Monday, 24 November 2014
Five Members of Parliament were on the platform, and three more sent messages of support, at a mass protest meeting on Saturday 22 November organised by the Gatwick Area Conservation Campaign (GACC). That is all the MPs from around Gatwick, and helps to disprove the assumption in some national newspapers that Gatwick would politically be the easiest option for a new runway.
The MPs were united in expressing their concern about new flight paths and about the threat of a second runway. Extracts from their speeches and messages are attached.
Over 1,000 people crammed into the Apple Tree Centre in
and were welcomed by three racy air hostesses, and by the Mayor of Crawley,
Cllr Brenda Smith who later, speaking as the local councillor, expressed her
deep-felt opposition to a new runway.
Some twenty national and local environmental groups, including the Sussex Wildlife Trust, set up stands around the hall and answered questions from anxious members of the public.
Questions from the floor were answered by a panel of experts which included Keith Taylor (Member European Parliament), Cait Hewitt (Aviation Environment Federation), Sarah Clayton (AirportWatch), Sally Pavey (CAGNE), Richard Streatfeild (High Weald Parishes Aviation Action Group), and Brendon Sewill (GACC) under the chairmanship of Cllr Helyn Clack (Surrey County Council).
The meeting unanimously held up large cards saying NO when asked if they were in favour of new flight paths, and held up the NO cards again when asked if they were in favour of a second runway.
The afternoon concluded with 1,000 people singing ‘What shall we do with
’ to the tune of the Drunken
Sailor. Gatwick Airport
Extracts from MPs’ speeches and messages
Cabinet member Rt Hon Francis Maude (Horsham) was abroad on Government business but sent a message: ‘As you know, I have always opposed a second runway at Gatwick. We all know that there are big advantages for our area in having a successful airport as a centre for jobs and business, and I support Gatwick's expansion as a single runway airport. That remains my view.’
Crispin Blunt MP (
told the meeting why he had organised the Gatwick Co-ordination Group of MPs –
because a second runway would be a 'disaster for surrounding communities and
environment.' Many areas are
being ‘appallingly affected by PRNAV’ [the new system of concentrated
Nicholas Soames (Mid
second runway would be a disaster for our local environment. … 120,000 extra people
- where they are expected to go is beyond me…. The London
to Brighton railway line is already at full
capacity - impossible to upgrade sufficiently. .. We must oppose this with all
the power we have.’
Henry Smith (Crawley) noted that 'public opinion in
is divided. … There would be a significant impact on housing and infrastructure
- school places, GP surgery sizes, healthcare – a need for a new hospital. … Gatwick
have not made the case for expansion here.’
Sam Gyimah (
sent a message: New flight paths have caused misery for my
constituents, which is why I have called for Gatwick to abandon its
implementation of the PRNAV system. I would like to congratulate GACC for
organising this meeting, and your ongoing work to hold Gatwick to account over
these changes and the possibility of a second runway, which could cause
significant environmental damage and pressure on local infrastructure.
SirJohn Stanley (Tonbridge) sent this message: ‘I am totally opposed to Gatwick’s new flight path proposals which will make the already intolerable noise disturbance still more intolerable. I am also totally opposed to a second runway at Gatwick.'
Charles Hendry (Wealden) commented on ‘the extraordinarily huge meeting here today. ... Gatwick has not been straight with us and are not good neighbours. If they are not good neighbours today, then the possible doubling in size is intolerable. A second runway does not make economic sense and it does not make environmental sense.’
Sir Paul Beresford (
the meeting that a second runway would mean 'putting a city on
Gatwick'....'public transport links are already overburdened'... 'M25 is a
parking lot'.........'national businesses are not impressed with Gatwick's
proposal.’ Mole Valley
A list of the stands, and text of the air hostesses’ announcement can be found on www.gacc.org.uk/latest-news
Monday, 10 November 2014
The West Sussex Environment and Climate Change Board (ECCB) brings together several organisations from across the County to ensure the challenge of Climate Change is recognised and addressed in
Sussex. One issue that has
a significant effect on our carbon footprint, and therefore how we effect
climate change, is food. The ECCB
therefore established it’s Food Group.
