustainable Transport System goals around which the previous government advised local transport authorities to draw up their LTP3s. The present government did not issue fresh advice on the form LTP3 should take but reiterated a commitment to reducing CO₂ emissions from transport.

It would therefore have been surprising if in drawing up their LTP3s local transport authorities had failed to incorporate some consideration of the need for their transport strategies to include a reference to the need to tackle climate change.

This is in fact the case.

Bracknell Forest ‘Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport’ is a local objective. It is also regarded as a challenge. ‘Through promotion of sustainable transport the Council will seek to reduce harmful transport emissions and work with potential developers to ensure future growth in the Borough can be achieved without an increase in greenhouse gases.’

Buckinghamshire ‘Transport has a key role to play in reducing carbon emissions and the impact on the county’s natural and built environment. We have a fundamental role in reducing carbon and waste generated by our operations as the Local Transport Authority.’

Milton Keynes ‘Reduce transport based CO₂ emissions to help tackle climate change.’ is an objective. ‘Milton Keynes will have the most sustainable transport network in the country reducing transport based CO₂ emissions significantly, tackling climate change and improve air quality’.

Oxfordshire. One of the four local transport goals is ‘to reduce the impact of transport on the environment and help tackle climate change.’ ‘Our core objective for carbon dioxide reduction is principally focused on encouraging trips to either not be made, or to be made by less carbon intensive transport modes’.

Reading ‘Climate change threatens our economic and social prosperity and innovative solutions for mitigation and adaptation will be required to deliver successful and stable transport networks in the future. The Reading Climate Change Strategy 2008-2013 aims to reduce the borough’s carbon footprint by 80% of 1990 levels by 2050’.

A Strategic Objective is ‘To reduce carbon emissions from transport, improve air quality and create a transport network which supports a mobile, affordable low-carbon future.’

Slough ‘Reduce transport’s CO2 emissions & make transport network resilient to the effects of climate change’ is a transport objective. ‘We have set targets to reduce the Council’s CO2 emissions by 40% by 2014 and to make Slough carbon neutral (i.e. with zero net greenhouse gas emissions) by 2020 2. We also set a target to reduce CO2 emissions per head in the borough by 9% by 2010/11 from a 2005 baseline.’

Wokingham  ‘Tackling climate change is of the utmost importance for the Council – this will be reflected in the policy options throughout this plan. Transport, and in particular the use of private vehicles, is a strong contributor of greenhouse gas emissions.’ ‘2020 Target: The Council will have achieved a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions from transport compared to 2005 levels.’

West Berkshire Carbon reduction and climate change is regarded as a key issue: -
‘Climate change is widely regarded as the most serious environmental challenge of the 21st century. The Council will need to develop a transport system that will seek to reduce local transport-based carbon emissions, and to develop networks that will have greater resilience to the impacts of climate change.’  

Reducing harmful emissions from transport requires a shift away from the motor car, van and lorry, either modally to cycling, walking and public transport or by just by reducing the amount of travel by private motorised vehicles. Whilst recognising the importance of reducing the need to travel and of supporting and promoting public transport this review confines itself to walking and cycling and how these are being promoted, either through investment in infrastructure or through promotional initiatives such as smarter choices or behaviour change interventions. All the authorities studied had policies, strategies or objectives aimed at increasing levels of cycling and walking through infrastructural improvements and a smarter choices (or behaviour change) programme. 

Bracknell Forest.   Smarter Choices, Walking and Cycling and Travel Planning are three of 20 policies. There is a Smarter Choices strategy. ‘The Council’s approach to walking and cycling will be implemented through the Walking and Cycling Strategy, the Public Rights of Way Improvement Plan, the Sustainable Modes of Travel to School strategy and the production of Travel Plans.’

Within the Implementation Plan ‘Smarter Choices’ and  ‘Sustainable Modes of Travel to School’ are ‘Strategy Areas’. In the table of schemes, there are six under the heading of ‘School Gates Assessments and future Sustainable Modes of Travel to School’ aimed at improving pedestrian and cycling links to schools. Under ‘Access, Mobility and Travel choice’ there are several schemes aimed at improving pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, but only two which might involve soft measures ‘Cycle Network Marketing & Rebranding’ and  ‘Local Sustainable Transport Fund Bid – development of bid to government for sustainable transport improvements.’ Under ‘Infrastructure linked to future growth and development’ there are 20 schemes for ‘Pedestrian and Cycling accessibility improvements’ but only three are given a time frame.

