1A / Luton FoE / R1503

 

Milton Keynes & S Midlands Sub Regional Strategy Examination in Public

Comments from Luton Friends of the Earth  22 Feb 04

 

MATTER 1A  Basis for the Sub Regional Strategy

What is the justification for the level of growth, particularly for employment and

housing development proposed in the strategy, and its location in the MKSM area?

 

 

 

KEY POINT 1 - PLAN TOO NARROWLY DEFINED

The study is too narrowly defined, and it is the responsibility of government to think more widely when putting forward such a major plan.  Employment and housing do NOT comprise the sum of human needs, and the bigger picture must be considered.  The imbalance of housing and employment across the nation must be redressed, in the context of a wide range of environmental concerns, and population trends in general, which are a major factor in determining need. 

 

There are already local concerns at a high level that the SRS is a very large blunt instrument imposed from above, which would increase inequity.  'Postcode lotteries' come in for regular criticism.  Deliberately making available a huge number of new houses in the overcrowded south-east, when most of England's empty homes and poverty is in the north, could dangerously polarise the country, dividing north and south, rich and poor.  Most people in the UK think there is already too great a focus on London and the South-East.  Greater benefits would be derived for less by investing in deprived northern areas, developing new employment, and renovating shabby housing?  Large scale demolition of housing would be absurd.

 

A Strategic Environmental Assessment should be carried out before the plan proposed could even be seriously considered.  Discussion on deliverability can only follow when such factors have been thoroughly weighed up in a forum involving the wider public, the way the plan has been thus far presented as a foregone conclusion is immensely unpopular.

 

 

KEY POINT 2 - PLAN IGNORES SUSTAINABILITY PRINCIPLES

The plan ignores a range of vital factors, thus misusing the word Sustainable: sustainability should promote social equity over private gain, and the sustainable and wise use of limited resources to protect the interests of future generations. 

 

It focuses on economic growth and building houses and roads at the expense of all else.  Astonishingly, poverty, inequity, the north-south rich-poor divide, environmental limits governing sustainable practice, biodiversity, heritage, water and sewage, effect on existing pollution levels, public transport (and whether the bursting existing capacity has the capability to be stretched further), energy efficiency and generation, emergency services, unsustainable delivery systems (airport, trunk road, warehouse - requiring rapid, unequal consumption of resources including land), greenspace, landscape, impacts on and competition with other communities - all these factors vital to quality of life - and source of building materials for aall this - are scarcely mentioned, if at all. 

 

 

UK: HIGHEST POPULATION DENSITY IN EUROPE

 

The UK - particularly southern Britain - is already the most densely populated country in Europe.  In terms of square mile, this is already putting critical pressure on quality of life and on vital green space.  The further loss of 45 square miles of countryside, some of it Green Belt, and of quality of life for those already living there, is unacceptable. 

 

 

PRESCOTT'S COMMITMENT ON GREEN BELT

 

John Prescott stated (ODPM update 30 Sep 2002) "We will be providing affordable housing across the country but ­this doesn't mean concreting over the Green Belt - in fact we have increased it by 30,000 hectares."  On 5 Feb 03 John Prescott said "I am giving a guarantee to maintain or increase greenbelt land in every region of England."  But the point of Green Belt is not to be placed arbitrarily around the country: it is designated with the specific purpose of stopping creeping development around our towns, to protect the countryside.  North of Luton and Dunstable, a large swathe of Green Belt, much of it AONB, would be lost forever, contradicting Prescott's guarantee.  The SRS gives no justification for this loss.

 

 

ENOUGH HOUSING / BUILDING SPACE ALREADY

 

The plan does not appear to have taken into account the UK's need to be an integrated whole. Rather than adopting a balanced national approach, these plans could increase inequity.  The UK has 750,000 empty houses - enough for everyone.  In London and the South East 70,000 privately owned homes have been empty for over 6 months (John Prescott, 5 Feb 03).  The Campaign to Protect Rural England says 'a shortage of building land' is a myth - housebuilders have enough land already to build 279,000 new homes, an increase of 17.6% since 1998. 

 

Census projections from past trends appear to suggest a national population increase of 4m by 2031, nearly all of these people aged over 60.  However likely this may be, for balance and stability between north and south, and to conserve increasingly scarce materials and save energy, to demolish rather than to refurbish up to a million houses in the north would be a perilous action.

 

 

POPULATION - WHY THIS SCALE OF HOUSING IS NOT REQUIRED

 

We should question seriously the population projections used to justify building so many houses.  The statistics are based too greatly on previous trends, when things are now changing fast.

 

We explain longer lives mainly in terms of developments in medical science and better diet during the last century.  It is right to question whether this trend will continue.  The present generation of longer-living older people enjoyed a lifestyle which predated behaviour and trends in today's society.  This includes:

 

-        cooking their own food, with no harmful, cumulative additives or manufactured chemicals

-        cleaner air, especially for those outside cities (there has been emigration from rural areas)

-        a more active, healthy lifestyle

-        today's pensioners are survivors of larger families which are not prevalent today

-        having enough people within the family to care for and support them in later life.  This is now less likely, as travel and relocation is easier, and many children live some distance from their parents, and cannot often visit due to work, expense of travel, and everyday pressures.

 

Today's generation is extremely unlikely to survive to the age of today's grandparents. 