The Food Group is intended to enable and encourage new thinking around local food and drink; why it is important to us as individuals and to the West Sussex Economy. We are the newest sub-group of the ECCB and are currently working on a Sustainable Food Plan for
Sussex. This plan aims
to reduce the food-related carbon and ecological footprint of the County by
working to the following principles:
- Raise awareness of what local, seasonal and sustainable food means and ensure it is promoted and celebrated by residents and visitors
- Enhance education and skills training through high quality information
- Encourage the development of market places to help people get access to local food and drink
- Address issues of health and obesity in relation to diet
- Work with WSCC Waste Services to help residents, businesses and public sector to reduce, redistribute, recycle, reuse food waste
The Sustainable Food Plan will help to reduce the food-related carbon and ecological footprint of the County. Can you help us to make it better? A consultation on this plan is now open and will run until the 15th December. We will then write a report of all responses, ensuring anonymity, which will be available by 12th January 2015.
Through this survey, we would like to ask you for your thoughts on the document, whether you can help us, what projects are already being carried out and any ideas you may have on how we can raise awareness and get more people involved.
Your views are important to us. Please take a few minutes after reading the draft plan to complete this online survey.
Friday, 7 November 2014
It makes sense doesn't it? You’re caught in a traffic jam; clearly we need a bigger road, or a new road, or a road somewhere else. And, of course, if there was another road then all the other cars would use it, relieving congestion everywhere.
A big, new road is something simple and obvious; you can put a ribbon across it and declare it open, to a fanfare of appreciation from an appreciative economic sector who are now happy (until the next time).
The Department for Transport in developing its A27 feasibility study also seem to be swallowing all these old assumptions. But life, however, is not that simple. Simple solutions to complex problems are always wrong.
As in the past, environmental concerns are pushed to one side. One option for the Arundel bypass will cause the greatest loss of ancient woodland in
Sussex for the last 20 years;
the other will destroy the setting of two villages. But to some this is a price worth paying in
order to relieve congestion and stimulate the economy.
So we get back to the old “your money or your life” approach of balancing the economy against the environment.
However, whilst the environmental costs are measurable, severe and obvious; the economic benefits are shrouded in mystery, assumption and pre-conception.
Economic benefit is based reduced travel times and perception surveys about how much better business would be if congestion was removed. Ask a business how much better life would be and you get an obvious answer; so arguments build up to support a road-building case. Businesses, however, need real solutions and views very quickly change when the reality of a situation becomes clear.
Road building does not deliver the relief of congestion that is generally claimed – quite the reverse.
Roads generate new traffic and that creates new, and worse, congestion. This is not the view of an “anti-road green group” but the clear conclusion of study after study. For an excellent outline of this “induced traffic” phenomenon read this article by Professor Phil Goodwin, a lead author of one of these studies.
“An average road improvement, for which traffic growth due to other factors has been forecast correctly, will see an additional 10% of base traffic in the short term and 20% in the long term”. This is the conclusion of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment in 1994. The same study also looked at roads surrounding trunk road improvements – their use went up on average by 16%. So, the roads that are supposed to be relived by a new road receive 16% more traffic than the predicted increase.
Even in the unlikely event that the A27 flows more freely following enlargement, surrounding roads in towns, countryside and villages will receive more traffic, more congestion, more hold-ups and more pollution.
What is more, this sort of conclusion, with these sorts of figures, has been reached again and again, on average every 8 years since 1925!
About every 10 years we go through the same process. First we insist on forgetting the lessons of the past and push for new roads. Roads get built, the environment suffers more damage, traffic gets worse and congestion increases. This results in demands for yet more roads and more environmental damage until, eventually we have to realise the reality of the situation and seek more sophisticated solutions.