Buckinghamshire In the ‘Thriving Economy’ chapter there are references to encouraging behaviour change and travel plans as well as consideration of the shared space concept. An objective under the ‘Sustainable Environment’ Chapter is ‘Increase the proportion of people travelling by low emission modes of transport’ which is linked to behaviour change initiatives. There is a ‘Sustainable Travel Strategy’ which highlights smarter choices techniques. In the ‘Health and Wellbeing ‘chapter there is an objective to ‘improve health by encouraging cycling and walking’. This chapter incorporates a summary of the ‘Sustainable Travel Strategy – Walking, Cycling and ‘Rights of Way’. Ongoing support for ‘Bikeability’is affirmed here as well as the consideration of 20mph zones and support for new pedestrian and cycling routes. In the ‘Cohesive and Strong Communities’ chapter there is a reference to supporting active travel and encouraging travel plans.

In the draft (Feb 2011) Implementation plan 2011/12, Key Performance Indicators relating to cycling and walking are ‘County wide cycling indicator’ and ‘Increase in Active Travel to school – walking/cycling’. These are new indicators and are presented without an agreed methodology and without targets. ‘The average number of cycling journeys per year in Bucks’ is an established indicator with a methodology but no target.

 In the current financial year £534K of revenue funding has been allocated to Public Transport and Sustainable Travel, with £527k and £538K in subsequent years.

Milton Keynes  Cycling and walking is a strategy strand as is Smarter Choices. ‘Cycling and walking will be given top priority within city estates; and cycling and walking links in rural areas to employment centres and key services will be improved.’

There is a Cycling and Walking Strategy which includes a list of interventions with short and medium term delivery dates. MK will continue to monitor the number of cycling trips

There is a Smarter Choices Strategy which includes a list of interventions with short and medium term delivery dates.

In the Implementation Plan ‘The council and its relevant local partners will bid for funding from the central government Local Sustainable Transport Fund, particularly for funding in Year 1 and subsequent years in the short-term. This will be for a package of cycling and walking interventions and related measures. In the medium and long-term, the council and partners will bid for central government major scheme funding.

Other funding will be sought from a variety of partners, including operators, local

businesses, organisations and developers.’  In the table of interventions specific but estimated sums over four years, both capital and revenue, are allocated for Cycling and Walking and Smarter Choices interventions.

Oxfordshire. There is a chapter entitled ‘Walking, Cycling and Rights of Way’.

 ‘Walking and cycling provide travel options that have the lowest carbon footprint and few adverse environmental impacts, and they contribute to improving people’s health. They can reduce congestion and improve accessibility. Our core objective is to create the conditions where a greater proportion of trips, especially in urban areas, are made on foot or by bicycle’. ‘Our strategy for promoting more walking and cycling includes:

• route-by-route auditing of existing facilities for pedestrians and cyclists

 to develop programmes for improvement of important routes and facilities;

• developing pedestrian and cycle route networks by providing new or improved facilities for pedestrians and cyclists;
• improving signage of pedestrian and cycle routes; and
• promoting the health, environmental, and financial benefits of increased walking and cycling, including use of rights of way and publicly accessible green areas.

 ‘Oxfordshire County Council remains committed to the principle that cyclists have every right to use the whole county road network including main roads, particularly in Oxford where there are large flows of cyclists on some main radial roads.’

 There is a section on image and marketing of cycling.

 In respect of The Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) they ‘are currently developing a package of appropriate measures.’

 The Implementation Plan which is called Transport Investment Programme has little detailed information on proposed spending which is aimed directly at promoting cycling and walking, but in the Strategy document specific sums 2011 to 2015 have been allocated to footway schemes under a ‘Structural Maintenance’ heading. Under ‘Integrated Transport’ small sums have been allocated through the Science Vale Transport Package to a cycle network for 2011/12 and 2012/13 but have not been determined for subsequent years.

Reading ‘To facilitate more physically active travel for journeys in a healthy environment’ is an objective.

‘The Cycling Strategy (2008) aims to develop branded radial routes which connect residential areas to central Reading as well as to local centres, employment areas, and key local facilities such as education, leisure, and health services. The mapping and signing of these routes is well-progressed.’

‘The challenge related to cycling is to encourage more people to cycle by

developing and promoting safe, attractive and direct cycle routes and through provision of information and training opportunities that reduce the perceived dangers of cycling’.

 Objectives for walking are:

- To make conditions safer, more convenient and more attractive for pedestrians;

- To increase the number of people walking to local shops, schools, interchange locations and other destinations; and

- To break down real and perceived barriers to pedestrian movement.

We were unable to access any detailed Implementation Plan.