Food receives far less nutrition from the soil: commercially grown food has mistreated our soil over many years, so we would have to eat far more to receive the same nutrients as 30 years ago.  This may exacerbate high obesity trends.  Many foods have chemical additives, some of which are persistent and have harmful effects.   Microwaving food is shown to seriously reduce nutrition. 

 

 

HEALTH FACTORS

 

An accumulation of synthetic chemicals interacting in the home is a further factor.  A healthy community needs a healthy natural environment, yet our environment is under attack from all sides and is fast losing the battle.  A key symptom is that biodiversity is disappearing.  We are struggling to tackle growing areas of poverty and disadvantage.  Alarming rises are being recorded in -

 

-     heart disease

-        stroke

-        cancers

-        diabetes

-        asthma and other breathing problems

-        obesity, caused by poor diet and lack of exercise

-        hiv aids

-        autism

-        new diseases involving nervous system, psychological and behavioural disorders

-        stress, including pressures among the young to perform, at work, and more hours having to concentrate behind the wheel of a car in jams and polluted air

-        injuries due to violent crime and accidents in the home

-        drug dependency

-        deaths or disorders from drinking or smoking in pregnancy

-        reduction in sperm counts and hermaphrodites (children unable to reproduce)

-        antibiotic resistant bacteria

-        combinations of prescription drugs, cosmetics and shampoos with unknown adverse results

-        the number of synthetic, persistent chemicals in our bodies (commonly 500), interfering with our bodies' natural defence processes and passed on in breast milk to babies

-        depression and suicide

 

These, added to bodily stresses from smoking, excessive alcohol consumption and a multitude of other factors will clearly lead to earlier death rates for today's generations. 

 

The high density housing proposed for some areas, with its reduced access to natural areas and amenity greenspace, will perpetuate these trends, leading to a more impoverished and less self-sufficient society, harder to police.  As the proportion of people who are elderly and sick increases, needing more carers, there will be fewer people available for other work.

 

Locally, we are told that the number of dwellings needed is projected to grow, while the actual population is set to fall.  We are told that, nationally, more homes are needed because of the recent trend towards smaller families.   But - a big but - we do not know how long this will continue.  Common sense tells us it is a finite blip, which will plateau out, as most people do not prefer to live alone - they need the companionship of others.  With larger ethnic communities, where culture embraces larger families, the trend is likely to be toward stability of numbers per home.

Across Europe, 30,000 people died in summer 2003 due to unusually high temperatures.  Climate change will increasingly bring extreme weather conditions, and further negative health effects, particularly on the elderly.  Milder, wetter winters will bring disease.  Last summer many European crops failed.  An erratic climate will have serious destabilising effects on agriculture, nature and ability to grow food.  This all adds up to the fact that housing on the scale proposed is not needed.

 

 

ADDRESSING THE PROBLEMS

 

The sums behind this project are enormous.  Key workers for London could not afford the journey, and housing them so far away is against government policy and common sense.  There are tens of thousands of suitable empty buildings in the London area.  Is the short term housing need in some areas a justification for such expenditure?  The sequential approach is also based on common sense, and sound sustainability principles.  It is therefore wrong to conclude that all, or even a large proportion, of local shortages should be addressed by building new houses, especially on countryside and Green Belt.   It would be far more efficient to invest in other ways of solving the particular problems of the different categories of people suffering hardship or in need of a home.  Much of this solution will NOT require new houses to be build on Green Belt or Greenfield sites. 

 

The sequential approach must be followed.  To achieve sustainable development and travel patterns, and protect areas of recognised environmental and amenity importance, the following sequential approach towards the identification of locations for development should be adopted:

 

·       re-use, conversion and expansion of existing buildings - there is vast potential for new dwellings through building extensions, to the rear or over garages, or converting a house to maisonettes, suitable for rented accommodation or first time buyers.  This provides housing without destroying the history or significantly altering the character of a neighbourhood 

·       re-use of previously developed land and remaining buildings (genuine brown field sites)

·       using other previously developed land well connected to public transport links

·       new sites within urban areas subject to protecting and conserving areas of recognised environmental and amenity interests

·       other sites well located to achieving sustainable development and reducing the need to travel.

 

Fast tracking of rehousing people in B&B and on waiting lists could be speeded up by:

 

-        building up the housing base owned by local authorities 

-        investing more resources in reoccupying empty housing, in partnership with other councils (not necessarily neighbours - north-south twinning arrangements could be developed)

-        all southern local authorities should focus on prioritising local homes for local people

-        reoccupying town centre buildings with vacant offices on upper floors

-        adding extra floors, particularly to town centre buildings, where partnerships with business could provide homes above offices with separate access, to suit young people, individuals, couples, students, homeless people or those on welfare who live in cramped accommodation with parents; with caretaker and lifts, such dwellings could provide for older and less mobile people, who cannot manage a garden, but would enjoy an elevated view; or for learning disabled people.  The more people live in a town centre, the less the need for cars and journeys generally, and the more vibrant the town.

 

All the above removes a large part of the need to build on and irreparably change our countryside.

 

The Plan should first adopt the sequential approach; have a clear Green Belt strategy to avoid urban coalescence; demonstrate that no adverse impact will occur to the water environment due to abstraction or decline in water quality; and have cast iron guarantees on ways to fund full infrastructure costs listed in the Tym report, and environmental infrastructure costs not considered by Tym; no work should commence until a Strategic Environmental Assessment is produced.