Interestingly, Phil Goodwin’s article was written in 2006, the last time we went through this repeating process.
The editors comment at the end was interesting –
“Don’t lose this – we might need to publish it again in 2014”!!
Wednesday, 29 October 2014
Mineral extraction in West Sussex and the National Park: a meeting organised by the Wiggonholt Association
West Sussex County Council (WSCC) and the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) are developing a joint "Minerals Local Plan” for future mineral provision for this area. This aims to ensure that sufficient raw materials are available to support such activities as house-building, road development and new airport runways.
Mineral extraction could have significant adverse environmental implications so it is clearly an issue that should concern residents and
bodies alike. At present the plan is at
an early stage and a wide range of potential extraction sites (quarries) are
being considered prior to any formal site allocation. Nevertheless, sites are now being discussed
and there is a need for local people to understand the implications and make
their views known.
In this regard The Wiggonholt Association is organising a meeting at 7pm on 3rd November 2014 at Pulborough Village Hall. Speakers include Richard Bate (an environmental planner and specialist advisor on silica sand and sand extraction) and Pat Arculus (West Sussex County Councillor for Pulborough).
Pulborough is under particular threat as an extraction site is proposed just to the east of Pulborough opposite Mare Hill and Broomer’s Hill. The mineral here is silica sand, which is particularly sought after so there is a high likelihood that this site will go forward – with the consequent noise, disturbance and environmental damage.
I am unable to attend the meeting (although I hope someone from SWT will be able to go), but I recommend that anyone worried about having a quarry on their doorstep does go along to find out more.
Wednesday, 24 September 2014
A few months ago I wrote a series of blogs on re-wilding – the idea that we can re-naturalise parts of the British countryside, reinstating natural processes as an alternative to management by people. This was largely stimulated by George Monbiot’s excellent book “Feral”.
The idea, however, is not new and discussions about nature versus nurture have been going on in ecology for decades. It could, however, be an idea finding its time.
In 1995 Bill Jenman and I wrote an article called “A Natural Method of Conserving Biodiversity in Britain”. This contained many of the points that are being made today. The Sussex Wildlife Trust has reprinted it with the kind permission of British Wildlife (Volume 7, Number 2, December 1995).
Re-reading it today I find that many of the ideas being discussed today were already well-advanced 20 years ago. Some of the terminology might have changed (we didn't use the term “re-wilding”) and conservation management, rather than the promotion of natural processes, was perhaps more prevalent then than it is now. Also some emphasis might have changed slightly. We recognised the importance of top predators but today we would probably give even more prominence to the role that predators have in influencing grazing animals and through this the way that vegetation develops (the so-called “trophic cascade”).
The article was, perhaps, too optimistic in promoting new wildernesses in
as we have not seen large
areas reverting to nature. However,
progress has been made with some major areas of re-naturalisation being
delivered by private landowners as well as charities (see my last article in
“Natural World”). Britain
I also remain optimistic that a greater appreciation of natural processes has worked into the thinking on conservation management throughout nature conservation. 20 years ago management planning started from the perspective of managing nature, today we work from the perspective of how nature works before implementing management regimes. Our whole Living Landscape theme is based on the idea that by working on a landscape scale we have to think about the processes that deliver a rich and varied wildlife – natural processes as well as human processes like agriculture and forestry.
Take a look at this British Wildlife article today. I don’t think we were either mindless dreamers or way ahead of our time. It promoted many of the things that are being put forward today under the title of Rewidling Britain - perhaps the difference now is that there is a strong momentum building behind re-wilding, with more people involved and more people pushing for it. Hopefully it really is an idea finding its time.
Thursday, 11 September 2014
Following the growing controversy over the proposed new town to the east of Henfield, Jane Simmons from “Locals Against Mayfield Building Sprawl" (LAMBS) has sent me the following article showing how some of the ideas here are not as new as we may think.