Slough Cycling measures’ are one of the 12 ‘Principal Transport Strategy Components’. ‘Walking Measures’ are one of the 12 ‘Principal Transport Strategy Components’.

Cycling will contribute to 10 of the 12 transport objectives.

Walking will contribute to the same 10 transport objectives.

There is a Cycling Strategy, a Walking Strategy and a Smarter Choices Strategy.

‘Our walking and cycling strategies, combined with our Rights of

Way Improvement Plan (RoWIP) are directed at improving facilities and encouraging more people to walk and cycle.’

‘Our smarter choices strategy places a strong emphasis on promoting walking and

cycling to school by working in partnership with schools and developing initiatives to make travel by these modes more attractive.’

Providing second-hand or abandoned bikes to those on low incomes and a cycle hire scheme are proposed.

‘To support our travel planning activity we will look to fund cycle training (such as

Bike It and Bikeability) for school age children in Slough. We will also seek to extend cycle training opportunities to adults.’

‘In designing all highway schemes we will implement a cycle and pedestrian audit procedure to ensure that the needs of the non‐motorised mode users are considered’

‘Central to our smarter choices campaign will be a marketing and communications plan.’

‘Investment in maintaining and enhancing walking and cycle routes to make them safer and more attractive is the foundation for boosting levels of active travel in Slough. We will work with health partners, the proposed Cycle Forum and others to promote the health benefits.’

‘We aim to establish a forum or campaign group with people who cycle in Slough to help foster a stronger cycling culture in the Borough.’

We were unable to access any detailed Implementation Plan.

West Berkshire ‘Encouraging more people to walk and cycle can allow people to become more active by incorporating physical activity into their everyday lives. This can help address some of the current health issues facing the UK, such as tackling obesity and heart disease.’

Travel Choice is a key policy which involves developing options to encourage greater use of walking and cycling.

There are Smarter Choices and Active Travel Strategies supported by Cycling and Walking Policies. These policies will be delivered through (amongst other initiatives) ‘the provision of professional cycle training’ and ‘the delivery of a Smarter Choices Strategy for West Berkshire.’

The Climate Change Policy ‘will be delivered by development and promotion of walking, cycling, and public transport networks’. The School Travel Policy ‘will be delivered (amongst other initiatives) by the provision of professional cycle training’ and ‘by promotion of walk to school schemes’.

 In the Indicative Implementation Plan there are several cycling and walking schemes listed with either costings or officer time allocated to them.  Under the key policy of Active Travel in 2011/12 £570k has been allocated for capital expenditure, 4.8k for revenue and £565k from developer contributions. There are also allocations for the years to 2014. Under the Key Policy of Smarter Choices, which is heavily weighted towards the promotion of travel plans the only allocation is officer time. West Berkshire Council has been awarded £65,000 to continue funding the delivery of Bikeability in 2011/12. The Council will develop a bid to be submitted to DfT for the LSTF.

 Wokingham There are Active Travel Policy Options. ‘Walking and cycling are good for boosting health and, when replacing short journeys by car, they can also reduce congestion levels and CO2 emissions. Walking or cycling can be a quicker and lower

cost alternative to the car or public transport for many short journeys and are often the easiest ways for most of us to get more physically active.’ ‘We will actively encourage integrating walking and cycling routes and facilities into key destinations including –Retail, Leisure and Social facilities; Public Transport Interchanges; Schools, Colleges and other educational facilities and Employment areas.’ ‘2026 Target: At least one in five journeys to work is either on foot or by bicycle.’ There are Smarter Choices and Demand Management Policy Options. This includes a School Travel Awareness Campaign.’ ‘2026 Target: At least 60% of children in the Borough travel to school by walking and cycling.-2026 Target: 80% of all school children have received cycle training by Year 7.’’T’T        ’ Schools, Colleges and other educational facilities;

Travel Plans and Area Wide Travel planning are also Policy Options.

We were unable to access any detailed Implementation Plan.

 Peter England

         

Those with your ears to the ground today will have heard that DCLG has announced the consultation on the Strategic Assessment of the Revocation of Regional Spatial Strategies.

 Click here for the press notice and here for the link to each individual RSS SEA consultation document.

The non Technical summary of the South East document concludes …” Whilst the environmental effects cannot therefore be predicted in detail at this point, it is clear that the revocation of regional strategies and their top-down targets will provide opportunities for securing environmental benefits because their revocation would remove certain current policies which present a threat to local environments.”