As the promotion of Mayfield Market Towns rumbles on, it is easy to forget that
already has a ‘New Town’; just 12 miles up the road.
This New Town is arguably not as ‘new’ as it was a generation ago; but it was at its concept, exactly the sort of visionary place described in Mayfields’ rhetoric.
This ‘New Town’ is, of course, Crawley; built as a post war initiative more than half a Century ago around a quaint
Sussex market town in a near perfect location.
In June 1949, Anthony Minoprio proudly presented his Crawley New Town Master Plan to the Crawley Development Corporation as an aspirational blueprint which was, he said, “the framework of a beautiful and efficient town”.
In common with Mayfields Director, Peter Freeman, Mr Minoprio painted an idyllic picture of socially balanced neighbourhoods; built in sympathy with the surrounding countryside, around friendly village greens, a short bus ride from a vibrant town centre.
Mr Minoprio suggested, “The provision of small socially mixed residential areas, each with its own individuality and its own centre, in order to promote neighbourliness and the social development of the town. Practically all homes are within one-third of a mile (536metres) of their neighbourhood shops and within one and a quarter miles of the town centre.
“The character of the individual neighbourhood centres will vary and the design will spring from the natural features of the area,” he continued. “Local place names have been retained for the neighbourhoods in all cases and the affix 'Green', which is common in the
area, has suggested the creation of a typical English Green at the centre of
So what went wrong?
It is well documented that Mayfields’ master plan for
Sussex is a scaled down version of a Garden
City; very similar to those being promoted by this government, and in
particular by Lord Matthew Taylor, the man behind the ’s planning
reforms (the NPPF). It is also well documented that Lord Taylor is one of
Mayfield Market Towns’ Directors, and has been widely criticised for having a
perceived conflict of interest. UK
Earlier this year his fellow director, Peter Freeman entered the Wolfson Prize for a new garden city. What is most unsettling about Mr Freeman’s submission, titled ‘A Shared Vision’ is that it bears an uncanny resemblance to Minoprio’s “visionary” Master Plan for Crawley New Town.
“We all love villages,” Mr Freeman begins, enthusiastically. “Our Garden City comprises a series of walkable neighbourhoods within a radius of 500 metres (exactly the same size as Minoprio’s). Enough people would live in each neighbourhood to populate a two form entry primary school and to support a viable cluster of shops, restaurants, hairdressers… We envisage that Village Green would be on a main route through the neighbourhood to boost customer support for local traders and bus services.”
And in common with Mr Minoprio, Mr Freeman is also keen to embrace the countryside in his design; which he says would include, “at least one linear park running through the town (incorporating landscape features like a stream or ancient woodland).”
Both plans extol the virtues of public transport (despite the fact that Mayfields would have no railway line) and both envisage the town becoming so successful that local people will be happy to live, work and play within its parameters.
Crawley is to be a
self-contained and economically balanced town,” stated Mr Minoprio. “Not a
dormitory town to ”. London
Once again, Mr Freeman agrees with his predecessor;
“The New Market Town is not designed to be a commuter town to serve
but rather a town which concentrates on keeping travel local”. (It goes without
saying that without a railway line, residents would have little choice). London
But perhaps the most worrying thing about this comparison is that
Crawley was already failing in its promises just months
after the first brick was laid. Despite pledging, like Mayfields, to provide
adequate affordable housing for young families, this vision was never realised,
even for its very first residents. Crawley’s location in an affluent part of Sussex made this promise impossible. In May 1950
Hansard reported that rents on homes in Crawley New Town were already “beyond
the reach of the average wage earner” (475).
It is too late to go back and correct the mistakes made in
Crawley, but we can at least do our best to prevent a
repeat. The NPPF promises to allow local people more say in housing decisions
because they know the needs of their area best of all. However, in reality
these decisions all go before a Government Inspector and are ultimately still
made at a national level.