It goes on to say: “In overall terms, it is reasonable to anticipate that decisions taken locally will look to maximise positive environmental outcomes for the local area. However, even if there were circumstances where this was not the case, strong protections for the environment set out in national planning policy and, in many cases, provided for by national and European legislation means it is highly unlikely that there would be any significant adverse environmental effects resulting from the revocation.” note editors emphasis.

The consultation runs until the 20th January and the SEFS Planning Group will be discussing a SEFS response to the consultation. For more information contact alison.walters@foe.co.uk

         

As part of it’s work coordinating the environmental NGO network for the South East and Thames River Basin districts input to the Environment Agency work on the Water Framework Directive, SEFS has received notification of the consultation on Heavily Modified Water Bodies.

The documents for the consultation are as follows:

General
Consultation Overview – Powerpoint Presentation
Heavily Modified Water Bodies designation 2010

Thames specific
Thames Consultation Background and Key Information
Thames summary of proposed changes to HMWBs 2011

South East specific
South East Consultation Background and Key Information
South East Summary of Proposed Changes to HMWBs 2011

The consultation runs from now until 18th November. The SEFS eNGO group will be engaging in this process. For more information contact alison.walters@foe.co.uk

         

This is the last week of consultation on the National Planning Policy Framework. SEFS member organisations are organising the last push of events and responses to the framework and details can be found below:

1) 12th October – mass lobby of MPs, organised by Friends of the Earth individuals can come and meet their MP and share their concerns on the planning reforms and hear from FOE about what amendments are needed. If you’d like to attend contact: localism@foe.co.uk

2) On the same day the National Trust will be having a regional breakfast meeting with MPs

SEFS Members and other organisations are starting to send in their responses to the consultation and this page will be refreshed as they land in the SEFS inbox. To date we have had details from:

Civic Voice – Key Issues for NPPF
CPRE – Key issues for NPPF
CTC – Key Issues for NPPF

Simple electronic campaigns on the NPPF are also available on various websites:

Campaign for Better Transport – Say No to Bad Planning
CPRE – Countryside in Danger action
Friends of the Earth – Email Greg Clarke
National Trust – Planning for the People petition, email your MP and posters
RSPB – Put Sustainability Back into Planning
Woodland Trust – Make sure the Government Keeps its promise

There is also plenty of information and updates on the CPRE South East website

         

Environmental organisations put out a joint statement on the need for Sustainable Development to be defined and embedded in the Localism Bill.

The joint statement reads as follows. If you’d like your organisation to add its name please contact: localism@foe.co.uk

The UK is facing unprecedented challenges for the 21^st Century – economic recovery, climate change and biodiversity loss, increased urbanisation and the need for greater social equity. The need for us to strive to achieve sustainable development and effectively address these issues has never been more pressing. An effective, strategic planning system has an essential role to play in delivering true integration of economic, social and environmental priorities and objectives at all levels.

We believe that achieving sustainable development must be at the heart of the planning system. However, there is currently no unifying statutory definition of sustainable development and often decision-makers tend to focus on one pillar (economy, environment or society), rather than integration of all three. This has led to vague duties and weak delivery on the ground.

The Localism Bill presents an opportunity to address this. A statutory definition of sustainable development will help to provide greater certainty in local decision-making and identify the common goal which we should all be working towards. 

The organisations listed here support the amendment of the Localism Bill to include the following definition of sustainable development to apply to planning:

 “sustainable development” means development that meets the social, economic and environmental needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs including the application of the following principles:

 (i)        living within environmental limits;

(ii)      ensuring a strong healthy and just society;

(iii)    achieving a sustainable economy;

(iv)    promoting good governance;

(v)      using sound science responsibly.”

This overarching definition can then be expanded in the National Planning Policy Framework.

At the local level, councils and communities can determine the policies that need to be applied in their area to ensure that their communities and development are sustainable and fit within the overarching definition.

This statement is supported by organisations and individuals named below:

Age UK
Amphibian and Reptile Conservation
Badger Trust
Buglife
Campaign for Better Transport
Campaign for National Parks
Campaign to Protect Rural England
Council for British Archaeology
Foundation for Democracy and Sustainable Development
Friends of the Earth
Ian Christie
Jonathan Porritt
Living Streets
Localise West Midlands
London Sustainability Exchange
National Federation of Women’s Institutes
New Economics Foundation
North West Environment Link
One North West
RSPB
Sheffield Renewables
Town and Country Planning Association
The National Trust
Think 2050
The Wildlife Trusts
West Midlands Regional Environment Forum
Women’s Resource Centre
Woodland Trust
WWF-UK
Voice 4 Change
Voluntary Sector North West