Two years ago (Speaking at the
in March 2012) the Prime Minister,
David Cameron cited planners like Minoprio and his contemporary, Patrick
Abercrombie as an inspiration, saying; Institute of Civil
“It seems to me that our Post War predecessors had the right idea, embodied in a visionary plan prepared by Patrick Abercrombie in 1944. His plan underpinned the South East’s economic success by proposing well-planned and well-located new towns…”
Maybe Mr Cameron was unaware at the time that Mr Abercrombie was also a founding member of the CPRE; an organisation which is bitterly opposed to lack of protection offered to the countryside by the NPPF and is fighting hard against Mayfield’s proposals.
One thing that we can be sure of is that
has fallen rather short of Abercrombie’s vision for a “beautiful and efficient”
new town… and Mayfields (should it ever be built) looks to be heading for the
Friday, 5 September 2014
Finding game-changing solutions to the crisis facing nature was the theme of the landmark Conference for Nature, held on 3rd September this week. The event featured high-profile delegates including Sir David Attenborough, The Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP, Germaine Greer and key people from business, politics, the utility sector and conservation.
In May last year, the UK’s leading wildlife groups released the State of Nature report, which revealed 60 per cent of our native species are in decline and one in ten are heading for UK extinction. This national picture is probably reflected in
Sussex where we have noted
long-term declines for example in woodland butterflies, bird species and
flower-rich hay meadows.
More than a year on, the State of Nature report partners, with support from Sir David Attenborough, are striving to encourage new ways of tackling the crisis facing our wildlife.
Commenting ahead of the event, Sir David Attenborough said: “From the food we eat to the popular bedtime stories we read to our children, nature touches everyone’s lives more deeply than we can possibly imagine. The escalating erosion of wildlife from our planet is a direct threat to many facets of our own quality of life. Because of the complex relationship society has with nature, it is obvious that our response to saving it must extend from every possible quarter too. From you and I in our own domains, from business magnates to politicians, and from farmers to faith leaders, everyone has an opportunity to save nature. With an increasing global footprint, mankind is intensifying the crisis for wildlife, but as individuals we can all be a part of the solution for saving it too.”
More than 250 people attended this seminal conference including leading figures in industry and Government as well as all the
wildlife and countryside organizations; demonstrating the level of
ambition for tackling the huge challenges facing nature. UK
Mike Clarke, is the RSPB’s Chief Executive. He said: “Last year’s State of
set out the context for
the devastating declines in some of our best-loved species, such as the turtle
dove, common toad, and Atlantic salmon. However, saving these and other
threatened species requires inventive solutions and creative partnerships with
many sectors, underpinned by a meaningful commitment from Government. This
conference is the platform for all to come together and achieve just that.” Nature Conference
Helen Ghosh, Director-General of the National Trust, said: “The evidence that nature is in trouble is overwhelming. Our challenge is to find radical and practical solutions to restore the health of our natural environment, which we know is loved by people across the
At the heart of this approach must be collaboration and partnership – working
together to think big, be bold and to deliver real change on the ground.” UK
Stephanie Hilborne OBE, Chief Executive of The Wildlife Trusts, said: "As a country, we are experiencing increasing levels of obesity and diabetes; and one in four of us will suffer with our mental health at some point in our lives. Active contact with nature can help prevent and cure these health problems so we need to help our natural environment to recover and get back in touch with it. That’s a big change and Society will only prosper when genuine political leadership is shown on this issue.”
The Conference for Nature was organized by the State of
a coalition of 26 NGOs, including RSPB, The Wildlife Trusts, Buglife, Butterfly
Conservation and Plantlife and was attended by figures from a wide range of
other industry sectors including housing development, water, retail,
agriculture, mineral extraction, finance, transport and infrastructure. Nature Partnership
For more information and to read a digital version of the report visit The Wildlife Trusts’ webpage here